I thought the passage from 1 John 5 was quite clear enough - And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:11-12). I don't think it can get clearer, truth be told. Other passages that show those who reject the message are liable:

~ *Jesus speaking* I am the way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father, except through me - John 14:6

~ It is by Grace you have been saved, through Faith, and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God - not by Works, so that no one may boast. For we are all God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do - Epehesians 2:8-10 (this is another passage against Free-will, having had our good works planned out beforehand).

~ I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete." - Luke 6:47-49 (though to play Devil's Advocate on this one, it is referring to Jesus' immediate previous teachings on Loving others, not Judging, bearing good fruit).

I also suggest 1 Corinthians 8, which has way too many points to discuss in a short post here, but I've linked it for you if you want to take a quick read.

I do agree that you can be good in many other belief systems. But is being good enough? And if so, what is the pass mark - how good is good enough? Who is good enough to make it into heaven - for Jesus says Why do you call me good. No one is good, except God alone (Mark 10:18).

As I said, this does not refer to those who have not heard of Jesus, and to address the point you made in your opening paragraph, nor babies who die young. The Bible just does not give enough information on this topic. All the best,

Can't say I disagree with any point. Blessings to you also, Clovis.

Your talking about knowing right from wrong & blaming someone or something. You can not punish someone for asking them what they want & then punishing them for not choosing what you wanted. Why not just tell them in the first place what you want? People say the bible is easy to read yet you & some of the others keep talking about this or that word meaning something else. I guess God doesn't want to make it too easy for people.

I believe God already has told us all what he wants. People have just (either willingly or unwillingly) ignored him on it.

The Bible is easy to read. There are SOME parts which are not as clear cut as others, but the important parts about salvation are crystal clear. I realise you do not believe it (the Bible), which is fair enough, and I'm not here to force you to accept it. But the primary message of the Bible is the clearest you can get - Submit to Jesus as Lord and saviour and strive to do his will. Not a difficult message at all. And it's written clearly and simply, even with the differences of translations.

Just a thought,

If you take the bible at face vaule which some do then it's ok, but with all the different translations some of you keep talking about it's not easy to read.


NO the message i's self is easy but the bible is not. at times it reads like a chinesse proverb.

Reading the text with a good Greek/Hebrew dictionary (ideally an education in the language, though not necessarily practical for most people) makes it not so much a Chinese Proverb as it does a simple message.

I do understand what you are trying to say, don't get me wrong on that - I really do understand where you are coming from. But I think you are missing that translating anything from one language into another has its difficulties. To give you an example, I have a tattoo of a Chinese symbol on my left forearm. In English, it translates as "Faithful", or perhaps "Trustworthy". In the original Chinese, its meaning has deeper connotations. An exact word-for-word translation would be something along the lines of "if you have this trait, you are faithful". It is the inner-focus that leads to the characteristic we know of as "faithfulness". Faithfulness is a characteristic, but this phrase on my arm refers to the charcteristic behind the characteristic of faith. There are also connotations of trustworthiness. But in English, it's simply "Faithful/Trustworthy". Knowing the Chinese in this isntance was one of the primary reasons I got it as a tattoo. If it was simply the English rendering (Faithful), I would never have permanently imprinted it on my body.

Reading the Hebrew and the Greek and getting an idea of their meaning makes a big difference in understanding the Bible. I think it is fortunate that we live in a world where access to Greek and Hebrew dictionaries are so easily accessible. You can download them for free off the internet, or buy hard-copies from bookshops. Just because a Greek or Hebrew word is translated into English as one word or phrase does not mean that the English meaning we hold to it today is the exact same as the connotation of the original Hebrew. When Jesus asks Peter, "Do you love me", and Peter replies, "Yes Lord, you know I love you", both Jesus and Peter use a different word for "love" - what is the significance, and what are the differences in meaning? To us today, if we did not have this understanding, we'd just see them both as the same sort of love, filtered by our own cultural understanding of what love is.

