Results 381 - 400 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214952 | ||
Dear Keily, You've provided me just the very thing to finally drag out exactly the difference in our view points. You said, "Interpreting Historically means simply that passages must be interpreted in the way the people would take them at the time the human author wrote them." I have spent most of my life in complete agreement with this statement. This statement leads to the views you hold, the assumptions I hold, lead to my particular views. You are exactly correct that the people at their time would have heard these promises to regard a national Israel. However, it is my belief, that the apostles, Jesus, and the new testament as a whole disagree with this. I believe those took all these promises and saw the fulfillment of these promises in Christ and in the Church. I hold to your statement in almost all areas of interpretation except the promises granted to Israel which I see as our promises in Christ. That is the heart of where we have been disagreeing the past several days. In my discussion with Val it has now become my task to give some specific support for why I say that is so. That will be coming if not today (two days of vacation left!) but I'll probably get around to it sooner than when I go home. As I said, its hard for me to look down on your view since all good sense and just an honest approach to scripture would certainly begin with such a view. I've just been convinced (rightly or wrongly) that scripture doesn't hold that view. And thank you for your explination, it sounds like we do hold the same view on salvation in the various times. In Love, Beja |
||||||
382 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214954 | ||
Dear Val, Alright, I've got a few in mind, but give me a bit to collect my thoughts on it. I think we are both in agreement that the author of the book of Hebrews in chapter 8 is stating that this "new covenant" is entirely a Christian covenant. It is the very New covenant that Christ's blood inaugerated in the gospels. Now, if we agree on this, next go back to Jeremiah chapter 31 and read about the promise that the new covenant was coming. And notice that this new covenant is explicitly promised to Israel and Judah. There is no mention of the gentiles in relation to this covenant. Now, how is it that the author of Hebrews sees this covenant as fulfilled in Christ, which is clearly a covenant made to all those in Christ, the church? This is just one example of what I'm talking about. The New Testament routinely takes the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament and claims them for the followers of Christ. My arguement in our discussion will be that these promises were always pointing to what was going to happen in Christ and in the Church. But at the time people could no have fully grasped what was going to take place. They couldn't have understood that God's national kingdom was always something that was meant to prefigure his Spiritual kingdom. This is the kingdom he referred to speaking to Pilate when he said that, My kingdom is not of this world." That was the intense confusion over his coming, they all thought He was going to begin a physical worldly kingdom, but the surprise was all along the prophets had meant the kingdom of Christianity, in which Christ even now sits as king enthroned at the right hand of the Father in heaven. That is the view I will be arguing, for now consider the Hebrews 8 new covenant in relation to Jeremiah 31. In Love, Beja In Love, Beja |
||||||
383 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 217267 | ||
I am resurrecting a long dead post here, but I do so because I left it promising to return with some scripture support for it, since then I have had deaths of friends, and abundant interruptions from my church. I've been very swamped and I apologize that I simply abandoned the thread when I had been asked some very fair questions. I had been in a discussion with Val, and a Keily if I recall correctly. Now I finally have just a bit of time and wish to go ahead and post some scriptures for consideration. The discussion was about dispensationalism and the idea that the Church is the true Isreal. What I'd like to put forward right now is an arguement from scriptre that the Church, not Israel, rightly claims the promises made to Abraham. These promises were two fold 1) Promises of Land 2)Promises to be the tool through which He blesses the whole world. For sake of time and space I leave you each to look up the verses I reference here. Here is the defense: Who receives the promises to Abraham? The Church or Israel? First, note that there were promises specifically to the nation of Israel concerning land, however these promises were conditional on their obedience, and they were fulfilled, then later lost through disobedience. Deut 30:16-20 Joshua 21:43-45 However, in Genesis there were unconditional eternal promises made to Abraham. These are the promises we are concerned with. Who were the unconditional promises made to? First we see that the promises to Abraham were made to him and to his seed. Gen 15:8 Gen 17:6-8 Gen 26:4 Gen 26:4 Gen 28:14 It is extremely importand to note that in every instance the word "seed" is singular, not plural. How does Paul interpret the