convicted1
Guest
Now, it appears that the faith which comes from 'hearing the word of God', is an external source and not internal. But I'll allow you to hang...err...speak for yourself...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Tale of Two Faiths
- Thread starter Protestant
- Start date
- Status
Your false premise hath begotten a false conclusion. No joke.
Why is it you lump Calvinism into one group? If you are going to argue against sovereignty, then why not point out there are several types of beliefs as their are in Arminianism. You know good and well that hypers do not believe in outreach, missionaries, and predestined for hell, which in no way reflects what the vast majority believe and in fact, consider it heretical. In a lot of your posts you hammer against limited atonement, yet fail to state that many in the sovereignty camp are so called "four pointers" and reject the one stance of limited atonement. Here is a small idea of the major groups but not all.
"Starting at the top from extreme to less moderate views of Calvinism, it lines up something like this.
**Note** Hyper-Calvinism is heretic and it is not included here.
1. Extreme Calvinism (one end of the spectrum), the Reformed View. This includes eschatology being taught as Ammellinal and or Preterism and that The Church as replaced Israel (Replacement Theology) **Note** Not all Will agree on Replacement Theology. Not all will agree on Lordship Slavation.
a. Jonathon Edwards
b. John Owens
c. James R. White
d. R.C. Sproul
e. Arthur Pink
f. John Knox
g.Voddie Baucham
too name a few
2. Strong Calvinism. Much like Extreme on the issue of TULIP, minus Replacement Theology and Preterism and of course Ammellialism, Usually historic premillennial and sometimes even dispensational. Lordship Salvation (yet not all in this category adhere to it) See Spurgeon.
a. Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Historic Premillennial)
b. James MacArthur (Dispensational)
3. Four Point Calvinism (Amyraldism), much like either of the above two with the exception of Limited Atonement, they believe in Unlimited Atonement, yet not the Arminian View. I know of no one teaching this at the present but I am sure they are out there.
4. Moderate Calvinism/Free Grace. They see TULIP from a balanced view on all five points. Sometimes called (Calarminism). Dispensational, Pretribulational in their eschatology. Usually strong Defenders of Israel. Usually see Eternal Security as Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) **Note: There is moderate free grace and extreme free grace, this is based on moderate free grace only.
a. Norman Giesler
b. Ron Rhodes
c. Millard Erickson
d. Charles Ryrie
e. Lewis Sperry Chafer
f. Erwin Lutzer
g. Earl Radmacher
h. John Walvoord
I. Dwight Pentecost
Seminaries: Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute.
5. Molinism, another moderate view. Developed by a Jesuit Priest Alfred Molina, a so called middle knowledge View.
a. William Lane Craig
6. Extreme Free Grace, another form of Moderate Calvinism.
A, Zane Hodges."
So are you telling us that all these past theologians listed have nothing to contribute?
To further clarify, here is why some in the sovereignty camp reject what is called extreme Calvinism, and that is a step down from hyper. Personally I consider hyper not in Scripture. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God regardless of where you think faith resides.
Consider this viewpoint, which is not mine, of how someone feels on the lower rungs of this scale. The point is, it is very unfair and very inaccurate to lump everyone on the sovereignty side into one category. This short article sounds like your posts on several points. When debating someone, why not debate them on the basis of what they believe, not a lumped together ideal.
"The Dangers of Extreme Calvinism. By Michael Houke
One of the issues that the Christian Church has had to face over the years is the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. One side says that Gods election (choosing) is the ultimate path to salvation, while the other side says that mans free-will desires salvation.
This debate is quickly spilling over into our New Testament assemblies. Assemblies have usually taken a middle of the road position on this issue. We see the truths of God choosing (Romans 11:7) and man choosing (Matthew 23:37 and Luke 18:22,23) both taught in Scripture. And if we dont completely understand how these two concepts fit together, we still accept all that the Bible has to say about this issue.
Yet there are some within our assemblies who are pushing us to take a more Calvinistic view. Some are graduates of the schools we have supported, and some have simply fallen under the sway of well meaning but extremely zealous Calvinists. I write this article because I am afraid that extreme Calvinism has serious consequences, and is going to damage many assemblies over the next few years, and will cause much disunity and many splits.
