Results 1 - 20 of 47
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: reformedreader Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Election, Summary. | 1 Pet 1:2 | reformedreader | 7930 | ||
Nolan, Thank you for your response and explanation. May we continue with a need for more clarification and explanation? Who is it that is making this conscious choice? Is it the unbeliever or the believer? If it is the unbeliever, then his will is not free to make a conscious choice. And if his salvation is dependent upon his choice, then election cannot be separated from his choice and his ability to make that choice. This is where I see a contradiction. If God elects to salvation based only upon His own good pleasure, then the unbeliever’s choice both doesn’t exist and would be irrelevant if it did. Now, I do believe the believer makes a conscious “response” to God’s calling but his response is not a decision to receive or reject God’s calling but, rather, as a result of God’s calling. As stated before, Christ said whomever the Father calls, He (Christ) will raise that person to eternal life on the last day. If the Father calls all humans, then all humans will be raised to eternal life on the last day. And we both know that is not true that all humans will be raised to eternal life on the last day and we both know that choosing to be saved is not a condition our Lord placed in John 6:44. God’s foreknowledge of our actions (mental or physical) has no bearing on His electing us to salvation prior to our actions. That would be the contradiction. God elects solely on the basis of His own desire to please Himself. That is the doctrine of election. Salvation is the result of election. The two cannot be separated. We cannot have a doctrine for election and a different doctrine for salvation. They are as inseparable as the Trinity itself. God does not elect anyone on the basis of a foreseeable action on the part of man. If that were true, then God’s election is based on the actions of man and not on God’s own pleasure. Nolan, you are saying (even if unintentionally) that God acts upon the unbeliever’s action by your statement, “God elected people (before the beginning of the world) to salvation who He foreknew would of their own free will believe in Christ and persevere in the faith”. First, there is nothing in Eph. 1:4 that says anything at all about choosing to be saved as part of having been elected since before the foundation of the world. Second, there is nothing in the entire New Testament that says anything about salvation being the result of the unbeliever choosing to be saved. It were so, that action contradicts God electing to salvation on the basis of His own pleasure. You are saying that God elects to save because He knows who will use their free will to choose to be saved. So, if it is on the basis of the unbeliever’s free will choosing that God saves and since salvation is the result of election, it is only the natural course of this view to say that God elects to salvation on the basis of what He foresees the unbeliever doing. Can you show me where any scripture says anything at all about the unbeliever making choices in order to be saved. Again, you cannot separate election from salvation. My view of election to salvation is no different than my view on salvation by election. We simply cannot create antithetical views of election and salvation and I do agree that the doctrine of election is firmly entrenched in nothing but the personal pleasure of God. Since we both agree on that, I fail to see why you do not view salvation as the natural result of election instead of the result of the unbeliever’s actions. Sam Hughey |
||||||
2 | God's gospel or Man's gospel? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 7865 | ||
JVH0212, Thanks. Sometimes the silence speaks more than words. Sam Hughey |
||||||
3 | Salvation for children | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7838 | ||
Jim, Thanks for asking with such a kind spirit. The truth of the matter is that age has absolutely nothing at all to do with our salvation. John 6:44 clearly states that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him. Coming to the Son is the same as believing for the purpose of salvation, which is precisely why God calls in the first place, and is precisely what Isa. 55:11 states concerning the call (word,will) of God. It is also very important to note that Christ will also raise up on the last day (eternal resurrection of the just) those whom the Father calls for the purpose of receiving salvation. We cannot separate "those whom the Son will raise" from "those whom the Father calls". At what time in a person's life do they realize they are a sinner? Well, that can be debatable and perhaps the answer could be at most any age. However, just because a person understands they are a sinner does not imply they are being saved. The two are not necessarily the same. I knew I was a sinner as young as 16 but I was not saved until I was 38. Sam Hughey |
||||||
4 | Election, Summary. | 1 Pet 1:2 | reformedreader | 7832 | ||
Nolan, I appreciate your response Nolan, but I think some of your statements seem a bit confusing or even contradictory. Your summation seems to contradict everything you previously stated. Your statement, "God elected people to salvation who He foreknew would of their own free will believe in Christ and persevere in the faith" contradicts your previous statement, "I agree with you that man's choosing is not the cause and basis for election to salvation". Which is it? God elected us to salvation based either on His own pleasure or our choosing but it cannot be both. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly and unambiguously states that God foresaw anyone's alleged "free-will" decision and then on that basis elected (chose) to save us. This clearly contradicts Eph. 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:3. Neither of these verses say, imply, infer or even remotely suggests the will of the unbeliever is either free or has any determining factor in their salvation. Could you perhaps explain why you would insist on the unbeliever "causing" God to elect him on the basis of his willful decision? Thanks, Sam Hughey |