promises in Genesis? Galatians 3:16 says that the "seed" that was being spoken of is Christ. In other words, the unconditional promises in Genesis are not promises to the nation of Israel, but the promises were made to Jesus Christ, according to Paul. Paul says that the law, including its conditional temporary land promises to Israel that are made throughout Exodus, Num, and Deut. were all temporary promises made while we were waiting for the one who owned the eternal promises. Galatians 3:19. If you then look at Galatians 3:22-29, especially verses 22,26-29. Paul then goes on to explain that to the extent that we are in Christ through faith, we join Christ as heirs of these promises. In verse 29 he actually says that "if you belong to Christ, the you are Abraham's SEED, heirs according to promise." Who was the promise made to? Abraham and his SEED, which paul has here explained, the seed is Christ and those who belong to Christ. So the great promises to Abraham belong to the church, not the nation of Israel. I hope this is helpful, In Christ, Beja |
||||||
384 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 217270 | ||
Doc, I almost did restart it, but I feared some would want to know what came before and would need the connection. There are many who believe that the Jews are destined to receive rewards outside of those which are to all believers through Christ by virtue of their being Jews. The argue that they have specially land promises coming especially, because they believe that the promises to Abraham are specifically to national Israel, not to all elect in Christ. It is this view that I am attempting to refute. So given that context I think the question is a fair one. But truely, in "church" I do mean all elect of all time, including those of Jewish decent. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
385 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 217287 | ||
Dear Val, I have no idea what I've said to offend you. Or to make you think I'm just interested in labeling people. If I recall when the conversation ended you had asked me to provide some scripture for the thoughts I had been forwarding? After some time, for which I apologized, I've come back with some scriptures laying out how Paul sees the promises to Abraham, and giving verses to show how scripture does not see them to "national Israel." I am seriously confused how the response I get is "We are just trying to study the bible and have been brought to a conclusion that you want to label and refute." Why did my presenting a scriptual arguement offend you? Why not just point out what was wrong with the scriptures I forwarded if they were off base? Also if what was offending you was my explination to Doc of what view I was arguing contrary to, then I'm not sure how that offended you either. Did I missrepresent the view? I was trying to give a fair explination of it and admitedly I might have failed since it is not my view that I was trying to explain. However, I thought I had explained it fairly. From your being upset I feel I got it wrong, but for what you said about God and Israel in your response I think I got it right. Regardless, I'm happy to let the discussion go if you wish, I only brought it back up because I've felt horrible this past month that I had said I would bring some scriptures and then failed to do so in how busy I got. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
386 | Law and Gospel | Gal 3:21 | Beja | 223268 | ||
(this will be in multiple posts as replies) Are the Law and Gospel contrary to each other? Many would suggest that if we are saved by grace through faith, and by means of the gospel, then therefore we must be utterly done with the law. It is either Law or Gospel/Faith. The two are contrary to one another. If we are under grace, or if we are under the Gospel, then we are completely through with the Law. Is this true? Are they contrary to each other? Gal 3:21,22 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. The “promises” of the gospel stated here are clearly a reference to the “Gospel.” We can affirm this based on Galatians 3:8. Which clearly state that through the promises to Abraham, God was declaring the gospel. So then, according to Paul the gospel and the Law are not contrary to each other. But we must pay careful attention to why they are not. And the answer is, because the Law was not given to impart life. If it had been, then righteousness would have been through the law, but it was not, and therefore righteousness does not come through the law. But rather the Scripture containing the Law, had instead the explicit purpose of shutting up every person under sin. And it shut them up under sin SO THAT the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. So we see that the intentions of the Law were not to impart life and result in two possible paths towards right standing with God, rather it was to convict all of sin and press them towards the promises of the gospel in which are found the one and only means of life and righteousness. What do we mean by the term Law? When we speak of the Law in this discussion, we do not refer to every cultural practice of national Israel. Things such as dietary restrictions, ceremonies, yearly festivals or civil laws are not in view in this discussion. These are