Sorry, this is getting to be a longer post than I had intended. My apologies. What I was trying to get at was that the major themes of the Bible are clear and easily understandable. The specifics of certain details may not be so simple, and sometimes require significant study to understand them better. That does not as a result mean that the Bible can mean anything, nor does it mean that it is irrelevant. I'll stop there for fear of ranting further, but I hope you consider what I have said. All the best,

Basically, the reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.
All people have sinned against God. But, God is infinitely holy and righteous. He must punish the sinner, the Law breaker. If He didn't, then His law is not law for there is no law that is a law without a punishment. The punishment for breaking the Law is death, separation from God. Therefore, we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God. Since we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself. That is why Jesus is God in flesh. He is both divine and human. He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:5-6) and He fulfilled it perfectly. Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God.
The following outline is an attempt to break this down, step by step, using scripture and logic. I hope that it helps you understand why God is our savior and not some created thing. Also, I hope that it helps you understand that you must trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of your sins; that you can do nothing on your own to merit salvation from God.

-www.carm.org

I believe that there is a great deal of confusion concerning "the Kingdom of God".

That confusion exists, in my opinion, because there are at least three aspects to consider about the meaning of "the Kingdom of God".
For instanc, brave_new_world, the way you quote this particular Scripture can be somewhat misleading, because this translation fails to give the context of what Jesus said.

* Jesus as King of that Kingdom, literally represents the Kingdom.
Thus, where Jesus is/was ... is also where the Kingdom is/was.
Consider these translations of Luke 17:21, which you quoted above:
(ASV) neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.
(BBE) And men will not say, See, it is here! or, There! for the kingdom of God is among you.
(CEV) There is no use saying, 'Look! Here it is' or 'Look! There it is.' God's kingdom is here with you."

* When Jesus returns, he will establish his Kingdom on Earth, ruling the nations from Jerusalem.

* There is a Kingdom of God in a literal heaven (wherever that heaven may be).

Was this of any help?
Karlis

there was no jesus if there was i belive he was just a man who got people high off opium and they saw "the presence of god" while tripping... noone died for any sins.

i also think maybe this religon and heaven is all in the mind...what if you belive in heaven so when you die you go to a heaven you want in your mind? just like if you think "im going to hell" you go

let's hope you don't think that ur goin to hell then

ha im satanic lol when we die we are reborn i wanna be a 2 headed turtle...they r so cute!!

Hhmmm ... I don't see that in the Bible Scriptures. On what source are you basing that opinion?
Karlis

Lets use this as an example.




Psalms 12:6: "the words of the LORD are flawless"

Psalms 119:89: "Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm"

Proverbs 30:5-6: "Every word of God is flawless"




A lot are words that had different meanings back then...we all agree with that to some extent. It's like the english language it's one of the hardest ones to learn in the word because one more can have multiple meanings. The NT refers to God as being male, the "father", and ONLY being male. The Jewish Torah uses a Hebrew masculine pronoun with a feminine ending when referring to God to imply that God is male AND female (or neuter). I might be wrong on that. That is a big inconsistency. So... which version should one trust? The old version or the newer translation? It depends on one's personal beliefs. I only say this because the OT & the NT seem to counter each other at times.

Someone once told me that "By the grace of God" God's meaning in the Bible remained intact despite Human translation... if "God" originally referred to Itself as a neuter (or male AND female) and later called itself ONLY male It's a bit confusing for most. For those people who do not have access to Hewbrew translations what are they supposed to do?


Once again. If the bible is a divinely inspired holy book, then wouldn't the ability to understand its message and purpose be innate? Why would God that wants all to follow him and love him, make the bible "open to interpretation"? or otherwise so hard to understand? Now perhaps was he wanted to give them the seeds of truth, and then leave them alone to grow and learn on their own. but the problem I see with that is thats going to inevitably lead to different people developing different understandings of the truth...


One more then on my long rant & I'll shut-up..... Well for a bit......



Since it takes a great deal of education, it is not innate at all. No infant understands the bible in any language. Language must be learned, vocabulary built, reasoning matured and perhaps many more things before comprehension of the Bible is possible. Therefore, it can not be innate. Again these are my views.

there are scripturs but its mostly baptized people. becasue they have the holy spirit within them


*feels like a kid* wow thanks.

Um your welcome.. I think!


Well I'm out for a bit I'm sure I'll have something to read when I get back.....

The meaning of, "He first breathed the breath(wind)spirit into Man is exactly that -- "wind" or "breath" was breathed into Man at creation; same as when a baby is born, "wind" or "breath" is breathed into that baby. That is not "the Spirit of God".

not the Spirit of God within each and every human being. Read about that in Romans chapter eight.

I don't think you are reading that in context. Could you explain a bit further, exactly how you understand the meaning, here?

And, also here? How do you understand the meaning here?

