C.H. Spurgeon

Sinners, let me address you with words of life; Jesus wants nothing from you, nothing whatsoever, nothing done, nothing felt; he gives both work and feeling. Ragged, penniless, just as you are, lost, forsaken, desolate, with no good feelings, and no good hopes, still Jesus comes to you, and in these words of pity he addresses you, "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."

Comment Policy: No profanity or blasphemy will be posted. You do not have to agree, but if you would like your comment posted, you will have to adhere to the policy.


Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

We Believe in God, But Pick What We Believe

This morning, while taking a look at a few articles regarding surveys dealing with religion among different generations, I can’t help but wonder if there is indeed a common strand which connects the results.

In the report Buddhist Tiger Woods may be as Christian as many Americans, the writer recalls the comments of Tiger from 1996, of which he said “I believe in Buddhism. Not every aspect, but most of it. So I take bits and pieces. I don't believe that human beings can achieve ultimate enlightenment, because humans have flaws." – and compares it to the line of modern day thinking from professing Christians, that it appears okay to mismatch ideals from within and without Christianity.

Such thoughts among confessing Believers makes itself apparent in that Some Presbyterians see salvation in non-Christian faiths, finding “that 36% of members disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: "Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved." Another 39%, or about two-fifths, agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.” As Perry Chang, administrator of the Presbyterian Panel, admits, "There seems to be some universalist streak in Presbyterianism, where some Presbyterians are open to the idea of other paths that folks in other faiths might be taking." And this is not merely among average pew sitters, for “More pastors disagreed (45%) than agreed (35%) and a majority of specialized clergy (60 percent) disagree.”

In claiming Young adults 'less religious,' not necessarily 'more secular', the survey seems to find “Millennials are significantly more likely than young adults in earlier generations to say they don't identify with any religious group.” The statics shows 53% trust God does exist, with 40% claiming to speak with Him daily in prayer, but a mere 18% actually attend church regularly (i.e. weekly).

Coming to the Survey: 72% of Millennials 'more spiritual than religious', we find 65% do not attend church, 67% don’t read their Bibles, and 38% seldom pray; which leads to the revelation that “Many are unsure Jesus is the only path to heaven: Half say yes, half no.” Of course, it is telling when we read “68% did not mention faith, religion or spirituality when asked what was "really important in life."” – “Even among those in the survey who "believe they will go to heaven because they have accepted Jesus Christ as savior."”

Anyone will attest that surveys may not be inclusive 100% of all persons or statics presented, but they are not without merit. In the above, we see (at least with those polled) that although there is a claim that God does exist, those same persons (% wise) do not find attendance in His house (i.e. Sunday School or Worship Service) to be equally essential, or the necessity to speak with Him in prayer and read His Word. Basically: belief without relationship. It would be like one claiming they know their parent(s) are alive, but they never (or seldom) call or visit them. That would not be considered a healthy family relationship. It would be an estranged one.

So, what is the common strand that seems to connect each of these – at least for me? Belief is not the same as faith and practice. James tells us (2:19) “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble,” and goes on to expose the reality that a claim of belief is not the same as an active faith in Christ which produces a lifestyle of Christianity. What I gather from the above links, along with many conversations I have had with persons I know and don’t know, is that many profess a belief in God, even having possibly “prayed the prayer” (finding eternal security in one act, establishing it as a work for salvation rather than it being of grace), but have no interest in reading and studying the Scriptures, or listening to it being expounded upon by a pastor or teacher.

It should not be surprising to notice an embrace of a pool of thoughts (when it comes to religion/spirituality), mixed from many realms of theology and ideology, when persons refuse (or fail to make time) to pray and seek the wisdom and discernment found in the Bible (by reading, studying, and hearing it preached and taught). Christians and non-Christians alike may fall prey to this, as we fail to give importance to God and His Word in active living. When we fail to ensure a faithful relationship with God through prayer, without a correct understanding and acceptance of His wisdom and authority through Scripture, and ignore an active faith in Christ following his lifestyle (all by the power of the Holy Spirit), we need to examine our estranged relationship, acknowledge we cannot simply create our own witches brew of truths, and repent by spending more time in the things of God (the one whom we claim to believe in, and whom will ultimately grant us eternal life).

