Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[LTL]

Amen! That reminds me of a favorite old hymn I led troops in singing when I preached as a chaplain:

1 What a friend we have in Jesus,
all our sins and griefs to bear!
What a privilege to carry
everything to God in prayer!
O what peace we often forfeit,
O what needless pain we bear,
all because we do not carry
everything to God in prayer!

2 Have we trials and temptations?
Is there trouble anywhere?
We should never be discouraged;
take it to the Lord in prayer!
Can we find a friend so faithful
who will all our sorrows share?
Jesus knows our every weakness;
take it to the Lord in prayer!

3 Are we weak and heavy laden,
cumbered with a load of care?
Precious Savior, still our refuge--
take it to the Lord in prayer!
Do your friends despise, forsake you?
Take it to the Lord in prayer!
In his arms he'll take and shield you;
you will find a solace there.

GWH, have you satisfied the purpose of this thread? I suppose so. But I do not think atheists frequent this site. However, saints do and they seek to have the blessing to know that they are on the right track, which you do offer.

I remember years ago a man stated in church that he did not have a testimony but relied upon the testimony of his wife. It was brilliant. Like a dance where I saw a woman and her man dancing. But only the woman danced, and the man stood there for her. And she loved having him there with her.

So how far are you into doctrine? I ask because many hold to a church doctrine of one flavor or another. And the interesting thing is that they do not think they are holding to a church doctrine. Or that their church doctrine is the only correct one.

In many cases they rely upon what others have said and take that doctrine as their own. And nothing is wrong with that. But the more advanced move away from a church doctrine. And that is what I am asking you. Are you committed to a church doctrine or are you on your own? And there is no right or wrong answer. Like the man who relied upon his wife's testimony, or the woman who loved having her husband there as she danced. Each of these being similes of how church doctrine supports the individual

But some church doctrines are unavoidable. Like the idea that Jesus is God Almighty. This is a church doctrine that is throughout all Christendom. And for an atheist, it is the only doctrine that matters. In fact, the Jews themselves are not proved to this doctrine even though Matthew skillfully points out that Jesus satisfied OT prophecy.

So an atheist like a Jew can not be persuaded by doctrine. But like the two examples above, they must be willing to love those important to them with an open frame of mind. It is by that exposure that they come to the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ.

And likewise on the other side of the isle, the wicked hope for the gradual exposure to pull them into hell. So Christ has his army to gather saints, and Lucifer has his army to gather demons. And it depends upon which spirit the individual listens. To the spirit of good, or the spirit of evil. And if the atheist will listen to the spirit of good, then they open the door to having glory in the kingdom of God. But if they choose evil, then they are captured by the wicked into eternal hell.

And the key is forgiveness. If the atheist is willing to forgive and not harden their heart, then they can access the pure love of Christ. But if they harden their heart against forgiveness, then they are lost. And such is the case with the governments of today. They do not forgive but wage war. And there is no answer to this but to rely upon Jesus to address this problem. And we are not far from that solution wherein the Savior returns to burn the wicked.

So to anyone not having a testimony in Jesus then draw close to those who do. Have a forgiving nature and love in your heart. Take hold of eternal life that is offered to you. Do not fall to the depts of eternal hell with the wicked.

 

[GWH]

GWH, have you satisfied the purpose of this thread? I suppose so. But I do not think atheists frequent this site. However, saints do and they seek to have the blessing to know that they are on the right track, which you do offer.

I remember years ago a man stated in church that he did not have a testimony but relied upon the testimony of his wife. It was brilliant. Like a dance where I saw a woman and her man dancing. But only the woman danced, and the man stood there for her. And she loved having him there with her.

So how far are you into doctrine? I ask because many hold to a church doctrine of one flavor or another. And the interesting thing is that they do not think they are holding to a church doctrine. Or that their church doctrine is the only correct one.

