User Tag List

Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ... 2027282930
Results 436 to 449 of 449

Thread: ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

  1. #436
    Over 500 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    694
    Thanks
    550
    Thanked 600 Times in 372 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36439
    Rosenritter asked you:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Question: what befalls someone who NEVER takes a mass ceremony? I mean never ever. Or at least not never ever from an "ordained" priest?
    And, your response was:

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Well that describes me, so far. What befalls me? I am missing out on a gift from the Lord, through which we are able to commune with Him and with each other in a unique, and a uniquely Christian, way.
    Now, in John 6:51 KJV, Jesus said:

    I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

    Have
    you eaten of that bread spoken of by Jesus, here? If not, why not? And, if you have not, what do you say about the part about living forever? Admitting you haven't eaten of that bread, can you, right here, right now, say that you shall live forever? Can you be sure, even, that you shall eat of that bread?

    Here's your problem: even if you eventually do participate as a communicant in that rite you call "the Eucharist", you will, it seems, by your own (or at least Rome's) admission, still not have eaten of that bread. Why not? Because, according to you, and Rome, no bread is eaten in the eating of the Eucharist! And, since Jesus clearly said that the bread He will give to eat is His flesh, and you take His words literally, then, by not eating bread in the eating of the Eucharist, you will, necessarily, not be eating Jesus' flesh in the eating of the Eucharist. If you haven't eaten the bread, then you haven't eaten Jesus' flesh, and, since Rome's priests, in their Eucharist rite, have never given Rome's communicants bread to eat, Rome's communicants have never even eaten Jesus' flesh. Do you disagree with Jesus, where He says, in that verse, that the bread is His flesh?

  2. #437
    Over 1500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,721
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 303 Times in 251 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    29853
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Your premise is flawed. For example, when John declares "Behold, the Lamb of God" does he mean to metaphorically behold, or did he mean you could see him with your own eyes? And when he said "God" did he mean really God, or just a figurative god?

    John 1:29 KJV
    (29) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

    John 1:36 KJV
    (36) And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

    Revelation 7:10 KJV
    (10) And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

    Revelation 7:17 KJV
    (17) For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

    Revelation 14:4 KJV
    (4) These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

    Using your same method of interpretation for Real Presence of Jesus in wafers made by the hands of man, Jesus is also literally a lamb, with just as man or more verses for support.
    So yes or no?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    A different question: why are the wafers round?
    idk. I do know that parishes in the US can provide their own host if the parish wants to do that instead of the round ones. Some do. Most don't. But the opportunity is there. idk if it's Rome who decides this, or if it's the national bishops' conferences.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  3. #438
    Over 1500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,721
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 303 Times in 251 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    29853
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Is there a special rule that Jesus must be administering an instruction of some sort for us to interpret his words in a bizarre manner that defy common sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    "Eat, this is my body" still remains obvious symbolism
    To you. Begging the question.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    , as what he handed them to eat was broken Passover bread.

    1 Corinthians 11:25-26 KJV
    (25) After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
    (26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