all picture foreshadowing Christ. Col 2:16, 17 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. Rather, what we have in mind is the system of morality as depicted chiefly in the Ten Commandments. So then, the moral law of the old testament is not to be understood as contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. And the reason it is not to be understood as contrary, is that it is not offering itself as an alternative means to salvation, but rather a means of instructing and convicting us of our own sin and driving us to Christ. Once we stand under Grace, united to Christ by Faith, must we continue to live out the moral laws of the Old Testament? We can not treat this question fairly unless we divide it into two more clearly stated question. Question # 1: Must we follow the Old Testament Commands in order to receive justification? Question #2: Do the moral instructions of the Old Testament remain the expected conduct of believers? These are two totally different questions. And if we refuse to ask them as separate questions, we will continue to rush into error, and we will continue to struggle to understand scripture. Let question 1 be dealt with first. Must we follow the Old Testament Commands in order to receive justification? The answer to that is a firm no. Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. This is, of course, only one of many verses that can be quoted to affirm this. Question 2, “do the moral instructions of the Old Testament remain the expected conduct of believers?”, must be treated as a different question. One can not conclude that simply because something is not the means of justification that God does not in fact desire a believer to do it. I affirm, that the gospel implicitly instructs believers to follow righteousness as described in the moral laws of the Old Testament. |
||||||
387 | Law and Gospel | Gal 3:21 | Beja | 223269 | ||
(THIS IS PART 2, MAKE SURE YOU READ PART 1 FIRST) 1. There is an instruction of morality implicit to the gospel. 1Ti 1:8-11 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully ,realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. Lets examine this passage carefully. First, we see that Paul is specifically discussing the Law. Second, he says it is to restrain a variety of sins. Third, Paul states that these sins are contrary to sound teaching according to the glorious gospel. The law is used to restrain sins that are contrary to the gospel. Inherent to the gospel is a system of morality. This should not surprise us. The gospel is not merely about the means of salvation. The gospel also includes declaring the need for salvation. Inherent to the gospel message is that we are all sinners facing a coming day of judgment. And that we all stand guilty. We are guilty because we have gone against the Law of God. So inherent in the gospel message is the understanding that the moral Law of God, which is expressed in the Old Testament, is in fact something we should not transgress. We see this clearly because the Lawful use of the Law is to restrain sins that are contrary to the gospel. In other words, the sins that the Law restrains, are also sins that the gospel condemns. Lets see evidence of this from another passage. Eph 4:17-24 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Lets simplify this passage. Paul says: 1.) Do not continue to walk as the gentiles. 2.) You did not learn Christ this way. 3.) If you have been taught Christ, you were taught to put off the old self and put on the new. This is a powerful statement by Paul. It clearly states that there is an expectation of morality implicit in somebody learning Christ. Because the gospel is not only a means of salvation, it is also a statement of condemnation of all transgression against the Laws of God. Furthermore, the gospel is a call to repentance from transgressing the laws of God. What the Law forbids, the gospel condemns. To try and suggest that you can receive salvation and yet walk happily in the sin of the Gentiles is according to Paul “not to have learned Christ.” If you have learned Christ, you were also taught to put off such old sin and walk in a renewed life. Paul continues in this passage giving practical examples of putting off the old man and putting off the new. So let me summarize what we have found. The Gospel contains an implicit condemnation of sin, and instruction in morality. The notion of morality which the gospel forwards, is the morality of the Old Testament Law. 1.) What the law forbids, is what the Gospel itself condemns. 2.) The Law is not contrary to the Gospel. 3.) The moral Law of the Old Testament is still the expected morality of the New Testament. 4.) While the Law is not nor every will be a means to salvation, it is and will remain a means of instruction as to what is sin and what is righteousness. |
||||||
388 | Law and Gospel | Gal 3:21 | Beja | 223271 | ||
I do regret that none of the underlines, bold letters or italics carried over from microsoft word. They had helped very much to let a reader visually organize all of that. Oh well. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
389 | baptizem | Gal 5:19 | Beja | 226155 | ||