In many cases they rely upon what others have said and take that doctrine as their own. And nothing is wrong with that. But the more advanced move away from a church doctrine. And that is what I am asking you. Are you committed to a church doctrine or are you on your own? And there is no right or wrong answer. Like the man who relied upon his wife's testimony, or the woman who loved having her husband there as she danced. Each of these being similes of how church doctrine supports the individual

But some church doctrines are unavoidable. Like the idea that Jesus is God Almighty. This is a church doctrine that is throughout all Christendom. And for an atheist, it is the only doctrine that matters. In fact, the Jews themselves are not proved to this doctrine even though Matthew skillfully points out that Jesus satisfied OT prophecy.

So an atheist like a Jew can not be persuaded by doctrine. But like the two examples above, they must be willing to love those important to them with an open frame of mind. It is by that exposure that they come to the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ.

And likewise on the other side of the isle, the wicked hope for the gradual exposure to pull them into hell. So Christ has his army to gather saints, and Lucifer has his army to gather demons. And it depends upon which spirit the individual listens. To the spirit of good, or the spirit of evil. And if the atheist will listen to the spirit of good, then they open the door to having glory in the kingdom of God. But if they choose evil, then they are captured by the wicked into eternal hell.

And the key is forgiveness. If the atheist is willing to forgive and not harden their heart, then they can access the pure love of Christ. But if they harden their heart against forgiveness, then they are lost. And such is the case with the governments of today. They do not forgive but wage war. And there is no answer to this but to rely upon Jesus to address this problem. And we are not far from that solution wherein the Savior returns to burn the wicked.

So to anyone not having a testimony in Jesus then draw close to those who do. Have a forgiving nature and love in your heart. Take hold of eternal life that is offered to you. Do not fall to the depts of eternal hell with the wicked.

LTL, I appreciate your post with its stimulating question that no one has asked me before, so let me share this:

My reason for posting on CC is simply to share my fallible faith with others, 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 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 Isa. 53 and Psa. 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 Universal Moral Imperative (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).

1Pet. 3:15b indicates that Christians should share their testimony or reason for their hope of heaven, so here is mine. I used to be afraid of witnessing; as an introvert I was rather defensive and nervous. However, understanding why I believe has brought me both peace of mind and a non-defensive boldness to witness to others. I only wish that I could credit church training in apologetics for this, but in my experience it left Christian young people vulnerable to atheistic college professors and failed to note that the apostle Paul reasoned with people intelligently to accept Christ.

Although from infancy I learned Scriptures about salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, I knew few doctrinal details that would enable me to defend against the arrows of atheist arguments (Eph. 6:11&16), so I began to study Scripture on my own in order to become better able to discern how disparate teachings comprise a harmonious whole truth, eventually sharing what I learned on a website regarding topics including the Christian creed, the teachings of Jesus and Paul, key OT teachings and the history of beliefs.

Over...

 

[LTL]

LTL, I appreciate your post with its stimulating question that no one has asked me before, so let me share this:

My reason for posting on CC is simply to share my fallible faith with others, 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 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 Isa. 53 and Psa. 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 Universal Moral Imperative (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).

1Pet. 3:15b indicates that Christians should share their testimony or reason for their hope of heaven, so here is mine. I used to be afraid of witnessing; as an introvert I was rather defensive and nervous. However, understanding why I believe has brought me both peace of mind and a non-defensive boldness to witness to others. I only wish that I could credit church training in apologetics for this, but in my experience it left Christian young people vulnerable to atheistic college professors and failed to note that the apostle Paul reasoned with people intelligently to accept Christ.

Although from infancy I learned Scriptures about salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, I knew few doctrinal details that would enable me to defend against the arrows of atheist arguments (Eph. 6:11&16), so I began to study Scripture on my own in order to become better able to discern how disparate teachings comprise a harmonious whole truth, eventually sharing what I learned on a website regarding topics including the Christian creed, the teachings of Jesus and Paul, key OT teachings and the history of beliefs.

Over...

Very good.
It is unfortunate that the schools embraced the atheists educational stance. They could have chosen a scientific position, but instead elected to have Lucifer's lies as fact. Perhaps the only true subject they teach is the math related sciences like algebra and so forth. The language arts are dominated by Lucifer where the students must refrain from a more Christian orientation.

I have been looking at ZNP's work which is also very good. There are several scriptorians on this site such as yourself. I think he has 6,600 postings on one of his threads. I could be wrong on that number.

