I don't misinterpret anything. My previous explanation was sufficient and by not including verse 37 has no bearing on the subject matter.
Are gifts evidence of salvation?
- Thread starter Lamar
- 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.
Of course it matters. There is deliberation and purpose in the order of scripture. Your whole argument is predicated upon it. You just didn't include enough in the passage.
Here is the text:
Acts 2:37
New International Version
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Which of the 24 words in this verse implies that it was not their own response to hearing the words of Peter but an outside force prodding them to believe?
I'm not going in circles. I'm drawing a straight line:
Word of God preached...evidence of belief...response.
This is always the case. You can even find this pattern in the OT. See Isaiah 55:1.
All of it. Salvation affects the whole of the individual. When they heard this...faith comes by hearing...pricked in the heart...only God can deal at this level...what shall we do...their will was affected.
All this was the evidence Peter witnessed and he told them the appropriate response to the work of God in them.
There were way more than 3000 people there that day. He doesn't give the same instructions to those that mocked the proceedings. Why?
Your response is simply extreme human conjecture. You are reading your doctrine into the verse. No one would see Calvinist thinking in this verse, except someone predisposed to believe such rubbish.
On your question:
He doesn't give the same instructions to those that mocked the proceedings. Why?
Does this have to be spelled out for you?
Why would Peter "give the same instructions to those that mocked the proceedings". Because their hearts were hardened"
Not hardened by God but by themselves. Just as the following:
Mark 8:17-21
New International Version
17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”
“Twelve,” they replied.
20 “And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”
They answered, “Seven.”
21 He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”
God did not hardened the hearts of the Apostles but their hearts were hardened.
Yet Jesus expected them to understand.
John 3:3, 7
3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." ...
7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
1 Peter 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,
If I were given the ability to speak in tongues I had never known in order to communicate God's word to someone of His choosing, that only means that the Lord made use of me for His purposes, just as He did pharaoh, who was not saved.
Born again from above, THAT is the acid test for salvation.
MM
It's not conjecture at all. I showed a pattern found in scripture. It simply doesn't fit with what you believe.
I'm not a Calvinist because I believe God initiates salvation. It is clearly taught in scripture. Jesus Himself said no one would come to Him except the Father draw them. Romans 3 teaches that no one seeks after God. Given those scriptures, it is necessary for God to initiate with grace.
And I don't disagree that people harden themselves. In fact, it is the natural estate of man.
And it's poor form to mischaracterize someone because you can't defend your position from scripture.
Here is the text again:
Acts 2:37
New International Version
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Here is the definition:
conjecture
noun
: inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence
: a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork
There is nothing in this verse that you can infer that their consciences were affected by anything other then themselves. Your doctrine is forcing you to infer God as the guiding force not the scripture itself.
Hence human conjecture.
That is what the "I" in tulip stands for in Calvinism.
I - Stands for Irresistible Grace
Irresistible grace is the belief that God brings his Elect to salvation.
Welcome to their club.
Born again by being obedient and following the commands given in order to be born again.
1. Belief and faith
2. Confession of belief
3. Repentance
4. Baptism, immersion in water
Doing the above you will be born again
There is a difference between initiating something and ensuring a result. Irresistible grace is the latter. I have said that preaching leads to faith...faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God...which calls for a response. That is exactly what happened in Acts repeatedly, including chapter 2.
So not only have I denied being a Calvinist, I have shown you a difference. Your insistence is a reflection of your character.
I'm simply expounding the scripture. Either faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God or it doesn't. If it does, one would expect to see examples in scripture. And viola, it does.
As you would rather characterize me rather than make your argument from scripture, I can't really see anything glorifying to God coming from further discourse. Thanks for sharing and blessings.
The use of God given reason.
“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. (Isaiah 1:18)
“When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death!
(Luke 15:17)
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, (Romans 2:14-15)
And many, many more.
F
FollowingtheWay
Guest
How do you reconcile that with Satan blinding the unbelieving? My understanding is it would take a supernatural act to remove the blinders. Unbelieving people aren’t stupid or ignorant they are blinded by spiritual forces of darkness according to this scripture.
“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
2 Corinthians 4:4 NIV