[quote]forlife wrote:
OR posit that the second law only describes the current state and is not an eternal principle.[/quote]
In which case you could also posit that the first law describes only the present state and is not an eternal principle.
It’s a complex argument and both sides are inadequate in their current state.
A Reprobate Mind
Can a Christian be turned over to a reprobate mind? I just wonder because there are some people who seem to fall away from God and never desire to go back.
One thing that seems to trouble many believers is the thought of finally falling away from God â?? being â??turned over to a reprobate mindâ?? as you have put it. It also seems the potential is very great when someone who professes to be saved falls away from the faith. Then, we realize how weak and sinful we are. But we also need to realize how great the grace of God is.
Letâ??s look at the word reprobate for just a moment. A primary meaning of reprobate is â??rejected.â?? Websterâ??s 1828 dictionary defines it as â??not enduring proof or trial; not of standard purity or fineness; disallowed; rejected.â?? This is also a Bible definition found in the verse you quoted:
Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them. Jeremiah 6:30
Silver that was unable to be refined was considered worthless, i.e., reprobate, and was to be rejected. Because of Israelâ??s refusal to get right with God, they are compared to reprobate silver because God had rejected them.
But rejection is only part of the definition. In Romans 1:28, we read of those who â??God gave â?¦over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.â?? Here, the meaning is not only of rejection but abandonment. These people had gone so far in sin, â??they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,â?? and so God gave them what they wanted. They did not want God, righteousness, holiness, cleanness, or purity, so God â??gave them over.â?? These people are reprobate because of their hatred toward God.
Now, the question is, were these people really saved? It would do well to compare the traits of saved people with those of the reprobate. Saved people are new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17) who have repented of their sinful life (1 Thessalonians 1:9) and who bring forth the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22, 23). Their attitudes toward God, Christ, the Bible, and sin have changed, and this is manifested in their daily lives. They desire to do good works (Ephesians 2:10), love the brethren (1 John 3:14) and to keep themselves unspotted from the world (James 1:27). Oh sure, saved people fall short, but they will confess their sins (1 John 1:9) to maintain fellowship with God.
The reprobate on the other hand wants no real knowledge of God (Romans 1:28). Instead of living holy and bringing forth good works, their lifestyle is manifestly different from the saint. Paul says they are â??â?¦ filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmercifulâ?? (Romans 1:29-31). Could it be said that a saved person, washed in the blood of Christ, was a hater of God? Do the saints invent evil things? Reprobates are without understanding, yet John tells the saints concerning false prophets, â??ye need not that any man teach youâ?? (1 John 2:27). Paul goes on to say that these people know full well the judgment of God upon those who do these things, yet they continue to do them. Further, they not only blatantly sin against God, but â??they have pleasure in them that do themâ?? (Romans 1:32). No, there is a great gulf fixed between the reprobate and the child of God.
But to get to the heart of your question, what about those who profess salvation yet turn away?â?? After all, the people we just described hate God and have no qualms about openly showing their hatred for him. The more I read the Bible, the more I see the distinction between true believers and those who only profess to be. Letâ??s consider a few scriptures:
16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Paul says these people, who professed they knew God, were reprobate. How can this be? The answer is found in the context of the preceding verse:
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Titus 1:15
The â??theyâ?? of verse 16 are previously described in this verse as â??unbelieving.â?? Yes, they professed to know God, but they were reprobate. Why were they reprobated? Because they did not believe. These people were never saved. The same can be said for those described in 1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1 John 2:19
Those who left the faith were â??not of us.â?? They were never saved. Now this teaching lines up with the words of our Lord himself. Consider this text:
John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
Notice the implication. Those who continue in the word of Christ (i.e., those who are truly converted to God through repentance and faith) are Christâ??s disciples indeed; therefore, those who do not continue in his word are not his disciples. This means that a great number of people who have made an intellectual or emotional â??decisionâ?? and finally fall away were never truly born again.