Shaul, There are a couple things in your post that concern me. Let me point out some of them. 1.) You seem to divorce faith and repentence from predestination. As if one could have faith and not be predestined. I get this from your saying, "If your Fathers Name was not Written in the Book of Life from the Foundations of the earth - his death bed acceptance is of no use." We can not divorce Book of Life/predestination thinking from faith and repentence. The two always go hand in hand. If one does not repent and have faith, their name is never in the book of life. If one does repent and have faith, their name is always in the book of life. Let me give a scripture to verify this. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth." Do you see here that salvation through believing is the thing being predestined? God has not only predestined the person to salvation, He has also predistined the means which is faith in the gospel. These must always be held together. So if this person received Christ through faith, then their name is indeed in the book of life. 2.) Where do you get the teaching that what Christ said to the theif on the Cross did NOT mean he was saved? Nowhere does scripture say anything of this sort so what has caused you to state it so confidently? 3.) And again, you ask if the Holy spirit can enter a person in the last few minutes of their life? What SPECIFIC scripture makes you think that He can not? 4.) Finally, I have much to object about your view of baptism but that would go far to long for a single post. But in short, this notion of flowing water being required is an error, and the notion that one can not be saved without it is an error. I do hope the person you were responding to will see your errors and not be troubled by them. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
390 | baptizem | Gal 5:19 | Beja | 226160 | ||
Shaul, I prefer to say that I believe in the perseverance of the saints rather than once saved always saved, because much of what people intend to mean by "once saved always saved" is very unbiblical. You are constructing very strange ideas from some vary sparse references in scripture. How is it that you have come up with the notion that to have your name written in the book of life means that you will be given the grace to have a chance to repent, but then rejecting that means that your name is then blotted out? It seems like you have built your entire soteriology upon some few verses in revelations while not considering the majority of scripture. 2. Again, you are constructed very wide notions of paridise, heaven and heavens of heavens from no scriptural supportt. What was the real substance in what Christ said was that the theif would be with HIM. Nowhere IN SCRIPTURE do we have any basis to believe that this means something else other than salvation, especially not the notion of some sort of holding facility where he would then be given a chance to decide his eternal fate. All caps in this post were meant to draw attention to emphasis, and not any loss of temper. You actually discussing these things and considering my points is refreshing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
391 | baptizem | Gal 5:19 | Beja | 226162 | ||
Shaul, I am a baptist pastor living in the southern states of USA. I understand scripture to be teaching basically a Calvinistic doctrine. However, I hesitate to say that because a great many things are assumed by that which a calvinist doesn't actually teach. However, I see we have at least some common ground in both believing in some sort of predistination, and we again also seem to agree that grace is needed for true faith and repentence. I can't see how it applies to this discussion, but I am an amillienialist. Also, though we don't necessarilly need to chase this point, I do not believe that one can be a believer of Jesus Christ and not be a Christian. Ephesians 2 and 3 establish very clearly that Jewish believers and Christian believers have been united in one body in Christ, and now there is no distinction. Anyways, I'm not sure what other information would be helpful. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
392 | baptizem | Gal 5:19 | Beja | 226170 | ||
Shaul, The particular brand of baptists from which I come do teach that most of the dramatic spiritual gifts are done away with. I drift a bit from my particular theological heritage in that regard. My understanding of 1 Cor 13 is that as the word of God becomes more abundant and accessable in a particular culture, the more "knowledge based gifts" fade away, oracles being replaced by study, exegisis and familiarity with the word of God. This is quite different from saying that they are gone. Rather in various cultures of the world they are all in the process of fading away although at different points in that process in different cultures. As far as the predistination goes, perhaps it will help if you think of them as predestined to reject or accept the gospel. As you seemed to have indicated in a previous post, nobody accepts Christ without the grace given them to do so (John 6). However, I believe when grace is given them to do so, it is grace that they actually do so. As Christ said, "All that the Father gives to me WILL come to me." That is John 6 also. I'd quote more specifically but my daughter is sitting in my lap watching me type so I can't grab my Bible. Anyways, I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
