If the doctrine of God becoming man and dying on a cross as an innocent Lamb for their sins freely forgiving them doesn't move their hearts, I don't know what other words will. Words are about all we have to work with on a forum unless of course the Holy Spirit sovereignly chooses to move their hearts,
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
That bar has not moved in an hour.....maybe reboot? 
A real evangelist, Paris Reidhead, was invited to preach in a huge evangelical church. He asked the congregation for a show of hands, "How many of you out there are saved?" Almost every person in the church raised his hand.
Paris then asked, "And how many of you were ever lost?" Only four or five people raised their hands. Paris then said, "Now here is a strange thing, how can you be saved if you were never lost?"
That's one of the points I'm trying to get at, most Churches are preaching a phony doctrinal salvation! People get their doctrine right and believe that doctrine saves them. Paris Reidhead wrote, "The greatest mission field on Earth is the evangelical churches because many in the church are missing salvation by 18 inches, the distance from their heads to their hearts."
A few centuries ago, the church changed the world. Back then, the church taught that man needed to become acceptable to God. Now the church with its worldly messages and community building programs tries to make God acceptable to man. So the world is now changing the church. Is it still biblical Christianity? I don't know, brother, I'm just trying to help slow the erosion.
Revelation 11:7 "And when they (the Church and the Jewish people) shall have finished their testimony (in 1948-1967), the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit (Satan) shall make war against them (spiritually) , and shall overcome them (spiritually), and kill them (spiritually)."
Look around you, isn't that what you see today?
Last edited by a moderator:
T
LOL, I imagine not, but it is still the correct exegesis. If you want complete details, go to the Bible Prophecy - Ellis Skolfield website and download the book "Islam in the End Times." It's FREE. If you have further questions after the read, write me again.
C
I see church goers who would steal from you in a blink of an eye.
I see church goers who desire their rewards here on Earth and change the written Word for that desire.
I see a pastor who lives out of wedlock and thinks weed is okay.
I see a pastor whose love for money has caused him to call his church **** Worldwide Distributor.
I see these people just in my life.
True saints are becoming fewer, but many more then them are abandoning their assurance.
This I agree with
.
.
.
I now see what you are saying about a contrite heart. But, nevertheless, for a contrite heart to be set properly, there is a certain teaching, if I may, a certain doctrine, which one must accept before receiving a new heart. If that doctrine is not received, then no amount of contrition will ever have one delivered from death. Yes, that doctrine is that the Son came in the flesh.
My friend and brother, I ask of you to reconsider your wording when you say that doctrine does not matter. Surely, if one spent their whole life believing in Buddha and followed his will, believing him without a doubt to be the true God, are we to believe that his salvation is assured just because he knew nothing else but Buddha as god? If that is the case, God should not had destroyed those who thought they were serving Him by a golden calf, seeing that they thought they were serving the living God. What about demon worshipers?
Can we agree that idolators have no salvation because of their doctrine of worshiping a false god? It would seem, some sort of proper doctrine concerning the Son does matter.
I see church goers who desire their rewards here on Earth and change the written Word for that desire.
I see a pastor who lives out of wedlock and thinks weed is okay.
I see a pastor whose love for money has caused him to call his church **** Worldwide Distributor.
I see these people just in my life.
True saints are becoming fewer, but many more then them are abandoning their assurance.
This I agree with
.
.
.
I now see what you are saying about a contrite heart. But, nevertheless, for a contrite heart to be set properly, there is a certain teaching, if I may, a certain doctrine, which one must accept before receiving a new heart. If that doctrine is not received, then no amount of contrition will ever have one delivered from death. Yes, that doctrine is that the Son came in the flesh.
My friend and brother, I ask of you to reconsider your wording when you say that doctrine does not matter. Surely, if one spent their whole life believing in Buddha and followed his will, believing him without a doubt to be the true God, are we to believe that his salvation is assured just because he knew nothing else but Buddha as god? If that is the case, God should not had destroyed those who thought they were serving Him by a golden calf, seeing that they thought they were serving the living God. What about demon worshipers?
Can we agree that idolators have no salvation because of their doctrine of worshiping a false god? It would seem, some sort of proper doctrine concerning the Son does matter.
