The Good News/The Bad News

[GodsGrace]

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this yet (I haven't read through the 20 pages of posts yet), but this is, I think, important to point out.

There is contradictions between the first part of your post, and the second part of the post.

The first part is Biblical. ANYONE can be saved from their lost state by belief in and obedience to Christ.

The second part is not Biblical. God does not select the "lucky ones" for salvation and banish the rest from Heaven on His whim. He could, and He makes it clear that He would be within His rights as creator to do so, but He has stated that He will base the eternal destiny of each soul on the actions of that soul during this life on Earth.

Hi Doug Brents...
Welcome to the Forum and also to this thread.

What you say above is absolutely true.
There is GREAT CONFLICT between what the bible states/teaches
and what Calvinists believe.

This thread is called Good News/Bad News to show that
God gives us the Good News....

But Calvinism gives us the Bad News.

Hope you join in.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't want to debate all your points, but the 1232 indian is the same as old testament saints.
Yes, Jews had the law and the promise of the Messiah, but Noah and Enoch has what?
They had faith in a God they believed was there but they could not see him.
No Law, no Messiah, no nothing.
Just a belief in a God and so they chose to worship and be obedient to him.
Enoch got to know God quite well I assume.
And Noah had no problems hearing God either.
So if a 1232 indian worshiping God through nature, I believe God would love him and save him.

Great point about the O.T.
:nod

I find it rather amazing that any person could state without the shadow of a doubt
who God would save and who God would not save.

Especially those, such as Fastfredy0 , who believe that God is sovereign, should understand
that God could do whatever he wishes to do.

God requires no help from us in deciding the salvation of a person.

God REVEALED Himself to the persons you mention....
and they replied YES to God....some even needed a little prompting.
A YES to God is what saves us.

I don't know what else would....
Ephesians 2:8 confirms that we are saved BY GRACE (the love of God)
through FAITH (when we come to believe in God - a heart belief) .

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

I'm not convinced the nature of grace is invented by denominations or theological streams. I understand historically that grace has been understood from the biblical text, a name was given to it, but the 'other side' saw holes in the original argument that needed to be 'plugged', thus giving grace another name.

I have no problem with use of irresistible grace and prevenient grace as long as the terms are defined - with biblical backing.

The church has had the same kind of process with formulating the term, Trinity, when regeneration happens, free will or no free will in salvation, etc.

My shopping, ironing lady comes today and I must make sure those goods are ready.:yes

Oz

I think the nature of grace is biblical and was not invented by denominations.

The problem with calling it irresistable and prevenient is this:
Not everyone understands prevenient grace the same way.
So half of the discussion goes toward trying to agree on what it means.

Irresistable grace if spoken of only in Calvinist circles and other Christians do not
agree that grace is irresistable....we all believe we can say no to God and resist His salvific grace...

I think TRINITY required an explanation and I believe all Christians understand what the TRINITY
entails....those that do not accept the Trinity are most probably not Christian.

Eternal security has been a debate forever, bringing works into the matter.
I can't think of much else....

If you can, let us know.

The ECFs did NOT believe in eternal security....
The ECFs did NOT believe in predestination....(I don't consider Augustine to be an ECF, he wrote in the 400's)
The ECFs believed in doing good works.

 

[GodsGrace]

Man was definitely responsible for Christ's murder (the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another).
That being said, Christ let them do it. John 10:18, Acts 5:30
Maybe semantics

Humanly, Christ was murdered.
But by stating the above, it sounds like Jesus' death was not preplanned by God...
and if anything was---it was certainly that; God had planned for the propitiation of our souls.
I know you don't mean what your post sounds like.....

 

[Fastfredy0]

Some Muslims are saved...
most are not.

Ah, that's interesting. Muslims by definition don't believe Jesus is God. The term shirk in Islam is used to refer to idolatry or polytheism, which means deification, or worship of deity, gods, or anything other than Allāh. As opposed to polytheism, Islam preaches strict monotheism embedded in tawḥīd (oneness of God). https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+muslim+shirk ... Its not possible for a muslim to commit shirk.
Thus, if you contend that "Some Muslims are Saved" the following must be true:
1) You don't have to believe Jesus is God to be saved
2) You don't have to worship Christ to be saved
3) You believe Allah and the Christian God are one and the same (or it is possible to worship another God and be saved.

Do you still contend that a muslim can be saved?
Which combination of (1), (2) or (3) is true?

If you don't answer, I will understand.

They are free to choose to serve God or to choose not to serve God.

One who has not heard of God cannot choose to serve what he does not know. Example: I cannot send greetings or serve the Emperor of the planet Krypton if I don't know him or what he wants. To think I can is irrational.

 

[jerry63935]

But what does one do when such doctrine is taught that is not found in scripture?
Are we to accept everything?

THIS ALL DEPENDS ON HOW WE LOOK AT IT. like you i dont agree with calvinism. then again i dont agree with the doctrine of the apostolic pentecostal aka oneness doctrine/ i dont agree with the catholic doctrine salvation through water baptism or going before man with confusion. what we are dealing with is interpretation .just like the age old debate eternal security vs no eternal security . i have studied this for years both side have valid points.. i cant answer your question. we disagree with it stand by what we know

 

[Fastfredy0]

those that do not accept the Trinity are most probably not Christian.

Some Muslims are saved...

These two statements of yours are contradictory. Which is it, or neither?

 

[jerry63935]

Do you still contend that a muslim can be saved?

absolutely if they come to Jesus

 

[Fastfredy0]

Humanly, Christ was murdered.
But by stating the above, it sounds like Jesus' death was not preplanned by God...
and if anything was---it was certainly that; God had planned for the propitiation of our souls.
I know you don't mean what your post sounds like.....

Man was definitely responsible for Christ's murder (the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another).
That being said, Christ let them do it. John 10:18, Acts 5:30
Maybe semantics

You misread my post. I did not comment one way or another as to whether Christ's death of planned.

Everything that occurs down to the electrons circling an atom was ordained (planned/predestined) by God in eternity.
Therefore, God planned for Judas to betray Christ, planned for Herod, planned for Pilot, yahda, yahda, yahda
Acts 2:23, Acts 4:27-28, Eph. 1:11 ...

 

[JLB]

JLB,

You don't see "love" in Rom 1:31 (NKJV) because you don't seem to know how to understand the etymology of words. What does the word heartless/unfeeling/unloving mean in this verse: "foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (ESV)?



Oz

I don’t see the word love in Romans 1:31 because it’s not there, sir.


without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Romans 1:31



JLB

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

You misread my post. I did not comment one way or another as to whether Christ's death of planned.

Everything that occurs down to the electrons circling an atom was ordained (planned/predestined) by God in eternity.
Therefore, God planned for Judas to betray Christ, planned for Herod, planned for Pilot, yahda, yahda, yahda
Acts 2:23, Acts 4:27-28, Eph. 1:11 ...

By God in eternity.
That explains a lot.

 

[OzSpen]

I think the nature of grace is biblical and was not invented by denominations.

The problem with calling it irresistable and prevenient is this:
Not everyone understands prevenient grace the same way.
So half of the discussion goes toward trying to agree on what it means.

Irresistable grace if spoken of only in Calvinist circles and other Christians do not
agree that grace is irresistable....we all believe we can say no to God and resist His salvific grace...

I think TRINITY required an explanation and I believe all Christians understand what the TRINITY
entails....those that do not accept the Trinity are most probably not Christian.

Eternal security has been a debate forever, bringing works into the matter.
I can't think of much else....

If you can, let us know.

The ECFs did NOT believe in eternal security....
The ECFs did NOT believe in predestination....(I don't consider Augustine to be an ECF, he wrote in the 400's)
The ECFs believed in doing good works.

wondering,

Where in the biblical text is the nature of grace defined?

Dr Google helped me locate the following:

Early Church Fathers (ECF) on eternal security:

• What Early Church Fathers Said about Eternal Security - Todd ...​

• What did the early church fathers have to say about “eternal security” or “assurance of salvation”

ECF on predestination:

• There is a very interesting article by Jacques More titled, "The Early Church Fathers and Predestination." Its first paragraph stated:

In a previous Article I wrote entitled THE MEANING OF ELECT - now a chapter in the book So you think you're chosen? - I made mention that "There is no record of a teaching of 'predestination of individuals' in the early church until Augustine came along. So for at least 300 years any such notion was not taught." The context of this remark was that anyone 'specially picked' or 'chosen out from others' was not a concept familiar to the first century christian. This helps to define the predestination discussed as unconditional predestination: a choosing by God in no way initially influenced by the chosen one, but in being prior to the existence of that person. This is what I mention as foreign prior to Augustine (395-43).

• This article has a comprehensive list of the early church fathers and direct quotes from their writings regarding predestination: "Did the Early Church Fathers Teach Calvinistic Doctrines?"

ECF on doing good works:

• Salvation from the Perspective of the Early Church Fathers ..​

• Early Church Fathers on Faith and Works - Practical Apologetics​

That should get you and other posters thinking.

Uh oh. There's a problem. They were early Bible teachers. Get it? Bible teachers.


Oz

 

[daninthelionsden]

what ever happened to who so ever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be SAVED ? do we really need a theology degree to understand Grace ? does it take a degree to be saved? NO

Discussions are good. Different viewpoints should be appreciated. Peter and Paul were polar opposites yet served the same Lord.

 

[jerry63935]

Different viewpoints should be appreciated.

you cant have a view point with fingers pointing wrong wrong wrong false teaching

 

[OzSpen]

you cant have a view point with fingers pointing wrong wrong wrong false teaching

Who taught you that absolute?

 

[OzSpen]

I don’t see the word love in Romans 1:31 because it’s not there, sir.

without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Romans 1:31

JLB

JLB,

What does the word, ἀστόργους, mean in Rom 1:31 (THGNT)?

Oz

 

[JLB]

JLB,

What does the word, ἀστόργους, mean in Rom 1:31 (THGNT)?

Oz

I don’t read Greek.

I read English.


without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Romans 1:31


Are you attempting to convince me that the word “unloving” somehow means loving by some measure of “explanation“?


If so, you just made my point.


And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. Romans 1:28-31


By reading the context, I can determine that the word “unloving”, falls into a category with other words such as...


unrighteousness,
wickedness,
greed,
evil;
full of envy,
murder,
strife,
deceit,
malice;
they are gossips,
slanderers,
haters of God,
insolent,
arrogant,
boastful,
inventors of evil,
disobedient to parents,
without understanding,
untrustworthy,
unloving,
unmerciful;

Therefore I can determine that unloving is not good.

Unloving = Evil; does not please God.

We should turn away from an unloving way of life.




JLB

 

[OzSpen]

I don’t see the word love in Romans 1:31 because it’s not there, sir.

without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Romans 1:31

JLB

JLB,

You made contradictory statements with these 2 lines. You claim the word "love" is "not there" in Rom 1:31. Then you quote the verse: "without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful".

What caused you to be blinded to the fact that the word, "unloving", includes the negative of "love". However, which word for "love" in "unloving" was used?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I don’t read Greek.

I read English.


without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Romans 1:31


Are you attempting to convince me that the word “unloving” somehow means loving by some measure of “explanation“?


If so, you just made my point.


And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. Romans 1:28-31


By reading the context, I can determine that the word “unloving”, falls into a category with other words such as...


unrighteousness,
wickedness,
greed,
evil;
full of envy,
murder,
strife,
deceit,
malice;
they are gossips,
slanderers,
haters of God,
insolent,
arrogant,
boastful,
inventors of evil,
disobedient to parents,
without understanding,
untrustworthy,
unloving,
unmerciful;

Therefore I can determine that unloving is not good.

Unloving = Evil; does not please God.

We should turn away from an unloving way of life.

JLB

JLB,

I'm asking you to do some exegesis of the word that leads to the translation as "unloving". Which Greek word is used for "love" and what kind of love is it?

Oz

 

[JLB]

JLB,

You made contradictory statements with these 2 lines. You claim the word "love" is "not there" in Rom 1:31. Then you quote the verse: "without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful".

What caused you to be blinded to the fact that the word, "unloving", includes the negative of "love". However, which word for "love" in "unloving" was used?

Oz

The context.