Featured A Non Elect Person Saved

You are confusing the mission of Israel with the remnant of Israel. Where does it say that "preserved OF ISRAEL" is anyone in the church? It doesn't. The preserved of Israel will be shown in the tribulation. You can not get around the fact the beginning with the 144,000 of the tribes of ISRAEL, all with Hebrew names from the literal tribes of Israel mean......ISRAEL.

It says raise up the TRIBES of Jacob. Since when did the church ever have tribes? Why does it say that Israel will be His salvation unto the end of the earth? Because Israel will be the last evangelistic body the world sees. Revelation is perfectly clear about this.

 

Part 1

Again you are missing the point. I did not use the verse to prove a usage of "your sins are forgiven" but to show that your reasoning for why the Syro-Phoenician woman really wanted help is erroneous. You are relying on her REASONS as being a justification for nullifying her salvation, and the woman who wiped Jesus' feet, as well as the one healed in Mark 2 are examples that the REASON was not specific in those texts, and if a man was saved simply because he came to Christ for HEALING, you can not use the woman's reasoning as evidence of her heart condition and then affirm that her same reasoning confirms the salvation of others who had the exact same reasoning.

It is therefore logical to conclude that Christ forgave her sins even if her reasoning was for her daughter's healing because Jesus forgave others for the exact same reason. You are attempting to disprove something by arguing from silence. In that sense, Jesus never said she WASN'T saved either, or that her sins were NOT forgiven. So if you want to argue from silence, it works both ways.

Then when do you pick and choose when it means Lord, and when it means "sir"? You can't just conveniently cherry pick the usage of that term without knowing the rules of when it applies. This woman was from Canaan and a Syro Phoenician which meant she spoke Aramaic. She would have been saying "Lord" when using it in the context of worshiping Him, not 'Sir'. In this passage, kurious was not used in the form of a greeting, but in acknowledging that he was the Messiah from the line of David.

And you seem to want to isolate each tenet that I have used instead of looking at all of the evidence for this woman's salvation with the context as a whole. A person that simply says "Lord" of course not. But this woman did not just simply say "Lord", she followed it up by worshiping him.

This is a major difference between what she said, and what was said by those Jesus rejected in Matthew 7 and 25. None of the subjects in those passages demonstrated "great faith", showed humility, or worshiped Christ. You conveniently left out of Matthew 7:21 "..but he that doeth the will of my father".

.

That is an erroneous presumption because it is not possible to show a verse of a healed person that was saved without the words "your sins are forgiven" because that is the very criteria you are assuming proves that they were saved. If I showed you a verse where Jesus healed a person, but did not say they were saved, you would then claim that that person is not saved because Jesus never said the words. That is classic circular reasoning.

Mark 10:46-48, when Jesus healed Bartimaeus, Jesus said "thy faith hath made thee whole". So does that mean his sins were not forgiven? Jesus never specifically said, "your sins are forgiven"

DO you see what you just did here? Exactly as I predicted which was precisely why I used Stephen as an example. You had to use the context to prove that Stephen was saved even though there is nothing that specifically indicates that Jesus ever told Stephen "your sins are forgiven". Who said that Stephen was fully of the Holy Ghost? That could just be Luke's opinion if we use the logic you are applying. Stephen saw the glory of God in heaven. Says who? Luke can't prove he saw what Stephen saw. Obviously that is an erroneous assumption, but that's the type of interpretive scheme you are trying to employ.

I used the exact same methods of deduction to show the Syro-Phoenician woman was saved that you used to prove Stephen was saved-the surrounding context and several other factors that prove she demonstrated her faith in Christ.

You are still basing your refutation on a self-created rule of interpretation that has no support in common logic or the Bible. It's like a Campbellite arguing that the thief on the cross COULD HAVE been baptized because the text never specifically says that he wasn't.

Again, others sought Christ for HEALING and were saved when they asked for nothing else. Your logic which ignores this fact, would nullify the salvation of those in Mark 2 because their REASONING was for healing. You then rely on the circular reasoning tactic "BUT they were told their sins were given". That's not the point. Yes, they were told that, but part of your argument that the woman wasn't saved is because her REASONING was for a healing, not for salvation, and you have to be consistent in the REASONING argument, because the REASON that the person in Mark 2 came to Christ was NOT FOR SALVATION, and yet his sins were forgiven.

I already explained thoroughly who the elect are and what election is. As I also did on another thread: [Reposted as Part 2 under here]


You seem to have created your own rule of interpretation that requires that Jesus say the words "your sins are forgiven" as absolutely necessary to prove one is saved. Where is that rule in Scripture? You have created your own caricature of exegesis, and then criticized your own caricature. There is more evidence to prove that this woman was saved then there is to prove she was not.

 

Part 2

Part 2 continued from above post

 

Have you heard of the Black man on a slave ship who was asked to pray on the white man's sinking ship! The captain admitted that blacks knew how to pray, so then summoned one them to pray for the ship.

The black man answered, "Lord, when we get on the bus, the sign said, 'whites only'. When we was hungry and went to the restaurant, the signs said 'whites only'. When we went to the swimming pools to cool off, all the signs said 'whites only'. So Lord when this ship sinks let it be WHITES ONLY".

 

And it is only by the grace of God that you as a Gentile were grafted in by a JEWISH Saviour.

And America has overcome it's racism? It didn't even OFFICIALLY "overcome" it until 1964, and then the man that lead the revolt got murdered. Your government still pumps guns and drugs in from CIA sources into known gang territories just so they will kill each other, and deliberately creates zoning laws and gerrymandered districts that exclude minorities. And many of your churches, even conservative ones, still enforce racial separation, and your court systems still have to keep defining affirmative action laws because you have "overcome" racism in America.

And if you "pay your own way" why are you 16.7 trillion dollars in debt? Don't you racists always say that the Jews run all of the banks including the IMF? All the money you borrowed from Rothschild owned institutions...ahem..Jewish bankers. Now Rothschilds are some evil breeds, but your argument that America "pays it's own way" is some non-sense. If they paid their own way, they wouldn't be borrowing from China, England, Japan and the International Monetary Fund, and swindling tax payers through an agency that isn't even a legitimate government agency (IRS).

And America is clearly the agent being used in establishing a New World Order. "No New Taxes" wasn't the only thing that one could read from the lips of George Bush, Sr. The Illuminati headquarters: US. The United Nations on 666 United Nations Plaza: US. Council on Foreign Relations: US. Bilderberger Committee: mostly US congress members and US bankers. The first president of your country: Freemason. All the designs in all of your government buildings and even your currency: Freemasonry.

Shall we keep going Don't act like the US has rose smelling feces.

 

Israel did fine for several thousands of years without America, and if it wasn't for a JEW, you wouldn't have half of the military technology you have, including a nuclear bomb.

And honest about your educations? I earned my doctorate, and yet most of the people in your list of "favorite preachers" all have "honorary doctorates (like Billy Graham and D. James Kennedy who denied receiving it..talk about "honesty"). Your country hands out degrees like candy to homosexuals, lesbians, wiccans, satanists with the full support of your Supreme Court and you call that honest education?

Apparently, you can't even be honest about what books you've read. LOL what a character.