progmonk said:
So for my own clarification do you believe that temple is heaven, earth, or all of His creation?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)
- Thread starter Metal Minister
- Start date
So for my own clarification do you believe that temple is heaven, earth, or all of His creation?
Keachian
On Sabbatical
all of the creation, in some ways this is fuelled by my longer held view that Christ's second coming is in order to fully revitalise creation and dwell among his people for eternity. It also helps me to see the proclamation of "and God saw that it was good." as God seeing it good for his own dwelling, I think this makes it a more powerful statement.
Upvote
0
You are performing a bait and switch here. You started off talking about assumptions of radiocarbon dating. The so called assumptions you mentioned are not actually used. That other link was nothing to do with assumptions of carbon dating but to do with assumptions of linking stone artifacts with in situ organic material - a different topic for a different day.
As someone else has stated - you want a theological discussion but you can't resist wanting to throw in some science if you think it strengthens your position. You cannot have the penny and the cake. When you make erroneous statements of the science it weakens your argument.
And your statements of the science part are complete rubbish. Mining 50 year old discussions when carbon dating was in its infancy is not exactly of much relevance today. In fact it is downright shoddy.
Upvote
0
progmonk said:
That's an interesting idea, but I tend to believe that bara means create when it pertains to God. The Jewish Publication Society says it this way: "The Hebrew bara is used in the Bible exclusively of divine creativity. It signifies that the product is absolutely novel and unexampled, depends solely upon God for its coming into existence, and is beyond the human capacity to reproduce" (Sarna, Nahumn M., Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary, Jewish Publication Society, 1989).
This in conjunction with yom and a numeral meaning a 24 hour day leads me to believe it at more of a face value, but I can see your point. I do have a question. If God created the universe, why do you think he left it non-functioning for so long before seeming to do something with it, and does this idea make God subject to his own creation time?
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
The use of bara within Psalm 51:10 create in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me, I think talks far more of a renewing of heart than a wholly new creation, so I'm not sure I agree with the JPS here.
If God's creation fell why did he leave it until Christ to bring it back to him by his own power? Same question more or less, though to answer your question with what I believe, I believe that he was having fun, enjoying handcrafting the stars, creating the earth carving the mountains with streams, he's in no hurry to complete, after all the heavens declare the work of his hands. The glory of God is the end of all things, not as some might have it the glorification of man. He is not subject to time, enjoying the work he was doing is why I believe he took the 13.5 billion years, and I think in part this idea of God creating in this way is something which spurs me on to praise him more.
Upvote
0
progmonk said:
I can appreciate that. So its not so much that you believe God "couldn't" have created everything in 7 days, only that he chose not to? Do you believe that during this time is when dinosaurs were on the earth? Not as a scientific question, more as a point of reference.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
progmonk said:yes I do believe that. Just a point on the thing about 7 days I do hope you don't hold that he's limited in that he could only create in 7 days as in he couldn't create in less time, when I did believe YEC I saw the 7 days as God enjoying his creativity
Oh no, God could've created it all in less time then our tony human minds can fathom. Instantaneous is no problem for God! : ) I think he may have used 7 days as more of a tool for us. To show us (before Christ's first coming) the way he wanted us to live, to give humanity structure. ( cause isn't it obvious how badly we need his guidance! ; ) )
Upvote
0
progmonk said:
I wanted to take this as an aside. I don't think it speaks directly to yec or oec, but it is worth exploring. First, we do have to take into account that the psalms then are the equivalent to our hymns today. They would've been sung and put to music, and hyperbole should be expected. Also, it is possible that it more means to create a new "heart" or "spirit" because as we now know, when we believe on Christ, we become new creatures in Him.
2 Corinthians 5:17 New King James Version (NKJV)
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
Like I said, not directly involved in our discussion, but linked, and well worth exploring. : D
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
I totally agree, his intention is to point us to him, one of the wonderful conclusions I've come to about Genesis 1 is that God's intention is to be Emmanuel and the beauty of that being shown from the beginning just makes my heart jump for joy, the message of the incarnation as the opening of God's great and magnificent plan of creation, God truly is great
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Well yeah, everything is created anew in the light of the Cross, but I'm also reminded of 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul here is describing how we are people of the day while everyone else is of the night, NT Wright puts it as Paul describing jet lag, our bodies tell us that we are living in Christ, yet the world around us doesn't reflect that, love it, love it, love it
Upvote
0
progmonk said:I totally agree, his intention is to point us to him, one of the wonderful conclusions I've come to about Genesis 1 is that God's intention is to be Emmanuel and the beauty of that being shown from the beginning just makes my heart jump for joy, the message of the incarnation as the opening of God's great and magnificent plan of creation, God truly is great
Amen!