Since Christians continue in Christâ??s word, they could never be turned over to a reprobate mind. A believer may get to the point where his faith is weak or fall into sin and, consequently, go so far as to forget â??that he was purged from his old sinsâ?? (2 Peter 1:9), but he could never be rejected or abandoned by God. The scripture says that â??if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.â?? (2 Timothy 2:13). In John 6:37, we read these comforting words, â??All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.â?? The Lord Jesus has promised that he will not cast out â?? not reject â?? any one who comes to him. This blessed assurance from the lips of the Saviour himself leaves out any possibility of reprobation. And Christ says to those who are saved â??I will never leave thee, nor forsake theeâ?? (Hebrews 13:5). It should be a great blessing to know that the believer will never be rejected or abandoned by God. The Lord â??knoweth them that trust in him,â?? and you can be assured they will never be reprobated. Thank God for His wonderful salvation in Christ.
Nichols, John
[quote]forlife wrote:
It is only a logical fallacy if you ignore the possibility of eternity. And you didn’t answer my question. How is your god not subject to the same “logical fallacy”, since your god similarly “requires another, identical event, to cause it”?[/quote]
Eternity is not in question. I explained exactly why it is a logical fallacy. It begs the question. This has nothing with infinity.
As for the second quesion, asked and answered many times, go review.
I agree, was just pointing out that the god theory is subject to the same “illogical inconsistencies” that people try to pin on science (and a few others to boot). The answer is that we simply don’t know what created the universe, and until we do it is silly to claim otherwise.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
forlife wrote:
Does it not make you a little suspicious that your belief system is, by definition, unconfirmable? You’ve set up the perfect crime for yourself.
Think about it.
You can claim whatever you want about your god, and how your life is blessed in material ways due to your faith and prayers.
However, the moment anyone actually attempts to assess the truthfulness of those claims, you respond that your god refuses to be measured in such a way.
Thus, it is impossible to actually confirm any of your claims.
Given that your claims literally cannot be substantiated, what differentiates them from any fairy tale that someone might concoct?
I have one question, how is our faith uncomfirmable? Which is not a word by the way, but I get your gist. You can very well see if you look at the earth that there has to be some creator.
No, the earth is amazing however everything on it can be explained without the need of recourse to a supreme being. It is lazy to use a supreme being to fill in the gaps in your personal understanding or education.
While I generally tend to agree with this (I believe in evolution and prescribe to no religion), I have to say that not everything can be satisfactorily (for me) explained using only science. If you look at the universe from a scientific perspective, it is really just one huge chain of cause-and-effect phenomena. However, go back to the beginning and try to explain the FIRST event in the history of the universe–you cannot do it without violating the principle that no thing can be in motion without being set in motion. I’m not saying that I necessarily believe in an omnipotent, bearded old man who said some words and thereby created the universe. What I AM saying is that I find it hard to explain the existence of matter without appealing to some being that is above the laws of science (namely the principle that no thing can move without being moved). The one way out of this is to say that matter itself is this thing, in which case I guess matter is your God.[/quote]
you can easily do it without breaking that principle. Modern theories are based around our Universe coming into being due to a local expansion in a larger whole. Nothing came into being at the big bang, it just changed state.
[quote]Kerley wrote:
forlife wrote:
Nice try, but I have quite a few gay friends that believe in god. Call me crazy, but I choose not to believe in things for which there is no evidence.
AMEN![/quote]
AMEN PREACH BROTHER!!!
[quote]forlife wrote:
Nice try, but I have quite a few gay friends that believe in god. Call me crazy, but I choose not to believe in things for which there is no evidence.[/quote]
Or in things that interfere with your lifestyle.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Nice try, but I have quite a few gay friends that believe in god. Call me crazy, but I choose not to believe in things for which there is no evidence.
Or in things that interfere with your lifestyle.[/quote]
Hmmm…nope. Doesnt interfere with my lifestyle. Guess that only applies to certain people huh. Whats my reason for not being among the faithful?
[quote]Buff HardBack wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Nice try, but I have quite a few gay friends that believe in god. Call me crazy, but I choose not to believe in things for which there is no evidence.
Or in things that interfere with your lifestyle.
Hmmm…nope. Doesnt interfere with my lifestyle. Guess that only applies to certain people huh. Whats my reason for not being among the faithful? [/quote]
I already addressed your situation, you’ll have to pay better attention.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Pat,
I wouldn’t waste too much time with those two, they each have a lifestyle agenda and God deosn’t exactly fit in. I wonder if they’d believe if the Bible encouraged homosexuality, and a host of other “fun” things that they like?
