Romans 10:13
- Thread starter LeeLoving
- Start date
-
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.
Did you notice the following line in Acts 2.
Acts 2:21
And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
As for Acts 2:23, The Christ was divine determination set to the maximum. Everyone was powerless, when it came to Jesus reaching that goal. When Jesus spoke there was always division, Jesus had to be executed, and would have been executed anyway. With or without divine determination.
Acts 2:21
And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
As for Acts 2:23, The Christ was divine determination set to the maximum. Everyone was powerless, when it came to Jesus reaching that goal. When Jesus spoke there was always division, Jesus had to be executed, and would have been executed anyway. With or without divine determination.
True. But the cause is ascribed both to the determined council of God and the wicked actions of men.
The sovereignty of God isn't in anyway hampered by the actions of mankind...Daniel 4:35. And it's a small thing for God considering Romans 8:28. He certainly makes the best of our actions, sinful or otherwise to work for our benefit.
The sovereignty of God isn't in anyway hampered by the actions of mankind...Daniel 4:35. And it's a small thing for God considering Romans 8:28. He certainly makes the best of our actions, sinful or otherwise to work for our benefit.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I have been showing that those in Rom 10:13 who call upon the Name of the Lord, do so because they had been saved/regenerated. Also they are of the remnant that God has called,
This is taken from Joels Prophecy Joel 2:32
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.
And that remnant are the called according to Gods purpose of election and predestination. People overlook that Rom 10 springs from Rom 8:28-30
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
So also them in Rom 10:13 have been already Justified !
This is taken from Joels Prophecy Joel 2:32
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.
And that remnant are the called according to Gods purpose of election and predestination. People overlook that Rom 10 springs from Rom 8:28-30
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
So also them in Rom 10:13 have been already Justified !
Has nothing to do with Hebrew Roots but what materials were available in the days of Calvin. And it would not matter about how Ancient Israel used the Septuagint because they did not create the TULIP Doctrine. But the TULIP Doctrine does change and become null and void when you compare the Greek Translation to the Hebrew Text. Had Calvin had access to the Hebrew Text, I doubt he would have created TULIP. That is all I was saying here.
**Ancient Israel, Jesus, Disciples, Paul, Jude all also taught from examples based off the Oral Tradition of Enoch. They used a lot of Materials.
**Ancient Israel, Jesus, Disciples, Paul, Jude all also taught from examples based off the Oral Tradition of Enoch. They used a lot of Materials.
.
I strongly encourage everyone out there who hasn't done it yet, to find a
private place, cover your face with your hands for a sense of privacy, and
quietly admit to God that you've failed to measure up to His standards and
are pretty sure you never will. Then tell Him you'd like to take advantage of
His son's death.
I can safely attest that nothing you've done thus far will please Him more.
● Luke 15:3-7 . . Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 "Suppose one of you
has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety
nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And
when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then
he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I
have found my lost sheep.' 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be
more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine
righteous persons who do not need to repent.
● Luke 15:8-10 . . Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one.
Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she
finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together
and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.' In the same way, I
tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one
sinner who repents.
_
I strongly encourage everyone out there who hasn't done it yet, to find a
private place, cover your face with your hands for a sense of privacy, and
quietly admit to God that you've failed to measure up to His standards and
are pretty sure you never will. Then tell Him you'd like to take advantage of
His son's death.
I can safely attest that nothing you've done thus far will please Him more.
● Luke 15:3-7 . . Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 "Suppose one of you
has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety
nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And
when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then
he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I
have found my lost sheep.' 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be
more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine
righteous persons who do not need to repent.
● Luke 15:8-10 . . Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one.
Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she
finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together
and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.' In the same way, I
tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one
sinner who repents.
_
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Well done, you managed to misinterpret Romans 8 and Romans 10.
Paul's usage of the word, 'remnant', is only applicable to the nation of Israel.
Romans 9:27
Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel may be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved."
I will keep calling you back to what the text actually states.
Paul is talking about Israel from Romans chapter 2 to the end of chapter 11.
Ignore the context that chapter 10 is embedded within and your misunderstanding the letter to the Romans.
I will leave Romans 8 alone until you show respect for the context of Romans 10.
