Well, I have a lot to reply to. Bear with me. First, to Puritan Lad:
Puritan Lad wrote:My assertion is based on the fact that if one dies as a non-believer, that person will go to Hell. For he that believes not is condemned already. That person was never saved. Jesus Never knew them.
1 John 2:19
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.”
The “backslider” was never saved. He was “not of us”. If what you say is true, then all of the warnings in scripture against apostasy are meaningless. All you have to do is believe, even for a brief moment, and your guaranteed heaven.
I'm glad you agree that it is unbelief, and not sin, that condemns a person to Hell
. As for 1 John 2:19, I suggest you read my exegeis of the first four verses of the book found
here. There, I thoroughly demonstrate that the purpose of the book is one of fellowship. Those who John says were "not of us" were false teachers who denied the gospel of Grace. Yes, they were never saved, but it is because they have never believed. See that? They NEVER BELIEVED. John discusses their heresies in vv 1:5-10.
Puritan Lad wrote:Says Who? 2 Thess. 3:2 disagrees.
No it doesn't. I've already handled this. Do you know Boy George's song, "You gotta have faith"? That's the same concept here. Try to keep in mind that the Bible--especially the NT--was written for specific purposes to specific people to proclaim a specific message. The majority of it is not doctrinal dissertations. Paul says not everyone has faith. He's not making a theological claim there. He's saying that not everyone is regenerate. The text does NOT say, "God has not granted everyone the gift of believing on Jesus Christ." He is saying that wicked men don't have faith. Nothing contrary in that with my position whatsoever.
Now, would you care to deal with the argument I offerd as it relates to regenertation being through faith? I doubt it . . . you haven't made that much of a practice, have you?
Puritan Lad wrote:Wow. Poor Holy Spirit. I didn't realize that He was so weak that He was unable to overcome the will of His own creation. I can't imagine what it is like to serve a god who is a failure, a god who wants to save every single person on planet earth, but just couldn't get the job done.
Ah, poor PL. I didn't realize you would have to resort to sarcasm to try to get your point across. What is it with you Calvinists that you seem to believe that God's giving men the right to choose makes Him any weaker? What stupidity! Now, I made it very clear how the Holy Spirit draws all men. He does it by revelation. First general, then special. I have provided biblical examples of this. Care to answer my arguments? No, I didn't think so.
*waiting for, "I did answer your arguments!" with no quotes whatsoever*
Puritan Lad wrote:??? Why did God not do this for the Pharisees? Why did He purposely blind them?
I've gotten on to people in the past for doing this very thing. I'm going to have to talk to the other mod's about this little problem . . .
Look, it is unproductive and irresponsible to take this approach in arguing. You seperated the claim in the previous quote from the arguments in support in this one. Thus, you attack the claim itself without dealing with the support, giving the impression that none was provided. In doing so, you attack the claim, the answers of which are found immediately below. This is a waste of time, because I've already answered this. Take arguments in context, PL. It's amazing how much more can get done that way. I realize the longer and more confusing these threads get, the better it is for you. All you do is post proof texts with no exegesis. You know that most people aren't going to take the time to wade through all the discussion, so if you just keep asserting yourself over and over, you'll gain support by convincing people not to think for themselves. I suppose if that is the kind of Christians you want out there . . .
As for you and me, I suggest you take my arguments and 1) deal with them as I've been asking you to do for MONTHS now, and 2) deal with them in their proper context. To date, I've never misrepresented your position, and yet you REPEATEDLY do this to me.
Honest, PL. I recommend you give it a try. But be careful, you mind find yourself realizing that you have no biblical support for your position. As Jesus said, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."
Now, try following my argument and the answer to the above question should be self evident. If you can't even follow this VERY BASIC line of thought, why should I believe you can follow anything else? And if you can't follow/understand what I'm saying, why should I or anyone else think you are in a position to make a valid judgment on my beliefs? Or if you do understand what I am saying, then what is the point in asking a question that is obviously answered, unless you are simply trying to create confusion? Either way, you lose. It's dishonest, PL. Keep trying.
