Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are making more of this than is there. I suppose you are trying to say this preservation was unconditional election, a predestining of certain individuals.You ask "Why would God preserving those who are faithful to him go against my belief?" Is it not your belief that you are saved because, by your own "free will" you have chosen to believe? Is it not your belief that you can, by your own "free will", chose to continue believing or to stop believing? With that belief, what is the sense and meaning of God preserving you, when God can't stop you if and when you stop believing? What happens to His preserving when one who have the same belief as you, at the point he chose to stop believing in Him?
No, because you are again trying to reverse the order. As I said, they believe, then call on the Lord. All men are capable of choosing to believe. What is hard to understand about that?You just admitted "Yes, those who call on the Lord are believers, because they have chosen to believe!" So, you have just refuted your own belief that all man, that is, "everyone", can call on the Lord. So, not all men , that is, not everyone, can call on the Lord, but only believers can obviously call on the Lord. I think this is settled.
Yes he did. Jesus didn't believe for him.The thief on the cross simply believed in Jesus. He was saved.
Contradiction only exist in your mind Renniks.You are believing a contradiction. That's your choice, but it's not Biblical. If some are chosen for eternal life any choice they make in that regard is logically already made for them before they were ever concieved...so it is in fact, forced on them.
Many people, if and when the words of God reach them and is preached to them, do respond, though not in the positive.Not quite. I do believe others will not be saved because they didn't respond to God, but my salvation was not of my will.
So let me repeat the question: Do you believe that you will be saved by God because you, by your own will and initiative and working out, believed in the gospel, in God, in Jesus Christ, and that the others will not be saved because they have not done such things? By what you say there, your answer should be a yes. However, you said "Not quite". So again, are you not now showing some confusion? Check that out, if I may suggest.I can't will myself to do the impossible, for example, I can not flap my arms and fly, but I can choose to depend on an airplane to carry my into the sky. And in a similar way I can not will myself to be saved from sin, but I can choose to rely on God to do it for me.
That's right, it is faith, that I believe and claim that I am among the chosen. I would be lying to myself if I said it is not. For ALL things that pertains to what God had done, I could only understand by faith and also then, I could only claim anything God had done involving me, such as have chosen me unto salvation, by faith.I find it amusing that you say that is is faith that you believe and claim you are among the chosen, when you claim faith itself is all God's doing. So, you can not claim to have faith that you are chosen, you can only claim God has given you faith that you are chosen.
My argument was "To not be able to see and not be able to believe is not the same as being against God." And you don't have a refutation on that. Instead you want to change the issue to another, saying "To not be able to see and believe because God made you born incapable of doing so, is the issue."To not be able to see and believe because God made you born incapable of doing so, is the issue. Being made hard to punish you for rebellion is another thing entirely. You can't rebel against what you are incapable of receiving. But if you indeed are capable and have the same chance as the one who humbled himself, then you are receiving just punishment.
I didn't say Jesus believed for him.Yes he did. Jesus didn't believe for him.
It is you who brought up the matter of God preserving those who are faithful to Him. In my responses to that, I am in the understanding that what you meant by "preserving" is synonymous to "keeping" and "sustaining". Now, if that is not what you mean by "preserving", what do you mean to say by it? Remember, you said about God "preserving" those faithful to Him in relation to the elect remnants in Romans 11.You are making more of this than is there. I suppose you are trying to say this preservation was unconditional election, a predestining of certain individuals.
Whether that is a condition or an identifier is arguable. May I ask, was their not bowing down to baal a good work? Also, may I ask, was not bowing to Baal a condition given to Israel, that if they have complied, they will be elected by God for salvation?Certainly this is an act of God regarding these men, but God's act is conditioned on the fact that they "have not bowed the knee to Baal."
Obviously you are just speaking what's in your mind there, not what scriptures says. It's going beyond scriptures and adding to it. For this is what scriptures simply says “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”God is telling Elijah, "There are more than just you who have remained faithful. Indeed, I have identified and singled out from the great majority of Israelites a group of seven thousand true worshipers. I have separated them from the rest; in my sight they are a different group, a remnant. These are the ones I have kept in my saving grace and in close fellowship with myself."
Why do you keep insisting about God forcing people, when there's no forcing those people? Even those men whom He reserved for Himself in the days of Elijah, there was no forcing there Renniks. It is only you who insist there is.It's not either/ or. It's not God having to force those who were already his to remain his. God preserves the faithful. If they are no more faithful, they are no more his.
Me reversing the order? And I am not even concerned nor was talking about any order you are talking about there. Just unbelievable! Aren't you at least a bit ashamed of doing that everytime you have no refutation to give? As I said, you have just refuted your own belief that all man, that is, "everyone", can call on the Lord, when you just admitted that those who call on the Lord are believers, qualifying the word "everyone". Now, not all are believers, is it not?No, because you are again trying to reverse the order. As I said, they believe, then call on the Lord. All men are capable of choosing to believe. What is hard to understand about that?
God desires salvation for all and offers his grace to all.
"Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
That's quite strange. Why, was @kcnalp claiming that Jesus believed for the thief?Yes he did. Jesus didn't believe for him.
I never said any such thing!
Then where is that coming from? Hope it's not paranoia.I never said any such thing!
Without a quote I have no idea what you are referring to.Then where is that coming from? Hope it's not paranoia.
Tong
R0621
I was referring to Renniks. That comment and question goes out to him, not really to you.Without a quote I have no idea what you are referring to.
Sorry, my mistake.I was referring to Renniks. That comment and question goes out to him, not really to you.
Tong
R0622
Truth is Cornelius was a devout man, that's all we know. We don't even know what he believed about God. Just that he prayed, etc. So do many of many religions. You seem to be going beyond what the scripture tells us. The important thing is what happens when he learns the truth about Jesus.
Illogical. All you are stating is the same old Calvnist form of "free will" that is not really free in any way. It's only an illusion of choice. I find it amusing that you state God did not choose unbelief for Paul, but that God did choose him for salvation. Don't you see the logical conclusion of thinking this way? Paul chose to believe of his own free will, after being chosen for salvation before he was born? What you are talking about here is called capatabilism.In fact, Saul, before his Damascus road experience, by his own "free will" chose unbelief in Jesus Christ even to the point of persecuting those who believe. God did not chose that for him. Now, when the time of his conversion came, did God force the choice on Saul to believe in Jesus Christ? No sir. To the contrary, it is Paul who chose to believe, that is, by his own "free will". You may now stop thinking that God made the choice for them and already made the choice for them.
Logically, in your theology, God did in fact, choose everything for Paul.In fact, Saul, before his Damascus road experience, by his own "free will" chose unbelief in Jesus Christ even to the point of persecuting those who believe. God did not chose that for him.
Says who?As revealed now to us, he was among those chosen by God for eternal life.
Well that's just obvious. Of course being not able to believe is to be against God. Anything not from faith is sin. Case closed.My argument was "To not be able to see and not be able to believe is not the same as being against God."
If one is predestined for damnation, or rather not predestined for salvation, which is exact same thing by default, then one is obviously born incapable of receiving God. He cannot Receive because he's not capable of doing anything but what he was born to do, that is, sin. To punish the one incapable of receiving God is not justice. However, if he is capable, but rebels, his blindness as punishment is just.You argued "You can't rebel against what you are incapable of receiving. But if you indeed are capable and have the same chance as the one who humbled himself, then you are receiving just punishment." Please clarify and explain what you meant