||||||
5 | Salvation for children | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7688 | ||
Nehemiah, There is no such biblical doctrine as people becoming of age in order to be saved. All of us are conceived in the image of Adam and from birth we are sinners and in need of the mercy of God for salvation if we are to receive eternal life. Sam Hughey |
||||||
6 | Election, Summary. | 1 Pet 1:2 | reformedreader | 7667 | ||
Nolan Keck, I must respectfully disagree with your statement, "God's prior knowledge of all things, based on His relation to them, is the basis of our election." 1 Peter 1:20 refers to the foreknowledge of Jesus Christ, not our election to salvation. Romans 8:29 does not say anything about election being based on foreknowledge. It only says that those whom God foreknew were predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son. It does not say on what basis God foreknew anyone or the relationship between foreknowing and electing. Romans 11:2 also does not say on what basis God foreknew anyone, only that He foreknew His people. The idea of electing to salvation those whom God foresaw would accept Him is not in Scripture. Actually, the basis for God electing anyone to salvation is clear from the following verses: Ephesians 1:5 "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will" 1 Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" Scripture clearly states that God elected to salvation, His people, whom He would call, based solely and entirely on God's own will and mercy that pleases Himself. It pleases God (or God pleases Himself) to elect a people He would call to receive salvation. If God elects on the basis of foreknowing who would accept Him, then election is based on man’s choosing and not foreknowledge. It would be man’s choosing that caused God to foreknow. Election would be a senseless act on the part of God since one’s salvation will be determined (not predetermined) on the basis of a willful action of the unbeliever at some time in the future. This view would place man’s choosing as the cause and basis for election to salvation and not what God says in both Eph. 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:3. God would only predestine (elect) as an after thought as a result of a human's choosing. The word predetermine must refer to an act prior to any action on the part of any other or it is not “pre”determined. Predestination refers to one's destiny (destination) and is foreknown by God simply because God is the one who predetermines one's destination. Sam Hughey |
||||||
7 | Salvation for children | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7569 | ||
Nehemiah, A covenant between you and God is something that must never be entered into lightly. It is a serious matter to make a vow to God. It is also highly commendable. The covenantal agreement you make with God is simply to raise your children in a Christian home where the atmosphere is always as Godly centered as possible. However, it doesn't stop at home, it only begins there. You are to be the priest of your family and take a position of personally instructing your children in Biblical theology and doctrine. You must take the lead in teaching them about God, His law and His love. You are also responsible for providing them with an academic education that is founded upon and immersed in Biblical theology and doctrine as well as academics. A proper Christian/Biblical worldview that brings honor to God that expands His kingdom is paramount for both home, culture and society. You are to be the Biblical example your children must see and hear every day of their lives. So, as you can see, there is a tremendous responsibility on the part of parents if they are to raise their children Biblically. Sam Hughey |
||||||
8 | Can I express my opinion? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7457 | ||
JVH0212, An excellent opinion. Sam Hughey |
||||||
9 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 6362 | ||
Nolan, I'm sorry to see you no longer desire to defend your beliefs or to refute Calvinism. I realize you won't respond to this but I would be less than honorable if I fail to respond to more of your false claims. Perhaps you did not understand anything I wrote or you just simply chose to ignore everything I wrote, but nowhere did I ever misquote you and after having believed what you believe for 9 years prior to my conversion to Reformed theology, I know quite well both how and why you view salvation as you do. I advise you to look again at both the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) and Eph. 4:25,29. Making light of your accusations and God's holy word will have consequences that will follow you in all that you say and do on this forum and elsewhere. It is a sin to falsley accuse someone and dishonorable to ridicule someone's biblical belief while refusing to acknowledge the plain and simple truth in God's holy word. I pray you at least reconsider your actions even if you no longer desire to discuss this issue. Sam Hughey |
||||||
10 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 6346 | ||
