Valletta said:

Yes, absolutely. I just gave you an example. The acceptance of the four Gospels as being inspired by God is a Tradition and not contained in Scripture. There is no mention of it in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Is there any mention in the OT of the OT being inspired?

Clare73 said:

You'll have go take that up with the apostle:

". . .death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those whose sns were not like the transgression of Adalm who was a type (tupos; figure, type, pattern) of the one who was to come." (Ro 5:14)

Click to expand...

You'll have to do that. It's already been explained why death reigned over all, because all were separated from the Author of life. This killed them spiritually as well as introducing its physical parallel: the death of the body. The many were made unrighteous-sinners-by Adam while the many are made righteous again by Jesus.

Fervent said:

Semantic regress isn't genuine regress, nor does it show that regress of an ontological or explanatory variety can be benign. Given that we weren't discussing semantics, but ontology and epistemology, it remains to be shown that such regress is truly possible to be benign.

Click to expand...

It remains to show that all infinite regresses in ontology and epistemology are vicious. Or that this one is at least.

With all we now know about Trump’s character, can there really be any doubt about his involvement with his good friend in those decadent years?

Good day all. Long time Christian and a well-established author for fiction and technology (you can find my stuff on Amazon and at my blog https://RodsFictionBooks.com) but with everything going on in the world, feel I need to refocus my experiences on more important matters. I have recently turned my focus on devotionals for personal, small group, and church use with topics I believe are timely. Each book has its own free Resource Kit and the ability for everyone to directly improve it.

Happy to share they are available on Amazon and the Resource Kit is housed on GitHub (can't take the geek out of me completely, lol)

Divine Design Devotionals: Amazon.com

Resource Kits: GitHub - rod-trent/DivineDesign: This is the repository for the electronic resource kits for Rod Trent's non-fiction, faith-based work

Dikaioumenoi said:

Once again, the issue is not whether man chooses God. Of course he does. Humans make choices. The question is why one person believes and another does not. What determines that difference? That's what Acts 13:48 (the passage we're supposed to be discussing) explicitly answers: ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον As I argued in the OP, the sense of that statement is, "as many as were in the state of having (beforehand) been appointed to eternal life, believed." Is adoption not eternal? What's the difference? In other words, when the Gentiles hear the gospel, they are already "in the state of having been appointed." The narrative logic naturally runs: divine appointment precedes and explains belief.

Click to expand...

The OP position is that, "divine appointment precedes and explains belief." The natural conclusion for the reader (myself, and possibly others) is that the OP is saying that some are appointed to belief, but some are not. (Because of the question posited, "The question is why one person believes and another does not?")


The complete context:


Verse 47:


The "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" makes sense when you consider it was the great commission to spread the gospel and save as many as possible. Notice, "unto the ends of the earth;" the whole world.

Given verse 47, there is no other way to interpret the verse but appointment unto salvation for all.

1. God is not a respecter of persons.

In the very book of Acts, just two chapters before, Peter says that God is not a respecter of persons. James says that respecting persons is a sin. God's very character is being called into question: For God would be sinning if He were a respecter of persons, appointing some to belief, but others not. Indeed this cannot be the case and is not the case.



2. The scope of the plan of salvation is global.

Let's revisit John 3:16-17 again.

Salvation is available to all. The world; the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family. Whosoever; all men, every man.

John 3:17 supports point #1; that God is not a respecter of persons. God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.


God wants the world to be saved. God does not condemn the world. Both statements are all inclusive.

3. Free will belief.

Paul explains how belief works.

Jesus asks a father to believe in Him, that his child can be healed.

Did Jesus deny the father in unbelief or did He meet the father where he was and ask him to have faith and believe?

Jesus is completely impartial here. He is not a respecter of persons (point #1), He is concerned about whether or not a man believes in Him. Jesus even laments the faithless generation, all of whom He is calling to believe and have faith in Him, to be saved (point #2).

Paul reasoned with the Gentiles unto belief.


4. Unbelief.

Satan is the cause of unbelief, not God.

The veil is taken away when one turns to the Lord.