Puritan Lad wrote:
John 12:39-40
“Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: “ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.”
How would you deal with this Jac? Jesus did NOT open their hearts to “give them a choice to believe”. In fact, He did just the opposite. He hardened their hearts, so that they would not believe. Why? Because only His sheep will believe (John 10:27). The Pharisees did not believe, BECAUSE they were not His sheep (John 10:26). They were “disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed” (1 Peter 2:8). There is some "plain reading" for you Jac.
Please observe how I am dealing with your arguments and Scriptures. Someday, you'll do the same (LOL). As for your proof texts:
John 12 I deal with exactly as I have in the past. These leaders had been progessively rejecting Jesus throughout His entire ministry. If you look at Matt. 13:11-17, Jesus says why. Their hearts "had become" callous. How? By their continued unbelief. As such, Jesus spoke in such a way that those who rejected would continue in their rejection.
As for John 10 and belief/sheep . . .
To our avid readers, btw, I have a note. Please be aware that all of these arguments are standard and cliche. You can get absolutely any non-Calvinist commentary and get everything I'm saying here. You've been able to do this for decades or more now. The fact that PL is using tired old arguments should tell you something. Either he's not studied the position or he's presenting an argument with the full knowledge of the rebuttal, and yet has decided to present it anyway. Back to the game, then:
The best you can do here, PL, is make an argument for election. You can't say that belief enough is not alone, because this passage is all about belief and who is and is not "of the sheep." Now, who are the sheep? Those whom the Father has given to Christ. Whom has the Father given? The elect. Now, I've thoroughly explained my views on election in several threads. You disagree, naturally, but the fact is that this passage presents absolutely no problem, but actually good support, for my understanding of the doctrine.
Too bad you didn't quote the rest of the passage:
- 1 John 12:42-43
Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43for they loved praise from men more than praise from God. (NIV)
So . . . wait a second. They could not believe because God hardened their hearts, and yet, some believed anyway?!? Looks like you have a problem. And, to make matters worse, those who believed didn't confess their belief. And why not? Because they were afraid they would lose their prestige! But Puritan, John says they believed! Oh well . . . maybe he was mistaken? Maybe they only intellectually assented. Silly John for using the same word here that he used back in 3:16 and 5:24 and 6:47 . . .
Puritan Lad wrote:Nowhere did Jesus say that one is born again by belief. John 3:16 never explains how one comes to believe in the first place (I couldn't help notice that you ignored John 1:13). How is one born again, according to Jesus?
John 3:8
“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
You can't control the wind with your “free will”.
First, let's get 1:13, and in passing, should I not be able but "help to notice that you ignored" a vast multitude of the Scriptures, complete with exegesis, I've offered? :p Anyway, here's the verse, with 12 for context:
- Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
Now, as I said before, we are not born of ourselves. We are born of the will of God. But, then again, I don't remember arguing that we choose to be regenerated. I don't remember arguing that regeneration was our choice. See, PL, this is where I wish you would at least deal with the arguments I'm providing on their own basis. Everything in the flow chart I listed on the Calvinism thread . . . all of that under the "past salvation" part is THE WORK OF GOD. HE does the work of Regeneration by His will. HE CHOS to regenerate a certain person . . . the one who is in Christ. There is nothing denying the Sovereignty of God to say that people can't make a decision. Again, that's sheer stupidity.
Ah, but no worries, because this passage actually goes against your position anyway. Notice that it says, "To all who received him." They weren't born again so that they could receive. They received, and thus were born again.
So, then back to John 3. The entire passage is about how to be born again. In verses 3-10, Jesus is asserting that a man must be born again. If I were preaching this, I'd probably label it "The Necessity of the New Birth." Starting in verse 11 and following, Jesus tells Nicky how this is to be accomplished. It is by belief in the Christ. He even gives an analogy in verses 14-15.
