If God never offered eternal life, would you still serve him?

[Mark Quayle]

Co-determination: His grace but also our repsonse to it.

As always, you nebulously assume our ability to choose altogether unfettered. Out of thin air, for no cause at all (because even in part, that part is without cause, in your narrative), some choose good and some choose bad. You don't know the reason, so you have to attribute it to chance, since somehow, you rebel against the notion of God being the one to set up the whole business.

Again. Chance cannot determine anything. It is self-contradictory to say it does.

God will have mercy on whom he has chosen. Not because anyone chooses him; but we love him because he first loved us.

 

[fhansen]

As always, you nebulously assume our ability to choose altogether unfettered. Out of thin air, for no cause at all (because even in part, that part is without cause, in your narrative), some choose good and some choose bad. You don't know the reason, so you have to attribute it to chance, since somehow, you rebel against the notion of God being the one to set up the whole business.

Ah, but the nebulosity is all yours. Again, as I've stated over and over, man cannot move himself to God apart from grace, and yet even that grace is resistible, at any point. Your error is in thinking that man's will was totally destroyed at the fall rather than corrupted, compromised, weakened by virtue of, while still a good creation, no longer being in communion with his Creator. As it is God appeals to that will, informs and cultivates it rather than overwhelming it. Otherwise, again, the whole creation story with the fall of man and then the century's long plan of salvation culminating in the entrance of Jesus into human history makes little sense.

Yes, man has a choice, between good and evil. God will awaken him and help him make the right choice but it's quite obvious Scripturally that He has a hands-off approach to definitively causing man to come down one way or the other. Way too many "ifs", too many warnings and exhortations, too many examples of how one may be blotted out of the Book of Life, spit from Christ's mouth, a branch grafted in and cut back off. God is in the business of patiently leading His people into righteousness, to willing rightly, in line with His own will, to loving as He does ultimately-not to simply doing that all for them: manufacturing "right choosers" IOW. That's really a rather silly idea IMO-not in line with the gospel anyway.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, but the nebulosity is all yours. Again, as I've stated over and over, man cannot move himself to God apart from grace, and yet even that grace is resistible, at any point. Your error is in thinking that man's will was totally destroyed at the fall rather than corrupted, compromised, weakened by virtue of, while still a good creation, no longer being in communion with his Creator. As it is God appeals to that will, informs and cultivates it rather than overwhelming it. Otherwise, again, the whole creation story with the fall of man and then the century's long plan of salvation culminating in the entrance of Jesus into human history makes little sense.

Yes, man has a choice, between good and evil. God will awaken him and help him make the right choice but it's quite obvious Scripturally that He has a hands-off approach to definitively causing man to come down one way or the other. Way too many "ifs", too many warnings and exhortations, too many examples of how one may be blotted out of the Book of Life, spit from Christ's mouth, a branch grafted in and cut back off. God is in the business of patiently leading His people into righteousness, to willing rightly, in line with His own will, to loving as He does ultimately-not to simply doing that all for them: manufacturing "right choosers" IOW. That's really a rather silly idea IMO-not in line with the gospel anyway.

There's more than a reading comprehension problem going on here. I ALWAYS have said, and continue to say, that man has will. Yet you claim I think man's will was totally destroyed at the fall. To add to the strangeness, you imply my logic is that Adam had free will, before the fall. You are arguing against a strawman. NOBODY has free will except God, if free will is 'uncaused'.

Your second paragraph isn't much better. I don't claim God chooses for them. Again, we have choice! I don't say otherwise. I do say that God chooses first, and logically, that must be, since God is first cause. That doesn't mean that we don't choose, but that our choices are caused. You characterize this causation, in the first paragraph as "overwhelming" the will, yet you claim I believe that will has been destroyed. So which is it? I believe neither one, though God does have the absolute right and ability to do with our will whatever he pleases.

