Results 701 - 720 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
701 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220031 | ||
Dodoy, Doc just gave you some very important stuff. Infact, he just pretty much nailed much of what I was going to write to you. I'm glad he did though because I think he did a better job of it than I would have. If you really do want to learn where you have been taught wrong, it has to begin with the doctrine of man. I suggest you slowly and thoroughly study what Doc has told you in this post, reading every verse quoted. What does scripture really say about who we are? What does it indicate about what we would choose if left to ourselves? This is not the end of what you need to know, but it is the bed rock on which the rest is built. I'm not sure there are many wrong views of salvation that don't have their errors first stemming from cracks in this foundation. On a side note, I still think you need to pursue what you mean by being saved from sin. You keep asserting that we are "saved from our sin." But what does that mean? Why do I need saved from my sin? The answer to that question is going to be important. Because the only reason I need saved from my sin, is because God is going to judge it. Therefore, to be saved from sin, is to be delivered from God's judgment on sin. But, focus not on that, but on what Doc wrote to you. That is where we have to start if you really do want to know where you've been taught wrong. Oh, and well said, Doc. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
702 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220055 | ||
Dodoy, Yes, that is absolutely what I mean. God's judging the world and judging sin is the same thing. When God say He is going to judge sin, that means He is going to judge the sinners. Judging sin means judging people. You can't seperate the two. The cross itself should be testimony to this. In order for God to judge the sin of a believer, He had to judge a person! And that judgment fell on our sinless Lord rather than ourselves. Had God been able to judge sin abstractly in some other way than judging people then our Lord died for no reason. But He did die for the sin of those who would receive Him through faith and repentance. So saved from sin, does indeed mean to be saved from the final judgment when God will throw sinful humanity into the lake of fire. Sin isn't what is going to destroy us in the end, a Holy God is going to destroy sinners in the end. This is what it means to be saved, even to be saved from sin. If there was not a judge going to judge me then me and sin would still be getting along wonderfully with no need of anybody to save either us. Also, with regard to the doctrine of man. Doc and I are not introducing a second topic without reason. Discovering where you are wrong has everything to do with what Doc posted. Once you understand what scripture teaches about who we are, then you are going to see how that condition is undone. The point being worked towards is that if any part of this is left to us then we will perish. All portions are entirely from God. Yet your view of salvation leaves all mankind, having had some assistance from God to get us started, no we are left to keep our own names from getting blotted out. To which we are trying to show you, the moment God leaves any part to you and I, we would all fall without exception. Should you then say that God chooses some to effectually work in them to succeed (phi 2:12,13), then you have created an interesting scenario. You say that all are saved from sin, but then God chooses to save some from God, and others He chooses not to save from God. Now, that last part certainly is scriptual. But then once again, you've rendered the idea of "being saved from sin" absolutely meaningless. The fact that Christ died for their sin in your view, has ultimately done not one thing for them, seeing as God has then left them to perish from further sin without the necessary grace to "overcome." What we say, is that it all is one continuous saving grace from beggining to end. Those whom He has saved from sin...and those whom He predestined, He also called, and those whom He called, He also justified, and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30) Now the meaning of justification is that we are declared inoccent from sin and stand in Christ's perfect righteousness before God. In other words, this is us being forgiven/saved from sin. Yet you are arguing that there are those who are justified, but they are not glorified. Even though we see clearly that all those he Justified, He also glorified. Which refers to our final ressurection and partaking of Christ's full likeness. I've given more in this post than I can probably reasonably expect somebody to process in one lump, but I'm trying to get you to see that we must look at the whole of it at once if you are to see your error. And so, we were beggining with the doctrine of Man. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
703 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220066 | ||