    No, I don't call it a sacrament, but I do think that this is a proper observance that was instituted by Christ, for this specific memorial.
    It is good to agree upon whatever we can, so I'm glad we can at least find common ground here. There are Dispensationalists for example who do not agree with us, that the Lord's Supper ought to be celebrated by the Body of Christ.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  4. #439
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,745
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195049
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    OK. I think rather that they rightly thought it, and due to perhaps what He said in comparison with Lev17:10KJV, Lev17:12KJV, and Lev17:14KJV. So Christ appeared to them to be teaching contrary to the Word of God---them not recognizing Him as God Himself, so their contention was of course invalid.
    OK. But then you do admit therefore that partaking of the bread and of the cup unworthily is grave sin? And what do you suppose that the penalty for this grave sin is?
    Then who is your bishop? You're reading about bishops in the New Testament, and from where I'm sitting, it looks like you subscribe to something like the 'cessation of gifts,' only instead it's the cessation of bishops. You also seem to me to be substituting "Scripture" in, for example, 1st Timothy 3:15 KJV, where instead it reads that it is the Church, and not the Scripture, that is "the pillar and ground of the truth." This of course doesn't say that the Scripture isn't also true, but it does move the Christian faith beyond the written letter, and into the living pastorate, who, nonetheless, are powerless to contravene the Scripture.
    They wouldn't, since the manna prefigured the Eucharist.
    You certainly base your view, in your understanding of Scripture, as do I; no argument here. We differ in our understanding of Scripture.
    Correct.
    Yes.
    Invalid.
    Was.
    Begging the question. Invalid.
    There are multiple statements in John chapter six also.
    Begging the question.
    It resembles forms of it, I grant it. I also grant that these forms of idolatry resemble the Real Presence. These two are logically equivalent, but in setting out both of them, we avoid any hint of begging the question, as to whether one copied the other, or if they instead are independently derived. For example, pagan flood myths resemble the story of Noah, and the story of Noah resembles pagan flood myths.
    Begging the question again. Catholicism believes that the manna, the shewbread, and the passover/Pasch are figures of, and fulfilled in, the Eucharist.
    Transubstantiation is a footnote to the Real Presence, that is how they are related to each other. The Real Presence was believed from the first, while transubstantiation 'per se' was authorized later. Also, Orthodoxy does not believe in Catholic transubstantiation, but they most certainly believe in the Real Presence, and always have, just as has Catholicism.
    See above, that transubstantiation and the Real Presence are not synonymous. And the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' is clear that salvation requires but faith alone in Christ.
    It was definitively held by at least Bishop of Antioch Ignatius in AD 107.
    Which means that the Church authorized it as authentic/Apostolic. Not everything that Apostles taught was right away uniformly recognized as such, due to the nature of the Apostles' ministry. They traveled all around the Mediterranean, to Greece, to Egypt, to Italy, and beyond, and they always taught the men they chose as bishops, and while certainly most every major point of the Christian faith was widely known, taught, believed, and practiced, it was not always known what every Apostle taught to every bishop, until all bishops gathered together and shared their stories with each other, comparing one Apostle's tradition with all the others that had been passed on through word-of-mouth from one bishop to the next, in each of theirs respective Apostolic lineage.
    A pejorative, fyi.
    'All very interesting as such. My problem with your view isn't the facts, it's your reading between the lines and making veiled fallacies, such as the Post Hoc Fallacy. None of these facts means that Christ Himself and His Apostles, didn't teach the Real Presence.
    Then right here is evidence that the resemblance to European and Middle Eastern paganism could just be coincidence and independent of each other. Certainly the Church didn't copy Mayan or Incan pagans.
    Fine. Since it is the words of the Lord Himself that supports the Church's belief in the Real Presence, I don't think that this qualifies as worshiping Him "as the heathens do [their 'gods']," since we're just taking His words literally.
    Clearly. And I continue to maintain that the Catholic Church does not teach anything that contravenes or contradicts the Word of God.
    Easter is the annual celebration of Christ's Resurrection, which is distinguished from the Eucharist, which celebrates His Resurrection at least each Sunday, the day upon which He rose. In fact though, many churches celebrate the Eucharist daily, if not at least on Saturdays and other Christian holy days, or on holy days' eves.
    A problem of catechesis first and foremost, and after that, one of branding, probably. Also, an artifact of the Reformation, when the idea that the Real Presence is false, first reared its head, so far as can be known from all history. What I mean is that the Church right now is quite frayed in what we all believe and profess, so that non-Christians don't know definitively what are and what are not the articles of the authentic Christian faith.
    I've heard of it, but don't know about it, no.
    Ah.
    All Hallows' Day (today 'All Saints' Day') is a Christian holy day. Halloween is the night before All Saints' Day.
    When did Halloween costumery get "the Catholic Church stamp of approval?" And more than that, when did the Catholic Church instruct Halloween costumery? I know that she does not forbid it.
    You say that pagans believed something resembling the Real Presence, before the Church did, and that therefore the Church copied it from pagans. So what was your argument then, if not 'post hoc ergo propter hoc?'
    See? This is also begging the question, since you presume that the Church copied pagans.
    There is no pagan source for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The operative word there is "Christ," and He is taught only by the Church.
    Begging the question, since this is only true if your view is the truth, that the Church copied pagans in the belief in the Real Presence.
    This is begging the question, since I believe that it does, and have given my reasons for it, and you've not defeated them.
    There is zero support for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in pagan tradition. Again, the operative word is "Christ."
    And I say that it essentially couldn't be more strongly defined than what we have; the literal words of our Lord, taken literally.
    I didn't claim that pagans mimicked the Church. It is instead likely that they are two independent things. But besides, there are many pagan traditions that resemble the Christian faith, such as deities who rise from the dead. Are you saying that therefore Christ's Resurrection is fictional, since the notion appears in pagan traditions, before AD 33? I don't think that you are, but your line of argument supports this claim also, along with your rejection of the Real Presence as being authentically Christian.
    That wasn't the point. The point was that the Apostles chose all the first generation of bishops, and they all uniformly, according to your view, plunged into fatal error, in, according to your view, wrongly teaching and practicing the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And as I've continued to say, this is merely a literal reading of Mt26:26KJV, Mk14:22KJV, Lk22:19KJV, and 1Co11:24KJV. We disagree about whether His words are to be taken literally, but I can't agree with you that the Apostles did not teach the Real Presence, since it depends upon your own view being the truth, which, again, is begging the question.

