Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Christian Forum aspires to be an online community where Christians can come together in fellowship with the purpose to encourage, inspire and build up our faith in Christ Jesus. John 13:34-35
  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Tasted Death for every Man !

Fastfredy0

Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,349
Joined
May 4, 2020
If God did not possess the highest perfection He would not be God ... if God's being could fail, He would not be perfect; God would not deserve the name of the highest perfection, for perfection is not capable of failure. To not achieve a purpose is a great imperfection. God could not be the most blessed Being if he were not a perfect being; if He did not achieve His purpose. Thus, the proposition that God died (tasted death) for everyone without exception is an indictment against His perfection as His goal has been denied by His lowly creatures.
 

Fastfredy0

Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,349
Joined
May 4, 2020
"Certain circumstances"?
That isn't infallibility.
It is infallibility within those circumstances and that was the point I wished to convey. Thus, infallibility in all circumstance is what I referred to as a "super pope"; what you are if you are truly sinless.

I fail to connect "complete obedience to God" with "the ability to interpret scripture perfectly".
To obey God you cannot contradict Him. Thus, you must interpret what He says without error else you would sin.
For example, it would be sinful to say God can change as that contradicts God's statements that He does not change. You would be calling God a liar indirectly (and probably unintentionally).



Even the new Christian can be perfectly obedient to the One who saves them, but we all grow in grace and knowledge every day (hopefully).
True ... but we are talking about a SINLESS PERSON. Granted, a sinless person can learn, but a sinless person cannot be sinless and contradict God (interpret scripture incorrectly).


There are things I prayed to understand for years, before I was gifted with the revelations that "filled in the gaps".
Well, I have filled in the gaps incorrectly in the past and I am sure that I still do (as many will attest to on this site *giggles*). But, if you thought "X" and then changed your mind to "Y" concerning God then you sinned by thinking wrongly about God. To think wrongly of God is sin.
 

Hopeful

Supporter
From
Arizona
Gender
Male
Messages
2,551
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
If God did not possess the highest perfection He would not be God ... if God's being could fail, He would not be perfect; God would not deserve the name of the highest perfection, for perfection is not capable of failure. To not achieve a purpose is a great imperfection. God could not be the most blessed Being if he were not a perfect being; if He did not achieve His purpose. Thus, the proposition that God died (tasted death) for everyone without exception is an indictment against His perfection as His goal has been denied by His lowly creatures.
That is one way of looking at it.
But a loving God has provided us with the choice to follow with Him or go our own way.
Some hate government so much they will endure an eternity without it in the lake of fire.
 

Fastfredy0

Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,349
Joined
May 4, 2020
Premise 1: God does whatever he pleases (Psalm 115:3; Job 23:13; Daniel 4:35)
Premise 2: God is not miserable in the least since misery consists in those things which happen against ones will.
Conclusion: God could not have tasted death (died for everyone without exception) as then He would have died for no purpose. He, assuming God loves those in hell, would be in an eternal miserable state as the ones He loves are to be tortured eternally and His purpose defeated.
Aside: It also being a fruitless effect to offer salvation to those God knows would never accept it.
 

Hopeful

Supporter
From
Arizona
Gender
Male
Messages
2,551
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
It is infallibility within those circumstances and that was the point I wished to convey. Thus, infallibility in all circumstance is what I referred to as a "super pope"; what you are if you are truly sinless.
I think "partial-infallibility" is an oxymoron.
I think you are just mocking me.
But I forgive you.
To obey God you cannot contradict Him. Thus, you must interpret what He says without error else you would sin.
I can only interpret what God has allowed, equipt me, to interpret.
For example, it would be sinful to say God can change as that contradicts God's statements that He does not change. You would be calling God a liar indirectly (and probably unintentionally).
God cannot change, but He can and has changed His mind on things...like the destruction of Nineveh.
True ... but we are talking about a SINLESS PERSON. Granted, a sinless person can learn, but a sinless person cannot be sinless and contradict God (interpret scripture incorrectly).
A sinless person will not contradict God.
As you don't believe any are actually sinless, are we to presume your POVs contradict God?
Well, I have filled in the gaps incorrectly in the past and I am sure that I still do (as many will attest to on this site *giggles*). But, if you thought "X" and then changed your mind to "Y" concerning God then you sinned by thinking wrongly about God. To think wrongly of God is sin.
Sin or ignorance.
And with God, ignorance doesn't last very long.
He will correct wayward interpretation.
 