T
Look brother, I love the gospel, and what you are saying about the Cross being the only road to salvation is absolutely true, but how do we get that across to this hedonistic people today? Prayer and the 10 Commandments have been taken from our schools. If Christian young people go to any secular University, 90% of them lose their faith by the end of the first year. The TV, radio, print and other public media are promoting "Secrets of the Bible" and other programs expressly designed to discredit the Bible. The new movie, Noah, is so ungodly that no Christian should even consider seeing it.
So the problem today is that people no longer believe "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,"or "the wages of sin is death," or "the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Those doctrinal truths have been preached to the public so repetitiously that they have just become part of the background noise. They go in one ear and out the other without even slowing down.
So in my humble opinion, what the Church needs is a message that proves Scripture to be true (and the guts to preach it) before the gospel will again be believed. I know of one, but our fears and our traditions get in the way of our using it.
So the problem today is that people no longer believe "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,"or "the wages of sin is death," or "the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Those doctrinal truths have been preached to the public so repetitiously that they have just become part of the background noise. They go in one ear and out the other without even slowing down.
So in my humble opinion, what the Church needs is a message that proves Scripture to be true (and the guts to preach it) before the gospel will again be believed. I know of one, but our fears and our traditions get in the way of our using it.
Last edited by a moderator:
T
Wow Clyde, you are truly my brother in the Lord and may God bless you. <smile> But right now we do not completely agree and this is why . . .
In Mark 3, Jesus states that, "All sins will be forgiven the man except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven a man either now or in the age to come." All sins? That's means every single sin, that's what Jesus said. So every sin a human can commit will be forgiven except man except that one blasphemy. So we better learn what the one unforgivable sin really is, don't you think?
In Matthew 12, Jesus was casting out demons, meanwhile the Pharisees are saying that he was doing do by Beelzebub, i.e., the devil. If the Holy Spirit was at that same time witnessing in their hearts, "This is my beloved son, hear ye him," and they rejected His irrefutable witness, they indeed blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Scary!
Now in John 3:36 we read, "He that believeth on the son hath life, he that believeth not the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." Also scary!
So not believing in Jesus is also unforgivable. But wait a second, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. Therefore: Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is rejecting His irrefutable witness in the human heart that Jesus is the Christ. They have to be the same sin, or there will be two sins for which man could not be forgiven and there is only one!
So did that Buddhist in Outer Mongolia, whirling his prayer wheel, or that Hindu snake charmer out in the wilds of the Hindu Kush mountains, neither of whom ever heard of Jesus, blaspheme the Holy Spirit? I don't see how, consequently according to Romans 2, God could save them both without them having any knowledge of all.
In Mark 3, Jesus states that, "All sins will be forgiven the man except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven a man either now or in the age to come." All sins? That's means every single sin, that's what Jesus said. So every sin a human can commit will be forgiven except man except that one blasphemy. So we better learn what the one unforgivable sin really is, don't you think?
In Matthew 12, Jesus was casting out demons, meanwhile the Pharisees are saying that he was doing do by Beelzebub, i.e., the devil. If the Holy Spirit was at that same time witnessing in their hearts, "This is my beloved son, hear ye him," and they rejected His irrefutable witness, they indeed blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Scary!
Now in John 3:36 we read, "He that believeth on the son hath life, he that believeth not the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." Also scary!
So not believing in Jesus is also unforgivable. But wait a second, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. Therefore: Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is rejecting His irrefutable witness in the human heart that Jesus is the Christ. They have to be the same sin, or there will be two sins for which man could not be forgiven and there is only one!
So did that Buddhist in Outer Mongolia, whirling his prayer wheel, or that Hindu snake charmer out in the wilds of the Hindu Kush mountains, neither of whom ever heard of Jesus, blaspheme the Holy Spirit? I don't see how, consequently according to Romans 2, God could save them both without them having any knowledge of all.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a reason Jesus said:
Matthew 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 .) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 .) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(............questions?........)
Matthew 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 .) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 .) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(............questions?........)
T
Absolutely true, but how long is it since we have had one? A child doesn't learn not to touch the stove until he has been burned by it. In the same way, spiritual growth never comes without pain, so I expect our nation will be in a whole lot more trouble before we are willing to repent of our sins and return to the Lord.
T
Haven't you noticed the difference in the spirit on this forum after the woman whose name you mentioned left? It used to be angry, spiteful, aggressive and ungodly. Abusive ad hominem attacks on those who disagreed with her doctrinally. Now, even though we may still disagree doctrinally, the brotherly love between us all and the peace of the Holy Spirit obviously remains.