Your nebulosity is in the vague, and contradictory notions you have, that we sort of do this on our own and God sort of does this to us and for us, and that we have absolute sovereignty, kind of, and limited free will, whatever that means, and that we can use the chain of causation, but we are sort of not subject to it, and so on.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I think the true answer to this question is based upon the alternative. As our choice in life is either God or "not God" and the alternative of "not God" is essentially (for most believers) rather permanently unpleasant with that in mind most of us that believe this will choose God.

One considers life here as a reflection of a greater issue in that we follow/work for/serve people to make life better or at least tolerable and continue to try and make a better life of things sometimes changing jobs and mentors and so on. Not having eternal life may not really be comprehendable and what is the alternative to that? another death?
Now the big boogeyman in the room is if there is no salvation because God changes the rules then would God be God or something else? Would God be justified to sentence us to a life after this with rules that essentially don't really make it any different than this life now? In this life to those who don't believe they are already rejecting God based up this notion (most of them I figure) and to die and live a second life that may not be much different with the same rules the same people ignoring God in this life.... would continue on.

If we do jump into the sin problem then does this new identity of God who in there is no salvation consider sin the same how does he treat sin in the next life.... or is there even a next life at all? Would appeasing this god make things better, worse, or nothing changing to encourage us?

If sin stays sin and God hates sin the same in this scenario then man cannot rid himself of it and never improve his standing with God. I've found people who get stuck in life can often lose the desire to live.

Interesting conundrum for sure. Wise people would want to read a contract before signing and this situation needs
more information but I think overall people would continue to "try" this god and hopefully glean more info maybe peek at the inner workings to decide if god is but another dead end like the other gods in the world people follow. Christians consider the alternative gods false because of Christianity and its treatment of mankind and God's demonstration of love, if you remove change the treatment of mankind would we "feel' impelled to follow this god? Would this god be a trinity and would we even know about God the Son and God the Holy Spirit which are 2/3rds of who God is and IMO the loss of those two greatly diminish God's glory.

As for my thinking if this idea of God or "god" was reality I don't see enough difference to consider it over other gods in the world. I don't see the love in this god and it is the love of God in the Bible that attract most of our allegiance to him that is IMO most unshaken vs a dictator God who demands obedience etc.
I think I better stop here my mind is starting to get a little overwhelmed at thinking of a potential "not God" being God, that is something that isn't the same as God that we choose as God we are not rejecting God as we know it now but presented a version that isn't him with no knowledge of the Gospel to compare it with. It is sort of like growing up with a loving father and people asking you would you want a father that is not loving when you never had a father and don't have any more information about who your "foster" or stepfather would be....

 

[fhansen]

There's more than a reading comprehension problem going on here. I ALWAYS have said, and continue to say, that man has will. Yet you claim I think man's will was totally destroyed at the fall. To add to the strangeness, you imply my logic is that Adam had free will, before the fall. You are arguing against a strawman. NOBODY has free will except God, if free will is 'uncaused'.

Ok, yes, man has a will; animals have a will for that matter. But for a will to be free it would necessarily be uncaused-and moral evil is explainable only in light of the fact that the creature has been given the freedom to oppose even the Creator's will-by His allowing that freedom. He causes the freedom, not the abuse of it.

And apparently I erred about your theology. I thought you believed man was free until the fall whereupon he became a slave to sin-that Adam's sin was foreknown but not inevitable in the absolute sense. He could've chosen otherwise IOW.

That doesn't mean that we don't choose, but that our choices are caused.

Ok, and that's a distinction without a difference when it comes to a discussion of free will. Either God's a puppet master, or He's not.

You characterize this causation, in the first paragraph as "overwhelming" the will, yet you claim I believe that will has been destroyed.

Wrong wording on my part perhaps. As I said above I believed that you thought freedom of will had been destroyed at the fall, not that man never had free will to begin with.

I believe neither one, though God does have the absolute right and ability to do with our will whatever he pleases.

