Theoretically what if you were one of the last and everywhere you looked were witche?

[Paz(peace)]

Let's say it really did get that bad and you were one of the last, and everywhere you looked there were people who did not know God or want to know God. And you lived with people who you thought were Christians but aren't. Would you believe the voices in the dark telling you you aren't saved and Noone was coming? Would you keep going back to god with unrepentant sin even if you couldn't do it? Or would you accept your eseu who couldn't get repentance even though he sought it through tears?

 

[Hoping2]

Let's say it really did get that bad and you were one of the last, and everywhere you looked there were people who did not know God or want to know God. And you lived with people who you thought were Christians but aren't.

That is the situation of this day.

Would you believe the voices in the dark telling you you aren't saved and Noone was coming?

That nobody is coming...Never.

Would you keep going back to god with unrepentant sin even if you couldn't do it?

All sin is repentable, except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Or would you accept your eseu (sic) who couldn't get repentance even though he sought it through tears?

Esau wasn't repenting of sin.
Repenting, that is, quitting, in this case sin; is available to anyone sorry enough for their sins that they will never do them again.
It is written..."For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death." (2 Cor 7:10)
Is your sorrow godly ?
Or is it of the world ?

 

[NBB]

God said he could invent sons of Abraham from the rocks.
So if there is one christian left, he could be like Noah. Or if he dies, God could reveals himself to another person.
In the end God wins.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let's say it really did get that bad and you were one of the last, and everywhere you looked there were people who did not know God or want to know God. And you lived with people who you thought were Christians but aren't. Would you believe the voices in the dark telling you you aren't saved and Noone was coming? Would you keep going back to god with unrepentant sin even if you couldn't do it? Or would you accept your eseu who couldn't get repentance even though he sought it through tears?

That's pretty much what we have now.

 

[Mark Quayle]

All sin is repentable, except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

But not all people are repentant. Thus, their sin is not repentable.

That's like saying that "anyone can go to heaven", but no, they can't, if they won't.

 

[Paz(peace)]

That is the situation of this day.

That nobody is coming...Never.

All sin is repentable, except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Esau wasn't repenting of sin.
Repenting, that is, quitting, in this case sin; is available to anyone sorry enough for their sins that they will never do them again.
It is written..."For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death." (2 Cor 7:10)
Is your sorrow godly ?
Or is it of the wor

Not to be argumentative but this is almost what I said exactly.


16 that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears. (Hebrews 12:16-17, ESV)

 

[Hoping2]

But not all people are repentant. Thus, their sin is not repentable.

It means their sins were not repented of.
Their refusal to submit to God doesn't mean they can't eventually submit.

That's like saying that "anyone can go to heaven", but no, they can't, if they won't.

Sorry that seems so confusing to you.
Anyone can go to heaven, but there are requirements on our part that must be met first.

 

[Hoping2]

Not to be argumentative but this is almost what I said exactly.

It seemed that you were 'supposing' it, but I was stating it outright.

16 that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears. (Hebrews 12:16-17, ESV)

Esau's blessing was a portion of his dad's estate.
Our blessing is eternal life.
Once Esau's brother had that blessing, there was nothing Esau could do about it.
Our blessing is entirely in our own hands.
And still, our blessing is dependent on our permanent repentance from sin, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins, and enduring faithfully until the end.
Nobody can keep you from those things, thank God !

 

[Mark Quayle]

It means their sins were not repented of.
Their refusal to submit to God doesn't mean they can't eventually submit.

Sorry that seems so confusing to you.
Anyone can go to heaven, but there are requirements on our part that must be met first.

Someone who is not repentant will not repent until they are repentant. Thus, what I said is true.

But that something seems to you that I seem confused is rather ironic.

Try to understand where 'my kind' are coming from. God sees fact: He sees from the only true point of view. We, on the other hand, tend to revolve the world around ourselves, in our point of view. The only thing confusing about my point of view, as far as I know, is that it confuses those who insist on self-determinism.

The question isn't whether sin (or a sin) is repentable, but whether God has given the person in each case repentance. If God has not, the person will not repent and the sin cannot (by that person) be repentable.

This isn't a discussion of categories of sin, as though sin is the focus and as though hamartiology was an independent subject from all other theology.

 

[Hoping2]

Someone who is not repentant will not repent until they are repentant. Thus, what I said is true.

That sort of phrasing is disingenuous.
Try it this way...Someone who is not repentant won't be repentant until they repent.

Try to understand where 'my kind' are coming from. God sees fact: He sees from the only true point of view. We, on the other hand, tend to revolve the world around ourselves, in our point of view. The only thing confusing about my point of view, as far as I know, is that it confuses those who insist on self-determinism.

What is your definition of self-determinism...so I can catch up.

The question isn't whether sin (or a sin) is repentable, but whether God has given the person in each case repentance. If God has not, the person will not repent and the sin cannot (by that person) be repentable.

I see your POV.
But I don't see God ever refusing anyone the chance to turn from sin.

This isn't a discussion of categories of sin, as though sin is the focus and as though hamartiology was an independent subject from all other theology.