See, that's part of the problem with your hermeneutic, PL. For you, Jesus tells Nick he has to be born again, but then doesn't tell him how. But, he goes on to talk about belief, TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE NEW BIRTH. Too bad Jesus didn't let him in on the little secret that only the elect would believe, because only the elect would be born again. It's all very silly . . .
And finally, as for the "wind blows" comments: The comments are an explanation of Jesus' statement that Nick should have known about the New Birth. They called to his mind the vision of Ez. 37. The idea is simple and clear. Just as man cannot control the wind, He cannot control the New Birth. It is the work of the Spirit.
Of course, you will take this to mean that a man cannot believe freely, thus "controlling" the Spirit. But you are making a pretty serious exegetical blunder with that argument. The word "believe" doesn't occur at all in this conversation. You are introducing an idea Jesus hasn't touched on yet. In reality, Jesus told Nick that if he wanted to see the Kingdom, then he would have to be born again. Nick didn't understand, so Jesus told him that a spiritual rebirth was necessary. Further, he should have been aware of this from Ez. 37! This new birth wouldn't be the result of human works of righteousness, which was, of course, how the Pharisees were trying to enter the kingdom. It would be totally without human help, by the Spirit. And thus, the wind illustration. Nick now says, "How can this be?!" It is both incredulity and a lack of understanding. So, Jesus scolds him, and tells him to be born again, he simply must believe by looking to the lifted Son of Man. He uses the account of the bronze serpent to prove his point. See how much easier that fits not only with the context, but also with the broader theology of the Jews and the general problems they were having as a whole?
Puritan Lad wrote:Maybe Pharoah should bring this argument against God, since that is exactly what God did to him. Pharoah should hire you for his defense attourney. Good Luck. Paul addresses this very complaint.
Romans 9:19-24
“You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
This is God, Jac. His most important attribute is His Sovereignty, which you would approve of with words, but deny with your theology. He does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115:3). He works HIS WILL among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35). Do you think this unfair? Paul responds, "Too bad".
The very fact that you bring this argument up shows that Paul was a Calvinist.
Ah, yes, the standard Rom 9 and Pharoah argument. Well, I notice you didn't attack the validity of my argument. You just run to your (mis)understanding of Paul to avoid the obvious implications of what i'm saying. Do you REALLY think that's your trump card? I mean, REALLY?!? Come on . . . it's incredibly weak. Rene Lopez has a commentary entitled
Romans Unlocked. He has a good explanation of this passage. Every non-Calvinist has come at this from basically the same angle.
Now, yes, God can do what He wishes. You have to prove, though, that God wishes for certain people to be condemned before they were even born. The Bible doesn't say, "God is a supralapsarian." That's something that God invented. Sorry for you there, buddy. In reality, God's wish is to grant people the ability to choose to accept or reject Him freely. God has an awful lot of conditional promises in the Bible. "If you do this, I'll do that. If you do that, I'll do this." Even you covenant theologians believe that. Oswald Allis, in his book
Prophecy and the Church, argues extensively for a conditional Abrahamic Covenant, to site but one example. Under your theology, there should be no such thing as a conditional anything. God will do what God wants, regardless of Man's reactions. There can be no conditions. Anyway, I've alreadly dealt with Pharoah, and I'll do Romans 9 one of these days, if nothing more than so that the readers of this site will be able to see how very off the Calvinist view is. It's utterly ridiculous :p
Puritan Lad wrote:Jac, this is vain philosophy and empty deceit. “Works may or may not be sins.”??? Are you serious? They are judged according to their works and “cast into the lake of fire”. Of course they are sins. Furthermore, you are faced with the need to make the sin of unbelief a separate sin, a sin that Christ did not pay for.
