ghtan

I think we all like to think that but it is probably why after 2000 years the church still hasn't finished the task assigned to it to evangelize the world. Btw, why are you so sure Rev teaches what you say it does? I have only seen 14:9-11 being cited but to me it is no different in principle from 21:8.

This thread has shown it is far from clear. Would you not share the gospel with an unbeliever who has taken the mark because you think his or her fate is already sealed? Then you deprive the person of the only hope he or she has if you are wrong.

shouldn't those who insist there is no repentance after receiving the mark be more worried?

Rev 21:8 says "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, etc.-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur." I'm sure we all know people who fall into those categories but have since repented and are therefore saved and hence will not be thrown into the lake of fire. Why can't the same apply to those who take the mark? Do you know any scripture that excludes them?

I agree with LD that repentance should still be possible for unbelievers after taking the mark. What is the use of having the eternal gospel preached to the inhabitants of the earth (Rev 14:6) if unbelievers - most if not all of whom would have taken the mark by then - cannot repent and be saved? Maybe when they repent, God will make the mark disappear as a sign that he accepts them. Nothing is impossible with God. The story may be different though for believers who take the mark....

If what you say above is true, all the more reason God should have said, "I knew...." or "I am pleased that..." Instead he said, "Now I know..." The plain reading is that God did not know FOR SURE whether Abraham would obey. That is the difference between humans and robots. God chose to put in us freewill so that he himself cannot know for certain what we would decide. Instead, he knows what we would do only in terms of probabilities. In this case, there was a strong chance that Abraham would disobey. Who would sacrifice his one and only son? Any one of us in Abraham's shoes would probably have said to ourselves, "No, God can't be expecting that of me; I must be hearing him wrong," and dismissed the instruction. Therefore when Abraham DID obey, God could correctly say "Now I know...." because it was at that point God knew for certain Abraham feared him enough to sacrifice his own son.

Since when has God needed us to confirm to him what he already knows?!

If God already knew Abraham would obey, why did he say "NOW I know...." (Gen 22:12). Shouldn't God have said, "I knew..."?

I don’t know whether Craig believes God lives in time but there are many theologians who do. And most, if not all, of them believe God foreknows the future even though he lives in time. So the latter is not an obstacle to the former. The question remains: why has God never changed the past if he does indeed live outside time? Dismissing it is simply ignoring evidence that implies God lives in time. I note that despite all the objections on this thread to God living in time, nobody here has actually provided evidence to show that God lives outside time.

If God did live outside time, shouldn't he be able to change the past? But we do not read of God doing that in the bible, as far as I remember. He raises the dead, but he never goes back in time to change things so that the person did not actually die. Neither do we read of any man of faith in the bible asking God to change the past. Maybe it is because they knew God could not change the past, that the past is past and cannot be changed. But that would imply God lives IN time.

This means you realise the pre-trib use of John’s ascension in Rev 4:1 to symbolise the rapture is untenable. That is an important admission. On the other hand, would the only book in the bible fully devoted to the end time give no indication of the timing of the rapture? I doubt it.

Disappointing that you quote an article wholesale in answer to my question. Do you actually understand your view? If yes, why not express it in your own words?

I take that to mean you have no scripture to prove God created time. Anyway, God presumably created heaven, yet he lives IN it. So what stops God from living IN time even if he did create it?

If I MEASURE a piece of land and DIVIDE it into smaller plots, I would have CREATED the land?!?

Since God is eternal, time would not affect him even if he lives in time. And knowing the past, present and future does not require God to be outside time.

That only shows God DIVIDED time into days, years, etc. for us. It does not mean God CREATED time.

Hi there. Do you have evidence that God created time? Or any scriptural basis? I see time as just a unit of measurement. Like distance. Are you saying that time does not pass where God is? That everything is at a standstill? As for God being sovereign, I take it to mean he is supreme and his will is always done and nobody can thwart his plans. I don’t see why he needs to live outside time for that to be the true. It unnecessarily complicates things. In what way would God be limited by living IN time?

I'm curious why you think God lives outside time. Isn't it more natural to think God lives IN time? Why do you relate it to his sovereignty? Surely he can live in time and still be sovereign.

Why do you quote the bits that suit your view but ignore the parts that don’t? Zodhiates actually continues by saying that in the NT parapipto is “used only in Heb 6:6, denoting a falling away, an ABANDONMENT.” And why use the TDNT which is older and more liberal? Use the NIDNTT which is newer and more evangelical. It says parapipto in Heb 6:6 “is certainly not meant in the sense of a single lapse but rather expresses the ABANDONMENT of the Christian truth.” And the respected lexicon BDAG gives the concise meaning: “fall away; commit APOSTASY.” So Strong’s is right after all.

If you know better scholars/dictionaries that say parapipto in Heb 6:6 does not talk about apostasy, why don't you quote them? Until you can do so, Strong's definition settles it for me. It is clear and simple and it fits the context perfectly. I re-post it: Parapipto: To fall aside, that is, (figuratively) to apostatize: - fall away.

"Every possible definition"? Looks like Strong only provided one. And since the word is used only once in the NT, that is the context his meaning is based on.

Please provide definition of apostate from a reputable source.

Cannot provide any verse? No matter. Below is Strong’s definition for parapipto used in Heb 6:6. Parapipto: To fall aside, that is, (figuratively) to apostatize: - fall away. I trust Strong knows the facts.

I think we underestimate the Devil. Look how he deceived Adam and Eve.

I agree that the readers were saved. If they return to the Old Covenant, wouldn't that amount to apostasy?