Predestination is misunderstood...
- Thread starter Genez
- 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.
Then you do not believe once you are saved that all sins are forgiven but that after being saved and you sin you must repent of those new sins?
I searched "Christadelphian" on wiki and ran into a contrary belief, in regard to the Trinity, in the first paragraph so I'm definitely not a Christadelphian.
And I found the actual quote I was thinking of which is, indeed, attributed to CS Lewis (not that I agree with him entirely either about everything). "There are no 'ordinary' people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors" (The Weight of Glory).
I don't disagree with you on the state of unredeemed man apart from grace. We part ways when it comes to application of grace. You see grace can only be applied unto salvation. I see grace can be applied to free man's will from the bondage to his sin nature allowing him to respond to God in accordance with his true self ie. his self as it would have been if he had not been born spiritually dead with a sin nature.
Indeed they do. For example Ruth. Or the Queen of Sheba. Or Naaman.
What of Shechem? How about those Gibeonites?
Christ Himself spoke of a number of these.
You see, anyone of the nations roundabout Israel had the opportunity to enter into the covenant.
Anyone at any time. The "light was on", the spring of life was flowing, the door was always open.
But only some few did. The same goes for this Church age. The same goes for the Millennial age.
God does not predestinate anyone to the lake of fire. They go of their own accord.
Jesus Messiah, in His righteous judgement and justice, then SEPARATES the evil from the good. Forever.
And.....its over. Finally. Then comes the new heavens and new earth. The war has ended.
In this we can rejoice and this we anticipate while we abide as chaste virgins for our Husband.
Jesus is speaking about receiving Him. Then and there. Without delay. With the utmost urgency.
Jesus here is commanding everyone to take a bath in His Blood.
These passages have nothing to do with "washing your feet" after having "bathed".
no people who haven't come to the lord can be ruled by devil.
They hand themself's handed themselves over to the devil, which is why God enslaves people in captivity to his old covenant
Even if scripture says they have been handed over to the devil.
They where still being ruled by devil.
So what difference does it make.
As they where still born in a fallen state.
Able to be ruled by the devil.
I apologize if I misrepresented you. It was not my intent. However, you did say, “from that perspective, there is no need for God in salvation.” Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but it seemed as if you were saying that my argument implied that God was not necessary for salvation. I don’t know how else to read that.
No apology ever necessary. I'm never offended by what someone posts. And I do believe the way you worded your argument it implies that someone could be saved apart from God. That doesn't mean I believe that you believe that is so. I was merely pointing out what I see as an inconsistentcy in your reasoning.
I wouldn’t say the doctrine of Christian enlightenment is Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a dualistic religion that sought to meld Christian theology with Greek Platonic philosophy. It taught things like: the spirit is good, the flesh is bad (thus, people could practice hedonism as long as they had the correct knowledge (gnosis)). It also taught that God created the spiritual and a demigod created the physical world. And they taught that Jesus didn’t die to save us from our sin and rejected the resurrection (Why would God raise a corrupt flesh?). They believed Jesus came to bring knowledge and those who had that secret knowledge had special access to God/heaven.
Anyway, Christian enlightenment is a popular Christian doctrine. Although I don’t think it is supported biblically, I also don’t think it is heretical or to be considered false teaching, as would be Gnosticism. I just say this because I think we as Christians need to be cautious in our discussions and debates on the charge of teaching heresy. There is a lot of variety of views in the Christian faith and we need to be careful to distinquish between something that we dont feel is biblical and something that is heretical. The latter usually is an accusation that the person is not a Christian and their views lead people to destruction…which is why I think we need to be cautious about such claims.
I hope this doesn’t come off the wrong way. I just want Christians to be able to disagree passionately without claiming the other person is a heretic.
Sure man is required to seek after God. And you are correct in that it doesn't say he cannot seek after God. It says he doesn't seek after God. And the reason is given...none are good.
Everything God created was good. After the fall, man is no longer good.
I do not think I mentioned heretic and yes there are elements of gnosticism in Christian theology and yes when there is a "special" enlightenment given to a person that is an element of gnosticism.
Of course a born again Christian can have elements of false doctrine and still be a believer. I know because I once was instructed in Augustine's doctrines, I was a believer with a bad teacher.
Thankful each day God did not leave me there, self imposed cognitive dissonance is a horrible burden to bear.
Yes man is no longer singularly good prior to the fall, he/she has the capacity for good and evil.
That's not what it says either. It says man knows good and evil. It doesn't say he can do good. In fact, if you read Romans 7, Paul says the good he wanted to do he could not do.
Alrighty then Mr. Cameron143, I was waiting for you to raise this objection!
Getting my ducks in order...
man still has the human nature that God created him with, before he fell. Which God saw that was Good after he created mans humans nature , and God also creates mans human nature to know right from wrong. And man still has that human nature after he fell
So total depravity doesn't exist.
The argument against you would be.
John 3:.....19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
The image of God in man was corrupted in the fall. Salvation is about restoring the image of God in man...with some really cool upgrades.
You don't understand total depravity. It doesn't mean that man is completely corrupt. It means that every aspect of man...the whole of a person...has been corrupted. In other words, man's mind was affected in the fall. It still functions, but it is no longer as it was created. Man's heart has been corrupted. It, too, still functions, but not as intended in creation. And so forth.