PCE: How can anyone reject Him?!?

[TedT]

God Lovingly paid the debt of our sins, by dying in our place and accepting our punishment! How can anyone reject Him?!? Well, they did and do, to this day! What a horrific shame and sorrow!

This question forces me to conclude that no one who had experienced or was living/basking in the GLORY of GOD could/would ever rebel against HIM...forcing the first step in the fall to being a rebellion against HIS CLAIMS to be our Creator GOD and our only Saviour from sin. Not until we all saw HIS divinity and eternal power displayed in the creation of the physical universe, Job 38:7 with Romans 1:18-20, did anyone know the truth of HIS claims.

I see a hint to this idea in the world proclamation as being in a tense indicating an action fully completed in the past (though it may be repeated in the future) referring to the proclamation of the gospel to every creature, all creation, under heaven, which may be interpreted as every person ever created: Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, established and firm, and not being moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, having been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, of which I Paul have become a minister. The currently accepted idea that we are created on earth contradicts this verse explicitly as it has never been fulfilled on earth.

Since faith is an unproven hope, Heb 11:1, we can see that making a free will decision about the truthfulness of YHWH's claims without proof to be faith based whether it was for HIM being our GOD or against HIM as being a liar and therefore a false god driven by a psychotic megalomania...the unforgivable sin.

 

[bling]

Satan rejected God?

 

[BravoM]

Many want their sins over God.
They fear the backlash from the world more than the fear of God.
Many have been brainwashed to think if there isn't evidence (there is) for God then He doesn't exist.

 

[childeye 2]

This question forces me to conclude that no one who had experienced or was living/basking in the GLORY of GOD could/would ever rebel against HIM...forcing the first step in the fall to being a rebellion against HIS CLAIMS to be our Creator GOD and our only Saviour from sin. Not until we all saw HIS divinity and eternal power displayed in the creation of the physical universe, Job 38:7 with Romans 1:18-20, did anyone know the truth of HIS claims.

I see a hint to this idea in the world proclamation as being in a tense indicating an action fully completed in the past (though it may be repeated in the future) referring to the proclamation of the gospel to every creature, all creation, under heaven, which may be interpreted as every person ever created: Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, established and firm, and not being moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, having been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, of which I Paul have become a minister. The currently accepted idea that we are created on earth contradicts this verse explicitly as it has never been fulfilled on earth.

Since faith is an unproven hope, Heb 11:1, we can see that making a free will decision about the truthfulness of YHWH's claims without proof to be faith based whether it was for HIM being our GOD or against HIM as being a liar and therefore a false god driven by a psychotic megalomania...the unforgivable sin.

This question forces me to conclude that no one who had experienced or was living/basking in the GLORY of GOD could/would ever rebel against HIM..

Excellent deduction. It reminds me of the question: Would a person who has no love in their heart even care if they had no love in their heart? The whole point of revealing the Light in the contrast of darkness is because it cannot be valued otherwise. This is how we come to comprehend the Glory of God.

"Since faith is an unproven hope, we can see that making a free will decision about the truthfulness of YHWH's claims without proof to be faith based whether it was for HIM being our GOD or against HIM"...

How you articulated about "faith" has a problem when qualified with "hope". Hope by definition is always a positive. It's actually "unfaith" if you're against Him, or in other words if ones imagery of Him is corrupt. While it's true that we cannot view what is Eternal in a linear form, unfaith is actually a proposition introduced into an innocence that is already based in faith to begin with.

The Saul/Paul transformation shows that people probably reject the Gospel only because they don't understand it. But it's also likely that God has chosen the lowly things to put to naught the high things to show the phenomenon of vanity manifesting in the creature/creation.

 

[childeye 2]

Satan rejected God?

Satan had a corrupt image of god.

 

[TedT]

Satan rejected God?

Obviously or how else could he end up in enmity to HIM?? Except, since no one would ever reject GOD in HIS glory, it is more proper to say that Satan must have rejected YHWH's claims to deity for which HE did not provide proof.

 

[TedT]

The whole point of revealing the Light in the contrast of darkness is because it cannot be valued otherwise.

Light came first, then rebellion to it, not as an answer to teach its value.

 

[childeye 2]

Light came first, then rebellion to it, not as an answer to teach its value.

The prodigal son needed to learn the value of what he had taken for granted.

Romans 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

 

[TedT]

How you articulated about "faith" has a problem when qualified with "hope".

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things HOPED for, the conviction of things not being seen. Not seen = an unproven hope...

When the satanic rejected YHWH as GOD, did they not hope HE was lying and had no power over heaven and hell, life or death? To believe without proof is faith...

 

[TedT]

The prodigal son needed to learn the value of what he had taken for granted.

I agree - half the equation...

 

[bling]

Satan had a corrupt image of god.

Why can you not say that about anyone who rejects God?

 

[childeye 2]

Why can you not say that about anyone who rejects God?

I can safely conclude that the Creator created the creature and not the other way around. Any creature rejecting God has a false image of god.

 

[childeye 2]

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things HOPED for, the conviction of things not being seen. Not seen = an unproven hope...

When the satanic rejected YHWH as GOD, did they not hope HE was lying and had no power over heaven and hell, life or death? To believe without proof is faith...

Great thread TedT. Below is the explanation of why the term faith is always a positive connotation of God.

The Truth is that which is, not that which is not. "God" means the source of the energy that created all things. Therefore the Creator defines the terms of what is Truth. Wherefore He says I Am that I Am. The Truth precedes the lie in existence. Because by default, the lie exists only to subvert the Truth.

The Truth is therefore the positive in these dichotomies: Truth/lie and True/false. These are related moral/immoral positives and negatives also: Truthful/untruthful, faithful/unfaithful, Trust/distrust, Trustworthy/untrustworthy, Belief/unbelief, Hopeful/hopeless.

