Defend your Faith

Originally Posted by Timmy

1. We say "God is good", "God cannot sin", etc. What does that really mean? If I were to do some of the things God is recorded as doing, or going to do, in the Bible, I would be thrown in jail and likely executed. (Before you say it, yes I know -- I am not God! I'm just asking what we mean when we say God is "good". Does it mean whatever He does is fine, no matter what it is, since He's God? Is there anything He might conceivably do that would actually not be "good"?)

There are two possible answers to this.

A. Whatever God does is "good" because God always chooses that which His innate and omniscient "conscience" recognizes as good. In others words, God is indeed subject to moral law, and always chooses to do that which is morally "good". This interpretation maintains that actions of moral agents have inherent moral value determined by the actions' relations to the moral agents involved, and those moral agents' relations to each other.

B. Whatever God does is "good" because "good" is a relative term defined primarily as God upholding His end of any contract ("covenant") He enters into. In other words, "good" is determined by God's Covenantal obligations and requirements. (For example, lying is "bad" when it is done contrary to Covenant responsibilities [thou shalt not bear false witness, etc] but it is "good" when it is done to further Covenant purposes [Rachab the harlot at Jericho, etc]). This interpretation maintains that actions are in themselves neutral, and that moral value is determined by the framework within which they are viewed, rather than in any intrinsic elements of the actions themselves.

As to which interpretation is the correct one, I must say I have generally held to A but am now investigating as to whether B may not be more Biblically accurate.

2. Did I say God is just? So, He will punish those who choose to believe their parents and follow their religion their whole lives -- if that religion is "wrong"? That's just? He will reward those who are lucky enough to hear your message (the Apostolic-Pentecostal-Oneness message -- the right message) and believe it and obey it? He will punish those who hear it and don't accept it? (They "don't love truth", as many of you say.) He will punish those who hear Billy Graham's message and (oopsie!) believe it? He will punish the countless generations who have lived their entire lives, never hearing the right message? Oh yeah, if they're "sincere", God will send an Apostolic minister to them. Uh huh. I guess then, by definition, nobody in those countless generations was sincere.

This question is basically a restatement of the first question. See above.

3. Babies. They get a pass. Aborted fetuses get a pass. That's good. Glad to hear it. Now, tell me this: if a baby grows to adulthood, there is a good chance he/she will not choose to believe the only saving message (as you guys so fondly describe it), correct? So, it's something less than 100% certain they will make Heaven, correct? Let's say it's 50%. (Though it's really way, way lower than that, I think you'll agree, especially counting the billions of non-OP parents.) So if you kill your children before they grow up, they will be in Heaven, 100% certain. If you do not kill your children, well, we're not so sure. 50/50 (or less). So tell me: how is it not the most loving thing you could possibly do for your baby to kill it?! In fact, how is it not the most horrible and hateful thing you could do to let it live to adulthood?!

This assumes that eternal happiness is more important and more valuable than free choice and personal responsibility. In other words, it is better to be eternally happy than to be given the opportunity to make one's own decisions. No true American, let alone Christian, would accept such reasoning. It is the fundamental reasoning behind socialist/statist philosophies.

Disclaimer: I am not advocating killing your children! Do not say that I am! I am just asking if this heaven/hell/only-saving-message thing is really, really what you believe, and if so, where is my logic faulty? PLEASE DO NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN!! But do explain why you will not and why you should not!

If you truly believed your own argument which you presented, then to be consistent you must advocate the killing of all children, even if there is no such thing as a "God". You say it is better to kill children and guarantee them Heaven than to allow them to live and risk the possibility they will sin and suffer punishment. But notice, according to this reasoning, even if one were a stone cold atheist, it is better to kill children and guarantee them oblivion than to allow them to live and risk the possibility of any kind of suffering whatsoever in this life.

4. "God will judge, not I." OK fine, but His Word, according to the OP doctrine, does say what the fate of the lost will be, doesn't it? And everyone (again, according to OP) who does not obey Acts 2:38 (and in the OP interpretation of it, of course) is lost. Is God a liar? No, that would not be "good" (see #1). So, ya die lost, ya burn. Right or wrong?

I do not understand the connection between "God will judge, not I" and the rest of your paragraph. They are unconnected, unless you are suggesting that telling someone they will suffer God's wrath if they do not repent and believe the gospel is "judging" and is contrary to the oft heard statement "God will judge, not I" or "I do not judge you, but..."

Quite honestly, any Christian who says "I do not judge" is a liar. Not only that, but any Christian who actually did not judge would be in sin, for disobeying the command to "prove all things" and also the command to "judge righteous judgement".

The confusion extends from one single statement - "judge not, lest ye be judged". But taking that passage in conjunction with the whole of Scripture, one must either conclude that the "judge not" command is contradictory to the rest of Scripture, or else that the "judge not" command is grossly misunderstood by people today. Perhaps Jesus meant that His disciples were not to condemn people without careful consideration of all the known facts, and without recourse to mercy, lest they be likewise judged (condemned).

That's it for now. Can't wait to hear the accusations -- these are somehow "dishonest" questions, whatever that means. And the "answers" -- we don't understand some things, we just have to take it on faith. You have to know it with your heart, not your head. Can't wait. But maybe you can do better than that. I've never heard any better, but I'm listening. Go for it!

Funny how you ask questions yet indicate you are already prejudiced against whatever answers you imagine to be forthcoming. Might make people think your questions were, in fact, "dishonest".