Kevin_1972

I've been into apologetics for many years. By far, the most difficult for me is the problem of evil and suffering in the world, and why God allows what He does. I would rather take on 500 atheists while simultaneously defending doctrinal issues rather than try to give an answer for this to somebody who is truly suffering. I'm talking about suffering that renders you speechless (or close to it) and all you can do is be there with them. Yes, I know the simple logical answer: broken-fallen world, sin has consequences, ect. That's EASY to answer. But pain is personal, and not everybody knows what it's like to suffer greatly (I say this knowing this pain is subjective). Knowing and believing that we serve a good and loving God Who has all power to do whatever He pleases, it's very difficult for me to know that and yet also acknowledge the realities of this world and life, which can be horrific and flat out brutal.

From a Christianity standpoint, in terms of liberal vs. conservative from a political perspective, which a decision that has great moral consequences, I honestly do not understand how one can identify as a Christian and still say they are liberal (Democratic) in the political regard. It blows my mind. It's no secret at all that the Democratic party champions both homosexuality and the murder of babies (aka abortion) From their own website: https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/ Democrats applaud last year’s decision by the Supreme Court that recognized that LGBT people—like other Americans—have the right to marry the person they love. and on abortion... Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. ***** I only copy and pasted so there's no controversy as to whether or not the Democratic party supports them. Homosexuality is detestable before God to the point where entire cities were destroyed (Sodom and Gomorrah) the Canaanites were utterly wiped out because of their extreme evil, and among the worst of their evils was them killing their babies for a fake god. We might not be killing our babies for a fake god, but killing babies is among the vilest of evils and is completely unacceptable – and the Democratic party protects that “right” for women. It's one thing in the rare exception where a mother's life is in danger, but in the vast majority of cases, abortions are done because a child is not convenient for a mother - disgustingly evil, completely unacceptable, and selfishly despicable. I’m not saying that the Republican party is perfect – but they don’t support vile sin like homosexuality and murdering of babies. If the Republican party embraced this kind of evil, I would drop them in a heartbeat. No joke. Abortion at minimum equals but likely surpasses Hitler mas-murdering Jews - people are mass-murdering hundreds of thousands (not far from a million) of babies every year. Abortion is among the most evil and revolting of actions that a human being is capable of committing. Things like border control, debates on how the economy should be run, etc. is one thing - they are debatable positions. But there is absolutely no debating these two sins, and the Democratic party shoves them down people's throat. Even if a person doesn’t personally condone these two sins, you have to realize that anybody who casts a vote for the Democratic party is giving support to and empowering a party that literally enables the murdering of babies and the spread of homosexuality. The voter, who might personally be against these sins yet supports them by empowering a party that does support and enable them. So no matter what one’s beef with Republicans, Trump, whoever or whatever, I want people to understand the magnitude of what a Democratic vote empowers and by extension, what that means for the person who casts the vote. Whatever positive thing about the Democratic party that one might like can't possibly compare to or reverse what I've said. I don't understand it, I don't understand at all. If a Christian attends a KKK rally, other Christians would be up in arms. But if a Christian attends a Democratic party rally, a party which literally enables baby murdering and homosexuality and another Christian confronts them... they will likely defend the Democratic party (I'm speaking in general terms, not pointing anybody in particular out). I don't understand. My question is, why would anybody vote Democratic?

With the exception of the erroneous part, thank you for the compliment. I appreciate it. I try to debate in a way that is not hateful or insulting. And thank you for showing me what you meant by "things in the future". I'll leave with leave with a small comment on that: That verse is speaking nothing being able to separate us from the love of God. It should be noted that God loves the whole world (John 3:16) and yet the whole world is not going to be saved. That shows that God loves everyone, and yet, even though He loves them many will perish. It all comes down to a relationship with God through Jesus Christ our Lord and standing firm with Him to the end (Matt. 24:13). Yep, I wish that I didn't have to concern myself with my new career and that I had as much time as I want to post. I enjoy this. But I don't. You take care of yourself.

Alright ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to try and peel myself away from posting for a while. It's addicting to me (my self control is poor in this regard) and is eating up time that I really need to use for studying my new career (no pressure ). Ahem. Ya'll take care.

Of course they wouldn't want to lose their salvation, but that what deception does... you can be deceived and thus leave. See my post above on Galatians. Right, but it's up to the believer to accept and repent of his error. Are you copying and pasting some of your material from an OSAS website?