5. The grafting in.

Grafting into the olive tree hinges on belief according to Paul. The cause of unbelief was shown in point #4.


6. The gospel going to the world.

7. Obedience.

Obedience is of free will, a natural result of belief.

---

Why I can't support the OP position:

1. Verse 47 shows the context of verse 48.

2. God's character

• God is not a respecter of persons.

3. All

• All are called to salvation.
• All are called to believe.
• The gospel goes to all.

4. Unbelief

• Unbelief is of Satan, not God.

Conclusion: If scripture as a whole does not support it then it cannot be correct.

Ophiolite said:

So, your take on this is that only extremists are violent. Interesting. I associate "extremists" with individuals who are deeply committed to changing matters forcefully and who are involved in thinking and planning how to proceed. Individuals, whose daily focus revolve around this. I think of extremist as very similar to activist.

From that perspective there is a large amount of political violence that can occur from the non-extremist, on both sides of the fence. That would account for very many more incidents that the number present in your smaller extremist Venn diagram, potentially distorting the validity of your conclusion.

Click to expand...

Extremist activists are the ones who are violent in the political realm. Everyone else either writes to congressmen or peacefully protests somewhere, standing around with signs.

No one who is committing violence, assaulting officers, attacking others, spitting on or screeching at anyone is a "deeply committed" rational person. Irrational people commit violence (unless they are just psychopaths/sociopaths and know full well what they are doing- get them off the street).

Show me news articles of non-extremists charged with/convicted of violent crimes.

Delvianna said:

Anyone love to write? I'd love to discuss each others current project if there are any Fantasy writers around

Click to expand...

Yes...I'm new here, but an established writer. You can find my stuff on Amazon or at my blog: https://RodsFictionBooks.com

BCP1928 said:

The culture war has been used by both sides to divide the working class and distract us from the substantive issues which affect us all.

Click to expand...

No one is dividing into anyone. No one is distracting anyone. Voters themselves are involved in these cultural conflicts.

Political parties engage in cultural conflicts because most Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, like cultural debates. The majority of evangelical Christians believe that the pro-life movement takes precedence over economic issues. Similarly, progressives consider matters such as pro-choice or civil rights for LGBTQ individuals to be significantly more important than US debt crisis.

It is your prerogative to consider cultural issues less significant in life. However, others may view these topics more important than anything else.

stevevw said:

Listen to all these experts who themselves provide no peer review. Talk about Woo. Double standards and bias proving my point that this was a lynch job from the start.

This whole thread has been turned into one big logical fallacy of ad hominems one after the other lol.

Click to expand...

My peer review documents are confidential and in XXX ZZZ physics, not archeology, so they aren't the documents you want.

According to Rodney Stark's "Cities of God", 2000 years ago Christianity spread through and flourished in the cities of the Roman world. Today, urban centers are giving rise the Woke Cult, as with NYC and Seattle. Seems to be some sort of "ominous (anti-)parallel"

NxNW said:

Trump pardoned a thousand criminals who brutally attacked others while trying to assassinate the Vice President and Speaker of the House.

Click to expand...

A "thousand criminals" did not attack anyone. There were a small bunch who did, all arrested for violent acts.

The large majority walked around the building, took video, and left. The large majority were charged with "being in an unauthorized area" or "parading". Look it up if you don't believe me.

That said, no one who actually committed and was convicted of a violent act should have been pardoned, especially if sentence was not completed. That part is accurate.

BCP1928 said:

Of course it is and the Dems have always been against it. That's why they object to ICE focussing on asylum seekers and refugees rather than the illegals working for corporate agribusiness.

Click to expand...

They can all be called "asylum seekers and refugees" merely based on them claiming such, even though their country of origin isn't at war. Palestinians and Ukrainians are legitimate asylum seekers and refugees for instance. There's no country in Central and South America that's at war like Palestine and Ukraine or even close to it really.

Strong in Him said:

You mean that he refuses to accept your explanation.
Phil G has experience of the subject so he therefore knows; you don't so you can only "believe" or "reckon".

Click to expand...

All I'm looking for is an alternative explanation that I can test against my own experience and knowledge to see if it makes sense. But for some reason, she can't understand what it is I'm looking for. She just keeps indicating that it's a matter of belief, which it isn't.

Complete failure to take any responsibility.

rjs330 said:

Not true, they deported illegals including straight up illegals, those whose visas had expired and those who's visas did not allow them to work.

Click to expand...

No, you're mistaken. Several hundred of those South Koreans had valid visas and work permits, but were nonetheless shackled and deported. *whose*

rjs330 said:

Upon confirmation they were Americans.

Click to expand...

Too bad that "confirmation" took so long with citizens who had their confirmation papers, e.g. a Real Id, on them. Others, for unknown reasons, were held several days before "confirmation" occurred.

rjs330 said:

It doesn't surprise me at all. Democrats and Rebublicans don't agree on much nor do conservatives and liberals.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you said "Americans stood up and said enough when Trump was elected and we still feel that way. If you are an illegal go home and come here legally" without bothering to specify that "Americans" come in many varieties and we don't all agree with what you said "Americans" think. That was my point.

rjs330 said:

No not all voted on that issue, but they knew his positions and he was clear on what he was going to do. I didn't vote for him on tariffs. We voters didn't have to agree with everything he proposed to vote for him. I still don't agree with him on everything.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps saying Americans think this or that about Trump is an essentially meaningless appeal to emotion.

People use this phrase a lot when there are arguments but for the most part, it looks like people are using it incorrectly, so I thought I'd start off this discussion by expounding on what is, and isn't "dividing the body of Christ".

1. First, let's define the word "dividing".
Dividing means to separate. I mean, that's as plain as it can get lol. If you divide an apple in half, you are cutting into two pieces. It is no longer whole, it is divided.

2. Now, what is the body of Christ?
It's a metaphor used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 to describe the Church as a whole. All believers in Jesus, united under one head of leadership. We can get more nuanced with this but let's just leave it as, anyone who follows Christ in faith. So regardless of denomination, race, or background.

3. Dividing the Body of Christ
So instead of unity (one body) all following Christ, you have division. Examples of this are:

• A) Breaking unity over non-essentials like: "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos" (1 Corinthians 3:4).
• B) Promoting False Doctrine (Galatians 5:7-10, Romans 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10)
• Gossip or slander (Proverbs 6:16-19)

4. So if promoting false doctrine is considered dividing the body, what is NOT dividing the body?

Rebuke: Correcting a person in error by holding them accountable, correcting behavior and correcting scripture. (Matthew 18:15, Luke 17:3, 2 Timothy 4:2, 1 Timothy 5:20, Titus 1:13)

If someone is preaching something false, that's already divided, but debating someone or even getting into a heated debate, isn't dividing, it's actually an attempt at becoming whole again where both people can agree. THAT is unity. So I think people need to be careful that just because 2 people are having an argument/debate, doesn't necessarily mean division, when scripturally speaking its a step towards unity (depending on context of course).

Denominations are already scripturally divided and we should duke it out more often so we can come together in unity of belief instead of attempting to pacify the debate with a chastisement of "dividing the body of Christ" which is only preventing us from actually being whole and keeping us divided with "you interpret it this way, I interpret it this way" and leaving it in that divided state. That's not helping, thats encouraging continued true division.

So within this context, can we stop throwing that phrase around and continue debating so we can become a unified front instead of a fractured one?

Now, within that spirit, feel free to debate me.

St_Worm2 said:

Hello John, yes, the "L" in Calvinism's TULIP acrostic (as well, really, the other two middle "petals") teach (in various ways) that the atonement that the Lord Jesus secured for us on the Cross is "limited" to the saints alone.

That said, here are a couple of things to consider about that.