You know, when Jesus told His disciples that He was going to the Cross to die, Peter said, "Far be it from thee, Lord."
Jesus didn't reply with, "Get thee behind me Peter," but "Get thee behind me Satan."
We sometimes forget that Christians can be used by the devil, but I don't see that on here like I used to, praise the Lord. Ungodly posts used to terribly damage the witness of this forum. I used to get a lot of private messages to that effect.
You know, when Jesus told His disciples that He was going to the Cross to die, Peter said, "Far be it from thee, Lord."
Jesus didn't reply with, "Get thee behind me Peter," but "Get thee behind me Satan."
We sometimes forget that Christians can be used by the devil, but I don't see that on here like I used to, praise the Lord. Ungodly posts used to terribly damage the witness of this forum. I used to get a lot of private messages to that effect.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
I can only make mention of Acts 11 and how God Himself made sure that those who were seeking to be righteous before God would find what was needed for them to receive salvation, namely the message from Peter, the Message the Apostles were sent out to deliver.
And as P_rehbein stated:
And as P_rehbein stated:
There is a reason Jesus said:
Matthew 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 .) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 .) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(............questions?........)
Matthew 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 .) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 .) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(............questions?........)
A
For the record, this discussion comes under Soteriology or the study of salvation in religion.
McDermott stated:
"The Bible is full of surprises on the religions. It shows that the God of the Bible wants people of other religions to know him, and that some of them have remarkable understanding of the true God."
McDermott wrote a very interesting book titled 'God's Rivals.' I'm not going to agree with his hypothesis at this point but I do find his hypothesis plausible, as in maybe.
In the second and third centuries (as we shall see in the chapters that follow) Irenaeus and the Greek apologists (Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria) developed theologies of history and revelation that understood God to be at work in non-Christian traditions and understood Christ, theiogos, to be teaching and saving souls outside of Israel and the church.
Yet for most of the first millennium, the vast majority of Christians held to ecclesiam nulla salus: outside the church there is no salvation.
Cyprian put it like this, "You cannot have God for your Father if you don't have the Church for your mother." Even Augustine generally restricted salvation to the church citing 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Later came Pope Gregory VII in 1085, who conceded that Muslims who obey the Qur'an might find salvation in the bosom of Abraham, and Thomas Aquinas's "implicit faith" and the "baptism of desire" for those who have not heard but would have embraced the gospel.
And then came the discovery of the New World with its millions of unevangelized. By the nineteenth century Pius IX had redefined extra ecclesiam nulla salus to refer only to those culpably outside of the church.
The rise of atheism produced a view that all religions are mere cultural constructs which formed during the evolutionary process. They began to assert religious relativism (e.g. all religious truth is equitable) with atheism serving as the justification for that assertion.
This and social liberalism influenced some liberal Christians to embrace pluralism which is the position that there are many saviors, and Jesus is just one of them.
Both orthodox Protestant Christians and Catholics rejected the atheistic worldview as false and held to their respective epistemology, interpretation, and doctrine with two lines of thought emerging: inclusivism and exclusivism.
Exclusivists contend that Jesus is the only savior and explicit belief in Jesus as savior is necessary before one dies.
Inclusivists maintain that while Christ is the only way to the Father, explicit knowledge of him is not. The problem with inclusivism is that each religion teaches that their religious goals can be met by following their religion alone, adopting their "truth" and methods, etc... to realize their version of "salvation" (of which there are many types and kinds in the various world religions). This, of course, makes inclusivism incoherent.
Liberal Christian academics began to claim that all of these salvations are valid and injured rainforests with so much writing trying to work around the New Testament assertion that every human being is a sinner and needs to be reconciled with the triune God through the person of Jesus Christ and that apart from such reconciliation there is "gnashing of teeth" (Mt 8:11-12; Lk 13:27-28).
I've read their books and the authors misinterpret, omit, malign, and violate the objective assertions of all religious epistemologies they touch to normalize them altogether as but one revelation of God.
That aside, there is no doubt whatsoever that God wants and welcomes people to know Him and be reconciled to Him. The bible is filled with pagans and non-Christians who knew something about God coming to this understanding both independently and also in their dealings with Israel and later Christians.