Blood Bought 1953, Here's more evidence to show that salvation can be on the line when a Christian sins: (Gal 1:6) I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— (Gal 1:9) As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse! and... (Gal 5:2) Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. (Gal 5:3) Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. (Gal 5:4) You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. In Gal. 1:6-9 I'm simply establishing that Paul believes these people to be in Christ, and thus under His graceful salvation. You cannot "desert" Christ if you weren't already with Him. They accepted the gospel and were "turning to a different gospel." So if you claim after reading chapter 5 that these people "weren't" true believers, Paul thought so or he would not have said what he did about them deserting Christ. In Gal 5:2-4, the consequences of turning turning from Christ is quite clear. When Paul warned the Christians that if they became circumcised, "Christ will be of no value to you at all." How plain is that? To put it in further emphasis "Christ is no value at all" to an unbeliever - and they are not saved. Also, we are saved by grace and Paul clearly warns that they would be falling from grace if they were circumcised. Christians can definitely leave Christ and lose their salvation. It's right there.

First of all, you nor I know who will lose their salvation - that's for God to decide. And if you don't think that salvation is on the line when James speaks in 5:19-20, consider the implications that I said about being in the truth. If you are in the truth, then you are saved as long as you are in the truth. The truth leads to salvation through Christ. Anyone who is in the truth has Christ. Anyone who wanders from the truth is no longer in the truth. If you aren't in the truth, you are with those who do not have the truth - they are in danger of Hell and in need of the truth.

Not sure what you are referring to by "things in the future." Specifics and proof text? This ignores what I said about people not being able to be snatched out by somebody vs. somebody deciding to leave. What Jesus promised could not happen is: "no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand." That's what He promised, which is a far cry from that person leaving on their own. That believer would only be covered as long as he/she chose to stay in the Father's hand. A person does not lose their free will when they believe and therefore will always be capable of leaving God. If they decide to leave God, God will not fore them to stay, and if they leave God, they are in danger. I've already shown you in James 5:19-20 that this very thing is possible: (Jas 5:19) My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, (Jas 5:20) remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

That is simply your opinion, just as it's my opinion that him escaping due to a choice that Jonah made. I know what I'm doing thanks to my ability to make a choice. Whether what I'm doing is right or wrong, God will judge, but I know what I'm doing. Jonah knew exactly what he was doing: (Jon 4:2) He prayed to the LORD, "Isn't this what I said, LORD, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. He knew exactly what he was doing. My point is has nothing to do with whether or not it was better for them to never know it, my point was to show that its' possible for somebody to wander from the truth, which demonstrates free will of choice. Nothing you said addressed that point. You wasted your time quoting the Exodus scriptures. I pointed it out in my own post, why are stating what I've already acknowledged? This is what I said: I already acknowledge what happen. As as far as my opinion of Pharoah being given time to repent, it's backed up by Paul saying that it was a possibility: I previously quoted these scriptures to show you that possibility and instead of acknowledging what scripture said, you come out some 'what actually happened trumps your opinion' type statement... when I already acknowledged what happened. This concept was covered by my comments to Sonshine regarding the chose before the foundation of the world. Here's a quote of it: "Right, but what I tried to emphasize on this point earlier is that God's choosing of us before the foundations of the world had to due with whether or not a person chose to follow him and remain faithful until the end. God foreknew who would do this and who would not, and in that sense, chose us before the foundation of the world. It's not that God chose us without consideration given to our free will of choice. My point is that a person is not arbitrarily chosen by God to be saved without any choice given to the person as to whether or not he/she wants to accept God. And that's important because if a person is chosen (and thus saved) without any choice given them, then by consequence God chose other people to be created for the purpose of Hell. And as mentioned before, that goes against God wanting all to repent and be saved." Whether front or end, what is foreknown is a result, in part, of our free will choice. Regardless of whether they repented or not, Jesus gave them the chance by warning them "unless YOU repent." There is ZERO point in warning somebody to repent if they don't actually have the will to repent. Read that again. When people do evil long enough, God gives them over to delusion and evil: (Rom 1:22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (Rom 1:23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. (Rom 1:24) Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. (Rom 1:25) They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (Rom 1:26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. People had the choice to do right or wrong and they chose wrong and as a result, God gave them over to sin. So the verses that you quoted, it's very possible that they sinned to the point where God gave them over to their sinful desires, and when that happens, their hearts are calloused and incapable of change. And once again, as Paul agrees with me that is is possible: (Rom 9:22) What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? There's no way that God creates people without the possibility of choice. Without choice, you would have to contend with the consequential result that God would create people that would never have any control over their sin and would end up in Hell. That is the consequential result of your line of thinking. It's insane. Why would God send people to Hell if the people had no choice but to go to Hell. Why why would a loving God do that? Your reasoning demands such a result and is therefore absurd - God would never do that. No amount of scripture you quote would ever reconcile this consequential result. How could God want all people to repent (2Peter 3:9), but if people have zero control over the matter, why would God send most to Hell when He wants them ALL to repent (2Peter 3:9)? Is God at war with Himself? If we have no choice, no control, then it is completely up to God to make everybody repent since He wants all to repent, and yet He is going to send people to Hell. Reconcile this.

