God leaves some to persish.

God leaves some to perish to reveal to those He saves the extent of His mercy toward them

 

That would be like a kid with a magnifying glass burning every third ant that comes up from an ant hill and then standing and proclaiming that he had been merciful.

Freaky.

 

It's actually more a kin to an author doing the same with the characters she creates. Creatures are but character with material being.

I am left to believe that the material universe is contingent in its being, and if contingent being exists, necessary being must exist.
To date, I am left to believe that the God of the bible uniquely fulfills the Omni implications of a necessary being.
From the bible, I infer that the material universe is God's revelation of His glory. Furthermore, anything, even God's glory, is revealed just as much by what it is not as it is by what it is.
I am left to believe that the above is why God reveals both good and evil, both what He is and what He is not.

The knowledge of the extent of anything necessarily reveals what it is not.

 

Only one problem with your analogy. In the case of man, it is not God that is holding the magnifying glass, but rather it is man with the choices man makes.

 

Man makes choices, and he makes them of his own free will; but so does a character in a book.

The fact that we make choices is no evidence that we choose from undetermined possibilities.

I am left to believe that we are prescribed. I am left to believe that everything about me was written quite apart from the actualization of my being, "before the foundation of the world".

 

I have no problem with the concept of predetermination or predestination or even prescription. As it is stated in the 'Bible' :
"Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"

And

"Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

Yeppir... God is in control... whether we accept it or reject it, Gods' will is what will prevail. So, if our spirit/soul makes a determination to accomplish a change or even no change, it will be done according to Gods will. I believe we are on the same wave length but differing modes of transmission.

 

Could you elaborate on why inferring something from the bible means that one should believe that it is so?

 

WRONG!

He leave MOST to perish because they are ********s and he hates them.

 

This is true....

Romans 9:19-21 (NLT) says, "Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?” No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?” When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?"

 

They do when he gives those pots free will and the capacity to understand what's happening to them. And what does this precedent set for parents? They create the child. Can they then destroy the child? Can they make one child to keep and another to sell?

 

So much for our own free will.

 

You are still free to make choices. You have also many times made the positive assertion that we don't have free will, and in doing so, the only thing that you have offered is a logical argument that virtually means nothing because that argument is based on the presumption of the existence of God. So, if you want all the non-theists or even me to accept the notion of a lack of free will, you will have to do better than taking on such a presumptuous basis. To presume, as you probably already know, is based on belief which has not be proven to be true. The only way your logical argument can be true is to remove the presumption and in order to do that, you will need to show PROOF of the existence of God.

 

No choice we make is our choice if all things are due to the will of God. The End.

 

"if" is another matter that is hypothetical. I am fully aware of what the 'Bible' says in that regard, however, you have not proven that we don't have free will. You are still basing your opinion on the presumption that God does exist and that because of that existence we don't have free will. To cause your logical argument or even what the 'Bible' says is 'true', then you will have to rely on arguments and evidence from outside the 'Bible' and show proof that God does exist and because of that existence, we don't have free will. In your showing of my previous comments, I will state this: My argument does not involve any man-made logic... but rather and strictly what the 'Bible' says about it. Your arguments have in the past been strictly a man-made logical argument contending that if God is Omnipotent and Omniscient then man cannot have free will. I am desiring you to show PROOF (not man-made logical proof.. but evidence or argument (outside of man-made logic) that your man-made logical argument is true; also don't use scripture because the 'Bible' does show that man has free will to either accept or reject the Lord. "Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Not any predetermined number of men or a predetermined choice of men.

 

I cannot. In fact, given so many different inferences from the bible, one is less likely to infer accurately an idea implied in the bible.

Truth is an implication; proof is an inference.

Contingent beings approach certainty via the exclusion process wherein doubt is removed by testing.

 

So how do you find yourself left believing this or that about God?

 

Not quite accurate. Apparently you did not consider the issue mentioned in the 'Bible' called the 'unforgivable sin'....Blasphemy... Then comes the question of what is 'Blasphemy'? Are we going to be so bold as to attempt to place a strict definition on what is 'Blasphemy'? Based on the scenario of the second guy who was not forgiven and was not allowed in Heaven, it could seem like you are defining 'Blasphemy'... but that is just a guess on my part.

 

Through the exclusion process wherein doubt is removed by testing, AKA the sanctification process.

 

What sort of 'testing' have you performed?

 

To contingent beings, it's not so much that ideas are proved as it is that all of the other ideas considered have been disproved. What remains is what one is left to believe. Then, that's tested, and so on, and so on.

Testing can be as simple as looking both ways before one crosses the street to more intimate observations, but the closest thing contingent beings have to proof positive is experimental repeatability.

Contingent beings approach certainty through the exclusion process wherein doubt is removed by testing.

Truth is an implication. Proof is an inference. Truth is necessary. Proof is contingent.

There is an indispensable distinction, even when there is no difference, between what is implied and what is inferred. Christians, who claim to base their theology upon what is implied in the bible have no need to defend the reasonableness of their theology because they are not the ones making the implication. Those of us who recognize the distinction between implication and inference must concede that our theology is based upon what we infer from the bible. We must therefore be prepared to defend the reasonableness of our theology because we are the ones making the inference. "Because the bible says" can only be employed by those who have not out grown their first impression of what the bible says.

 

And what about the peer review on that testing? Where can we (the readers) find copies of that peer review? Oh... I forgot... it was not scientific testing... it was private party testing which cannot be analyzed. How convenient.

Proof is an inference. Proof is (definitively) "evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."
"inference: in·fer·ence
n.1. a. The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.

b. The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence."




'factual' derived from the root word "fact" and meaning 'Of the nature of fact; real.'. Fact = something believed to be true or real. Seems like, after doing a minor analysis of your claim, one can travel full circle and right back to what it is that someone believes to be real or true.

 

You give me the impression that you have a very limited understanding of the exclusion (testing) process.

I recommend Dr. Norman Geisler's treatment of the subject in the first half of the first volume of his systematic theology. I do not agree with the good Dr.'s over all theology. Ironically however, it is his treatment of the first principles of logic that lead me to later disagree with his philosophy about God.

Your understanding of the nomenclature we're employing as sophomoric as your association of testing and laboratories.

 

Actually I prefer the teachings of the Holy Spirit as opposed to the teachings of any man written material. Man has such a poor way of communicating with words... ya know.. words can be so ambiguous at times... whereas the pictures painted by the Holy Spirit are more explicit in detail regarding a given subject matter.

 

And what testing exactly have you used to remove this doubt?