Exactly. He could make puppets if that was His purpose for some reason. Or He could make a being like Himself, whose freedom could be used for good or for ill and who's free choices therefore contribute to his choosing good, choosing to love at the end of the day. The stronger that choice, the greater-the more like God-we become. He's not afraid of that; He wants it, in fact, for our highest good. He didn't create us to be sinners, and He didn't create us to just be satisfied in Eden with our own image as Lucifer was so impressed with his that he exalted himself above God. Rather He created us to come to see and value where true goodness lies, to come to know and then to truly love Him above all else. And choice is a necessary part of this, just as it was at the Fall where man failed to love Him. As Augustine put it, "He who created you without your consent does not save you without your consent."

Your nebulosity is in the vague, and contradictory notions you have, that we sort of do this on our own and God sort of does this to us and for us, and that we have absolute sovereignty, kind of, and limited free will, whatever that means, and that we can use the chain of causation, but we are sort of not subject to it, and so on.

Like I said, its a matter of grace, together with human choice. God could overwhelm us with His causation but elects not to do so. You might prefer to think that its all obvious: cut and dry, that God simply saves some and damns the rest to eternal torment based on His will, His causation, and nothing to do with their's apparently. And that we can know that we're numbered among the elect. But that's more nebulous than any model I can think of since one's opinion about one's own salvation is highly subjective to begin with.

In the position held by the Christian Church, God does the judging, by the heart, and yet it's not based on whim but rather on criteria, on fruit, on how the person has changed, on how they've taken whatever gifts, whatever grace they've been given and produced and became something with it, not without His help. The bottom line teaching: "At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love." If that's too nebulous for you, you can take it up with God later on I guess.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, yes, man has a will; animals have a will for that matter. But for a will to be free it would necessarily be uncaused-and moral evil is explainable only in light of the fact that the creature has been given the freedom to oppose even the Creator's will-by His allowing that freedom. He causes the freedom, not the abuse of it.

And apparently I erred about your theology. I thought you believed man was free until the fall whereupon he became a slave to sin-that Adam's sin was foreknown but not inevitable in the absolute sense. He could've chosen otherwise IOW.

You continue to ignore the Bible's teaching that man is either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ; not only that, but you continue to leave unanswered the fact that uncaused free will is logically impossible, except in first cause.

You then employ the self-contradictory notion that God causes uncaused free will.

Then you imply that my theology claims that nobody opposes God's will. That is, uhm, 'mistaken'. Before regeneration everything we do opposes God's command. After regeneration, much of what we do also opposes God's command (i.e. disobedience). But nothing either one of us does, while we may wish it to oppose God's decree, it cannot actually be an opposition, but is part of what God has decreed will happen.


Mark Quayle said: ↑
"That doesn't mean that we don't choose, but that our choices are caused."

Ok, and that's a distinction without a difference when it comes to a discussion of free will. Either God's a puppet master, or He's not.

Give some, get some: Either we have uncaused free will or we don't.

But again, ONLY First Cause is uncaused. Nothing else logically can be uncaused.

And, again, you want to occupy knowledge we do not have, as though our choices are taken from ACTUAL possibilities, instead of from perceived possibilities.

But your mindset elevates man and debases God. It makes man a co-determiner with God, and God only a co-determiner with man. And it submits both to the sovereignty of Chance.

Wrong wording on my part. As I said above I believed that you thought freedom of will had been destroyed at the fall, not that man never had free will to begin with.

I will allow that my claim of free will, which I attribute to a different meaning of 'free' from what you mean, (i.e. 'uncaused'), could have misled you. Again, by 'free will', I only meant actual, real, choice. And that choice is between true options, but not between true possibilities, but rather, perceived possibilities.

The results of the fall of Adam include the corruption of the will, to where apart from being born again one is at enmity with God cannot choose according to God's command, and indeed cannot do anything to please God. But before the fall, Adam's state was of ignorance. He only perceived possibilities, and so chose from between them.

Again, looking back through history, we only can tell of one thing every happening, so how can we conclude that other things could have happened? But God knows, and indeed caused what happens to come to pass; it is only OUR perception to claim other things can happen than what does actually happen. God presents the options to us from which to choose, but do you actually think he did not know what we were going to choose? And no, I'm not describing Fate, but Predestination.