And another thing, Gordon, if we truly don't have free will - then I don't see how posting any instructions about anything... I don't see how it matters at all because we wouldn't have the choice to act on those instructions. Choice requires free will to make that choice. We would be on autopilot with no control whatsoever - so what's the point of anything at all? You and I might as well stop posting because we can't make any informed decisions - because decisions require free will to choose. I'm just trying to get you to see the big picture of what the implications are if we don't have free will.

Gordon7777, I see the point that you are trying to make, but I believe they still had free will to walk away, and one of your examples, Jonah, is ironically supports this. When God told Jonah to go and preach to Ninevah, what was the first thing he did? He made the decision to disobey and run. I believe that to be a display of Jonah's free will. But I do understand that he had "little choice" but to obey when he realized what God was willing to do to him for his disobedience. I get that. As for the apostles, it could be argued that God foreknew their hearts and knew that they would therefore be obedient to carry out his will. Could they have walked away? I believe that they could, yes, because one of those very apostles, James, showed that it was possible for one to be in the truth and yet wander from it (my James 5:19-20 reference). That being said, there are also times when God wants to have something done in a specific manner to glorify Himself, as in the case of Egypt's Pharaoh: (Rom 9:17) For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (Rom 9:18) Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. Pharoah had no chance against God's will to harden his heart and God's purpose was fulfilled and gloried. That being said, let's look a bit further what Romans 9 says: (Rom 9:19) One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" (Rom 9:20) But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (Rom 9:21) Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? (Rom 9:22) What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? Verse 22 is key to where I'm going. I do not believe that God created Pharaoh from beginning for the express purpose of Him hardening him and punishing and killing him to make His point. I believe that God "bore with great patience" Pharoah's unrighteous treatment of His people and gave Pharaoh time to repent. But when it didn't happen, God then used Pharaoh's own rebellion to His advantage and glorified Himself by directing Pharaoh to do things that would cause God to display His great power and deliverance. All of that being said... ... I still hold that, in general, yes, we humans absolutely do have free will. But that doesn't mean that God won't use situations to His advantage and will when He desires to do so. So when you say... Well... (Luk 13:5) I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." They had free will to repent. Jesus told THEM to repent - God wasn't going to repent for them. And if God was going to MAKE them repent, what is the point of telling them to repent? (Joh 10:37) Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. How would it even make sense for Jesus to say this to the Jews if the they had no free will to believe?? Jesus is reasoning with them because they have free will to make a choice to believe. I don't see any point of trying to convince people to believe if they have no power to do it in the first place. Makes. No. Sense. (Joh 15:4) Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. Why would Christ tell people to remain in Him if they had no power to really do it on their own?? Read that again. And then there's that "unless" word again at the end of the verse - which means it's conditional on them remaining them remaining in Him. If they have no power to do it on their own, then it's pointless to use a conditional word because there's no choice. I could go on, but I'm hoping you see my point - we do have free will. As for the rest of the comments you made on people not having a choice, they are covered by what I said above in regards to Jonah, the Apostles and Pharaoh. I don't want to list out each one and repeat what I've already covered.

I've been posting for hours straight... kev needs a break!!

Sonshine, We are on the same page here. Gordon7777 brought up point that made me add to this thought. While we do indeed have free will, it's not entirely on our own that we can accept Christ and be saved: (Joh 6:44) "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. So, to some degree, we are dependent on God to open our minds and then it's up to us what we do with that revelation. Just food for thought. Right, but what I tried to emphasize on this point earlier is that God's choosing of us before the foundations of the world had to due with whether or not a person chose to follow him and remain faithful until the end. God foreknew who would do this and who would not, and in that sense, chose us before the foundation of the world. It's not that God chose us without consideration given to our free will of choice. My point is that a person is not arbitrarily chosen by God to be saved without any choice given to the person as to whether or not he/she wants to accept God. And that's important because if a person is chosen (and thus saved) without any choice given them, then by consequence God chose other people to be created for the purpose of Hell. And as mentioned before, that goes against God wanting all to repent and be saved. So when people consider that they are chosen before the foundation of the world, they should not assume that means that once a person is truly believes that they lose their free will and will be unconditionally auto-piloted by God with no chance whatsoever of them choosing to turn from Him. We humans always have the choice to walk away from God, and that essence is spoken of in the James verses I provided. Amen, as mentioned above, God foreknew who was His. But we always have our free will. Yep, and nobody can snatch them out of the Father's hand, but they most certainly, on their own choice, decide to leave God.

testing... Success! I want to quote from pages 14 an 15 of this thread but quotes are destroyed when you leave a page, but I've figured out how to get around this buy using the code to quote things manually. Ok, getting to work on my response...

Sigh... I might lose power shortly.... :/ Texas storms.