willieH: Hi TB...
My reply will be in TWO PARTS...PART ONE
Before I begin my reply, Thanks for answering...
As well as saying, it is not my concern if you are convinced of anything, for I have no motive to convince... I post as led by my Father...
If it is HIS WILL you hear what I have said, then you will... if not... well, deaf ears are common concerning the speaking and sharing of truth.
This topic is a bit on the "trollish" side,
Sorry I missed this one, but since you said you had answered all my questions, I went looking for it. I shall attempt to respond with kindness to some hostility I perceive in your remarks. Or is it simply immaturity on your part?
There is no "hostility" involved, just diagreement with your observations of the WORD
The reason for the "trollish" comment, is that many come here and flood the board with ET proposals... just baiting the membership here, instead of actually seeking a good discussion in which either side might benefit and learn...
As far as "immaturity"...
...this is hardly a problem in my life bro... I am 64, having had a lifetime in which I have raised 3 fine children, and am amidst helping rear 10 grandkids.
Just because I try to elminate potentially applicable motives for disruptive people, does not equate to "immaturity"...
I don't even know what that terminology [trolling] means. I have seen it on several boards, but no one has ever applied it to my posts before. mind explaining it?
A "troll" is one which comes with a motive of disruption. Seeking to taunt, and procure attention for him/herself... baiting the membership of a given set of beliefs, by waving opposition before them which has no purpose other than disruption.
here is a link explaining this:http://computer.howstuffworks.com/troll.htm
as freely as you have "OPENED your MOUTH"...
In case it comes up later, this is the remark I identified as "hostility in your remarks"
"as freely as you have "OPENED your MOUTH"(Capitals YOURS for emphasis)
Many come SPEAKING, few come LISTENING... by you even bothering to answer my request that you reply to my questions, to some degree, removes that.
I apologize if you found it offensive. I have been a member here 7 or 8 years, and have experienced so many which consider themselves "enlightened", and are firm ET preachers, that I at times react early rather than later to the junk they try to peddle in the name of the GOSPEL
The question I have for you, TB... is shall you LEARN from this failure to refute "UR", or will you attempt to sidestep it?
Let us begin, shall we?
I have prepared a sort of questionaire to Universalists - Answer me please;
1) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, [Gen 3:6] in the garden, it must have been God's will.
(WH)YES -- YHVH God works ALL THINGS according to the counsel of HIS OWN WILL -- Eph 1:11
(TB) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If Eve gave to her husband, Adam, and he did eat, also, [Gen 3:6] it must have been God's will.
(WH) YES (see # 1) -- also... this event is IN the WORD, and the WORD which preceeded the event, must needs occur as noted IN the WORD which preceeded the event...
(TB) 3) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if cain killed Able, [Gen 4:8] it must have been God's will.
YES (see #1) -- also... the "murder" of Abel is part of the WORD which does NOT CHANGE... and so that "murder" which was PART of the THINGS NOT YET DONE -- Isaiah 46:10 -- had to occur, for the Scriptures [WORD] -- CANNOT be BROKEN -- John 10:34 -- the WORD has NO VARIANCE -- James 1:17 -- and is the SAME, yesterday, today and forever -- Heb 13:8
Why would you quote Isaiah to demonstrate something about the conversation in the garden? I will now quote another covenant to demonstrate a principal that applies to every day since creation; "Where there is no law, sin is not imputed." Adam was not accountable for every word of God since the world began. He was accountable for the sin of disobedience to specific instructions about a specific act of obedience/disobedience.FIRST
--- Obviously you have not considered what Isaiah 46:10
actually proposes brother... the "things that are NOT DONE"... Includes EVERYTHING which has been "done"... which also includes the murder of Abel by Cain... as well as Adam and Eve partaking of forbidden cuisine.SECOND
--- That the WORD
has not been given to man, does not negate it's activity, within his experience... The WORD
stands as ONE entity... and though ADAM was not given the instruction that the "wages of sin is DEATH"... did not stop this TRUTH from enabling itself in his circumstances... Matter of fact...
ADAM was not even told that his potential "disobedience" was SIN
... Was he?