    But to repeat, my point here was that the men who did teach the Real Presence, were all chosen by the Apostles, so if the Real Presence is false, then they the Apostles must have been nincompoops, and I don't accept that possibility.
    Well, I guess, really, you're your own answer to the question, because that is what you believe.
    Then we're getting into what it means when Christ promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against" His Church (Mt16:18KJV). I believe that while what you say about idolatry was true in the Old Covenant, that the New Covenant is impervious to this tendency. I believe that the bishops' instruction in the Christian faith is preserved from error, such as them teaching that abject idolatry ought to be committed right in the heart of the Christian Mass.
    That's a false dilemma.
    I just follow the Scripture when it talks about the office of Bishop, and bishops are still around today. Since I accept that there is an authentic pastorate, I accept hierarchy in the administration and life of the Church, because there is some way in which bishops are higher than non-bishops within the Church, and, those whom I believe are the authentic bishops, teach that that way is in their authority to teach the Christian faith.
    I believe that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, and especially with the conditions that Catholics authentically believe in Christ, and that other Christians who believe in Christ (I call us "Catholics on the way to full communion") are also individual members of the Body/Church, though 'imperfectly' so, because we do not share Communion. So the Body of Christ is composed of probably everybody who you would think should be considered bona fide Christians, and while you're repelled by the language used, I think we agree on the underlying idea expressed, in different language.
    lmk which passages you're thinking of, so that we can discuss it.
    OK. Here's a link in case you ever want to see what the Catholic bishops all authoritatively and uniformly teach.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...sm/ccc_toc.htm