Upvote
0
MM wrote:
Um, they are bent on finding the truth, based on actual science. You just claimed that practically all of science is unreliable and biased. Do you even know what the National Acaedemies of Science is?
OK, so you are saying that because the Smithsonian was duped with two samples, out of the thousands they work with, that they are unreliable? Let's see, that means they have a success rate of better than 99.9%, and even with those, they removed them as soon as the error was detected.
Now, please compare that with the list of hoaxes you posted earlier as "evidence" for young earth creationism. That list not only contained a number of hoaxes, but YECs are still touting the hoaxes after they've been exposed!
So that's 99.9% success, with errors corrected as soon as discovered for the Smithsonian,
vs.
YEC's with mostly hoaxes, with errors clung to even after being exposed.
And so you put weight in the frauds, and reject the 99% success? Ouch.
*********
Hey, you even topped what you did before. To think that you would go on to try to defend Kent Hovind!
Yes, I know his story. He was convicted by an impartial jury on all counts of fraud - that's 58 consective counts of fraud. I know that he has bilked Christians out of literally millions of dolars.
Do you realize that much of your defense of these con artists consisted of saying their crimes should be ignored because they were treated harshly by police? Can you imagine that defense being used in court?
"Yes, your honor, I know my client did murder his victim, but hey, he needed to go to the bathroom when the police arrested him, so he's innocent!"
Here, take some time to learn from something other than the half-truths Hovind sends out in his newsletters. I especially encourage any lurkers to look at this fraudster that MM is defending. MM, do you think Kent Hovind is a good representative of Christianity?
Kent Hovind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you seriously think that the Bible scholars haven't heard these? Are you seriously claiming to know Hebrew and the Bible better than the Bible scholars? I'm not sure if that's a more incredible claim than the idea that Kent Hovind is an innocent victim. It's close.
Many of them are so simple that I, a non-scholar who doesn't know Hebrew, can see through them. For instance:
Because it's obviously metaphorical. The whole chapter is written as a poem, with puns to show that it isn't literal. Like Exodus, Solomon, and so on, scripture often contains things that aren't literal. I mentioned the flying on eagles wings before, and you ignored it, so I'll ask again. MM, do you consider Exodus 19:4 to be literal?
**********
Except that you haven't heard the evidence - doing so would take a whole college degree in biology, years of research, a post-doc position, and so on. You are completely ignorant of 99+% of the evidence for evolution, yet you say the evidence is lacking.
Christianer than thou much?
It appears you are clueless about taphonomy.
And clueless about not just what evidences we have, but even about the different types of evidence available. Since you have claimed to be familiar with the evidence, could you show us that you are by simply listing 6 of the main different types of evidence. Hint - fossils aren't even the most important type.
And apparently you are also ignorant about dating methods, and the fact that they all confirm each other.
Of course you need to be more educated, while I don't. Because I'm not disagreeing with the experts, so I don't have to claim to be an expert to point out that someone disagreeing with the experts (you) doesn't have leg to stand on.
For instance, if I claimed that beams from space aliens caused cancer instead of cancer being caused by environmental chemicals, you would be correct in asking for my credentials. However, if I claimed that cigarrettes cause cancer, I don't need to be an expert, because that is in agreement with the experts.
From your posts, it's clear that no assumption was involved. It's not relevant whether or not I'm "scientifically superior". It's only relevant that you, who are the one disagreeing with the experts, are clueless.
Oh, and not the person who questions my faith, and cites con artists as if the thought they were scientific authorities, while dissing the Smithsonian?
**********
Whoa, I'd like to see evidence for that claim that dates are discarded for the sole reason that they don't fit any time scale.
I've often posted some of the plentiful evidence that the dating methods confirm each other. Here is a thread where that is discussed, start at post #10:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528/
Is Dr. Collins a fool or an atheist? NIH - Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
And so you are saying that the National Academies are fools and or atheists? Evolution Resources from the National Academies
**********
Ted's posts are often little more than hymns of praise to his own view. Oh, of course Christian scientists can be wrong. I'm pointing out that you are incorrect in saying that only atheists support evolution. In fact, most of the support for evolution in the US comes from Christians, not atheists.
**********
That's silly. I would certainly not call it fake if it came from Harvard. Since you sound defensive, might I ask where it is coming from?
