Possibly highest IQ

[Fricasseekid]

Oh, I never said they were both correct. I simply said they are both solidly backed up with scripture.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[cajunner]

There is always the danger that the discussion is rational and that the different sides can learn something. I think this one has the opportunity to make that happen.

yes, I'd like that.

I've run into the dilemma of this particular competing context, before and I think there is more support (imho) for the responsibility to exist on each person, as logically it makes more sense in say, population control for the ruling parties?

There are caveats, basically we don't need to worry about babies and feeble-minded folks, and the possessed fall into a different crack, so if you're reasonable enough to understand the bargain, and the consequences of either non-acceptance or later betrayals, then you'll have to accept your share of blame if the way into heaven requires the work to be put in.


that's how I see it, the grace only option leaves no real bargain, and the uncertainty developed isn't conducive to good worshipping, again, (imho)...

[Fricasseekid]

You see Calvinism is borderline predestination. Some Calvinists even believe that not everyone is given the opportunity for salvation. Some are chosen by God and some are not. Those that are chosen are unable to resist the temptation to know God. Others never recieve the holy spirit and will reject God their whole lives. This doesnt sit well with me. But the problem is, it doesnt matter if we 'like' something or not, you either have to take scripture in its entirety or leave it. Choosing the bits that sit well with you in order to build a custom belief system that you're comfortable with is not a viable option. Enter Arminianism, I believe John 3:16 pretty clearly states that Jesus brings everyone an opportunity for salvation. Yet the only evidence of free will in the bible are all the instances where God clearly asks people to make a choice. Other than that there is no mention that "God gave us free will". Also also crystle clear in the bible that we are NOT saved by works and ALL the glory for our salvation goes to God. Now the bible is full of contradictions, but this is a big one. The way I make sense of it is what may be required for my salvation and what might be required for your salvation arent necessarily the same. It is up to us to read, pray, and discern for ourselves the truth.

There is another way it works, buy I dont have time to type it right now...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[cajunner]

custom belief system, check...





no, I get what you're saying, and there is that peccadillo of the Old Testament vs. New Testament, as Jesus did away with a lot of the old structure for a new way. I think the shift begins there, if you're Christian then you've got to give the New Testament more powah over the historical context and old school parts of the Old Testament.

And it is true, no man will do the judging either way, so I can believe that includes the first person sentiment. Which is a grinder, because if you cannot judge yourself, (and who really can? I think that to judge oneself as either worthy or not based on our own perceptions, is why it's spelled out so clear that salvation is God's alone to grant) then you're really not exercising free will. It's a circular reasoning paradox.

Which I think is great, because if it was so clear that you got it right off, you wouldn't have to go back to church as much to get your refills of learning, and may just make the attendance optional. That's not really going to cut it for the people chosen by God to lead, if the manual was so self-explanatory they were basically just introducing people to it and then they go on their way.

Anyways, it was cool how you broke it down for me, but I think the debate is ill-equipped to answer the deeper question of whether we're supposed to pick it apart, or take the local flavor and run with it.

I'm kind of a pick it apart type, so maybe it is true, and then maybe some aren't going to be cast into the lake of fire either, but some other solution exists. You know, just in case.

[astrochex]

You see Calvinism is borderline predestination. Some Calvinists even believe that not everyone is given the opportunity for salvation. Some are chosen by God and some are not. Those that are chosen are unable to resist the temptation to know God. Others never recieve the holy spirit and will reject God their whole lives. This doesnt sit well with me. But the problem is, it doesnt matter if we 'like' something or not, you either have to take scripture in its entirety or leave it. Choosing the bits that sit well with you in order to build a custom belief system that you're comfortable with is not a viable option. Enter Arminianism, I believe John 3:16 pretty clearly states that Jesus brings everyone an opportunity for salvation. Yet the only evidence of free will in the bible are all the instances where God clearly asks people to make a choice. Other than that there is no mention that "God gave us free will". Also also crystle clear in the bible that we are NOT saved by works and ALL the glory for our salvation goes to God. Now the bible is full of contradictions, but this is a big one. The way I make sense of it is what may be required for my salvation and what might be required for your salvation arent necessarily the same. It is up to us to read, pray, and discern for ourselves the truth.

There is another way it works, buy I dont have time to type it right now...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

This can't be true if one believes the bible is the inerrant Word of God. The bible is not the problem, its mans understanding of it that is not perfect.

[Fricasseekid]

When you look at the bible through historical context yhe contradictions make sense. The bible is not a book but rather a library. Within it's pages are poetry, law, history, parables, prophecy, testimonies, records og lineage, and much more. Not all books in the Bible are meant to be taken the same way. Add to that the fact that it is "The living word". Scripture breathes, it grows, and changes with you as you grow and change in your spiritual walk. The bible cannot be simplified into some sort of cliff notes. Each verse requires prayer and discernment for understanding.
That's how I see it anyways.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[astrochex]

When you look at the bible through historical context the contradictions make sense. The bible is not a book but rather a library. Within it's pages are poetry, law, history, parables, prophecy, testimonies, records of lineage, and much more. Not all books in the Bible are meant to be taken the same way.

I absolutely agree. There are different literary forms in the books of the bible that demand different forms of interpretation. It would be against God's nature to be contradictory; the limitation is with our understanding, not with how God chose to reveal Himself to us.

Add to that the fact that it is "The living word". Scripture breathes, it grows, and changes with you as you grow and change in your spiritual walk. The bible cannot be simplified into some sort of cliff notes. Each verse requires prayer and discernment for understanding.
That's how I see it anyways.

Are you referring to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which says that scripture is "God-breathed"? That refers to the inspiration or source of the bible, which is, of course God. Our understanding of God's word can change, but God's word does not change (Is 40:8). Again, I agree with you that each verse of the bible requires discernment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

+++++

[Hic]

So, does GOD exist ?

[n_olympios]

After all that talk and especially in a thread with such a title, do you still think that it is the answer to that question that matters?

[Hic]

No i don't