Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | mark d seyler | 173738 | ||
I believe that the Bible teaches salvation to be contingent upon human response to God's offer. That God does all the work, that God initiates the process, but that man can refuse, preferring his own sin. I do not believe that God regenerates the unrepentant sinner, thus bringing about his repentance. I believe the Bible is quite clear about this, that salvation comes at regeneration, and that regeneration always follows repentance. Repentance is changing your mind, which is not a work, it is a choice. Choices are not works. I hope this is more clear. Thank you for your kind words. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
2 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | DocTrinsograce | 173762 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, The action of choosing is not a work? Then what actions are works? Well, we'll leave this interesting definition for now. Let's see if I am still misunderstanding. I amend my former summation as follows: You have described receiving, confession, and repentance in prior posts as prerequisites to God's salvific work. You have described these as human actions, but you do not believe that these actions are works. You have stated that God initiates the process, but that human beings conclude the process. These human acts must be performed before hand as a means of insuring regeneration -- which always follows these actions. Your choice of words (contingent, action, response, choice, preceding) were quite specific. Therefore, your doctrine asserts that a lost man (who is dead in sin) may choose to perform specific actions to intentionally and inevitably insure his own destruction, and the consequential birth of another: the new creature. Is this correct? In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | mark d seyler | 173858 | ||
Hi Doc, Defining “choice” as a work is strickly a denominational definition, and is not a Biblical definition. No matter how you spin this, these are only a portion of those Scriptures which tell us that God requires something from man BEFORE salvation: Mat 4:17 “From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, Repent! For the kingdom of Heaven has drawn near.” Repentance has been required of everyone from the beginning. Mat 11:20 “Then He began to reproach the cities in which most of His powerful acts had occurred, for they did not repent.” Those that did not repent are held responsible. They are not counted as “less responsible” than those that did repent. Mar 6:11-12 “And as many as will not receive you, nor hear from you, having gone out from there, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony to them. Truly I say to you, It will be more bearable for Sodom or Gomorrah in Judgment Day than for that city. And going out, they proclaimed that men should repent.” Their non-repentance is again their own fault, and they will be held responsible. Luk 13:3 “No, I say to you, But if you do not repent, you will all perish likewise.” Likewise. Notice what this does not say. It does not say “If you haven’t been elected, you will all perish.” Luk 16:30 “But he said, No, father Abraham, but if one should go from the dead to them, they will repent. 31 And he said to him, If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if one from the dead should rise.” Repentance is from hearing the Law and the Prophets. Jesus’ words, not mine. Act 3:19 “Therefore, repent, and convert, for the blotting out of your sins, so that times of refreshing may come from the face of the Lord,” Notice what this does say – “Repent . . . so that. . . “ There is simple cause and effect presented. Act 17:30 “Truly, then, God overlooking the times of ignorance, now strictly commands all men everywhere to repent,” 2Co 7:10 For the grief according to God works repentance to salvation, not to be regretted. But the grief of the world works death. Notice the order: Grief works repentance UNTO salvation. Not “regeneration” works repentence. Regeneration IS salvation, the new creation. It comes after repentance. I know that you will want to add “But you can only grieve after regeneration”, but that adds words that are not in the text. 2Pe 3:9 The Lord of the promise is not slow, as some deem slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not having purposed any to perish, but all to come to repentance. God wants all to come to repentance. Notice what this does NOT say: “not having purposed and OF THE ELECT to perish, but all OF THE ELECT to come to repentance. Act 11:14 who will speak words to you by which you and all your household will be saved. Not “words by which you and all your household will know that you have already been saved.” It just doesn’t say that. Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household. “And you will be” or “and you will have been”. What does the Bible actually SAY. Rom 10:9 Because if you confess the Lord Jesus with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. IF you confess, IF you believe, you WILL BE saved. God’s words, not mine! Rom 10:13 For everyone, "whoever may call on the name of the Lord will be saved." “Will be saved”. This is what it says, no matter how much you may want it read “has been saved”. 1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of truth. I do not deem it proper to add to the clear, plain teachings of these texts. I know that a great many people do, and that many will want to insert “having already been regenerated” in front of these verses, but its just not there. God wants all men to be saved, desires none to die in there sins, does not require mankind to become sinful to achieve His highest purpose, and offers salvation to all men, not in word only, but in actuality. The help He gives to one, to believe, to repent, to be saved, He would give to every man were they but willing. This is my assertion, but it is also the orthodox teaching of Scripture, and held as such by many millions of people, whom you consider to be wrong, but are simply reading Scripture the way that it is written. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
4 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | DocTrinsograce | 173862 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, Sorry... I accidently replied to my own post instead of yours... But I was thinking... You wrote, "This is my assertion, but it is also the orthodox teaching of Scripture, and held as such by many millions of people." However, you once wrote, "we know that the number of voices is not an indicator of truth." Is the latter no longer your position? If your understanding represents "the orthodox teaching of Scripture," please identify the historical documents that support that assertion. Are you thinking of the Canons of the Council of Trent? I mean no disrespect. I can list a number of creeds and confessions that would repudiate your assertion, and can provide them if you are interested. However, I'm not familiar with the documentation that would properly identify your views as orthodox. Popular, perhaps, but not orthodox. I'll not, however, take exception to your statistical claims. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | mark d seyler | 173865 | ||