OK.
Do you feel that the repentance in question is from something other than sin ?

 

[Mark Quayle]

That sort of phrasing is disingenuous.
Try it this way...Someone who is not repentant won't be repentant until they repent.

Still a man-centered point-of-view. It is not repentance that causes a man to be repentant.

What is your definition of self-determinism...so I can catch up.

By the 'insistence on self-determinism', I mean those whose POV assumes that facts come to be by the decision of man. It assumes free-will independent of God's act or decision. It generally considers one's eternal destiny to hinge on man's decision. It also generally considers man capable of understanding full truth, or to say it more accurately, it assumes that man's words and concepts necessarily carry substantive meaning, instead of God's POV to be the only truth. In essence, they think they can adequately describe even God. An example would be that they think that since they understand LOVE, that the notion that God could plan from the beginning for some particular people to be reprobate, and to create those people for the purpose of displaying God's power, purity, justice and his grace to the 'objects of his mercy' is enormously blasphemous.

Those that insist on self-determinism generally assume that choice can only be real if all options are equally viable, (i.e. not just 'appear to be equally viable').

These people will not even consider that obedience is impossible for those who are not regenerated, even though Romans 8 says the unregenerate ('mind according to the flesh') cannot even please God.

I see your POV.
But I don't see God ever refusing anyone the chance to turn from sin.

Of course not! But they will not, unless God gives them repentance. Anyone who comes to him, he will in no way cast out. But who of them ACTUALLY comes to him? The only way our fleeting emotional decisions has any substance is by God establishing that decision.

And there you see the other POV: God is the reason for anything real. We are not, (unless for our sin). We are born at enmity with God (Romans 8, again). But we assume ourselves to be the reason for existence. We assume our thinking to be of substance, and God to be responsive to us, instead of the other way around.

BTW, the very wording of your comment shows another assumption: "chance to turn from sin". What does that even mean? I hope you realize that there is no such thing as chance. "Opportunity" might be a better word there, though even that generally assumes independence from God's doing.

OK.
Do you feel that the repentance in question is from something other than sin ?

No. What would make you ask that --the assumption that responsibility for sin implies free will?

 

[Hoping2]

Still a man-centered point-of-view. It is not repentance that causes a man to be repentant.

Correct...having repented makes one repentant.

By the 'insistence on self-determinism', I mean those whose POV assumes that facts come to be by the decision of man. It assumes free-will independent of God's act or decision. It generally considers one's eternal destiny to hinge on man's decision. It also generally considers man capable of understanding full truth, or to say it more accurately, it assumes that man's words and concepts necessarily carry substantive meaning, instead of God's POV to be the only truth. In essence, they think they can adequately describe even God. An example would be that they think that since they understand LOVE, that the notion that God could plan from the beginning for some particular people to be reprobate, and to create those people for the purpose of displaying God's power, purity, justice and his grace to the 'objects of his mercy' is enormously blasphemous.

If men have no decisions to make, then repenting and getting baptized, or even just believing the gospel, are just a waste of time.
Not to mention enduring faithfully until the end.
I am sure that God can raise up some to glory (John the Baptist), and others to damnation, (Pharaoh); but for the most part, our fate is in our own hands.

BTW, having made the decision to believe that, and to write it out, are you admitting to self-determinism ?

Those that insist on self-determinism generally assume that choice can only be real if all options are equally viable, (i.e. not just 'appear to be equally viable').

Has that been your experience ?

These people will not even consider that obedience is impossible for those who are not regenerated, even though Romans 8 says the unregenerate ('mind according to the flesh') cannot even please God.

Are you not thankful that God provided us the way to change from one mind set to another ?
I would still be unregenerated if I had not believed what was taught by the apostles, and my bishop in Christ.

Of course not! But they will not, unless God gives them repentance. Anyone who comes to him, he will in no way cast out. But who of them ACTUALLY comes to him? The only way our fleeting emotional decisions has any substance is by God establishing that decision.

The only ones prospering from that belief are those who wish to blame God for men being condemned on the day of judgement.
ie..."God wouldn't let me believe" !

And there you see the other POV: God is the reason for anything real. We are not, (unless for our sin). We are born at enmity with God (Romans 8, again).

You don't see that any response is chosen by us ?

But we assume ourselves to be the reason for existence. We assume our thinking to be of substance, and God to be responsive to us, instead of the other way around.

I have never met that sort of person.

BTW, the very wording of your comment shows another assumption: "chance to turn from sin". What does that even mean?

It means, that all men have the opportunity to turn from sin.

I hope you realize that there is no such thing as chance. "Opportunity" might be a better word there,

Why make worry about it ?
They are synonymous.

though even that generally assumes independence from God's doing.

Faith cometh by hearing, so our decision to believe is presented to us to either believe or disbelieve.
God will provide teachers and preachers for those who sincerely want them.

No. What would make you ask that

I wanted to be sure we were talking about the same thing.

--the assumption that responsibility for sin implies free will?

As for something to even be considered a sin, it must have temptation, lust, enticement, and conception, (James 1:14-15).
Choices abound whether to commit or refuse sin.
Are you asserting that God makes people commit sin ?