Lordship salvation vs. "easy believism"
- Thread starter MyrtleTrees
- 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.
No one said it was plan b.
God knew that Israel would reject him from the beginning of time, and that gentiles would be saved thru the fall of Israel instead, but he hid it, until it was first revealed to Paul (Ephesians 3:9).
But just as Adam and Eve was given a legitimate choice to make in the garden, God had to give Israel that same choice, and they rejected by the time acts 28 came along.
Well if you believe that parts of the NT are irrelevant to certain groups of Christians, that seems to be error to me.
When someone addresses someone or something in the bible , no matter where is it directly for you ? to you ? Asking you to follow something ?
Not if Paul hadn't revealed it . No one understood it before .
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that passages like 1 Peter 5 are irrelevant to us though.
When someone answers a question with a New Testament citation, and the other says “that was written to Jews” as a refutation through claiming it is inapplicable to us, the second person is ignoring the fact that there is no distinction between the two in Christ and the church
Who said ' irrelevant ' ? That's taking what I say to an extreme . All Scripture is profitable.
Was the Great commission clear? How about the part in Mark about preaching the Gospel to every creature. How about the Gentile passages in Isaiah? Were they ambiguous?
I quoted 1 Peter 5 as teaching that Christ is shepherd to believers, and you replied “ Peter is writing to Jews”
That seems to imply that the passage does not apply to Gentiles, only to Jews.
So because Paul was writing to Gentiles in Ephesians 2, does that mean that Ephesians 2:8-10 doesn’t apply to Jews.
that would be a logical conclusion from your argument.
Who ever is writing to whom, we need to understand what is written by that fact. It matters. Ever letter / book gives the reason why the Author is writing and to whom it is writing to .
So since Ephesiansc2 is addressing Gentiles, that means that Ephesians 2:8-10 is not applicable to Jews. That would be a consistent conclusion to your argument.
So you hold that Ephesians is only applicable for Gentles and not applicable to Jewish believers?
If no, then why do you hold the reverse view on 1 Peter?
I read where it says ' gentiles ' . I read where it says ' jews ' . I read where it says ' elect ' . I read where it says ' Church ' ' Israel , ' 12 tribes ' , ect and I understand with that in mind.
I never said the whole book of Ephesians is directed at Gentiles or for Gentiles ?
It was clear to the 11 that Israel are to be saved first., before gentiles can be saved
1 peter unlike Ephesians is written to :
1¶Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
We should also recognise that the 'elect 'are always the Jews .
I am not sure, but Peter deny Jesus 3 x and forgiven. About that lady, I don't know if she repent before die or not.