Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Words mean something.

[Hill Top]

You should ask the men you cite if they still commit sin.
That is the proof of conversion from darkness to the light.

You have a right to your opinion. So with your statement because a person doesn't sin proves they are converted? Converted to what light? Another interesting, but flawed construct you put forth.

Your statement would mean that atheist that don't sin (some live more righteous than saints do) are converted to light and yet still they don't believe in God. There are many right living people that don't even believe there is a God or a devil and some that simply don't know, but live right.

Some engineering mindsets I have met over the years have a beautiful moral compass and shine bright lights, but cannot wrap their heads around the concept of there being a God. Their minds see math and science in a fascinating, but extremely in depth way.

Based on your premise we are to believe they are converted to God? Maybe so, Jesus did make the statement that He did not come for the healthy, but the sick. Let's hope you are right, yet it would be challenging to prove such from scripture.

People outside of Christ are not "shining lights".
They are servants of sin.

[Hill Top]

It would indeed matter if math had any thing to do with Godliness.
But it doesn't.

There are a number of people that would disagree with you. Science (or which math is a part) has done a lot to point people to the divine. There are a number of scientist that have come to the Lord because they followed the science. Just because math does not get them “saved” it can be one of the many tools that lead them to that decision. And many have expressed how the understanding of the science provokes them to holiness.

Big storms and earthquakes can do the same, but are they always necessary to cause men to turn from sin and unto God?

If you believe the impact of big storms andd earthquakes direct people to Christ in the same manner that the study of the sciences do you are sadly mistaken. The fear generated by the potential, or experienced, power of death and destruction are not the same as the discovery of the intricate design, function and purpose of the world.

I do believe it, as the outcome is the same in both cases.

Ponder for a moment; Why does math always work when done correctly? What principles govern it. Where is that revealed in scripture?

2 + 2 = 4 is a picture of the righteous, fair, judgement of God.
"Do this and get that."
Commit sin and die the second death.
Turn from wickedness and unto God and live with Him eternally.
Simple math.

Or are they bound in the essence of the Creator that laid the foundation of the earth and measured the span of the heavens?
Indeed mathematics point to the Creator, but the Bible does not tell you how to do math.

So what?
It does tell us to measure fairly, and to do unto other as you would have them do unto you.
Equity, with love, is the way of the Lord.

[luchnia]

You should ask the men you cite if they still commit sin.
That is the proof of conversion from darkness to the light.

You have a right to your opinion. So with your statement because a person doesn't sin proves they are converted? Converted to what light? Another interesting, but flawed construct you put forth.

Your statement would mean that atheist that don't sin (some live more righteous than saints do) are converted to light and yet still they don't believe in God. There are many right living people that don't even believe there is a God or a devil and some that simply don't know, but live right.

Some engineering mindsets I have met over the years have a beautiful moral compass and shine bright lights, but cannot wrap their heads around the concept of there being a God. Their minds see math and science in a fascinating, but extremely in depth way.

Based on your premise we are to believe they are converted to God? Maybe so, Jesus did make the statement that He did not come for the healthy, but the sick. Let's hope you are right, yet it would be challenging to prove such from scripture.

People outside of Christ are not "shining lights".
They are servants of sin.

Your logic implies that Cornelius a devout man that prayed to God, gave alms and so on was a servant of sin?

[Hill Top]

You should ask the men you cite if they still commit sin.
That is the proof of conversion from darkness to the light.

You have a right to your opinion. So with your statement because a person doesn't sin proves they are converted? Converted to what light? Another interesting, but flawed construct you put forth.

Your statement would mean that atheist that don't sin (some live more righteous than saints do) are converted to light and yet still they don't believe in God. There are many right living people that don't even believe there is a God or a devil and some that simply don't know, but live right.

Some engineering mindsets I have met over the years have a beautiful moral compass and shine bright lights, but cannot wrap their heads around the concept of there being a God. Their minds see math and science in a fascinating, but extremely in depth way.

Based on your premise we are to believe they are converted to God? Maybe so, Jesus did make the statement that He did not come for the healthy, but the sick. Let's hope you are right, yet it would be challenging to prove such from scripture.

People outside of Christ are not "shining lights".
They are servants of sin.

Your logic implies that Cornelius a devout man that prayed to God, gave alms and so on was a servant of sin?

As an angel of God said to Cornelius, "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God."
That is the measure of a repentant man.
Translated..."non-sinner"
That is the first difference between those walking in darkness and those walking in the light.

You seem to picture conversion as a one point in time event, while I see it as a series of events that must all take place to come to the conclusion of conversion.

[luchnia]

You should ask the men you cite if they still commit sin.
That is the proof of conversion from darkness to the light.

You have a right to your opinion. So with your statement because a person doesn't sin proves they are converted? Converted to what light? Another interesting, but flawed construct you put forth.

Your statement would mean that atheist that don't sin (some live more righteous than saints do) are converted to light and yet still they don't believe in God. There are many right living people that don't even believe there is a God or a devil and some that simply don't know, but live right.

Some engineering mindsets I have met over the years have a beautiful moral compass and shine bright lights, but cannot wrap their heads around the concept of there being a God. Their minds see math and science in a fascinating, but extremely in depth way.

Based on your premise we are to believe they are converted to God? Maybe so, Jesus did make the statement that He did not come for the healthy, but the sick. Let's hope you are right, yet it would be challenging to prove such from scripture.

People outside of Christ are not "shining lights".
They are servants of sin.

Your logic implies that Cornelius a devout man that prayed to God, gave alms and so on was a servant of sin?

As an angel of God said to Cornelius, "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God."
That is the measure of a repentant man.
Translated..."non-sinner"
That is the first difference between those walking in darkness and those walking in the light.

You seem to picture conversion as a one point in time event, while I see it as a series of events that must all take place to come to the conclusion of conversion.

So a man can be a non-sinner before being born again simply because he believes or he prays and give alms. Glad you pointed this out. Cornelius was not baptized at the time either and he even worshiped Peter when Peter met him.

[Grandfather]

It would indeed matter if math had any thing to do with Godliness.
But it doesn't.

There are a number of people that would disagree with you. Science (or which math is a part) has done a lot to point people to the divine. There are a number of scientist that have come to the Lord because they followed the science. Just because math does not get them “saved” it can be one of the many tools that lead them to that decision. And many have expressed how the understanding of the science provokes them to holiness.

Big storms and earthquakes can do the same, but are they always necessary to cause men to turn from sin and unto God?

If you believe the impact of big storms andd earthquakes direct people to Christ in the same manner that the study of the sciences do you are sadly mistaken. The fear generated by the potential, or experienced, power of death and destruction are not the same as the discovery of the intricate design, function and purpose of the world.

I do believe it, as the outcome is the same in both cases.

Ponder for a moment; Why does math always work when done correctly? What principles govern it. Where is that revealed in scripture?

2 + 2 = 4 is a picture of the righteous, fair, judgement of God.
"Do this and get that."
Commit sin and die the second death.
Turn from wickedness and unto God and live with Him eternally.
Simple math.

Or are they bound in the essence of the Creator that laid the foundation of the earth and measured the span of the heavens?
Indeed mathematics point to the Creator, but the Bible does not tell you how to do math.

So what?
It does tell us to measure fairly, and to do unto other as you would have them do unto you.
Equity, with love, is the way of the Lord.

Oh, well if we are going to be that simple, then you must do your banking with only people that are saved. You said that you do not trust anyone that isn't. So, you can't trust unsaved people to do any money calculations.

[Hill Top]

You should ask the men you cite if they still commit sin.
That is the proof of conversion from darkness to the light.

You have a right to your opinion. So with your statement because a person doesn't sin proves they are converted? Converted to what light? Another interesting, but flawed construct you put forth.

Your statement would mean that atheist that don't sin (some live more righteous than saints do) are converted to light and yet still they don't believe in God. There are many right living people that don't even believe there is a God or a devil and some that simply don't know, but live right.

Some engineering mindsets I have met over the years have a beautiful moral compass and shine bright lights, but cannot wrap their heads around the concept of there being a God. Their minds see math and science in a fascinating, but extremely in depth way.

Based on your premise we are to believe they are converted to God? Maybe so, Jesus did make the statement that He did not come for the healthy, but the sick. Let's hope you are right, yet it would be challenging to prove such from scripture.

People outside of Christ are not "shining lights".
They are servants of sin.

Your logic implies that Cornelius a devout man that prayed to God, gave alms and so on was a servant of sin?

As an angel of God said to Cornelius, "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God."
That is the measure of a repentant man.
Translated..."non-sinner"
That is the first difference between those walking in darkness and those walking in the light.

You seem to picture conversion as a one point in time event, while I see it as a series of events that must all take place to come to the conclusion of conversion.

So a man can be a non-sinner before being born again simply because he believes or he prays and give alms.

Actually, he is a non-sinner when he quits committing sin.
As Peter pointed out in Acts 2:38, repentance (from sin) comes first.

Glad you pointed this out. Cornelius was not baptized at the time either and he even worshiped Peter when Peter met him.

Step by step, men make their way to salvation.

[Hill Top]

Proofs derived from non-scriptural sources can't sway me.
Everything the scientist uses as a proof of God is already declared in scripture.

Really - prove the comsological argument from scripture? prove the ontological argument from scripture? prove the moral argument for God from scripture?

I'll wait.... but I won't hold my breath, because I do not think you can or will attempt to do it!

Do you have something specific in mind?
Or is the actual existence of God the subject?

[Hill Top]

It would indeed matter if math had any thing to do with Godliness.
But it doesn't.

There are a number of people that would disagree with you. Science (or which math is a part) has done a lot to point people to the divine. There are a number of scientist that have come to the Lord because they followed the science. Just because math does not get them “saved” it can be one of the many tools that lead them to that decision. And many have expressed how the understanding of the science provokes them to holiness.

Big storms and earthquakes can do the same, but are they always necessary to cause men to turn from sin and unto God?

If you believe the impact of big storms andd earthquakes direct people to Christ in the same manner that the study of the sciences do you are sadly mistaken. The fear generated by the potential, or experienced, power of death and destruction are not the same as the discovery of the intricate design, function and purpose of the world.

I do believe it, as the outcome is the same in both cases.

Ponder for a moment; Why does math always work when done correctly? What principles govern it. Where is that revealed in scripture?

2 + 2 = 4 is a picture of the righteous, fair, judgement of God.
"Do this and get that."
Commit sin and die the second death.
Turn from wickedness and unto God and live with Him eternally.
Simple math.

Or are they bound in the essence of the Creator that laid the foundation of the earth and measured the span of the heavens?
Indeed mathematics point to the Creator, but the Bible does not tell you how to do math.

So what?
It does tell us to measure fairly, and to do unto other as you would have them do unto you.
Equity, with love, is the way of the Lord.

Oh, well if we are going to be that simple, then you must do your banking with only people that are saved. You said that you do not trust anyone that isn't. So, you can't trust unsaved people to do any money calculations.

If the bankers tried to instruct me in biblical matters, it would have to be biblically provable.

[luchnia]

Actually, he is a non-sinner when he quits committing sin.
As Peter pointed out in Acts 2:38, repentance (from sin) comes first.

Thanks, exactly. When one quits sin they would be a non-sinner. There are many non-saved people that do more than what some so-called saved saints do.

Whether Cornelius sinned or not is something we have record of. What we do know from record is that the gospel of Jesus was preached to him at a later time and he believed (Acts 10). Also, we know nothing about Cornelius repenting of any sin prior to the time he heard the gospel, since there is no record of when, or if, he repented.

He may have started doing righteous things at a young age for all we know. We know that fearing God, praying, giving alms, being religious, seeing visions, and being a devout man did not save his soul nor indicates he had need to repent of anything.

What we do know is he found out about Jesus in Acts 10 (not at Pentecost) when Peter told him with others about Jesus and they believed. In my opinion, that is what saves a man and what saved Cornelius.

Cornelius is a great example of a good man believing in God, doing righteous deeds, that needed the gospel of Jesus to be saved just like all the rest need it.