You know, just saying "Of course they are sins" doesn't make it so. And, AGAIN PL (how many times must I repeat my position before you understand it, or at least decide to represent me properly), the sin of unbelief has ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR. In my view, a person is NOT condemned for sin. I've demonstrated that over and over and over. 1 John 2:2 is enough to prove it. Would you care to offer the standard Calvinist exegesis of that passage? I'd be delighted to, because it's a joke. I would really like to see that, because then our readers can see just how off your reasoning is in this area.
Now, again . . . works may or may not be sins. Would anyone here disagree that some works are good works? To be judged according to your works is just that . . . you are seeing if you measure up to righteousness based on them. There will be some good, and some bad. It so happens that, by these, we will not be found righteous. Really easy.
Puritan Lad wrote:Whoa Jac. Using this line of reasoning in this scripture, you would conclude that He will give eternal life to unregenerate man for “doing good”. Surely you don't believe that.
Sure I do. If a person does perfect good and NEVER commits a SINGLE sin -- including the sin imputed to him -- then he will be justified before God. I already referenced that with Scripture. God is a fair judge. There will be people who come before Him with a great deal of good works. Ah, but then there will be those bad works, and, we all know there will be some of those. And, thus, God will show that there defense is no defense at all.
Let's just add some strength to the position. What did Jesus say to the RYR? The story is found in Matt 19:16-29. Jesus says specifically, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." This man was trying to justify himself by works. Well, we all know what the standard is based on works . . . it is perfection, which is just what Jesus wants from him. So, the man will have to sell everything and give it all away. Then, he would have to follow Jesus. How long? Every day, forever. He would have to live a perfect life. If at any one moment the man doesn't follow Jesus exactly, he is not perfect. Needless to say, the man went away sad, because he knew he could not live up to such a standard. That's the way it is. If you can manage to live PERFECTLY, you are justified. But, as Paul says, no one lives perfectly. All have sinned. Thank God Jesus paid that price already and has given us an alternative.
Puritan Lad wrote:God is not just fair Jac. You assume that a fair and just God would give the same offer of salvation to everyone. In fact, if God were fair and just, and only fair and just, He would save no one. God could completely wipe out the human race and send us all to Hell, and be totally justified in doing so. It is His grace and mercy and that alone that saves anyone, and He does not give that to everyone.
Romans 9:18
“Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”
There is a difference in being "just" and "justified." Are you saying that God is not just, PL? Now, yes, God would have been justified in sending us ALL to Hell. But, He is also justified in not doing so. And why? Because He paid the price Himself. He offered salvation to everyone. Those who rejected it, He rejected.
This is one of the things that is amazing to me about Calvinists, and it is why I said at the beginning of our Calvinism debate that your theology is an assault on His character. Human beings, for you, are actually far more moral than God Himself! Oh, but don't you dare say that, because God can do what He wants! Morality doesn't apply to Him. And yet, Jesus constantly uses the "if you being evil, then how much more God being good" argument. If men are fair, God is more fair. Let's use some biblical language to phrase the argument:
"If you, being an evil man, know how to treat each man fairly, how much more will your Father who is in heaven, being perfect, treat each man fairly?"
Puritan Lad wrote:Only to your satisfaction. It is SIN that blots of out of the book of life.
No, it is death. That's why it's called "The Book of Life" and not "The Book of Righteousness"
Tell me, PL . . . if sin blots a person's name from the Book, then why is it that YOUR sin doesn't blot you out? Because you are one of the elect? But, yet . . . you still sin. So, you agree that God doesn't blot us out for every sin. Which ones is it? The sin of unbelief? So, it isn't sin that blots us out, but rather a particular sin, which is unbelief? But Christ died for all of your sins, and at some point, you didn't believe. So, it can't be that either. So, Christ's blood covered YOUR sins, and not the sins of the unelect. And thus, their sin blotted them out? I suppose that would be an accurate portrayal of your position, no?
Puritan Lad wrote:Matthew 5:29-30
“If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.”
