-Removed-Well, frankly, I see no need to start a new thread, really, since you brought up the matter here in this one.
But first - you said in an earlier post that you "believe in ultimate sovereignty of God and in his ultimate reconciliation of mankind."
Of course God is ultimately sovereign, no argument there, but your assertion that "mankind" will be reconciled, and what you mean by that, is unclear.
Are you saying that every single person that was ever born will be saved?
If so, then provide proof, and not from your mind, but from the scriptures. I mean, show me where in the Bible it says that.
After all, that's a heavy duty doctrine. There certainly must be verses and passages to support that truth!
1 edit
-Removed-Truly, I understand your position. I'm not your enemy just because I don't agree with it.
I'm not at all certain how to go about discussing this issue and yet not allowing it to get out of hand. If you know what I mean.
I think my position is undergirded by who God is, just as your position is. You say that you perceive God in such a way as to make it impossible to imagine how He would punish the unbelieving masses with "everlasting" fire. I empathize with that perspective, but then I perceive God relative to His Holiness, and how, because of that, those that die in their sin can never appear in His presence.
The Bible speaks nothing about annihilation, but it makes "judgement" and "separation" perfectly clear.
You and I may decide to debate, argue and discuss with each other the merits of our mutually exclusive positions, but in the end, out there in eternity, I am personally grateful that the judgement of the lost doesn't fall on me.
-Removed-Without sounding condescending, I'm happy you understand that salvation is of God, that we had no part in what Christ did in paying the price of our redemption, settled in eternity past before anything was created.
Without appearing to gloss over the points you made relative to the sovereignty of God regarding salvation, which cannot be earned, as we're in agreement, I'd like to make a comment about God's sovereignt, and man's responsibility.
By no means do I claim to understand all about it, but it seems plain to me that both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility go hand in hand throughout scripture, except with regards to salvation, which is entirely of God.
It is true, and you are correct in saying God is accountable and responsible, but not as an aspect of His sovereignty.
Let me explain what I mean. God took the blame for our sins, yes, but not because it was His fault that we sin.
Here's a further complication: have you ever wondered what is meant by "...after the similitude of Adam's transgression,.." found in Romans 5:14?
Sin entered through Adam, but we can't sin like he did. Adam sinned from in the state of perfection and innocence, we don't.
You see, that's why it isn't our fault that we were born with it. And it is for that reason that Christ assumed full responsibility.
BUT
Man was created in the image and likeness of God. We are conscious of right and wrong. The knowledge of good and evil is encrypted in every fiber of our being.
Man has free will. An attribute of being created in the image and likeness of God. Man is an image bearer, and he chooses.
Problem is, when he chooses to do evil, there comes a point when God, in His sovereignty, "gave them up", verses 24 and 26, and "gave them over" in verse 28 of Romans chapter 1, because man chose not to "to retain God in their knowledge."
All of this has been a huge debate in the church for centuries.
It's why I'm a literalist.
2 edits
@bigdoggproblem saidAbsolutely not.
Do you think there are some that God fails to, or chooses not to, save?
1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
The 'who' is God. It is God's will that all be saved. This is where man's 'will' comes into play.
Sorry for jumping on your reply to divegeester.
@secondson saidAnnihilation just means completely destroyed.
Truly, I understand your position. I'm not your enemy just because I don't agree with it.
I'm not at all certain how to go about discussing this issue and yet not allowing it to get out of hand. If you know what I mean.
I think my position is undergirded by who God is, just as your position is. You say that you perceive God in such a way as to make it impossible to im ...[text shortened]... , out there in eternity, I am personally grateful that the judgement of the lost doesn't fall on me.
That concept is in the bible.
@secondson saidI've always had time for stray cats. Currently, we have three that visit our back garden regularly. Two of them are relatively friendly, show appreciation for the food we put out. One however is a mangy old thing, no teeth to speak of. He takes the food but not if we are too close. He has no interest in us, runs away if either of us go out into the garden.
Problem is, when he chooses to do evil, there comes a point when God, in His sovereignty, "gave them up", verses 24 and 26, and "gave them over" in verse 28 of Romans chapter 1, because man chose not to "to retain God in their knowledge."
All of this has been a huge debate in the church for centuries.
It's why I'm a literalist.
Of course, I continue to provide food for all three of them. Even the lost one. Especially the lost one. I don't give up feeding him because of his lack of interest in me. I, as a being of higher intelligence, understand his position and show compassion and the 'same' love I show the other two cats. I don't give up on him, give him over.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSuppose the mangy old cat was also
I've always had time for stray cats. Currently, we have three that visit our back garden regularly. Two of them are relatively friendly, show appreciation for the food we put out. One however is a mangy old thing, no teeth to speak of. He takes the food but not if we are too close. He has no interest in us, runs away if either of us go out into the garden.
Of cours ...[text shortened]... how compassion and the 'same' love I show the other two cats. I don't give up on him, give him over.
- raping and killing baby cats around the village
- stealing and selling drugs to decent cats
- encouraging decent cats to attack your birds and hamsters etc
After you preached to this mangy cat and sent prophet cats [who he killed] to speak to this cat, without success, what would you do?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidPoor analogy. God didn't create cats in His image and likeness, nor do cats have free will. Cats act in response to instinct, as do all animals. Lab tests notwithstanding.
I've always had time for stray cats. Currently, we have three that visit our back garden regularly. Two of them are relatively friendly, show appreciation for the food we put out. One however is a mangy old thing, no teeth to speak of. He takes the food but not if we are too close. He has no interest in us, runs away if either of us go out into the garden.
Of cours ...[text shortened]... how compassion and the 'same' love I show the other two cats. I don't give up on him, give him over.
Man is aware, conscious of something greater than himself. Man, not animals asks the questions, what am I? How did I get here? What happens after I die? Not so with animals.
And no human being was ever charged with murder for killing an animal.
Perhaps you think God is dispassionate toward man by warning man about the consequences of rejecting Him, and that somehow the threat of judgement and everlasting punishment is the act of a monster.
Nothing could be further from the truth. God took the most precious thing in existence and crushed it, firing down on His only begotten Son all of His wrath and indignation, and somehow leaving him there in the darkness of eternal separation so that a rational human being could see that and understand just how much God loves him.
The price of redemption. The choice is up to each individual. Believe or reject. Both decisions come with eternal consequences.
Your analogy doesn't work because it doesn't measure up to the seriousness of the matter. No one ever died for a cat.