God knew before the world was founded who would accept him and who would reject him.
It's not a matter of free will or predestination, but both are present simultaniously.
A call for unity and love
- Thread starter Blain
- 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.
God knew before the world was founded who would accept him and who would reject him.
It's not a matter of free will or predestination, but both are present simultaniously.
I can see that being the case however it still doesn't answer the question, if he desires all to be saved then how could he have a select chosen people to be saved that doesn't make any sense
I would like to suggest that Select chosen are whom God foreknew, Good people, and could i strongly recommend that using the term select chosen is a wrong path to take, as simply put friend using the term select chosen over whom God foreknew is used by people who take that meaning to aw whole new level and my suspicions are those people could be living in hatred.
But Jesus will also say the same thing which is I never knew you but should that take away from how great and Good are king is, well absolutely not.
that's entirely upto yourself, I'm just stating that God's sovereignty is sovereign above all things, I would much prefer who God foreknew than to use any other term,
It really depends on how any other term is put or how the person is coming across, but generally speaking when people start to bring up the term a select chosen there generally implying something personal against you,
But really I can't be bothered with such arguments, Because really I don't want to argue about something so beautiful, We speak about desire, well that's mine and it's yours to, from a discussion point of view with yourself, I feel ok to talk with you, but other people I would just take no notice.
Blessings
Well you know, Blain, these people are all about making the text say what it doesn't. Sometimes the exact
opposite. Contradict and outright deny may as well be their middle and last names. And they are not averse
to rewriting a text either, to suit their doctrine. The machinations are mind blowing. They brag about their
credentials and then nuance the main and plain meaning right out of a word before your very eyes.
I told you not too long ago when you asked that it is based on God's foreknowledge. And mercy, love, etc.
Chosen and election are also Biblical words and terms. I see nothing wrong with using them, although they
get a lot of flack, just as God's sovereignty does, to the point where people are pretty much blaspheming
God so against Him acting unilaterally are they. Again, mind blowing. There are a lot of heretics here.
“Personally I believe in clean cut scripture no interpretations no doctrine based on a certain belief “
yeah im saying it’s about the things Jesus taught believers in him we should accept Jesus interpretations and judgements ….in the gospel . That should be the basis for our beliefs.
It’s also very important not to take every thing he says literally but to always look at what he’s teaching with the things he’s saying . Like this ….here’s one clear example where it’s a bad idea to take this literally
“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
Matthew 5:29-30 KJV
Even though he’s saying it that way he’s actually talking about how serious it is that we get rid of the lust in our hearts . That’s the lesson he’s teaching there this being the issue he’s addressing
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Matthew 5:27-28
Plucking out an eye is a serious measure or chopping off a hand. If we take those type of things literally without looking at what he’s teaching the lesson he’s teaching I mean it’s going tomlewd to some bad. InFormation and understanding of what he’s teaching us
Otherwise we all need to get to cutting and plucking off our hands and eyes which is gonna be hard for me seeing is pretty important lol my hands don’t work well but I’d like to keep them also m not sure Jesus taught us to chop them off or pluck our eyes out literally
If you really look at his teachings and sermons about half of what he’s saying is a parabolic story using examples les of things we underhand like being invited to a wedding , owing a huge debt we can’t pay when someone comes calling , a pearl merchant seeking goodly pearls ect there’s no doctrine in the story figures and they aren’t literal but they are being used yo teach a lesson . Earthly examples to teach spiritual truths
again like being invited to a wedding , like having a lord who leaves you to tend to his belongings but he will return again one day to collect The harvest or that pearl merchant , he also uses debt and money for a lot of lessons that actually have nothing to do with money but himans understand money and debt ect so he’s teaching deeper things often than the words he’s using to say those things
reading a page or two will always give context of what he , or Paul is teaching bit often a single verse or two will confuse and seem contrary to other things
The concerns of those who accept TULIP—to affirm the sovereignty of God and the inability of souls to earn salvation—are valid, but the solutions are problematic, because they deny or ignore Scripture teaching the love of God for all sinners and the moral accountability of sinners for rejecting the love of God, thereby effectively perverting the Gospel (Gal. 5:6) and impugning God’s justness/righteousness (Psa. 33:5, Isa. 9:7).
The apparent reasons for these errors are threefold: 1. Ignorance of Scripture that contradicts their dogma, such as those teaching the possibility of apostasy, 2. Viewing faith as a meritorious work rather than as the non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God’s grace, and 3. Unconcern about portraying God as unjust by showing favoritism toward the elect. Once these errors are cured by including Scripture supporting MFW, doctrinal harmony is enhanced.
Yes there are times when you cannot take what Jesus says literally but for a lot of scripture it is not in patables or story telling and yeah your correct that we should read the entire chapters instead of basing off of one single verse yet a lot of people do just that
What you think it says is your own understanding, and your opinion that their understanding is wrong may be wrong,
and the translation involves interpretation, so there is no way to escape having belief/doctrine, Blain.
Which interpretation/opinion/doctrine is best or most true? Answering this question involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).
A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in John 14:9-11), Paul (in Gal. 1:11-12 & Tit. 1:1-3). Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (JN 16:13).
The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory. In my opinion humanism provides no hope for ultimate “oughtness”, because there is no logical way to avoid moral relativism without a superhuman Judge. Karmaism offers a rationale for reincarnation, but I have explained why I view it as incredible. Naturalism does not even provide a rationale for morality/the UMI, but rather it implies that what is, is right. However, I do find reasons to believe NT theism is true.
While conducting a comprehensive comparison of theistic religions is not my desire, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including Isa. 53 and Psa. 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).
A biblical hermeneutic or parameters for interpreting the Bible might well begin with the instruction of Paul (1Thes. 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” A truthseeker is guided by the question: What is most true or closest to the truth, especially the Truth of God’s Word? The method for discerning truth employs subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from Scriptural and other truthseekers. As a result of seeking ultimate truth, I have come to value two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide an interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements.
First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Seven Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: 1JN 4:7-12, RM 5:8, MT 5:44&48, GL 5:6&14, EPH 3:17b-19, EPH 5:2 and 1TM 2:3-4, which might be deemed the “7 pearls”. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ).
Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (PS 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Even the wrath of God (hell) is an expression of His love and justice. The writer of Hebrews (12:4-11) indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19). Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.
Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, which causes confusion because the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!
The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word.
How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted. Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies.
Hence the need to learn as much of GW ASAP (Matt. 4:4, Eph. 4:11-15)!
Striving for unity is akin to peacemaking, which is mentioned by Paul in many places including:
Romans 2:10, "Peace for everyone who does good."
Romans 5:1, "We have peace with God."
Romans 8:6, "The mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace."
Romans 12:18, "As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."
Romans 14:19, "Let us make every effort to do what leads to peace."
1Cor. 7:15, "God has called us to live in peace."
1Cor. 14:33, "God is not a God of disorder but of peace."
2Cor. 13:11, "Be of one mind, live in peace, and the God of peace will be with you."
Gal. 5:22, "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace...".
Eph. 2:14 & 17, "He himself is our peace... He came and preached peace...".
Eph. 6:14-15, "Stand firm then... with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace."
Phil. 4:7, "The peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus."
Col. 1:19-20, "God was pleased... by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."
Col. 3:15, "Let the peace of God rule in your hearts, since... you were called to peace."
However, Jesus said (in Matt. 10:34) "I did not come to bring peace."
How can this verse be harmonized with those of Paul and the theme of this thread?
I think Jesus summed it up pretty good when he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Suggests to me we are all mistaken time to time and all in the same boat when it comes to how to treat others. So while I can understand disagreement I think it should be done with some empathy in mind.
And assuming you agree with #4, here is #5:
5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept/love Him (Rev. 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will
(John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4).
So, does everyone agree on this Christian creed?
Here is the entire version, simply and elaborated:
The normative way of stating the Christian creed/kerygma/GRFS in the NT is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord” (as in 2Cor. 4:5 & Col. 2:6).
The main points of Christian orthodoxy implicit in this statement can be explained or elaborated as follows:
- There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (Deut. 6:4, John 3:16, 2Thes. 1:6), who is both able (2Tim. 1:12) and willing (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
- Human beings are selfish or sinful (Rom. 3:23, 2Tim. 3:2-4, Col. 3:5), miserable (Gal. 5:19-21), and hopeless (Eph. 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (Matt. 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (John 3:18, Rom. 2:5-11).
- Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (John 3:16, Acts 16:30-31, Phil. 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (Rom. 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1Cor. 15:14-28).
- Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), which means trying to obey His commandment to love one another (Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2).
- Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept/love Him (Rev. 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4).
I suggest that Jesus and Paul (harmonized) means that Christians should fellowship based on the essential
Gospel (kerygma), striving for greater agreement regarding secondary doctrines (didache), and witnessing
to non-Christians (atheists, anti-Christs, haters and heretics).
No problem. Now if everyone else would be as agreeable CC could be one happy family.
You're hilarious as always sailor.
The only one who is the MOST disagreeable here is YOU, but because you have a lack of self-awareness you don't get this and that's what makes you funny.
I agreed with you on the Baptist Church statements of faith on 9 out of 10 points!
Yet, you being you want it according to YOUR version ONLY with commas and periods and want 100% compliance.
Of course your military background hasn't helped you at all with this mindset you're probably born with but you're also hilarious when you're arguing against Calvinists while requiring absolute and NON deviation from your interpretation which is topped off with "when we go to Heaven i betcha my interpretations is right"
You're a true gem in the whole sense of the word.
I know that this is difficult for you sailor but some people worship Christ and The Holy Trinity from a mountain, from a field, from a tree or submerged in water or many other options and they don't need your option which requires everyone lined up with your way or the highway like a soldier.
That's called Free-will !
H
Howdy
Guest
There is a different in selecting and knowing.
A loving God sent His son to die for all and the Holy Spirit will convince every living soul and offer them a chance to be a child of God.
The fact that God knew that a vast majority would reject that sacrifice and offering just show how great God' love and mercy is.
God selects what each of those who believe will have in His ministry.
That is where the selecting comes in.
1 Timothy 6:3—
If anyone teaches a different doctrone and doesn't consent to sound words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is conceited, knowing nothing, but obsessed with arguments,
disputes, and word battles, from which come envy, strife, insulting, evil suspicions, constant friction of people of
corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
I hope you all each carefully examine yourselves and the words you speak,
making sure that the fruits you produce are good and not corrupt.
If anyone teaches a different doctrone and doesn't consent to sound words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is conceited, knowing nothing, but obsessed with arguments,
disputes, and word battles, from which come envy, strife, insulting, evil suspicions, constant friction of people of
corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
I hope you all each carefully examine yourselves and the words you speak,
making sure that the fruits you produce are good and not corrupt.
So, Ceph, do you agree that the following is sound doctrine regarding God's requirement for salvation (GRFS)?:
The normative way of stating the kerygma/GRFS in the NT is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord” (as in 2Cor. 4:5 & Col. 2:6).
The main points of Christian orthodoxy implicit in this statement can be explained or elaborated as follows:
- There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (Deut. 6:4, John 3:16, 2Thes. 1:6), who is both able (2Tim. 1:12) and willing (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
- Human beings are selfish or sinful (Rom. 3:23, 2Tim. 3:2-4, Col. 3:5), miserable (Gal. 5:19-21), and hopeless (Eph. 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (Matt. 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (John 3:18, Rom. 2:5-11).
- Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (John 3:16, Acts 16:30-31, Phil. 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (Rom. 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1Cor. 15:14-28).
- Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), which means trying to obey His commandment to love one another (Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2).
- Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept/love Him (Rev. 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4).