No, I'm willing to dismiss the repeatedly disproven canards from con-artists that you refuse to back up with actual references. I hope you are too.
And what credibility does that have at the end of a huge two post rebuttal? If you don't want to discuss it, then why did you?
In Christ's name-
Papias
Um, they are bent on finding the truth, based on actual science. You just claimed that practically all of science is unreliable and biased. Do you even know what the National Acaedemies of Science is?
.
OK, so you are saying that because the Smithsonian was duped with two samples, out of the thousands they work with, that they are unreliable? Let's see, that means they have a success rate of better than 99.9%, and even with those, they removed them as soon as the error was detected.
Now, please compare that with the list of hoaxes you posted earlier as "evidence" for young earth creationism. That list not only contained a number of hoaxes, but YECs are still touting the hoaxes after they've been exposed!
So that's 99.9% success, with errors corrected as soon as discovered for the Smithsonian,
vs.
YEC's with mostly hoaxes, with errors clung to even after being exposed.
And so you put weight in the frauds, and reject the 99% success? Ouch.
*********
Hey, you even topped what you did before. To think that you would go on to try to defend Kent Hovind!
Yes, I know his story. He was convicted by an impartial jury on all counts of fraud - that's 58 consective counts of fraud. I know that he has bilked Christians out of literally millions of dolars.
Do you realize that much of your defense of these con artists consisted of saying their crimes should be ignored because they were treated harshly by police? Can you imagine that defense being used in court?
"Yes, your honor, I know my client did murder his victim, but hey, he needed to go to the bathroom when the police arrested him, so he's innocent!"
Here, take some time to learn from something other than the half-truths Hovind sends out in his newsletters. I especially encourage any lurkers to look at this fraudster that MM is defending. MM, do you think Kent Hovind is a good representative of Christianity?
Kent Hovind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you seriously think that the Bible scholars haven't heard these? Are you seriously claiming to know Hebrew and the Bible better than the Bible scholars? I'm not sure if that's a more incredible claim than the idea that Kent Hovind is an innocent victim. It's close.
Many of them are so simple that I, a non-scholar who doesn't know Hebrew, can see through them. For instance:
Because it's obviously metaphorical. The whole chapter is written as a poem, with puns to show that it isn't literal. Like Exodus, Solomon, and so on, scripture often contains things that aren't literal. I mentioned the flying on eagles wings before, and you ignored it, so I'll ask again. MM, do you consider Exodus 19:4 to be literal?
**********
Except that you haven't heard the evidence - doing so would take a whole college degree in biology, years of research, a post-doc position, and so on. You are completely ignorant of 99+% of the evidence for evolution, yet you say the evidence is lacking.
Christianer than thou much?
It appears you are clueless about taphonomy.
And clueless about not just what evidences we have, but even about the different types of evidence available. Since you have claimed to be familiar with the evidence, could you show us that you are by simply listing 6 of the main different types of evidence. Hint - fossils aren't even the most important type.
And apparently you are also ignorant about dating methods, and the fact that they all confirm each other.
Of course you need to be more educated, while I don't. Because I'm not disagreeing with the experts, so I don't have to claim to be an expert to point out that someone disagreeing with the experts (you) doesn't have leg to stand on.
For instance, if I claimed that beams from space aliens caused cancer instead of cancer being caused by environmental chemicals, you would be correct in asking for my credentials. However, if I claimed that cigarrettes cause cancer, I don't need to be an expert, because that is in agreement with the experts.
From your posts, it's clear that no assumption was involved. It's not relevant whether or not I'm "scientifically superior". It's only relevant that you, who are the one disagreeing with the experts, are clueless.
Oh, and not the person who questions my faith, and cites con artists as if the thought they were scientific authorities, while dissing the Smithsonian?
**********
Whoa, I'd like to see evidence for that claim that dates are discarded for the sole reason that they don't fit any time scale.
I've often posted some of the plentiful evidence that the dating methods confirm each other. Here is a thread where that is discussed, start at post #10:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528/
Is Dr. Collins a fool or an atheist? NIH - Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
And so you are saying that the National Academies are fools and or atheists? Evolution Resources from the National Academies
**********
Ted's posts are often little more than hymns of praise to his own view. Oh, of course Christian scientists can be wrong. I'm pointing out that you are incorrect in saying that only atheists support evolution. In fact, most of the support for evolution in the US comes from Christians, not atheists.
**********
That's silly. I would certainly not call it fake if it came from Harvard. Since you sound defensive, might I ask where it is coming from?