393 | The gift of tongues | Eph 1:1 | Beja | 226702 | ||
Crys, Brad has given you an excellent answer but I want to add my voice for the sake of emphasis. Not all believers speak in tongues. Orthodox Christianity has never taught any such thing to my knowledge. How could you need more than the scripture Brad quoted to you, 1 Cor 12:30? Paul very clearly teaches that not all Christians have this gift! If you read in detail that section of 1 Corinthians Paul explains that it is not even the most desirable gift by far! And in addition to that Paul lays out clearly that we are not to demand others to have our spiritual giftings. Second, if you take a look a the last chapter of Mark, could we not say that the things listed there are meant to Characterize what people will see in groups of believers as it spreads rather than individual Christians? Third, if you want to see the true marks of a Holy spirit filled Christian, read the first half of Romans chapter 8. The true marks of the Holy Spirit leading and indwelling you is putting to death the sinful desires of the flesh. Fourth, the book of 1 John is written to Christians so that they may be able to tell that they truely are born again believers and speaking in tongues is never even mentioned! Be very careful here, in fact, I would counsel you to flee this church and go to a sounder more scriptural church, however other than simply mentioning that I'll say no more as it goes a bit beyond the purpose of the forum which is merely to study the scriptures. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
394 | The gift of tongues | Eph 1:1 | Beja | 226717 | ||
EdB, I'd just like to point out, that most of these scriptures have nothing at all to do with speaking in tongues, though a couple do. Act 1:4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me; (I assume this one was meant to include verse 5, but it also has nothing to do with speaking in tongues. Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. Act 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. (To be fair, this one would deal with it if it was stretched to include verse 46.) Act 11:14 and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' (this is obviously referring to the gospel, not speaking in tongues.) Act 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. Luk 24:49 "And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." 1Co 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. As you can see, most of these have nothing to do with anything regarding speaking in tongues, and the ones which refer to speaking of tongues do not in any way teach a doctrine that all believers will do so, nor do they in any way teach a doctrine that speaking in tongues must precede any other gift. I simply want to post out these scriptures clearly, because it is easy to see a stream of simple verse numbers like that and think perhaps the statement holds weight because of ample scriptural testimony. However, I hope it is clear that there is very little to be found in that string of verses. As a side note, this is not meant to be in any way a rebuke to EdB. EdB's post was in the spirit of explination and was taken as such. Nor do I intend this post to be for the purpose of attacking any denomination. Rather I mean it for furthering the purpose of the forum by studying what scripture actually says. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
395 | 3 levels of Christianity as per Ephesian | Eph 1:3 | Beja | 228062 | ||
Soca, There are not three levels of Christianity in Ephesians. Everything is granted us from eternity in Christ (1:4), to be received in pledge upon our hearing and believing the truth (1:13,14) and climatically received in the ages to come (2:7). In fact, I would suggest that the notion that there are different categories of Christians to be completely contrary to the message of Ephesians. Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
396 | 3 levels of Christianity as per Ephesian | Eph 1:3 | Beja | 239449 | ||
Greetings Fares, To my knowledge there is no "3 levels" of Christianity in Ephesians nor in any other book. But as this question seems to keep getting asked I am terribly curious. Where is this question coming from? Who has told you that there are three levels to be found in the book of Ephesians? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
397 | Heaven or hell predetermined? | Eph 1:11 | Beja | 223111 | ||
Lightedsteps, Rom 11 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE." But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL." In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace There was a remnant. It specifically states it came to by through God's gracious choice. So specifically stated that God "chose" this remnant. Then it goes so far to say what the bases was for how God chose them. It was purely by grace. In other words it was not based on anything good which was in us or done by us whether in the past or forseen to be done in the future, but purely grace. Rom 9:10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. He gives an example of two children yet in the womb. Why does he choose this example? Because there is no way that these two could yet have done ANYTHING to earn God's favor yet. Same parents, same lineage, same everything, no deeds done. Yet God chooses one and not the other. Then he specifically asks if this is fair for God to do. Now if I was missunderstanding Paul, then this would be the perfect time for Paul to correct us all. Paul could have easily said, "Is it fair? NO you are missunderstanding me, I don't mean to say that God actually predestines in that sense!" But Paul didn't correct it. On the contrary he affirms that God has the right to choose one and reject the other based on nothing but his choice. Paul comes to the conclusion that God's sovereign choosing unto salvation is neither "ultimately" dependant on man's doing anything, or man's choosing/willing anything, but it is ultimately dependent on God who chooses to have mercy on some. Yet we would all scream out, "This isn't fair!" But isn't that exactly what Paul addresses next? Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? Look! He brings up our exact objection, is this fair for God to do? Once again, if we were missunderstanding Paul, then again here is his moment to correct us. He could have answered his own objection by simply saying, "No no, you missunderstand me, I'm not suggesting election/predestination/etc." But once again he doesn't do this but rather says, "Who are you to talk back to God!" He actually reaffirms that God does in fact have the right to do this. Look carefully at this verse in 2 Thess. 2Th 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Now, focus on the sentence structure what were we chosen for? We were chosen for salvation from the beginning through sanctification by the Spirit faith in the truth We were not simply chosen based on some forseen faith, we were chosen for that faith. We were chosen to be saved through faith. The defenses from scripture go on and on and on and on. I have long since come to realize that many people will not desire to believe in predestination. But please, lets not say there is nothing in the Scriptures to suggest it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
398 | Heaven or hell predetermined? | Eph 1:11 | Beja | 223123 | ||
Dear Lightedsteps, This was the phrase that I was responding to: "However even the Ephesians verses, do not speak of a remnant chosen by His own counsel, before creation, for salvation. As a matter of fact, I can't find anywhere in scripture where it does say what you have just espoused." You stated nowhere in scripture is this stated. In response to Romans chapter 11, after speaking of the Israelites in that time, he says that at the present time a there is also a remnant according to God's gracious choice. I believe that when Paul says at the present time, he does in fact mean at the present time. He is not suggesting that in the time around the writing of this letter there is a God chosen remnant, but in 2000ad there will not be a God chosen remnant. Yes he is speaking of Jews here, but do you mean to suggest that God does predestine Jews for salvation, but does not predestine gentiles? As I stated, I do not intend to convince you of election. I think trying to do so would likely be less than edifying and possibly in violation of the user agreement since we agree not to argue about any issue that is knowingly devisive. People may disagree whether this topic fits that description. But what I do intend to accomplish is to not let the above quote go uncorrected. If people choose not to believe in election it does not mean that they should pretend there is no scriptural basis for it. I whole heartedly believe nobody can loose their salvation, but I don't treat lightly those who do. Why? Because there are a lot of passages that, in the absence of a lot of scripture restraining our interpretation, can in fact strongly lead us to that conclusion. The truth is the amount of scripture that indicates God chooses from the foundation of the world, individuals whom he will effectually bring about the salvation of while he passes over others is overwhelming. I do not intend to argue whether it is in the verses quoted by Doc, but simply to address the suggestion that it is nowhere to be found. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
399 | Heaven or hell predetermined? | Eph 1:11 | Beja | 223159 | ||
Lightedsteps, I'm not sure what the confusion is, brad simply stated: Scripture does speak of god CHOOSING US according to the intentions of his good will. Then he posted these two verses. Ephesians 1:4,5 According as He has CHOSEN US....according to the GOOD PLEASURE OF HIS WILL. I'm not sure what the confusion is? Brad made a clear concise statement, and then posted a passage that said EXACTLY what he said. I must very much be missing what the difficulty is over. You might argue wha those words mean, but how can you say they weren't directly applying to what he said? Again, maybe I missed something. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
400 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223831 | ||
clsx2, Let's not forget that the very same man who was speaking in acts 2, Peter, later clarified that when he indicates baptism saves he does NOT refer to the actual act of baptism but rather what it represents which is the appeal to God for a good conscience on the basis of Jesus Christ (Faith.) See 1 Peter 3:21,22. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [26] >> |