    (There's an alphabetical index at the bottom, in case you wanted to see what they teach on particular matters.)
    Well, OK. I was offering up the particular belief that historically separates Catholics from other Christians, at least in the West (Orthodoxy is not nearly as popular in the West as in the East, although, the Orthodox also reject the papacy as supreme pastorate of the Church, and have done so since the year 1054, when the Catholic and Orthodox churches separated). The reason that I focus particularly upon the rejection of the popes as supreme pastors of the Church, is because all other differences in belief descend logically from either the acceptance or rejection of this single belief.
    If it were actually the case that Catholicism believes and teaches that Christians pray to "gods" when we pray to Saints, then I would agree with you, but since this isn't the case, this is a straw man.
    I can't speak for what every individual Catholic believes, but I can speak for what the Catholic bishops authoritatively teach, and they do not teach that praying to Saints is praying to "gods."
    That is a direct result of the Reformation---of Protestantism---in the West.
    And my position is that the poisonous contamination is removed, when/before the Church has appropriated pagan customs. There's nothing left in them that offends the Word of God, and that by design.
    Well, we disagree, because I think that it does matter, and very much so.
    It didn't, and it doesn't.
    It prefigured the Eucharist, along with the shewbread, and the passover/Pasch.
    Corruption is inevitable when there is real power involved. The bishops didn't have much in the way of power before Constantine, in fact it was the opposite, the bishops were frequently those Christians with the largest targets on their backs whenever their pagan neighbors and rulers capriciously and wantonly and criminally decided that it was time for yet another culling of the Christian herd, through horrifically cruel and unusual punishments, sometimes done publicly as a spectacle. Some Christians were dismembered but kept alive, while their pieces and parts were fed to wild animals right in front of them, just as one example, all for refusing to engage in idolatry. It'd be a terrible irony, and one that I reject, if all these glorious martyrs were themselves engaging in idolatry all along, in believing in the Real Presence.
    I object to your characterization of Catholicism as "a brand name," but otherwise, we agree, and so does Catholicism. Orthodoxy, though, as an aside? I'm not sure what the Orthodox believe about who is and who is not a bona fide Christian. Catholicism makes believing in Christ the sine qua non of being an authentic Christian, whether or not we are Catholics.
    Well that describes me, so far. What befalls me? I am missing out on a gift from the Lord, through which we are able to commune with Him and with each other in a unique, and a uniquely Christian, way.
    I asked you, "'Now?' Where?" This answer means to me, "Not 'Now.' Back then." But I didn't ask about back then, because when I wrote, "'Now?'" I was quoting you. So are you 'walking back' your "now?"
    Which sacrament(s) involves the "worship of vines, rocks, lambs, etc?" Different context. Apples and oranges.
    We just disagree that the Lord saying, "This is My body," is literal, or figurative / metaphorical / symbolic, because if He was being literal, then we worship Christ, and not something "fashioned with hands." It's begging the question.
    All words are presumed to be literal unless there is compelling reason to think otherwise. I think we agree on that, we just disagree that there is sufficient warrant to think that Christ was being metaphorical / symbolic / figurative when He instituted the Eucharist.
    Christ, in instituting the fulfillment of the manna and of the shewbread and of the passover/Pasch, says, "This is My body," He wasn't saying that the bread represented Him or His presence, He said that the bread was literally Him. It's very meaningful for those of us who believe in the Real Presence, was my point.
    That was too long. And then it "token expired" and erased everything. Let's shorten this?

    1. You cannot presume that Christ speaks literally at any time, because he is specifically said to speak in proverb and parable.

    2. Even if you were to presume Christ normally spoke in literal terms (which defies example) there is compelling reason to believe he means otherwise. Specifically because Jesus was NOT literally bread and this could be plainly seen.

    3. All the arguments of "apostolic succession" and "church authority" are nil as far as I am concerned. I consider the Catholic church to be one corrupt church of many, and even specifically designated in Revelation 17 and 18.

    4. If you actually believe that Christ's real meaning was "I am literally bread" when he said to take and eat, then you cannot have eternal life unless you literally eat his flesh and drink his blood (the Eucharist.) You said you have never partaken of that Eucharist, so by what you have already accepted, you are damned. The understanding (my understanding) that the bread and wine represented his sacrifice as symbols mean that we must accept him and his sacrifice in the meaning of John 3:16

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    7djengo7 (January 4th, 2019)

  6. #440
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,745
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195049
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    So yes or no?
    Jesus has never been a literal lamb or literal bread. I'm consistent in this answer. However, I don't know why you wouldn't say he was also a literal lamb if you were being consistent as well.

    idk. I do know that parishes in the US can provide their own host if the parish wants to do that instead of the round ones. Some do. Most don't. But the opportunity is there. idk if it's Rome who decides this, or if it's the national bishops' conferences.
    I am asking because one of my books that I was putting away on my bookshelf had mention of specific emphasis on the Eucharist being round. I didn't read it further but marked the page and thought I'd ask you first before opening it up again. Do you know of any Catholic church that actually breaks the bread as Christ instituted? or are the wafers always round?