Paul's usage of the word, 'remnant', is only applicable to the nation of Israel.
Romans 9:27
Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel may be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved."
I will keep calling you back to what the text actually states.
Paul is talking about Israel from Romans chapter 2 to the end of chapter 11.
Ignore the context that chapter 10 is embedded within and your misunderstanding the letter to the Romans.
I will leave Romans 8 alone until you show respect for the context of Romans 10.
If you knew anything of theological history, you would know that John Calvin never created TULIP!
"The name sometimes implies that they stem directly from John Calvin. In truth though, the formulation came after Calvin as a response from the Reformed to the Arminian Remonstrance that posited 5 points of objection in opposition to Reformed Theology. Perhaps ironically, Jacob Arminius (1560 – 1609) studied in Geneva under Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza. He would eventually become a professor of theology and reject certain of Calvin’s doctrines pertaining to soteriology (theology of salvation). His followers, under the name Remonstrance, drafted up Five Articles and put them before the authorities in Holland. The Reformed response to these came at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) which are reflected in the Canons of Dort and which became known popularly as the five points of Calvinism. So the five points of Calvinism were actually in response to the five points of objections the Arminians raised.
https://www.theotivity.com/post/tulip-intro
In fact, Calvin died over 1564, 50 years before the Canons of Dort, in 1628-19. So, to put Calvin & TULIP together, is historical nonsense. Further, the Synod of Dort occurred in the Netherlands. They speak Dutch there! The word in Dutch for the flower tulip is tulp. Missing I!
In fact, TULIP is an English acronym. I have no idea what the Dutch word is for Total, Unlimited, Irresistible, or the other words. But I am sure there is probably some difference. I know the acronym was never used till the 20th century, and many Reformed Theologians take issue with some of the TULIP points.
WHY TULIP DOES NOT EQUAL REFORMED THEOLOGY
In spite of its frequent use by critics and advocates of “Calvinism” alike, TULIP does not provide an adequate or accurate distillation of Reformed theology.
First, TULIP is a relatively recent acronym used to summarize a much older theological document–a document that did not itself provide a summary of Reformed theology. Specifically, TULIP was developed in the twentieth century English-speaking world to describe the “five points” made in the Canons of Dort in 1618-1619. The Canons are not even an attempt to give a broad statement of Reformed belief in its five points. Instead, the document is organized into five points to respond to the five points presented in an Arminian document called the Remonstrance, which speaks to a cluster of issues related to predestination, the Spirit, and the assurance of salvation. The Dutch Reformed Church had no need for a general statement of Reformed doctrine; it already possessed one in the Belgic Confession. This confession gave a wide-ranging exposition of Reformed teaching, including the sacraments, the Trinity, the nature of the church and state, the person and work of Christ, and so on"
https://reformedjournal.com/the-pro...t, TULIP is a relatively,of Dort in 1618-1619.
So perhaps instead of using the wrong person's name and the entirely wrong acronym, we should call this view, Reformed, which is what most people who believe this doctrine call themselves. I am certain there is no church of Calvin, either. Nor is there a church of Arminius, although Arminian is a type of soteriology, which Arminius did not actually create!
There is so much wrong with this whole thread. Neither the OP nor most of the opposition really understand much more than folk theology! And the OP is completely off track in his soteriological beliefs! Well, maybe he is a rare hypercalvinists, but I've never actually met one!
I also doubt this poster can actually read Hebrew or Greek, but is quoting some made up source somewhere. As to the Septuagint (translated in 300 BC) having wrong doctrine and the Masoretic Hebrew text from the 10th century AD being right, that really comes out of the whole Hebrew Roots, Messianic mov't. If the LXX was good enough for Jesus and his disciples, I think it was good enough for anyone. I've studied both the Septuagint in Koine Greek & the Masoretic Hebrew text in Hebrew. While there are minor differences, not enough to create a totally wrong doctrine on the basics of soteriology, or how we are saved. Besides your total lack of knowledge of historical theology, you have no direct knowledge of any of the 3 languages the Bible was written in! And no, a Strong's concordance word search does not count as any knowledge of the original languages.
