Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
- Thread starter MerSee
- 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.
I really truly believe that when I’ve said in the past that, because no one knows if they are Elect or not, but that even if you don’t know, if you run to the Lord after hearing the Gospel, that makes you Elect. You apparently didn’t agree or whatever. So move on now, sister. Good gravy!
Yes, what you say is true concerning sight. It's not true concerning faith. People without sight can please God. People without faith cannot. The reason I don't believe your example is suitable is because we are not talking about faith in general, but faith in Christ specifically.
And I'm not trying to exasperate you. The Charlie Brown response seems to suggest I might be.
No. Man has faith in a variety of things. But not in Christ. What man lost was his ability to discern things the way he originally could.
Why did Adam and Eve cover themselves and hide after sin, but never before?
I dunno. Thanks, but I don't want to judge anyone. I will say we're all still learning biblically speaking, me probably more than anyone else, and my biblical interpretations evolving/refining. I think what is important though, is what we say now. Hopefully,
when one of us learns something new, that lesson will be passed on to the rest of us.
The problem is when one acts as if they never held a position they obviously did and instead accuses others of not understanding and rejecting Biblical election. That is exactly what is happening now and has been going on for some time.
We all hold some truth falsely. So over time, our poor understanding will inevitably temper how we understand other scripture. In other words, because I believe a scripture says one thing, another verse must be reconciled to fit with our previously held understanding.
The Bible itself often fosters this in the way it is written. And if we are not careful, we are all prone to error. Thankfully, one day there will be a unity of the faith. In the meantime, forums like this are good to work these truths out, if we are able to do so preferring others to ourselves. Would that this were always my motivation.
Adam transgressed. Not much said re: Adam and Faith. But Faith is correlated to obedience, so his transgression might also infer a lack of Faith.
Abel had Faith, though. So any view that men after Adam could not have Faith seems wanting to say the least. And the Seed of the Woman was promised in the Garden and Eve is seen to have responded to it.
In my view it's always been about Faith / Obedience and always will be.
You using text to speech is not you reading. You are just evading the truth of the logic of my argument. Just saying.
But you did say:
And it was in response to a post about Adam and Eve.
I suppose the issue is about where we place our faith, and in whom/Whom.
Prove it, please. Would you post what it is I’ve said in that other thread you mentioned where you say I’ve changed my stance? Thanks.
But you did not say the person without eyesight is reading.
I have probably seen too many of your evasions and deflections and logical fallacies.
Along with your unwillingness to admit to the truth of some matter.
Like going beyond what Scripture says.
You are reading more into the text than it says, in order to use it as a spurious proof text for your theological system. The logical limits to claims re the faith sentence are the same as the logical limits to the claims of the sight sentence. Now, to protect your system, you are resorting to another logical fallacy, special pleading, in order to claim there must be a distinction between the logical limits of the two claims, because one is about spiritual things and one is about physical things..
Well, to me it is somewhat inconceivable that people kick and scream against the necessity of God moving first.
And to have them liken it to being kidnapped against one's will, saying that the Scriptural truth that God moves
first means He is an unjust tyrant, and makes God's offer of repentance fraudulent, and that therefore repentance
never actually occurs... yeah, those things are so far-fetched to associate with God moving first, since He makes us
alive in Christ while we were yet sinners... He rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the
kingdom of His beloved Son... I guess I will never understand why some believe what they do against what the
Bible actually teaches, when they claim to be believers. Their vehemence against Scriptural Truths baffles. Some
speak as if they needed no help from God at all, as if they chose to love Him while they were hostile toward Him.
That's your version of what I did. From my perspective, I simply disagreed with your understanding.
So let me ask...what exactly happened to Adam and Eve in the fall? What changed, if anything?
I said, "Without sight it is impossible to read this text, does not mean that all people who cannot read this text have no sight."
Someone being able to hear this text being read via a text to speech programme, or a computer reading the text without having sight, does not affect the validity of the underlying logical syllogism.
Does, "Flowers don't have faith, but nevertheless they please God," disprove "Without faith it is impossible to please God"?
I argued that "Without faith it is impossible to please God" does not mean "all those who displease God are without faith". I did not argue that "Without sight it is impossible to read this text" means "it is impossible for this text to be read by anything without eyes."
Nor did I argue that Without faith it is impossible to please God" means "It is impossible for God to be pleased by anything without faith."
Maybe you could address my actual argument, rather than try to muddy the waters to hide the facts.