To believe God is faithful without proof is therefore faith, not unfaith. To believe God is unfaithful without proof is therefore unfaith, not faith. Wherefore Heb 11:1 does not say "unfaith" is the evidence of things hoped for.

When the satanic rejected YHWH as GOD, did they not hope HE was lying and had no power over heaven and hell, life or death? To believe without proof is faith...

When the creature shows a distrust towards the Creator as Thee Creator, then this is ungodliness and they have no Truth in them. To hope God could be wrong so they could be right, is the wickedness of vanity, not hope.

He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

[childeye 2]

I agree - half the equation...

Please elaborate. What's the other half?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Since faith is an unproven hope, Heb 11:1, we can see that making a free will decision about the truthfulness of YHWH's claims without proof to be faith based whether it was for HIM being our GOD or against HIM as being a liar and therefore a false god driven by a psychotic megalomania...the unforgivable sin.

What??!?
Faith is the evidence of things not seen, and the assurance of things hoped for. I don't see the word "unproven" in the text of my Bible.

I don't see that definition of the unforgiveable sin in what Jesus said about it. Maybe your definition has come from another version of the Bible that not many know about.

 

[TedT]

To believe God is unfaithful without proof is therefore unfaith, not faith.

I understand you use of the word unfaith as a faith in a lie against GOD but unfaith is still an unproven hope, ie, unfaith, the final decision, is by faith ie the act of choosing where to put one's faith.

I don't usually call it unfaith or even faith against GOD, though it is, but rather faith in the lie that GOD is a liar and therefore a false god driven by an acute psychotic megalomania, all of which slanders I've heard from the reprobate.

 

[TedT]

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, and the assurance of things hoped for. I don't see the word "unproven" in the text of my Bible.

How do you define , things NOT SEEN?

 

[TedT]

Please elaborate. What's the other half?

All the rest of the 'content' of salvation and sanctification. Though the story has some important aspects, it is not a full theological statement, eh?

All the rest of the 'content' of salvation and sanctification. Though the story has some important aspects, it is not a full theological statement, eh?

Do you see any connection between the son gone astray into Sin City and the sheep goes astray into sin? Do the two metaphors fill in our understanding? Does the wayward son being in the Family before leaving for Sin City instruct us about the sheep being in His flock before going astray into sin, not merely by returning* to the Bishop of his soul???

* 1 Peter 2:25 - For ye were as sheep going astray: but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. Again, to return one must have been there before, at least, according to the normal use of the word. Therefore, in this verse, it would be normal to infer that the sheep that had gone astray, were, at one time part of the Shepherd's flock but had strayed away from HIS care. Since I am sure that the Shepherd was not negligent, the straying away from HIS care must involve some rebellion.

Were they forced to go astray? Doesn’t seem likely, does it. Was the Father or the Shepherd lackadaisical in their duty, that is, was their fall into sin His fault, His lack of attention? Not at all. So some rebellion must have been involved in the son and the sheep ending in sinfulness…

IF they are conceived/born into sin, that is, NOT by making a sinful choice of their own, when can we understand how they became sinful by their own rebellious choice, not by any fault of the Father or the Shepherd?

Does the prodigal son story open our theology of the lost sheep metaphor or cause a disturbance?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

How do you define , things NOT SEEN?

We weren't there to see Jesus crucified for our sin, nor did we see Jesus rise from the dead. And we have never seen Jesus in the flesh, but having not seen, we believe.

The pagan philosopher, Aristotle said that unless there is empirical proof, something is not real. His view is that if there is no proof of the resurrection of Christ, then it didn't happen. But evangelical faith is different. We have the written record in the Gospels that Jesus died, was buried, and then rose again on the third day. Our faith is in that historical record, even though we have not seen it for ourselves.

 

[childeye 2]

I understand you use of the word unfaith as a faith in a lie against GOD but unfaith is still an unproven hope, ie, unfaith, the final decision, is by faith ie the act of choosing where to put one's faith.

I don't usually call it unfaith or even faith against GOD, though it is, but rather faith in the lie that GOD is a liar and therefore a false god driven by an acute psychotic megalomania, all of which slanders I've heard from the reprobate.

Okay. So, it sounds like you're saying that you were coming at the issue from the point of view of the reprobate mind, whose reasoning is vanity. That would make sense. The terminology of the deceived and deceiving is contrary to God because it's subjective in its ignorance. I'm not suggesting that there's no such thing as a stubborn willful ignorance.

But still only the true sentiment of faith in God manifests hope, and saying the word 'faith' applied to a lie about God is still the sentiment of unfaith, objectively speaking, and could never manifest the sentiment of hope. As far as I can see, it could only manifest a sentiment of wickedness or cynicism.

I know that deception works through the subtlety of introducing a false premise into one's reasoning, by either turning a positive into a negative, or by making the positive and the negative appear as if they are indistinguishable. It's not just wrong to say a person has a faith against God, it's wrong to even think in those terms.

For example. When a person suggests that there can exist a faith against God, it introduces the false premise that there is more than one faith or that there are many faiths, and some may be better than others, depending on ones personal religion, or rather ones personal imagery of god/gods. This is vanity in the creature. It may sound fair and even-handed to the creature, but it makes the terms faith and god subjective, as in a matter of opinion as to what they mean.

The fact is, that the term God means the source of the energy that formed all things, wherefore it's also a fact that there can only be One God and one faith, because He is everyone's God whether a person realizes that or not. In any measure of an objective reality, the knowledge of God cannot be subjective because the knowledge of Him is learned, and not conceived as an idea. Those who have been taught by God, talk from that knowledge. Those who talk as if it's possible that He might be untrustworthy, talk as if nobody knows or can know.