Evidence for God from Science

livebyfaith wrote:Just posting to let everyone know I've been banned, which is why I can't respond further to the charges laid against me. Won't try to circumvent it beyond letting people know.

God bless

-jac

Only a temp ban...Jac...so people can all cool down...

Glad to hear that you follow an Aristotelian model. That help explains why and how you interpret scripture. Have you tried blending that to the Eastern Orthodox / Hebrew model of looking at the whole and just not individual parts? From this you gain perspective how all the parts fits to make whole.

The bible simply says what it says. History of scholastic thought and the western tradition and it pragmatism reveals a lot about doctrine and why people get on the holy crusading band wagon so easily. Jac and Jay — we are in reality saying the same thing only from a different perspective and tradition.

No one is saying works save you or keep you saved. I am talking about becoming mature in Christ as Christ did indeed come to change our very lives out from darkness into light. Many make much use of John 3:16 but fail to read onward toward the whole near the end of Jesus words in John 3 which state:

John 3:19-21, “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

This pretty much says what I teach. Christian should expect change out from darkness into light and learn that God works in them to do His good pleasure. The doctrine of Easy Believism, while holding on to an Aristotelian model, has the doctrine of salvation correct, it lacks one thing — it tells people it is okay to continue in darkness because anything else is evil human works.

Results as you have seen Jac — are in our churches — people living in darkness. Salvation involves the whole person. It is a process wrought by the Holy Spirit within us. We fail to teach this to people and the results????

Well, they will not be on my head any longer. I made a vow to the Lord to teach people what to expect after they become saved, how to overcome the darkness in their lives, how to learn to have Christ work through you and not be afraid it is a human work, how to love, how to become mature in Christ, Jac.

I shared this in another post but it fits here as well:

B. W. wrote:I know I have in the past and failed to teach about the Holy Ghost Roller Coaster Ride …

What's that?

After a person becomes saved they need to understand the Holy Ghost Roller Coaster as it will help them know the ups and downs we all will experience in the Christian walk.

One moment, you are on cloud ten with the Lord, then next day find yourself in a valley of lowness where all looks so blue, then a quick turn into the pitfall of sin, or another turn into a temper tamptrum, but through it all, as you ride the 1 John 1:9 car, remember the car in which you ride and soon back up to the heights above you go — some excitement — some boredom — some studying — maybe one may ride in the lowlands for a bit till they comprehend whose really in control.

We do not know where a Christian is in their walk with the Lord as they ride the Holy Ghost Roller Coaster. Only the Lord does. This is where real faith arises — the Lord will get you home and see you through as that is the lesson learned from the Holy Ghost Roller Coaster ride!

We can argue about someone not acting such and such a way but remember someone may have said that about you and I too, months or years ago!

There is a reason Paul desired the church members to become mature in Christ. So if we live long enough, we too will become mature in Christ and others will marvel and say, “I saw Christ today — really - I did - in you!”

Some doctrines just leave people babes in Christ. That's not the goal, only the beginning of the ride!

I teach faith, Jac and Jay, Faith in the Lord and what a person can reasonably expect. I do not mince words or try to make a person feel all good by selling them easy believism. Yes, believing in Christ is easy and all that is necessary for salvation / justification. Where does one go from there? Are we teaching them to follow the Good Shepherd (Lord) or teach them that their get up an go done went so sit and be still...

Here is a thought: Remember the LXX is a translation from ancient Hebrew into common BCE Greek . Therefore, Greek words will have a Hebrew balance to them. When one becomes fully persuaded — their behavior and actions will correspond to what one has complete confidence in as that is the balance. That is what is missing in easy believism: confidence in the Lord that He will see you thru your life's course on this earth come what may!

You even teach how God will see one thru life, Jac, but in parts- but how much more will people get it when they're taught to look at the whole aim of God for their lives? A person can be so busy, motivated by a fear of works, that they fail to teach the flock entrusted them who the Shepherd is, who leads them by still waters, whose staff comforts, who goes after them when they stray?

A Shepherd maybe able to hold at the most two sheep or at best, just one, the rest of the flock must follow the shepherd. Is following a work to be ignored, derided, taught as being heresy? or is it part and parcel of the whole Christian experience? Why do so many Christians do not know what to do, or what to expect?

What are we doing and teaching the flock, Jac? Remain stagnate or follow the Good Shephed?

Easy Believism, while holding many important and valid truths, teaches stagnation and the wolf and loin comes roaring seeking whom to devour. Sorry Jac, I can't teach that way anymore as we are held to a stricter judgment and are responsible to the Lord what He entrusted into our care.

The Gospel is a whole — it does has individual parts but these parts do indeed make a whole that the Aristotelian model oft fails to see how each fit together making one whole and mature in the Lord.

Jac and Jay, in no way am I offended by anything you wrote are said. I debate atheist, Mormons, JW's, occultist, medicine men, pagan worshipers, etc… and get more flak from them than anything you both said. No offense taken on my part.

I read your comments with compassion: A compassion that wants to poke and prod you deeper into the faith. If you could only see what the Lord called us too, what a change would happen to you. Note what John 3:18 says:

"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Believe in the name means what? What does name mean as used in OT and NT? Faithing in the name of Christ is important as that is why one Faithes in Him to be saved… All aspects of his name 'is' revealed upon the cross and after the cross. Do you teach that Jac?

What affect does his name have upon a believer (faither)? It is not stagnation…

The rest is up to you to look into...
-
-
-
Eph 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them..."

Eph 1:4, "...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love..."

John 3:21, “...But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

NKJV

Rather than continuing the argument, might I suggest that a thread focused on the question of do Christian's apologize focus on taking some personal responsibility and apologizing in an effort to extend grace to one another and restore relationships rather that further justifying one's position, whether that position in eminently right or not?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Rather than continuing the argument, might I suggest that a thread focused on the question of do Christian's apologize focus on taking some personal responsibility and apologizing in an effort to extend grace to one another and restore relationships rather that further justifying one's position, whether that position in eminently right or not?

You are right.

I wrote to let Jay and Jac that they do not need to apologize to me as I am not offended by anything they said and also to know where I stand (see John 3:21 if not sure) and I have had worse said to me as well

No offense taken...

Anyway, Christ Love to you guys!

Be Blest!!!
-
-
-

Do Christians apologize? You should apologize to us for asking such a silly question...

B.W, I can't speak in Jac or Jlay's name (and I sincerely don't mean to beat the dead horse) but you already know that the "faith-alone" position doesn't claim that a Christian should not live their life in accordance to their beliefs--just that this is not a necessary component of eschatological salvation.

But you disagree with this, even though you try to make it sound in this post like you don't. In the last thread you make a distinction between "true" and "false" faith. In other words, you don't agree that mere belief saves--you think that mere belief that does not necessarily produce a change in behavior is false faith.

I'm just saying that there's no point in pretending to agree when your positions are so fundamentally different that they entail that those with a different view are not saved. As long as you don't agree with the idea that a mass murderer, an adulterer and a thief who hated God all his life and never felt the slightest bit of remorse, but still believed in Jesus for his salvation, is saved, you can not say that you agree with the faith-alone position.

Given Matthew 7:21, there are only two options:

a) Either belief in Christ must produce good works to be saved, which is why the people Jesus was talking about are not saved, since they never changed their life.

b) Belief in Christ is all that is necessary and believing that anything more gets you saved means you aren't saved at all.

The question is, which interpretation is better?

B. W. wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Rather than continuing the argument, might I suggest that a thread focused on the question of do Christian's apologize focus on taking some personal responsibility and apologizing in an effort to extend grace to one another and restore relationships rather that further justifying one's position, whether that position in eminently right or not?

You are right.

I wrote to let Jay and Jac that they do not need to apologize to me as I am not offended by anything they said and also to know where I stand (see John 3:21 if not sure) and I have had worse said to me as well

No offense taken...

Anyway, Christ Love to you guys!

Be Blest!!!
-
-
-

Ok, I will say it.

BW: I'm sorry (see how easy that was?) but it is you who owes Jac an apology for attributing a position to him he absolutely does not hold.

Jac: You owe everyone an apology for just not seeing how offensive you can be. Being overzealous for one's position is one thing but it needs to be done with a hint of humility, otherwise you will alienate others when your intention is otherwise (I hope). I know you can't post for a while so we'll just have to wait for it.

Jlay: You owe CSL an apology for what transpired publicly as well as privately. I won't go into the details.

Bav: You owe an apology I'm not sure to whom but I'm positive you've offended someone at some point lately just by being you (as I often do).

If I've forgotten anyone worthy of a rebuke please forgive me (see there I go again, setting an example ).

People, this thread is for apologies. If you want to continue other conversations please do it elsewhere.

I wasn't in this latest thread, but I can and have in the past been equally dismissive of others points of view and become so emotionally involved in threads that I lose sight of what is directed to individuals and what is directed toward the subject at hand.

As a moderator, I'm sorry to all that I was not more aware of what was taking place on some recent threads and thus didn't act in a timely and appropriate manner to help manage things to where things might not have escalated to the point that they did.

Why are you guys offended?

You can tell a Jehovah's witness that they are wrong. A mormon. An atheist. But challenge your own theology, and suddenly it is offensive. I honestly can't believe that anyone would ban Jac over what has transpired. Anyway. When he is reinstated, I'll be back. Until then, I'll take a self-induced cool down. There is some thin skin around here. I've seen every moderator here at some time, challenge another poster (mormon, atheist, etc.) or tell them flat out that they are wrong in their position. And, I'm perfectly fine with that, BTW.

It is possible that Jac used Bavarian Wheels initials BW in a post, and something was misunderstood as being directed to BW. I am not sure if this is the case, but it might be.

Parting thought.
Repent is the Greek word Metaneo. It's precise meaning is to change one's mind. It does not mean (in and of itself) to turn from one's sins. In fact the bible says on more than one occasion that God repented of His sins.

Byblos, You are welcome to pmail me and help me to understand what I said that merits an apology. I don't think that disagreeing, asking someone to defend their position, or confronting them on what I believe to be real problems fits that category. I'm a big boy, and you can be as candid as you like. But please be specific.

jlay wrote:Why are you guys offended?

You can tell a Jehovah's witness that they are wrong. A mormon. An atheist. But challenge your own theology, and suddenly it is offensive. I honestly can't believe that anyone would ban Jac over what has transpired. Anyway. When he is reinstated, I'll be back. Until then, I'll take a self-induced cool down. There is some thin skin around here. I've seen every moderator here at some time, challenge another poster (mormon, atheist, etc.) or tell them flat out that they are wrong in their position. And, I'm perfectly fine with that, BTW.

It is possible that Jac used Bavarian Wheels initials BW in a post, and something was misunderstood as being directed to BW. I am not sure if this is the case, but it might be.

Parting thought.
Repent is the Greek word Metaneo. It's precise meaning is to change one's mind. It does not mean (in and of itself) to turn from one's sins. In fact the bible says on more than one occasion that God repented of His sins.

Byblos, You are welcome to pmail me and help me to understand what I said that merits an apology. I don't think that disagreeing, asking someone to defend their position, or confronting them on what I believe to be real problems fits that category. I'm a big boy, and you can be as candid as you like. But please be specific.

It is not telling others they are wrong that's the issue. It is the manner in which it is articulated.

I will PM you J.

smiley wrote:B.W, I can't speak in Jac or Jlay's name (and I sincerely don't mean to beat the dead horse) but you already know that the "faith-alone" position doesn't claim that a Christian should not live their life in accordance to their beliefs--just that this is not a necessary component of eschatological salvation.

But you disagree with this, even though you try to make it sound in this post like you don't. In the last thread you make a distinction between "true" and "false" faith. In other words, you don't agree that mere belief saves--you think that mere belief that does not necessarily produce a change in behavior is false faith.

I'm just saying that there's no point in pretending to agree when your positions are so fundamentally different that they entail that those with a different view are not saved. As long as you don't agree with the idea that a mass murderer, an adulterer and a thief who hated God all his life and never felt the slightest bit of remorse, but still believed in Jesus for his salvation, is saved, you can not say that you agree with the faith-alone position.

Given Matthew 7:21, there are only two options:

a) Either belief in Christ must produce good works to be saved, which is why the people Jesus was talking about are not saved, since they never changed their life.

b) Belief in Christ is all that is necessary and believing that anything more gets you saved means you aren't saved at all.

The question is, which interpretation is better?

Thank you smiley,

But no one needs to apologies to me as no offense is taken. Since thread is about apologies - let me say, I hold no ill will and forgive.

I've been trained to look at the whole, not just the individual parts in theology. Started out like most western theologist, examining individual parts. Then noted how different cultures write and thought.

Even the bible reveals this in 1 Co 1:22 — Jews seek after signs and Greeks seek after wisdom…

Combine the two and you begin to see balance, peace, basically shalom … or the shalom of interpretation.

Basically we are saying the same things but there are two different ways to look at it. Think of sanctification — how the Lord works in us all who believe (faithing) in Christ. It is his work. I balance that along with salvation as that is what the bible tells us plainly. We are saved from the twisted path of sin and taught by the lord, each of us in an Omnipersonal way how to be removed from what poisons our lives.

This does not involve human works but rather the Lord working in us to do his good pleaser. Some may think it is, but that is removed from them, as that is part of the process in what I call the Holy Ghost Roller Coaster. Christians are all on the same track, the Lord is in control, and we ride in coaster cars with our neighbors. I prefer riding in the 1 John 1:9 car, others may choose a works car but they'll weary of this soon enough, then change cars to the Eph 2:8-10 car.

I appreciate your works and Jac's warning everyone of works but is that not also a work? Think about it for a moment, people work so hard at producing the fear of works that Christians are afraid to follow Christ as that is thought of as a work.

The will of God is our what? 1 Th 4:3 , “For this is the will of God, your sanctification…” is a biblical principle the Lord wants us to know about…

Look at the principles lain out in these verses:

John 17:17 .

Acts 20:32

Romans 6:22

1 Co 1:30

2 Th 2:13

Titus 2:14

1 Peter 1.2

And see why I look at the whole and no only at just individual parts…

...so is sanctification unimportant or important? Is it part and parcel of the Lords work of salvation in the heart? Or not?

Remember, apolgies are okay but forgiveness is the most important things...so should the thread read 'Must Christians Forgive? rather than only just apologise?
-
-
-

Jac3510 wrote:

BW wrote:Is that true? Are you totally against faith that changes ones direction and course of life? Why is that so terrifying?

UNTIL I GET AN APOLOGY FOR THIS LINE, YOU AND I WILL HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY ON THIS SUBJECT. I am HIGHLY offended at this. Where did I once say or imply that I am against living the Christian life? WHERE?

I didn't. This is nothing more than a dirty debate tactic. It's despicable.

What I am against is saying that if you DON'T change you life, then you haven't believed.

Byblos wrote:BW: I'm sorry (see how easy that was?) but it is you who owes Jac an apology for attributing a position to him he absolutely does not hold.

Byblos, I am sorry to just jump into this on going conversation, but I must ask, is this what you meant for B. W. to apologize for? From my perspective he was only asking a series of questions to Jac. Now I could be wrong, but I just wanted to know to be clearer on things. Not butting in to be disruptive, sorry.

Yes, we are to be forgiving (and to love our enemies, Luke 6:27-36). But I think apologizing is very important in a lot of ways. The Lord wants us to do it, "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift" (Matthew 5:23-24). This implies to me that offenses held against us by other people affect our relationship with God. When we apologize (sincerely, not with other motives), we have already changed and the apology shows this. It has helped us probably more than it helps the other person. In any case, I think most people need an apology to truly forgive (that could be another reason why Jesus wrote what he did). CS Lewis said somewhere, concerning forgiveness, that he forgave someone, but then a while later he forgave them . . . again Forgiveness is a difficult thing, in a number of ways. Like CS Lewis shows us, we may think we forgive, and fool ourselves (I'm not implying anything about you, B.W., just writing this for general purposes); we are human and it happens. Apologies help - going through the process of apologizing helps us grow as individuals and in our spiritual life, it helps the others around us, and it helps our relationships.

I know that I have been harsh on the board sometimes and I've realized I went too far on those occasions, and I'm sorry if I've offended anyone (I do write in a tone, at times, that I think a particular poster will relate to). As far as my moderator role, however, I can't apologize for doing my duties (unless I made a mistake).

After watching the exchange with some chagrin, I believe Jac was unjustly banned. He was just trying to communicate his position. We all know how frustrating it can become. After a pm to him he says he will not be back on this forum. It also appears there is a clique and if you're in the clique, you can get by with more.
Sad to see Jac go.

It was never a permanent ban. At most it was meant to help cool the situation down. There were some heated conversations that went out of control in a matter of hours. That was it. It was simply a seven day ban...

truthman wrote:After watching the exchange with some chagrin, I believe Jac was unjustly banned. He was just trying to communicate his position. We all know how frustrating it can become. After a pm to him he says he will not be back on this forum. It also appears there is a clique and if you're in the clique, you can get by with more.
Sad to see Jac go.

Did you not read what Canuckster wrote in the Crickets thread, in General Chat? If Jac was unfairly banned (temporarily), and he went through the right channels to complain, why would he break the board guidelines even more by coming back sooner? This is a blatant disregard for the authority of the administration here. Disrepectful people who do that normally have all their registered accounts banned permanently.

What you're saying about a clique is incorrect; again, you should read Canuckster's post. I heard complaints from some people that Jac was getting unfair treatment because he was so senior here. So it can definitely go both ways. On another note, if you saw the list of people who have been warned or banned, and why, I don't think you would say what you did here. I used to post at another large board on the web - non-Christian - which is far stricter than this one (actually, another board I was at for a long time, I can say the same thing about - stricter than here)! There is quite a bit of freedom here. If you can't see the problems in Jac's posts (does he, or anyone here, really speak like that to a person, in person?), maybe you should refresh your reading of the Guidelines and all. In addition, Jac's banning became public because he chose it to be so. You do not know what else is going on behind the scenes, and if you don't respect the way this board is administered, then one has to wonder why you are here. I would not stay at a board that I thought to be run in an unfair way.

. . . I was in church today, and the thought - the possibility - of what happened on this board happening in church was just not a realistic thought. Can you imagine the exchange happening in a bible study even? I can't. And we're representing Christianity to the world.