Part 2 to Nolan, To your statements; “Grace refers to salvation, kindness is a different thing” and “…you have to maintain that grace is universally available”, well, it is but that does not mean that all grace is universally salvific in nature. God’s grace bestows mercy on the godless as well as the godly just as He bestows wrath on the godly just as He does on the godless. You have erred in forcing the word “grace” to have reference only to salvation. John 1:14 states that Jesus was full of grace but that hardly refers to Jesus needing salvation, does it Nolan? Don’t force words to have only the meaning you want them to have. This is wrongly dividing the Word of God. Nolan, perhaps you need to heed your own adivce by your following statements to Reformer Joe; “Another missed point, you really must get back to context on Romans! Paul wrote Romans to those that were already saved. His references to 'elect' are to those who have FOLLOWED the 'Roman's road' to salvation”. Actually Nolan, what you call “Romans road” did not exist when Paul wrote this epistle. Don’t you think both God and Paul knew what they were writing? Since when do you think God needs 20th century slogans to save those whom He calls? In fact, the actual contextual recipients of Romans are those to whom God has called to receive salvation (v. 6,7). And, if Isa. 55:11 can escape your inclusionary opinions, then God means what He says and not what you want Him to be saying. If God calls an individual to receive salvation (which, by the way, no person can come to Christ unless they are called by the Father, John 6:44), then according to Isa. 55:11 God’s intent to save that person by calling him to receive salvation will be successfully accomplished. So, your statement, “God intends to save everyone but the failure is not His but belongs to the individual” is also false. If God’s intention is to save everyone, then everyone must be called by the Father for the purpose of receiving salvation according to Isa. 55:11 and John 6:44. John also states that whomever the Fathers calls, the Son will raise him up on the last day which refers to the eternal resurrection of those who are found in the Lamb’s book of life. There is absolutey nothing at all in either Isaiah or John that says anything at all about man choosing or the fault is man’s for not being saved. This is clearly an Arminian inclusion or insertion onto the text in order to self-justify a man-centered doctrine of a false gospel. If anyone preaches a gospel other than what John clearly and unambiguously states in verses 44, then one is preaching a false gospel. To your statement to Reformer Joe; “I hope that you can answer some of these flaws that I have shown about your Calvinistic beliefs”, perhaps Nolan, you would spend your time gaining a more correct understanding of Holy Scripture and Calvinistic theology. Reformer Joe has not consulted with me and he doesn’t need to. He merely relies on what God states without embellishing God’s word. Sam Hughey |
||||||
11 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 6345 | ||
Part 1 to Nolan, If I may be allowed to step into this discussion I would like to ask you a few questions in regards to your statements concerning your view of an age old Calvinistic opinion. Your statement, “…a person who is not 'elected' to salvation has no hope to repent and conversely the person who's election is predestined has no need to repent” is fraught with error and a lack of understanding of both the Bible and Calvinism. The doctrine of election is not a Calvinistic opinion, it is God’s holy word. Ephesians 1:3-6; "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." Election and Predestination are not inventions of men and they are not left to the notions or opinions of man’s will to determine or alter what God has stated to be true. If one rejects and denies these to Biblical doctrines then that person rejects and denies the truth of God’s holy word. To say that God is obligated to save anyone is false and greatly dishonors God and exalts one’s opinion above the holy word of God. If you are attempting to force your opinion of God being obligated to save anyone by Acts 10:34-43 then you have both failed to do so and have accomplished the reverse. These verse do not say anything at all about God’s obligation to man, it only states that all who believe receive the forgiveness of sins. To say that God is obligated in any way whatsoever to do anything at all for man, is to deny the sovereignty of God and to exalt the will of man above the throne of God. Perhaps you can produce a verse that actually states God has obligated Himself to save anyone and without forcing an opinion onto the text? To your statement; “Due to God's pure nature He cannot go back on His Word” I agree and so does Isa. 55:11; “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it” (NASB). “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereunto I sent it” (KJV). If God’s will, which is His Word, goes forth from His mouth to save all humans without exception, then God cannot go back on His Word and all humans must be saved since God’s Word will successfully accomplish the purpose for which God sent it, which is salvation. Notice Nolan that it is God who said He saves on the basis of pleasing Himself and not because He is obligated to sinful man. Do you agree or disagree that Isa. 55:11 is true and that God’s Word will always be successful in the matter in which God sent it? You are correct in that God is not a respector of persons, however, how you are attempting to use this term has nothing to do with what you call “free-will”, in fact, it states quite the opposite. Nolan, the very words you are using refute your own claim that God is obligated. If God is obligated, then He is a respector of persons for he owes something to us. However, John 1:13 clearly states in regard to salvation that man’s will has absolutely nothing to do with whom God saves. To your statement, “Is God just being "nice" by offering salvation or is that his plan for mankind?. First of all, God does not offer salvation as a choice to be made by the unbeliever who is still dead in his sins and I challenge you to produce any verses of holy scripture that actually make that claim. In addition, God states in Eph. 1:5; “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will (KJV) and He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will (NASB). Again, God predestined us to salvation according to the pleasure (kindness) of His own will and not ours. Sam Hughey Part 2 to follow: |
