seeker
Seminary Student
Posts: 351
|
Post by seeker on Sept 13, 2015 12:11:42 GMT
I thought the only unforgivable sin was not believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. It's the only answer that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by monica on Sept 13, 2015 12:17:12 GMT
I thought the only unforgivable sin was not believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. It's the only answer that makes sense. I agree.
|
|
seeker
Seminary Student
Posts: 351
|
Post by seeker on Sept 13, 2015 12:23:03 GMT
It's the only answer that makes sense. I agree. If there is only one unforgivable sin, and unbelief is a sin, unbelief is the only reason a soul isn't saved. It had to be it.
|
|
|
Post by monica on Sept 13, 2015 18:26:35 GMT
If there is only one unforgivable sin, and unbelief is a sin, unbelief is the only reason a soul isn't saved. It had to be it. Yes
|
|
|
Post by mercy on Sept 18, 2015 15:37:10 GMT
Suicide is a sin, but it's not *the* unforgivable sin. To say a sin can only be forgiven IF you repent of it, is wrong. That takes the power of grace and forgiveness OUT of God's hands and puts it in ours. God isn't holding onto forgiveness until He hears us repent - No, He's forgiven us even before we committed the sin! And our election is sure - if we are saved, nothing can change that... even if our final sin is suicide. If you were to forgive someone who hurt you, even if they have not asked for forgiveness or admitted wrong, wouldn't the act of accepting forgiveness by this person be, in a sense, an admittance of the wrong? Why would you accept forgiveness if you didn't think you need it or have done nothing wrong? It seems to me that if you are a Christian and accept God's forgiveness through faith in Christ, you are in a sense confessing sins past, present, and future just by accepting the gift. I think Mercy is correct in this, even before we have committed that sin. However, I'm not comfortable with the word "election". I know election is not the topic of this thread... and I think there is an "election" thread out there but I couldn't find it when I quickly looked. That said, I wanted to reply because I think that my comment about God holding the power (not us) to forgive sins also applies to salvation. (And the election word is not a "deal breaker" when it comes to salvation. We humans get a lot of things wrong... thankfully we have a very merciful and forgiving Father!) This is what I believe in a very condensed paragraph: We are dead in sin. (Eph 2:1 & 5, Col 2:13) God made us alive in Christ *while we were still dead in our sins.* We don't have the power to save ourselves, and we don't have the power of faith without Christ....and...we love Jesus Christ only because He loved us first (1 John 4:19.) Christ comes first, not us. If we are totally depraved, we are spiritually dead and unable to revive ourselves (have faith or choose to believe Christ is our savior.) In fact, our totally depraved self hates God. (Quick side note - I think a denial of total depravity is pride creeping in. We don't like to think of ourselves as totally depraved and dead in sin, we'd like to think we have a little good left and a choice in the matter. Ok, ending my side note or this post will be way to long!) So.... if we have any power to believe the gospel, love God, or have faith in Christ, that takes the power of grace and forgiveness OUT of God's hands and puts it in ours. God is not sitting on the edge of His seat waiting to bestow His love and grace if only we would say the magic words and accept His love and forgiveness. That puts limits and binds on His love. When He loves, He loves completely and forever. If we have the power to accept Christ as our Savior, wouldn't that also mean we have the power to reject Him? That would mean God's promises hold no power. The power is in our hands to accept/reject the gospel. And God doesn't love everyone. His love is complete and perfect - if He loves everyone, wouldn't that mean everyone is saved? Again, that would take the power away from God and give it to us sinful humans. God doesn't think, "I loved all these people but they didn't love me. Oh shoot, I would have loved to save them and bring them to heaven, but it's too bad they didn't believe the gospel. Nothing I could do, my hands were tied." I don't think it's logical to say once you accept Christ you are saved and there is no turning back. If you have the power to accept Him, then you have the power to change your mind and reject Him later. Ok, not "saved" in the first place? Wasn't a real conversion or acceptance? Doesn't matter. It's still putting the power of salvation in our own human hands and taking it OUT of God's hand. He's not sitting on His throne of grace as the God of the universe and creator of everything around us... just waiting for us to accept and acknowledge Him. Nope, the only reason we can love Him is because He loved us first and made us alive in Christ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2015 17:31:06 GMT
