A Non Elect Person Saved

[kyredneck]

I believe the Jews are the elect, the chosen.
...

...and Doc and millions other Zionist Jews love you for that.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

...and Doc and millions other Zionist Jews love you for that.

They love your money and political/military support more. Kindly send any & all gifts and offerings to......:smilewinkgrin:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Ach,

wrong again..





5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.



42 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

5 And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.

6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel:[B] I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.[/B]

You are confusing the mission of Israel with the remnant of Israel. Where does it say that "preserved OF ISRAEL" is anyone in the church? It doesn't. The preserved of Israel will be shown in the tribulation. You can not get around the fact the beginning with the 144,000 of the tribes of ISRAEL, all with Hebrew names from the literal tribes of Israel mean......ISRAEL.

It says raise up the TRIBES of Jacob. Since when did the church ever have tribes? Why does it say that Israel will be His salvation unto the end of the earth? Because Israel will be the last evangelistic body the world sees. Revelation is perfectly clear about this.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Part 1

.

In the example you gave of the woman who washed Jesus's feet with her tears, He specifically tells her that her sins are forgiven.The text says nothing of the kind. Jesus did acknowledge her great faith and gave her the desire of her heart, which wasn't salvation, but healing for her daughter.

Again you are missing the point. I did not use the verse to prove a usage of "your sins are forgiven" but to show that your reasoning for why the Syro-Phoenician woman really wanted help is erroneous. You are relying on her REASONS as being a justification for nullifying her salvation, and the woman who wiped Jesus' feet, as well as the one healed in Mark 2 are examples that the REASON was not specific in those texts, and if a man was saved simply because he came to Christ for HEALING, you can not use the woman's reasoning as evidence of her heart condition and then affirm that her same reasoning confirms the salvation of others who had the exact same reasoning.

It is therefore logical to conclude that Christ forgave her sins even if her reasoning was for her daughter's healing because Jesus forgave others for the exact same reason. You are attempting to disprove something by arguing from silence. In that sense, Jesus never said she WASN'T saved either, or that her sins were NOT forgiven. So if you want to argue from silence, it works both ways.

The title "Lord" can simply mean "Sir", and is not necessarily an acclamation of divinity. You are misunderstanding the passage, IMHO. Paul is not saying a person cannot utter the word "Lord" to Jesus unless they are saved which is apparently what you believe it means. If that were true, it would contradict other scripture... such as Matt. 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord", will enter the kingdom of heaven....." or Matt. 25:44-46 "Then they themselves also will answer, saying, Lord, when did we see You hungry.....(46) And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Then when do you pick and choose when it means Lord, and when it means "sir"? You can't just conveniently cherry pick the usage of that term without knowing the rules of when it applies. This woman was from Canaan and a Syro Phoenician which meant she spoke Aramaic. She would have been saying "Lord" when using it in the context of worshiping Him, not 'Sir'. In this passage, kurious was not used in the form of a greeting, but in acknowledging that he was the Messiah from the line of David.

And you seem to want to isolate each tenet that I have used instead of looking at all of the evidence for this woman's salvation with the context as a whole. A person that simply says "Lord" of course not. But this woman did not just simply say "Lord", she followed it up by worshiping him.

This is a major difference between what she said, and what was said by those Jesus rejected in Matthew 7 and 25. None of the subjects in those passages demonstrated "great faith", showed humility, or worshiped Christ. You conveniently left out of Matthew 7:21 "..but he that doeth the will of my father".

I Cor. 12:3 is a statement of the inability of man to come to Christ unless Holy Spirit intervenes, not that every person uttering the title "lord" to Jesus is saved. The difference between Mark 2:1-7 and Matt. 15 is that in Mark 2, Jesus specifically tells the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven."You have not shown me any examples of people being saved without the words "your sins are forgiven", or "your faith as made you well" or "your faith has saved you" or some other specific reference to forgiveness of sins or salvation

.

That is an erroneous presumption because it is not possible to show a verse of a healed person that was saved without the words "your sins are forgiven" because that is the very criteria you are assuming proves that they were saved. If I showed you a verse where Jesus healed a person, but did not say they were saved, you would then claim that that person is not saved because Jesus never said the words. That is classic circular reasoning.