SIN ...is... transgression of the LAW... that the LAW had not yet been given to man (Adam & his descendents), does not mean that it has not been transgressed! Cain killed Abel... and yet there was NO GOVERNING LAW in place, as disclosed by the WORD of GOD, that this act was "SIN"... Does that mean that Cain's act was NOT SIN? Or that the act was NOT TRANSGRESSION of the LAW?
And if nothing was "imputed"... why was CAIN banished?
notes that SIN
in fact, ENTERED through ADAM -- Rom 5:12
-- even though the LAW had yet to be given...
4) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if the sons of God came in unto the daughter's of men, [Gen 6:4] it must have been God's will.
YES (see #1) -- also... God made woman, to be an HELP, ...meet to MAN, without qualification (in every way) -- Gen 2:20 -- That "help" was not limited or described, so it stands as "help" in every way that MAN needed "help"... do you doubt the WORD which states this?
Your responses are bordering on the edge of phantasy. It is not the word of God I doubt, but it is your application of that word of God. I am beginning to think you have no idea whatsoever about what scripture teaches.
The Pharisees ("religious" of their day) "heard" (or rather didn't "hear") with DEAF EARS... some things NEVER CHANGE... FIRST
--- It is not my concern what you think
...I have been diligently studying the Scriptures since 1976... so please, abstain from supposing upon things, of which you have no idea whatsoever.SECOND
--- As far as "fantasy
" is concerned... you, dear brother, are aligned with the MANY
which follow said pathway -- Matt 24:5
-- thinking yourself knowledgeable, as you wallow in the midst of your "deception" which MISLEADS MANY...
5) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if every thought of man's heart was only evil continually,[Gen 6:5] it must have been God's will.
(WH)YES (see #1) -- also... God sends man into CAPTIVITY -- Jer 29:14 -- that He might DELIVER him FROM IT... as well as CONCLUDE ALL in UNBELIEF -- Rom 11:32 -- that He might have MERCY upon ALL -- are you getting any of this, TB?
I know why you are laughing. You don't believe it either. NO MAN ever begot a son, only to subject him to humiliation of temptation of flesh, subject him to unbelief, subject him to disobedience, just so you as his dear old daddy, can offer him a chance to repent.
Trying to equate the doings of MEN, with GOD's doings...
I have quoted SCRIPTURE
which supports what I claim... and all you do is reply with empty words of your own, failing to note Scriptural support of them.
Then you go on to say this:
it is monstrous in the extreme, and to accuse God of so behaving is unbelievable. All that dows is how that you do not comprehend whaqt the scriptures are actually saying, so you take one sound bite out of context so you can present your mangled view of reality.
As I have already noted to you... MANY of a similar RELIGIOUS position as you occupy, have been here, and gone... basically without spirtually affecting ANYONE here.
You esteem your knowledge to hold truth, but quite the opposite is TRUE...FIRST
--- No one has "accused God" of anything. I have noted the WORD
which SAYS that GOD sent His people into CAPTIVITY... and all you can say to that is "unbelieveable
A SCRIPTURELESS self-admission which shows the LACK of FAITH that is necessary to BELIEVE
what the WORD
--- As DO many of the THEOLOGY of Babylon, so DO YOU... demanding "CONTEXT
" when the WORD
makes no such demand. ***
Please quote ONE VERSE in the ENTIRE Bible, that notes the DEMAND of CONTEXT
Don't get me wrong bro... the setting in which PRINCIPLES of the WORD
are placed is important to the entities addressed
... but these PRINCIPLES are NOT IMPRISONED by RELIGIOUS persons such as yourself who would CONFINE them to said "addressees"...
If we were to take YOUR (I say "your" because YOU have demanded CONTEXT) FOOLISH demand of "CONTEXT
"... then the letters of PAUL were written ONLY to those in Corinth, or Phillipi or Ephesus or Galatia... eh?
The CONTEXT of these was not written to you! YOU were not of these communities! ...so in your demand... you must also DEMAND it INAPPLICABLE to you... for YOU were not of those ADDRESSED!
How is THAT for ridiculousness?
...well it is about as ridiculous as you demanding DIVINE principles remain IN CONTEXT.
As I said... when you ESTABLISH a SCRIPTURAL DIRECTIVE which demands CONTEXT, then I shall have to reconsider what I have just said. If you DON'T... then your DEMAND is garbage, and full of itself, not the WORD
END of PART ONE