Try again Jac. Jesus make it clear that sin will cause one to be cast into Hell. (Hint: they haven't been paid for by Christ. They are paying for their own sins.)
2 Peter 2:4,9-10
“For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment…then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries.”
Those who “according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority” (SIN) will be cast into Hell.
The first passage isn't referring eschatological salvation in the sense you are using it. It is a reference to the requirements of righteousness required to enter into the Kingdom. What does Jesus say at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount? "Be perfect, therefore, just as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:48)
That's why, in order to enter the Kingdom, the people's righteousness would have to exceed that of the Pharisees. They were not perfect, and that is the standard! Now, we can't live perfectly, but Jesus did. Therefore, by believing in Him, we are imputed with HIS righteousness, and God considers us perfect.
As for this passage, Jesus is speaking straight truth. If something is keeping you from being perfect, then get rid of it, no matter what the cost. Imperfection will cause a person to be rejected from the Kingdom. It is not the sin that causes a person to go to hell, but the person's imperfection. (cf. Deut 17:1). This is, of course, due to sin, but the ultimate result of sin is deadness, which is the primary problem.
As for Peter, those who walk in unbelief naturally walk in sin. But it is not their sin they are condemned for. The passage doesn't at all say that it is. It simply says what will happen. But you should understand that line of thought . . . after all, you used it for John 3:16!
Puritan Lad wrote:Jac, According to the above statement, you have verified my argument. You have verified that, according to you, Belief (which comes from “inherent faith” which we choose to use a certain way) leads to the new birth (even though both concepts are foreign to the Bible). The “new birth” then leads to being "in Christ" (even though the Bible clearly says that “By Him we are in Christ”. Then after we have accomplished all of this of our own free will, we become one who God elected, since God knew ahead of time who would choose to be “in Christ”. You're view is Arminianism Jac. It is not election. It is ratification. God chooses all who chose Him. Therefore, according to your theology, God does in fact “put His stamp of approval” on our belief, regardless of when He did it. Having Him do so before the foundation of the earth doesn't change that fact.
My God . . . this is not that hard, PL. I've already shown why this can't be true. Election is a PRETEMPORAL EVENT. It is impossible to base something on something else that HAS NOT YET HAPPENED. God did not elect us BECAUSE we believed. He elected us BECAUSE we are in Christ.
It's actually the Calvinist position that is Arminian here. You both believe exactly the same thing about election, just from different perspectives. As a side note, I've got a whole section of the book on Calvinism I'm working on devoted to show that, in the end, Calvinism and Arminianism have the same practical results. Same beliefs, different perspective :p
Let me explain: For the Calvinist, you are elected, and thus regenerated, and thus will produce good works, and thus you will persevere in those good works and faith until the end. For the Arminian, you believe, and are thus elected, and thus you have to keep doing good works to makes ure you keep your election. If you actually persevere until the end, you are elected for salvation. Precisely the same thing. How so? Simple. If you, as a Calvinist, lose your faith before you die, then it proves that you never really were elected. You faith was temporary and you fell away, though you were, of course, convinced you faith was real. No matter. All apostates think they are really saved until they fall away. So, to be saved, you work and hold fast your confession until death. The same goes for the Arminian. He doesn't know that he is elected until he perseveres, either.
Now, I don't have this problem. God, before and in all of eternity, looked at the Present and said, "I choose you and you and you and you." Who did He choose? Those who are in Christ. There's nothing about ratification in that. Belief is unrelated to election. God elects based on POSITION not BELIEF. And why? Because declared from all eternity that it would be that way. Seriously, this is NOT hard stuff . . .
So how does it feel to be an Arminian, PL?
Seriously, that has to suck . . . but don't worry. You're in pretty good company. I do know a few Arminians I respect
Puritan Lad wrote:Feel free to take your time. As far the tense of the verb "born", it really doesn't matter. Your view would require future tense, which is clearly not there, ie. “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ will be born of God”. The text clearly tells us that condition of believing that Jesus is the Christ. They are those who are born of God, not will be as a result of their belief.