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    7djengo7 (January 4th, 2019)

  8. #441
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,799
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 271 Times in 221 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    2 Peter 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.


    If they're already saved, why would God be worried that they might perish? C'mon.



    I know you want to believe it. But that's not what the chapter says. Have you actually read all of it?

    Please, for your own sake, stop denying God's word.

    If Peter is addressing only those whom God has already chosen to save, then God has no reason to be concerned for their salvation.
    Barb, this has been addressed ad naseum. I posted the entire chapter in hopes your skull would grasp the context around verse 9.
    In the chapter Peter is talking about the impending day of the Lord. He is talking to the elect. He is saying that God does not bring the impending day of the Lord because God will not allow even one of his elect to perish. All the elect will be saved before the day of the Lord arrives. It is for the sake of everyone on God's list that God does not come at this instant to judge the world. All the elect must be brought to faith first. This is why the Reformed churches are usually the most missional in focus. The message must be shared so that all the elect are provided with the good news.
    Verse 9 is not about the whole world. If it were then God would be an utter failure since so many perish and go to hell.
    Read the context young buck.
    Last edited by MennoSota; January 4th, 2019 at 04:13 PM.

  9. #442
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,745
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195049
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Barb, this has been addressed ad naseum. I posted the entire chapter in hopes your skull would grasp the context around verse 9.
    In the chapter Peter is talking about the impending day of the Lord. He is talking to the elect. He is saying that God does not bring the impending day of the Lord because God will not allow even one of his elect to perish. All the elect will be saved before the day of the Lord arrives. It is for the sake of everyone on God's list that God does not come at this instant to judge the world. All the elect must be brought to faith first. This is why the Reformed churches are usually the most missional in focus. The message must be shared so that all the elect are provided with the good news.
    Verse 9 is not about the whole world. If it were then God would be an utter failure since so many perish and go to hell.
    Read the context young buck.
    Maybe the author should have instead written "Not willing that the elect should perish, but that every elect should come to repentance" then. Perhaps Peter wasn't familiar with what the word "all" meant?

  10. #443
    Over 500 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    694
    Thanks
    550
    Thanked 600 Times in 372 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36439
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    It is good to agree upon whatever we can, so I'm glad we can at least find common ground here. There are Dispensationalists for example who do not agree with us, that the Lord's Supper ought to be celebrated by the Body of Christ.
    Wait, Rosenritter agrees that what you call "the Lord's Supper" is the same thing he calls "the Lord's Supper"? From what I've read in his posts, it doesn't look at all like he agrees with you, there. Rather, it looks as though he thinks that people, very decidedly, ought NOT participate in the rite you call the "celebration" of "the Lord's Supper", so as to avoid participating in idolatry.

  11. #444
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,421
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 3,017 Times in 2,023 Posts

    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    401808
    2 Peter 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.


    If they're already saved, why would God be worried that they might perish? C'mon.
    If Peter is addressing only those whom God has already chosen to save, then God has no reason to be concerned for their salvation.


    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Barb, this has been addressed ad naseum. I posted the entire chapter in hopes your skull would grasp the context around verse 9.
    I don't think prooftexting is going to work for you. As you see, God would have no concern about the "elect" being saved if He had already decided to save them.

    There's really no way for you to dance around that difficulty.

    He is talking to the elect.
    Then why would He be concerned about them being saved?