If we have no time for God now, why should He grant us an eternal life with him? May we repent of our selfish lies, and embrace the truth at our very finger tips. Believing “I take bits and pieces” here and there is basically creating one’s on religion, inserting themselves in the place of God, and becoming their own final authority, which will not hold up in court at the Great White Throne Judgment.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Filling the Void

In a recent blog post, the writer suggests, by the title “Saying Goodbye to Your Imaginary Friend,” that persons should turn away from believing in God.

The claim is through childhood, children may easily develop beliefs that fictional characters and invisible friends are somewhat true, since their ability to perceive fact and fiction is greatly less than adults. Although, as a child grows and matures, they begin to see the line between fact and fiction in somewhat of a new light, realizing that some things they considered to be fact are but fictional, and some things they considered to be fiction are actually factual.

It is here that the writer would like to assume that Christianity is merely made of adults who are unable to say goodbye to childhood fantasy, without Filling the Void with another fantasy, namely a mythical being we call God. Interestingly, throughout time man has also filled science with cases of unexplainable fantasy, only to later replace fantasy with more fantasy, or sometimes even having to come to terms with the fact that they simply believed fictional thinking. Some may wish to claim that science merely corrects itself, and man continues to question it, but I can’t help but ponder is it all just Filling the Void of their childhood fantasies, as they say Christianity is.

It seems there is a failure to understand, in their own examples, how a doctor can both pray to God for wisdom and healing, but also use the technology God has allowed our generation to have. Why can one not accept it is completely acceptable for an Engineer to both use the proper tools to design and construct a building, as he also prays to God asking for wisdom and blessing upon his work? Why can the writer not understand, there need not be one without the other?

In closing the writer claims, “as adults, it is time for us to say goodbye to the remnants of a long-ago childhood, and embrace a godless, free-spirited future with logic, rationality and passion as our steering wheel.”

In questioning such a thought, I simply asked, “But what exactly do people turn to, when they turn away from God? It is not always "logic" or "rationality," for sometimes it is merely for a "passion" to do that which they know God has commanded not to.”

The writer’s response was, “This is a question I was faced with when I became an atheist. I guess everyone has to find an answer to fill in that void.

Some turn to sports, others turn to science, and depending on your passion, there is always something concrete to hold onto, till life ceases to exist no more.”

So, we have adults which turn away from God, which sent His Son Jesus Christ to forgive sinners of sin, to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, turning to sports, science, and to any other thing which fulfills the lusts of one’s passions. These things are not concrete, nor do they give one comfort in the moment of death, nor through times of struggle, hurt, or need. They are simply a temporal, man-made solution in hopes of Filling the Void. They are unable to fulfill mankind’s eternal need of Christ dwelling in us as Lord and Saviour.

Interestingly, one does not need to turn away from God to enjoy sports, or some of the things science has given us. There is also no reason to hold back one’s prayers and thanksgiving toward God, for what He has given us to enjoy and use to make our lives better. Physical man-made things, regardless of how grand they may appear, cannot fill the spiritual void within mankind’s being. To believe one can fill that gap with fleshly entertainment and wisdom is merely missing the mark, not Filling the Void. The void remains with a superficial covering which must be continually maintained and/or replaced with a new one.

Most, if honest, would confess that the point at which they turn their backs on God, is because they refuse to adhere to His Word: Loving the sin over the Savior. Denying sin as sin, merely acknowledging they may do some things wrong, people falsely believe they are removing themselves from their accountability to a holy, sinless God. Why deny one’s sins, when our great God has made provision through Christ, that it may be forgiven thee? Simply turn to God, repent of your sins, put faith in the work of Christ, whereby you may be saved and cleansed.

In salvation, one has Jesus Christ Filling the Void, for in turning one’s back on God, the void yet remains.

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Does One Really Wager Everything

Recently a blog posted their version of “Pascal's D--n Wager: Sidestepping Reason and Rational Thinking”.

They present the following:


To summarize, Pascal wager states two major suppositions:

1. If you believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

2. If you do not believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to hell, your loss is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.


They also posted this:


The mathematical calculations are as follows:

God exists (G)

God does not exist (~G)

Living as if God exists (B)

+∞ (heaven)

−N (none)

Living as if God does not exist (~B)

−∞ (hell)

−N (none)





The problem I found was with their assumptions. They have hence *amended their original post, in stating: “Mathematically speaking, using the parameters as set by Pascal, Pascal's Wager (based on playing on the safe side of belief) is a bet based pretty much on common sense and a great dose of pragmatism: Regardless whether God exists or not, you do not stand to lose everything.”

The original did not contain, “Mathematically speaking, using the parameters as set by Pascal.” Nevertheless, the idea of “Regardless whether God exists or not, you do not stand to lose everything” does not follow the reasoning behind, “Pascal wager states two major suppositions” presented by the blog author.

As posted at their blog, I present why I believe the statement, “Regardless whether God exists or not, you do not stand to lose everything” is without warrant, and against reason and logic concerning the presentation of Pascal’s Wager in their writing.



Based on Pascal's Wager, in fact, as you present it, you do have the "chance" that "your loss is infinite".
----------

1. If you believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

You don't believe in (1), so you don't get (i) and (ii) wouldn't matter. You are betting on (ii), hoping (i) isn't true. 1/1 50% wager, whereas a Christian is 100% either getting heaven or getting nothing.
----------

2. If You do not believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to hell, your loss is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

You do believe in (2), you definitely do not want (i), and (ii) wouldn't matter. You are betting on (ii), hoping (i) isn't true. 1/1 50% wager, whereas as a Christians gets 100% escaping hell or getting nothing.
----------

Basically you are wagering an eternity of hell ("your loss is infinite") on whether God exist or not, when you say, "You do not believe in God". So, in fact, "you [do] stand to lose everything".


* Originally wrote "corrected".

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Do Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe?

Recently I came across an article entitled, “Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe”. (Updated: 10 June 2004)

Dr. Walter L. Bradley claims, “My personal experience as a lecturer supports the growing openness to intelligent design theory in the academic world. Having given over 135 talks on this subject to more than 65,000 students and professors at over 65 major university campuses from 1986 to 2002, I have observed a dramatic change in audience receptivity to the idea that an intelligent designer of the universe may exist. I have noted a widespread acceptance (albeit begrudging in some quarters) that this growing body of scientific evidence demands an intellectually honest reckoning, as no exclusively naturalistic explanation seems capable of rising to the occasion.” (works sited)

Feel free to draw your own conclusions…

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Apologists Give 20 Arguments for the Existence of God

Located at Apologetics.com, there is a lengthy article entitled, Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God.

The claim is:
A word about the organization of the arguments. We have organized them into two basic groups: those which take their data from without--cosmological arguments--and those that take it from within--psychological arguments. The group of cosmological arguments begins with our versions of Aquinas's famous "five ways." These are not the simplest of the arguments, and therefore are not the most convincing to many people. Our order is not from the most to the least effective. The first argument, in particular, is quite abstract and difficult.

Not all the arguments are equally demonstrative. One (Pascal's Wager) is not an argument for God at all, but an argument for faith in God as a "wager." Another (the ontological argument) we regard as fundamentally flawed; yet we include it because it is very famous and influential, and may yet be saved by new formulations of it. Others (the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience and the common consent argument) claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. We have included them because they form a strong part of a cumulative case. We believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, demonstrate the existence of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes); but all twenty taken together, like twined rope, make a very strong case.

The arguments are:
1. The Argument from Change
2. The Argument from Efficient Causality
3. The Argument from Time and Contingency
4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
5. The Design Argument
6. The Kalam Argument
7. The Argument from Contingency
8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
9. The Argument from Miracles
10. The Argument from Consciousness
11. The Argument from Truth
12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
13. The Ontological Argument
14. The Moral Argument
15. The Argument from Conscience
16. The Argument from Desire.
17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
18. The Argument from Religious Experience
19. The Common Consent Argument
20. Pascal's Wager


Taken from "Handbook of Christian Apologetics" by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. © 1994 by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515-1426. www.ivpress.com

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

A Discussion of God/Christianity/Scripture with BT

Warning: This is lengthy.


Carried over from my posts here and here, we have the following from a commenter, named BT. BT’s comments shall be in red and my reply in green for this initial post. All commenters are welcome to freely give their thoughts. All I ask is that we try to stay to the topic without name calling and unnecessary verbal slurs, and try to show a little respect for each other’s view, even if we completely disagree. This is to be a discussion and not a war. Let it be noted that I am by no means a Bible Scholar, so what one will receive here is my honest beliefs. I would hope that is what we are given by each commenter.

Shall we agree, then, for the sake of a more focussed discussion, that we are discussing the Abrahamic god? (As an aside, if you have any insight into why that god is not referred to as the Mosaic or Adamic god I would genuinely appreciate your sharing it!)

I am not really sure, as to I don’t think I have ever called God, Abrahamic God. Scripture seems to say “God of Abraham” about 17 times, but it also has “God of Shem”, “God of Isaac”, “God of Nahor”, and it also says “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” a few times. Where do you usually hear this phrase? It could be that Abraham is noted as the father of us all in faith [Romans 4].

If you prefer we can even exclude (or not, your choice) the Islamic view of that shared deity; I don't know your background but I will freely admit that I am far less familiar with the Koran and Hadith than with the Torah, Talmud, Mishnah and Midrash, and less familiar with any of those than with the Christian versions of the Old and New Testaments.

There is no need to include, Allah, the god of the Muslims, because this god is not the same as the God of Scripture, nor do they see Jesus Christ as a Savior of mankind from sin.

Since we are agreed that the non-revelatory deist god is not relevant to our conversation, we have to speak of oral or written religious traditions. I don't think either of us is heir to a predominantly oral tradition; you are a Christian, and I am an atheist of Christian (specifically Roman Catholic) extraction.

Even where there are unwritten 'grace notes' such as the Catholic Assumption of Mary heading straight into Heaven, the Christian faith like its Judaic forebears is primarily based on a written scripture. The only question, especially if we're relying on translations, is which undeniable literal written word of God we're to go by.

Since I am Baptist, Scripture is our authority over oral tradition, therefore I find no support of a “Catholic Assumption of Mary” contained anywhere in Scripture, so I am a little unclear as why you write of it and include, “primarily based on a written scripture”.

I'm not a linguist or archaeologist either, and I'm only truly familiar with the English translations. My greatest lack is the gift of tongues, alas... I do have a number of English translations of the Holy Bible, though, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as several of the apocryphal gospels.

What I don't have is access to the mind of your god to let me know which translation to use. If you could please pray and ask your god which one we should work with I'd be grateful. Should your god have a preferred version I don't already own I'll be happy to purchase a copy so that we'll be conversing about the same text.

Just let me know which one you and He likes. Oh, and not to be forward or anything, but while you're discussing the subject I wonder if you'd suggest he actually straighten that issue out for everybody else as well? It certainly would help tone down the violence due to misunderstandings in a number of places around the world.

This is where I find more sarcasm than actual discussion. The study of translations and manuscripts evidence and Greek Texts, etc. is a very broad topic which covers much more information than I have in my limited knowledge of all that encompasses the topic. I have done some reading on the subject, but am far from being an expert of it. You are free to view my section on Bibles/Translations and I have other information on the side bar under “Variants of Silver?”. As for me, I use the King James Bible. What “violence due to misunderstandings in a number of places around the world” comes from Bible translations?

Where exactly are you going with this line of questioning? Or, what exactly are you asking of me?


From the other post, you had the following:

The characteristics normally ascribed to that god, alone - omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence - cannot logically exist together. Omnipotence is self-defeating; an omnipotent being cannot create a force which that same being cannot defeat, i.e. God can't make a rock so heavy even He can't lift it. Omniscience is incompatible with any power at all, because it includes the ability to foresee an action which can then be prevented, meaning the prophecy was invalid. Omnibenevolence, in conjunction with omnipotence and omniscience, is incompatible with the world containing needless suffering; a god which sees the suffering, is able to prevent it and does not do so is obviously not loving in any recognizable sense of the word, unless you are a particularly talented sado-masochist.

Omnipotence –Your question/statement, “God can't make a rock so heavy even He can't lift it.”

"What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess.”

Omniscience – Your problem, “incompatible with any power at all, because it includes the ability to foresee an action which can then be prevented, meaning the prophecy was invalid.”

I don’t quite follow your problem. Why does the ability to foresee an action, which can be prevented, invalidate prophecy? The ability to act in no way demands an act, does it? If so, why and/or how?

Omnibenevolence – Your problem, “in conjunction with omnipotence and omniscience, is incompatible with the world containing needless suffering; a god which sees the suffering, is able to prevent it and does not do so is obviously not loving in any recognizable sense of the word”.

Actually I had to look up this word, for I don’t believe I have ever heard it used before, so for the sake of others, the definition can be view here. I did find it interesting that it says, “As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.”

With that said, concerning your concern of a loving God, having the ability to see and stop suffering, but does not (at least not every time), how can God also be loving? Would that be a fair meaning of your question? Romans 8:28 says, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” Notice that it does not say, “all things are good”, but that “all things work together for good”. Notice it doesn’t say, “to the good of all”, but says, “for good to them that love God”. Yes, yes, I realize that bad things still happen to Christians. The issue is that it ultimately works out to their good and the good of others. One example is death. Death is the doorway for a Christian into a sinless, perfect, peace and rest without any sadness. It also moves others to consider their own souls and relationships with God and eternity, and how they interact with people each and everyday, etc.

I say suffering rather than evil because the doctrine of free will, which is the best answer theodicy has to offer, does not cover agentless suffering. In the specific case of the Abrahamic god, the distinction is largely superfluous, as most of the actions described as taken by the Abrahamic god in the sacred texts can only be described as deeply and directly malevolent. The unprevented agentless sufferings of humanity outside those texts are simply icing on the cake of disproving that notional omnibenevolence.

Freewill is a topic I usually find interesting, even when talking to Christians. One will argue freewill, demanding God allow mankind to make any and all decision in and of themselves without any (are merely initial or some influence by God toward salvation) direct persuading by God, yet when something bad happens (whatever each individual may deem as something bad enough God should have stopped) mankind demands that God should have withheld the freewill of the individual(s) which caused the incident to occur. Doesn’t that make us hypocritical? It is like saying, “Let me have my freewill, but limit their’s God.”

These are not new observations by any stretch of the imagination; the problem of suffering certainly predates Christianity and Islam, and probably Judaism but the archaeological record gets scarce that far back. Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians have been struggling to answer the paradoxes for near enough the entire time the faiths have existed, and have not yet been able to do so.

The inability to explain fully all or some of the paradoxes of Christianity in no way allows mankind to completely dismiss the clear teachings of Scripture and the observance of God Almighty as Creator. God has many attributes besides your mentioned, (Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnibenevolence) see here, and therefore they all work as one, not as individually contradicting each other. For example, God is love and merciful, but He is also holy and just. Scripture declares, God “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, but Scripture also declares that God punishes both the just and the unjust when we disobey. His love cannot override His holiness whereby He can accept sin. Christ is the atonement for sin, whereby one may be saved from unrighteousness unto righteousness.

In science, it is perfectly permissible for a theory not to explain everything; at this stage of our development it would be ludicrous to expect anything else. The best and most mature theories will explain an abundance of observable facts, and that is enough to make a theory credible but not useful; to be useful a theory must predict facts before they are demonstrated. A complaint many physicists have about string theory is that while it explains many things it has not yet provided any disprovable predictions. The theory of evolution by natural selection is an example of a theory which is both mature and useful, and not just for enraging creationists either.

What is not permissible is for a theory (or even a hypothesis) to be internally inconsistent or to directly fly in the face of the evidence. The technical term for a hypothesis that does that is false.

Why then are unexplainable paradoxes and/or full knowledge concerning God (the Superior Being, our Creator, which is high above the mental capacity of His creation) such a discount to Christianity, when you admit to the same issue with science? The lack of the ability to know all there is concerning God, in no way removes God, but simply acknowledges man’s finite intelligence of such matters. The Scriptures clearly give what we need to know of God and the Savior Jesus Christ for salvation. It completely gives saving knowledge, for the rest is just extra.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

God Gives Man the Ability to Create Artificial Limbs

It appears that some would have us believe that since our human limbs do not automatically regenerate themselves if severed from our bodies, or grow later if we are born without them, that this may be used as a proof there is no God, or that He is not all powerful, or that He isn’t loving.

I received the following post:
“Beast,
Science beats religion again:http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/scientists-give-a-helping-hand/2007/07/19/1184559904090.html Scientists invent most realistic replacement limb yet. And Tim, before you go saying "yes but god did that through them", then answer me why god has let all of the amputees to date suffer until now? Why not inspire someone to build this limb when the first arm was lost?” [MB]

In response to another comment given:
“"With God all things are possible".Alright then. Ask God to help amputees grow back lost limbs.If he can do that, I will go back to Church. No questions asked. Deal????” [BEAST]

First, I would like to say this is great technology that God has given man the ability to design and put into use. Secondly, I would like to say this technology in no way proves that God does not exist, that He is unable to do all things, or that He does not love.

1. Interestingly those that take the road of evolution as to the origins of life instead of creation by God cheer the mutation process which they believe evolves species as such, but don’t fault it with the lack of ability to reproduce human limbs, nor do they get mad when the same mutations refuse to allow a limb to grow with the baby as they develop in the womb. I realize that this is a most unsatisfactory answer, but if you don’t discount evolution because our severed and missing limbs do not replace themselves, there is no need to try and use this as a “proof” there is no God.

2. The ability of what God can do and what He chooses to do is completely different. By creating man perfect, God did more than He had too, and for sending His Son Jesus Christ to die for sin, so that His rebellious creation could one day live with Him for all eternity without sin was more than He had to do. God deserves glory and praise from us, if for nothing else giving us life (although He has given much more) and eternal life (which will far surpass this earthly life) through Jesus Christ. If man had been created with every ability to be equal with God, whereby we were able to never need God, how then would He be glorified and why would man honor Him? We would be prideful in our own works (as we still are most often) failing to realize that God Himself is all in all our Creator and maker of all that we think and do.

3. As far as love goes, simply because God has chosen to create mankind without the ability to regenerate missing, severed, or failing parts of our body does not mean He is without love. To speak of God without respecting what is written by and of Him in Scripture is merely a sign of the depravity of man refusing to accept God as He is and what He has said. God created man perfect and sinless, and it was man that chose to trust the words of another over God. By sin, all of creation is cursed and therefore suffers and is no longer perfect, but this does not mean God does not love, for He sent His Son Jesus Christ that those who by grace through faith trust in Him shall be saved and made whole for all eternity. This life is temporal and the love of God desires man to be sinless, spiritual, perfect, and whole to live with Him for all eternity, not to be a sinner, fleshly, imperfect, and continually having to regenerate our parts while living in this less than perfect world (not because of God, but because of sin against God). To say God does not love because He does not always give us everything we desire, is like a spoiled child in a supermarket.

Is this to say that I or any Christian knows all the mind of God? Far be it from our lips to utter such nonsense. Our inability to know, define, physically see, or scientifically prove God, in no way makes Him any less God. I realize this may upset some and may be unsatisfactory to others, but Truth is Truth whether we accept it or like it.

One may challenge God with amputees, but it does not discredit Him. For His wisdom far surpasses all the wisdom that man could ever grasp, though he could live a million years and steal the memories of all persons that ever were, man could not come to understand all that God is and knows. How many amputees have trusted in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, yet you who are whole deny Him with every breath. Why not ask them to share with you the testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ that lives within their being?

Denying that God exist because one refuses to submit to His authority is a sad thing, something not to be boastful about.

John Bunyan

To be saved is to be preserved in the faith to the end. 'He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.' (Mt. 24:13) Not that perseverance is an accident in Christianity, or a thing performed by human industry; they that are saved 'are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.' (1 Pet. 1: 3-6) But perseverance is absolutely necessary to the complete saving of the soul…. He that goeth to sea with a purpose to arrive at Spain, cannot arrive there if he be drowned by the way; wherefore perseverance is absolutely necessary to the saving of the soul.