Oh, I thought you were an atheist. hahaha; my fault.
well said!
I never said it was. If it is going to be a walk in the park for Christ then it will be for me. But Christ’s death was not a walk in the park. It was an excruciatingly painful death and his suffering has been given to me now that I am a servant of Him.
The terror in this world exists so that Christ may be terrorized. Trouble in this world exists that so Christ may be troubled. Thus, so shall his children (2 Timothy 3:12, Acts 14:22). I will endure as much pain and suffering for as long as I need to, because it is nothing compared to the surpassing worth of Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:8).
Christ died for sin, and its result has been shown for the past 2,000 years and will continue to do so for the eternity to come. If God were to do away with evil, then He must do away with evil people. That is the only thing they need to understand on “their own terms.”
God bless,
christusexemplar (Copy of the Christ)
Read my response to the last anon, which will cover a portion of what your looking for. However, something must be understood.
Election is God’s choosing of individuals unto salvation, as opposed to reprobation where God’s sends the non-elect to Hell. That is a rather extreme view of Calvinism, which is a commonly held position in some theology sects. However, predestination is a word that not most serious Reformed theologians really use. We prefer the term Election.
Because if we use election, then we mean that God lets the non-elect freely send themselves to Hell.
God bless,
christusexemplar (Copy of the Christ)
This is a rather large aspect and very in depth topic in terms of Reformed Theology, because some theologians have argued a strict determinism (i.e. John Calvin), some have said there is a will but still predestination (i.e. Augustine), and other views. However, it works like this.
We have a will, but not in such a way that can bring us to ultimate repentance and faith and trust in Christ. Im stealing this view straight from St. Augustine. We are freely allowed to do what we choose, as long as it is in the confines of God’s will; if our two wills were to come into contact or are at odds with one another, then we must yield to God’s will first.
Men are accordingly accountable for their sins (Ecc. 7:20), but are left unable to repent (1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:14, c.f. Hebrews 12:14-17). This is what makes Reformed theology very hard for some people, because they seem to have found a logical contradiction in those two statements. However, not if scripture has something to say about it.
Well, no men deserve to be saved; a penalty for their sin is that they pay with death (Romans 6:23). Thus it is by Gods love for sending Christ to die on the cross (John 3:16) that men may experience salvation and true saving grace. According to the Apostle Paul and even Augustine, no man is to really question this arbitrary choosing of God because He is God (Romans 9:11-14).
To answer your question, there is a will, but not in such a way that lets you roam free apart from the will of God.
God bless,
christusexemplar (Copy of the Christ)
I think there is a time when it is, but also when its not.
For instance, in that particular debate I think you were justified in using logic simply because you had a sort of, presuppositional backing of scripture you expected him to know about. That may sound strange, but R.C. Sproul does this all the time.
If he wanted you to justify the theology you were arguing, then logic would go out the window, in its most obvious form. However, in arguing scripture first and then logic, I personally would think thats okay because I do it all the time.
So for instance, “Ephesians 1:3-6 is the work of the Father in salvation, namely election (vv.4-5). We see verses 7 through 12 talk about the work of the Son, namely his redeeming of the Father’s elect (v.7). Finally, after Christ dies for the Fathers elect, the Holy Spirit seals them, and protects them (vv.13-14). Now how is it then, that the work of the Father and the Holy Spirit is intended for the elect/chosen, but the work of the Son is universal? That is contradictory to the Trinity; they would be at odds with one another. Thus, limited atonement is true.”
Something like that would be good. Introduce scripture, and impose logic. However, your argument was justified in that if he expected scripture, you could give it to him if necessary.
God bless,
christusexemplar (Copy of the Christ)
I should not be letting this go public due to your vulgar and explicit language, because your speech may be hurtful to those who read it. but I feel that you do deserve an answer.
You see, just when you think the evil, suffering, and sin is so prevalent in the world and is driving Christianity into the ground because of a God who wont do anything to intervene, you miss the most basic and fundamental thing about Christianity. God has already dealt with the problem of evil.
You know that I believe Christ is Maschaic, the Messiah. However, I believe something even more hard for you to believe; I believe He is the Son of God. Now, if He really is God incarnate, word became flesh, creator of the universe, light of the world and sustainer of all being, then what is God doing on a cross?