I think that a different "spirit" is meant here, and not the Spirit of God.
The meaning here is that there is a spirit in man (man's spirit, or consciousness -- not the Spirit of God) that departs from man at death. If I am wrong could you correct me, please?

When we die, the spirit of man departs back to God.

No, "your" spirit is the spirit of man.
The Spirit of God is God's Spirit, and those within whom the Spirit of God does not reside are "none of his".

Hope what I wrote sheds light rather than confusion,
Karlis

Hmm, a being with the power to create anything He can think of, simply by willing it. Why would a being like that even be egotistical? I believe He created those angels to show us that what He seeks from us is not worship for the sake of worship, that He is quite capable of creating creatures whose sole purpose is to do that. I believe the reason He seeks worship from us is the same reason those of us who have children seek thankfulness from them: not because we need someone to be thankful to us, but so that we can be sure our children have learned the importance of being thankful to others.

No, in my post I said that we had been given choice and also been told the consequences of making wrong decisions, your "little experiment" does not address that at all. However, acting on your suggestion will show the overall lesson. Beating up my wife is an option I have. I'm physically much stronger than she is, and I know how to seriously hurt someone if I need to. So, this is definitely an option that is available to me. However, if I act on that option I will have consequences to face. For one, my wife will probably not trust me, and will probably, justifiably, divorce me, and I will also likely lose the respect of my children, friends and family. Additionally, I will also likely face charges for assault and battery. So, the fact that the option is a valid one for me does not make it an option I have to exercise, I am aware of the consequences my action would have, and they are not consequences I desire at all. I am very happy with the consequences of being loving, protective, and friendly to my wife, I have no interest in taking actions which will affect this.




Yes, there is a reason. I think this short article provides good answers:





I respectfully have to disagree with PA here.

Throughout Scripture we hear about man choosing, "Choose you this day whom you will serve...." (Jos: 24:15), "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that those who believe in Him.." (John 3:16) both of which speak of choosing. Even Romans 9 seems to support our ability to choose: "30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."" (Rom 9:30-33)

God's sovereignty is so above anything man can aspire to that any and all of man's choices fall within His will and His plan.

[quote name='IamsSon' date='May 13 2008, 01:39 PM' post='2296609

No, in my post I said that we had been given choice and also been told the consequences of making wrong decisions, your "little experiment" does not address that at all. However, acting on your suggestion will show the overall lesson. Beating up my wife is an option I have. I'm physically much stronger than she is, and I know how to seriously hurt someone if I need to. So, this is definitely an option that is available to me. However, if I act on that option I will have consequences to face. For one, my wife will probably not trust me, and will probably, justifiably, divorce me, and I will also likely lose the respect of my children, friends and family. Additionally, I will also likely face charges for assault and battery. So, the fact that the option is a valid one for me does not make it an option I have to exercise, I am aware of the consequences my action would have, and they are not consequences I desire at all. I am very happy with the consequences of being loving, protective, and friendly to my wife, I have no interest in taking actions which will affect this.



You said this> You definitely can punish someone for making a choice you gave them an option to make<



I respectfully have to disagree with PA here.

Throughout Scripture we hear about man choosing, "Choose you this day whom you will serve...." (Jos: 24:15), "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that those who believe in Him.." (John 3:16) both of which speak of choosing. Even Romans 9 seems to support our ability to choose: "30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."" (Rom 9:30-33)

God's sovereignty is so above anything man can aspire to that any and all of man's choices fall within His will and His plan.
[/quote]




Like I've said before even some Christians can not agree on scripture.

True, IamsSon and I disagree on this issue. But here's the real clincher - what we are disagreeing about does not matter. There are certain beliefs in Christianity that Christians consider "essential". Other beliefs in our Faith are not. In this matter, whether we are predestined or have free will (or a combination of both, as I and Clovis have suggested in some form or other), when it comes to matters of salvation, it does not matter. Just because we differ on some points does not therefore negate the primary message of salvation. IamsSon and I, despite this difference and other differences we have, both consider each other Christian (at least, I consider him a Chrisitan, I would hope he thinks likewise). The Free will/predestination debate has been one of the hottest topics for centuries, but in the end, it does not matter. It won't affect how I live my life, and it won't affect the way IamsSon lives his life. In the end, there is a right answer to this, but it's one of the difficult topics. But the primary message of salvation through Christ alone is so basic and easy to understand taht desipte our differences in understanding, in this matter (which is what we consider an essential doctrine), and with many other matters, we are in agreement.

Do you see what I am trying to say?