Hopeful

Supporter
From
Arizona
Gender
Male
Messages
2,551
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Premise 1: God does whatever he pleases (Psalm 115:3; Job 23:13; Daniel 4:35)
Premise 2: God is not miserable in the least since misery consists in those things which happen against ones will.
Conclusion: God could not have tasted death (died for everyone without exception) as then He would have died for no purpose. He, assuming God loves those in hell, would be in an eternal miserable state as the ones He loves are to be tortured eternally and His purpose defeated.
Aside: It also being a fruitless effect to offer salvation to those God knows would never accept it.
At least one of your premises is wrong.
 

Fastfredy0

Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,349
Joined
May 4, 2020
But a loving God has provided us with the choice to follow with Him or go our own way.
There is no 'choice' in the ultimate sense for God knows our choice before hand and nothing can change that choice.
Premise 1: God loves a person He knows is going to hell
Premise 2: Agape love is defined as a volition to favor. The essence of agape love is goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight in the object of love.
Conclusion: This is a contradiction as God does not favor, take delight in those in hell. God does not contradict himself (lie)
 

Fastfredy0

Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,349
Joined
May 4, 2020
At least one of your premises is wrong.
Well, which one and why?
1) God doesn't do as He pleases? Why not? Who controls Him? How can we control Him?
or
2) God is miserable to some degree? How can a perfect being be miserable to any degree? Is misery (a state or feeling of great distress or discomfort of mind or body) a mark of perfection?
 

jaybo

 
Supporter
From
Santa Fe NM
Gender
Male
Messages
1,183
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
We are one, as Jesus prayed we would be in John 17:11..."And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
Okay, let's look at what Scripture says in this case.. "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world" clearly shows a separation between Christ (who is no more in the world) and "these" who are in the world. "That they may be one" is in the third person future tense, "as we are" is in the first person present tense.
 

Hopeful

Supporter
From
Arizona
Gender
Male
Messages
2,551
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
There is no 'choice' in the ultimate sense for God knows our choice before hand and nothing can change that choice.
Still, it is our choice.
Premise 1: God loves a person He knows is going to hell
It is written that "God hates all workers of iniquity". (Psalm 5:5)
That "premise" is in error.
Premise 2: Agape love is defined as a volition to favor. The essence of agape love is goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight in the object of love.
Conclusion: This is a contradiction as God does not favor, take delight in those in hell. God does not contradict himself (lie)
Ergo, your conclusion is also an error.
 

Hopeful

Supporter
From
Arizona
Gender
Male
Messages
2,551
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Okay, let's look at what Scripture says in this case.. "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world" clearly shows a separation between Christ (who is no more in the world) and "these" who are in the world. "That they may be one" is in the third person future tense, "as we are" is in the first person present tense.
All you have done is separate yourself from Christ.
Fortunately, for those who love God above all else, the gift of the Comforter has been given to us so we are never separate from God or from His Son Jesus Christ.
 

Fastfredy0

Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,349
Joined
May 4, 2020
It is written that "God hates all workers of iniquity". (Psalm 5:5)
That "premise" is in error.
Ah, well then we are in agreement. I also do not believe God loves everyone without exception.
I assume you therefore agree that God did not taste death of those He hates?
I assume your definition of God's hate is "a volition to not favor"; though, you obviously are free to determine your own definition.


Ergo, your conclusion is also an error.
Agreed. Premise 1 is incorrect and therefore the conclusion
So now we have IMO:

Premise 1: God hates some people (disposition to not favor)
Conclusion: God did not die (taste death, the ultimate act of love/favor) for those He hates
 

jaybo

 
Supporter
From
Santa Fe NM
Gender
Male
Messages
1,183
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
All you have done is separate yourself from Christ.
Fortunately, for those who love God above all else, the gift of the Comforter has been given to us so we are never separate from God or from His Son Jesus Christ.

I have not separated myself from Christ! I don't take this accusation lightly!
 

Hopeful

Supporter
From
Arizona
Gender
Male
Messages
2,551
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Ah, well then we are in agreement. I also do not believe God loves everyone without exception.
OK.
I assume you therefore agree that God did not taste death of those He hates?
No, I don't agree.
The reason He hates them is because they won't abandon themselves and go to Him.
I assume your definition of God's hate is "a volition to not favor"; though, you obviously are free to determine your own definition.
That is one way to put it.
Hate is the antithesis of love.
Both are usually a reward for something or other.
In this particular case, God only hates some because they hate Him.
Agreed. Premise 1 is incorrect and therefore the conclusion
So now we have IMO:

Premise 1: God hates some people (disposition to not favor)
Conclusion: God did not die (taste death, the ultimate act of love/favor) for those He hates
Jesus paid the tab, but some want things their own way.
Jesus died for anyone and everyone that wants to live forever.
He died for folks not yet born, without knowing who will or won't accept His offer.
Your conclusion is in error.
 

