Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[GWH]

My seeking is for truth about ultimate reality in order to ascertain how to be saved from this one.
Thus, I am unimpressed by either reincarnation or PEAR as providing more hope for heaven than faith in God/Jesus.

Regarding Christ's resurrection, I would appreciate knowing the exact verses in Galatians and 1John that doubt the empty tomb.

Regarding divine inspiration, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have:

The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including IS 53 and PS 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).

Having read the entire Bible in four translations taking copious notes, there is nothing I was not aware of before I forgot it. I have also considered many other sources during my seeking/research, most of which I have forgotten after deeming them worthless, but
the points I have considered worthwhile are those I have written down elsewhere and am sharing with y'all now here and on other CC threads as my witness/testimony before dying.

Regarding proving divine inspiration, I think the absence of disproof via one or more of the six ways discussed previously is sufficient to warrant belief per my opinion that it is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true. IOW, logical opinions are better than blind assumptions.

My opinion regarding logical argument is summarized by what I believe to be an insight that I call the Propensity Principle,
which I will share next if we are ready to depart this station.

Again, my interest in ultimate reality is ascertaining how to be saved from mortality, so you will understand why I find the
discussion of PEAR rather boring and the arguing demoralizing. Thus, I am waiting to see if anyone wants to get back on
the train I was conducting.

 

[GWH]

I noted you opining that human children surpass chimp children at about 3 years of age, but I think the age of moral accountability is closer to eight.

I reiterate that the evidence for reincarnation is weak and thus incredible for establishing a UMI, much less for being a means to achieve nirvana/salvation.

Regarding Christ's resurrection, I disagree that his body remaining in the tomb would not have discredited the faith of Paul and other Christians.

I saw that you liked with my post about potential disproofs of divinity well enough, and your discussion with HeIsHere indicates that PEAR is doubted rather than confirmed, so I await them being able to move a mountain into the sea.

So, I think we are ready to move on down the track that started at the station of philosophy, moved past the watershed of cosmaterialism and moralism and has arrived at the choice (second watershed) of believing atheism or NT theism, because
theocentric history reached its apex or spiritual climax with the NT teaching that there is one almighty and all-loving God,
who desires all humanity to live in harmony on earth and also in heaven, and who allows humanity to experience earthly existence including pain and disappointment (KOTH) for the purpose of teaching them their need for Him (cf. Heb. 12:10).

The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following questions: For a humanist, “Is there any reason I should not be selfish?” [No/Yes, depending on how you feel or what the rulers decree or how the majority votes.] For a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.] For a naturalist, “Does instinct negate volition? [If not, then why is evil/hatred not equally right or existentially lawful?] And for a theist, “What does God desire?” [That depends upon what message or revelation is from God.]

Which option and opinion is best or most true? Answering this question involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).

A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in John 14:9-11), Paul (in Gal. 1:11-12 & Tit. 1:1-3). Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory. In my opinion humanism provides no hope for ultimate “oughtness”, because there is no logical way to avoid moral relativism without a superhuman Judge. Karmaism offers a rationale for reincarnation, but I have explained why I view it as incredible. Naturalism does not even provide a rationale for morality/the UMI, but rather it implies that what is, is right. However, I do find reasons to believe NT theism is true.

While conducting a comprehensive comparison of theistic religions is not my desire, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including IS 53 and PS 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).

Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44). The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).

Awaiting comments from y'all before moving to the station of Christology.

Getting the logical train of thought back on the track from philosophy through theology to Christology, let us consider the following insight I call the “Propensity Principle” (PP). The PP points out that until proof is provided in the future at the eschaton, humanity’s existential need and desire for eternal life and ultimate justice (the duo of desirables or DOD) make it logical for truthseekers to have a propensity to hope and believe a God who provides the DOD exists, to determine the most credible revelation of God’s requirement for attaining heaven, and to cooperate with His revealed will. IOW, it seems logical–given the existential facts of death and imperfect justice–that an unbiased truthseeker would have a propensity to hope the Christian view is correct, because there is no better (credible and desirable) way of attaining the DOD than NT theism. This PP restates Pascal’s wager in terms of reasonable comparison shopping (with all belief systems) instead of lucky/blind gambling.

The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:

1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.

2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.

3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek how to be saved or to become immortal in a heavenly existence.

4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus.

5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.

6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah.

Comments? Are we tracking?

 

[GWH]

Atheists deny the validity of this rational argument (the PP), but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should agree on NT theism now rather than assume atheism is an unlucky guess.

As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and logic rather than of blind faith and fear. True love for God is evoked by His love for humanity and is a reflection of His loving Holy Spirit (1John 4:7-12); it cannot be coerced, although it can be imitated (2Cor. 11:14 calls Satan an “angel of light”). Heaven may not be a mirage!

A biblical illustration of the PP is the OT story about Naaman being told to bathe in the dirty Jordan River to cure his leprosy (2Kings 5:10-14). The Naaman Example teaches us not to let sinful pride prevent us from being cured of spiritual sickness by methods we think are silly or do not fully understand. Some people might not understand why God ordained Messiah to atone for humanity’s sins, so they think the Gospel seems foolish or silly (cf. 1Cor. 1:18-25). However, they accept physical reality without necessarily understanding very well how it works (cf. John 3:8).

Those who reject the PP (and Naaman Example) apparently employ a logical fallacy that might be called non praecedere (comparable to non sequitur), making an unwarranted conclusion which precedes unknown facts, namely the cause for the universe “banging bigly”. Atheists assume a natural cause will be discovered, but their assumption is premature and thus inappropriate or illogical.

Any astute/truth-seeking atheist will realize that the logical train of thought from Descartes to the PP that has been presented is common sense that is available to every normal human adult, which is why there is no excuse for disbelief in God (Rom. 1:20). On the contrary, it is the reason Christians can bet or have confidence that their faith is correct (Heb. 10:19&35, Phil. 3:3-7, Eph. 3:12) and it is the atheists whose faith in no God is blind.

 

[PAC-fit]

Are we tracking?

Just now, last few pages met with disappointment and a worthwhile call for patience. Good morning!

 

[GWH]

Just now, last few pages met with disappointment and a worthwhile call for patience. Good morning!

Better late than never, disappointed if you have disappointment with the PP, perseverance is good--all day!

 

[GWH]

Atheists deny the validity of this rational argument (the PP), but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should agree on NT theism now rather than assume atheism is an unlucky guess.

As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and logic rather than of blind faith and fear. True love for God is evoked by His love for humanity and is a reflection of His loving Holy Spirit (1John 4:7-12); it cannot be coerced, although it can be imitated (2Cor. 11:14 calls Satan an “angel of light”). Heaven may not be a mirage!

A biblical illustration of the PP is the OT story about Naaman being told to bathe in the dirty Jordan River to cure his leprosy (2Kings 5:10-14). The Naaman Example teaches us not to let sinful pride prevent us from being cured of spiritual sickness by methods we think are silly or do not fully understand. Some people might not understand why God ordained Messiah to atone for humanity’s sins, so they think the Gospel seems foolish or silly (cf. 1Cor. 1:18-25). However, they accept physical reality without necessarily understanding very well how it works (cf. John 3:8).

Those who reject the PP (and Naaman Example) apparently employ a logical fallacy that might be called non praecedere (comparable to non sequitur), making an unwarranted conclusion which precedes unknown facts, namely the cause for the universe “banging bigly”. Atheists assume a natural cause will be discovered, but their assumption is premature and thus inappropriate or illogical.

Any astute/truth-seeking atheist will realize that the logical train of thought from Descartes to the PP that has been presented is common sense that is available to every normal human adult, which is why there is no excuse for disbelief in God (Rom. 1:20). On the contrary, it is the reason Christians can bet or have confidence that their faith is correct (Heb. 10:19&35, Phil. 3:3-7, Eph. 3:12) and it is the atheists whose faith in no God is blind.

Actually “bet” can be understood as synonymous with “faith”.

 

[PaulThomson]

My reason for beginning this thread is simply to share my fallible faith with atheists, hoping they will find what I have learned helpful for understanding ultimate truth. I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs.

I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality? I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice .

An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament (NT) book of 1 Corinthians 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).

The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly; so, what do y'all think are three pre-Scriptural axiomatic truths revealed via right logic?

Over...

1. Because of the complex functionality, variety and beauty throughout reality, it is most logical to infer that the universe was designed and formed by someone with a complex and intelligent and beautiful mind..
2. That complex intelligence would have reasons for creating the universe.
3. We can not know the creator's reasons unless He reveals them to us.

How could such a Being make His reasons and purpose known to us?

 

[GWH]

1. Because of the complex functionality, variety and beauty throughout reality, it is most logical to infer that the universe was designed and formed by someone with a complex and intelligent and beautiful mind..
2. That complex intelligence would have reasons for creating the universe.
3. We can not know the creator's reasons unless He reveals them to us.

How could such a Being make His reasons and purpose known to us?

Notice the role of reason in the three statements, which implies that one way God can reveal His mind/intent/reasoning is by gracing humans with the gift of logic, so that divine power and benevolent nature can be known via perceiving creation combined with moral reasoning based on the Golden Rule (general revelation).

The other way God can reveal His will is via inspiration of people who speak GW and write Scripture, including Moses, Jesus and Paul (special revelation).

Over...

 

[GWH]

And notice that 1Pet. 3:15 says we should give the reason for the hope we have.
Another indication that God is Logos, revealed via Word.
Right reasoning is apologetics and makes good sense.

 

[GWH]

I emphasize logic/reason/discernment without intending to demean emotion. Both are important aspects of personality, but their relationship is analogous to that of saving faith and works: faith precedes love (per Gal. 5:6), and right reasoning should guide one’s emotion (1Cor. 14:15-20).

We should not divorce the mind of Christ (1Cor. 2:16) from the person of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5). Right reasoning or logic functions in a way similar to the OT law: leading sinful souls to learn the need for God’s Gospel (Gal. 3:19-25).

Biblical passages that seem to support the view that human logic or discernment is a divine gift include the following:

1. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. (Isa. 1:18a)

2. “They hated me without reason.” (John 15:25)

3. “So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” (Acts 17:17)

4. “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom [right reasoning] among the mature…” (1Cor. 2:6)

5. “When I was a child… I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1Cor. 13:11)

6. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1Pet. 3:15b)

Right reasoning is akin to the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12), discernment (1Cor. 2:14), insight (Phil. 1:9-10), correctly judging sin (Matt. 7:5), interpreting history (Matt. 16:3), and understanding or applying Scripture (2Tim. 2:15, 2Pet. 1:20).

 

[GWH]

I emphasize logic/reason/discernment without intending to demean emotion. Both are important aspects of personality, but their relationship is analogous to that of saving faith and works: faith precedes love (per Gal. 5:6), and right reasoning should guide one’s emotion (1Cor. 14:15-20).

We should not divorce the mind of Christ (1Cor. 2:16) from the person of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5). Right reasoning or logic functions in a way similar to the OT law: leading sinful souls to learn the need for God’s Gospel (Gal. 3:19-25).

Biblical passages that seem to support the view that human logic or discernment is a divine gift include the following:

1. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. (Isa. 1:18a)

2. “They hated me without reason.” (John 15:25)

3. “So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” (Acts 17:17)

4. “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom [right reasoning] among the mature…” (1Cor. 2:6)

5. “When I was a child… I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1Cor. 13:11)

6. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1Pet. 3:15b)

Right reasoning is akin to the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12), discernment (1Cor. 2:14), insight (Phil. 1:9-10), correctly judging sin (Matt. 7:5), interpreting history (Matt. 16:3), and understanding or applying Scripture (2Tim. 2:15, 2Pet. 1:20).

These passages indicate that we should think and attempt to learn the best beliefs/opinions or solutions regarding issues including the arguments or accusations of atheists:

a. There is no objective truth.
b. There are no miracles or proof that God exists.
c. Christianity is blind faith, whereas atheism is scientific.
d. Evolution disproves creation as described in Genesis.
e. Jesus did not resurrect.
f. The Bible is not divinely inspired.
g. The doctrines of wrath and hell indicate that God is hateful.
h. There is no more reason to believe in the biblical God than in pagan gods.
i. Christians are no better than other people.
j. A loving God would not allow evil to exist.
k. The NT gospel makes no sense.
l. The Trinity makes no sense.

 

[GWH]

As truthseekers, whenever we encounter someone who has a contradictory understanding, we want to learn which is the better belief, to admit when we are wrong, and to change our opinion. As people-lovers we want to share our knowledge with other truthseekers, so that we may fellowship (2Tim. 4:3-4, 1John 1:3).

According to the Bible, God created everything else that exists (Gen. 1:1, Jer. 10:16, John 1:1-3), including the ability by volitional beings (souls) to choose to rebel against His Lordship (Gen. 2:16, Deut. 30:19). Our finite minds cannot comprehend how God does this (Isa. 40:28). However, neither are we able to understand why the universe exists without God (John 3:8). Theistic and atheistic cosmologies are both mind-boggling! Just as atheists believe that somehow the world always existed and somewhat intelligent beings evolved, so theists believe that for some reason the eternal Intelligence (GW) or Spirit of God (HS) created (John 1:1-3) and sustains the physical universe (Heb. 1:3), including the brains of those who freely will to spit in His face (Rom. 5:6-8, Matt. 27:30)! (What God was doing before the creation of time/space is as inconceivable as nothing/atheism.)

As Immanuel Kant indicated: humans do not have the mental categories or ability to imagine alternative or supernatural reality, which may be why the NT does not describe immortality and hell in detail (cf. 1Cor. 15:35-44 and Matt. 24:51, 25:30, 41&46.) However, I will share my understanding of the NT concept of God, “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1Tim. 1:17), in terms of seven words. Four terms are used to describe (but not explain and certainly not “box in”) the supernatural power of God: omnipotent (almighty), omniscient (all-knowing/ intelligent), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnitemporal (eternal). “Natural laws” actually are God’s ongoing first miracle (Rom. 1:20), and supernatural resurrection to judgment will be the final miracle (Heb. 9:27-28, 1Cor. 15:12-26).

If the NT is not too good to be true, then the Lord of the universe is neither dictatorial nor distant but rather relates to humanity. Although we cannot comprehend the infinite God completely, hopefully we can do so sufficiently in order to achieve the type of relationship God desires to have with humanity (John 14:9-25). God desires communion (1John 1:1-4).

 

[GWH]

1. God’s omnipotence means that He can do everything except “disown Himself” or not be God (2Tim. 2:13). It does NOT mean that God can perform logical absurdities, such as creating a rock too large for Him to move. Omnipotence or sovereignty also means that human MFW has limits with regard to how it can contradict God’s will. God provides morally competent humans the ability to resist His intentional will and plan of salvation (POS) within limits, such as the time limit that will end with death, resurrection (the last miracle) and judgment (per Heb. 9:27)–called His permissive will.

2. God’s power is equivalent to His omniscience. Jeremiah wrote that “God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom.” (Jer. 10:12) Many NT passages refer to God as the source of true wisdom (e.g., Acts 6:3, 1Cor. 1:25, Col. 2:2-3, Jam. 1:5). God’s infinitely superior knowledge is extolled in Romans 11:33-34 (echoing Isa. 40:13-14) and Daniel 2:20-23.

Omniscience includes knowledge of people’s thoughts (Psa. 94:11, Matt. 12:25) and the foreknowledge of events (Acts 2:23, Rom. 8:29, 11:2, 1Pet. 1:2). Some people think that God even knows what a person will be/do before that person exists (Jer. 1:5). If this view is correct (which I find incomprehensible a la Kant), it must be maintained that God’s foreknowledge does not predetermine a person’s spiritual choice regarding the satisfaction of God’s requirement for salvation or else moral responsibility would be abrogated. I find it simpler to think that God merely tweaks the river of history occasionally to keep if flowing in the direction He intends but allows the fish to swim as they wish. God allows eddies in the river of salvation.

3. Omnipotence is connected with omnitemporality (in Rev. 1:18): “I am the Apha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Romans 1:20 refers to God’s “eternal power”, and Jeremiah 10:10&16 names God “the Lord Almighty”, who is true, living and eternal.

4. God’s infinite power implies omnipresence (per Psa. 139:7-8). God transcends spatial existence while being immanent in all points of space. (Other scriptural support for this view includes 1Kings 8:27, Isa. 66:1, Jer. 23:33, Acts 17:27-28 and Eph. 4:6.) God’s superiority over His creation must be viewed as a matter of degree or quantitatively in order to preserve the continuity between God and humanity that would be requisite for communication (like the need for a common language and culture cited in Part I). However, the Bible teaches that God also differs from creatures in kind or qualitatively, so that attaining equality with Deity is impossible (Isa. 55:9, Eph. 3:19). We can be like God (Gen. 3:3), and we can become one with the Son of God (John 17:21-23), but we cannot become God (cf. Humanism).

 

[GWH]

Ten Scriptures that affirm apologetics (reasons for faith in God/Christ):

1. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. (Isa. 1:18a)

2. “They hated me without reason.” (John 15:25)

3. “So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” (Acts 17:17)

4. “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom [right reasoning] among the mature…” (1Cor. 2:6)

5. “When I was a child… I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1Cor. 13:11)

6. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1Pet. 3:15b)

7. "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does... that you may learn and understand that the Father is in me and I in the Father." (John 10:37-38)

8. "It is the Father living in me who is doing His work. Believe me... on the evidence of the works themselves." (John 14:10b-11)

9. "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down; we know his testimony is true." (John 21:24)

10. "After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive." (Acts 1:3a)

Right reasoning is akin to the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12), discernment (1Cor. 2:14), insight (Phil. 1:9-10), correctly judging sin (Matt. 7:5), interpreting history (Matt. 16:3), and understanding or applying Scripture (2Tim. 2:15, 2Pet. 1:20).

 

[GWH]

The Bible teaches that God is just/righteous (Rom. 3:25-26, 9:14, 2Thes. 1:6, Isa. 5:16). This doctrine is called "theodicy". It means that explanations of God’s will should not seem unloving or unfair. Some atheists have a negative or evil conception of God, which may be reinforced by the words and deeds of those who claim to be theists (Rom. 2:24, 2Pet. 2:2). Who would want to believe in such a God? Rather than reject a caricature of God, an atheist should imagine the most perfect, loving and just God that he/she can, and choose to believe in that benevolent Being. God is NOT demonic!

What a person believes about the moral attributes of God affects how he or she interprets GW in the Bible, called “hermeneutics”. A Scripture-based hermeneutic might begin well by triangulating from two key NT "guiding teachings" in order to discern the best understanding of problematic biblical statements:

First, God loves and wants to save everyone (John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11, Acts 17:26-28). Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). All interpretations of Scripture should conform to this certitude: “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” (Psa. 145:17) The Judge is just; He does not show favoritism (Rom. 2:11). It would be better not to attempt an explanation of GW than to state one that impugns God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love, intended as discipline (Heb. 12:4-11) to teach people to repent of their hatefulness or faithlessness (Pro. 3:12, Isa. 33:14-15, Rev. 3:19).

Because God is loving and just, He does not tempt, trick, confuse or otherwise contribute to anyone’s sinfulness. On the contrary, God must be doing all that He can do without abrogating justice or moral free will (MFW) to influence people not to be deceived and become self-condemned (Jam. 1:13-17, Tit. 3:11, Isa. 45:19). This realization should steer us away from the problematic opinion (a la Augustine via John Calvin) that God predestines most people for hell and lead us to affirm MFW (Deut. 30:19). This view is paradoxical, because it affirms both that God is sovereign and that God chooses not to control moral thinking, because doing so would nullify human responsibility for sin, making the biblical revelation of salvation based on repentance irrelevant and absurd.

 

[GWH]

The problematic part of Calvinism is known as the TULIP dogma (tulipism), which may be described as follows:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation (contradicting Matt. 7:7, etc.).

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell (contradicting Eph. 2:8-9, etc.).

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls (contra Rom. 3:21-5:1, etc.).

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved (contra Matt. 23:37, etc.).

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved (contra Heb. 6:4-6, etc).

 

[GWH]

The orthodox viewpoint opposed to TULIP may be termed Moral Free Will (MFW) and described as follows:

M – God’s requirement for salvation (GRFS) is a Moral condition called faith, which is manifested as seeking God’s righteousness or salvation (Matt. 4:17, 7:7), which presumes/implies sufficient human volition for sinners to make them morally accountable (Rom. 1:20, Deut. 30:19, Matt. 23:37), who may become totally depraved via committing apostasy/blasphemy against the HS (per Heb. 6:4-6).

F – God enables all morally accountable souls sufficient Freedom to satisfy GRFS—or not because His grace is resistible, which means sinners are accountable and justly condemned when they do not repent and accept Christ’s atonement for their sins (John 3:16-18, Rom. 3:21-5:1, Heb. 9:26-28).

W – Faith is almost synonymous with Will, but volition focuses on saving faith God's condition for forgiveness, and cooperating with God by accepting His grace through faith is NOT meritorious or working to earn heaven or salvation by obeying moral laws (John 6:29, Eph. 2:8-10).

 

[EmethAlethia]

My reason for beginning this thread is simply to share my fallible faith with atheists, hoping they will find what I have learned helpful for understanding ultimate truth. I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs.

I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality? I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice .

An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament (NT) book of 1 Corinthians 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).

The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly; so, what do y'all think are three pre-Scriptural axiomatic truths revealed via right logic?

Over...

Interestingly, the "Knowing in part" statement is about the spiritual gift of knowledge, and in comparison to the "perfect" when it arrives, which will do away with the partial (Gifts), the gifts are childish things, and seeing dimly as through a beaten and polished piece of silver, verses the "perfect" neuter gender, which will be like seeing face to face by comparison. And when the partial (Gifts) pass away, 3 things will abide. Faith, hope and love. And faith and hope do not exist in heaven.

As an ex-Atheist who hunted down Christians, and quoted the very same scripture we love so well to them 1Th. 5:21 and shared 10,000 bible errors and floor to knee proof we evolved and were not created, I have a great compassion for my Atheistic brothers. Focusing on truth, what is it, how do we get to it, what the 10,000 non-Christian and 45,000 different Christian belief groups prove, sharing with them how everyone believes they love truth and have the truth when it comes to their core beliefs, and asking them why this is so, is a good start.

Does everyone love truth and have the truth as they believe? Is there a truth to know? What does each belief group do to hold fast to their beliefs "as" truth and all opposing beliefs to be lies? Do they not gather all the data they can "use" to hold fast to their beliefs? Do they not gather all the information they can find to prove all opposing views false? Since their beliefs "are" "truth" do they not interpret all of their "selected data in the light of their beliefs? And the next statement: "Is this not what everyone does if their goal is to hold fast to their current beliefs "as" truth? Does it not work for everyone who wants to hold fast to their beliefs? Now, how would your goals, and seeking change if your target really was to get to the truth no matter what beliefs had to change? Most people love their beliefs. Most people honestly seek for truth the way most people seek out things to step in in the farmyard. Come to think of it, they seem to have a similar reaction when they find it as well.

Do you love truth or do you love your beliefs. Are you using the previously mentioned Methodology which allows everyone in the world to hold fast to their beliefs "as" truth, or, are you (Our favorite verse again) 1Th. 5:21? Everyone gets what they want. Do you want truth, ... really? Or do you just want to hold fast to your current beliefs "as" truth. What you continuously keep on doing proves what you really love. If you love your beliefs, you will keep on doing whatever it takes to hold fast to them. All those people in all those different belief groups ... what do they really love truth or their beliefs? What do you really love? Are you doing what it takes to get to truth, or only what it takes to hold fast to your beliefs as almost all of those who love their beliefs do? Are you willing to alter any/all of your beliefs to fit what is being proven true?

That which we love least is always forced to conform to what we love most. Everyone loves truth or their beliefs. Their ongoing "Fruits" prove what it is they love.

This usually gets them to do some internal considering of their current course and what they truly love. Of course, this assumes I understood the question in the first place. I may have missed it entirely.

 

[GWH]

Interestingly, the "Knowing in part" statement is about the spiritual gift of knowledge, and in comparison to the "perfect" when it arrives, which will do away with the partial (Gifts), the gifts are childish things, and seeing dimly as through a beaten and polished piece of silver, verses the "perfect" neuter gender, which will be like seeing face to face by comparison. And when the partial (Gifts) pass away, 3 things will abide. Faith, hope and love. And faith and hope do not exist in heaven.

As an ex-Atheist who hunted down Christians, and quoted the very same scripture we love so well to them 1Th. 5:21 and shared 10,000 bible errors and floor to knee proof we evolved and were not created, I have a great compassion for my Atheistic brothers. Focusing on truth, what is it, how do we get to it, what the 10,000 non-Christian and 45,000 different Christian belief groups prove, sharing with them how everyone believes they love truth and have the truth when it comes to their core beliefs, and asking them why this is so, is a good start.

Does everyone love truth and have the truth as they believe? Is there a truth to know? What does each belief group do to hold fast to their beliefs "as" truth and all opposing beliefs to be lies? Do they not gather all the data they can "use" to hold fast to their beliefs? Do they not gather all the information they can find to prove all opposing views false? Since their beliefs "are" "truth" do they not interpret all of their "selected data in the light of their beliefs? And the next statement: "Is this not what everyone does if their goal is to hold fast to their current beliefs "as" truth? Does it not work for everyone who wants to hold fast to their beliefs? Now, how would your goals, and seeking change if your target really was to get to the truth no matter what beliefs had to change? Most people love their beliefs. Most people honestly seek for truth the way most people seek out things to step in in the farmyard. Come to think of it, they seem to have a similar reaction when they find it as well.

Do you love truth or do you love your beliefs. Are you using the previously mentioned Methodology which allows everyone in the world to hold fast to their beliefs "as" truth, or, are you (Our favorite verse again) 1Th. 5:21? Everyone gets what they want. Do you want truth, ... really? Or do you just want to hold fast to your current beliefs "as" truth. What you continuously keep on doing proves what you really love. If you love your beliefs, you will keep on doing whatever it takes to hold fast to them. All those people in all those different belief groups ... what do they really love truth or their beliefs? What do you really love? Are you doing what it takes to get to truth, or only what it takes to hold fast to your beliefs as almost all of those who love their beliefs do? Are you willing to alter any/all of your beliefs to fit what is being proven true?

That which we love least is always forced to conform to what we love most. Everyone loves truth or their beliefs. Their ongoing "Fruits" prove what it is they love.

This usually gets them to do some internal considering of their current course and what they truly love. Of course, this assumes I understood the question in the first place. I may have missed it entirely.

You one of the few on CC who has expressed concern for atheists, which has motivated my ministry from the beginning.
As a person who "believed from birth", when I was in HS I encountered a missionary's daughter who repudiated her faith, and I learned that my favorite teacher was a former minister who had become an agnostic. That prompted me to read the Bible several times, seeking answers to questions atheists might ask, and I debated them for awhile online about 2005-7. I once shared my beliefs at a meeting of the Atheists of Austin, which turned into a debate during the questions that followed. I could have done better, but I think I did better than evangelist Bob Harrington did when he did radio debates with atheist Madalyn O'Hair.

I liked your saying that most people seek truth the way they seek not to step in poop!

I welcome anything else you want to discuss on this topic. It is a long thread, but it restarts on p.19, then begins to include heretics on p.26 and amends the OP again on p.60, so you could begin reading from there for the short version before it got derailed on p.62-63.

 

[EmethAlethia]

You one of the few on CC who has expressed concern for atheists, which has motivated my ministry from the beginning.
As a person who "believed from birth", when I was in HS I encountered a missionary's daughter who repudiated her faith, and I learned that my favorite teacher was a former minister who had become an agnostic. That prompted me to read the Bible several times, seeking answers to questions atheists might ask, and I debated them for awhile online about 2005-7. I once shared my beliefs at a meeting of the Atheists of Austin, which turned into a debate during the questions that followed. I could have done better, but I think I did better than evangelist Bob Harrington did when he did radio debates with atheist Madalyn O'Hair.

I liked your saying that most people seek truth the way they seek not to step in poop!

I welcome anything else you want to discuss on this topic. It is a long thread, but it restarts on p.19, then begins to include heretics on p.26 and amends the OP again on p.60, so you could begin reading from there for the short version before it got derailed on p.62-63.

LOL Sounds like the short summary I have on the topic of salvation. I was going to try and keep it under 10 pages. that was 34 pages ago. I'd be happy to read your whole thing through, and id also be happy to pm you my phone and email ... just think of the trouble we could get into together. LOL I chat with anyone who will listen, and usually send copies of my study on salvation out at least 3-4 times a week, asking them to help me find out where I am wrong. Based on the lack of corrections and comments, it must be absolutely flawless. LOL The 1st part of it was in my other post.