Sure it was. This whole thread has been about salvation and associated topics.
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 think he has already maxed out on confusion.
And look at the Sheep metaphor in scripture. Could God has chosen a weaker, more vulnerable, defenseless animal to which to liken his chosen ones? And not only are they slow-footed but slow-witted, as well. Could He have chosen an animal that has more kinds of ferocious, hungry predators hunting them down than sheep? And do prideful, self-deceived, wicked men think of themselves as being helpless and defenseless? Do the wise men of this world think of themselves as being in need of shepherding?
And this becomes all the more apparent when we compare the sheep of God's pasture to the Lion of Judah. Aren't lions king of the jungle? Aren't they mighty and powerful and ferocious and fearful? Yet, this same Lion is also the kind-hearted, tender, loving Good Shepherd of his Father's flock.
You're very welcome, selahsays. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) to include all who have not been made born again/justified by Christ - both the elect and non-elect alike (obviously, the non-elect will never become so). However, when an elect is born-again/justified by Christ, they are indwelt by God, given a new spirit, new heart, and renewed mind, which manifest into changes to their understanding, thoughts, and actions - with Saul/Paul a very good example of that. However, you do raise an interesting point and one that I cannot categorically disagree with, so I will ponder it further - thanks Roger.
And the baby, of course, is conscious of the big role he plays, right?
Or could it possibly be that what you describe above was God's design in eternity? Or are you a theistic evolutionist, as well?It is obviously God's design. But why did He design it so that the baby when it is ready initiates labour?e could have made it so that everything is done by the mother. But the baby has a very small but necessary part to play. Maybe the design is a type of the small but essential role of the converting soul's faith in the new-birth process. Maybe.And the baby, of course, is conscious of the big role he plays, right?
My point was to show that the absolutist claim of the LOUPI professors that the one being born plays no part in their birth, and using that claim to impose that as a type on spiritual birth, is untrue, and they should stop using that fallacious untrue argument to defend their LOUPI doctrines.
Again, the baby doesn't initiate anything. The process you are explaining, like many things that seem to occur naturally, is God upholding all things by the word of His power...Hebrews 1:3.
What many have deemed natural law is in fact the ongoing provision of Providence. It seems like it is natural because of the precision with which God tenderly, intimately, continuously, and precisely governs creation.
He who created all things providentially cares for it.
You just keep piling on natural types and selecting some of their attributes that fit your systematic, while ignoring aspects that don't. And you imagine you are strengthening your position by that stratagem.
But did the baby initiate life which begins at conception? The entire question surrounding "regeneration" is when does life begin: At point of conception in the womb, or at birth outside the womb? Mr. Studier says that my analogy or hypothesis is "unconventional" within the Church. And while that is probably true, nonetheless I do know of Reformed folks who believe the same as I do. Also, 1Pet 1: 2 is an excellent proof text, since sanctification itself is a process, as is birth.
There is a purpose behind God using two metaphors to portray spiritual life. The new birth metaphor is designed to make us think of physical life as a process -- that has a beginning and an end. The "resurrection" metaphor is designed for us to think of physical life as a one-time miraculous act whereby the physically dead is raised to life instantly, in contrast to a process. This latter metaphor is to direct our minds to the miraculous power of God's Irresistible Grace when someone makes a sincere profession of faith.
Also, as an aside -- since you concede that the design is of God, then ultimately God is still the primary cause and the fetus a secondary cause. At the end of the day, it is God alone who opens or closes wombs. The final decision is not even in the hands of the parents, let alone the child they want to have.
You are denying the science to insulate your systematic against any possible critical analysis. God designed us with a faith ability, as He designed the baby with a labour-inducing-chemical infusing ability. Both perspectives on the Bible's meaning agree that God is the author of all good natural laws and processes and He upholds all things. You seem to be trying to pretend that only your position believes that.
Well, what's wrong with my sheep metaphor? God could have chosen from any large number of kinds of animals to which to compare his elect. He could have gone with any resourceful, self-reliant, aggressive, ferocious beasts, or regal birds of prey or even very intelligent, self-reliant animals, such as elephants, etc. Yet, he chose an animal that really must depend on shepherds for their survival.
Again, read what Jesus told Nicodemus:
John 3:12
12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
NIV
I make no apologies for speaking of "earthly things", since I'm following the lead of sacred scripture. You greatly err in your understanding of the scriptures since you steadfastly refuse to take types and metaphors seriously. You and others just glibly gloss over them and assign any meaning to them that doesn't upset your preconceived notions.
The primary cause makes some things possible without making them mandatory, and in many cases, grants agency to creatures to decide whether this or that God-provided option attains. It goes beyond reason to insist that a primary cause must always decide which option will attain. A first cause allowing an agent to pursue and attain their chosen outcome, is not the same as the first cause unilaterally causing the outcome.
Some sheep are enticed away from their shepherd and are never found, just as some Christians are enticed away from Christ and never repent. But this does not fit your P in LOUPI, so you dismiss it.
But the issue here isn't faith, per se. The issue is Regeneration: When does life begin? If you want to know when faith begins: Then we can discuss resurrection, for that is when the resurrected person's faith is manifested to the world. See Cornelius. He became born again upon his profession of faith.
And you have not proved that God designed unregenerate people with "a faith ability", as in faith in HIM! I need chapter and verse on that. How do dead God-haters come to this saving faith?
No. It was presented for the reason I cited in a recent post: as a counter-example to a general claim about the meaning of the word "saviour". It was claimed that someone who contributed in any way to their own rescue disqualified the rescuer from being their saviour.
If one is going to discuss any topic, one needs to use word with conventional meanings. One should not just invent a definition of a word that goes against its conventional use, and use that definition in one's argument because the conventional meaning would not support one's argument. IMy counter-example showed that LOUPI adherents are using a false definition of saviour to make their case.
But Jesus the Good Shepherd said that he'll never lose one! Not even one! You never read that Lost Sheep Parable, did you?
And, yes, sheep are prone to stray, which doesn't make them too bright either, does it?
And above all else with biblical meanings! What part of my cardiac arrest analogy didn't you like? (Rhetorical question.) Was the guy on the table too helpless, too powerless for your liking?
If you want me to chase you down your rabbit trails, let's first eat the carrot outside the hole.
If I am drowning and I cannot do enough to save myself, but a woman throws me a rope and I grab it, so that she can pull me into the safety of her boat, was she my saviour, in that context?
If a man is swimming to shore two miles out, and is quite capable of making the distance, and a helicopter drops a man in a harness, who grabs the swimmer and he is pulled up into the helicopter and delivered to the shore, did the helicopter crew save him?
From these two examples, can you give a general definition of "saviour" that fits all cases where someone is saved. You will see that I have earlier. And it is somewhat different from the LOUPI definition applied to the Bible to argue for LOUPI theology. Anyway, have a go at defining saviour that applies to all cases.