Yes, you are absolutely correct, when you wrote: "EVERYONE willfully chooses to sin". But, thankfully there is an explanation.

Paul went into great detail about this very point:
After a person has truly repented of sin, acepted Chriast's sacrifice as ransom for our eternal life, we STILL have our old carnal nature within our minds urging us to do what we should not do ... and we very, very often give in to these urges, and do what we KNOW we should not do.

What is the solution? It sounds complicated, but once understood -- it is beautifully simple.
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sin worked in our members [body] through the law to bring forth fruit to death.
Rom 7:6 But now we having been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Let it not be said! But I did not know sin except through the law. For also I did not know lust except the law said, You shall not lust.
Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, worked in me all kinds of lust. For apart from law sin was dead.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once. But when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was to life, was found to be death to me.
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
Rom 7:12 So indeed the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
Rom 7:13 Then has that which is good become death to me? Let it not be! But sin, that it might appear to be sin, working death in me by that which is good; in order that sin might become exceedingly sinful by the commandment.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do, I know not. For what I desire, that I do not do; but what I hate, that I do.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I do not desire, I consent to the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 But now it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me [that urges me to do wrong things].
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwells no good thing. For to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I do not find.
Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good that I desire; but the evil which I do not will, that I do.
Rom 7:20 But if I do what I do not desire, it is no more I working it out, but sin dwelling in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law: when I will to do the right, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the Law of God according to the inward man;
Rom 7:23 but I see another law in my members[in my mind], warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin being in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then with the mind I myself serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

exactly which is why there is no free will. choice is an illusion .you can never go against the plan in that sense. all happens for a reason.

Well -- I could it be possible that you are not reading such verses within the right context?
Karlis

I dunno, Karlis. I'm still waiting on the answer as to waht an "imperfect emotion" is compared to the perfect type. I have yet to see compelling evidence that any emotion is inherently imperfect. I think it's how the emotion is used that makes it perfect or imperfect, and who is using it, in what context.

Norwwod the true nature of "hell" has been explained many times in threads such as this one, but you continue to ignore that explanation. I wonder why? Is it because you simply want to keep on making this particular point of yours, concerning your view of hell, over and over?

I remain perplexed,
Karlis

Morning my friend.

.

Thank you for your honest reply IAS. It is a difficult question, I know. It is something I often thought about when I was a Christian. I never really could fully grasp the concept. And I always wondered, if Jesus had to sacrifice himself -- a blood sacrifice -- for all of humanity, shouldn't this have been done at the very beginning -- in the garden? Why 2000 years ago? And what happened to all the people who lived before Jesus? Are they in hell for worshiping false gods? This is something that I must have asked myself a 1000 times--and still do.

Most kindly,

Sean

I thing John Gill in his Bible Commentary explains this, as follows:

Gen 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth,.... Because of the wickedness of man, the wickedness of his heart, and the wickedness of his life and conversation, which was so general, and increased to such a degree, that it was intolerable; wherefore God could have wished, as it were, that he had never made him, since he proved so bad; not that repentance, properly speaking, can fall upon God, for he never changes his mind or alters his purposes, though he sometimes changes the course and dispensations of his providence. This is speaking by an anthropopathy, after the manner of men, because God determined to do, and did something similar to men, when they repent of anything: as a potter, when he has formed a vessel that does not please him, and he repents that he has made it, he takes it and breaks it in pieces; and so God, because of man's wickedness, and to show his aversion to it, and displicency at it, repented of his making him; that is, he resolved within himself to destroy him, as in the next verse, which explains this:

and it grieved him at his heart; this is to be understood by the same figure as before, ...

I know palmsitry.. i can read some important incidents of a person future.
This is just a calculation. I learnt palmsitry so i know that... the person show
the hand not aware of the readings... he sometime take it seriously or sometimes ignore that
and stay in ignorance. Again choice is going to be the same at the time of decision..
as per the hand.. because lines already formed well because of his consiousness..
his own attitude make that happen in the feature..

So just by knowing the things.. i can't become god or i can't make any change in his life..
or i am not taking his freewill... or he is not working as per my freewill..

The things going to happen as he pre planed.. ultimatly we are one who decide what we want..
we usually crib if something bad happens... good no one going to think about the cause..
Only for bad he need excuse or blame someone less for that cause.. Lay man blame his own tools..