||||||
12 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6275 | ||
Reformer Joe, It would have been a little short-sighted on God's part to have declared He would destroy all flesh while wanting to save all flesh. God saved exactly whom He wanted to be saved. It would also be senseless on the part of God to have Noah try to "convince" people to be saved (for 120 years) knowing He would destroy all of them, would it not? How would the backyard Bible club respond to such a question? Sam Hughey |
||||||
13 | Halting short of faith in Christ. | Heb 6:4 | reformedreader | 6272 | ||
JVH0212, A very good explanation and understanding of verses that seem to give Christians trouble interpreting. Many believe "having been enlightened" and "tasted the heavenly gift" must refer to the (alleged) offer of salvation but this is not at all what the writer is referencing. Sam Hughey |
||||||
14 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6271 | ||
Reformer Joe, A very astute "theological" observation! Just think, the word "flesh", which refers to "humans", does not always refer to "all" flesh (humans). Sam Hughey |
||||||
15 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6270 | ||
prayon, I wasn't attempting to be critical of your spelling, I just wanted to point it out in case you hadn't noticed. My spelling is not always what it should be either. Assumptions can be dangerous, especially when assuming biblical theology on any given issue. This has permeated the church today to such an extent that learning scripture has been left to the theology of assumption and the doctrine of emotions. One may "assume" whatever "feels" right and therefore it becomes "biblical". No personal criticism is intended with this statement, only an observation of what is going on in the body of Christ today where a theological education is all but erased from many churches. Sam Hughey |
||||||
16 | The number one third? | Rev 8:7 | reformedreader | 6269 | ||
Ray, I greatly appreciate your response to an old question that remained unanswered by those who raised the idea. However, I feel as though the question is still not answered. This cannot be resolved by just simply adjourning to a favorite translation for you must remember these translations did not exist prior to 1600. So, what would you have recommended had you lived prior to 1600? If taken literally, this event would leave absolutely no grass anywhere on the entire planet. And if we take this literally, we must also assume real hail, fire and "blood" will fall from the skies? I find great, great difficulty in believing all the fire departments in the world could put out a fire that consumed one third of all the trees and one third of the entire planet as well as all the grass on the entire planet. Sam Hughey |
||||||
17 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6050 | ||
prayon, With all due respect sir, I think we know this to be true because God stated it to be a fact, not because we (allegedly) found the ark on the top of Mt. Arafat. (Arafat is the name of a Palestinian leader, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat) Although this did happen in the flesh, it is also a "type" of spiritual salvation. The ark represents Christ, Noah and his family representing the human race (literally), the waters have a unilateral meaning. Water was used to destroy and to cleanse, representing the washing of regeneration when the old man dies and the new man becomes alive. This is the Spirit's baptism, not a water baptism. The waters both destroyed and cleansed the earth and the waters never touched Noah and his family but by faith they were saved by the same waters that destroyed all other life. Sam Hughey |
||||||
18 | All names still in the book of life? | Rev 17:8 | reformedreader | 5618 | ||
camainc, While I’ve nothing against the right use of logic, I’ve found that all too often Christians do not rightly use logic when it comes to interpreting scripture. One example of this is when we take a verse that is clear, precise, distinct and directly to the point and then assume it says something not even found in the text or is blatantly contradictory to the text. Perhaps it is because a particular verse does not agree with one’s preconceived idea of what they believe. Nevertheless, if we ignore verses that leave no other conclusion than precisely what it states, then we can create our own truth and force scripture to mean whatever we want it to mean. To your statement: “(2) those that do not believe in and accept the free gift of salvation offered by the Father through the Son are destined to perish in the lake of fire”, I would disagree slightly but probably because of an insufficient explanation which could lead to a misunderstanding of scripture. It is true that one must believe, however, believing alone does not save anyone. The unclean spirits believe but also tremble in fear for they know their eternal fate. Many humans believe but never come to salvation. I never had any problem believing what the bible stated many years before I was saved but I was still an unbeliever. I would also disagree with salvation being a gift offered to the unbeliever and left to their own logic as to whether they want to be saved or not. The unbeliever is blinded by Satan so that he cannot see (understand) the glorious gospel. Therefore, logically speaking, the unbeliever is unable to