    You're contradicting yourself. Why not take a little time to read it carefully and come up with a logically consistent explanation?
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  12. #445
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,799
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 271 Times in 221 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    2 Peter 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.


    If they're already saved, why would God be worried that they might perish? C'mon.
    If Peter is addressing only those whom God has already chosen to save, then God has no reason to be concerned for their salvation.




    I don't think prooftexting is going to work for you. As you see, God would have no concern about the "elect" being saved if He had already decided to save them.

    There's really no way for you to dance around that difficulty.



    Then why would He be concerned about them being saved?

    You're contradicting yourself. Why not take a little time to read it carefully and come up with a logically consistent explanation?
    Do you imagine that all of God's elect are already reconciled even though they are not yet born? Stop being so silly.
    God will not let even one of His elect perish without being reconciled.

    Now, let's take your weak interpretation and see its flaws.
    If, as you claim, God does not will that any human should perish (meaning all humans, universally, across all time), then either all humans are saved...because God wills...or God failed and His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He failed to save all humanity from Adam to the present?

  13. #446
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,421
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 3,017 Times in 2,023 Posts

    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    401808
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Do you imagine that all of God's elect are already reconciled even though they are not yet born? Stop being so silly.
    If He's already decided to save them, how do you think He would fail? Your argument assumes that His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He might fail to save those He's already decided to save?

    I think you need to consider the contradictions in your position and do something to reconcile them.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  14. #447
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,799
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 271 Times in 221 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    If He's already decided to save them, how do you think He would fail? Your argument assumes that His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He might fail to save those He's already decided to save?

    I think you need to consider the contradictions in your position and do something to reconcile them.
    You neglected to address this:

    If, as you claim, God does not will that any human should perish (meaning all humans, universally, across all time), then either all humans are saved...because God wills...or God failed and His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He failed to save all humanity from Adam to the present?

  15. #448
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,421
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 3,017 Times in 2,023 Posts

    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    401808
    Barbarian observes:
    If He's already decided to save them, how do you think He would fail? Your argument assumes that His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He might fail to save those He's already decided to save?

    I think you need to consider the contradictions in your position and do something to reconcile them.

    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    You neglected to address this
    You need to resolve your own contradictions. But I'll allow you the one bunny trail before I remind you again:

    If, as you claim, God does not will that any human should perish (meaning all humans, universally, across all time), then either all humans are saved...because God wills...or God failed and His will is pathetically weak.
    Assuming that God doesn't give us the freedom to accept Him or reject Him. But He does give us free will. It might grieve Him if we don't accept Him, but He gives us the right to chose.

    On the other hand, your position says that God is pathetically weak, having to be concerned whether or not He can save people He's already decided to save.

    Since you declined to explain this contradiction in your beliefs, it's pretty clear that you have no way to do so.

    Work on that.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  16. #449
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,799
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 271 Times in 221 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Barbarian observes:
    If He's already decided to save them, how do you think He would fail? Your argument assumes that His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He might fail to save those He's already decided to save?

    I think you need to consider the contradictions in your position and do something to reconcile them.



    You need to resolve your own contradictions. But I'll allow you the one bunny trail before I remind you again:



    Assuming that God doesn't give us the freedom to accept Him or reject Him. But He does give us free will. It might grieve Him if we don't accept Him, but He gives us the right to chose.

    On the other hand, your position says that God is pathetically weak, having to be concerned whether or not He can save people He's already decided to save.

    Since you declined to explain this contradiction in your beliefs, it's pretty clear that you have no way to do so.

    Work on that.
    Interesting pretzel you have created.
    God accomplishes His will, in my interpretation of the passage. Not one of His elect perish.
    In your interpretation, God is hog-tied by humanities will so that He must, powerlessly, watch humans will themselves into hell. What God wills (that no one perish) never comes true. God fails. Yet, you seem pleased with God's failure. Why is that, Barb? Why are you pleased with God's failure?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us