Light, Doc can certainly answer the question for himself, but I thought I might be able to help you understand it. Basically what the term boils down to, is the teaching that has been what Christians have principally believed throughout the time between Christ's birth and now. Now this isn't to suggest they all believed the same thing. But that on many doctrines any time somebody did disagree it was obvious that they were outside the traditional Christian teaching on the subject. The basically is referring to the teachings of the apostles, the early church, some of what the Catholic Church has believed especially during its earlier time depending on exactly where you want to see it to have begun and ended; then especially what was recovered through the protestant reformation and during the puritan era, all the way up to the last 100 or so years where we have seen such an unbelievable casting off of the old teachings of Christianity for everybody to decide what is right in their own eyes. You would be surprised how much substantial teachings were agreed upon during these time periods. At least agreed upon to the point that the ones that disagreed stood out pretty clearly. Now here is what the word gives us in practical terms. When you believe something that is heterodoxy (different from what Christians have always believed) then in order for you to be right, the entire history of Christian religion must have been wrong in order for you to be right. Now...I heartily agree that just because people have always believed something doesn't make it right. And orthodoxy is not an absolute proof of truth. I am a baptist. I believe that only professing believers should receive baptism, yet if you look at Christian history the vast majority has held to infant Baptism. So I do think sometimes the historical position of Christianity is wrong. (Thought I do not think the apostolic church baptised infants.) Yet at the same time our indipendent times lead us to another error. We need to think long and hard about how serious it is to hold to a heterodoxy opinion. You are saying that you alone have come upon some special wisdom that no soul throughout two thousand years of Christianity has figured out but you. You are saying that throughout all Christianity God has seen fit to leave His people in the dark on a subject, until your brilliance has cast light on what He has left hidden. Once again, I'm willing to weigh all views against scripture, but at the same time I think a man must grasp the seriousness of this. And it should be with great fear and trembling, and with expectations that we may be missunderstanding something that any man should disagree with the entire Christian history of thinkers, in which I assure you there were greater men than you and I applying their minds to such things. So in my opinion it is this practical implication of the word "orthodoxy" that makes it significant to us. I hope this helps. Save me if I've explained this poorly, Doc. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
704 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220068 | ||
Dodoy, I believe its time that I washed my hands of this discussion. Normally I would have known better but your personal profile made me believe you really wanted to learn. I can see now that is not true. At this point I could fully explain your view to another person. Because I've asked questions, listend, and tried to understand you. You have not done so with with my view. Let me address a few statements and then I'll not reply further. 1. You asked if I have scripture to support that judging sin is judging people. Isaiah 53:5 says, "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities." How is it that the judgment of our sin was the death of a person? And if the judgment of our sins was the death of a person what do you imagine it means when the sins of the world is judged? The rocks and trees? 2. You look for a text that says judging sins is the same as judging people? You might as well look for a text saying that the sky is blue. It is the assumption in every sacrifice made in the old testament when an animal takes the place and the sins of the people is placed upon it. 3. You said that Christ working in us is your defense to God leaving us to finish part of it, but you ignored the part of my post where I predicted that very response from you (because I was listening to you in other posts, trying to understand you.) Because then you must either say that God helps some effectively and others He does not, or once again His working in us gives us all partial help and then we must make up the difference. 4. You want scriptural proof that being saved from sin is to be saved from the lake of fire? My friend that is what all of Christianity has seen the text to plainly mean. Why are any thrown into the lake of fire if not for sin? Failing to overcome? 5. You claim that I need verses to back up such logic then you say "that because Christ came to save sinners, and since all are sinners therefore christ saved all?" Sir, there are children that could show you how short that logic falls. It would be like me saying that I went to the grocery store to buy food, and it is all food, therefore I came to buy all of it. Just because Christ came to save sinners, does not mean all sinners are saved. 6. Yet in all of this you still have not responded to what I think is the greatest hole in your thinking. You still have not explained what being saved from sin does mean to you. Your reasoning is that there are those who are justified and glorified who then perish in the lake of fire? You have robbed "saved" "justified" and "glorified" of any meaning whatsoever. What do these terms then mean if not what I am saying? To sum it up: You continue to cry out for verses to show you wrong, while what you are saying has gaping holes. And you say, do not show me the holes, rather refute the assertions I am making. Understand this, any heresy can make sense out of their favorite verses. It is the verses they DON'T want to discuss that shows them wrong. But I'm finished. The reason I began the discussion is no longer there. God bless you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
705 | Open Door,Rev.4:1-11 | Heb 10:19 | Beja | 224276 | ||
swill6ky, Jesus Christ. We are to reconcile this by understanding the remarkable price that was paid for such access. I wish I had time to preach a whole sermon to answer your question. Especially read Ephesians 2 as it answers your question in detail. Ephesians 2; Hebrews 10:19 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
706 | What day are we COMMANDED to gather? | Heb 10:25 | Beja | 220550 | ||
"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" Colossians 2:16,17 |
||||||
707 | What day are we COMMANDED to gather? | Heb 10:25 | Beja | 220593 | ||
Daughter, What translation are you using? I vastly prefer the NASB translation which accurately translates the greek conjunction (kata) into "in accordance with the commands and teachings of men." Meaning it is men teaching them to continue doing these things, not referring to whether or not they were found in the old testament scripture. Obviously I disagree with how you consider the context. Not only in the way I said above, but also some of the things he mentions are from the old testament, and some are not. Not marrying and harsh treatment of the body which follows the statement for example. What about circumcision in verses 12 and 13? He is clearly saying christ has ended any need for that. Even should you not agree here, the council in acts 15 makes it clear that there is no need for the gentile Christians to follow the ceremonial laws of moses, which include the festivals. Why? Because all these things pointed to Christ. I agree whole heartedly with John Calvin when he argues in the institutes that it was fit for these things to end with the comming of Christ lest we were unclear about to what they pointed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
708 | What day are we COMMANDED to gather? | Heb 10:25 | Beja | 220594 | ||
Daughter, Forgive one error in my last post. For some reason my mind leaped to 1 tim 4:3 while I was posting and the marriage statment I mentioned was from that. Doesn't affect the totality of the post but it was an error and needs to be admited. I'm not actually sure how to edit one of my posts or if you can. But since I'm posting again, I think even more relevent than what I said previously is the "Therefore" which begins col 2:16. The immediate context is verses 14 and 15(actually one sentence in the greek). "having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against uswhich was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross, when He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him." So the REASON that nobody can judge us with regards to a festival or sabbath (v16) is because Christ has but an end to the decrees which WERE PREVIOUSLY hostile to us, the old testament expectations in the law. Given this context, and given that verse 18 seems to move on from old testament things hostile to us, onto asceticism or things coming from visions, which in reality is the context for the human commands statement, it seems that context is clearly in favor of this being old testament festivals he refers to iin 16. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
709 | Watching tv or radio ministers church? | Heb 10:25 | Beja | 221550 | ||
Quizzy, Heb 10:25 is pretty clear. Also, consider the meaning of the word "church." It is actually the greek word that means assembly. For christian to just choose not to be involved in a church because they don't want to is sinful. Also it is a major red flag that they may not be saved. According to first john love of the brethren is a major sign of salvation or lack of salvation. However, you are speaking of one legitimate exception. If a person is physically so old or sick or injured that they are literally incapable, and they literally have no choice, then they are what we call "shut-ins." That's just the term my denomination has for them. These are people who should not be rebuked for not being there, but rather they call for extra care and attention. The church they are a member of should be doing something in whatever way to make them feel included in the life of the body of Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
710 | What exactly does this passage mean? | Heb 10:26 | Beja | 239300 | ||
Dr. Phill, I would express both some agreement and some disagreement with the answer you received from, Ed. In agreement I would say that for anybody to go on unrepentantly sinning in a willful fashion would be to place themselves in damnation. In disagreement both I and historical reformed theology would suggest that their behavior and ultimate fate demonstrates that they were never a "truly saved" individual. I think the author of Hebrews would agree with me on this assertion and I would direct you to Hebrews chapter 3 to demonstrate this. Hebrews 3:13,14 But encourage one another day after day, as long a it is still called "today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end. Let me point out a number of parallels with the passage you asked about. 1. Both have an exhortation that we push each other to not sin and both are grounded in ultimate consequences. In the passage I quoted it presses us to encourage one another so that we are not hardened by sin and then it gives a FOR clause. In the clause there is a fatal consequence of us not being united to Christ. I will talk more of that one later but for now, the parallel. In Hebrews 10 we see a command to stimulate each other to love and good deeds in the midst of assembling together and then the FOR clause. After this it expresses the contrast as to go on sinning willfully. In this chapter again there is a ultimate fatal consequence of not being covered by the sacrifice of Christ. 2. Another parallel: In both passages they are encouraging us to not only not sin, but also to hold fast to our confession concerning Christ. In chapter 10 this is in verse 23. In chapter three you will see this in both verse 12 and in the FOR clause of verse 14 itself. So I see a very strong parallel between the flow of thought in these two passages. Now lets look closely at Hebrews 3:14. It states that we "Have become participants in Christ" IF... This is very important that we see how this is structured. We have PAST TENSE, (its actually a perfect tense) become partakers of Christ IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance until the end. So he says that a past event really occurred if a future even is true. Namely we have past tense actually become united to Christ, if we go on holding fast to Christ in the future. So I argue, that in the mind of the author of Hebrews anybody who abandons Christ is demonstrating that they were never partakers of Christ to begin with. I think he has a consistent reasoning in chapter ten. Yes, to go on willfully sinning and rejecting his plea to hold fast to our confession of Christ(notice these two things are contrasts of each other), to do this would be to eternally jepordize our souls, but more than that, it is to show that we were never truly united to Christ in the first place. There are other places we could go to show this is the consistent testimony of scripture but I am more concerned to show you that the author of Hebrews himself is thinking this way. We must indeed hold fast to Christ and fight against sin in order to be saved, but all who truly belong to Christ will actually do so because God himself is working in them to bring it about. Philippians 2:12,13 ...work out your salvation in with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. This is the paradox of life as a Christian. We labor with all our might to take hold of holiness but it is only because of God that we first desire to, second strive to, and finally succeed in doing so. It is all of God, and because it is all of God, it is certain. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
711 | What exactly does this passage mean? | Heb 10:26 | Beja | 239302 | ||
Ed, I'm not for certain whether this post was meant to tag me or the original poster. If it was to me I will simply say that I standby my previous post. In Christ Beja |
||||||
712 | Is common law marriage acceptable | Heb 13:4 | Beja | 226786 | ||
Always searching the word, I can tell you from a pastor's perspective, and perhaps in general, one of the hardest questions to really answer well is one where we must first grant a context in which somebody is disobedient to God. Many times a Christian will ask what is right for them once they have already gone so far outside of God's will that things are hopelessly confused. This is one of those questions. You ask, given that a man is going to live with a woman for so many years that finally even the unbelievers accept them as married, does God now accept it? God forbid a believer ever reach the point that we need to find out! Where was the concern for God's will for the many past years? The problem boils down to this: the scriptures do not give us explinations for what we are to do while we are in the midst of ignoring all the other commands of God. This is why your question will be very difficult indeed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
713 | Divorce and drug abuse | 1 Peter | Beja | 240301 | ||
RitaAnn, Let me first say that I can not begin to imagine the difficulty of your situation and I have prayed for you. Second, I would say that you need to be faithfully committed to a sound local church where the elders may give you wise counsel from the scripture on the basis of both the word of God and knowing your situation more specifically that they may counsel you more accurately from the word of God. An internet forum with strangers, however much sympathy they might feel, is a poor substitute for these things. Third, I highly commend to you the book of 1 Peter as it gives a lot of thought to how a Christian is to react to a rightful authority wrongfully abusing its power. May God bless you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
714 | Divorce and drug abuse | 1 Peter | Beja | 240307 | ||
RitaAnn, May God bless you with spiritual wisdom for this. I will not continue this thread as I personally think talking through something like this would be quite a long discussion and I don't suspect a long counseling discussion is what the forum was meant for. Despite that, when you tell me that you are being counseled by your church leaders and in your words you are yet "so lost and confused about whether or not, I should terminate this marriage," I can not help but to worry if you are getting sound advice. If you wish to speak further about this you are welcome to e-mail me at jdobbins865@students.sbts.edu and we may talk further. But let me also say that getting spiritual advise from some stranger on the internet is a pretty silly notion. The forum works because we are discussing a specific text that is before each of us and discussing what it might mean. Should anyone tell me some weird interpretation I can look down at the text and see it is a bogus interpretation. Counseling is much more difficult via internet because you must analyze what is going on in a person's thinking, because the point is to get your thoughts and actions in line with scripture. You can rarely get a complete picture of somebody's thoughts and life when you have never met them. Plus YOU don't really know if my teaching is scriptural or if I'm some fringe heretic wanting to win you over to a cult. You can know two things about me. First, I am a southern baptist, with a strong reformed bent if that is helpful to you at all. Second, I am married and my wife will always be welcome to read any and all of my e-mails (and often does). All that said, if you wish to speak further on it with me in particular, you may e-mail me. Again, may God bless you with knowledge for obedience. And again, I commend 1 Peter to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
715 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224497 | ||
Setonahill, There are many places where scripture specifically sees the church and the gentiles included to be the fulfillment of promises made specifically to Israel. 1 Peter 2 quoting Hosea is one example. Another would be what James says in Acts 15. However perhaps the most clear example is Hebrew 8 quoting the new covenant, a covenant very specifically said that it was going to be made with Israel and Judah. This notion that all promises to Israel and Judah must necessarily exclude gentile believers and can not be fulfilled by what is happening in the church is basically the heart of the theology known as dispensationalism. In my opinion this thinking is demonstratably in opposition to what scripture teaches. If we are going to understand scripture, I believe that we must accept that the fulfillments of the promises are bigger than the actual promises themselves. Here is an example. Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. Now I challenge you to show me where Abraham was promised this. Paul is seeing the inheritance of all creation for those who are in Christ as fulfilling a smaller land promise to Abraham. So did God's promise to Abraham fail? Not at all, it is rather a much much bigger fulfillment that yet fulfills the promise. In the same way as this all the promises to Abraham and Israel and Judah all belong to Gentile believers who are in Christ, Abraham's seed. (Galatians 3.) Did God then lie to the Hebrew people? Absolutely not, they are still their promises too, only God has now through the grace in Christ Jesus extended those promises to be to all who trust in Christ. Rom 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, Gal 3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. Gal 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (that last one is in KJV because it draws out the same word is being used for seed/descendants) So once again we see the fulfillments are larger than the promises. Because what was promised to Abraham and Israel and Judah are extended to all those in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
716 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224499 | ||
Forum, Let me just jump the gun and respond to my own post and say that I happily call many many dispensationalists my brothers and sisters in Christ. Just incase it came across wrong I in no way see their doctrine as heresy or a fellowship dividing issue. I simply believe they are wrong about an issue that will cause them to missinterpret a great number of scriptures. The denomination which I am a pastor in is 99.9 percent dispensational if I had to guess. The 0.1 percent being the few I've gotten ahold of! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
717 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224500 | ||
Ariel Levin, Its not an issue of Hebrew Grammer, but rather of scripture and theology. I'm not trying to argue that Hosea was referring to gentiles but yes, he was referring to Israel. But is he making it anymore clear than Jeremiah did in chapter 31? He specifically said to the house of Israel and Judah. That's pretty clear. Yet still the fulfillment is in Christ and His Church, the new covenant. I'm sayin the old testament promises are specifically to Abraham, Israel, David, etc. But these promises through Christ become extended to a larger group than their original groups to whom they are promised. This is because Christ becomes the recipient of every promise, and through my being in Christ, I participate in these promise. In Christ! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
718 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224509 | ||
Tim, Yep. I would wager there are more we aren't thinking of as well. So to apply this to the original point which prompted me to bring this up, anybody who says that the promises made to Israel must not be applied to the gentiles in Christ, that we must not teach it and indeed it is even false teaching, they find themselves in the very awkward position of correcting the NT writers who say these things! For it is the new testament that does this. It is Paul who says it, not us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
719 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224512 | ||
Setonahill, Yes, I ofcourse was speaking with regards to something that came later in the thread rather than the question of the initial post. Sometimes threads do go astray from the original question. I hope you won't hold it against us. I do think your original question was a fair study question to ask. I skimmed over 1 Peter and I can't say that I can point to a verse which difinitively answers your question. I do think due to the quoting of Hosea 1, it removes the possibility of the corresponding verse in 1 Peter from being difinitive proof. All I can offer is my opinion with regards to your question. My opinion is simply that Peter is portraying the Church as the reconstitution of the people of God. This new people of God are looking forward to a heavenly inheritance/country and therefore in this current world are, wherever they are, are living as strangers and pilgrims. I think this is significant theme in his letter. Therefore given that I believe that I do not think he is writing to exclusively Jewish Christians but rather are he is using some very jewish/people of God language to describe all Christians both Jew and Gentile. The one place I can argue for this is in early chapter two when he describes this new people/temple being built on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Those who reject Christ have stumbled over the stumbling stone and in verse 8 he says that indeed to this they were appointed. Now those who reject Christ are doomed and this applies to both Jew and Gentile. Further those who receive Christ he says these receive the blessings and then he speaks to them in this manner. 1Pe 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; Now note that this is the exact language of Exodus which God speaks to the people of Israel to institute them as the people of God. Who does he apply it to here in 1 peter? To them who believe in this precious stone Jesus Christ, and we agree that that applies to all whether Jew or Gentile. So this new holy nation of God is composed of all believers of any and all nations and it are these who live now as aliens and strangers in the land. This is how I understand it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
720 | Did we have a choice about coming to God | 1 Pet 1:2 | Beja | 224726 | ||
ezoom, 1. First, lets think more in terms of belief rather than choice. Scripture says those who believe will be saved. This helps a person grasp the concept when they make this shift. You don't choose to accept or reject Christ so much as you either respond in belief/trust or respond with unbelief. To believe Christ is who He said He is and to trust on the finished work of Christ as opposed to our own righteousness in order to stand in the coming judgement is what it means to receive Christ. This is important because suddenly it makes the concept easier to grasp. I often have no "choice" in what I believe. I had somebody tell me something last night, which no matter how much I wanted to, I could not bring myself to believe I was being told the truth. On the other hand somebody could present a man with such evidence of something that no matter how much he wanted to pretend he didn't believe it, deep down he truely did. We are not ultimately masters of what we believe to be true or not true. 2.) God is the one who caused us to believe. We see in 2 Corinthians 4:1-6, that it is God who opens our eyes to the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Our response is to simply believe what He has shown us to be true! Here again we see God being the cause of us believing. Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." So God opens our eyes in such a way that we see sin for what it is, we see Jesus for who He is. After that whatever element of "choice" is involved is pretty automatic. In other words, once you see the real truth of it all it isn't much of a choice. To see Christ truely is to love and long for Christ. To see sin truely is to hate and be repulsed by it. So to answer your question: We had no choice in whether God opens our eyes to the truth of it all. After that our will freely and unavoidably embraces the gospel for life. So yes, you had free will, and yes it was unavoidable at the same time. This is because God changed what you desired by opening your eyes to the truth, then let you choose. I suppose I need not even say that there are many different views on this. I believe this one is faithful to scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ] Next > Last [40] >> |