At what point do you become irreversibly adopted and born-again?
Good question. With some it is a growing awareness and with others it is pretty much an instantaneous realization. With the former it happened before they were fully aware of it. The actual moment is not particularly important, in my estimation.
(Have you noticed that you have not attempted to answer my repeated question?)
It’s after 2 a.m. here… I’m off.
What’s the difference between your doctrine and OSAS? They sound like exactly the same thing.
You claim to have been irreversibly born again, but you don’t know when it happened? If you don’t know when it happened, how do you know it happened at all?
No, I haven’t. What repeated question?
Your amendment seems very odd to me. It is like defining Archimedianism as the mathematical principle that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is 22/7 just because Archimedes gave that as an approximation and upper bound to the value of pi. The principles of the basic idea of evolution as put forward by Darwin are sound, and provide us the rational means for working out greater details in how evolution occurred. When I learned those principles for the first time it took me less than half a day to realize that you were going to have periods of rapid evolution when a species is fighting for survival on the brink of extinction (with very few fossils) as compared to when you have a large stable gene pool (which is when you have most of your fossils). Nevertheless, major changes to the gene pool ARE not happening overnight or even in just a few generations, so it is gradual in that sense – more on the time scale of millions of years (compared to which all human history is but an instant).
Do you see the word ‘label’.
Were you born in Australia? I think you should see the application of the analogy without needing additional point by point explanation. You were a baby once.
I guess it wasn’t a repeated question so much as it was one of the several repeated arguments you have simply refused to respond to:
I could list more arguments to which you have not responded, but I do not see much to be gained at this point. One of the principles in interpreting scripture is that if there appear to be differences, you step back and look at the big picture and try to see the forest. If you can see the forest, then you can look at the odd tree or two with better understanding and try to discover why they are different.
So the the preponderance of the evidence (remember the length of the list?) points to the assurance, the confidence and the sure hope we should have as Christians. We have discussed all three in good detail earlier, if you are willing to look back. Call it OSAS, if you must, using the term that I find offensive (whether or not my feeling that way is justifiable), but it clearly constitutes the forest.
My doubts are not about how “evolution” can be explained using known biological mechanisms (such as mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination, gene flow). Rather, I have serious doubts about the ability of the Modern Synthesis to explain origins, or more specifically, how novels organs and body plans could arise in a step-by-step fashion.
The found these comments by evolutionary theorist, Gerd Muller, interesting:
*As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on , providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution , and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences.
This is even more like a definition of Archimedianism as the mathematical principle that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is 22/7. Which is absurd BTW.
- It is demonstrable that DNA is a set of strings of base pairs and we do see the changes in these parts of the genetic code from one person to another.
- It is also demonstrable that DNA is NOTHING like a blueprint at all. Rather it is a large collection of information where most of it is not used and has no effect on the individual at all. What we do get from all that extra information is a lot about their ancestry where they came from.
- The changes are not completely random except in viruses because completely random damage is repaired efficiently, and thus the vast majority of changes are from evolved mechanisms which restrict changes to parts of the code which have proven to be less vital.
- It is the whole organism which either survives or does not survive. And this is not without a large array of medical biological problems which we have because our DNA is not the same as the DNA of other people.
- Thus everything demonstrates that the genetic code of the individual is NOT a product of design but one of changes which are at least partially random.
In Matt 7:21-23, Jesus is addressing believers who prophesied, cast out demons and performed miracles in his name. In order to perform those supernatural feats, those believers must have been in Christ – in other words, “born again”. Yet those same believers became doers of “lawlessness” (v.23) and Jesus consequently disowned them. This passage would appear to contradict your claim that once you are “born again”, you obtain an irrevocable, irreversible ticket to Heaven.
First off, you are forgetting the forest.
And next, what do those verses actually say? (Using hyperlinks is good etiquette when referring to verses and other sources not seen on the page.)