Hopeful

Supporter
From
Arizona
Gender
Male
Messages
2,551
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
I have not separated myself from Christ! I don't take this accusation lightly!
If, as you say, Christ is no longer in the world, aren't you separated from Him?
Thankfully, though, He is still in the world in the guise of the Comforter.
 

jaybo

 
Supporter
From
Santa Fe NM
Gender
Male
Messages
1,183
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
If, as you say, Christ is no longer in the world, aren't you separated from Him?
Thankfully, though, He is still in the world in the guise of the Comforter.
No, I am not separated from Christ, I am IN CHRIST. He is not "in the guise" of the Comforter. He is present in the world and alive in every Christian.
 

Fastfredy0

Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,349
Joined
May 4, 2020
Re: I assume you therefore agree that God did not taste death of those He hates?
No, I don't agree.
The reason He hates them is because they won't abandon themselves and go to Him.
Re: I assume your definition of God's hate is "a volition to not favor"
That is one way to put it.
Hate is the antithesis of love.
Both are usually a reward for something or other.
In this particular case, God only hates some because they hate Him.
Aside: Kudos for providing a definition. Many people won't define the words they use and thus make the conversation confusing. I.E. most won't define "free will"

So, putting together yours thoughts (you can correct if I go wrong)
Premise 1: Hate means volition to not favor (I agree)
Premise 2: The greatest why to show favor to a man is to offer the life of infinite value for that man (Christ's death)
Premise 3: God died (tasted death) for everyone without exception (I disagree on this premise that you agree to)
Premise 4: God died for many He hates
Conclusion: God showed the greatest favor (love) to many men the He does not favor (hates)

This is a contradiction. God favors those He does not favor. Why do you disagree?
I see later in your response that you don't believe God knows who will accept His offer. That is a logical possibility given the premises.


Jesus paid the tab, but some want things their own way.
If Jesus 'paid the tab', then why does anyone go to hell. This seems to be a contradiction. I think you probably mean:
Jesus death + our faith + our works(according to some) = paid the tab

Jesus died for anyone and everyone that wants to live forever.
How is the 1282 Indian saved that Christ died for? ... or was Christ death useless in that case? Although in your post you later say God doesn't know who will accept His offer in the future, God does know that many will not be able to accept the offer as He must know many will never hear of Christ which is necessary knowledge to take advantage of the offer. (One must have faith in Christ to be saved and one must know of Christ to believe upon Him).


He died for folks not yet born, without knowing who will or won't accept His offer.
So, God does not know the future? God is not All Knowing? This would contradict God's immutability as He knows now what at one time He did not know. His wisdom would be improved as wisdom is dependent on knowledge. An continuous improvement in wisdom means God is NOT All Wise. Can a being be eternal if that being changes. God would be now what He was not at another time as He has changed. He is different, He has a different understanding. God is, as a result of your statement, dependent upon man for knowledge and upon time for knowledge. God is not independent of time, but trapped in time, though time be created by God. Interesting. Perhaps God didn't create time? Some other being created time and put God in it; but the would make that being God and our God a mere creation. (Aside: I am just amusing myself)

This is a minority opinion ... which doesn't make it wrong necessarily)
Aside: I grant that this partially solves the issue of dying in vain (dying for no reason)
Aside 2: It would be a sin to misrepresent Christ by saying He is not all knowing if He was all knowing. If it is true you never sin, then Christ must not know the future in regards to whom will believe.
Aside 3: God is pretty good a guess at the future given His prophesies.
 

Hopeful

Supporter
From
Arizona
Gender
Male
Messages
2,551
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Re: I assume you therefore agree that God did not taste death of those He hates?

Re: I assume your definition of God's hate is "a volition to not favor"

Aside: Kudos for providing a definition. Many people won't define the words they use and thus make the conversation confusing. I.E. most won't define "free will"

So, putting together yours thoughts (you can correct if I go wrong)
Premise 1: Hate means volition to not favor (I agree)
Premise 2: The greatest why to show favor to a man is to offer the life of infinite value for that man (Christ's death)
Premise 3: God died (tasted death) for everyone without exception (I disagree on this premise that you agree to)
Premise 4: God died for many He hates
Conclusion: God showed the greatest favor (love) to many men the He does not favor (hates)