So there are a lot of good educators on this site of which you are one. Thank you.

This is what I call a first estate site. The first estate are those who do not loose their estate to Lucifer. Those who loose their estate are spiritually dead. So we get to choose to keep our estate, or not. To keep our estate is to have eternal life with Christ. The second estate are those chosen from the first estate to do a specific calling. These callings are given before we are born. Thus, individuals of the second estate are born among the first estate. These are the writers of the Bible and so forth. Thus, Paul is second estate as is all the apostles except Judas who lost his estate to Lucifer.

There are second estate among us now. But they have not yet been called to their calling. It appears that the second estate are born upon the earth as circumstances require. For example Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and so forth. After Jacob, the second estate are born into the family of Israel. So Jesus was also second estate. Even though he is God Almighty. This is what Lucifer wanted, to be called into the second estate. And when he was not, then he rebelled and lost his estate and causing many others to do the same.

This doctrine may not be acceptable to you because it originates in a pre-existence. It requires that all the children of God must choose Jesus as their Savior to be born upon this earth in the first place. And all who will not accept Jesus can not be born upon this earth as Lucifer and his demons have demonstrated. Thus, babies are followers of Jesus Christ. And then when they get older they are allowed to be tempted by Lucifer to prove they will remain loyal to Jesus. So basically, it is in our very nature to follow Christ, and we simply need to be reminded of that. And that is why your work is so important. To bring in souls to salvation in Christ.

 

[GWH]

Very good.
It is unfortunate that the schools embraced the atheists educational stance. They could have chosen a scientific position, but instead elected to have Lucifer's lies as fact. Perhaps the only true subject they teach is the math related sciences like algebra and so forth. The language arts are dominated by Lucifer where the students must refrain from a more Christian orientation.

I have been looking at ZNP's work which is also very good. There are several scriptorians on this site such as yourself. I think he has 6,600 postings on one of his threads. I could be wrong on that number.

So there are a lot of good educators on this site of which you are one. Thank you.

This is what I call a first estate site. The first estate are those who do not loose their estate to Lucifer. Those who loose their estate are spiritually dead. So we get to choose to keep our estate, or not. To keep our estate is to have eternal life with Christ. The second estate are those chosen from the first estate to do a specific calling. These callings are given before we are born. Thus, individuals of the second estate are born among the first estate. These are the writers of the Bible and so forth. Thus, Paul is second estate as is all the apostles except Judas who lost his estate to Lucifer.

There are second estate among us now. But they have not yet been called to their calling. It appears that the second estate are born upon the earth as circumstances require. For example Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and so forth. After Jacob, the second estate are born into the family of Israel. So Jesus was also second estate. Even though he is God Almighty. This is what Lucifer wanted, to be called into the second estate. And when he was not, then he rebelled and lost his estate and causing many others to do the same.

This doctrine may not be acceptable to you because it originates in a pre-existence. It requires that all the children of God must choose Jesus as their Savior to be born upon this earth in the first place. And all who will not accept Jesus can not be born upon this earth as Lucifer and his demons have demonstrated. Thus, babies are followers of Jesus Christ. And then when they get older they are allowed to be tempted by Lucifer to prove they will remain loyal to Jesus. So basically, it is in our very nature to follow Christ, and we simply need to be reminded of that. And that is why your work is so important. To bring in souls to salvation in Christ.

Very true. A scriptural term for estate is birthright.

Because Jesus is God although manifested in the human dimension, we should view him as third estate, and perhaps we can view resurrected Christians as third estate, because in heaven we will be perfected/share Christ's righteousness/be Spirit-filled forever.

You are correct that I reject the pre-existence of humans as unbiblical. Souls will become immortal in heaven, but in hell they will be destroyed after justice is achieved.

Human nature was very good, but all humans sin, and selfish babies must learn to share/love others.

Over...

 

[rewriter]

Very true. A scriptural term for estate is birthright.

Because Jesus is God although manifested in the human dimension, we should view him as third estate, and perhaps we can view resurrected Christians as third estate, because in heaven we will be perfected/share Christ's righteousness/be Spirit-filled forever.

You are correct that I reject the pre-existence of humans as unbiblical. Souls will become immortal in heaven, but in hell they will be destroyed after justice is achieved.