Finally, so many people totally putting down John Calvin! Do you also put down Martin Luther? Because Calvin & Luther basically started the Protestant Church. Henry VIII took England out of communion with Rome, causing a 100 year civil war in England between the 2 religions, other than not acknowledging the pope as head of the church, there were almost no theological differences between the Anglican Church (Church of England) & the Roman Catholic Church.
Interestingly enough, Henry's son, Edward VI, was trained in Reformed Theology, by using mostly the Bible. England, of course had many varieties of churches in authority including the Puritans, who eventually ended up in North America, escaping persecution in England, when the tide of authority turned again. As for Calvin, Luther, and Arminius, they were all men of their times. They made terrible mistakes, but their heart was to bring the church back to the Bible, and to salvation through Jesus, not an errant church. Most of Europe was either Reformed or Lutheran, except where Catholicism remained.
Any time you put down any of the founders of the Protestant Church, you are saying you are against Protestantism. As for me, I do lean Reformed, but I have never read anything by Calvin, nor do I agree totally with all Reformed doctrine. But all the early Protestants opened the door out of Catholicism, which wouldn't allow the Bible to be read by the common people, kept the services & Bible in Latin, so no one could understand much about God except their interpretation, till the second half of the 20th century!
What were Protestants protesting? The Roman Catholic Church!
What were the Reformers trying to Reform? The Roman Catholic Church, which didn't even get the order of salvation right, and impressed upon people that salvation was only through the RCC. Luther, Calvin and other early Reformers literally freed us from the chains of Catholicism! So watch your ignorant tongues, when you put down any of the early Reformers, whether you agree or totally disagree with their soteriology!
"The name sometimes implies that they stem directly from John Calvin. In truth though, the formulation came after Calvin as a response from the Reformed to the Arminian Remonstrance that posited 5 points of objection in opposition to Reformed Theology. Perhaps ironically, Jacob Arminius (1560 – 1609) studied in Geneva under Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza. He would eventually become a professor of theology and reject certain of Calvin’s doctrines pertaining to soteriology (theology of salvation). His followers, under the name Remonstrance, drafted up Five Articles and put them before the authorities in Holland. The Reformed response to these came at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) which are reflected in the Canons of Dort and which became known popularly as the five points of Calvinism. So the five points of Calvinism were actually in response to the five points of objections the Arminians raised.
https://www.theotivity.com/post/tulip-intro
In fact, Calvin died over 1564, 50 years before the Canons of Dort, in 1628-19. So, to put Calvin & TULIP together, is historical nonsense. Further, the Synod of Dort occurred in the Netherlands. They speak Dutch there! The word in Dutch for the flower tulip is tulp. Missing I!
In fact, TULIP is an English acronym. I have no idea what the Dutch word is for Total, Unlimited, Irresistible, or the other words. But I am sure there is probably some difference. I know the acronym was never used till the 20th century, and many Reformed Theologians take issue with some of the TULIP points.
WHY TULIP DOES NOT EQUAL REFORMED THEOLOGY
In spite of its frequent use by critics and advocates of “Calvinism” alike, TULIP does not provide an adequate or accurate distillation of Reformed theology.
First, TULIP is a relatively recent acronym used to summarize a much older theological document–a document that did not itself provide a summary of Reformed theology. Specifically, TULIP was developed in the twentieth century English-speaking world to describe the “five points” made in the Canons of Dort in 1618-1619. The Canons are not even an attempt to give a broad statement of Reformed belief in its five points. Instead, the document is organized into five points to respond to the five points presented in an Arminian document called the Remonstrance, which speaks to a cluster of issues related to predestination, the Spirit, and the assurance of salvation. The Dutch Reformed Church had no need for a general statement of Reformed doctrine; it already possessed one in the Belgic Confession. This confession gave a wide-ranging exposition of Reformed teaching, including the sacraments, the Trinity, the nature of the church and state, the person and work of Christ, and so on"
https://reformedjournal.com/the-pro...t, TULIP is a relatively,of Dort in 1618-1619.
So perhaps instead of using the wrong person's name and the entirely wrong acronym, we should call this view, Reformed, which is what most people who believe this doctrine call themselves. I am certain there is no church of Calvin, either. Nor is there a church of Arminius, although Arminian is a type of soteriology, which Arminius did not actually create!
