Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HelenM · 07-29-2002, 01:19 PM

diana

I expect you were thinking of this passage, when you wrote something in your post that I guess didn't make the cut

:

Romans 10:13 For, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." 14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard?

love
Helen

diana · 07-29-2002, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:
diana

I expect you were thinking of this passage, when you wrote something in your post that I guess didn't make the cut

:

I hit the wrong combination of keys and posted my reply just as I was getting started. I HATE when that happens.

Quote:

Romans 10:13 For, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." 14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard?

love
Helen[/QB]

Very nice. Thank you.

And more from that chapter:

So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

(And from Heb 11, I forget which verse: "For without faith it is impossible to please him. For those who come to him must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.")

Sounds pretty unequivocal to me.

Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

So...they have heard? Mr. Mathews said they haven't. Which am I to believe?

d

HelenM · 07-29-2002, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana:
<strong>So...they have heard? Mr. Mathews said they haven't. Which am I to believe?

d</strong>

Your choice is between believing David Mathews or the Bible?

Well, I suppose you go with the one with the most credibility...the one with the best track record of sharing things you believe are true...the one showing the most internal consistency...

I'll leave that up to you!

love
Helen

diana · 07-29-2002, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Well, I suppose you go with the one with the most credibility...the one with the best track record of sharing things you believe are true...the one showing the most internal consistency...

I'll leave that up to you!

Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.

d

NOGO · 07-29-2002, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Diana
I'm not certain if is possible to have a meaningful dialogue with Mr. Matthews, but it's decidedly more difficult to keep him focused when everyone allows him to so easily lead them from the trail with the aroma of stinky fish.

I understand what you mean and I apologize for the diversion.

NOGO · 07-29-2002, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Diana
"Making your calling and election sure" doesn't mean "prove you're right." It means "make sure you're right." The difference is that in the latter, you remain open to the possibility that you may be wrong. That is, if someone pops up with a verse that contradicts what you want to believe, you alter your belief so it accommodates the verse logically. You do not appear to have done that.

Sorry but this is too good to pass, particularly the part in bold.

If Christians would do this consistently there would be no more Christians. I am having a arguement David about Matthew 23:29-33 in the thread "Mr. Matthews: False Doctrine". I wonder if any Christian will ever "alter his/her beliefs so to accomodate these verses logically".

Sorry again for the interruptions.

diana · 07-29-2002, 03:17 PM

Quote:

If Christians would do this consistently there would be no more Christians. ...I wonder if any Christian will ever "alter his/her beliefs so to accomodate these verses logically".

No flies on you, NOGO.

d

David Mathews · 07-29-2002, 03:42 PM

Hello diana,

Quote:

That is my point, actually. They're your scriptures. You explain:

The verse doesn't say, "But those who don't hear will be let off the hook," nor does it even suggest this is the case. It says, "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He who believeth not shall be condemned."

The problem with the second part of that verse is that it clearly says that, without belief, you will be condemned. And how can you believe, unless you hear? You can't, because you don't know what you're supposed to be believing in. So, if you don't hear, you cannot believe; ergo, you will be condemned.

David: Supposing that your interpretation of this passage is correct, Diana, and that all the people of the Earth except for Christians will be condemned: God can do to these people's souls as He wishes, either condemning them in their ignorance or saving them according to His mercy.

You should keep in mind that the Law of Christ is a law upon men, not a law upon God. God's freedom is not restricted. God can display grace to whomever He wishes.

Quote:

Again, I ask you to SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURES that back up your doctrine. So far, you've essentially argued that God wouldn't be that unfair. My point is that the scriptures don't make sense when it comes to this and are monstrously unfair, and in your efforts to make your god seem fair, you are ignoring the scriptures' very clear commands that certain things are required for salvation.

I await scriptural support for your doctrine. For a fisher of man of your calibre, I'd think it would be but a small matter to satisfy my curiosity.

David: Jonah 4:10-11, "the LORD said, 'You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came in a night and perished in a night. And should I not pity Ninevah, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, and also much livestock?"

God will have mercy upon whomever He chooses.

Quote:

David, I ask again: Is there a passage that allows for exceptions to this policy? That was a yes/no question. Please address it.

David: Yes, Exodus 33:19, "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

God is not bound by any law. God can display grace towards anyone according to His own choice.

Quote:

You appear unable to simply answer the questions that are put to you. Rather than assume you are intentionally being evasive, I suspect you may have a problem with reading comprehension. Please slow down and read the questions carefully before answering, then, if time allows, reread the question after you've answered to see if you've actually answered it.

David: You are being humorous ...

Quote:

You might try rephrasing the question in the form of a statement, as follows:

Question: "By what authority do you determine that it applies to some people and not others?

Answer: The authority I use to determine that the verse you cite applies to some people and not others is...."

Then just fill in the blank. Simple.

David: Are you done?

Quote:

I'll take the blame for this misunderstanding. I should never assume the person with whom I'm talking understands nuance. My bad.