Mark 10:46-48, when Jesus healed Bartimaeus, Jesus said "thy faith hath made thee whole". So does that mean his sins were not forgiven? Jesus never specifically said, "your sins are forgiven"

. I can show you where Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles (John 20:22). Can you show me where Holy Spirit was given to the woman?I can show you were Stephen had Holy Spirit. Acts 6:5 "...and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit." and 7:55 "But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;" I'm not trying to "prove" anybody is saved. I want to understand the passage in the context it is written and not to bring anything to the text that isn't there.

DO you see what you just did here? Exactly as I predicted which was precisely why I used Stephen as an example. You had to use the context to prove that Stephen was saved even though there is nothing that specifically indicates that Jesus ever told Stephen "your sins are forgiven". Who said that Stephen was fully of the Holy Ghost? That could just be Luke's opinion if we use the logic you are applying. Stephen saw the glory of God in heaven. Says who? Luke can't prove he saw what Stephen saw. Obviously that is an erroneous assumption, but that's the type of interpretive scheme you are trying to employ.

I used the exact same methods of deduction to show the Syro-Phoenician woman was saved that you used to prove Stephen was saved-the surrounding context and several other factors that prove she demonstrated her faith in Christ.

You are attempting to use Matt. 15 to "prove" an assertion that certain doctrine is wrong... election of certain people to salvation, specifically.

This text doesn't help you make your case on the most basic level, because the text doesn't say the woman was saved or that her sins were forgiven or any such thing. If fact, the text says Jesus gave her the desire of her heart, which was healing for her daughter, not salvation of her soul.

You are still basing your refutation on a self-created rule of interpretation that has no support in common logic or the Bible. It's like a Campbellite arguing that the thief on the cross COULD HAVE been baptized because the text never specifically says that he wasn't.

Again, others sought Christ for HEALING and were saved when they asked for nothing else. Your logic which ignores this fact, would nullify the salvation of those in Mark 2 because their REASONING was for healing. You then rely on the circular reasoning tactic "BUT they were told their sins were given". That's not the point. Yes, they were told that, but part of your argument that the woman wasn't saved is because her REASONING was for a healing, not for salvation, and you have to be consistent in the REASONING argument, because the REASON that the person in Mark 2 came to Christ was NOT FOR SALVATION, and yet his sins were forgiven.

All the other arguments are academic.... who are the elect? Do they include only Jews or also gentiles?...and on and on. Those arguments, though good and scholarly, have nothing to do with Matt. 15.

I already explained thoroughly who the elect are and what election is. As I also did on another thread: [Reposted as Part 2 under here]


You seem to have created your own rule of interpretation that requires that Jesus say the words "your sins are forgiven" as absolutely necessary to prove one is saved. Where is that rule in Scripture? You have created your own caricature of exegesis, and then criticized your own caricature. There is more evidence to prove that this woman was saved then there is to prove she was not.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Part 2

Part 2 continued from above post

Posted by DrJamesAchThe problem with this is it is asking the wrong question. Can an elected person person be lost? YES but that depends on how you define election, and that is wherein the problem lies. It's an issue of what election is and what it is not.

I will use the illustration of a mother with 10 children who adopts a plan to get her kids to clean their rooms [this is for analogy sake to describe election, not the works of cleaning a room].

Mom pre-plans that if her children will clean their room, they will get ice cream, and $5. Those who do not clean their room are grounded. In order to get the ice cream, they must clean their room. Five of the children cleaned their room and thus inherited the blessings of the ice cream and the $5. The other 5 did not and were grounded.

Later, the mom becomes generous and makes the same offer to the entire neighborhood (or, the Gentiles, if you will).

The "election" here is the plan that mom made ahead of time of the conditions, results, and consequences. God has made a plan ahead of time for the world to receive and inheritance. The results of a person who comes to Christ by faith, is that they receive eternal life because that was the plan ahead of time. Those who believe are also given different gifts to edify the body of Christ. Some do get all the same gifts, and some gifts are specific to a particular individual.

The entire plans that God has for each person are what constitute election. Election does not force a person to believe. Election is what describes the destiny of a person ONCE THEY BELIEVE. Election is not a FUNCTIONAL part of salvation, but DESCRIPTIVE of the inheritance that God planned ahead of time for ANYONE to receive that receives Christ by faith.