Just because i know palmsitry don't tell all my customer choice fall within my WILL or my PLAN.
Someone know more about the technic.. or more knowlodgeable sitting above me.. i can't claim that my life or fate works as the One above me.. he may be more knowlodgeable... but soon i will try to learn more about palmsitry or that technic..

Well, son you have done an amazing job of connvincing me there is no such thing as free will or chioce for that matter...."God gave man the ability to choose, told man what the consequences would be if he decided to choose incorrectly and man still chose incorrectly, but God knew man would choose selfishly, so He provided a way back, a way which would leave no doubt in man's mind how real the life and death nature of his choices are."

My next question was gonna be why would one consider worshipping (love unquestioningly and uncritically )this diety and you have answered that also, "Man needs to worship its good for him because it helps him realize who he is in relationship to his creator......"



"The thing is norwood, that is not at all like what God has done with man. God doesn't give man options for him to choose from. God gives man the ability to choose and tells him, "If you choose to act from self-interest, you will sever yourself from everyone and be left to your own devices (since you want to be interested in self)"

it seems you are defining what I have been saying all along religion is a fear construct, do as your told or else.....

Interesting ....I take it this is the beleivers interpretation of the bible....

Despite the things we don't see eye to eye on (which really are just a few), I definitely consider you a dear brother in Christ. I agree that those things we disagree on are really interesting things to discuss and debate, but are not really important to the core message of salvation.

brave new world asked:
Then how does predestination and freewill coexist? If God has everything predetermined then how can I be responsible for my actions?

Hi guys ... why not read post #131 by Clovis, again? In my opinion Clovis gives an absolutely brilliant answer to this conundrum.

By the way, sorry if my posts are out of "time-sequence". I missed reading about six pages of this thread.
Karlis

As I see it, there is one very probable answer. But to recall a few points from the Bible:
* Only those whom God calls can "come to" Jesus, i.e., only those selected by God the Father can understand the message given by Jesus.

* Jesus spoke in parables to the crowds, so that they would NOT understand the meaning of the salvation message -- "the good news".

* Only those within whom is the Spirit of Christ are His.

There are other points also, but that seems to be the general idea. So, where to next?
* In Corinthians Paul writes that at the first resurrection those who are Christ's will become immortal spirit beings.
* In revelation is written that the rest of the dead do not come alive (as mortal humans) till another thousand years pass.

As I see it (though this is NOT clearly and specifically spelled out in Scriptures) all humans since creation, who died without the Spirit of God being in them, will be in this "second" resurrection. These people will then be given knowledge re. salvation and all that it entails, and will live for a period of time. During this period of time, "they will be judged" according to how they then live. Those who choose the right path will receive the Spirit of God, and be resurrected as immortal spirit children of God; those who do not, will suffer the second death in "the lake of fire" ... instant and eternal death; no torture in eternal burning hell, but a quick and merciful death.

Well, that's my penny's worth, for what it's worth,
Karlis

Unless you think God is some old man in the sky as atheist and preschoolers are fond of believing or at least portraying Him as such then no, God is not male, He does not have a gender or need of sexual reproduction. It also illustrated the relationship between God and God choosing to enter Mary as the Spirit and then God choosing to be born a male in the flesh on Earth known as Jesus. Jesus is God but in human form He was male. If this is too confusing just imagine how confusing it actually is for a force or energy that is everywhere and all-knowing choosing to appear as a human.



We can debte if Adam and Eve had belly buttons too but they do not take away or add to our salvation.



Free will and destiny coexist according the Bible. Maybe you do not believe in it, as you state it cannot be fact, or maybe you ignore many verses to come to that point which makes no sense since you believe it is not fact. Your view is valid for yourself and others it just is not biblical.



Because you and I and everyone else that is to be part of God's plan was not born yet. God uses the history of the world, when it was still in the future and also when it was occurring, but for us it is history now, to get to the point we are today. Adam and Eve were the first covenant, Noah was next, then Abraham, then there was Moses, and now we are in the age of grace after Jesus. There are more to come. These are dispensationalist periods and each one had a purpose and in each one God selects a people to make a covenant with that entails certain things. The final one is a covenant for all the world finally instead of just the Israelites, or before that Abraham and his descendants for example.

If the ultimate sacrifice, which was planned since creation, had happened in Eden do you not think that message would have been lost? The sacrifice came at the exact moment in history when so many things culminated at once, first Roman road system which allowed the first believers to travel fast and far without much danger, before this time it would have been impossible, next was Jewish synagogues in many parts within and without the Roman Empire, allowing the first believers a base of operations and satellites offices if you will as they travelled, next was the coming rise within a millennia and a half of English spreading around the globe to facilitate in modern Biblical translation efforts and the global village setting we have now, finally every soul that needed to be born will have a chance to be born before the end.