You missed the word "if" in my statement. I was suggesting that, as you are the person claiming to believe in this god and his fiery revenge, I'd think it would be in your best interest to make damn sure (pun intended) that your "take" on the scriptures is the right one.

David: I am pleased to see that an atheist would be so concerned about the fate of my soul.

Quote:

I haven't read enough of your posts or interacted with you enough to be sure, David, but it appears thus far that you're beginning with the assumption that you are correct and ignoring anything that might contradict the way you've already decided it should be.

David: It is true that you haven't read enough of my posts or interacted with me enough to be sure about anything, Diana.

Quote:

"Making your calling and election sure" doesn't mean "prove you're right." It means "make sure you're right." The difference is that in the latter, you remain open to the possibility that you may be wrong. That is, if someone pops up with a verse that contradicts what you want to believe, you alter your belief so it accommodates the verse logically. You do not appear to have done that.

David: It is very true that I haven't done that, nor do I feel any special obligation to do so.

Quote:

Right, David. And if you haven't believed and been baptized, which you can't possibly do unless you've heard, you're condemned. I agree that it's terribly unfair, but the verse is unequivocal.

David: Perhaps you might want to find a commentary and read its interpretation of the passage before forming a conviction as to what it means, Diana.

Quote:

Once again, I note with interest that you haven't even pretended to answer my question. Why is that, David?

And have you decided finally that it is necessary to "obey the gospel" to avoid hell? Please make up your mind.

David: It is necessary for you to obey the gospel to avoid hell, Diana.

YOU: Given that Paul would not have known sin without the commandments forbidding sin, those people who are isolated from the law cannot possibly be judged according to the same standard as those who are born immsersed (as it were) in the law.

Quote:

Au contraire, mon ami. You left out the bit about "those people who are isolated from the law cannot possibly be judged according to the same standard." Where does that fit in? And what does it have to do with Paul not knowing sin without the commandments?

David: The people who do not know the commandment still remain in the times of ignorance, i.e. Acts 17:30, "Truly these times of ignorance God overlooked ..." As long as they remain in ignorance they are excluded from judgment according to the law.

Quote:

Hence the "Duh" at the end. I was merely outlining the pointlessness of the verse you quoted to me. Thank you for agreeing that Paul's discourse on needing the commandments to know sin was, indeed, pointless.

David: Paul's message was not pointless. People do not know anything until they are taught.

Quote:

For example? If you wish to cast doubt upon my interpretation of scripture, please come to the table bearing more than accusations and innuendo.

David: I don't regard you as an expert interpreter of the Scriptures. Do you consider yourself an expert Biblical interpreter?

Quote:

David: Do you "trust in reason", Diana?

But of course. Until something more reasonable comes along. But wait...wouldn't that still be reason?

Please note how I answered your question. You asked, I answered, straight out and to the point. Simple. Now see if you can do it.

David: I don't believe that you trust in reason, Diana. Not in the least. Nor do I believe that you have any reason to trust in reason, because you don't know nearly as much as you think you know.

Quote:

Again, David: please provide your scriptural support for disregarding clear and unequivocal commands, then explain away the contradiction I outlined above. Simply spewing more of your doctrine does not answer my questions.

David: Well, that is a pity.

Quote:

By the way and off the subject, the Thief on the Cross was an incident that (presumably) took place before the New Testament (Will) was in effect, because--Christ wasn't dead yet. If you wish to pursue this, please do so on another thread.

David: Excuse me, Diana, but an example of Jesus saving a person based strictly upon His own choice and for no other reason is directly relevant to our discussion.

Quote:

David: Well, it is good that you look forward to nonexistence.

What does this have to do with anything?

David: It was just an observation, Diana. I think it wonderful that you look forward to nonexistence. Have you thought about how quickly your memory will be forgotten once you have reached the nonexistent state?

A day will come in which your body will decompose, your name will be forgotten and the world will continue just as though you never existed.

Love,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-29-2002, 03:46 PM

Hello Diana,

Quote:

So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

(And from Heb 11, I forget which verse: "For without faith it is impossible to please him. For those who come to him must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.")

Sounds pretty unequivocal to me.

David: I can't help but think that you are an amateur at Biblical interpretation. Is that true, Diana?

Quote:

Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

So...they have heard? Mr. Mathews said they haven't. Which am I to believe?

David: No, they have not. There are six billion people on the Earth and tens of thousands are born and die every day. Many people -- billions in fact -- live and die without hearing the gospel.

Love,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-29-2002, 03:48 PM

Hello Helen,

Quote:

Your choice is between believing David Mathews or the Bible?

Well, I suppose you go with the one with the most credibility...the one with the best track record of sharing things you believe are true...the one showing the most internal consistency...

I'll leave that up to you!

David: Do you consider yourself an honest person, Helen?

Love,

David Mathews

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-29-2002, 01:19 PM	#41
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	diana I expect you were thinking of this passage, when you wrote something in your post that I guess didn't make the cut : Romans 10:13 For, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." 14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? love Helen

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.