This is why a Calvinist can not answer the question "how do you know YOU are elect?" because they have a fundamentally different view of election. If election is a PRESCRIPTIVE and FUNCTIONAL part of salvation, there's no way to answer that question. If election is DESCRIPTIVE of your inheritance, then you can answer the question because election describes what is received when a person meets the conditions for salvation. When a person can honestly claim that they have acknowledge their sinful state, the penalty that Christ paid for sin which was conquered through His death and resurrection, and by turning from self to Christ in faith, that person HAS REPENTED and has met the conditions for salvation and can point to the meeting of those conditions as evidence that they KNOW they are saved because it is based on an objective standard that God requires for salvation. Romans 10:9-13, Acts 8:37, 1 Cor 15:1-4.

So a person can have a destiny that was planned by God which is to become adopted (Romans 8:15), but then refuse to believe in Christ. Again, election is descriptive of the destiny that God planned for those who trust Christ as Saviour. When you understand this, you will understand verse like Revelation 3:5 where it appears one can lose their salvation. Election is like a living will that describes our inheritance and what God intended to be received when our old man dies and is crucified with Christ. Those who have received the blessings of that adoption are called elect.

The question shouldn't be whether an "elect" person can be lost, because a person only becomes truly elect in the descriptive sense of the word when they have met the conditions of salvation and thus fulfilling God's election for them. A person can reject their election, but a person who has received Christ, and thus received their inheritance as described by election can never lose their salvation. And because it is an inheritance that was obtained through the work of Christ alone, a believer can not maintain salvation by works (contrary to what Arminianism teaches).

 

[saturneptune]

They love your money and political/military support more. Kindly send any & all gifts and offerings to......:smilewinkgrin:

Have you heard of the Jewish "Catch 22"?
Free Ham

 

[DrJamesAch]

Have you heard of the Jewish "Catch 22"?
Free Ham

Have you heard of the Black man on a slave ship who was asked to pray on the white man's sinking ship! The captain admitted that blacks knew how to pray, so then summoned one them to pray for the ship.

The black man answered, "Lord, when we get on the bus, the sign said, 'whites only'. When we was hungry and went to the restaurant, the signs said 'whites only'. When we went to the swimming pools to cool off, all the signs said 'whites only'. So Lord when this ship sinks let it be WHITES ONLY".

 

[saturneptune]

Have you heard of the Black man on a slave ship who was asked to pray on the white man's sinking ship! The captain admitted that blacks knew how to pray, so then summoned one them to pray for the ship.

The black man answered, "Lord, when we get on the bus, the sign said, 'whites only'. When we was hungry and went to the restaurant, the signs said 'whites only'. When we went to the swimming pools to cool off, all the signs said 'whites only'. So Lord when this ship sinks let it be WHITES ONLY".

The difference between your nation and ours is that we overcame that. We also pay our own way. God's hand is in all this, but your country only exists by the grace of God and the American tax payer. As I recall from history, we have not blown up an Israeli naval vessel, and no American is in an Israeli prison for spying on Israel. If it were not for the status of being God's chosen people in the Old Testement, your culture would basically be worthless.

 

[psalms109:31]

...and Doc and millions other Zionist Jews love you for that.

You cut me off on the rest of what was said. Those who was cut out can easily be grafted back in if they do not continue in their unbelief. They are not like us Gentiles who was just included grafted in and treated as one of them they are being grafted back in what they were already apart of.

Who are the natural branches and who are the wild olive shoots?

 

[DrJamesAch]

The difference between your nation and ours is that we overcame that. We also pay our own way. God's hand is in all this, but your country only exists by the grace of God and the American tax payer. As I recall from history, we have not blown up an Israeli naval vessel, and no American is in an Israeli prison for spying on Israel. If it were not for the status of being God's chosen people in the Old Testement, your culture would basically be worthless.

And it is only by the grace of God that you as a Gentile were grafted in by a JEWISH Saviour.

And America has overcome it's racism? It didn't even OFFICIALLY "overcome" it until 1964, and then the man that lead the revolt got murdered. Your government still pumps guns and drugs in from CIA sources into known gang territories just so they will kill each other, and deliberately creates zoning laws and gerrymandered districts that exclude minorities. And many of your churches, even conservative ones, still enforce racial separation, and your court systems still have to keep defining affirmative action laws because you have "overcome" racism in America.