It says “Many will say to me…” That does not mean that they actually and necessarily did those things. So we can look for other explanations for why Jesus said that in that particular way. (Remember the odd trees in the forest.)
Notice the emphasized word. You were correct in not saying that it necessarily did.
[@Edgar]:
It is distinctly possible to do good things with a wrong heart. If your heart is wrong, you are not pleasing God because you are doing things with the wrong motivations and not doing God’s will.
I know of a woman who was a PK, a preacher’s kid, and her father sexually abused her on multiple occasions over years, yet he was a powerful preacher and many people became Christians under his influence. And then there was Ravi Zacharias.
Even faithful pastors, priests and other Christians can be so busy doing God’s work that they are not actually doing God’s will in their lives.
It is demonstrable that the principles explained by Darwin in the theory of evolution are sufficient. We can use the same algorithm to enable computers to make designs for machines better than human engineers and to enable AI program to play human strategy games better than the world champion professional players of those games. It has basically demonstrated that the principles of evolution by themselves represent an intelligence far superior to our own. It shows that the kind of intelligence needed for design only requires the ability to follow a set rules – something which computers and the things of nature excel at better than we do. It means that in looking for God in this direction, we have been looking in the wrong place. God as the great watchmaker designer is more a product of Deism and antiquated science, not the Bible where God is portrayed as a shepherd.
You’re right - it certainly is “absurd” to claim that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius is (approximately) 22/7 … mainly because 22/7 approximates the ratio of the circumference to its diameter .
So you think our genome is not designed by God but is the result of an accident of nature?
Wow, such a poor argument indicates that you’re really getting desperate now. To save yourself further embarrassment, why not just admit that Scripture proves you wrong?
The bottom line is, the believers in Matt 7:21-23 must have been “born again” in order to perform the supernatural feats that Jesus mentions … yet they Jesus says he will disown them come Judgement Day due to their “lawlessness” (v.23). In other words, your doctrine is wrong - being “born again” does not mean you are 100% certain of getting to Heaven.
Our genome is neither – no more than our memories are designed by God or the result of an accident of nature. Our memory and our DNA are both an accumulation of information which is product of both choices and the environment – an environment which includes those we have a relationship with (which theists believe includes God). Our DNA is the memory of the species including what it has learned about what works and what doesn’t work.
2 Likes
That’s pretty funny. I’m afraid that what it indicates, rather, is a failure in reading comprehension in your not understanding the difference between say and do, and that your declaring it a poor argument is a desperate attempt on your part to divert attention from the facts. In other words, it’s a red herring and not an argument.
Your bottom line is imaginary. It is notable that you did not respond to my subsequent point, which is where the real bottom line is, and which line you have not yet reached:
Please note that Jesus’ statements were in reverse order to how I argued them. He prefaced his statement about ‘many will say’ with ‘only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.’ What follows is Jesus giving a case in point, the point being that they have not done God’s will.
And then what does he say to them?
I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
And here all this time you have been arguing that they did indeed know him at some point, were ‘born again’ and yet somehow ‘lost it’, lost having been birthed and thus having gone back into an antepartum condition. Good trick. What has been lost is… well, never mind.
After over ten weeks of my arguments trying to penetrate the impenetrable, I think I have learned something. 
Shalom. ← (Take that in the parting, goodbye ‘God be with ye’ contraction, sense of the word.)
When you have read the thread, at least starting with #105, @SkovandOfMitaze, please reply here with specific counterpoints, if you have any.
(Also read Maggie’s testimony first, please. I don’t expect it to be necessarily compelling to unbelievers, but Christians should be able to rejoice and recognize God’s providential sovereignty.)
I’ll probably never read the law and grace one. Sometime, which could be as late as winter, I’ll make a post with my belief and why. When I make a “ OSAS is false” for the congregation I attend I will copy and paste it here and then focus on countering something.
I’ll try to read Maggie’s story the month depending on its size and I’ll respond with what it means to me.
Don’t bother pasting anything until you’ve read the arguments that are already here.