Perhaps the greatest danger of extreme Calvinism is its obsessive nature. While some who hold this view possess fine Christian character, many can talk about little else. They will push the doctrine of election when they preach, when they pray and when they worship. Some will even push for the adoption of this doctrine to become a test of fellowship. Some assemblies, having fallen under the influence of strong Calvinists, now declare that a man cannot be an elder until he has understood Gods sovereign grace (which is a euphemism for adopting a strongly Calvinist position). It is probable that these people will feel that other Christians have a defective view of Gods sovereignty.
Another danger concerns how extreme Calvinists deal with Scripture. Any verse that seems to imply human decision must be explained away or made to fit into some sophisticated theory. Some verses are radically reinterpreted. For example, an extreme Calvinist would say that the gift in Ephesians 2:8,9 is faith, not salvation. They will tell us that references to world, as in John 3:16, do not actually refer to all men, but only the elect.
A third danger concerns how the Gospel is preached. We are thankful for every Calvinist who sees the need to preach the Gospel (and most do see this need), but we might be surprised at some of what they say. Instead of calling out for sinners to repent and make their decision today, they will pray that God would give them grace. It is likely that a sinner would be confused at what the Calvinist is saying. An extreme Calvinist can never tell a sinner that God loves them and wants to save them, because in their system of theology, God only loves some. The extreme Calvinist will never tell sinners that Christ died to save them, because under their system of theology, Christs atonement is limited, and He only died for some.
The final danger of extreme Calvinism is that it presents an unbiblical viewpoint of the character of God. Some in the Calvinist camp, including Arthur W. Pink, and even John Calvin himself believed that God creates people for the purpose of damning them. If this was the teaching of Scripture, we would be forced to accept it, but it is not. Such views are the speculations of theological extremists.
The relationship between Gods election and mans choosing is a deep one. There are no easy answers. But both truths are taught in Scripture. Calvinists are not cultists, but brothers and sisters who have taken a Biblical truth to an unbiblical extreme. Calvinism, in its extreme form has very serious consequences, and those who shepherd the believers, as well as all Christians who love the Word of God and the Gospel, must guard against those who would push us into a dangerously one-sided position.
Not Necessarily my viewpoint."
Consider this viewpoint, which is not mine, of how someone feels on the lower rungs of this scale. The point is, it is very unfair and very inaccurate to lump everyone on the sovereignty side into one category. This short article sounds like your posts on several points. When debating someone, why not debate them on the basis of what they believe, not a lumped together ideal.
"The Dangers of Extreme Calvinism. By Michael Houke
One of the issues that the Christian Church has had to face over the years is the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. One side says that Gods election (choosing) is the ultimate path to salvation, while the other side says that mans free-will desires salvation.
This debate is quickly spilling over into our New Testament assemblies. Assemblies have usually taken a middle of the road position on this issue. We see the truths of God choosing (Romans 11:7) and man choosing (Matthew 23:37 and Luke 18:22,23) both taught in Scripture. And if we dont completely understand how these two concepts fit together, we still accept all that the Bible has to say about this issue.
Yet there are some within our assemblies who are pushing us to take a more Calvinistic view. Some are graduates of the schools we have supported, and some have simply fallen under the sway of well meaning but extremely zealous Calvinists. I write this article because I am afraid that extreme Calvinism has serious consequences, and is going to damage many assemblies over the next few years, and will cause much disunity and many splits.
Perhaps the greatest danger of extreme Calvinism is its obsessive nature. While some who hold this view possess fine Christian character, many can talk about little else. They will push the doctrine of election when they preach, when they pray and when they worship. Some will even push for the adoption of this doctrine to become a test of fellowship. Some assemblies, having fallen under the influence of strong Calvinists, now declare that a man cannot be an elder until he has understood Gods sovereign grace (which is a euphemism for adopting a strongly Calvinist position). It is probable that these people will feel that other Christians have a defective view of Gods sovereignty.
Another danger concerns how extreme Calvinists deal with Scripture. Any verse that seems to imply human decision must be explained away or made to fit into some sophisticated theory. Some verses are radically reinterpreted. For example, an extreme Calvinist would say that the gift in Ephesians 2:8,9 is faith, not salvation. They will tell us that references to world, as in John 3:16, do not actually refer to all men, but only the elect.
A third danger concerns how the Gospel is preached. We are thankful for every Calvinist who sees the need to preach the Gospel (and most do see this need), but we might be surprised at some of what they say. Instead of calling out for sinners to repent and make their decision today, they will pray that God would give them grace. It is likely that a sinner would be confused at what the Calvinist is saying. An extreme Calvinist can never tell a sinner that God loves them and wants to save them, because in their system of theology, God only loves some. The extreme Calvinist will never tell sinners that Christ died to save them, because under their system of theology, Christs atonement is limited, and He only died for some.
The final danger of extreme Calvinism is that it presents an unbiblical viewpoint of the character of God. Some in the Calvinist camp, including Arthur W. Pink, and even John Calvin himself believed that God creates people for the purpose of damning them. If this was the teaching of Scripture, we would be forced to accept it, but it is not. Such views are the speculations of theological extremists.
The relationship between Gods election and mans choosing is a deep one. There are no easy answers. But both truths are taught in Scripture. Calvinists are not cultists, but brothers and sisters who have taken a Biblical truth to an unbiblical extreme. Calvinism, in its extreme form has very serious consequences, and those who shepherd the believers, as well as all Christians who love the Word of God and the Gospel, must guard against those who would push us into a dangerously one-sided position.
Not Necessarily my viewpoint."
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is why those called moderate Calvinists are not Arminian. Michael Houke
The Charge of Arminianism of Moderate Calvinist/Free Grace by Strong and Reformed/Extreme Calvinist.
If you are a moderate Calvinist believing in the balanced view of Calvinism you might have heard this before coming from a Strong or Reformed Calvinist: “Why that isn't even Calvinism, it is nothing more than Arminianism”. Any self respecting Arminian would strongly disagree with a Moderate Calvinist view on Seven counts.
1.Eternal Security of all regenerate.
2.Irresistible grace on the willing as necessary for Salvation.
3.God's saving grace is effectual, always accomplishing the salvation of those who receive it.
4.God is the primary cause of all our free actions; we are only the secondary cause of them.
5.All God's knowledge is independent, including His knowledge of future free acts; He has no dependent or “Middle Knowledge” of the future.
6.God is not in any way a passive recipient in the act of our salvation.
7.God does not base His election on foreknowledge.
All of the the above all very Calvinistic doctrines, and they cleary distinguish the balanced view from the Arminian view.
The Charge of Arminianism of Moderate Calvinist/Free Grace by Strong and Reformed/Extreme Calvinist.
If you are a moderate Calvinist believing in the balanced view of Calvinism you might have heard this before coming from a Strong or Reformed Calvinist: “Why that isn't even Calvinism, it is nothing more than Arminianism”. Any self respecting Arminian would strongly disagree with a Moderate Calvinist view on Seven counts.
1.Eternal Security of all regenerate.
2.Irresistible grace on the willing as necessary for Salvation.
3.God's saving grace is effectual, always accomplishing the salvation of those who receive it.
4.God is the primary cause of all our free actions; we are only the secondary cause of them.
5.All God's knowledge is independent, including His knowledge of future free acts; He has no dependent or “Middle Knowledge” of the future.
6.God is not in any way a passive recipient in the act of our salvation.
7.God does not base His election on foreknowledge.
All of the the above all very Calvinistic doctrines, and they cleary distinguish the balanced view from the Arminian view.
Last edited by a moderator:
DHK
The above posts are not exactly my viewpoint. Their purpose is to get you to see that folks on what you consider the opposite side do not believe exactly the same.
The above posts are not exactly my viewpoint. Their purpose is to get you to see that folks on what you consider the opposite side do not believe exactly the same.
You mean heretical. But it is just as off the proverbial beam as Arminianism. Both are equidistant from Calvinism.
How can the above be considered extreme? B.B. Warfield,Dr. M-L-J, James Boice among others, in the 20th century have been in the same theological stream as the above.
That would be John MacArthur.
You mean Calminianism.
Norm Geisler, in no way, shape or form is a Calvinist of any stripe.
Molinism falls into heresy. It is certainly NOT a moderate view of Calvinism.
Absolutely not. Have you ever read his book Absolutely Free! ?
Last edited by a moderator:
As part of the three man governing board of the IBA, Houke certainly is an arch-Arminian/Semi-Pelagian. He endorses the theology of Charles Finney! Part of the IBA Covenant & Doctrinal Beliefs state they "DO NOT believe...
13) in Calvinism, nor any Calvinistic doctrine such as Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, Eternal Security or Predestination."
First of all, I do appreciate your direct and civil reply. This is not my view, but a division that I found to get my point across to DHK. I agree with you about the hyper doctrine. My personal view is what is described here as extreme although I consider it Scriptural. Also I consider McArthur to be right on the mark. Molinism tries to explain how the sovereignty of God works with the free will of man, but IMO puts too much emphasis on free will. God is sovereign above all things. Free will is bounded by our fallen nature.
The point remains however, that faith is a gift of God. I was trying to show that when this discussion is going on, one cannot lump all people that are called Calvinists into one set of beliefs. If one is going to criticize the point of view that faith is a gift of God, then understand what the person that is debating you is trying to say instead of debating the point on the basis of a set of beliefs he or she does not have.
No, I have not read the book Absolutely Free, but plan on doing so. I am sure there are better breakdowns of the different types of beliefs that hold to TULIP, but this was to get a point across. Believe it or not, I do appreciate your remarks about the short article.
Here is their opening statement
The International Believer’s Alliance (IBA) is an organization built upon the firm foundation of sound doctrine based upon the Apostle’s Creed, the Early Church Father’s Commentaries and the Nicene Council.
We do not adhere to Pentecostalism, Charismatic, Prosperity, Word of Faith, Ecumenical Movement, Latter Rain, Hyper-Calvinism, Hyper-Arminianism, Tithing, Works-Based Theology. We do not believe in women ministers or KJV ONlyism
I was wondering if you agreed with the other points of their statement of faith besides 13. I have seen your posts over the years, and it seems to me you would agree with their stance on charismatics, Word of Faith, hyper-Arminianism, gifts of the Holy Spirit that have ceased, etc You might disagree, but I consider the Apostles Creed to be a good statement of faith. I know you do not subscribe to the KJVO theory.
I think Von Henshaw has since left the board. What do you consider to be the difference between an arch-Arminian and a hyper-Arminian? Their opening statement does not believe in hyper arminianism. Also, I would guess you do not believe TV shows like Kenneth Copeland, Bennie Hinn, and Robert Tilton are anything but a sham to steal money.
I do agree that number 13 is out of line with God's sovereignty, but on the other issues, they seem correct.
Hello Rebel,
The biggest thing that speaks to your concern would be the invention of the
PRINTING PRESS.........putting teaching down into books. The truth was always there, but many people did not have access to whole bibles, much less have a way of storing and referencing notes.
The were no chapter and verse divisions added until later on:wavey:
Just think about it. If the whole Christian world was dependant on your notes that you have saved from your pastors sermons alone....[if you have even taken and kept notes somewhere] how far along would we be:thumbs::1_grouphug:
In endeavoring to study the mercy of God as it is set forth in Scripture, a threefold distinction needs to be made, if the
Word of Truth is to be “rightly divided” thereon. First, there is a general mercy of God, which is extended not only to all
men, believers and unbelievers alike, but also to the entire creation: “His tender mercies are over all His works” (Psa
145:9); “He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25). God has pity upon the brute creation in their need,
and supplies them with suitable provision. Secondly, there is a special mercy of God, which is exercised toward the
children of men, helping and succoring them, notwithstanding their sins. To them also He communicates all the
necessities of life: “for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the
unjust” (Matt 5:45). Thirdly, there is a sovereign mercy which is reserved for the heirs of salvation, which is
communicated to them in a covenant way, through the Mediator:wavey::wavey::thumbs:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2199347&posted=1#post2199347
The bestowing of His mercy
Following out a little further the difference between the second and third distinctions pointed out above, it is important
to note that the mercies which God bestows on the wicked are solely of a temporal nature; that is to say, they are confined
strictly to this present life. There will be no mercy extended to them beyond the grave: “It is a people of no understanding:
therefore He that made them will not have mercy on them, and He that formed them will show them no favor” (Isa 27:11).
But at this point a difficulty may suggest itself to some of our readers, namely, Does not Scripture affirm that “His mercy
endureth for ever” (Psa 136:1)? Two things need to be pointed out in that connection. God can never cease to be merciful,
for this is a quality of the divine essence (Psa 116:5); but the exercise of His mercy is regulated by His sovereign will.
This must be so, for there is nothing outside Himself which obliges Him to act; if there were, that “something” would be supreme, and God would cease to be God .
It is pure sovereign grace which alone determines the exercise of divine mercy. God expressly affirms this fact in
Romans 9:15, “For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” It is not the wretchedness of the
creature which causes Him to show mercy, for God is not influenced by things outside of Himself as we are. If God were
influenced by the abject misery of leprous sinners, He would cleanse and save all of them. But He does not. Why? Simply
because it is not His pleasure and purpose so to do. Still less is it the merits of the creatures which causes Him to bestow
mercies upon them, for it is a contradiction in terms to speak of meriting “mercy.” “ Not by works of righteousness which
we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us” (Titus 3:5)—the one standing in direct antithesis to the other. Nor
is it the merit of Christ which moves God to bestow mercies on His elect: that would be substituting the effect for the
cause. It is “through” or because of the tender mercy of our God that Christ was sent here to His people (Luke 1:78). The
merits of Christ make it possible for God to righteously bestow spiritual mercies on His elect, justice having been fully
satisfied by the Surety! No, mercy arises solely from God’s imperial pleasure.
Who shall receive God’s mercies?
Again, though it be true, blessedly and gloriously true, that God’s mercy “endureth for ever,” yet we must observe
carefully the objects to whom His “mercy” is shown. Even the casting of the reprobate into the Lake of Fire is an act of
mercy. The punishment of the wicked is to be contemplated from a threefold viewpoint. From God’s side, it is an act of
justice, vindicating His honour. The mercy of God is never shown to the prejudice of His holiness and righteousness.
From their side, it is an act of equity, when they are made to suffer the due reward of their iniquities. But from the
standpoint of the redeemed, the punishment of the wicked is an act of unspeakable mercy. How dreadful would it be if the
30
present order of things, when the children of God are obliged to live in the midst of the children of the Devil, should
continue for ever! Heaven would at once cease to be heaven if the ears of the saints still heard the blasphemous and filthy
language of the reprobate. What a mercy that in the New Jerusalem “there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that
defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination” (Rev 21:27)!
Last edited by a moderator:
In Eph. 2:8, the words "it is" are not in the Greek. They are in italics in your KJV. The words "the gift of God" refer back to the verb and subject "Ye are saved," or "salvation." Salvation is the gift of God.
This is Peter's report back to the Hebrew Christians of how the gospel was received by the Gentile Christians for the first time. These Hebrew Christians had no argument left. They were amazed. The phrase "repentance unto life" simply means "salvation." Even MacArthur, a Calvinist himself, does not use the word in the way that you use it. This is the first time that salvation went to the Gentiles. They are exclaiming that now God has granted salvation, eternal life to the Gentiles. That is all that is being said here.
The Lord opened her heart. There is nothing unusual about that. It doesn't say anything about faith either.
You don't understand much about this passage either.
Paul is speaking to Hebrew believers. He is not speaking to the unsaved.
At one time the disciples came to Jesus and requested: "Lord increase our faith." What the author of Hebrews is speaking of is the faith of the believer. One must have faith to get there first. God doesn't give faith to the unbeliever, the unregenerate. This verse doesn't prove that at all. The "our" is that of the believer, not the unbeliever.
Calvinists have re-defined sovereignty to such an extent that it outweighs all the other attributes of God. That is not a falsehood. God cannot show love or mercy to the reprobate. His sovereignty over-rules those attributes. This is clearly demonstrated.
Isa 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
God will have mercy upon the wicked, the reprobate, the unregenerate, and will abundantly pardon them. He extends this mercy to all, contrary to the teaching of Calvin. It is "whosoever will may come.[/b]
Calvinism denies this truth but teaches that from eternity past God selected a few for eternal life and chose the rest for eternal damnation in hell without any chance to choose him even if they wanted to or had the ability to. There is no mercy, no love in Calvin's theology. It makes God a cruel monster.
I just demonstrated it for you. Calvinism ignores the love and mercy of God.
They do not receive mercy according to you. A thumbs up. Really? Are you proud of that fact? How do you know that you are not one of them? How do you know you are one of the elect or not?
All Christians do not believe in reprobation. It is a Calvinistic invention.
"A Tale of Two Faiths?
Indeed it is a tale of two faiths. Calvinism is the tale, perhaps a fairly tale, but certainly not biblical. This is dead on topic.
Hebrews 6:1-8 for one small example. Verses 1-3 talks about believers who are babes in Christ, never matured, and are still drinking milk. Verses 4-6 speak of a what if situation, that if one could lose their salvation, which they cannot, it would be impossible to return to the faith for Christ was crucified once. Verse 7 speaks of believers. However, verse 8 speaks of unbelievers. So how does that square with your first statement?
Too bad that your cherry picking method of selecting verses doesn't harmonize with the rest of the Bible.
Isa 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Jesus compared faith to that of a small child. If a small child can have faith obviously faith is innate. What is important is the object of one's faith.
The gospel must come first. 1Peter 1:23 demonstrates that, as does 1Cor.15:1-4.
When a sinner is convinced of the veracity of the message, that it is true and applies to him personally, then the Holy Spirit is able to use that Word and bring him to Christ. As long as he is convinced it is false he will remain unsaved.
What is faith?
Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Faith is being fully persuaded that what God has promised God will also do.
It is the confidence that one has in the promises of the Word of God.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
You can have faith in many things, but in salvation the object of your faith must be in Christ. He is the only one that can save.
DHK
You ignored a central question I asked. Did Paul reach into himself to find faith, or was his road to salvation caused by an encounter with the Risen Christ?
Did Thomas come to salvation by his own self will or was it caused by an encounter with the Risen Christ?
How did Peter come to salvation? Was it by faith from within himself, or was it revealed from God and Heaven when he told Christ, you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God?
Did Abraham pull his faith out of a magic hat, or did he believe God and it was counted to him as righteousness?
Was Cornelius saved by self produced faith, or did the Lord hear his prayers and sent Peter to explain the Gospel? Did God intervene in the life of Cornelius or did He not?
It seems very odd that so many believe sin not is a stench to the Lord, and that somehow, after the fall, we were left half good and half bad, able to respond under our own power to the Divine. If that is so, how do you explain that we still have that sin nature in us even after salvation?
I will guarantee you that if you could transport yourself back through time to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and you could not only see, but feel the physical and spiritual agony that Christ suffered when He said My God, My God....., if you could feel the totality of it, when for the first and only time in history God the Father turned his back on God the Son, you would change your ideas about the goodness within man. I will guarantee that would change your mind.
You can ignore posts as you choose, but it s because you have no defense for your positions.
You ignored a central question I asked. Did Paul reach into himself to find faith, or was his road to salvation caused by an encounter with the Risen Christ?
Did Thomas come to salvation by his own self will or was it caused by an encounter with the Risen Christ?
How did Peter come to salvation? Was it by faith from within himself, or was it revealed from God and Heaven when he told Christ, you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God?
Did Abraham pull his faith out of a magic hat, or did he believe God and it was counted to him as righteousness?
Was Cornelius saved by self produced faith, or did the Lord hear his prayers and sent Peter to explain the Gospel? Did God intervene in the life of Cornelius or did He not?
It seems very odd that so many believe sin not is a stench to the Lord, and that somehow, after the fall, we were left half good and half bad, able to respond under our own power to the Divine. If that is so, how do you explain that we still have that sin nature in us even after salvation?
I will guarantee you that if you could transport yourself back through time to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and you could not only see, but feel the physical and spiritual agony that Christ suffered when He said My God, My God....., if you could feel the totality of it, when for the first and only time in history God the Father turned his back on God the Son, you would change your ideas about the goodness within man. I will guarantee that would change your mind.
You can ignore posts as you choose, but it s because you have no defense for your positions.
- Status