Orthodox 1. Sound in opinion or doctrine, especially in religious doctrine; hence, holding the Christian faith; believing the doctrines taught in the Scriptures; - opposed to heretical and heterodox; as, an orthodox Christian. 2. According or congruous with the doctrines of Scripture, the creed of a church, the decree of a council, or the like; as, an orthodox opinion, book, etc. 3. Approved; conventional. He saluted me on both cheeks in the orthodox manner. --H. R. Haweis. Note: The term orthodox differs in its use among the various Christian communions. The Greek Church styles itself the 'Holy Orthodox Apostolic Church', regarding all other bodies of Christians as more or less heterodox. The Roman Catholic Church regards the Protestant churches as heterodox in many points. In the United States the term orthodox is frequently used with reference to divergent views on the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus it has been common to speak of the Trinitarian Congregational churches in distinction from the Unitarian, as Orthodox. The name is also applied to the conservative, in distinction from the 'liberal', or Hicksite, body in the Society of Friends. --Schaff-Herzog Encyc. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) I am using "orthodox" according to it's primary definition, as doctrine that is in agreement with the Scriptures. The "historical documents" are the books of the Bible. I am aware of the creeds you have mentioned many times, however, if they do not agree with Scripture, well, what can I say? My faith is not founded in the "creeds and confessions" of man, but rather comes from the pages of Scripture. I merely mention the numbers since you are so fond of citing all those who agree with your views. I merely wish to point out that there are many who disagree, not that that is in and of itself any sort of proof, or "garuantee of orthodoxy". Millions could publish millions of creeds, and those creeds could contain millions of errors. It is only the Word of God that is innerrant. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
6 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | DocTrinsograce | 173867 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, I still await the affirmation of my paraphrase of your doctrine. Meanwhile, thank you for the definition of orthodoxy. Haven't we been down this path before? I'm gratified that you're looking up the words -- the last definition I heard from you was that it had to do with Eastern Orthodoxy -- so it is helpful to take care to make a correction if you change your use of a word. Citing authority is a perfectly acceptable tool in rational debate. Would it be helpful for me to cite for you some of those who agree with you? I could do that... and it might be interesting. If I did so, though, some might get the wrong idea. There's a logical fallacy called "Guilt by Association." Please advise. Again, I look forward to the correction of my paraphrase. In Him, Doc |
||||||
7 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | mark d seyler | 173874 | ||
Hi Doc, If you wish to refresh yourself on my previous comments regarding the varied uses of Orthodox, or Orthodoxy, please see my post 172593, in which I mention four different ways different groups claim the title of "orthodox", the Greek Orthodox being only one of them. In that post I clarified my use of this term in the same was as my most recent post. I am not changing how I am using this word, my usage has remained the same, as the record will bear out. As for your "paraphrase of my doctrine", no, that is not an accurate representation of what I have written. And since you have not been interested in discussing the actual texts of the Scriptures I have posted, I am not really interested in discussing your paraphrase of "my doctrine". What it comes down to is what the Bible says. If you want to discuss this, let's stick to that. This post I am responding to is an easy example, you have claimed that I am changing what I am saying, yet I challenge you to go back to what I have written, and see if that is true. It is not. To tell you the truth, I'm not interested in either convincing you, or proving myself to you, only in presenting a Scriptural view of Salvation, which takes into account the dozens of Scriptures which your view would have us to say, "they say that, but they don't mean that." What we would not dream of doing ourselves some would ascribe to God, in not saving from the fire those who are within our power to save. Jesus said, "If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more your Father in heaven..." You would have us to believe that "You, being evil, would save the undeserving helpless from the flames, but God wouldn't." But God desires all to come to salvation, none to perish in their sins, and died for the sins of the world, because He loved the world. God saves the willing, and wills all to be saved. And don't worry, I don't think there is a person on this forum who would mistake us as being in agreement on this particular point. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
8 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | DocTrinsograce | 173886 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, I'm simply responding to some few of your replies to my own posts. I've not sought to draw you into polemic exchange. Indeed, I only pursue this question on the forum since it is the single venue in which you have chosen to respond to me at all. You say I've not accurately paraphrased your teaching. It would be helpful -- if you actually desire that it be properly understood -- if you would correct me. Would it make it easier if I numbered your assertions? (1) You have described receiving, confession, and repentance in prior posts as prerequisites to God's salvific work. (2) You have described these as human actions, but you do not believe that these actions are works. (3) You have stated that God initiates the process, but that human beings conclude the process. (4) These human acts must be performed before hand as a means of insuring regeneration -- which always follows these actions. (5) Your doctrine asserts that a lost man (who is dead in sin) may choose to perform specific actions to intentionally and inevitably (6) insure his own destruction, and (7) the consequential birth of another: the new creature. I'm only seeking to gain a consistent and clear statement of your soteriological beliefs. I've even taken pains to modify it as you have graciously offered a few corrections. It will form the basis from which I can ask further questions. Not in an effort to persuade you, but rather in an effort to fully satisfy my own curiosity. I apologize that such inquiry annoys you. If you do not wish to "dialogue" it is a very simple matter to refrain from replying to my posts. Certainly that is sometimes the more virtuous course. In Him, Doc |
||||||