Exactly. He could make puppets if that was His purpose for some reason. Or He could make a being like Himself, whose freedom could be used for good or for ill and who's free choices therefore contribute to his choosing good, choosing to love at the end of the day. The stronger that choice, the greater-the more like God-we become. He's not afraid of that; He wants it, in fact, for our highest good. He didn't create us to be sinners, and He didn't create us to just be satisfied in Eden with our own image as Lucifer was so impressed with his that he exalted himself above God. Rather He created us to come to see and value where true goodness lies, to come to know and then to truly love Him above all else. And choice is a necessary part of this, just as it was at the Fall where man failed to love Him. As Augustine put it, "He who created you without your consent does not save you without your consent."

Augustine was wrong, if that is indeed a true quote, which I find a bit strange for one such as Augustine to have made, but yeah, I have heard it quoted that way many times. But if it is what he said, it is still poetic sophistry; how does it logically follow that He who created you without your consent then requires your consent before changing your heart? And logically, HOW can one who is spiritually dead even be able to grant consent to do a spiritual rebirth? But I admit this, and even demand it, that we do grant consent to what God does in us, once we have been made alive in Christ; if we do not, we are not born again.

Like I said, its a matter of grace, together with human choice. God could overwhelm us with His causation but elects not to do so. You might prefer to think that its all obvious: cut and dry, that God simply saves some and damns the rest to eternal torment based on His will, His causation, and nothing to do with their's apparently. And that we can know that we're numbered among the elect. But that's more nebulous than any model I can think of since one's opinion about one's own salvation is highly subjective to begin with.

You continue to misrepresent my claims. How is God causing us to do what we do the same thing as 'overwhelming' us, or 'puppetry'? And I do not say that anyone is damned based on his will, "and nothing to do with their's apparently". We do actually choose, after all, though we do not know what are actual, vs perceived, possibilities. Those whom he has not chosen for his particular creation choose their own damnation, as is their propensity by way of their inclinations.

But believe me, please, when I say that I am more than aware of the patience and forebearance, kindness, tenderness, with which God's severe mercy deals with us, to include, what as many of your 'freewillers' call, "his wooing" of us. The Bible says, "his love compels us". To this I subscribe wholeheartedly, including the 'compels' part, which you seem to ignore.

In the position held by the Christian Church, God does the judging, by the heart, and yet its not based on whim but rather on criteria, on fruit, on how the person has changed, on how they've taken whatever gifts, whatever grace they've been given and produced and became something with it. The bottom line teaching: "At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love." If that's too nebulous for you, you can take it up with God later on I guess.

You guess wrong, "but you can take it up with God later". The judgement of our deeds will not be based on a human poetic saying, but on whether they are "wood, hay or stubble". And our salvation is not based on our deeds, nor even on our love, but on Christ alone. And don't take what I say there to mean that as elect we are given liberty to sin. I have never meant such a thing. God is not mocked. If one is regenerated, one MUST obey. (And indeed is driven to obey.)

Do not mix Grace with Works.

 

[fhansen]

You continue to ignore the Bible's teaching that man is either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ; not only that, but you continue to leave unanswered the fact that uncaused free will is logically impossible, except in first cause.

You then employ the self-contradictory notion that God causes uncaused free will.

Then you imply that my theology claims that nobody opposes God's will. That is, uhm, 'mistaken'. Before regeneration everything we do opposes God's command. After regeneration, much of what we do also opposes God's command (i.e. disobedience). But nothing either one of us does, while we may wish it to oppose God's decree, it cannot actually be an opposition, but is part of what God has decreed will happen.


Mark Quayle said: ↑
"That doesn't mean that we don't choose, but that our choices are caused."



Give some, get some: Either we have uncaused free will or we don't.

But again, ONLY First Cause is uncaused. Nothing else logically can be uncaused.

And, again, you want to occupy knowledge we do not have, as though our choices are taken from ACTUAL possibilities, instead of from perceived possibilities.

But your mindset elevates man and debases God. It makes man a co-determiner with God, and God only a co-determiner with man. And it submits both to the sovereignty of Chance.