And if you "pay your own way" why are you 16.7 trillion dollars in debt? Don't you racists always say that the Jews run all of the banks including the IMF? All the money you borrowed from Rothschild owned institutions...ahem..Jewish bankers. Now Rothschilds are some evil breeds, but your argument that America "pays it's own way" is some non-sense. If they paid their own way, they wouldn't be borrowing from China, England, Japan and the International Monetary Fund, and swindling tax payers through an agency that isn't even a legitimate government agency (IRS).

And America is clearly the agent being used in establishing a New World Order. "No New Taxes" wasn't the only thing that one could read from the lips of George Bush, Sr. The Illuminati headquarters: US. The United Nations on 666 United Nations Plaza: US. Council on Foreign Relations: US. Bilderberger Committee: mostly US congress members and US bankers. The first president of your country: Freemason. All the designs in all of your government buildings and even your currency: Freemasonry.

Shall we keep going Don't act like the US has rose smelling feces.

 

[saturneptune]

And it is only by the grace of God that you as a Gentile were grafted in by a JEWISH Saviour.

And America has overcome it's racism? It didn't even OFFICIALLY "overcome" it until 1964, and then the man that lead the revolt got murdered. Your government still pumps guns and drugs in from CIA sources into known gang territories just so they will kill each other, and deliberately creates zoning laws and gerrymandered districts that exclude minorities. And many of your churches, even conservative ones, still enforce racial separation, and your court systems still have to keep defining affirmative action laws because you have "overcome" racism in America.

And if you "pay your own way" why are you 16.7 trillion dollars in debt? Don't you racists always say that the Jews run all of the banks including the IMF? All the money you borrowed from Rothschild owned institutions...ahem..Jewish bankers. Now Rothschilds are some evil breeds, but your argument that America "pays it's own way" is some non-sense. If they paid their own way, they wouldn't be borrowing from China, England, Japan and the International Monetary Fund, and swindling tax payers through an agency that isn't even a legitimate government agency (IRS).

And America is clearly the agent being used in establishing a New World Order. "No New Taxes" wasn't the only thing that one could read from the lips of George Bush, Sr. The Illuminati headquarters: US. The United Nations on 666 United Nations Plaza: US. Council on Foreign Relations: US. Bilderberger Committee: mostly US congress members and US bankers. The first president of your country: Freemason. All the designs in all of your government buildings and even your currency: Freemasonry.

Shall we keep going Don't act like the US has rose smelling feces.

No one is perfect, but this nation would do fine without Israel. Israel would not do fine without America. In America, we are also honest about our educational level.

 

[DrJamesAch]

No one is perfect, but this nation would do fine without Israel. Israel would not do fine without America. In America, we are also honest about our educational level.

Israel did fine for several thousands of years without America, and if it wasn't for a JEW, you wouldn't have half of the military technology you have, including a nuclear bomb.

And honest about your educations? I earned my doctorate, and yet most of the people in your list of "favorite preachers" all have "honorary doctorates (like Billy Graham and D. James Kennedy who denied receiving it..talk about "honesty"). Your country hands out degrees like candy to homosexuals, lesbians, wiccans, satanists with the full support of your Supreme Court and you call that honest education?

Apparently, you can't even be honest about what books you've read. LOL what a character.

 

[saturneptune]

Israel did fine for several thousands of years without America, and if it wasn't for a JEW, you wouldn't have half of the military technology you have, including a nuclear bomb.

And honest about your educations? I earned my doctorate, and yet most of the people in your list of "favorite preachers" all have "honorary doctorates (like Billy Graham and D. James Kennedy who denied receiving it..talk about "honesty"). Your country hands out degrees like candy to homosexuals, lesbians, wiccans, satanists with the full support of your Supreme Court and you call that honest education?

If you really have a doctorate, based on some of your theological posts, there are no standards.

 

[preacher4truth]

If you really have a doctorate, based on some of your theological posts, there are no standards.

SN,

If anyone deserved a doctorate it was D. James Kennedy. The man was brilliant, and a soul winner.

Any person attempting to discredit him loses respect for doing so, but this isn't the first time I've seen one attempting to steal credit and honor given from one person to another. This makes you wonder what it is that causes a person to do so toward another.

- Blessings

 

[canadyjd]

It is therefore logical to conclude that Christ forgave her sins even if her reasoning was for her daughter's healing because Jesus forgave others for the exact same reason.

You are making the assumption that everyone who was healed by Jesus also received salvation from Jesus. That goes beyond the text, IMHO.

You are attempting to disprove something by arguing from silence. In that sense, Jesus never said she WASN'T saved either, or that her sins were NOT forgiven. So if you want to argue from silence, it works both ways.

But Jesus did say, '"...be it done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once." The context, in fact the specific statement of the passage, is that the woman wished the healing of her daughter, (not salvation) and Christ gave that to her. You are, in fact, not only making an assumption from silence, but also using that assumption from silence as "proof" to disprove a specific doctrine.

My point is, and remains, that you have chosen a passage of scripture as a "proof text" against specific doctrine (election) that simply doesn't help your argument.

.....And you seem to want to isolate each tenet that I have used instead of looking at all of the evidence for this woman's salvation with the context as a whole. A person that simply says "Lord" of course not. But this woman did not just simply say "Lord", she followed it up by worshiping him....

That is a fair criticism. I do want to see how all the pieces fit together into a whole. You make a good case about the use of "Lord" and "worshipping" and "humility". I see all of that and recognize that is very similar actions to others who have received salvation or forgiveness of sins.

However, based on the motivation (healing for her daughter) and the outcome (the statement by Jesus that she would receive what she desired...healing for her daughter), I simply believe you are making a much stronger statement about disproving "election" than the context of the passage allows.

I hope you will see that as a fair criticism of what you have posted.

You had to use the context to prove that Stephen was saved even though there is nothing that specifically indicates that Jesus ever told Stephen "your sins are forgiven". Who said that Stephen was fully of the Holy Ghost? That could just be Luke's opinion if we use the logic you are applying. Stephen saw the glory of God in heaven. Says who? Luke can't prove he saw what Stephen saw.

I believe Luke was inspired by Holy Spirit, therefore I believe God was saying Stephen was full of Holy Spirit.

Obviously that is an erroneous assumption, but that's the type of interpretive scheme you are trying to employ.

I simply want to understand scripture in the context it was written and not bring a lot of assumptions to the text so as to "prove" a doctrine I don't agree with is wrong.

You are still basing your refutation on a self-created rule of interpretation that has no support in common logic or the Bible.

Understanding scripture in the context it was written and not adding assumptions to scripture that are not supported by the text was not "self-created" by me. I'm sure Christians figured out long ago that is the best approach for interpretation.

Again, others sought Christ for HEALING and were saved when they asked for nothing else. Your logic which ignores this fact, would nullify the salvation of those in Mark 2 because their REASONING was for healing...

First of all, the "others" you speak of are Jews, and Christ specifically used words that indicated they were saved. Therefore you're main argument for the woman in Matt.15 [a gentile (non-elect)] being saved in the same manner as the Jews doesn't stand because there is a difference.

With the Jews, Jesus said "your sins are forgiven" or "your faith has made you whole" or some other language that might indicate salvation, but for the woman in Matt. 15, Jesus simply says, "be it done for you as you wish", and her daughter was healed at once.' Indicating she received healing for her daughter.

You then rely on the circular reasoning tactic "BUT they were told their sins were given". That's not the point. Yes, they were told that, but part of your argument that the woman wasn't saved is because her REASONING was for a healing, not for salvation, and you have to be consistent in the REASONING argument, because the REASON that the person in Mark 2 came to Christ was NOT FOR SALVATION, and yet his sins were forgiven.

First, let's be clear what my argument is. My argument is that you using Matt. 15 to "prove" something that goes beyond the content of the passage.

There is more evidence to prove that this woman was saved then there is to prove she was not.

That may be true, or not, but the fact remains the evidence is in no way strong enough for you to present the passage as a "proof text" concerning a doctrine (election) which you disagree with.

 

[saturneptune]

SN,

If anyone deserved a doctorate it was D. James Kennedy. The man was brilliant, and a soul winner.

Any person attempting to discredit him loses respect for doing so, but this isn't the first time I've seen one attempting to steal credit and honor given from one person to another. This makes you wonder what it is that causes a person to do so toward another.

- Blessings

He was top of the line to me. As I said in another post, my Dad gave to his ministry above his tithe to First Presby in Gulfport. His messages were clear so everyone could understand.