1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Newbie Questions

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Handmaid, Nov 28, 2002.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The entire chapter of Romans 9??

    I hope you don't mind comments on just most of 9 - instead of the entire chapter.

    ============================

    9 For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.”

    Really good example of foreknowledge here - but a real Calvinist problem since God willed Sarah to have a child and was apparently ALSO willing Sarah to laugh at God over it at the time. Obviously Sarah did NOT of her own free will choose such a thing in the model of Calvinism - since she never had free will to begin with (according to Calvin). At each turn so far - Cavlinism is frustrated by the points highlighted.

    Good example of God knowing the future. Although I am sure some Calvinists would point this out as God arbitrarily picking Jacob without any reference to the actual choices for obedience vs rebellion in the two men. However the text itself only deals with relationship between the two brothers - not good vs evil or love-vs-hate. The mother is told which Son will be dominant - which one will have the blessing.

    13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

    Interesting quote of Malachi AFTER both Jacob and Esau were dead and the history of Rebellion was fully manifest in Esau's descendants (and referenced in that chapter).

    Would have worked MUCH better for Calvinism if that quote had come from something said before the twins were born, as iif God has ALREADY decided ot hate Esau arbitrarily. But that is not the source of the quote. Paul appeals to the nature of the fact that God showed past-tense his actions toward the descendants of Esau who were in constant rebellion - and the descendants of Jacob.

    Perfect Calvinist point here - the chapter should END here to preserve the Calvinist point and not wreck it. It appears that maybe God is claiming that it is not man's choice - but rather God's choice to NOT have Mercy on the many but just have mercy on the few that he knows to be saved - on the CHOSEN people ONLY. Limitted atonement in action IF we could have ended the point here and turned a blind eye to the full teaching of the chapter.


    22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?


    Ooooops! Notice that this does not say "God DOES NOT have MERCY on vessels He knows to be destined for hell." Instead Paul argues that the case depends on God who HAS mercy (And not on JUST the FEW).

    Having mercy on the LOST ALSO messes the whole limited atonement thing . Oh well let's try another chapter.


    23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
    24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.


    He DID SO? He Endured with much patientnce - SO that He could MAKE KNOWN the riches of His Glory??

    Hold it. How does it convey the "riches of God's Glory" to the "vessels of mercy" - to show mercy and kindness and longsuffering upon those that God foreknows will ultimately reject Him?

    This IS the Arminian argument that the JUSTICE of God is shown by His compassion, kindness and efforts to reach the lost - "I will Draw ALL unto ME" John 12:32. Paul is making the case that in the EFFORT God makes toward those that He KNOWS will not be saved by their own choice - God is REVEALING his Glory to the saints that ARE saved.
    The saints are SEEING God be patient and caring EVEN of the Lost - and the text says that REVEALS to them - His Glory.

    Limited atonement fails here - and so does the concept that God arbitrarily predestined them to be lost because the combination of longsuffering and effort for the lost would not "show the riches of Gods glory" IF it could be proven that God arbitrarily predestined their failure.

    God is "Not willing that ANY should perish" and Paul declares that God is "Calling all men everywhere to REPENT" - but yet He still knows the end from the beginning and so - STILL chooses to endure with much patience those who will be destroyed.

    (And that principle "of the God that never changes" remains true EVEN in the fires of Rev 14:10-11 where they are burned "IN our Presence". The Presence of Christ "AND His Holy Ones")

    Oh no WORSE for the Calvinist because INSTEAD of selecting the saved just from the Soevereignly CHOSEN NATION - He is going to BOTH the CHOSEN (Holy Nation, Royal Priesthood) and the non-chosen GENTILES.

    More BAD news - He claims that He SHOWS mercy EVEN to the finally-lost FOR the benefit of the saved. He shows that LIMITTING His mercy JUST to the saved would not be as much benefit FOR THE SAVED as EXTENDING it to BOTH groups. Hmmmm what a devastating blow to Calvinism. We commend Paul - the inspired author of the book of Romans for showing details that reveal God showing His MERCY and KINDNESS to BOTH the chosen and the non-chosen. "For it is the KINDNESS of God that LEADS you to repentance" Rom 2:4.

    {Wow - NOW God is really trouncing the entire sovereignly CHOSEN/ROYAL/HOLY nation by CONTRAST with the NOT-CHOSEN Gentiles. End of Calvinism.) How could that be?? IN the Model of Calvinism what is "supposed to happen" is the utter disregard for those "NOT Chosen" and "should have been" sole concern - and sovereignly directed success for the "Chosen", sovereignly elect and chosen at Sinai.

    Notice the definition for "LAW of Righteousness" and how that is contrasted to the gentiles who DID "attain Righteousness". The term "LAW of Righteousnes" being pursued by the jews is a :Law pursued APART from FAITH and "as though it were by WORKS".

    It is clearly introduced as - apart from Christ, apart from Faith, Stumbling over Christ rather than receiving Him - because Christ declares that all are sinners and all need a savior.

    IN christ,

    Bob

    [ November 29, 2002, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
     
  2. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    36,817
    Likes Received:
    664
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nice eisegesis, Bob, but very poor exegesis. Also, you have once again proven you either don't have a clue what the doctrines of grace teach or you are refusing to deal with what you know they teach.

    Ken

    [ November 29, 2002, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
     
  3. Missionary to Germany

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why are you so dead set against God wanting to save Whosoever will may come?

    God does the saving and man does the choosing after conviction of sin. Man can either choose Jesus Christ as Saviour or reject Him. What is so hard about that?
     
  4. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    36,817
    Likes Received:
    664
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1. I'm not. Anyone who comes to Jesus in repentance and faith will be saved.

    2. Those are mutually exclusive concepts because of...

    3. Man is dead in trespasses and sins according to the Bible. Regeneration, which gives spiritual life, is always effective and gives life. Non-Calvinists teach that man can contribute to causing his own regeneration. That is a false teaching.

    I hope this helps. [​IMG]

    Ken

    [ November 29, 2002, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    But of course - the detailed review of Romans 9 as provided above may be a bit long - so here is the classic comparison between 5 point Calvinism and opposing Arminian view - at its "bottom line".

    But what about the Arminian view?

     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    New people will pass this way all the time. The same Arminian texts of John 3:16 and John 12:32 and 1John 2:2 and ... will be posted with comments showing why these are so fitting of the Arminian POV.

    Other texts will be posted in favor of Calvinism along with complaints that Arminians only quote their texts to exault the greatness of mans achievements. (Or something like that)

    The same summaries will be posted and the refined - pin-point classic comparisons already posted - will be reposted for the new reader.

    I guess that is to be expected - but sooner or later - you would think we would take note of the ones that seem to drill the point home without a compelling response of any kind. Maybe it is a chance to do some more study.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    36,817
    Likes Received:
    664
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here is the classic comparison between the 5-point Arminian and the opposing Calvinist view - at its "bottom line".

    When the 5-point-Arminian finds himself in hell suffering eternal destruction and then peeking over the ramparts of hell to view a heaven empty of human beings he may well cry out to God "Oh My Lord, my great God and Savior! Didn't I try to with all of my will to be a good person and do the right things I read about in your Word? Why are there no human beings in heaven?"

    And of course the answer will come back that Arminianism so loves to hear - "Why of course, you wanted to by saved by your free will and when I let you try to do so, you failed. So now all human beings must suffer eternal destruction because your will was corrupted beyond your ability to repair."

    "Hallelujah!" cries out the Arminian - that IS the Gospel I was proclaiming!! Ahh, that blissful eternity with my free will intact though I suffer eternal destruction. So I will just enjoy! I have my corrupt free will, and I love it so. Oh, the Arminian bliss!


    You see the problem when the Arminian model is not allowed the "luxury" of disregarding the fate of the attempt of salvation by free will - as in the case above?

    And for us Calvinists - well we will just have to be content with the fact that God really does "so love the world" that not merely the "few" that Arminians thought would be saved are saved but the majority of human beings ever conceived enjoy the bliss of heaven because of the sovereignty of God and the supremacy of Jesus Christ, His Son, and the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit.

    We will have to be content in all eternity with the God that does truly love and died for sinners and is not willing for any of His people to perish but for all of His people to come to repentance".

    And the Arminians in heaven will say, "We wish we had believed all of these great doctrines of God's sovereignty, grace, mercy, and love. It would have made our time on earth so much more pleasant so that we would have stood confident in the salvation we have in Jesus Christ. Oh, if we could have only believed like our Calvinist brethren believed. If only, if only."


    Ken

    [ November 30, 2002, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
     
  8. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    36,817
    Likes Received:
    664
    Faith:
    Baptist
    New people pass this way all the time. If you check out just about any thread where Bob Ryan posts, he continually posts that inane diatribe of his that is an egregious falsehood about the doctrines of God's amazing grace toward sinners. Why he cannot come up with fresh comedy material that is less inane I do not know. It must be comedy material for I don't want to believe that he takes it for serious doctrinal discussion.

    I simply posted a similarly inane reply using his format. It should not be taken for serious doctrinal discussion either. [​IMG]

    Ken
     
  9. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I would say that people are really able to choose--their choosing mechanism is certainly still there, and whatever they want they can have. The problem is not with the choosing mechanism, but with the wanting.
    They just don't want to be subject toGod, they like the lie better than the truth, and they would rather worship a god more like themselves than the all-powerful, eternal, creator God who is. (Romans 1)
    Yes, for a natural man, without the work of the Spirit, it is really that hopeless. No one understand, no one seeks God. (Romans 3:11) The mind of the natural man is at enmity with God and cannot subject itself to the law of God, or please God. (Romans 8:7,8) The natural man is dead in tresspasses and sins, busy following after Satan, fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and is by nature a child of wrath. (Ephesians 2).

    (It is important to remember, however, that this hopelessness comes as a result of the fall and man's rebellion against God.)

    Because God, in his mercy, did an inner work of the Spirit within us, drawing us to Him, and changing the inclination of our hearts, so that instead of hating Him, we saw His beauty, so that instead of the gospel seeming like foolishness to us, it became the power of God to us, so that we could understand the things that have been freely given to us by God. (1 Cor 2).
    Well, I certainly try to live my life in thanksgiving to God who reached down and took this obstinate sinner, turned her around and saved her by his grace. I also know that underneath it all, I am no different than any other obstinate sinner who refuses to believe. "There but for the grace of God..." really is true.

    But I suppose what you really want to know is how this effects evangelism or missions, right? Well, first let me speak generally. Many, many of the famous evangelists and missionaries of the past were dyed-in-the-wool Calvinists. And I have a Calvinist missionary friend in Kiev who tells me that his denomination, the PCA--a conservative Calvinistic denomination, has the highest percentage of foreign missionaries per member of any church in North America.

    Now to speak more personally. I have found the truth that while I am responsible for spreading the gospel, it is God who determines the results of my witnessing to be a very freeing one--and not a free-to-do-nothing truth, but a free-to-be-used-as-a-tool-in-God's-hands truth. I don't grow nearly so discouraged when I don't get the results I anticipated, for I know that God is accomplishing His will through my work, even when I don't see it. And I also know that no matter how hopelessly dead set against God someone seems, there is always hope that God will do his drawing work in their heart like he did in mine, that He will melt their hearts of stone, too, and they will believe and be saved.

    [ November 30, 2002, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: russell55 ]
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Ken,

    I appreciate that you are trying to work on the puzzle. In this case you work is not to defend (dig out) the Calvinist position from the problems posed by the devastating calvinst scenario based fully on Calvinist principles as THEY state them...

    Instead you choose to propose an Arminian scenario based on Arminian principles as Arminians state them - I applaud the effort.

    Now lets look closely for those Arminian principles.

    #1. Arminians do not claim that no one goes to heaven. Rather Arminians explicitly claim to BELIEVE Christ when He says "FEW" DO go to heaven as opposed to the "MANY" that do not. Matt 7.

    WHEREAS in the Calvinist scenario - Calvinist DO claim that parents may easily go to heaven and yet children may go to hell. So the your scenario starts out "busted" as it were.

    And of course - only a very FEW among the Calvinists would claim that Christ was wrong - that in fact when it is all said an done -- the MANY of humanity go to heaven - a claim that you make.

    The Arminian quote would be"

    "I buffet my body and made it my slave LEST after preaching the Gospel to OTHER I myself should have been disqualified" 1Cor 9:27

    "I have been crucified with Christ therefore it is no longer I WHO LIVE by CHRIST whoh lives IN me, and the life which I NOW live I LIVE by FAITH in the Son of God" Gal 2:20

    "I PRESS on toward the goal for the Prize of the Upward call of God in Christ Jesus" Phil 3:14.

    "I heard YOU stand outside at the DOOR an knocking so I OPENED the door and you came in as you promised" Rev 3:20"

    "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master."
    Matt 25:23

    OR - if the scenario REALLY is about one who is "self deceived" into thinking he HAD chosen Christ when in fact - he freely chose against God -

    Matt 7
    21 "" Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
    22 "" Many will say to Me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
    23 ""And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

    In any case the Arminian principle is "NEVER" that "IF man has Free will HE will ALWAYS choose rebellion - he will never choose the Gospel".

    Which means that the scenario Ken drew was based on CALVINIST "first priniciples" - not Arminian
    ones. That is in direct contrast to the Scenario I showed where it is Calvinist principles from start to finish that compose the scenario.

    That is in fact what makes IT so devastating. IT is not simply a thrust against the Calvinist view saying "I can't understand what you are saying" - rather it is an open handed display of Calvinist principles AT work JUST as they are expected to work BY Calvinists.

    There are NO Arminian quotes saying that human will is corrupted BEYOND the drawing power of God in John 12:32 - "I will DRAW ALL MANKIND unto Me" .

    IN fact - your statement above does not match EITHER the Calvinist OR the Arminian view.

    BOTH of them AGREE that the DRAWING of Christ is MORE THAN SUFFICIENT to solve the "innactive" problem. The Difference is that Arminians say ALL MANKIND is drawn and Calvinist say "ALL mankind IS NOT drawing" just "ALL TYPES of mankind".

    In fact the Calvinist argument is that IF ALL MANKIND WERE drawn - then ALL would be saved.

    You are posting a straw man that even Calvinists could not endorse if they thought about it.

    Indeed - no such proclamation IS made by Arminians regarding the prinicples you fabricated here.

    BUT Calvinists DO proclaim the point that WHEN you find that you are saved - then hallelujah! And don't expect God to be obligated to care in any way for the lost. It was grace to get YOU in and that should be sufficient.

    These quotes are available for posting here if you have forgotten them.

    So in fact in the scenario I posted the ONLY part that is "objectionable" is that the one suffering is NOT an "unnamed lost person" as the Calvinist scenarios always present. It is someone that you "KNOW".

    That is in fact - the ONLY variation from the direct Calvinist quotes.

    And that makes it - devastating.

    {Quote] Ken
    You see the problem when the Arminian model is not allowed the "luxury" of disregarding the fate of the attempt of salvation by free will </font>[/QUOTE]Er.. um I think you mean

    You see the problem when the Arminian model is MIXED with the Calvinist views of Free will and how corrupt it is and how it could never work EVEN with the drawing power of God Himself in John 12:32??

    And of course - that is your problem in that scenario.

    You were never able to actually PRESENT the Arminian view and then expose its flaws using ITS claims alone.

    And that is too bad - because it should certainly BE possible to expose the flaws of Arminianism using JUST the Arminian principles - consistently stated, and I would welcome the chance to view it.

    Care to try again?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The fact is that very few 5 point Calvinists on this board have joined you in arguing that Christ's statement is false in Matt 7 when HE says only the "FEW" find their way to eternal life.

    I would be hard pressed to represent your views there as those of all 5-point-calvinists.

    #2. IF Christ was speaking to the jews in Matt7 about infants dying EVEN in their day alone - it would be hard to find anyone who believed that infants dying in Christ's day were among "the MANY" going to hell.

    Basically the "context" is among those who choose to "Say Lord Lord" where SOME ALSO have good fruit contrasted with the MANY who either do not choose to acknowledge Christ as Lord even though DRAWN to Christ or who do so but with bad fruit -- (probably not a story about dead infants).

    Now you see - you just opened the door BACK up to MY scenario.

    "And so Christ turns to you and says - I WAS only WILLING FOR MY people to come to repentance - and in this case that does NOT include your precious daughter who lived PASSED infancy, and who now suffering in the fires of hell. Bother someone else".

    ====================================

    Now here is a truly self-conflicted aspect of your story. In your story no Calvinist goes to heaven - but the Arminians end up lamenting that they did not end up in hell as Calvinists.

    I have to assume you are just not trying very hard on this "Scenario" thing.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. Handmaid

    Handmaid New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry I was out so long. My husband and I were traveling to Missions meetings over the weekend.

    So far what russel55 has said seems the easiest to verify from the Scriptures. It appears to me that the Scriptures the Calvinists base their beliefs on are the ones written just after people had been out witnessing their hearts out and some hadn't responded. The knowledge that Salvation and the change of people's heart is God's responsiblity and we just have to be the messenger is very comforting and calming.

    Yes, BobRyan, I know that all this is being discussed ad nausium. I was hoping to have a short thread where everyone just stated what they believed and why, but I haven't been around enough to keep it on line.

    BTW: everyone, if you are worried about my believing any of Ken H arguments; I stopped listening to him when he started being rude. I wouldn't listen to someone who got their beliefs straight from me if they weren't nice to everyone...
     
  13. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    My testimony is very short.

    If I could have refused God's Salvation in Jesus Christ, I would have.
     
  14. romanbear

    romanbear New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Handmaid; [​IMG]
    This is what I understand Arminianism and Calvinism is. [​IMG]
    Arminian's believe in
    1. Conditional predestination
    2. Freewill of man
    3. Unlimited atonement
    4. Resistible grace
    5. You can lose your salvation.

    Calvinist believe in
    1. Total depravity of man
    2. Unconditional election
    3.limited atonement
    4. Irresistible grace
    5.Perseverance of the saints.or always remaining righteous.

    I myself, like you say, go by the Bible. I am not influenced ("I hope")by man's interpretation of scriptures.God's word interprets it self.In other words I understand what I read and don't need someone else to tell me what it all means.The Holy Spirit insures that I know what I need to know.
    Someone once told me that I'm an arminian because I believe in four of the points you see here which are the first four.I don't believe you can loose your salvation by doing something wrong or that anyone can take it from you, but at the same time I do not believe that God would keep you from changing your mind if you chose to. You can walk away from it.Although Christ will come searching for you to bring you back. I also believe that if you chose to walk away from your beliefs that you would not be able to come back because you can't be saved twice.These are what the scriptures say to me and so far no one has been able to show me in scripture where it is that I'm wrong.I am not perfect and have my short comings just like everyone else but I let scripture settle any disputes and not the thoughts of man.Some Calvinist believe that if we can chose to follow Christ we would be taking glory away from God.It's just that nothing in the Bible makes sense if we don't choose Christ.While I do believe that these who are Calvinist are still believing in Christ and are there way to heaven even though they are looking at scripture differently than I. it's still just semantics
    any way welcome I hope you have as much enjoyment as I do [​IMG]
    Romanbear
    Peace

    [ December 02, 2002, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: romanbear ]
     
  15. romanbear

    romanbear New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Hardseller;
    Quote
    _____________________________________________________________
    My testimony is very short.

    If I could have refused God's Salvation in Jesus Christ, I would have.
    _____________________________________________________________

    My hearts aches for you if you feel you are forced in to something you don't want :( .It aches even more because that you don't want Christ [​IMG] .But then I think maybe this is a debating trap and you are only trying to prove something you can't. :confused: :( [​IMG]
    Romanbear
    Peace
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Certainly I am one of those 5 point guys.

    But I believe that most Arminians that post here are the 4 point type and agree with you on that 5th point - or the lack thereof.

    I myself tend to go with the Matt 18 model of "forgiveness revoked" as the one that explains the 5th point best.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    Romanbear wrote:

    My hearts aches for you if you feel you are forced in to something you don't want .It aches even more because that you don't want Christ .But then I think maybe this is a debating trap and you are only trying to prove something you can't.

    Romanbear, One out of Three Guesses ain't bad. You're right it is a debating trap and it looks like I caught a big'un.

    So go ahead now and play the second round - What is it that I'm trying to prove that I can't?
     
  18. romanbear

    romanbear New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi hardseller; [​IMG]
    I can't help you prove the unprovable if you want to say it spit it out I'll read what you have to say.I can't promiss that I'll believe it.But untill you just come right out and say it I can't even consider it [​IMG]
    Romanbear
    Peace
     
  19. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    Romanbear - I'm disappointed in you.

    You were willing to interpret my original statement 3 ways without knowing what was on my mind.

    I responded and told you which of your guesses was the right choice.

    Now if you want to play the game consistently - take the next step and tell me what you think I'm trying to prove that can't be proven. You're the one who brought up proving something.

    Unless you have something to add - my statement stands on its own merit without question.
     
  20. romanbear

    romanbear New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Bob Ryan; [​IMG]
    Mathew 18 is a very good chapter [​IMG] I believe that we will not be forgiven if we can't forgive.Maybe being unforgiving is the so called unforgivable sin. Out of all the heinous sins there are, it would have to be the most heinous.
    "Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him."

    But please note that the man was only delivered to the tormentors until the debt had been paid. Christ paid the debt of all sin, for all time, past, present, and future.Never the less there is one requirement that we must do, in order to receive this gift and this is to repent, or turn from our sins. So many believe that they will continue to be forgiven without repentance of new sin. In other words we can't hold someone accountable, without forgiveness and expect to be forgiven.

    Romanbear [​IMG]

    Peace
     
Loading...