Us Protestant rank and file largely take one of the two positions with respect to unsaved people who have never heard the gospel that either some who believe can be saved apart from the gospel by responding to the light of general revelation (creation and conscience) while others believe that God provides the truth of the gospel (special revelation) to those who earnestly seek Him.
The results of Christ's work of salvation are all-encompassing: They include the past, present, and future. His saving work affects all of creation, saved and unsaved, animate and inanimate, human and angelic.
The physical world (which stages the salvific events) and the angelic world (which surrounds them) are significant players in the overall drama. Salvation affects not only the saved in a positive way, since they accept its benefits, but also the lost in a negative way, since they reject it.
As for infants and the heathen, evangelicals hold differing views. However, common to most (except to those holding a limited atonement) is the belief that God is just and merciful and has provided a way for all to be saved.
Salvation involves both infants, who cannot believe it, and the unevangelized, who haven't heard about it. Even the fallen natural creation reaps the soteriological benefits by its ultimate renovation as "the new heaven and the new earth."
Any Protestant discussion on the extent of salvation from a biblical perspective must acknowledge that, as Geisler stated:
"The biblical, theological, and historical bases for the universal (unlimited) extent of the Atonement are solid. With one notable and explainable exception (the later Augustine), there is no significant voice in the whole history of the church up to the Reformers that defended limited atonement. Indeed, the Bible is emphatic that God loved the whole fallen world and that Christ died for the same. The theological arguments springing from God's omnibenevolence are powerfully in favor of unlimited atonement-that Christ died for the sins of all human beings. Any denial of this truth arbitrarily limits Cod's love to only some and is based on an indefensible form of voluntarism."
However with the understanding that:
"There is no support in Scripture for the illusory hope that everyone will be saved. The basic reason is rather simple: God created human beings with free will, and those who choose not to believe cannot be forced to believe. God is love, and love works persuasively, but never coercively. There is a hell."
AND that:
Pluralism's claim that all religions are true is self-refuting, for the undeniable law of noncontradiction affirms that opposites cannot both be correct.
Pluralism's claim that all religions are equal is unsubstantiated (e.g. based on unproven presuppositions).
Pluralists deny the historicity of the New Testament and reduce all religions to a basic common denominator and then claim that none is unique omitting, maligning, and misinterpreting in the process to accomplish this. This also begs the question because we cannot determine whether one religion is unique by neglecting uniqueness solely to concentrate on perceived correlations which causes pluralism to fail factually and philosophically noting that pluralism denies exclusivism yet asserts that it, itself, is exclusively true.
McDermott stated:
"The Bible is full of surprises on the religions. It shows that the God of the Bible wants people of other religions to know him, and that some of them have remarkable understanding of the true God."
McDermott wrote a very interesting book titled 'God's Rivals.' I'm not going to agree with his hypothesis at this point but I do find his hypothesis plausible, as in maybe.
In the second and third centuries (as we shall see in the chapters that follow) Irenaeus and the Greek apologists (Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria) developed theologies of history and revelation that understood God to be at work in non-Christian traditions and understood Christ, theiogos, to be teaching and saving souls outside of Israel and the church.
Yet for most of the first millennium, the vast majority of Christians held to ecclesiam nulla salus: outside the church there is no salvation.
Cyprian put it like this, "You cannot have God for your Father if you don't have the Church for your mother." Even Augustine generally restricted salvation to the church citing 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Later came Pope Gregory VII in 1085, who conceded that Muslims who obey the Qur'an might find salvation in the bosom of Abraham, and Thomas Aquinas's "implicit faith" and the "baptism of desire" for those who have not heard but would have embraced the gospel.
And then came the discovery of the New World with its millions of unevangelized. By the nineteenth century Pius IX had redefined extra ecclesiam nulla salus to refer only to those culpably outside of the church.
The rise of atheism produced a view that all religions are mere cultural constructs which formed during the evolutionary process. They began to assert religious relativism (e.g. all religious truth is equitable) with atheism serving as the justification for that assertion.
This and social liberalism influenced some liberal Christians to embrace pluralism which is the position that there are many saviors, and Jesus is just one of them.
Both orthodox Protestant Christians and Catholics rejected the atheistic worldview as false and held to their respective epistemology, interpretation, and doctrine with two lines of thought emerging: inclusivism and exclusivism.
Exclusivists contend that Jesus is the only savior and explicit belief in Jesus as savior is necessary before one dies.
Inclusivists maintain that while Christ is the only way to the Father, explicit knowledge of him is not. The problem with inclusivism is that each religion teaches that their religious goals can be met by following their religion alone, adopting their "truth" and methods, etc... to realize their version of "salvation" (of which there are many types and kinds in the various world religions). This, of course, makes inclusivism incoherent.
Liberal Christian academics began to claim that all of these salvations are valid and injured rainforests with so much writing trying to work around the New Testament assertion that every human being is a sinner and needs to be reconciled with the triune God through the person of Jesus Christ and that apart from such reconciliation there is "gnashing of teeth" (Mt 8:11-12; Lk 13:27-28).
I've read their books and the authors misinterpret, omit, malign, and violate the objective assertions of all religious epistemologies they touch to normalize them altogether as but one revelation of God.
That aside, there is no doubt whatsoever that God wants and welcomes people to know Him and be reconciled to Him. The bible is filled with pagans and non-Christians who knew something about God coming to this understanding both independently and also in their dealings with Israel and later Christians.
Us Protestant rank and file largely take one of the two positions with respect to unsaved people who have never heard the gospel that either some who believe can be saved apart from the gospel by responding to the light of general revelation (creation and conscience) while others believe that God provides the truth of the gospel (special revelation) to those who earnestly seek Him.
The results of Christ's work of salvation are all-encompassing: They include the past, present, and future. His saving work affects all of creation, saved and unsaved, animate and inanimate, human and angelic.
The physical world (which stages the salvific events) and the angelic world (which surrounds them) are significant players in the overall drama. Salvation affects not only the saved in a positive way, since they accept its benefits, but also the lost in a negative way, since they reject it.
As for infants and the heathen, evangelicals hold differing views. However, common to most (except to those holding a limited atonement) is the belief that God is just and merciful and has provided a way for all to be saved.
Salvation involves both infants, who cannot believe it, and the unevangelized, who haven't heard about it. Even the fallen natural creation reaps the soteriological benefits by its ultimate renovation as "the new heaven and the new earth."
Any Protestant discussion on the extent of salvation from a biblical perspective must acknowledge that, as Geisler stated:
"The biblical, theological, and historical bases for the universal (unlimited) extent of the Atonement are solid. With one notable and explainable exception (the later Augustine), there is no significant voice in the whole history of the church up to the Reformers that defended limited atonement. Indeed, the Bible is emphatic that God loved the whole fallen world and that Christ died for the same. The theological arguments springing from God's omnibenevolence are powerfully in favor of unlimited atonement-that Christ died for the sins of all human beings. Any denial of this truth arbitrarily limits Cod's love to only some and is based on an indefensible form of voluntarism."
However with the understanding that:
"There is no support in Scripture for the illusory hope that everyone will be saved. The basic reason is rather simple: God created human beings with free will, and those who choose not to believe cannot be forced to believe. God is love, and love works persuasively, but never coercively. There is a hell."
AND that:
Pluralism's claim that all religions are true is self-refuting, for the undeniable law of noncontradiction affirms that opposites cannot both be correct.
Pluralism's claim that all religions are equal is unsubstantiated (e.g. based on unproven presuppositions).
Pluralists deny the historicity of the New Testament and reduce all religions to a basic common denominator and then claim that none is unique omitting, maligning, and misinterpreting in the process to accomplish this. This also begs the question because we cannot determine whether one religion is unique by neglecting uniqueness solely to concentrate on perceived correlations which causes pluralism to fail factually and philosophically noting that pluralism denies exclusivism yet asserts that it, itself, is exclusively true.
T
I used to believe just like you guys, but the momentous events in the holy land of 1948-1967 have opened Daniel, which allowed us to actually understand Revelation for the first time since it was written, and that brethren, has opened up the rest of Scripture in a new way, which has drastically changed my soteriology, eschatology and theology.
Before assuming me Looney Tunes, I would sure appreciate you're reading one of the several books or the prophecy study guide that explains the view. Most are on my website, Bible Prophecy - Ellis Skolfield as FREE downloads.
If those books are wrong, show me; I'm not proud, I'll change my doctrine and take them off the market. <smile>
Before assuming me Looney Tunes, I would sure appreciate you're reading one of the several books or the prophecy study guide that explains the view. Most are on my website, Bible Prophecy - Ellis Skolfield as FREE downloads.
If those books are wrong, show me; I'm not proud, I'll change my doctrine and take them off the market. <smile>