Is Todd Friel Right?

But DaveG did destroy your weak, unsound interpretation of the teachings of the Hily Bible.

And all your name calling

peace to you

 

Speaking for myself, I cannot ever tell anyone that Jesus died for their sins unless they have believed on Christ.

Question:
How can anyone tell anyone this, when neither Peter nor Paul ever preached this way to the masses?
Not once did they ever speak this way, except to those who had already believed, SBG.

Please read the book of Acts and the epistles, and carefully compare who they were talking to and what is said.

 

I'm not out to destroy anyone.
I'm simply telling him what I believe and why, and why I disagree with what I see him proposing.

My purpose here is not to win debates, but to answer why I have hope in Jesus Christ.

 

I didn’t say you destroyed “him”. I said you destroyed his arguments.

But, fair enough. I don’t want to negatively impact what you are trying to do on this board and I’ll refrain from commenting.

peace to you

 

Dave, what you say here is confusing to me. In Acts, most of the sermons spend much time explaining to the crowd that they themselves had crucified Christ or in other cases just that Christ was crucified and that he rose again. Then those that believed that message were baptized and added to the church. If it was not implied that Christ died for their sins then what were they supposed to get out of that information. If you tell me that someone was killed I might say "well that's too bad or I'm sorry" but what is that really to me? Also, when Paul said he preached Christ and him crucified he was not just giving out neutral news - there was an implication that it had some connection to the folks listening.

So yes it may be imprecise to say to someone that Christ died for their sins when you don't know their spiritual state but you have to tie that fact to them somehow or it will mean nothing to them. So to be more precise you might say "Go and tell everyone without exception, that here is good news for him, that Christ is dead for him, and if he will take him and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him." That's a quote from the Puritan preacher John Preston, a Calvinist by the way. To me, "Christ is dead for you" sounds awkward in modern English so I say Christ died for you sins while being aware that what I am saying is not true unless they turn to him. Sorry I didn't respond sooner but I really did go back and read parts of Acts.

 

Yes, that is exactly what I see.
What is it that I'm saying is confusing you?

That they were sinners, that Christ died, was buried and rose again the 3rd day, and that whosoever believes in Him should have remission of sins.

See Acts of the Apostles 17.

My question to you is ( If you don't mind me asking, since I always like to hear how people came to know Him ), what caused you to believe on Christ...the fact that He died for your sins, or the preaching of Christ crucified for sinners of which you and I are both ?
Was it the truth of God's words being preached ( sin, death, and the judgment as Acts 17 develops ), or did something else cause you to believe?

Finally, I suppose that I don't understand the question.
Did the fact that Christ died for your sins somehow influence you to believe, or did God's words and the truth of them make you sit up and take notice?

 

Speaking for myself, I learned not to trust implication a long time ago, and decided to trust only what is declared in the Scriptures.
But there was a time that I did look at implication, and it carried me about for years.

But to ask the question, what implication do you see Paul making when you read the book of Acts?
The same truths taught in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7, for example?

I'm sorry, Dave, but I could not do that.
Since I understand and believe that the Scriptures teach Christ's sacrifice for only His people, then I could not randomly tell someone that He died for them...

But I could randomly tell them that He died for sinners, and that whosoeover believes on Him shall receive remission ( forgiveness ) of sins.

Again, I see nothing in the book of Acts where any of God's preachers, Paul, Peter, Barnabas or Apollos, for example, ever told the masses that Christ died for them.
I understand His death, burial and resurrection to be for His sheep, and no others ( Matthew 1:21, John 10:11 ).

If it were, then to me the Lord would have had Paul "lead off" with this...
instead, we see what is contained in Acts of the Apostles 17:16-34, for example, with more detail given in the epistles that were written to those who had already believed.

 

My question to you is, what caused you to believe on Christ...the fact that He died for your sins, or the preaching of Christ crucified for sinners of which you and I are both ?

If you don't mind me asking, was it the truth of His words being preached ( sin, death, and the judgment as Acts 17 develops, or did something else cause you to believe?[/QUOTE]

Honestly, as a 10 year old sitting in a service in a small fundamentalist church I just one night realized for the first time that the things I was hearing applied to me personally and that I was a lost sinner and was being told that I could come to Christ. The pastor certainly preached sin, death and judgment in a way seldom heard in churches nowadays. As a youngster I sometimes thought that when he hit the pulpit with his hand to illustrate a point that the pulpit would split wide open down to the floor and hell would appear beneath it! That pastor never changed his preaching so I must have heard that message before and yet did not understand it before that night.

Looking back I think that that was the point in time where I was awakened or regenerated and that my response was because of the work of the Spirit. That is what caused me to believe. But that's what I think now. At the time it just made sense to me and I just knew it was all true and that it applied to me personally.

 

[

"But I could randomly tell them that He died for sinners, and that whosoeover believes on Him shall receive remission ( forgiveness ) of sins."

Dave, what you say there is perfectly OK in my book. I just really don't think it's any different from what that old Puritan preacher said or what I say.

 

I've got to leave shortly, so I don't have time to read the whole thread. I'll do that tomorrow. I did listen to the video.

So, I find it weird that Friel starts out by defining repentance (noun: μετανοια, verb: μετανοεω) correctly, then spends the rest of the video telling why the correct definition is wrong. So he adds emotion to the definition. (And by the way, the mind in Scripture does not mean the entire inner man, as he says. Both dichotomists and trichotomists will tell you so.)

Here is what he misses. To change one's mind on a fundamental matter will result in a change of action. So if you change your mind about Christ Jesus being the Savior, it will produce a great change in you. However, that change in thinking must be accompanied by faith (Hebrews 6:1-2). And I believe these two elements take place at the same time in salvation.

I once taught this to a Japanese man in an English Bible study. He came back the next week and said, "Well, I did it." When I asked what, he said, "I repented and believed." He later went off to the other side of Tokyo to start a church.

 

What do dinosaurs have to do with the video?

 

Dichotomists and trichotomists are both dangerous.