Sufficient Evidence

Question: Isn't it rather unrealistic, and perhaps self centered, for God to condemn a bunch of Atheists, who don't believe in him, when He hasn't given them any convincing reason to believe in Him?

The brilliance of Razi Zacharias' answer was obvious.

The Stars and Stripes Forever

“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”

I thought this was fitting to the current climate of primaries "that has defined the 2010 midterm elections."

If you haven't read the Defence of Fort McHenry (The Stars and Stripes Forever) Here is the poem in its entirety:

1 O! say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
2 What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming,
3 Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
4 O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
5 And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
6 Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there --
7 O! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
8 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave?

9 On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
10 Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
11 What is that which the breeze o'er the towering steep,
12 As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
13 Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
14 In full glory reflected now shines on the stream --
15 'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
16 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

17 And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
18 That the havock of war and the battle's confusion
19 A home and a country should leave us no more?
20 Their blood has wash'd out their foul foot-steps' pollution,
21 No refuge could save the hireling and slave,
22 From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave;
23 And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
24 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

25 O! thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
26 Between their lov'd home, and the war's desolation,
27 Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
28 Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
29 Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
30 And this be our motto -- "In God is our trust!"
31 And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
32 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

The followup video speaks volumes also. I will remain hopeful.

Within the constitutions there were terms like "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution...". God was referenced for, not just a few states, but EVERY SINGLE STATE in the union.

ALL 50 states reference God in their Constitutions

Justification of Sanctification

Recently I was in a debate with two professing Christians who feels that any sinning is evidence of not being a Christian at all. They read Romans 6 but use a taxi-cab fallacy, and depart when they reach their destination. But they ignore Romans 7:13-25 and we sin because we are in the flesh.

I found it to be a difficult conversation because we have spoken of false converts in the past. I certainly don't feel that just because you sin that you are not saved. So I guess this post is to clarify things.

Maybe some of these Atheists felt the burden to be perfect and ran away discouraged. Christians aren't perfect, just perfected. Not better, just better off. 

Morality keeps you from jail, blood of Jesus Christ keeps you from Hell.

There is a distinguishing difference between,

Justification which is an instantaneous declaration from God of our legal standing before God that was entirely God's work that is fully accomplished now through Jesus Christ. (Romans 3:24,26-28, Romans 8:11, Philippians 3:9, 1 Corinthians 6:11.) KJV, of course.

and,

Sanctification which is more of a internal condition that is a process through life where man cooperates with God that is yet to be fully accomplished.

It is a process by which God patiently, lovingly, and sovereignty convicts us of our sins, that we might turn from them, and be used of God.

Dr. Jerry F. Smith said: "If we were sinless, we wouldn't be taught of sanctification in God's Word (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4; John 17:17; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Romans 6:12; 1 John 1:8-10; 1 John 2:1; 1 John 3:2).

From these verses, we can see that God knows we will sin. And has given us His Word to sanctify us. Sanctification is a process: As the believer walks in the Word of God and repents and confesses his sins, he will become a more and more sanctified vessel unto honor. However, we will never reach sinless perfection (experimentally) until heaven, though we are seen through the blood of Christ by God as perfect in Him (positionally) - 2 Cor 5:21, et.al. God knows that we will sin, which is why He gave us the Words found in First John (above)"

Slick said "The more sanctified we are, the more we care for others, the more we sacrifice for others, the more humble we are in our hearts, the more at peace we are with our lives, and the more we are like Christ in our character."

Claiming immediate Sanctification, without Justification, is an awful thought. That would devastate all of us since none of us would know if we are indeed saved until we die sinless. We are saved through Christ and strive to become perfect in Christ. Its not a light switch. Free choices are not eliminated in Justification.

Because of the work of Christ, and our connection to Him by faith, we have the right standing before God, and are declared blameless in God's sight. This is great comfort to the believer, because it means we will not have to face the wrath of God on the day of judgment. We are secure in Christ, and safe in Him.

Albertus Pieters in his book, Divine Lord and Savior, tells of a believer who was not well-educated, but who had a deep assurance of his salvation. Everyone called him, “Old Pete.” One day, while talking with Dr. Pieters, he said, “If God should take me to the very mouth of Hell, and say to me, 'In you go, Pete; here’s where you belong,' I would say to Him, 'That’s true, Lord, I do belong there. But if you make me go to Hell, Your dear Son, Jesus Christ, must go with me! He and I are now one, and we cannot be separated anymore.'"

Amen!

(click for clearer picture)

UPDATE: If the "body of Christ" is already sinless through the Holy Spirit then there is NO NEED FOR CHRIST, but only the Holy Spirit. Get it? We are JUSTIFIED in Christ. He PAID the price for our sinning, in full.

The professing Christians (two of them) have since blocked all communication as to not allow the truth to be heard and in my opinion they are no different then Michael Moore and his manipulation of truth, and facts, to make his viewpoint be heard. Shame on you both for running from the truth. They attempt to cause stumbling blocks for believers in their teachings and for that they should be ashamed. (1 Corinthians 8:13, 1 Peter 2:8, Romans 14, 1 Timothy 4:12, Romans 14:12, 1 Corinthians 8:9)


bit.ly/JustandSanct

Got Evidence?

What proof and evidence can you provide that shows atheism is accurate and correct?

Before someone comes at it with the approach of "It is simply the lack of a belief in the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural."

Remember what Pvblivs said:

Only when they are trying to transform it dishonestly into a catch-all category. Any definition that tries to portray infants, who cannot possibly make a decision on the matter, as atheists is dishonest. In all fairness, anyone trying to portray infants as Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu is equally dishonest. An atheist is someone who believes there are no gods.

Atheists will still slip up and say, for example that their belief could be wrong. And seriously, what would be your response if Christians started redefining "Christian" to mean "someone who lacks a belief that the Bible is fiction"?

Atheist--1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny god, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god"

Atheism--1587, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god".

Also there is no such thing as neutrality to a worldview. You have picked a side.

A youtuber said "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Buddhism and Jediism fall under the atheist category."