Human nature was very good, but all humans sin, and selfish babies must learn to share/love others.

Over...

Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart;" (NIV) can be understood as implying pre-existence for humans though.

Sometimes the solution to problems lies in changing one's assumptions.

 

[GWH]

Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart;" (NIV) can be understood as implying pre-existence for humans though.

Sometimes the solution to problems lies in changing one's assumptions.

Many verses can be misunderstood, so we should seek correct to interpret them correctly by harmonizing them with other Scripture,
which in this case would be those referring to divine foreknowledge that never means humans have a preborn existence but rather that God knew from the beginning who would be reborn: whosoever repented, sought salvation and satisfied His condition for being forgiven/justified/elected.

Does this assumption not accord with the whole of Scripture?

 

[rewriter]

Many verses can be misunderstood, so we should seek correct to interpret them correctly by harmonizing them with other Scripture,
which in this case would be those referring to divine foreknowledge that never means humans have a preborn existence but rather that God knew from the beginning who would be reborn: whosoever repented, sought salvation and satisfied His condition for being forgiven/justified/elected.

Does this assumption not accord with the whole of Scripture?

Therein lies the key question. Scripture itself references knowledge outside of scripture that is available and possibly profitable for humans, and within this "outside of scripture" information is potential evidence for pre-existence. One key question can be framed as "is consciousness fundamental or is matter-energy?" If we hold that matter-energy is, then the spirit realm becomes problematic. yet if we hold to consciousness then we run into a different set of problems for out theology.

 

[GWH]

Therein lies the key question. Scripture itself references knowledge outside of scripture that is available and possibly profitable for humans, and within this "outside of scripture" information is potential evidence for pre-existence. One key question can be framed as "is consciousness fundamental or is matter-energy?" If we hold that matter-energy is, then the spirit realm becomes problematic. yet if we hold to consciousness then we run into a different set of problems for out theology.

My thoughts regarding pre-existence are with regard to karmaism (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), which has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for a universal moral imperative (UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman.

Although there are occasional outside of Scripture claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).

The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following question for a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.]

 

[rewriter]

My thoughts regarding pre-existence are with regard to karmaism (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), which has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for a universal moral imperative (UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman.

Although there are occasional outside of Scripture claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).

The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following question for a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.]

Karmaism is one understanding of the concept of reincarnation. There are at least three other cultures that believe in reincarnation and none of these others link reincarnation to karma. Another understanding of reincarnation is that its purpose is for an individual to learn some lesson(s) that can only be learned in the physical realm. They then choose to experience life circumstances that would allow them to have the necessary experiences. Others then accept reincarnation to ensure that certain necessary roles are fulfilled in the individual's life to ensure that the desired lesson(s) may be learned. This understanding might fit with the "hardening" of Pharoah's heart, not to set him up for punishment, but a reminder of the promise that he had made when he accepted reincarnation to help Moses, or whomever, to learn a desired lesson.

 

[GWH]

Karmaism is one understanding of the concept of reincarnation. There are at least three other cultures that believe in reincarnation and none of these others link reincarnation to karma. Another understanding of reincarnation is that its purpose is for an individual to learn some lesson(s) that can only be learned in the physical realm. They then choose to experience life circumstances that would allow them to have the necessary experiences. Others then accept reincarnation to ensure that certain necessary roles are fulfilled in the individual's life to ensure that the desired lesson(s) may be learned. This understanding might fit with the "hardening" of Pharoah's heart, not to set him up for punishment, but a reminder of the promise that he had made when he accepted reincarnation to help Moses, or whomever, to learn a desired lesson.

The only concept of karmaism that matters is that which is credible regarding salvation from mortality and ultimate misery.

 

[JesusLives]

Back when I first joined CC we had several atheists that frequented this site and I found it interesting they were here. Some of the Christians were not very welcoming to me and called me a Judaizer and I had no idea what that was.... So I hung out with the atheists as I found them to be a friendlier group on this site. I can't remember the one fellas name but he had Spock from Star Trek as his symbol.

I did make friends with the Christians not all but some and not sure why the atheists left but don't see many if any now. I do miss them we had great discussions. I think I joined in 2014 not sure.

