Hebrews 6

[Eleanor]

<sigh> yourself.

It has to do with the effects of sin on the sinner.

Which has to do with the "law or salvation."

There is none so over their head as you in this or other discussions. Seriously, you do not, even as some others here do, present a good argument for the Calvinist/Reformed Theology doctrines.

Maybe it's because I am a Paulist, and it is not my intention to present/defend Calvin.

 

[JIM]

Maybe it's because I am a Paulist, and it is not my intention to present/defend Calvin.

Well then you have certainly convinced me that I would not, could not, possibly fall for that branch of the RCC.

 

[Eleanor]

Well then you have certainly convinced me that I would not, could not, possibly fall for that branch of the RCC.

What "branch" of the RCC are you talking about, and what does that have to do with me?

 

[JIM]

What "branch" of the RCC are you talking about, and what does that have to do with me?

I assumed, perhaps wrongly, you were speaking of the Paulist Fathers within the RCC.

 

[Eleanor]

I assumed, perhaps wrongly, you were speaking of the Paulist Fathers within the RCC.

Actually, I am not.

I am referring to the apostolic teaching of Paul as presented in the NT Scriptures.

 

[JIM]

Actually, I am not.

I am referring to the apostolic teaching of Paul as presented in the NT Scriptures.

I don't know of anyone, Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike, who wouldn't claim that. So how are you different?

 

[makesends]

<sigh> yourself.

It has to do with the effects of sin on the sinner.

There is none so over their head as you in this or other discussions. Seriously, you do not, even as some others here do, present a good argument for the Calvinist/Reformed Theology doctrines.

Retort is a poor argument.

 

[Eleanor]

I don't know of anyone, Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike, who wouldn't claim that. So how are you different?

Speaking of "different:"

Your post #350, following,
JIM said:
No it doesn't. If God really wanted to prove His existence, He could have done that. He didn't. His creation, its very existence, gives very, very strong indication that there was a creator-God. But it is not proof. As I said, faith is key. Jesus words to Thomas well illustrates this: "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

(Jesus is speaking of himself above, not of God in heaven, which is the subject here.)

is different from and in disagreement with the word of God (Ro 1:19-20), following:

"What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that men (Gentiles) are without excuse."

 

[Eleanor]

duplicate

 

[makesends]

Well then you have certainly convinced me that I would not, could not, possibly fall for that branch of the RCC.

What branch of the RCC?

 

[JIM]

Retort is a poor argument.

Perhaps, but quite in line as a response.

 

[JIM]

What branch of the RCC?

Reply #404

 

[JIM]

Speaking of "different:"

Your post #350, following,
JIM said:
No it doesn't. If God really wanted to prove His existence, He could have done that. He didn't. His creation, its very existence, gives very, very strong indication that there was a creator-God. But it is not proof. As I said, faith is key. Jesus words to Thomas well illustrates this: "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

(Jesus is speaking of himself above, not of God in heaven, which is the subject here.)

is different from and in disagreement with the word of God (Ro 1:19-20), following:
"What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that men (Gentiles) are without excuse."

Yeah, so? There is still no proof. I don't think you understand what it means to really prove something. But more than that, if all this has been proven, then why the need for faith, given that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"?

 

[Eleanor]

Speaking of "different:"

Your post #350, following,
JIM said:
No it doesn't. If God really wanted to prove His existence, He could have done that. He didn't. His creation, its very existence, gives very, very strong indication that there was a creator-God. But it is not proof. As I said, faith is key. Jesus words to Thomas well illustrates this: "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

(Jesus is speaking of himself above, not of God in heaven, which is the subject here.)

is different from and in disagreement with the word of God (Ro 1:19-20), following:

"What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that men (Gentiles) are without excuse."
That includes you.

Yeah, so?

So. . .the word of God states that you "are without excuse" in denying that "what can be known about God is plain;" i.e.. "his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen". . .(Ro 1:19-20)

If God's word written (2 Tim 3:16) is not absolute proof for you, then you believe in the wrong God.
Therein is your problem.
God's word is the final truth on a matter, it cannot be broken (Jn 10:35). . .nothing trump's the word of God written.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it. (Or better yet, God said it, that settles it, I believe it.)

I don't think you understand what it means to really prove something.

I don't think you understand the infallible testimony of the One who made it all, none of which testimony requires further proof from the objects he has made.

But more than that, if all this has been proven, then why the need for faith, given that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"?

If you don't think God's own word is proof of what is true, then we don't have the same God, you are still in darkness, and
we have no basis for discussion because we do not agree on the nature of truth.

