Larry N Moore

I say your recollection is bs. I was there and that's NOT what he said.

Which came first -- their request or their believing?

It took you all this time to come up with that crap? You're slow.

Well, John, here is where you've gotten it wrong. I accept your freedom to criticize VP's plagerism, etc., etc., etc. I don't "buy" it all. I do, however, think that you fail to give him any credit for anything and therefore can't help thinking that you're not entirely objective or honest. Just my opinion, mind you. I imagine you think VP was from the Devil (you do believe in such a being, don't ya?) and therefore if he did anything worth praise, in a sense you might feel you're praising the Devil. It's very sad. If you're a man of God I'd like to know if God spoke to you and commissioned you to do what you do. I'd really like to know if you think if you spent more time talking to those who haven't received Jesus into their life would God be more pleased with that, then with this?

If what you think isn't important then why don't you butt out?

I didn't ask VP. I asked you.

:) So if I ask you to heal me I don't need to believe in God, do I?

Well, if faith in God is a requirement can you explain how Naaman (1 Kings 5) managed to get healed of his leprosy?

Dooj, that's not entirely correct. Seeing as this thread is essentially about doctrine and Paw hasn't found it necessary to move it in the appropriate forum -- I'll quote you one passage that supports (at least imo) the claim that we can believe FOR things. Matthew 9:27 - 29 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us. And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord. Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you. As you can see from the above passage -- no praying was involved.

Well, as one apologist to another (Juedes') -- stick it. ;)

If a sinner isn't adept at manifesting the law of believing then it's impossible for them to be saved for in order to be saved you must BELIEVE that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. That belief is what makes it possible for God to save anyone. If not, then why not just cut out the middle man and just save everyone regardless of what they believe?

Well, like I said before -- If I wasn't taught that God is the one I was suppose to focus on whenever I prayed about anything then I sure wasted a lot of my time praying to God when it wasn't really necessary.

Well, good golly. If I had known this I wouldn't have bothered praying to God all those times. It's news to me that I didn't need Him.

Another, pardon me for not addressing your whole post. You bring up some interesting points to consider. The comment I highlighted in red is something that especially caught my attention. Did God really sacrifice His own son or did Jesus sacrifice himself? I mean -- Jesus did have a choice -- right? I think the reason it's believed that God sacrificed him is John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son . . ." I'm not sure "giving" is the same thing as "sacrificing" because what actually did He sacrifice if God knew He was going to raise him anyways? On the other hand -- Jesus had to have faith in God that He would raise him from the dead.

:) Well, it certainly isn't convenient for his agenda to actually include something that might cause someone to question his credibility. We can't have that, now can we?

What is time? Is it not a measurement of events? There is no such thing as a future time -- only an anticipation for it. The past no longer exists -- only the memory of it exists. All we have is the present moment. Now, if it's true that time is simply of measurement of events -- then wouldn't God's decision (when He made it) to create the Universe be an event in God's time? If no time existed prior to the creation of the Universe then the Universe has always existed. Otherwise, the Universe was a future event in God's time.

That would involve the principle of "knowing what to do with it after you received it." ;)

Yet, we are left with a few questions. Would you say sacrificing your son would be evil? Either way you answer the question presents more theological problems. If you answer in the affirmative then it contradicts the verse that says God cannot tempt man with evil. If you answer in the negative then why are there no commandments directing anyone to sacrifice their own children (I know there's something written in the Bible that strictly prohibits this ritual). But, in any case -- If God already knew what Abraham would do -- to whom was it being proven to? Not really.

Sure you can. But would you give him a loaded gun? Why not?

Well, how on earth are you going to receive anything unless you know it's available? Is it available for you to ask God for a billion dollars and expect He will give it to you? If not -- why not?

Oh I don't know. About the only verse that comes to mind off the top of my head is the one where it says "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge." I suppose the grace of God can cover some elements of ignorance but, when it's available for you to know what's available by reading what the Bible has to say on the matter then wouldn't it simply be laziness on your part not to seek out that knowledge?

Sure God can give us more than we are able to ask or think of but, I don't see how that negates it being something in opposition to His Word or Will. Have you not read what James says on this subject?

Example, please.

Well, that's odd. I could have sworn VP taught that only those things asked in accordance with His Word and Will were available. In fact -- didn't he devote much time on this aspect of receiving answers to prayer -- that being -- The first thing we have to know in order to receive anything from God is -- What's available.

Imo, there are far too many examples in the Bible that suggests that God may not be omniscient. For instance you have: Genesis 22 – In this account you have Abram preparing to sacrifice his son. In verses 11 and 12 it says "And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." In a simple reading of the text it seems apparent that God's knowledge is limited. In other words – How is it possible for this statement "now I know" to be true if the theology of God having fore-knowledge is true? In other words -- the verse seems to indicate that prior to Abram actually going as far as he did God didn't know Abram "fearest" Him. An all-knowing God would have known even before this that Abram did indeed "fear" Him. An interesting point of view and/or argument on this subject can be found here. There are many others.