I bet we’d not be having this debate huh? Some people are easy to figure out, they want what they want and anything that tells them the can’t just can’t be real.
Anyone who has studied Christianity knows that the Bible is one of the most well researched ancient documents of all time. More accurate than all the works of Socrates, Plato and many other well respected ancient writers. One only has to use google, it’s not a hidden secret.
The Bible is true and It’s the word of God.
I’ve had many prayers answered in my life and I know many others who have as well. Some very amazing things have happened just from prayer alone. We don’t need a scientist to stand by measuring the perceived accuracy to know that prayers are indeed answered.
However, it is all about faith and you cannot argue science to confirm faith.
One last thing, many if not most of the “atheists” on this site are between the ages of about 21 and 30’s. When they grow up and stop playing “know it all” they just might come around. For those who don’t maybe a life changing event or two will bring them around, maybe not.
As my grandfather used to say " I never saw an atheist in a foxhole."
Take care Pat and God Bless!
[/quote]
So your grandfather was unoriginal as well?
You are more deluded than I thought if you really believe that the Bible is a historically accurate document. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Just a short list of inacuracies.
The Jews were from Judea area originally, they didn’t come in from Egypt.
The Jews were never enslaved.
Herod never masacred any babies.
Solomon and David never existed as powerful kings.
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar’s son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who’s name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
If Jesus even existed, he certainly wasn’t born in Nazareth as it didn’t exist at the time.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Nice try, but I have quite a few gay friends that believe in god. Call me crazy, but I choose not to believe in things for which there is no evidence.
Or in things that interfere with your lifestyle.
Hmmm…nope. Doesnt interfere with my lifestyle. Guess that only applies to certain people huh. Whats my reason for not being among the faithful?
I already addressed your situation, you’ll have to pay better attention.
[/quote]
Actually no you didnt. Here is a question. Why is it that so many people who were born and raised christians, catholics, or whatever, end up turning into aeithiests or agnostics? Simple question.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Or in things that interfere with your lifestyle.[/quote]
What part of “I have several gay friends who believe in god” did you not understand? Religion and homosexuality aren’t mutually exclusive. Just because your particular fairy tale belief system hates gays doesn’t mean they all do.
If I was into telling myself stories in order to feel good about who I am, I would choose to believe in a gay-affirming god. And I would be equally justified in my fairy tale belief as you are in yours, since neither of them has an ounce of supporting empirical evidence.
I know…it’s all about faith. But that’s the nice thing about faith; since it doesn’t require any actual facts, you can mold it to be whatever you want it to be.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Pat,
I wouldn’t waste too much time with those two, they each have a lifestyle agenda and God deosn’t exactly fit in. I wonder if they’d believe if the Bible encouraged homosexuality, and a host of other “fun” things that they like?
I bet we’d not be having this debate huh? Some people are easy to figure out, they want what they want and anything that tells them the can’t just can’t be real.
Anyone who has studied Christianity knows that the Bible is one of the most well researched ancient documents of all time. More accurate than all the works of Socrates, Plato and many other well respected ancient writers. One only has to use google, it’s not a hidden secret.
The Bible is true and It’s the word of God.
I’ve had many prayers answered in my life and I know many others who have as well. Some very amazing things have happened just from prayer alone. We don’t need a scientist to stand by measuring the perceived accuracy to know that prayers are indeed answered.
However, it is all about faith and you cannot argue science to confirm faith.
One last thing, many if not most of the “atheists” on this site are between the ages of about 21 and 30’s. When they grow up and stop playing “know it all” they just might come around. For those who don’t maybe a life changing event or two will bring them around, maybe not.
As my grandfather used to say " I never saw an atheist in a foxhole."
Take care Pat and God Bless!
So your grandfather was unoriginal as well?
You are more deluded than I thought if you really believe that the Bible is a historically accurate document. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Just a short list of inacuracies.
The Jews were from Judea area originally, they didn’t come in from Egypt.
The Jews were never enslaved.
Herod never masacred any babies.
Solomon and David never existed as powerful kings.