I will allow that my claim of free will, which I attribute to a different meaning of 'free' from what you mean, (i.e. 'uncaused'), could have misled you. Again, by 'free will', I only meant actual, real, choice. And that choice is between true options, but not between true possibilities, but rather, perceived possibilities.

The results of the fall of Adam include the corruption of the will, to where apart from being born again one is at enmity with God cannot choose according to God's command, and indeed cannot do anything to please God. But before the fall, Adam's state was of ignorance. He only perceived possibilities, and so chose from between them.

Again, looking back through history, we only can tell of one thing every happening, so how can we conclude that other things could have happened? But God knows, and indeed caused what happens to come to pass; it is only OUR perception to claim other things can happen than what does actually happen. God presents the options to us from which to choose, but do you actually think he did not know what we were going to choose? And no, I'm not describing Fate, but Predestination.



Augustine was wrong, if that is indeed a true quote, which I find a bit strange for one such as Augustine to have made, but yeah, I have heard it quoted that way many times. But if it is what he said, it is still poetic sophistry; how does it logically follow that He who created you without your consent then requires your consent before changing your heart? And logically, HOW can one who is spiritually dead even be able to grant consent to do a spiritual rebirth? But I admit this, and even demand it, that we do grant consent to what God does in us, once we have been made alive in Christ; if we do not, we are not born again.


You continue to misrepresent my claims. How is God causing us to do what we do the same thing as 'overwhelming' us, or 'puppetry'? And I do not say that anyone is damned based on his will, "and nothing to do with their's apparently". We do actually choose, after all, though we do not know what are actual, vs perceived, possibilities. Those whom he has not chosen for his particular creation choose their own damnation, as is their propensity by way of their inclinations.

But believe me, please, when I say that I am more than aware of the patience and forebearance, kindness, tenderness, with which God's severe mercy deals with us, to include, what as many of your 'freewillers' call, "his wooing" of us. The Bible says, "his love compels us". To this I subscribe wholeheartedly, including the 'compels' part, which you seem to ignore.



You guess wrong, "but you can take it up with God later". The judgement of our deeds will not be based on a human poetic saying, but on whether they are "wood, hay or stubble". And our salvation is not based on our deeds, nor even on our love, but on Christ alone. And don't take what I say there to mean that as elect we are given liberty to sin. I have never meant such a thing. God is not mocked. If one is regenerated, one MUST obey. (And indeed is driven to obey.)

Do not mix Grace with Works.

As the church teaches, neither faith nor the works that please God are possible without grace. So don't separate our obligation for personal righteousness from eternal life.

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

And while poetry won't satisfy His requirements for these things, love does. There's no guarantee that a believer will obey, or that a believer will love, to put it best. The elect certainly will do so of course, as they'll necessarily persevere, but He alone knows with certainty who they are.

Augustine was right.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As the church teaches, neither faith nor the works that please God are possible without grace. So don't separate our obligation for personal righteousness from eternal life.

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

And while poetry won't satisfy His requirements for these things, love does. There's no guarantee that a believer will obey, or that a believer will love, to put it best. The elect certainly will do so of course, as they'll necessarily persevere, but He alone knows with certainty who they are.

Augustine was right.

And so, you continue to mix Grace with Works. I guess I should expect that from someone who doesn't accept the authority of Scripture over conscience or even over human wisdom.

 

[fhansen]

And so, you continue to mix Grace with Works. I guess I should expect that from someone who doesn't accept the authority of Scripture over conscience or even over human wisdom.

Not sure where you get that. The ECFs and the early churches along with Scripture all taught as I believe. And there's certainly not wisdom, nor reason in what you've set forth so far with your private interpretations.

Works of the right kind, like those referred to in Rom 2:7 or 8:12-13, or doing "for the least of these" in Matt 25, or obeying the commandments as per Matt 19:17 and Rom 2:13, or those works prepared for us in advance (Eph 2:10) -all aimed at eternal life-are certainly not works of the law but works of love, the love that fulfills the law, incidentally. Come to understand the relationship between grace and love and this will become clearer. We're saved by love, unto love. And, again, as God's Church teaches, poetically or otherwise, "At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love." That's really just plain truth.

 

[JohnB445]

I had this thought and I'm curious on the opinions of people. If God never offered salvation or eternal life and instead left you in your sins and you had to one day endure sins eternal punishment would you 1. Still love God? and 2. Still serve him?

Don't feel bad if your answer is no. The same fate is being forced upon Lucifer and 1/3rd of the angels and i can see why people would not want to serve a God that isnt merciful but is instead "all judgement" but, i think my answer would still be yes. Mainly because, I don't deserve eternal life whether God leaves me in my sins or not the fact of the matter is, I've sinned against God and God has every right to punish me. I cannot help loving God and loving to serve him just as much as I cannot help breathing. But, I'm curious is it the same for others? Again don't be ashamed if your answer is no it's the response I'm sure even God would expect and maybe that's why God chose mercy. I'm mostly just curious if other Christians would still love God no matter what.

Well from what I read in the Bible, hell isn't the same for everyone, some will be in more extreme punishment depending on what they did.

I would try to reduce the amount of sins in my life as possible, and continue to do good, so I don't heap more burning coals on my head. I'd be grateful for the good moments in my life, and try to make the best of it, what else can you do?

And when it comes time to meet, God I have only one request if this is my fate, that I would simply cease to exist and be no more, because no matter the good things I experienced in life I would rather never lived it if my fate were hell in the end, I would of never wanted to be born if that was my fate.

At the end of the day God is the creator, he chooses, and what is fair is up to him.

Going on a tangent: Some people's attitudes would be different, if their fate was hell, they would ride their way down all the way there and live life in total opposition to God. I would not go that route even if it were my fate. Even if my parents or families fate were hell, and I would be going to heaven, I wouldn't want to go with them, and I wouldn't want to trade places with them.

 

[fhansen]

Augustine was wrong, if that is indeed a true quote, which I find a bit strange for one such as Augustine to have made, but yeah, I have heard it quoted that way many times. But if it is what he said, it is still poetic sophistry; how does it logically follow that He who created you without your consent then requires your consent before changing your heart? And logically, HOW can one who is spiritually dead even be able to grant consent to do a spiritual rebirth? But I admit this, and even demand it, that we do grant consent to what God does in us, once we have been made alive in Christ; if we do not, we are not born again.

No, that pretty much all opposes the gospel. Fallen man isn't described solely as dead, but also as asleep, in need of being awakened, sick, in need of being cured, lost, in need of being found. These are metaphors and seek to describe the condition of man in a state of alienation from his Creator, a state of disorder or injustice in itself which is why man's justification occurs as he's reconciled with God and enters fellowship with Him through faith. That new state is, itself, one of justice, righteousness; it's what man was made for.

Yes, God must reach down and save us, but Augustine and the church et al would only insist that we can still resist, we can still say "no". And I don't know why you keep focusing on poetry. Whether or not what some guy said happens to flow well doesn't in itself make it wrong. Anyway, the reason that "He who created you without your consent then requires your consent before changing your heart" is because He didn't make the heart perfect to begin with-precisely because He's waiting for us to get on board with His program! He could've just made Adams heart right to begin with, or stocked heaven with the elect and hell with the rest to begin with. But He wanted our "yes", our participation in choosing to accept a good heart, just as He wanted Adam's yes to begin with and presumably has it by now. The good heart only comes as we consent, however weakly at first that consent may be. The will must be involved in order for justice to reign within man. Our willing it is an intrinsic part of our having it.

How is God causing us to do what we do the same thing as 'overwhelming' us, or 'puppetry'?

Well, I think I'd reread that and ask myself how the two are not the same.

Those whom he has not chosen for his particular creation choose their own damnation, as is their propensity by way of their inclinations.

And yet you'd say that their inclinations are caused by Him, no?

To this I subscribe wholeheartedly, including the 'compels' part, which you seem to ignore.

His love should compel us but it won't for everyone. Or it may compel us for awhile and then we could become more compelled by sin again, returning to the flesh.