1) Do you believe that God knows what's going to happen long before it actually happens (just like the Bible tells us that He does) and that He is able, thereby, to "declare the end from the beginning"?​

​

Isaiah 46​

9 "I am God, and there is no other; ​

I am God, and there is no one like Me, ​

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, ​

And from ancient times things which have not been done, ​

Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, ​

And I will accomplish all My good pleasure"​

​

2) Do you agree with Protestantism's "other position" (or systematic theology), Arminianism, that God looks down through a tunnel of time (so to speak) and "chooses" or "elects" unto salvation those who He sees (via His "foreknowledge") responding positively to the Gospel message?​

I'll stop here and wait for your reply (to the two questions that I just asked you above, that is).

Thanks

God bless you!!

--David

T - Total Depravity​

U - Unconditional Election​

L - Limited Atonement​

I - Irresistible Grace​

P - Perseverance of the Saints​

Click to expand...

God exists throughout human time at the same time, so there really is no past or future for God, so when we talk about the future, it is only future for us and not God.

It is not that God knows what future you will chose in the future (suggesting the future, is also God’s future), but God knows the free will choices you did make in the future (it is history for God).



The reason God knows a free will choice you will make tomorrow is because you already made that choice for the God which exists at the end of time, so with God being outside of time the God at the end of time is communicating (within Himself) to the God of today the choices you made tomorrow.

Yes, tomorrow’s choice has not been made as far as you are concerned but has been made as far as God is concerned.

Time is totally “relative” for God and for the last 100 years now, time has been shown to be relative, and nothing has even gone against the Theory of Relativity.

Think for a moment about this: If you got an actual video recording of a free will choice a man in China made one hours from now, that choice is set in history, so he cannot make any other choice, yet does that mean the choice will not be a free will choice? You cannot get in touch with him to change anything in the next hour. What you have is the history of his choice ahead of time and history does not keep the choice from being a free will choice.

The idea of a “Block Universe” is held by many non-Christian scientist, since it would explain a lot.

Chesster said:

Satire

Click to expand...

That site cracks me up.

Guojing said:

You should have told James that, after he wrote James 2:24.

Click to expand...

Told him what exactly?

Guojing said:

Strange you are now using Pauline epistles to talk about OSAS to the Body of Christ, when you were against that same claim of mine, in another thread.

Click to expand...

I am doing no such thing. Paul never taught OSAS at all. I'm afraid you have very poor reading comprehension skills.

JohnB445 said:

For example, a young man just starting college is murdered. He didn't get to live a long life, while someone else becomes a believer in their 40's.

The person in their 40's had more time to accept Jesus, yet the young man didn't. It seems unfair, but what does the Bible say?

Was the young man probably never would have been a believer anyway? Are we sometimes saved not only because we accepted Jesus, but by chance we survived long enough to accept Jesus as our God? Or does this not make any sense?

Click to expand...

It is wonderful to know: "I do not make that decision!"
God judges people's hearts, which I cannot see.
The Bible is really addressing people who could or did reject God and does not address those who never had the opportunity to reject God.

essentialsaltes said:

Trump ally Infantino to award first FIFA Peace Prize at World Cup draw in DC​

• New Fifa Peace Prize announced on Wednesday
• The inaugural award will be presented on 5 December during the World Cup draw at the Kennedy Center

Click to expand...

FIFA will use Kennedy Center free of charge for World Cup event, contract says​

The Kennedy Center booked the World Cup draw at President Donald Trump’s urging. It will occupy much of the campus and displace planned performances.

Who would ever suspect FIFA of taking bribes?

camille70 said:

The network used five-year-old footage, mislabeled other dates and implied footage from elsewhere was in Portland.

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

Trump questioned perception of Portland before approving military plan: 'Am I watching things on television that are different from what's happening?'​

"I spoke to the governor, she was very nice," Trump said. "But I said, 'Well wait a minute, am I watching things on television that are different from what's happening? My people tell me different.' They are literally attacking and there are fires all over the place...it looks like terrible."

Click to expand...

sir.dante.esq said:

Of all the faults man possess Arrogance can be the most insidious.- me.

• "The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance." - Albert Einstein
• "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall" - Proverbs 16:18

Click to expand...

Einstein didn't say that: Did Einstein Say 'The Only Thing More Dangerous than Ignorance Is Arrogance'?