There is so much wrong with this whole thread. Neither the OP nor most of the opposition really understand much more than folk theology! And the OP is completely off track in his soteriological beliefs! Well, maybe he is a rare hypercalvinists, but I've never actually met one!
I also doubt this poster can actually read Hebrew or Greek, but is quoting some made up source somewhere. As to the Septuagint (translated in 300 BC) having wrong doctrine and the Masoretic Hebrew text from the 10th century AD being right, that really comes out of the whole Hebrew Roots, Messianic mov't. If the LXX was good enough for Jesus and his disciples, I think it was good enough for anyone. I've studied both the Septuagint in Koine Greek & the Masoretic Hebrew text in Hebrew. While there are minor differences, not enough to create a totally wrong doctrine on the basics of soteriology, or how we are saved. Besides your total lack of knowledge of historical theology, you have no direct knowledge of any of the 3 languages the Bible was written in! And no, a Strong's concordance word search does not count as any knowledge of the original languages.
Finally, so many people totally putting down John Calvin! Do you also put down Martin Luther? Because Calvin & Luther basically started the Protestant Church. Henry VIII took England out of communion with Rome, causing a 100 year civil war in England between the 2 religions, other than not acknowledging the pope as head of the church, there were almost no theological differences between the Anglican Church (Church of England) & the Roman Catholic Church.
Interestingly enough, Henry's son, Edward VI, was trained in Reformed Theology, by using mostly the Bible. England, of course had many varieties of churches in authority including the Puritans, who eventually ended up in North America, escaping persecution in England, when the tide of authority turned again. As for Calvin, Luther, and Arminius, they were all men of their times. They made terrible mistakes, but their heart was to bring the church back to the Bible, and to salvation through Jesus, not an errant church. Most of Europe was either Reformed or Lutheran, except where Catholicism remained.
Any time you put down any of the founders of the Protestant Church, you are saying you are against Protestantism. As for me, I do lean Reformed, but I have never read anything by Calvin, nor do I agree totally with all Reformed doctrine. But all the early Protestants opened the door out of Catholicism, which wouldn't allow the Bible to be read by the common people, kept the services & Bible in Latin, so no one could understand much about God except their interpretation, till the second half of the 20th century!
What were Protestants protesting? The Roman Catholic Church!
What were the Reformers trying to Reform? The Roman Catholic Church, which didn't even get the order of salvation right, and impressed upon people that salvation was only through the RCC. Luther, Calvin and other early Reformers literally freed us from the chains of Catholicism! So watch your ignorant tongues, when you put down any of the early Reformers, whether you agree or totally disagree with their soteriology!
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The Orthodox Church departed from the Catholic Church in the eleventh century. That was nearly five hundred years before Calvin was born.
There were reformers way before Calvin.
In the 9th century the theologian Gottschalk of Orbais was condemned for heresy by the Catholic church, Gottschalk believed that the salvation of Jesus was limited and that his redemption was only for the elect.[42] The theology of Gottschalk anticipated the Protestant reformation.[43][44] Ratramnus also defended the theology of Gottschalk and denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; his writings also influenced the later Protestant reformation.[45] Claudius of Turin in the 9th century also held Protestant ideas, such as faith alone and rejection of the supremacy of Peter.[46] (wikipedia)
King Henry could not get a divorce, the Pope would not grant King Henry a divorce from Catherine. So King Henry started his own church and got his divorce. That's the origin of the church of England.
There were reformers way before Calvin.
In the 9th century the theologian Gottschalk of Orbais was condemned for heresy by the Catholic church, Gottschalk believed that the salvation of Jesus was limited and that his redemption was only for the elect.[42] The theology of Gottschalk anticipated the Protestant reformation.[43][44] Ratramnus also defended the theology of Gottschalk and denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; his writings also influenced the later Protestant reformation.[45] Claudius of Turin in the 9th century also held Protestant ideas, such as faith alone and rejection of the supremacy of Peter.[46] (wikipedia)
King Henry could not get a divorce, the Pope would not grant King Henry a divorce from Catherine. So King Henry started his own church and got his divorce. That's the origin of the church of England.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)
In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.
*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)
In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.
*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
-
1
- Show all