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar’s son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who’s name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
If Jesus even existed, he certainly wasn’t born in Nazareth as it didn’t exist at the time.
[/quote]
Sources, please?
[quote]Buff HardBack wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Nice try, but I have quite a few gay friends that believe in god. Call me crazy, but I choose not to believe in things for which there is no evidence.
Or in things that interfere with your lifestyle.
Hmmm…nope. Doesnt interfere with my lifestyle. Guess that only applies to certain people huh. Whats my reason for not being among the faithful?
I already addressed your situation, you’ll have to pay better attention.
Actually no you didnt. Here is a question. Why is it that so many people who were born and raised christians, catholics, or whatever, end up turning into aeithiests or agnostics? Simple question.[/quote]
You should ask them…How the hell are we supposed to know? I guess the same reason people feel like it is still a good idea to go streaking at a baseball game.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Nice try, but I have quite a few gay friends that believe in god. Call me crazy, but I choose not to believe in things for which there is no evidence.[/quote]
So then I guess you believe that you where not born gay then right? Or does your logic only work when it doesn’t affect you?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree, was just pointing out that the god theory is subject to the same “illogical inconsistencies” that people try to pin on science (and a few others to boot). The answer is that we simply don’t know what created the universe, and until we do it is silly to claim otherwise.[/quote]
It is also silly to dismiss something you can not prove. A man of science like yourself must surly believe taking something off the table before it is proven false is wrong.
[quote]John S. wrote:
So then I guess you believe that you where not born gay then right? Or does your logic only work when it doesn’t affect you? [/quote]
There is solid supportive evidence for a genetic component to sexual orientation, but I think that as with most human characteristics, environment probably plays a role as well. For example:
If it was 100% genetic, you would expect monozygotic twins to have 100% concordance. But if it was 100% environmental, you would expect monozygotic, dizygotic, and adoptive siblings to be the same.
Are you really going to put Bailey and Pillard’s twin studies on the same level as one of hundreds of belief systems, which by their own admission, are driven by faith rather than facts?
[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Pat,
I wouldn’t waste too much time with those two, they each have a lifestyle agenda and God deosn’t exactly fit in. I wonder if they’d believe if the Bible encouraged homosexuality, and a host of other “fun” things that they like?
I bet we’d not be having this debate huh? Some people are easy to figure out, they want what they want and anything that tells them the can’t just can’t be real.
Anyone who has studied Christianity knows that the Bible is one of the most well researched ancient documents of all time. More accurate than all the works of Socrates, Plato and many other well respected ancient writers. One only has to use google, it’s not a hidden secret.
The Bible is true and It’s the word of God.
I’ve had many prayers answered in my life and I know many others who have as well. Some very amazing things have happened just from prayer alone. We don’t need a scientist to stand by measuring the perceived accuracy to know that prayers are indeed answered.
However, it is all about faith and you cannot argue science to confirm faith.
One last thing, many if not most of the “atheists” on this site are between the ages of about 21 and 30’s. When they grow up and stop playing “know it all” they just might come around. For those who don’t maybe a life changing event or two will bring them around, maybe not.
As my grandfather used to say " I never saw an atheist in a foxhole."
Take care Pat and God Bless!
So your grandfather was unoriginal as well?
You are more deluded than I thought if you really believe that the Bible is a historically accurate document. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Just a short list of inacuracies.
The Jews were from Judea area originally, they didn’t come in from Egypt.
The Jews were never enslaved.
Herod never masacred any babies.
Solomon and David never existed as powerful kings.
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar’s son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who’s name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
If Jesus even existed, he certainly wasn’t born in Nazareth as it didn’t exist at the time.
Sources, please?[/quote]
Erm, the Bible.
[quote]John S. wrote:
It is also silly to dismiss something you can not prove. A man of science like yourself must surly believe taking something off the table before it is proven false is wrong.
[/quote]
Which is why I’m an agnostic, not an atheist. Zing.
[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
It is also silly to dismiss something you can not prove. A man of science like yourself must surly believe taking something off the table before it is proven false is wrong.
Which is why I’m an agnostic, not an atheist. Zing.[/quote]
Yet you call the bible fairy tales, which means you have already taken it off the table. Consistency is a bitch I know that.