 

[JIM]

So. . .the word of God states that you "are without excuse" in denying that "what can be known about God is plain;" i.e.. "his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen". . .(Ro 1:19-20)

If you intend that saying that I am without excuse, then you better go take a look in a mirror.

I am curious, when you look at creation as it indicates in Romans 1:19-20, does that tell you that God had a Son and that He died on the cross for the sins of the world? If you were an indigenous native American living a couple of thousand years ago, would you have known that? Amd don't say yes.

So what is Paul really saying?

 

[Eleanor]

If you intend that saying that I am without excuse, then you better go take a look in a mirror.
I am curious, when you look at creation as it indicates in Romans 1:19-20, does that tell you that God had a Son and that He died on the cross for the sins of the world? If you were an indigenous native American living a couple of thousand years ago, would you have known that? Amd don't say yes.

So what is Paul really saying?

In response to your statement, " If God really wanted to prove His existence, He could have done that. He didn't," (post #350),

I am presenting Paul's presentation of the culpability of man in failing
to glorify and give thanks to God when what may be known about him is plain to them because God has made it plain to them--his eternal power and divine nature being clearly seen and understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Ro 1:19-20)
Paul is saying that the proof of God's existence is clear enough that man is without excuse for not glorifying and giving thanks to him.

His creation, its very existence, gives very, very strong indication that there was a creator-God. But it is not proof.

Evidently God disagrees. . .for he considers it proof enough to hold man responsible and "without excuse" for failing to glorify and give thanks to him (Ro 1:19-20); i.e., to believe in him.

You and God are not on the same page on this. . .

 

[makesends]

If you intend that saying that I am without excuse, then you better go take a look in a mirror.

I am curious, when you look at creation as it indicates in Romans 1:19-20, does that tell you that God had a Son and that He died on the cross for the sins of the world? If you were an indigenous native American living a couple of thousand years ago, would you have known that? Amd don't say yes.

So what is Paul really saying?

Typical.

@Eleanor is giving you a sound bit of advice --a warning. She did not say you are without excuse. Do you not see the construction there? She asked, in essence, whether you believe that what Romans 1 says is true; because IF you don't, then you are without excuse.

IF nobody has any excuse that rejects God, then it is not saying that admitting that God exists via realizing his power and divine nature is equal to the gospel. It is only saying that his power and divine nature is evidence that renders nobody any excuse, if they reject that evidence.

I do happen to believe that the Gospel is altogether reasonable, upon realizing his power and divine nature, but that is a different subject.

But I should think that your self-deterministic worldview would willingly claim that one who admits to God's eternal power and Godhead would impress God enough that he would be compelled to also send him the gospel.

 

[JIM]

In response to your statement, " If God really wanted to prove His existence, He could have done that. He didn't," (post #350),

I am presenting Paul's presentation of the culpability of man in failing
to glorify and give thanks to God when what may be known about him is plain to them because God has made it plain to them--his eternal power and divine nature being clearly seen and understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Ro 1:19-20)
Paul is saying that the proof of God's existence is clear enough that man is without excuse for not glorifying and giving thanks to him.

Evidently God disagrees. . .for he considers it proof enough to hold man responsible and "without excuse" for failing to glorify and give thanks to him (Ro 1:19-20); i.e., to believe in him.

You and God are not on the same page on this. . .

Typical.

@Eleanor is giving you a sound bit of advice --a warning. She did not say you are without excuse. Do you not see the construction there? She asked, in essence, whether you believe that what Romans 1 says is true; because IF you don't, then you are without excuse.

IF nobody has any excuse that rejects God, then it is not saying that admitting that God exists via realizing his power and divine nature is equal to the gospel. It is only saying that his power and divine nature is evidence that renders nobody any excuse, if they reject that evidence.

I do happen to believe that the Gospel is altogether reasonable, upon realizing his power and divine nature, but that is a different subject.

But I should think that your self-deterministic worldview would willingly claim that one who admits to God's eternal power and Godhead would impress God enough that he would be compelled to also send him the gospel.

I stand by my reply #415.

 

[Eleanor]

I stand by my reply #415.

As I stand by my reply #416 to your reply #350.

 

[JIM]

Typical.

@Eleanor is giving you a sound bit of advice --a warning. She did not say you are without excuse.

Look again.

So. . .the word of God states that you "are without excuse" in denying that "what can be known about God is plain;" i.e.. "his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen". . .(Ro 1:19-20)

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: