Is knowing Jesus as the Son of God a requirement to have eternal life or not?

With all due respect, I am going to respond to this post, and hope it is received with the spirit it is intended.

I am trusting because of the heat of your exchange on this thread you didn't intend for it to come across this way, but I have to say this, I am troubled by your response. Surely you first give God full credit for lives saved and any increase? Your response comes across kind of prideful and full of "I's" and "My's". And seriously since when is the answer to ones attitude when dealing with others all about numbers and money?

Also if that the gold standard we should set for ourselves? If that is the case, would we not all hold many TV evangelist in the highest regards, and the best examples to emulate?

Again, I don't mean any disrespect, and I believe this was more of a quick on the trigger response towards webdog, more than anything else.

 

:thumbs: Very good post, Amy.

 

No disrespect taken and I appreciate your concern. It does come across that way at second glance- but I think only if you don't follow the exchnage.

Webdog asked me about my ministry and I gave him an answer.

Of course Christ did it all. He gets all the glory. That is the very thign I am arguing for in this thread.

 

:thumbs:
.........

 

Are you going to respond to post 325?

 

It does not say he cannot, simply that he "receiveth not". This is similar to John 1:11

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

You add to what this verse truly says, it does not say the natural man cannot receive the things of God.

Now, later in the verse it does say "neither can he know them".

But, think about that a minute. How can you possibly know and understand the things of God if you will not receive them?

It is similar to our very debates we have here. I cannot understand your point of view because I first will not accept them. Why? Because I believe there is much scripture that refutes your view.

And it is the same with you. You will not entertain my point of view because you have a different doctrine than me. It is what you have been taught. Therefore, because you will not entertain my point of view you cannot understand it.

And you, like me, think you have scripture to support your view, that is why you hold to it.

Now I would challange that, I do not believe you have any scripture to support regeneration before faith, but I have posted many simple scriptures that clearly say you have to believe to have life.

But the reason the natural man cannot understand spiritual things is because he will not allow himself to entertain these ideas. It is not a matter of inability, it is a matter of unwillingness. And that is why the very first statement says, "But the natural man receiveth not".

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You may not follow me here, but you cannot possibly understand the things of the Spirit of God unless you first believe them true.

 

Listen, Steven, you feel free to reign me in anytime you sense me getting too heated. I do get too heated some times.

I read over the last several pages and saw what you saw.

Once again, I apologize.

God bless everyone on this thread and thanks for your patience!

 

BTW, you did not cover half of post 339 nor have you yet responded to post 325.

 

What? Where you use the old Calvinistic tactic of calling me a Pelagian?

I guess when you can't win an argument with logic and facts you can just call folks names can't you? Real mature.

I am not a Pelagian, I have never believed man has within himself the ability to reach God. No, if God had not revealed himself to us, we would all be lost without any hope.

But I do believe lost man can respond to God, just as Adam and Eve came to God when he called them. They were lost in their sins when this happened.

 

No not that part- you are a pelagian but that is not the part you should respond to.

This part:

 

Is that what I am to respond to? I don't even know what you are saying.

I am not a Pelagian. Here is the basic definition.

I am not a Pelagian, and anybody who has read my posts and truly understands Pelagianism would know that. I have repeatedly said that unless God revealed himself to man, natural man would never conceive of the gospel in a million years. So, I absolutely believe man needs Divine aid to be saved and have always said so.

Show me where I have ever said man could be saved without God first revealing himself to man. Good luck finding that.

No, you call names because you can't support your doctrine with scripture. You take verses that are not even speaking of faith and try to say they show regeneration before faith.

But I have shown you numerous scriptures that clearly say you cannot have life until you believe.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

I have much plain scripture to support my view. You do not. And you actually teach that a person can have life before they trust in Christ. Unbelieveable.

 

This confirms what I said. Satan had to actually commit a sin to be a sinner. He was perfect until he exalted himself in his heart.

And Satan had knowledge, he lived in the very presence of God. We have to believe by faith because we have never seen God. Satan did not have this excuse. He knew better.

 

He was a sinner before he committed sin, Winman. He said some things "in his heart" before he ever committed a single outward sin.

He did what he did because he was what he was.

He was perfect until sin was found IN HIM.

He was not perfect until he committed sin. He was perfect until sin was IN HIM.

Your position is absurd. How can one sin before he has it in his heart? It doesn't make sense.

Rebellion is bound in the heart of a child.

I have five- I can tell you they come forth from the womb rebels and self-willed. But Solomon said as much- I am sure that will not satisfy you.

 

Sinning in your heart is actually doing something. Jesus said if a man looks on a woman to lust after her in his heart he has committed adultery with her.

As a Christian, we can do the same. We can go online and look at porn if we choose to. That is a sin. Just because we don't commit physical fornication does not mean it is not a sin. We are only supposed to look on our wife. We are only supposed to think on our wife.

You could hate someone and not outwardly show it. That is still sin.

I do agree with you there are verses that show men start to sin at a very early age. But there are many scriptures that show that man is not born that way.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

The scriptures say God hath made man upright. But note they have "sought out" many inventions.

The scriptures say man corrupted himself. You cannot corrupt something that is evil, the very definition of corrupt means to defile, to destroy, to pervert.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

The earth was corrupt. Why? Because (for) all flesh had corrupted his way. The world became corrupt because men chose to do evil.

By the way, you Calvinists love to use these verses to prove Total Depravity. But Genesis shows men called on God.

Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Calvinism teaches men will never call on God, but the scriptures show the opposite.