However that question is simply not what we Christians ask, rather it is what did God do on a cross? Thus, it is not that we have a God who is distant from the problem of pain and suffering, but rather became a direct part of it. It leaves me with no window to see through without God’s love being right outside of it from the world He turned earthquakes, disease, and death into mere temporal foreshadowing’s of the glory to come.
Lastly then, there will come a day where God will do away with all evil for good. And friend if you were to believe that God were to do that, then you must also ask the most basic question you misunderstand; “Why hasnt God gotten rid of evil?” I might ask you in return, if you want God to get rid of evil, then why hasnt he gotten rid of you?
Christ died. Sin is in the grave, and you will be too, in vain, if you dont put your faith and trust in Him. This is not me imposing my religious tyrannical unjust, repentance judgement on you; but me offering you a way out.
God bless,
christusexemplar (Copy of the Christ)
I DO have hobbies.
haha.
I read, study, and write. Im constantly studying theology and reading philosophy; at school when Im done with my work, and even before I go to bed I listen to a sermon every night. Other than that, I’ve been playing guitar for 6 and a half years? If that counts haha.
Thats about it </3
God bless,
christusexemplar (Copy of the Christ)
I have several, but I really Kari Jobe’s song, “Yahweh.” That and the band called Gungor; they’re really awesome.
I like Revelation Song, and Christ is Risen by Matt Maher
God bless,
christusexemplar (Copy of the Christ)
Am I the only one who knows this verse in its true and intended context?
no?
okay.
(via adropintheocean)
This is from my blog on Systematic Theology and just contains in depth explanations of particular types of weighty doctrines. This one I have typed up a full commentary and scriptural support for the doctrine of election and reprobation. Some passages are addressed:
Enjoy, bruh.
Luke 23:43 - “Today you will be with me in paradise.” There is no biblical affirmation that that is where Christ went in between those three days. Claiming that his providence is under complete sovereign control does not follow towards the belief of him being in Hell on friday, saturday, and rising from the dead on Sunday.
I will not say Christ descending to hell to get the keys of death, hell and the grave from satan is not biblical. He owns the whole universe plus so much more, so He can go anywhere. He made it all. I would say it depends on your interpretation.
Look, Im not particularly gonna fend for Dr. Zacharias because I have not read that quote in context or heard him say it. He might have very well answered your question inside that context or debunked mine, I dont know.
Nonetheless, If you believe something to exist, you are deriving that knowledge from a source. If it is Christian theism we’re talking about here and thus I believe God to exist, my knowledge of that belief would come from revelation (i.e. scripture), which is what we doctrinally teach.
Atheism however, asserts that there is no God. That is not merely contrary to theism (though undoubtedly it is), but rather is an insight to where they get this knowledge from. However, I do not know where they get this knowledge. Do you know naturally as well as apart from the natural world that there is no God?
If you do, then you must have an infinite knowledge of the universe to debunk the notion of the existence of a God. You should know that to disprove something is much more weightier a burden of proof than to affirm something. For instance, if you said there is gold in Alaska, you would merely have to point and show me where it is. If you said there is no gold, then you must have a perfect knowledge of Alaska to believe that there is no gold there.
Atheism I understand asserts and argues that there is just no evidence or proof for a God, therefore, atheism is the best explanation; I get that. I argued it for years. However, it takes a burden on their part to deconstruct the theists case and construct a more sound and coherent worldview of their own, which according to history and philosophy, no skeptic has succeeded in doing so.
The Mormon religion teaches that God used to be a man on another world, became a god (i.e. exaltation), and came to this world with his ‘goddess wife’. He was able to become a god because he followed the laws and ordinances of the god he served on another world. That god in turn was exalted by his god, who was exalted by his god, ad infinitum. In other words, there is a progression of gods being formed as far back as you look in time.
We must first notice the concept of the law of causality. That is, every effect has a cause, and every cause, by analytical definition, must produce an effect. Well, according to the Mormon belief, this infinite regress in exalted God after exalted God proposes and infinite crossing of causes. This is logically incoherent. Why? Because you cannot cross an infinity.
Simply put, in order for us to get to the present state of this god on this planet, there would have had to be an infinite number of exaltations in the past. But, this cannot be so because in order to get to the present, you would have to transverse an infinite number of exaltations. But that is also impossible since you cannot transverse an infinity - if you could cross (transverse) an infinity of time, then it isn’t infinite. Therefore, the Mormon system of infinite regressions of exaltations to godhood is logically inconsistent and Mormonism is left dogmatically, proven false.
…..thats what I said?
