6,319 comments posted · 87 followers · following 1
Presumably the point of both laws is to symbolically reinforce the idea of not admixing the culture, worship practices, and ethics of the elect people with those of outsiders who do not worship the true God. If so, why did it become unnecessary (or, if it had some other reason, why did that reason cease to apply?)? Are these rules part of the moral, civic, or ceremonial law, and how does one tell?
This is explicitly the strong Calvinist position: God sovereignly declares who will repent and convert, and who will remain in rebellion and sin and be damned, without regard for any human action or choice, but He still commands believers to spread the gospel. Whether Marianne is a strong Calvinist or has simply converged on a similar position through a different path I cannot say. I do think she would have come across as more gracious and loving if she'd just noted that Ray nowhere hinted at the answer she offers and hence a legitimate question remained after his post.
That being said, however, doesn't this imply that you are wrong to equate evolutionary (whether cosmic, geological, or biological) ideas with "atheism?" Evolution is an idea about the diversity and complexity of life; it is not an idea about the Bible or prayer or God.
 Everyone since Adam and Eve is born with a "sin nature" that makes it impossible for them not to sin. This in itself is hard to square simultaneously with the propositions that God is omnipotent and that He desires that all shall be saved (since the first implies that He could cause Adam's descendants to be born without a sin nature and the second implies that He would if He could), but the point for purposes of this discussion is that everyone will be damned who is not saved by Jesus' sacrifice.
[2a] God has determined to extend the saving message of the gospel through the mechanism of preaching by fallible, foolish-seeming men (this was the point of your previous post). All people (excepting those who are not accountable by reason of tender years or feeble minds) will be damned who do not accept the gospel, repent, and convert.
[2b] Strictly speaking, the above does not rule out the possibility that God will also use some other mechanism to extend the gospel message to places that missionaries have not reached. You should probably address this point in more detail.
 Putting aside the admittedly important caveat in 2b, this means that all who have not heard of Jesus will be damned, which is pretty much equivalent to saying that they will be damned because they haven't heard of Jesus. Considering, again, that an omnipotent God could raise up prophets and apostles in the interior of Papua New Guinea or the Andes in the first century as easily as He could in Jerusalem or Antioch, this rather raises the question of why He didn't.
The existence of obvious problems and contradictions within a message (e.g. the above-noted juxtaposition of the propositions that God desires that all be saved, that God could make it easier for all to be saved, and that God has not made it easier for all to be saved) raises questions of whether the message is true. It is unreasonable to ask us to put aside questions of whether your message makes sense and just accept it before we worry about the problems inherent in it.
To reason from Paul's assertion in 1 Corinthians (which referred to his unfashionable method more than to the vessel that delivered it) to the conclusion that you are actually speaking for God just because a lot of people think you're foolish is to affirm the consequent, a formal logical fallacy (which just makes you look foolish, of course, which does not establish that you actually speak for God).
Also, just because Clint Barton, in Avengers: Age of Ultron, notes that it's kind of silly to be fighting the robot apocalypse with a bow and arrow, that doesn't mean it stops being kind of silly. By the same token, when Paul notes that many people find his message foolish, Paul doesn't actually prove that it is in fact wise and true.
It seems to me something of a stretch to assume that if Paul alludes to one phrase or passage in Isaiah (especially if he expands on it), that he means to imply every other phrase in its vicinity, but perhaps he did mean to do so. I note that "enduring states" are not necessarily "eternal states," and that being "put to shame" does not mean quite the same thing as "tossed into eternal hellfire without hope of reprieve or even of cessation of existence. One might be put to shame and then be obliterated; one might even be forgiven, eventually. I still think you are reading more into the text than the text in fact says.