Free will and destiny coexist according to the Bible. Fear is something that a non-believer constructs. Perhaps well meaning and good intentioned Christians instilled it in them before, maybe their own family, and they all made mistakes.

Those who truly have the Spirit have no fear. Anyone who is married should do so out of love not fear. Thus in the same way we choose to become part of the bride of Christ out of love not fear. It feels so good, so joyful, so overwhelming, so perfect to feel His love through the real experience of the Spirit.

Nowhere at all, Norwood. According to the Scriptures, only a few ever learned about salvation, and that means that even today the great majority of humanity does not know the truth about salvation.

Yes -- narrow is the way to salvation, and very few find that path before the "second" resurrection.
Is God unjust in this decision of His? No.

There is no such passage anywhere in the Bible.

Salvation can be willfully ignored ONLY by people who had received the Spirit of God, and then -- for whatever reason of their own choice, they chose to reject it. Sounds incredible, I know.

I completely agree with you Norwood. The choice is God the Father's. If God the Father does not "draw" a person to Christ, that person remains without God, till they are resurrected as mortals at the "second" resurrection.

Why is it so? I do not know.
Karlis

And that was pre-ordained; Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him, before Jesus chose Judas. That was "predestination" big time.

The real question then is what if someone was chosen and left because they thought it was not good enough for them or because others spoiled it for them? What if that tiny spark is within and they ignore it?

I have heard so many conflicting takes on hell, the second death, tribulation, etc...it truly confounds me and I have yet to begin studying them in earnest to decide which one I believe in. Knowing all the time none of these add or take away from salvation as they are not the main messages of the Bible. I know some of them better than others but with so many which to choose as having the best biblical backing? I believe in a Rapture that is definite. I beleive in a tribulation that too is definite. Other than that it all gets fuzzy.

I agree that only those whom He calls can go but we all have a choice. Especially in this last day and age when the Word is so much out there. Pentecostalism is the second fastest growing religion next to Islam. Many do not even know because Pentecostalism does not make waves and operate on the downlow. Most of the rise is due to Latin Americans and Africans.

Did not anyone understand the meaning of a Parable? Most were confused true but since they all came to a better understanding after the third day they really did not need to understand right there and then. But I do think maybe more understand than did not?

Yes, only those with His Spirit are His. Those without it are not.

Thank you though for explaning the second death and resurrection of those who have yet to hear the Word having a chance to do so. Not sure if I subscribe to that view though. What about those who have heard the Word on this forum for example? Will they get a second chance or is this it? It is not like anyone can become converted online I do not think. It takes closer contact and the actual Light shining within to make a difference?

So it does not matter what you believe ,you can still claim to be a Christian .Now that's what I call convenient


fullywired

Every Christian I have ever met have thier version of hell either it's a sepration from God OR a burning from hell, I have met some who feel thatif you do not accept God then you die & thats it. When I said innate I didn't mean innate knowledge, but innate ability (obviously when old enough to grasp language...) to understand the bible without it being open to interpretation....Some people believe that the bible is open to interpretation I tend to agree.
If anyone remembers, we as humans, are already judged imperfect (by God) after chapter 5 of the book of Genesis (page 12 by my standard Bible). What could possibly be the chances of us as a society, to continue taking or living The Bible seriously in our present lives when this specific book has exchanged so many imperfect hands and perspectives over the centuries? Now some will say that whole imperfect thing is why we needed Jesus Christ in the first place. I still maintain that your not putting your trust in God when you read the bible but man.




On another thred we talked about Thou shall not suffer a Witch to live. The Christians here agreed that the translations were wrong about what it said. I have a hard time believing that is the only passage in the bible that is wrong. To this day many, many preachers use Witch instead of the Correct word, why is that? Us non - Christians here are told alot that we should not take a verse out of context but yet with passages like that I guess it's ok for others to?

