Youth Group Question From Last Night: God can’t allow sin into heaven? (OnTopic-No bible verses please)

BrownFlush

Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
What say you ?
He can't .
If he states what he believes, he just knows it will offend someone who doesn't take the same position he does.
Then he would be accused of being judgmental, intolerant, unloving and prideful....
wait..LOL! And then if you put a verse of scripture in...he'll put you on ignore! Oh the humanity!
 

Integrity

Binge Poster
Disagree. There can be multiple ways to interpret a scripture, some may be equally true, others may be conditional, true in some contexts, not true in others. Some may be partially correct, or correct enough to be meaningful.


You set the terms of the question, you answer it. This is a semantical deflection from my point.



I am simply humble enough to understand that I don't understand everything. I have developed my understanding of what a Christian is, mostly by focusing on the actual teachings of the one teacher. But I realize my understanding may not be complete, so they are the standard I strive for, but will not judge others by. They have their understanding, which may not be complete. We each will be held accountable for our own lives.
Well said.

IMO Very humble reply!
 

Integrity

Binge Poster
By design. Alpha and Omega. Omnipotent and omnipresent. These are concepts for humans to understand that which they cannot begin to understand.
I really like this reply!

Sometimes I reflect on my desire to understand God and it is almost laughable that in light of Him and who He is that I even try to understand Him.

Yet I still want to know and understand Him more deeply.

All this being said as much as I am able to know and understand God in my life time, I really believe I will only have scratched the surface of the depth, breadth, and the greatness of God.
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
You miss. I didn't state what might be meaningful. My statement was looking for the correct meaning.
Partially correct? Well, we almost got right. lol
Yes, there are all kinds of WAYS to interpret scripture. There are as many ways as there are interpretations.
Not what I stated. I stated there can be only one correct interpretation.
You asked if I disagreed, and I did. Is Jonah a story about a guy who got swallowed by a fish? Yep. Partly correct. Is it a story about God's mercy? Yep. 100% correct. Is it a living metaphor for Jesus' impending sacrifice and resurrection? Yep. 100% correct. Is it about how crappy the people of Nineveh were? Partly correct, but not very meaningful.

In the parable of the talents, was Jesus telling a story about investing money? Yes, 100% correct. Did it have a deeper meaning, yep. All of his parables did. Can you learn multiple different, equally true lessons from what he said. You sure can. Did he have a single meaning in mind when he taught the parable. Probably, and that meaning could be considered the only "correct" interpretation. But if other interpretations impart equally true understanding, who is to say those are not also correct?

Call it what you want. You deflect.
You stated a "true" Christian. My question to you was, what is a "false" one?
I told you to answer. Doesn't matter. The point is you think you are absolutely correct when it comes to what it takes to be a Christian (I removed true this time so as not to be confusing). You have your take on what the scripture says, maybe a lot of people agree with you. But to believe that your take is 100% correct is prideful, at best.

Not understanding and not accepting are two different things. Doesn't have anything to do with humility . Has everything to do with honesty.

Changing the subject. Has no relevance to what I said. Being honest about what you believe is fine, thinking you have it all figured out is being dishonest to yourself.
 
Last edited:

BrownFlush

Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
You asked if I disagreed, and I did. Is Jonah a story about a guy who got swallowed by a fish? Yep. Partly correct. Is it a story about God's mercy? Yep. 100% correct. Is it a living metaphor for Jesus' impending sacrifice and resurrection? Yep. 100% correct. Is it about how crappy the people of Nineveh were? Partly correct, but not very meaningful.

In the parable of the talents, was Jesus telling a story about investing money? Yes, 100% correct. Did it have a deeper meaning, yep. All of his parables did. Can you learn multiple different, equally true lessons from what he said. You sure can. Did he have a single meaning in mind when he taught the parable. Probably, and that meaning could be considered the only "correct" interpretation. But if other interpretations impart equally true understanding, who is to say those are not also correct?

You miss yet again. I assumed too much.
Establishing scriptural authority for what one teaches and believes is what I am saying. Gleaming different lessons and meanings that can be used in our life from OT stories and NT occurrences, is not what I'm talking about. Get all you can from any passage. That’s what it’s for. Also, I don’t know how many times I have read a passage for the 1000th time and see something I didn't see the last time I read it.
I told you to answer. Doesn't matter.
I told you that you deflected and you did. And yeah. it matters.
The point is you think you are absolutely correct when it comes to what it takes to be a Christian (I removed true this time so as not to be confusing).
I would hope that whatever you think it takes to be a Christian, that you think you are absolutely correct with what you believe. I'll add the word true as in true to yourself.

You have your take on what the scripture says
Jesus asked the Pharisees about the baptism of John.Was it from heaven ( God's authority ) or from men ( Human reason or the authority of man) They answered nothing and the text explains why.

Hermeneutics is the fancy word for interpretation. There are three ways to establish scriptural authority for what one believes, practices, and teaches concerning God's word.The rules of interpretation are
1. Direct command. 2. Approved Apostolic example. 3. Necessary inference or conclusion
If you believe or practice something not found within these, you are doing it without the authorization of God.
Example: Sprinkling for baptism.
There is no direct command for that.
There is no example of that being done.
There is no place that infers it by the way it reads or we are forced to necessarily conclude it by the context
Conclusion: Sprinkling someone and calling it baptism is without authority from God and wrong.

But to believe that your take is 100% correct is prideful, at best.

But to believe that what anyone wants to believe is fine with God and we are all going to heaven we are just on different roads is at best, foolish.
100%?? Name the subject or issue anytime or on any format. With an open mind and heart, I'm always willing to discuss and repent and change if I find that where I stand in my relationship with God has fallen short of His will.

Being honest about what you believe is fine, thinking you have it all figured out is being dishonest to yourself.
It bothers some when one has confidence in the scriptures and speaks them with boldness and without shame. If that bothers you to the point you need to spout personal jabs ( thinking I have it all figured out, dishonest with myself, take the word true out so not to be confusing, 100% correct, prideful. etc..) instead of actually discussing what the Bible says, have at it.
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
You miss yet again. I assumed too much.
Establishing scriptural authority for what one teaches and believes is what I am saying. Gleaming different lessons and meanings that can be used in our life from OT stories and NT occurrences, is not what I'm talking about. Get all you can from any passage. That’s what it’s for. Also, I don’t know how many times I have read a passage for the 1000th time and see something I didn't see the last time I read it.
So you only think there is one interpretation when it comes to scriptures containing commands? You didn't make that clear in your original question.

I told you that you deflected and you did. And yeah. it matters.
I can't deflect from your original deflection, I just tried to get back to the original point.

I would hope that whatever you think it takes to be a Christian, that you think you are absolutely correct with what you believe. I'll add the word true as in true to yourself.

Okie dokie.

Jesus asked the Pharisees about the baptism of John.Was it from heaven ( God's authority ) or from men ( Human reason or the authority of man) They answered nothing and the text explains why.

Hermeneutics is the fancy word for interpretation. There are three ways to establish scriptural authority for what one believes, practices, and teaches concerning God's word.The rules of interpretation are
1. Direct command. 2. Approved Apostolic example. 3. Necessary inference or conclusion
From where do you get this standard?

If you believe or practice something not found within these, you are doing it without the authorization of God.
Example: Sprinkling for baptism.
There is no direct command for that.
There is no example of that being done.
There is no place that infers it by the way it reads or we are forced to necessarily conclude it by the context
Conclusion: Sprinkling someone and calling it baptism is without authority from God and wrong.

I don't think sprinkling is baptism either.
But to believe that what anyone wants to believe is fine with God and we are all going to heaven we are just on different roads is at best, foolish.
100%?? Name the subject or issue anytime or on any format. With an open mind and heart, I'm always willing to discuss and repent and change if I find that where I stand in my relationship with God has fallen short of His will.
I agree that it's not anything goes.

It bothers some when one has confidence in the scriptures and speaks them with boldness and without shame. If that bothers you to the point you need to spout personal jabs ( thinking I have it all figured out, dishonest with myself, take the word true out so not to be confusing, 100% correct, prideful. etc..) instead of actually discussing what the Bible says, have at it.

I only say those things because that is how you come across. If you don't feel the shoe fits, don't wear it. Clearly I'm not the only one who is put off by how you share your faith. And, please, let's not pretend that you haven't been condescending, I only give what I get. You do not come across as someone who is willing to have a good faith conversation about scripture, or even general conversations about issues of faith. You use scripture as a bludgeon to beat people with, so much so that people aren't interested in your views on scripture. I share what I know of scripture, and how that has formed my beliefs. Jesus tells us we are the salt of the earth, salt that has lost its saltiness is worthless. So which is it, are we a preservative, flavorful, both, or something else?

Feel free to take all that or leave it. I don't know you as a person, just how you present yourself here. If I have offended you, I apologize.
 

Integrity

Binge Poster
I do believe this thread has taken me on quite a spiritual journey. For those of you who are not “Bible Bashers, or Thumpers(if you think the shoe fits by all means wear it) there have been some real thoughtful, intelligent and engaging thoughts shared. I thank all for sharing.

I think the following may be relevant, maybe not:

I sense the young person was originally in awe with the teaching about the limitless power taught him as a young person “All things are possible with God, “Nothing is impossible with God”. Wow, what a great and powerful God. I know I felt that way in my youth as well. I really felt I could trust a God who could do anything He wanted.

Anything.

He then when hearing a seemingly contradictory teaching from a Youth Pastor, from a church that tends to Bible Thump a bit but not to the extreme. They also tend to place much emphasis on scriptural based “Systems of Theology”, concocted by man. He was then confused by what he saw as a limit placed on God.

“It is impossible for God to let sin into Heaven” so he was told. He is now confused, God can’t do anything? I thought God could do anything so he thought.

This confusion resulted as the Youth Pastor was trying to explain a scriptural based system of theology concocted by man to teach young people to evangelize and share the Gospel.

I think this Youth Pastor, and all of us who place their faith in God through belief in His Son, by the power and fellowship of the Holy Spirit would do well to encourage awe in the greatness, power and love of God.

Be in awe of a God can do anything.

Live humbly under a God who has no limits and can do anything.

Anything.

I would never want to limit what God can say collectively or individually to each person on earth through the religions of the world.

also

I would never want to limit what God can say collectively or individually to each person on earth to the religions of the world.

In the same way:

I would never want to limit what God can say collectively or individually to each person on earth through the Bible as you or I see it.

and

I would never want to limit what God can say collectively or individually to each person on earth to the Bible, as you or I see it.

The questions I have for myself and for everyone in eye shot of this post:

Do I place limits on God? Do you?

Do I let my religious practice or beliefs encourage awe of his greatness, power and limitless ability to do anything. Do you?

Do I let my religious practice or beliefs limit Him to my understanding of Him based solely on my personal religious beliefs and practices? Do you?

Peace.
 

BrownFlush

Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
I'm not the only one who is put off by how you share your faith.
So that makes your response correct and how I "share "my faith wrong?
So you only think there is one interpretation when it comes to scriptures containing commands?
If two people have trouble understanding a specific direct command the same... there is probably other things that they need to discuss.
Okie dokie.
Yeah... you’re all in.
From where do you get this standard?
Interesting isn’t.
You use one of those 3 rules of interpretation without even knowing it when establishing the doctrines you hold.
There are 2 kinds of authority in scripture. Specific and General. What to bind as doctrine (salvation issues) is easily seen when using this method/rule of interpretation.
I don't think sprinkling is baptism either.
I used sprinkling for baptism as an example of how to use this method of interpretation.
I wasn't asking for your position on the issue. But, while we're at it, why don't you?

I agree that it's not anything goes.
Why not?
And, please, let's not pretend that you haven't been condescending,
Best I can tell, the scripture has done that.

You do not come across as someone who is willing to have a good faith conversation about scripture, or even general conversations about issues of faith.
Disagree
You use scripture as a bludgeon to beat people with, so much so that people aren't interested in your views on scripture.
Disagree.
If I have offended you
No one on any of @Integrity's threads have said anything to me that has even started to turn my face half red, much less offend me.

Anytime some one is challenged to answer why they believe something or why they hold the position they do when it comes to religious matters and they can't , and they are pressed to produce something from scripture that back it up and cannot, or they are shown scripture that proves the position they hold is wrong, the reaction is common.

Beat you to death with scripture? Good faith discussion?
Here is most everyone's idea of a good faith discussion about God. You can see in these threads.... You believe this and I believe that but after we discuss why we don't believe the same, let's hug and part ways because after all, we all love God in our own way, and he' is fine with that ,so I'll be fine with where you are, even though we don't see it the same way.
But then, someone comes along and says absolutely that the Bible says that baptism by sprinkling is absolutely wrong (just one example, so not to confuse) and those that teach and practice are not in accordance with the will of God..... Uh -oh..that guy thinks he's 100% right. Who does he think he is? He is so full of pride!

Nope. Not at all. I just take God at his word and am not ashamed of it.

How about you @zubenelgenubi ? Are you willing to state that anyone who practices and teaches that sprinkling is baptism are wrong and are doing so against the will of God
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
So that makes your response correct and how I "share "my faith wrong?
It depends. Is your objective to help people improve their scriptural understanding? Or to turn them off from talking to you and continuing to read scripture? If It's the latter, then you are spot on.

If two people have trouble understanding a specific direct command the same... there is probably other things that they need to discuss.
Which won't happen when people aren't interested in what you have to say.

Yeah... you’re all in.
On this discussion? I'm trying.

Interesting isn’t.
You use one of those 3 rules of interpretation without even knowing it when establishing the doctrines you hold.
There are 2 kinds of authority in scripture. Specific and General. What to bind as doctrine (salvation issues) is easily seen when using this method/rule of interpretation.
So, no source for that standard? A standard created by man, which is as fallible as any man. Who gets to say what is "acceptable" apostolic example? Whose interpretation of the direct command is correct? Who says what is a "necessary" inference or conclusion? I get that it may be necessary to have a standard of intepretation, but you have to be realistic about the limits of the standard you employ.

I used sprinkling for baptism as an example of how to use this method of interpretation.
I wasn't asking for your position on the issue. But, while we're at it, why don't you?
Heaven forbid I try to establish some common ground.
To answer your question: Mostly because it's not the example set, but I believe water baptism is symbolic anyway, and in no way tied to our salvation (and before we go down that rabbit hole again, I will stipulate for sake of conversation that I could be wrong about that). By that standard the sprinkling of water vs full submersion isn't much of an issue. My main objection is the baptism of babies who cannot make a conscious choice to accept Jesus as their savior, so it's a pointless religious "going through the motions" thing.

Because there is a basic minimum that Jesus teaches, particularly when it comes to salvation. There are a lot of extraneous doctrines, which people derive from scripture, and which add variety, flavor and depth to some people's experience. Assuming they don't contradict the teachings of Jesus, they don't concern me much.

Best I can tell, the scripture has done that.
Which shows in how you share your views and beliefs.

I'm sure you don't believe that you come across that way, otherwise, I assume, you wouldn't respond the way you do. But I'm fairly certain I'm not the only person who feels that way.

Disagree.
See above.

No one on any of @Integrity's threads have said anything to me that has even started to turn my face half red, much less offend me.
That's good. I was concerned based on your phrasing that maybe I had gotten under your skin.

Anytime some one is challenged to answer why they believe something or why they hold the position they do when it comes to religious matters and they can't , and they are pressed to produce something from scripture that back it up and cannot, or they are shown scripture that proves the position they hold is wrong, the reaction is common.
I agree that some people lack the scriptural basis to support their doctrinal views, but those are the ones you need to be a little more gentle with so that you can help them understand the importance of reading and contemplating scripture.

Beat you to death with scripture? Good faith discussion?
Here is most everyone's idea of a good faith discussion about God. You can see in these threads.... You believe this and I believe that but after we discuss why we don't believe the same, let's hug and part ways because after all, we all love God in our own way, and he' is fine with that ,so I'll be fine with where you are, even though we don't see it the same way.
But then, someone comes along and says absolutely that the Bible says that baptism by sprinkling is absolutely wrong (just one example, so not to confuse) and those that teach and practice are not in accordance with the will of God..... Uh -oh..that guy thinks he's 100% right. Who does he think he is? He is so full of pride!

Yes, using "absolutely" means you believe your intepretation is 100% correct, and a sign of being prideful. But thanks for letting me know how you see yourself in these conversations. Do you really believe that people are turned off by the fact that you see things differently than them? It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Nope. Not at all. I just take God at his word and am not ashamed of it.
I'm glad you're not ashamed. You clearly have spent time in the word.

How about you @zubenelgenubi ? Are you willing to state that anyone who practices and teaches that sprinkling is baptism are wrong and are doing so against the will of God
See above.

I'm not one that you need to be gentle with, just to clarify. I have done my share of studying, and I know I'm still no expert and am willing to listen, discuss and learn because I sincerely wish to understand God better. From our few interactions on the subject I consider you someone I could learn from, except for the fact that your presentation is a turn off. Your logic in supporting your positions is often not logical, which makes discussion impractical at best. When you use "grammatically incorrect" as an excuse to infer something not clearly indicated by a scripture, that's not good faith, nor does it conform to your own standard of interpretation.
 

Integrity

Binge Poster
Any discussion or ability to relate with individuals that limit their ability to understand God to a book and in like manner try to limit God’s authority to what is in a book will be limited by these limitations that I believe should not be placed on God.

I think there is plenty of evidence to support this type self imposed limitations to free discussion and thought in some of these posts.
 

Integrity

Binge Poster
It depends. Is your objective to help people improve their scriptural understanding? Or to turn them off from talking to you and continuing to read scripture? If It's the latter, then you are spot on.


Which won't happen when people aren't interested in what you have to say.


On this discussion? I'm trying.


So, no source for that standard? A standard created by man, which is as fallible as any man. Who gets to say what is "acceptable" apostolic example? Whose interpretation of the direct command is correct? Who says what is a "necessary" inference or conclusion? I get that it may be necessary to have a standard of intepretation, but you have to be realistic about the limits of the standard you employ.


Heaven forbid I try to establish some common ground.
To answer your question: Mostly because it's not the example set, but I believe water baptism is symbolic anyway, and in no way tied to our salvation (and before we go down that rabbit hole again, I will stipulate for sake of conversation that I could be wrong about that). By that standard the sprinkling of water vs full submersion isn't much of an issue. My main objection is the baptism of babies who cannot make a conscious choice to accept Jesus as their savior, so it's a pointless religious "going through the motions" thing.


Because there is a basic minimum that Jesus teaches, particularly when it comes to salvation. There are a lot of extraneous doctrines, which people derive from scripture, and which add variety, flavor and depth to some people's experience. Assuming they don't contradict the teachings of Jesus, they don't concern me much.


Which shows in how you share your views and beliefs.


I'm sure you don't believe that you come across that way, otherwise, I assume, you wouldn't respond the way you do. But I'm fairly certain I'm not the only person who feels that way.


See above.


That's good. I was concerned based on your phrasing that maybe I had gotten under your skin.


I agree that some people lack the scriptural basis to support their doctrinal views, but those are the ones you need to be a little more gentle with so that you can help them understand the importance of reading and contemplating scripture.



Yes, using "absolutely" means you believe your intepretation is 100% correct, and a sign of being prideful. But thanks for letting me know how you see yourself in these conversations. Do you really believe that people are turned off by the fact that you see things differently than them? It's not what you say, it's how you say it.


I'm glad you're not ashamed. You clearly have spent time in the word.


See above.

I'm not one that you need to be gentle with, just to clarify. I have done my share of studying, and I know I'm still no expert and am willing to listen, discuss and learn because I sincerely wish to understand God better. From our few interactions on the subject I consider you someone I could learn from, except for the fact that your presentation is a turn off. Your logic in supporting your positions is often not logical, which makes discussion impractical at best. When you use "grammatically incorrect" as an excuse to infer something not clearly indicated by a scripture, that's not good faith, nor does it conform to your own standard of interpretation.
I really appreciate how gracefully make your points.
 

BrownFlush

Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
See above.
I did. Nothing there. Or below.
Speaking of @Integrity, about the only difference as far as discussion goes between you and him is your effort to make it sound more polished.
So, no source for that standard? A standard created by man, which is as fallible as any man. Who gets to say what is "acceptable" apostolic example? Whose interpretation of the direct command is correct? Who says what is a "necessary" inference or conclusion? I get that it may be necessary to have a standard of intepretation, but you have to be realistic about the limits of the standard you employ.
The source is the Lord. He uses this method when he teaches. I could show you if we sat down at a kitchen table with an open bible and mind. But, I think we both can agree, we've wasted enough time trying to communicate on this format. Much is miscommunicated and lost in print.

Take care.
 
Top