This is a contradiction. God favors those He does not favor. Why do you disagree?
I see later in your response that you don't believe God knows who will accept His offer. That is a logical possibility given the premises.
God loves mankind so much He had the Word assume the flesh of men and endure all their temptations, resist said temptations and die for us.
He did this because He hates sin more than He hates sinners.
We have been given the chance to turn from sin and unto Him, and in the process, be saved for eternity with Him.
If that seems like a contradiction, chalk it up to love.
If Jesus 'paid the tab', then why does anyone go to hell. This seems to be a contradiction. I think you probably mean:
Jesus death + our faith + our works(according to some) = paid the tab.
Only the folks who refuse the offer will go to hell.
He paid the tab for our sins, but our actions thereafter will determine if we have accepted the free gift.
How is the 1282 Indian saved that Christ died for? ... or was Christ death useless in that case? Although in your post you later say God doesn't know who will accept His offer in the future, God does know that many will not be able to accept the offer as He must know many will never hear of Christ which is necessary knowledge to take advantage of the offer. (One must have faith in Christ to be saved and one must know of Christ to believe upon Him).
Men were being judged on their character long before Jesus came along.
We will all be judged by our consciences.
Some just have more on their consciences.
So, God does not know the future? God is not All Knowing? This would contradict God's immutability as He knows now what at one time He did not know. His wisdom would be improved as wisdom is dependent on knowledge. An continuous improvement in wisdom means God is NOT All Wise. Can a being be eternal if that being changes. God would be now what He was not at another time as He has changed. He is different, He has a different understanding. God is, as a result of your statement, dependent upon man for knowledge and upon time for knowledge. God is not independent of time, but trapped in time, though time be created by God. Interesting. Perhaps God didn't create time? Some other being created time and put God in it; but the would make that being God and our God a mere creation. (Aside: I am just amusing myself)
God can do anything He wants.
If He wants to go to the end of time to see how some particular person ends up in life...He can.
But until we make the choice of whether or not to receive Him as our Governor, it is a toss-up.
It is difficult to ponder how things work in God's kingdom, where there is no time, as we know it.

This is a minority opinion ... which doesn't make it wrong necessarily)
Aside: I grant that this partially solves the issue of dying in vain (dying for no reason)
Aside 2: It would be a sin to misrepresent Christ by saying He is not all knowing if He was all knowing. If it is true you never sin, then Christ must not know the future in regards to whom will believe.
Aside 3: God is pretty good a guess at the future given His prophesies.
God can do anything He wants, including letting us choose to serve Him, or not.
 

Fastfredy0

Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,349
Joined
May 4, 2020
Re: I assume you therefore agree that God did not taste death of those He hates?

God loves mankind so much He had the Word assume the flesh of men and endure all their temptations, resist said temptations and die for us.
He did this because He hates sin more than He hates sinners.
So, your answer was a little hard to understand. I think you are saying God loves (favors) those He hates (disfavors) ... and therefore hates (disfavors) those He loves (favors).
Interesting ...

If that seems like a contradiction, chalk it up to love.
Agreed, your answer seems to be a contradiction and therefore cannot be entirely true. Something needs adjusting.


He paid the tab for our sins, but our actions thereafter will determine if we have accepted the free gift.
How can a 'gift' be free if you have to do something to obtain it. This is a contradiction (again).
Definition of gift: a thing given willingly to someone without payment; a present.

Re: How is the 1282 Indian saved that Christ died for?
Men were being judged on their character long before Jesus came along.
So, people were saved by works alone? Do you have a scripture to prove that A person born after Christ can be saved without knowing Christ? (aside: so far only have gotten 2 answers: 1) the Talmud says we can't break 7 laws and (2) Romans 1:20 somehow). Can people still be saved by "works alone"? If a person can be saved by "works alone", would it not be advisable to not tell that saved person about Christ as that might jeopardize his salvation.


God can do anything He wants.
An obtuse statement. I agreed (I think).


If He wants to go to the end of time to see how some particular person ends up in life...He can.
How does God go "to the end of time" if He does not control our 'free choices' and cannot know what someone will choose when people who are yet to be born are currently NOTHING? In other words, if NOTHING (what we are before we exist) can relay knowledge to someone, then the NOTHING must be SOMETHING. This is a contradiction as only NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING..."Ex nihilo nihil fit". (Maybe God has a mini-big-bang with each non-existent spirit to determine what it will decide? )
(Aside: I am not saying God cannot go to the end of time, but given your constraints I don't believe He can as you make God dependent upon non-existent men for knowledge)

He died for folks not yet born, without knowing who will or won't accept His offer.
So, God does not know the future? God is not All Knowing? This would contradict God's immutability as He knows now what at one time He did not know. His wisdom would be improved as wisdom is dependent on knowledge. An continuous improvement in wisdom means God is NOT All Wise. Can a being be eternal if that being changes. God would be now what He was not at another time as He has changed. He is different, He has a different understanding. God is, as a result of your statement, dependent upon man for knowledge and upon time for knowledge. God is not independent of time, but trapped in time, though time be created by God. Interesting. Perhaps God didn't create time? Some other being created time and put God in it; but the would make that being God and our God a mere creation.
 
Last edited:
Top