journeymanisnothing
Member
When you say "human works", you mean "something God didn't do." Right?
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
When you say "human works", you mean "something God didn't do." Right?
A careful reading shows a chronology most miss:So mabye God, in His Omniscience, knew that even if He softened his heart, he would still willfully misuse his freewill. So basically God gave pharoah what he wanted.
But not all will be saved, the path is narrow.Timothy renders this belief false.
God DESIRES ALL to be saved.
That defense is built on a false assumption. Not all people want to BE saved.And its "defense" :
So mabye God, in His Omniscience, knew that even if He softened his heart, he would still willfully misuse his freewill. So basically God gave pharoah what he wanted.
Can God make a better way to be saved than by the Gospel He laid out in the NT?
"If God is not the Author of confusion, why did He confuse the Babel people's language! And then explain Genesis 1:2! "
God gets his job done through "human works", he uses his people for his purposes, he can even make good things out of what bad people meant for evil.When you say "human works", you mean "something God didn't do." Right?
Some Bible translations say that God "confused" the languages.Another poorly asked question. It's not about confusion, it's about how human's capability of speaking unique language is disabled.
Ah, so "God hardened" is in the sense of "allowed his heart to harden"."God hardened" means God knows in advance but refuses to change Pharaoh's decision.
Exodus 8:32
But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.
That's why it is also said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The perspective of God's absolute sovereignty is often used by Jewish writers to describe the different situations.
What is the false assumption? Im assuming you think its "all want to be saved".false assumptio
The "way" God made is the opposite - giving them up to what they want to teach them a lesson.What is the false assumption? Im assuming you think its "all want to be saved".
So then couldn't God make a way where people are unintentionally saved, but no forcing?
Like as if a door opens underneath someone and they fall a short distance onto a cloud below.
Athiest could ask: "Why doesn't God do that instead of what He has done in the Bible?"
Opposite of what?opposite
You said it yourself that there's "no forcing", salvation by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior must be a conscious, personal decision. I didn't answer because you contradicted yourself in your question.Opposite of what?
And you only described/explained Bible verses, you didn't really answer the questions.
That's actively accepting Jesus. You are assuming there's only two options.You said it yourself that there's "no forcing", salvation by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior must be a conscious, personal decision.
That's a scenario you totally made up. Playing religion is not salvation. "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."That's actively accepting Jesus. You are assuming there's only two options.
But why don't you just get the Gospel, with no decisions made, but you aren't forced to either?
How it is: You have to accept the gift.
Force: God mindcontrols you to accept it or makes you with only the ability to accept it.
My scenario: God "drops" the Gift "in your lap" and you get saved.
So you admit you have no answer to their challenge.That's a scenario you totally made up. Playing religion is not salvation. "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."
The context of that is doing good work even when you're being reviled, suffering for the sake of righteousness, that has nothing to do with your "scenario".So you admit you have no answer to their challenge.
Part of 1 Peter 3:15
""but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, ....""
Why didn't God use a way where we "get saved" with no force but also no need for willful acceptance of the Gift?The context of that is doing good work even when you're being reviled, suffering for the sake of righteousness, that has nothing to do with your "scenario".
There is no such a way, you don't accept God, you automatically accept the devil, unclean spirits sneak in without your awareness, it's like nature abhors a vacuum. And worst of all, this devil may be mistaken as God and worshipped as God, just like the Israelites with the golden calf.Why didn't God use a way where we "get saved" with no force but also no need for willful acceptance of the Gift?
Use of non sequiturs will convince no one and make you look unable.