No, I'm willing to dismiss the repeatedly disproven canards from con-artists that you refuse to back up with actual references. I hope you are too.
And what credibility does that have at the end of a huge two post rebuttal? If you don't want to discuss it, then why did you?
In Christ's name-
Papias
Upvote
0
Sorry, I'm not playing "Christianer than thou" with you. If you want to say that these believers are not believers, then fine with you.
All well and good. Here it is.
Isn't it True that Most Scientists Don't Believe in Evolution? | Evolution FAQ
Then why do you go on with the rest of your post suggesting that those who disagree with you aren't TrueChristians TM?
In his name -
Papias
Upvote
0
progmonk said:
So can I assume you believe Noah's flood was more of a local flood? I believe it was a global flood, wiping out all but Noah and those on the ark. Also, I prefer the KJV on this when it says
And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
If the Lord is with you on a boat, its garunteed not to spring a leak! ; )
Also, I don't see the point of a local flood needing an ark. Why not simply have Noah and the animals leave the are like Lot in Soddom? Whatever happened to wipe out all those people would have needed to be swift and severe, otherwise they simply could've left the area. That, and I think a global flood would leave behind a sign that God judged mankind once, and soon He'll do it again. What do you think?
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
hi papias,
Good to hear from you again. You posted: All well and good. Here it is.
Isn't it True that Most Scientists Don't Believe in Evolution? | Evolution FAQ
I pulled up that reference dug up where the data come from. I hope that you do understand that I have never denied the claim that most scientists accept evolutionary theory. It surely wouldn't be so popular if that weren't the case. However, your claim was that most 'christian' scientists accept evolutionary theory and this poll mentions nothing about christians. Just scientists in general. Friend, you really needn't have gone to all the trouble. I would have readily agreed with that claim from the beginning.
As far as the things that I suggest, well I didn't actually find that claim in writing, but you are free to infer whatever you feel is the 'correct' understanding of the things that I write. If I write that I believe most born again believers, whether scientist or not, believe in young earth creationism and those who are not born again aren't able to understand God, yes, you are free to infer that I mean that many who believe in other theories are not born again. I also freely admit that.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Good to hear from you again. You posted: All well and good. Here it is.
Isn't it True that Most Scientists Don't Believe in Evolution? | Evolution FAQ
I pulled up that reference dug up where the data come from. I hope that you do understand that I have never denied the claim that most scientists accept evolutionary theory. It surely wouldn't be so popular if that weren't the case. However, your claim was that most 'christian' scientists accept evolutionary theory and this poll mentions nothing about christians. Just scientists in general. Friend, you really needn't have gone to all the trouble. I would have readily agreed with that claim from the beginning.
As far as the things that I suggest, well I didn't actually find that claim in writing, but you are free to infer whatever you feel is the 'correct' understanding of the things that I write. If I write that I believe most born again believers, whether scientist or not, believe in young earth creationism and those who are not born again aren't able to understand God, yes, you are free to infer that I mean that many who believe in other theories are not born again. I also freely admit that.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
Ted-
It looks like we agree on most points of fact. (somewhat surprising!).
We agree that practically all scientists support evolution, and that Ted believes that those who support evolution aren't born again christians (which I consider a Christianer-than-thou position).
And that's where the data comes in. Among all of those who call themselves Christian, you are correct that most are young earth creationists (around 55 to 65%, not an overwhelming majority). It's only among those who call themselves Christians, and are also scientists, that practically all of them support evolution.
Ted wrote:
Right, but a little math shows that my point is unavoidable. Specifically, the data shows that 95 to 99% of all scientists support evolution, and that around 1/3 of those are believers. So that means that even if all of the scientists who don't support evolution are believers, then that still over 90% of Christian scientists who support evolution.
You'll go back to claiming that those aren't TrueChristians, at which point we'll just have to agree to disagree, right?
Papias
It looks like we agree on most points of fact. (somewhat surprising!).
We agree that practically all scientists support evolution, and that Ted believes that those who support evolution aren't born again christians (which I consider a Christianer-than-thou position).
And that's where the data comes in. Among all of those who call themselves Christian, you are correct that most are young earth creationists (around 55 to 65%, not an overwhelming majority). It's only among those who call themselves Christians, and are also scientists, that practically all of them support evolution.
Ted wrote:
Right, but a little math shows that my point is unavoidable. Specifically, the data shows that 95 to 99% of all scientists support evolution, and that around 1/3 of those are believers. So that means that even if all of the scientists who don't support evolution are believers, then that still over 90% of Christian scientists who support evolution.