God is not mocked. If one is regenerated, one MUST obey. (And indeed is driven to obey.)

That's nonsense. Those self-assessed as regenerated don't necessarily obey.

 

[fhansen]

And our salvation is not based on our deeds, nor even on our love, but on Christ alone.

If we don't love then Christ's righteousness has not become our own-we're just clanging gongs, professors of faith with no substance, no new heart. We can talk about Christ’s righteousness all day long but until it becomes yours His death hasn’t served its purpose in you. He died not only for the forgiveness of sin-of our failing to love-but also so that you might now come to love as He does. That's how you're saved. There's no condemnation in that love, because there's no sin to condemn there. Love fulfills the law, the right way.

“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” Jer 31:33

Sort of poetic there come to think of it. Watch it, Jeremiah.

“But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” Rom 3:21-22

 

[fhansen]

You continue to ignore the Bible's teaching that man is either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ

Yes, we choose which we'll be enslaved to, with the help of grace.

But your mindset elevates man and debases God. It makes man a co-determiner with God, and God only a co-determiner with man. And it submits both to the sovereignty of Chance.

God wants man elevated; man fell in Eden-by failing to recognize God as his Creator, infinitely higher than himself. And yet He wants to elevate man to a place much higher than he was to begin with; such is the nature of love. And that has nothing to do with shoving a portion of His creation into heaven and the others into hell. It has to do with patiently eliciting a yes, and a stronger and stronger yes, a choice that involves loving subjugation to Him. Then everything would be in its proper place; justice reigns. The gospel has exactly nothing to do with God suddenly so changing man that he cannot help but choose rightly.

 

[fhansen]

An interesting quote from Augustine's De Libero Arbitrio, On Free Will:

"You would not necessarily compel a man to sin by foreknowing his sin. Your foreknowledge would not be the cause of his sin, though undoubtedly he would sin; otherwise you would not foreknow that this would happen. Therefore these two are not contradictory, your foreknowledge and someone else’s free act. So too God compels no one to sin, though He foresees those who will sin by their own will."

 

[Neostarwcc]

Well from what I read in the Bible, hell isn't the same for everyone, some will be in more extreme punishment depending on what they did.

I would try to reduce the amount of sins in my life as possible, and continue to do good, so I don't heap more burning coals on my head. I'd be grateful for the good moments in my life, and try to make the best of it, what else can you do?

And when it comes time to meet, God I have only one request if this is my fate, that I would simply cease to exist and be no more, because no matter the good things I experienced in life I would rather never lived it if my fate were hell in the end, I would of never wanted to be born if that was my fate.

At the end of the day God is the creator, he chooses, and what is fair is up to him.

Going on a tangent: Some people's attitudes would be d ifferent, if their fate was hell, they would ride their way down all the way there and live life in total opposition to God. I would not go that route even if it were my fate. Even if my parents or families fate were hell, and I would be going to heaven, I wouldn't want to go with them, and I wouldn't want to trade places with them.

Oh definitely there are various punishments based on the sins committed. I do not think God could be a just God if he punished all of us equally. Wouldn't that be great if God punished us by making us not exist anymore though! But, God has to punish sin or else he lied to Adam and Eve when he promised a savior to save humanity from their sins.

So I guess in the end if God had to punish all of mankind the religious of us would try to reduce our punishments while the people who don't care about being punished by God would just ride the highway to hell and not care.

 

[HIM]

I don’t think most people even know what they believe let alone to answer such a question.

 

[HIM]

I guess another way to look at it is this:

Both Allah and Christ offer eternal life.
Allah offers it based on my worth.
Christ offers it based on His worth.

I have no worth.
Which God has more worth?

Christ offers a life in and through Him now. We stand in His power and righteousness. If we are partaking of this life we will be of the second

 

[Jamdoc]

Christ offers a life in and through Him now. We stand in His power and righteousness. If we are partaking of this life we will be of the second

Yeah and Islam will claim the same.

Both Muslims and Christians still die, so this life and this body is not the eternal one.