OK, I checked with Dr. Arnett, and I was right. Here's a bit of technical exegesis for you that, not surprisngly, supports my position (please note, Arnett is a Calvinist, so this is far from a biased position. The man has his Ph.D. in NT Greek from NOBTS):
- Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
The NIV rendering here . . . now the two words of interest are "believes" and "is born." The former is a present active participle. This is VERY important, and we will come back to it in a moment. The word "is born" is a
perfect active indicitive. This means that the verb refers to
an action completed in the past with ongoing results. The verse should be rendered, then, so far, as you have:
"Everyone who believes that Jesus in the Christ
has been born of God."
Now, we come back to our participle. The neat thing about these boogers is that they do not connote absolute time. Their time is relative to the verb (or noun) they are describing. When we say the participle is present (or aorist or perfect) we are talking about its ASPECT and NOT ITS TENSE. The present participle is so named because it is built on the present tense stem, and it describes a CONTINUAL ACTION. This isn't easy to bring through in English. That's why the major translation brought it over like they did . . .
What does this mean to us right now? Well, what is the participle "believes" describing? Answer: "he who is born." What is the time? Remember, the participle itself doesn't tell us, so we look to the modified phrase. In this case, the word is in the perfect, so the time for the participle is in the perfect as well. So, we could clumbsily translate the verse this way:
"Everyone who was believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." What is John saying? He is saying that at the MOMENT OF THE NEW BIRTH (past, completed action), the person was IN THE PROCESS OF BELIEVING. That may or may not be true today, but that past process of believing resulted in the New Birth, and that birth as consequences today . . . namely, the fact that we are still in Christ.
This is pure grammar, PL. It's the only valid way to treat this passage. And, not surprisingly, it supports my position and contradicts yours.
Puritan Lad wrote:Yes. “Why did God hate Esau?” Your previous answer is unscriptural.
Jac's Answer (Pure Arminianism): “God hated Esau because, in His foreknowledge, He knew what kind of man Esau was. This was a man who would reject the birthright. He would be the man who would reject the Covenant.”
Paul's Answer: “(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.””
Since Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, I'll go with what he said.
I have no contradiction with Paul at all. Notice what he said: "according to election." Sounds like exactly what I've been saying all along. But, then again, you still haven't figured out what I mean by that, so I guess I'm not surprised that you still don't get it.
Puritan Lad wrote:The theology of Arminians and other "free-willers" will naturally lead your your "easy-believism"-"no Lordship" heresy. Today's so-called "gospel" message says, "Come to Jesus, He'll give you a better life". The gospel message that was preached in the Bible was "REPENT", "Flee from the wrath to come".
Arminians don't believe in "easy believism." Which is sad. It's one of the reasons I doubt their salvation. They believe that works are necessary, which is contradictory to what I'm saying. Seriously, PL, you need to stop with the straw man. I've repudiated Arminianism over and over again. It's old and tired for you to say, "HA! You are Arminian!" I consider you way more Arminian that I am.
Now, I'll say this YET AGAIN. NOWHERE does the Bible say that to be saved we must commit ourselves into His Lordship. It says just the opposite. Believe and be saved. Simple. The person who believes in Lordship for salvation is not saved, and they will find themselves in Hell if they do not freely receive the gift of grace.
In reality, this is plain to see. You are offering Christ your life in exchange for His. What a slap in His face. Do you not honestly realize, PL, that before God, you are no better than Hitler? You are no better than Stalan or Domitan or Nero? You are an evil, pathetic sinner. Why should you giving your life to Christ make any difference to Him whatsoever? He offers you salvation FREE. But, you have to take it on those terms, or you don't take it at all. To attempt to earn it by cleaning up your act is to slap God in the face and spit at the offer of Christ. Like I said before, this is no easy believism. You can't seem to believe it. It is simple believism. I'm sorry if that's so hard.