I think that the answer to that is in the parable of the sower, Clovis:
Mat 13:3 And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, Behold, the sower went out to sow.
Mat 13:4 And as he sowed, some seeds fell by the wayside, and the birds came and devoured them.
Mat 13:5 Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth. And they sprang up immediately, because they had no deepness of earth.
Mat 13:6 And the sun rising, they were scorched, and because they had no root, they withered away.
Mat 13:7 And some fell among thorns. And the thorns sprung up and choked them.
Mat 13:8 And some fell on the good ground and yielded fruit, indeed one a hundredfold, and one sixty, and one thirty.
Mat 13:9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Mat 13:10 And the disciples said to Him, Why do You speak to them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said to them, Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but it is not given to them.
Mat 13:12 For whoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance. But whoever does not have, from him shall be taken away even that which he has.
Mat 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not; nor do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which said, "By hearing you shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive;
Mat 13:15 for this people's heart has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and they have closed their eyes, lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."
Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.
Mat 13:17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them; and to hear what you hear, and have not heard them.

Mat 13:18 Therefore hear the parable of the sower.
* Mat 13:19 When anyone hears the Word of the kingdom and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and catches away that which was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown by the wayside.

* Mat 13:20 But that which was sown on the stony places is this: he who hears the Word and immediately receives it with joy.
Mat 13:21 But he has no root in himself, and is temporary. For when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the Word, he immediately stumbles.

* Mat 13:22 And that sown into the thorns is this: he who hears the Word; and the anxiety of this world, and the deceit of riches, choke the Word, and he becomes unfruitful.

* Mat 13:23 But that sown on the good ground is this: he who hears the Word and understands; who also bears fruit and produces one truly a hundredfold; and one sixty; and one thirty.

You completely missed the point. For example if we debate whether Adam and Eve have navels it is not a matter of salvation therefore even if we Christians disagree on triva it does not matter. It does not take away or add to our salvation.



1) When we can see though that God guides the nations, being born and sacrificed at the very right moment in history, how He used Pharaoh and Cyrus, the free will of men to decide what books should be gathered and how to translate is in God's hands, all that is used for His ends and master plan. He is the designer of all ages so of course the finished product in every tongue, in every translation, and every revision will still contain the important message of salvation. It is a guide to receiving the Spirit and all translations allow for this.

2) Thou shall not suffer a witch to live is part of the Covenant Code that only applied to Israelites. I am not up and up on Judaism so it might still apply to them but it does not to us. Dispensationalist periods account for this. The verse does not need to be taken out of context and it is not the only passage in the Bible that is wrong for there are no passages that are wrong. No Chrisitan agreed here that is was wrong that I saw. It is a modern European word for modern times but that does not make it wrong in the least.



And so it is. Excellent.

Sin could mean 'to miss the mark' or ignorance. If Jesus died to sin, then I think Jesus's life might be used as a model for how we can all die to ignorance (ignorance of our true nature) as he did. I don't know if there are other passages to support this theory.

Clovis'
2) Thou shall not suffer a witch to live is part of the Covenant Code that only applied to Israelites. I am not up and up on Judaism so it might still apply to them but it does not to us. Dispensationalist periods account for this. The verse does not need to be taken out of context and it is not the only passage in the Bible that is wrong for there are no passages that are wrong. No Chrisitan agreed here that is was wrong that I saw. It is a modern European word for modern times but that does not make it wrong in the least.
[/quote]



Sorry Clovis I can't agree with you here it's wrong plain & simple. The word Witch has nothing to do with what the verse really means, not even close. The bible is supposed to be the word of God which is supposed to be perfect, this verse proves that it is not. It does make it wrong then & now unless you want to go out on a limb & say that those who call themselves Witches are going around posioning people.

According to Scriptures, the crowds did not understand the parables; most of the time it seems that neither did the twelve close companions ... Jesus explained the parables to them *in private*.

After the third day, most of them remained confused. Jesus had to appear to them numerous times, and had to explain to them what had happened.

Keep in mind that on the Day of Pentecost, there were only about 120 persons who understood, and remained faithful.

No, this is not "the only day of salvation", in my opinion.

I think it boils down to whom God calls, and convinces ... and when.
Those who "hear the word" (so to speak) -- in their present life-time -- and do not believe or accept, actually have not had their first chance. Even people who do accept the truth about salvation, but at some time later in their life, "fall away" from that truth, have not really had their "first chance".

As I see it, the only people who have "their first chance" during their present life, are people who fully understand, accept, and later willfully and knowingly CHOOSE to reject salvation

Does this make sense?
Karlis

Here are a few scriptures to support one view.

Ignorance, lack of knowledge, which is sin will destroy one.



Knowledge comes in the forgiveness of sin.



If one goes on sinning after this knowledge they make the sacrifice null and void.



His true nature is divine.



The nature of those before they had knowledge of God was enslavement.



His crucifixion can be with one when they die to sin. His resurrection can be with one they come to life in His Spirit.

The word witch means exactly what it did then as it did when the first English Bibles were translated that used that word. Wicca is a fairly new religion so are other forms of Neopaganism. Regardless though if anyone who is one of those today, even Hindu, or other pagan religions were to go back in time and not just be a visitor passing through but actually live among the Israelites, they would be subject to death in that era legally according to the Word for doing some of the things that are practiced. If they just passed through or lived outside of their territory then there is no penalty.

Things like astrology, ouija, tarot, palmistry, geomancy, scrying, augury, rune casting, basically any type of divination, and casting a circle, and more would all find themselves on the bad end of Old Testament capital punishment. Then there is the older beliefs which are usually not practiced in modern times but a few still are such as sex rites, male and female temple prostitution, child sacrifice, worshipping animals, going into trances and channeling other spirits, sacrificing animals to idols, and more would have also found themselves subject to Israeli mob action.

There is nothing wrong with that scripture it was very valid in its day. Though this is not ground for anyone since those times and outside of Israelite territory to use that scripture as justification to execute witches or anyone practicing any of those things. Though child sacrifice is something I would report to the law but not like anyone in Wicca or Neopaganism does that at all.



Yes, and this aligns in with the parable of the sower. Not sure if I agree though, it is the whole giving people a first chance to hear the word instead of just taking them because they were good or bad during their first life. It is not the first I have heard those who die in ignorance will live again to get a first chance.

Clovis, this is an interesting passage in that it clearly indicates that sin is not resolved by our coming to know god, but by god coming to know us, which I'm assuming is the resolution of ignorance/sin. This passage implies that god coming to know us and us coming to know god are one and the same event, possibly. The implication is that god does not know us until then, if he does not know us then how is he aware of our sins?

Witch is not the word it was mis-translated the original word was sorceress in other translations it was posioner who or used herbs.


Various Biblical translations render this verse as:

American Standard Version "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live."
The Answer: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
Amplified Bible: You shall not allow a woman to live who practices sorcery.
Good News Version: Put to death any woman who practices magic.
James Moffatt Translation: You shall not allow any sorceress to live.
Jerusalem Bible: You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
King James Version: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Living Bible: A sorceress shall be put to death.
Modern Language Bible: Allow no sorceress to live.
New American Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
New American Standard Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
New Century Version: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
New International Version: Do not allow a sorceress to live.
New Living Translation: A sorceress must not be allowed to live.
New Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.
New World Translation: You must not preserve a sorceress alive.
The Promise: Contemporary English Version: Death is the punishment for witchcraft.
Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
Revised English Bible: You must not allow a witch to live.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_bibl2.htm


Another translation is Kashaph which means is mistranslated also when modern Bibles render it as Witch. I would assert that Sorcerer is also a mistranslation. Sorcery is a vague term that seems to imply anyone who practices supernatural activity. Kashaph has a connotation that is more specific. "Enchanter" or "Enchantress" might be a good term, but if one wants to translate different Hebrew terms into different English ones, then the fact that there is a Hebrew term that literally means "whisperer of enchantments" would cause us to search for another term. "Charmer" would work also, but we have the same problem here since there is a term that means "joiner of charms."

The Bible prohibits Witchcraft or being a Witch is not a real issue. What the Bible does prohibit is being a poisoner, being someone who calls up the dead, being someone who seeks to foretell the future apart from the Spirit of God, being a seducer of others by supernatural means or by using drugs, and perhaps using drugs to achieve spiritual enlightenment instead of relying on the Spirit of God. All of these have been mistranslated as Witchcraft, but none of them are.

But we are we off topic here however I think it's a way to say that anything has nothing to do with the Christian God is wrong.

My religious belief of the universe is 'anything goes' based on the biblical scripture that 'with God everything is possible'.

I am even open to the possibility that on a physical level both predestination and free-will coexist. Everything being possible means anything is possible including the possibility that God doesnt exist on the grounds that God's existence makes allowance for such a possibility.

I honestly believe most people need to see the world like a child (a state of being which Jesus says is closer to the kingdom of heaven) see that the substance of the universe is actually love itself (God is love) and from this realize that no bible or any form of religious or philosophical symbolism written or otherwise can adequately potray that in which 'everything is possible'.