You'll go back to claiming that those aren't TrueChristians, at which point we'll just have to agree to disagree, right?
Papias
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
In looking over the research that has so far been tabulated about being 'born again', we find that most polls place that number at roughly 1/3 of those who associate themselves as christans also further define themselves a 'born again'. This would fairly well substantiate the words of Jesus:
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers."
First, he warns us of false prophets telling us that they will come to us in sheep's clothing. Then he clearly says, 'many will say to me...' I think it completely clear that Jesus is speaking here of people who identified themselves in this life as 'christians'. He says that they will be proclaiming that they did things 'in his name'. Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims and just plain unbelievers will not be able to make that claim. I don't think you can produce any valid claims among those who are not 'christians' as doing their works in Jesus' name. No muslim will tell you that the miraculous things that he might do are done in Jesus' name. They might say, in God's name, but they will not be claiming to have worked in the name of Jesus. Only 'christians' derived as a word to describe those who follow the Christ, will be able to make any such claim.
Of that group Jesus says, 'many will say to me'. He doesn't say there will be a few of you or a small group or some of you that will say to me, but many. So, the implication is this. Of those who describe themselves as 'christians', many will be turned away. Then when I read in John chapter 3 what Jesus clearly says about being born again, I am just absolutely amazed at the people who don't understand what seems to me to be a clear teaching about an event in the life of those who receive God's promise of salvation will absolutely,positively have to have in order to receive that promise.
Jesus didn't mince words about this issue. "I tell you the truth! No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." How much more clear could that teaching possibly be. Then he says again, "I tell you the truth! No one who has not been born of water and Spirit will enter the kingdom of God." There isn't much ambiguity in those statements. Jesus claims that it is the truth and then describes an absolutely necessary component of our receiving God's promise of life in His kingdom. He tells Nicodemus clearly, "You should not be surprised at my saying, "You must be born again." How much more important and clearly can Jesus possibly make this point? You must be born again.
You are free to understand it and teach it anyway that seems right to you. As for me, I'm trusting that unless a man be born again he will in no way enter the kingdom of God (period)! Now, understanding what it means to someone to be 'born again' is a bit more difficult work, but I think that Nicodemus gives us a pretty good example that knowledge of God isn't it and whatever it is, he didn't have it. I think that Jesus makes it fairly clear in the above Scripture that many who claim the name of 'christian' will not be.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers."
First, he warns us of false prophets telling us that they will come to us in sheep's clothing. Then he clearly says, 'many will say to me...' I think it completely clear that Jesus is speaking here of people who identified themselves in this life as 'christians'. He says that they will be proclaiming that they did things 'in his name'. Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims and just plain unbelievers will not be able to make that claim. I don't think you can produce any valid claims among those who are not 'christians' as doing their works in Jesus' name. No muslim will tell you that the miraculous things that he might do are done in Jesus' name. They might say, in God's name, but they will not be claiming to have worked in the name of Jesus. Only 'christians' derived as a word to describe those who follow the Christ, will be able to make any such claim.
Of that group Jesus says, 'many will say to me'. He doesn't say there will be a few of you or a small group or some of you that will say to me, but many. So, the implication is this. Of those who describe themselves as 'christians', many will be turned away. Then when I read in John chapter 3 what Jesus clearly says about being born again, I am just absolutely amazed at the people who don't understand what seems to me to be a clear teaching about an event in the life of those who receive God's promise of salvation will absolutely,positively have to have in order to receive that promise.
Jesus didn't mince words about this issue. "I tell you the truth! No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." How much more clear could that teaching possibly be. Then he says again, "I tell you the truth! No one who has not been born of water and Spirit will enter the kingdom of God." There isn't much ambiguity in those statements. Jesus claims that it is the truth and then describes an absolutely necessary component of our receiving God's promise of life in His kingdom. He tells Nicodemus clearly, "You should not be surprised at my saying, "You must be born again." How much more important and clearly can Jesus possibly make this point? You must be born again.
You are free to understand it and teach it anyway that seems right to you. As for me, I'm trusting that unless a man be born again he will in no way enter the kingdom of God (period)! Now, understanding what it means to someone to be 'born again' is a bit more difficult work, but I think that Nicodemus gives us a pretty good example that knowledge of God isn't it and whatever it is, he didn't have it. I think that Jesus makes it fairly clear in the above Scripture that many who claim the name of 'christian' will not be.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
Similar threads
