You can add "temporary" to the warning in Hebrews 3:12. Nothing in the context calls for it.

< all of which representing a distrust and departure from God. Every time a Christian sins, they don't need to crucify Christ again and get saved again.>

I agree. But there is a point at which a wanton, purposeful, unrepetenant sinner ceases to be saved.

<My "position" is one of soteriology, not a minor doctrinal issue. Either your trust is in Jesus for your salvation or it's in Jesus+yourself, >

Mine is in Jesus + me. I see no problems reconciling that with the Bible. I agree it's a matter of salvation. I think Calvinism is a false theology that leads many to damnation.

<a.k.a. the same soteriology as all other religions, a.k.a. the path to Hell.>

All false religions have that ending point.

<Thank God for His free, unspeakable Gift! God bless.>

However, QUESTION: As <playground player> reminded me, the English pilgrims who founded the first European culture in what we now call the United States also brought with them the seeds of grassroots democracy. They were Calvinists.

Surely this was a good thing what they did, bringing over a democratic ethos and practice?

So if Calvinists are damned, isn't it true that damned people are capable of performing good works?

Finally- if a group- such as the Calvinists- hold to an apostate doctrine, but out of being "mistaken" rather than being evil or mean-spirited- do they still suffer damnation?

Isn't the "final call" on damnation God's? I don't trust any human who tells me this or that group is damned, or this or that belief will lead to damnation. The human may be correct- but ultimately, isn't it only God who knows for sure?

Yes.

<So if Calvinists are damned, isn't it true that damned people are capable of performing good works?>

Yes.

<Finally- if a group- such as the Calvinists- hold to an apostate doctrine, but out of being "mistaken" rather than being evil or mean-spirited- do they still suffer damnation?>

That's God's call. If a person hasn't done what the Bible indicates they must do to be saved, they aren't saved. When God promises something good to people, He always comes through. When He promises punishment to people, he sometimes relents.

<Isn't the "final call" on damnation God's?>

Yes.

<I don't trust any human who tells me this or that group is damned, or this or that belief will lead to damnation.>

I trust them no more nor less than how accurately they cite the Bible in that discussion.

<The human may be correct- but ultimately, isn't it only God who knows for sure?>

Yes.

<I don't ask these questions facetiously, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on these questions.>

<The bible god admits he performs evil acts. (As if the above was not proof enough!) A Christian wrote: "God did not create evil. Evil is simply the state where God is not present." >

I don't think I agree with that, but anyway.

<If "God did not create evil" then what of the following?

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.>

Let me give a working definition of what is under discussion when talking about contradictions. Something can not both be, and not be, in the same way at the same time. A high % of the claimed contradictions in the Bible fail to meet that working definition. A simple appeal to context and occasionally the underlying language resolve almost all of the claimed contradictions. In any case, the Hebrew word in Isaiah 45:7 is ra' and is sometimes translated in the King James Version "mischief", "hurt", "trouble", "affliction". Strong's concordance lists these definitions: evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity, adversity, wrong, injury,

In that regard, "evil" is a legitimate usage of the word, but not in the same way/sense/usage that we normally use the word "evil". The context of the passage also testifies to that sense of the word "evil". The parallel construction of light and darkness are two opposites. Likewise, peace and evil are two opposites. What sense of the word "evil" is the opposite of "peace"? Probably the sense of our current word "calamity". And in fact, some major translations use the word "calamity" in that passage. Most of the rest of the passages <kakashi> referenced are just as easily and reasonably reconciled with that sense of the word "evil". If you follow the link above and see the word "evil" and understand it to be in the sense of "calamity", they almost all work perfectly. I will address a few that don't.

Judges 9:23
Then God sent an evil spirit

1 Samuel 16:14
But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

<10) Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. Keep this in mind next time you are tempted to boil a goat. This list differs, obviously, from the one in Exodus 20 (was God's memory faulty?), but it is only this list that is called the "Ten Commandments": "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exodus 34:28) >

Boiling a goat in its mother's milk was a pagan ritual. Ugartic texts affirm it as a way to approach the gods. I have to say I'm not quite sure what the big deal is anyway on this point, but when you're desperate to find 50 points, you have to dig deep I guess.

<Love your neighbor as yourself. --Even Jesus was unclear about the exact set of commandments. In Matthew 19:18-19 he listed them as: 1) Thou shalt do no murder 2) Thou shalt not commit adultery 3) Thou shalt not steal 4) Thou shalt not bear false witness 5) Honour thy father and thy mother 6) Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. >

This claim is uhhh........at odds with the facts. Jesus never referenced "the 10 commandments" in his answer. He simply said "the commandments". Here's the entire context:

<And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.>

Someone relying on Dan Barker's accurate recounting of the Bible is sure to be disappointed.

You will be stoned to death. --Isn't this an excessively violent punishment from a supposedly "Good Book?" >

No.

<What is the harm in working on the Sabbath?>

You'd have to ask God.

< It seems the only harm is to the ego of the Sovereign, who demands respect with no respect to human needs. >

In contrast, the message of Jesus was one of humility, charity, and brotherly love. He taught transformation of the inner person. Jesus presents the Beatitudes in a positive sense, virtues in life which will ultimately lead to reward. Love becomes the motivation for the Christian. All of the Beatitudes have an eschatological meaning, that is, they promise us salvation - not in this world, but in the next. The Beatitudes initiate one of the main themes of Matthew's Gospel, that the Kingdom so long awaited in the Old Testament is not of this world, but of the next, the Kingdom of Heaven.

While the Beatitudes of Jesus provide a way of life that promises salvation, they also provide peace in the midst of our trials and tribulations on this earth.

One of the first contemplations on the Beatitudes came from St. Gregory of Nyssa, a mystic who lived in Cappadocia in Asia Minor around 380 AD. He described the Beatitudes this way: "Beatitude is a possession of all things held to be good, from which nothing is absent that a good desire may want. Perhaps the meaning of beatitude may become clearer to us if it is compared with its opposite.
Now the opposite of beatitude is misery.
Misery means being afflicted unwillingly with painful sufferings."

<Ohio> A simple "no" for the answer to that question "stoning for not observing the Sabbath isn't that too harsh a punishment for such a good book"?

That's not enough information to do the Bible justice- in my opinion.

First- it should be remembered that the Sabbath was on a different day back then. It still is for Jews and some Christians. Just ask the poor tournament organizers who had to construct special playing schedules to accommodate Fischer and Reshevsky. You wouldn't want to be stoning folks on the "wrong day" by accident.

Second, on a more serious note, Jesus taught us to break such rules at some times- particularly the Sabbath in one incident. Also, Jesus spoke about the hypocrisy of fallen men handing out harsh punishments to other fallen men (women) with regard to stoning in another incident. "He who is without sin" and such.

So there's more to the story than just "no."

You might still be correct to state that the severity of the punishment itself is not too harsh- my examples don't actually contradict that point- but there is more to that topic that could have been said, as <crmr> pointed out.

<+user:"Weiner" fun>

That's not enough information to do the Bible justice- in my opinion.>

I think the Bible generally speaks quite well for itself.

<First- it should be remembered that the Sabbath was on a different day back then.>

The Sabbath is Saturday.

<It still is for Jews and some Christians. Just ask the poor tournament organizers who had to construct special playing schedules to accommodate Fischer and Reshevsky. You wouldn't want to be stoning folks on the "wrong day" by accident.>

If a person believes they are obligated to keep the law of Moses, they shouldn't work on Saturday-specifcially sundown Friday night to sundown Saturday night.

<Second, on a more serious note, Jesus taught us to break such rules at some times- particularly the Sabbath in one incident. >

I think Jesus was explaining the purpose of the Sabbath Laws. I think there's no doubt Jesus would accept a doctor working on the Sabbath to save a life.

<Also, Jesus spoke about the hypocrisy of fallen men handing out harsh punishments to other fallen men (women) with regard to stoning in another incident. "He who is without sin" and such.>

I've never bought that explanation. For a group of people constantly at odds with Jesus and with little conscience, are we to understand that <one time> they were overcome with guilt at their actions?

<So there's more to the story than just "no." >

Of course. Here's my take. When the creator of heaven and earth tells man "Don't do this or I will do that as punishment", there is simply no argument from the created about the fairness of the decree. Sin-disobedience to God-is a vile thing. It has ruined His perfect creation. Once people begin to accept it, their lives are corrupted on an individual and eventually group level. And to suggest some punishment handed out by God is too harsh is to eleveate oneself to the level of God in terms of moral understanding. As for the instant case, I don't know <why> the punishment is so harsh at what seems a fairly unharmful infraction. I trust God to have some degree of wisdom I can't begin to approach on these matters.

<You might still be correct to state that the severity of the punishment itself is not too harsh- my examples don't actually contradict that point- but there is more to that topic that could have been said, as <crmr> pointed out.>

<OCF>: <No.>