understand the gospel and this is further supported by 2 Cor. 2:14. His logic is rendered useless and since John 1:12,13 clearly state that the unbeliever’s will has nothing to do with his salvation, we must rest on the clear passages of scripture that rule out salvation being an offer made to the unbeliever to exercise his will logically to decide if he wants to be saved. To your statement: “(3) believers’ names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation (I assume this means the creation) of the world, then one could presume that (4) unbelievers are destined for the Lake of Fire from the foundation of the world (Rev 20:15)” In the light of clear and unambiguous scripture, one can come to no other conclusion and I agree with you. Rev. 20:15 is clear, distinct, direct and to the point. Adding anything or changing anything this verse says only destroys the truth of what it says. To your statement: There is no verse that I know of that *explicitly* says that, but there are also no verses that *explicitly* say that God is triune. Perhaps not “explicitly” in word for word detail, however, the bible is replete with the doctrine of the trinity. One does not need a verse that literally states in word for word detail the trinity to be actual when there are hundreds of verses that very clearly lead a logically minded believer to be convinced of the trinity. To your statement: If one accepts the doctrine of predestination (and I don't know how you couldn't, with all of the verses that are very clear-cut on that), then you have to accept predestination to hell as well as to heaven. I agree but many do not. Many do not believe in what is called “double-predestination”. However, I have found they have trouble understanding it because of a faulty understanding of scripture. To your statement: How we reconcile predestination with John 3:16 is a mystery, and I don't think any of us will know how God in His infinite wisdom and grace works out the details of free-will vs. predestination (at least until we get into His Presence in our glorified state). Reconciling the two is not a mystery. With all due respect, NOT reconciling the two is a mystery, meaning I cannot understand why any believer would want the two to be contradictory when they are not. The basic problem with free-will theism is when it is placed at the wrong time and to the wrong person. The unbeliever has no free-will to decide if he wants to be saved according to the numerous verses mentioned above. However, many will completely ignore those verses and insist on the unbeliever being able to do what God says he cannot do. It is when the Holy Spirit circumcizes the heart, gives life, renews the will to become responsive to God’s calling that the believer’s will repents and believes. The will must be enabled to respond, repent and believe. Sam Hughey |
||||||
19 | All names still in the book of life? | Rev 17:8 | reformedreader | 5463 | ||
JVH, Thanks and no apology is necessary because I am not at all offended. Text only discussions often lead to misunderstanding because of its limited nature. Reply whenever you so desire and I greatly respect the man who takes time to reason his statements. Sam Hughey |
||||||
20 | All names still in the book of life? | Rev 17:8 | reformedreader | 5451 | ||
JVH0212, I think you might have misunderstood me just a bit. My post was rhetorical. I wasn't implying that Rev. 17:8 could be wrong but, rather, rhetorically speaking "since it is true" we must conclude something from my question. I most definitely do believe every verse of holy scripture to be true. I presented my question as I did because some Christians believe all humans were written into the book of life and upon reaching an age of accountability, they rejected Christ and were thus erased from the book of life. There are others who deny anyone was written into the book of life before creation because they reject the doctrine of predestination of the elect to salvation. The point is that if (since) “some” humans were written into the book of life before creation, they were obviously predestined (predetermined) to become saved at some time in history, else how could they have been written into the book of life before creation. melchizedekau asked the question, “when” was a person written into the book of life and that is primarily the reason for me asking what I asked and how I asked it. When you responded with Rev. 17:8, I only intended to draw out those who hold either view presented above and discuss why they believe so. If we reject the doctrine of predestination, how then could anyone have been written into the book of life before creation just as Rev. 17:8 states to be a fact? If we accept the doctrine of predestination, then what does that say about those who were/are not written into the book of life before creation? 1) a) All humans are born under the condemnation of sin (Rom 3:10, 23). b) Where does the Bible SAY that *any* or *all* are "*predestined* to the lake of fire?" 2) Nowhere in the Bible, including Rev 17:8, does it SAY that all humans were written into the book of life. I completely agree that “all” are under the condemnation of sin because none are righteous apart from the righteousness of God according to Romans 3:10. However, since Rev. 17:8 clearly states that some are predestined to be saved by the fact they were written into the book of life before creation, and since we know some are already in the grave waiting to face eternity in the lake of fire, we can only conclude they were not written into the book of life prior to creation. Therefore, it is quite obvious that they were predestined to spend eternity in the lake of fire which means I agree with you that not all humans were written into the book of life prior to creation. Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |