The Fundamental Philosophical Identity of God.

God is love.

 

There is another side - reflected by the two covenants:

God is Holy (OT)
God is Love (NT)

 

God’s Law is the Administration of Condemnation and Death ON PEOPLE WHO DON’T “BELIEVE”.

Adapted from Gill:

ALL have Sinned,
and are ALL ARE Under
THE POWER of Sin.

ALL HUMAN BEINGS
ARE “CHILDREN of WRATH”,

Romans 1:18;
“For the Wrath of God
is Revealed from Heaven
against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men,
who hold the truth
in unrighteousness”;

Ephesians 2:3;
“Among whom also we all
had our behavior
in times past
in the lusts of our flesh,
fulfilling the desires of the flesh
and of the mind;
and were by nature
the children of wrath,
even as others.”

However, there are some particularly individuals described,
on whom this Wrath of God Comes,

and they are called
“children of disobedience”,
in Ephesians 5:5, 6;

“For this you know,
that no whoremonger,
nor unclean person,
nor covetous man,
who is an idolater,
has any inheritance
in the kingdom of Christ
and of God.

Let no man deceive you
with vain words:
for because of these things
Comes the Wrath of God
upon
the children of disobedience.”
*
These individual human beings
who are spoken of, by God,
as the “children of disobedience”,
consist of any naturally born souls of mankind who are disobedient to the light of nature, rebel against the light of nature revealed to them
and conclude that there is truth in unrighteousness,

And ARE THEY who are also disobedient
to the Law of God, break it,
and are convicted by It, as transgressors.

These individual “children of disobedience”,
are THE ONES whom God’s Law Pronounces Guilty.


God’s Law, then,
is the Administration of Condemnation
and Death to them.

These are individual human beings
who are disobedient to the Gospel of Christ,
they do not obey The truth,
but they Dbey unrighteousness,
and they are slaves to their sinful lusts and pleasures.


On these “children of disobedience”
comes Indignation and Wrath,
Tribulation and Anguish;
even on every soul of man that does evil,

& as in 2 Thessalonians 1:8;

“In flaming fire taking vengeance
on them that know not God,
and that obey not the Gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ”
*
And in Romans 2:8, 9;

“but to those who
are selfishly ambitious
and do not obey the truth,
but obey unrighteousness,
wrath and indignation.

There will be
tribulation and distress
for every soul of man
who does evil,
of the Jew first
and also of the Greek.”
*
These people DON’T BELIEVE.
And they are represented as unbelievers,

IN THE BIBLE:

“He that
believes not the Son,
will not see Life;
but the Wrath of God
Abides on him”:

 

OK, I’ll bite. You used the phrase "effectively deny.” How so?

 

You said, “Uncaused existence needs no God,” as if being critical, but without real explanation. And earlier you had said, “God is the uncaused existence.” I’m not really tracking you here. Sounds like trying to both have and eat your cake.

The argument I’m familiar with speaks of an uncaused cause, not uncaused existence. But in any case, no one starts a common ground argument with God. You are basically starting your argument in the middle or even far afield. That only works with those already there.

But ultimately, it seems you are confusing what is needed here. God needs no proof to exist. However, to believe in God, one needs reasonable evidence of existence and character. These are not at all the same.

 

But God being God, his own uncaused existence needs him. They are inseparable. Your statements are at best incomplete, but as presented contradict, which can cause all manner of confusion.

So you are saying God is both eternal and temporal. Sounds like heresy. Perhaps you meant to say God can act temporally? There is a difference, and it's enormous.

Again, that is confusing who God is in relation to who we are and how we can know anything of God. I believe in God, but his existence is not contingent on me or my belief. However, my belief in him is contingent on my existence, even though my existence is contingent on him. I realize my own existence before realizing God's and then believing in him. But that is the order of belief, not existence, which again are two entirely different things.

 

Precisely, meaning the statement "uncaused existence needs no God" is incorrect, thus should not have been made. Again, they are inseparable.

Assertion without proof does not make it true. On what grounds is the uncaused cause temporal? Acting temporally and being temporal are two entirely different things. Are you claiming God must himself change when he enacts changes? That would seem to contradict other statements you are making. Explain what you mean.

You have not yet established that your arguments can be made as you seem to think, or in the order you seem to want to be critical of traditional argument. Have you understood the basic points I made earlier about that?

 

Perhaps I'm beginning to understand what you are trying to do here, but can see no reason why someone unconvinced of the idea of God would buy into it at all, much less want to know how to know him. But if you have success with it, then please feel free. And who knows, perhaps I will encounter someone half convinced where such ideas might help.

However, I still must reject your criticisms of traditional arguments, which do not deny God at all, but rather point directly to him. They are made to reason with those who deny him. Again, there is a big difference.

 

Seems to me like this whole thing is a confusion of the epistemic with the ontological.

 

Do you believe God is transcendent, unbound by creation? Do you consider time a dimension, or something else entirely? Do you hold that time is created, or is time eternal, uncreated?

 

Space and time are created to hold sinners awaiting judgement

neither are in Heaven