 

[rewriter]

The only concept of karmaism that matters is that which is credible regarding salvation from mortality and ultimate misery.

Are you claiming that if there is one abuse of a concept then the entire concept is invalid? I would remind you that there is clearly an abuse with the concept of salvation given that there is an ongoing debate over OSAS. Both sides claim scriptural support, so at least one side is abusing the concept of salvation.

 

[rewriter]

Back when I first joined CC we had several atheists that frequented this site and I found it interesting they were here. Some of the Christians were not very welcoming to me and called me a Judaizer and I had no idea what that was.... So I hung out with the atheists as I found them to be a friendlier group on this site. I can't remember the one fellas name but he had Spock from Star Trek as his symbol.

I did make friends with the Christians not all but some and not sure why the atheists left but don't see many if any now. I do miss them we had great discussions. I think I joined in 2014 not sure.

I agree with your attitude. One of the most pleasant conversations I am engaged in, away from this forum, is with an atheist. He is being respectful of my views and presenting interesting challenges. He also claims to be enjoying our interactions and finding them respectful.

 

[GWH]

Back when I first joined CC we had several atheists that frequented this site and I found it interesting they were here. Some of the Christians were not very welcoming to me and called me a Judaizer and I had no idea what that was.... So I hung out with the atheists as I found them to be a friendlier group on this site. I can't remember the one fellas name but he had Spock from Star Trek as his symbol.

I did make friends with the Christians not all but some and not sure why the atheists left but don't see many if any now. I do miss them we had great discussions. I think I joined in 2014 not sure.

Please remember the following truth:

No one achieves moral perfection in this life (Phil. 3:12), but no one who lacks divine love will reap eternal life with God (Gal. 6:7-8). Thus, a person who claims to be godly but who is behaving in an ungodly (unloving, untruthful) manner may be in one of the following categories:

a. a normally loving person observed during a rare moment when he/she acted uncharacteristically (Phil. 3:12-16),
b. an immature Believer, who is making progress–you should have known him/her a year ago! (1Cor. 3:1-3, Eph. 4:11-15)
c. a truthseeker who has not yet learned the correct interpretation of God’s Word (1Cor. 6:9-11, Eph. 5:8-9), or
d. a pseudo-Christian (Matt. 7:21, 1John 2:19), who affirms Jesus as Messiah but rejects His Lordship.
e. an apostate or heretic (1John 2:19, Heb. 6:4-6), who once believed but became blasphemous or foolish and ship-wrecked their faith (1Tim. 1:19-20).
f. An atheist, who may imitate divine love without glorifying the One whose power makes it a golden rule rather than merely a pyrite suggestion.

Paul listed some sins he implied genuine Christians would not typically commit (in 1Cor. 6:9-10), saying: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Apparently, although a new Christian might backslide and commit such sins occasionally, it is inconceivable (because antithetical to NT teaching) that a mature Christian would commit them so typically that the person could be classified as an adulterer, for example.

Atheists might try to practice the “Golden Rule”, but the key issue for them on judgment day will be explaining what good reason they had for rejecting God rather than glorifying Him as the One who determines what is good/golden.

 

[GWH]

Are you claiming that if there is one abuse of a concept then the entire concept is invalid? I would remind you that there is clearly an abuse with the concept of salvation given that there is an ongoing debate over OSAS. Both sides claim scriptural support, so at least one side is abusing the concept of salvation.

No, I am claiming that there is no credible evidence that any concept of karmaism is true regarding salvation from mortality and ultimate misery, because if karmaism were true everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it.

 

[rewriter]

No, I am claiming that there is no credible evidence that any concept of karmaism is true regarding salvation from mortality and ultimate misery, because if karmaism were true everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it.

Okay, but I have not been supporting karmaism, and merely pointed out that while it might be the best commonly known example of reincarnation, it is merely one among at least four examples, and as such should not be used to discredit the other three.

 

[LTL]

Very true. A scriptural term for estate is birthright.

Because Jesus is God although manifested in the human dimension, we should view him as third estate, and perhaps we can view resurrected Christians as third estate, because in heaven we will be perfected/share Christ's righteousness/be Spirit-filled forever.

