TLC

I disagree with quite a bit of what VPW both taught, and how he lived his life. And no, I do not believe that the bible teaches (much less "clearly teaches") that God's love is conditional. That doesn't automatically or necessarily rule out anything else being conditional. Salvation is conditional. So are rewards. Many other things in this life are as well. However, God's love is not. To say that it is makes God Himself (who is love) conditional. And nowhere does it say or teach in the Bible that God Himself is "conditional."

Aside from what is revealed in or by the Word of God, probably none that you (and many others) would account as such. There's no sense in comparing anything to a god that is only imagined. Probably not, given I don't know nor relate to all of the biased bagged you seem to have been burdened with. However, I do know what it feels like to be freed from the fear of failure and the fear of eternal death. I'll also say this. If you have ever truly and honestly been touched by the grace of God... it is something that you never forget.

My perspective sees the “all have sinned” in Romans more basically as a statement of fact rather than some new pronouncement of judgement… in other words, being the result of Adam’s choice, which we all are ensnared within. Furthermore , I see “fallen short of the glory of God” more as a failure to… (I pause here, because it seems there may be no easy way to communicate this very clearly)… live worthy of eternity. Because I think the glory of God here relates to something that is eternal. Which puts it on a level that is so far above and beyond anything even remotely related to “self-esteem” or “self-worth,” it makes “the antithesis” of one’s treasured self value as laughably worthless as anything else on the opposite (highest) end of the scale.

You obviously don’t know or understand what I believe, much less have any sort of credibility in saying that the love of God is conditional. Furthermore, neither do I think that you personally honestly know what VPW actually did or didn’t say or teach about love of God. Perhaps you’re simply regurgitating something you’ve only read or heard from someone else. In any event, it’s not something that I have any desire or interest in debating further with you. Just thought I’d correct your boldly stated misinformation about what I think or believe. TC

Maybe it’s virtually impossible to believe in the resurrection if a soul doesn’t first recognize or in some way acknowledge that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God, and concede to the need to be saved. That provides an understandable reason for the resurrection, which continues on to makes sense out of a whole lot of other things written in the scriptures. At least, know that it did for me. There’s a tremendous difference between reading or hearing someone else’s opinion or “logical reasoning” (even if or when any of it is more honestly deemed debatable) and then agreeing that something (the context here being things that are written in scripture) doesn’t make sense, when compared to thinking or asking yourself “how might it make sense.” And evidently there are some people (some of them being very intelligent and clever people) that either don’t think like that, or at least, won’t or don’t present anything on that side of the picture. Personally, if I didn’t already know this to be true, I would find it rather perplexing why someone wouldn’t just think that the 3 women who went to the tomb with spices simply hadn’t been told and didn’t know that it had already been done. And as for the other point that no one would go to the tomb after 3 days… well then, how stupid was Rome for posting guards at the tomb if no one was going to go there? Which makes that entire statement of no one going there make absolutely no sense. TLC

Is it so difficult to believe that the life that Jesus first had was laid down at Calgary, and the life that he was raised with is something brand new and different than anything that ever existed before? If so, then you have plainly never really understood nor believed Acts 13:33

It’s not unique or unusual for quite a number of things written in scripture to be more fully revealed or explained some hundreds of years later. But, seems you have a better understanding and grasp on what happened some 4000 years ago and why it was written in scripture than the apostle Paul did, even though he was noted as being. a Pharisee of the Pharisees…

I disagree. I think it’s intended to show that Abraham believed God could and would raise his son from the dead, which is the crux of Christianity. Matter of fact, I think he was the first to ever really believe that… which is a large part (if not the sum and substance) of why Abraham is called the father of all them that believe. Seems there are probably a lot of people who think (and call) themselves Christian (either currently, or perhaps in times past), but aren’t really “in Christ” nor are the actually a member in the body of Christ… because in their heart they never did truly and honestly believe that God really did raise Christ from the dead. Furthermore, I don’t think speaking in tongues (or what some pass off as that) is “proof” that someone believes God raised Chiat from the dead.

You do know that the entire last half of that verse is omitted in all critical Greek texts don't you?

You either missed or hi-jacked the entire point of the post, Mark. What does or doesn’t someone that says they believe in the “young earth” theory think about the devil (if they even think there is one)? Where do they think or say the devil came from?

Why bother? Evidently what i said flew so far and so fast over your head, you never heard the sonic boom of it passing by...

Doubt you could make a more presidential-like gaffe than that...

There's actually a rather simple, but very logical, answer for that if really you want to hear it. Of course, whether anyone choses to believe it is another matter altogether, as there's never going to be an sort of empirical proof for it. So, I'll merely preface it with some "if's." If in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... and, as noted elsewhere in scripture, he is the Father of all (Eph. 4:6).. and even more specifically, the Father of spirits... then with that is it not clear that He also the Father of Lucifer? Furthermore, without going too deep into the weeds here... perhaps you'll allow me to continue with some "what if's." What if God needed (or perhaps wanted) a replacement for Lucifer (in reference to the devil, prior to the aspiration to "be like the most High"), who was second (only to God) over all of creation. He could just create another replacement to fill the position Lucifer once held... yes? But, why suppose that there was some imperfection in God's initial creation of Lucifer, that God was going to somehow "do better" the next time around? Do you see the problem with that? If so, then perhaps it will make more sense why God came up with a two step replacement plan that wouldn't ever have the same issue that Lucifer had. The first step involved the creation of man, and a proving period (an appointed time, so to speak.) But the first Adam failed. The second did not. We, as the progeny of the first man Adam, were all subjected to the failures of the first. The law, given many hundreds of years after that first failure, was not given to save anyone. It was given that "every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Was the law harsh? Very harsh. It is called the law of "sin and death" for a reason. Yes, the first Adam made a horrendously bad choice. Yet, the second man made a far greater good choice... that we can likewise freely participate in, should we choose to believe it.

Do you likewise think that serpent is perfect? Or when and how is it that fallen creature excluded? And if everything is perfect... why do you suppose God gave instructions to the man to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Did evil already exist at the time of this instruction... or didn't it? Can this be explained?

I see and have no reason to think that anything written in 1John is intended for the body of Christ, which no one aside from Paul ever speaks of, or refers to. Of course God is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us... but that is no clear or certain promise that there there is anything that we can think or say that will bring it to pass. Well, I strongly disagree. I believe that it's an integral part of understanding the difference between what was given and promised to Israel, and what was been done for us in Christ. The gospel of the Kingdom was given to Israel. The gospel of grace was given to us. And there are differences between the two. Even with many signs, miracles and wonders, Israel (as a nation) failed to believe and accept that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the Living God. We, on the other hand, believe that God raised Christ from the dead... in complete and total contradiction to anything and everything that can be known by our five senses. How or why did we do that? Perhaps only because of a recognition and acceptance of the fact that all men (or most notably, our own selves) have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God... and that we needed a savior. So we, in our heart, knew and understood that it was the only way... and believed the impossible. There's a simplicity in Christ that should never be lost or complicated in or with any of the great many things that have been said or written to or for Israel...