You are correct that I reject the pre-existence of humans as unbiblical. Souls will become immortal in heaven, but in hell they will be destroyed after justice is achieved.

Human nature was very good, but all humans sin, and selfish babies must learn to share/love others.

Over...

There is an estate wherein we are sons and daughters of God. This is the first estate.
There is also an estate wherein some of the first estate are called to serve and this is the second estate.
There is no such thing as a third estate.

Those who keep their estate have salvation in Christ. Those to the first estate and those to the second. And, anyone rejecting Jesus loose their estate.

Lucifer rejected Jesus and lost his estate. That is, Lucifer, who existed before this world was, rebelled against God and lost his estate. He was cast out along with one third of the hosts of heaven who also lost their estate. This was before the earth was created. The remaining two thirds remained loyal to Jesus and kept their estate.

The same thing happens here upon the earth. Those who remain loyal to Jesus keep their estate. Those who do not are cast out with Lucifer and his demons.

Since Lucifer and his demons were cast out from heaven, before the world was, then there was a time before the creation of the earth wherein those existed. This is the pre-existence. The existence before the earth was created. Humans were created after the earth came into existence. So there is no pre-existence of humans.

And, babies are not selfish. They simply have the drive to survive which was instilled into the human family. It is natural to want to survive. And Jesus makes that possible because he conquered death. We will survive forever in spiritual life if we follow Christ. If we do not then we will have spiritual death which is an existence with Lucifer.

 

[GWH]

Okay, but I have not been supporting karmaism, and merely pointed out that while it might be the best commonly known example of reincarnation, it is merely one among at least four examples, and as such should not be used to discredit the other three.

Yes, and I have not been crediting any example of karmaism/pre-existence as credible.

 

[GWH]

There is an estate wherein we are sons and daughters of God. This is the first estate.
There is also an estate wherein some of the first estate are called to serve and this is the second estate.
There is no such thing as a third estate.

Those who keep their estate have salvation in Christ. Those to the first estate and those to the second. And, anyone rejecting Jesus loose their estate.

Lucifer rejected Jesus and lost his estate. That is, Lucifer, who existed before this world was, rebelled against God and lost his estate. He was cast out along with one third of the hosts of heaven who also lost their estate. This was before the earth was created. The remaining two thirds remained loyal to Jesus and kept their estate.

The same thing happens here upon the earth. Those who remain loyal to Jesus keep their estate. Those who do not are cast out with Lucifer and his demons.

Since Lucifer and his demons were cast out from heaven, before the world was, then there was a time before the creation of the earth wherein those existed. This is the pre-existence. The existence before the earth was created. Humans were created after the earth came into existence. So there is no pre-existence of humans.

And, babies are not selfish. They simply have the drive to survive which was instilled into the human family. It is natural to want to survive. And Jesus makes that possible because he conquered death. We will survive forever in spiritual life if we follow Christ. If we do not then we will have spiritual death which is an existence with Lucifer.

I think Jesus as Lord warrants the third estate/heaven.
I am glad we agree about humans not pre-existing and evil souls going to hell.

The infantile drive to survive is the purest form of selfishness,
because it is due to animal instinct rather than to sin.

 

[LTL]

I think Jesus as Lord warrants the third estate/heaven.
I am glad we agree about humans not pre-existing and evil souls going to hell.

The infantile drive to survive is the purest form of selfishness,
because it is due to animal instinct rather than to sin.

GWH, there is no third estate. I am trying to teach you this doctrinal principle.

The first estate are the followers of Jesus Christ.
The second estate are those called to be his servants.

God is not a third estate. He does not come from the first estate except to be born in Israel as are the second estate servants.

That is, the spiritually alive follow Jesus Christ. Some of those are the servants of Jesus Christ. These are the two estates.

God is not spiritually alive in Christ but is life. God is not subjugated to himself. He does not serve himself.

God serves his people, as do his servants. His people are the first estate and the servants are the second estate. This is a doctrinal principle that I am showing you. Those who are spiritually alive in Christ are either first estate or second estate. Christ is not spiritually alive in himself to be a third estate.