If you were to forgive someone who hurt you, even if they have not asked for forgiveness or admitted wrong, wouldn't the act of accepting forgiveness by this person be, in a sense, an admittance of the wrong? Why would you accept forgiveness if you didn't think you need it or have done nothing wrong? It seems to me that if you are a Christian and accept God's forgiveness through faith in Christ, you are in a sense confessing sins past, present, and future just by accepting the gift. I think Mercy is correct in this, even before we have committed that sin. However, I'm not comfortable with the word "election". I know election is not the topic of this thread... and I think there is an "election" thread out there but I couldn't find it when I quickly looked. That said, I wanted to reply because I think that my comment about God holding the power (not us) to forgive sins also applies to salvation. (And the election word is not a "deal breaker" when it comes to salvation. We humans get a lot of things wrong... thankfully we have a very merciful and forgiving Father!) This is what I believe in a very condensed paragraph: We are dead in sin. (Eph 2:1 & 5, Col 2:13) God made us alive in Christ *while we were still dead in our sins.* We don't have the power to save ourselves, and we don't have the power of faith without Christ....and...we love Jesus Christ only because He loved us first (1 John 4:19.) Christ comes first, not us. If we are totally depraved, we are spiritually dead and unable to revive ourselves (have faith or choose to believe Christ is our savior.) In fact, our totally depraved self hates God. (Quick side note - I think a denial of total depravity is pride creeping in. We don't like to think of ourselves as totally depraved and dead in sin, we'd like to think we have a little good left and a choice in the matter. Ok, ending my side note or this post will be way to long!) So.... if we have any power to believe the gospel, love God, or have faith in Christ, that takes the power of grace and forgiveness OUT of God's hands and puts it in ours. God is not sitting on the edge of His seat waiting to bestow His love and grace if only we would say the magic words and accept His love and forgiveness. That puts limits and binds on His love. When He loves, He loves completely and forever. If we have the power to accept Christ as our Savior, wouldn't that also mean we have the power to reject Him? That would mean God's promises hold no power. The power is in our hands to accept/reject the gospel. And God doesn't love everyone. His love is complete and perfect - if He loves everyone, wouldn't that mean everyone is saved? Again, that would take the power away from God and give it to us sinful humans. God doesn't think, "I loved all these people but they didn't love me. Oh shoot, I would have loved to save them and bring them to heaven, but it's too bad they didn't believe the gospel. Nothing I could do, my hands were tied." I don't think it's logical to say once you accept Christ you are saved and there is no turning back. If you have the power to accept Him, then you have the power to change your mind and reject Him later. Ok, not "saved" in the first place? Wasn't a real conversion or acceptance? Doesn't matter. It's still putting the power of salvation in our own human hands and taking it OUT of God's hand. He's not sitting on His throne of grace as the God of the universe and creator of everything around us... just waiting for us to accept and acknowledge Him. Nope, the only reason we can love Him is because He loved us first and made us alive in Christ. Can you clarify the bolded sentence above? I agree that God does not have a "saving love" toward all people, where he's waiting for us to decide. However, your sentence implies that God has no love toward his creation. Is that what you meant?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2015 17:50:32 GMT
If you were to forgive someone who hurt you, even if they have not asked for forgiveness or admitted wrong, wouldn't the act of accepting forgiveness by this person be, in a sense, an admittance of the wrong? Why would you accept forgiveness if you didn't think you need it or have done nothing wrong? It seems to me that if you are a Christian and accept God's forgiveness through faith in Christ, you are in a sense confessing sins past, present, and future just by accepting the gift. I think Mercy is correct in this, even before we have committed that sin. However, I'm not comfortable with the word "election". I know election is not the topic of this thread... and I think there is an "election" thread out there but I couldn't find it when I quickly looked. That said, I wanted to reply because I think that my comment about God holding the power (not us) to forgive sins also applies to salvation. (And the election word is not a "deal breaker" when it comes to salvation. We humans get a lot of things wrong... thankfully we have a very merciful and forgiving Father!) This is what I believe in a very condensed paragraph: We are dead in sin. (Eph 2:1 & 5, Col 2:13) God made us alive in Christ *while we were still dead in our sins.* We don't have the power to save ourselves, and we don't have the power of faith without Christ....and...we love Jesus Christ only because He loved us first (1 John 4:19.) Christ comes first, not us. If we are totally depraved, we are spiritually dead and unable to revive ourselves (have faith or choose to believe Christ is our savior.) In fact, our totally depraved self hates God. (Quick side note - I think a denial of total depravity is pride creeping in. We don't like to think of ourselves as totally depraved and dead in sin, we'd like to think we have a little good left and a choice in the matter. Ok, ending my side note or this post will be way to long!) So.... if we have any power to believe the gospel, love God, or have faith in Christ, that takes the power of grace and forgiveness OUT of God's hands and puts it in ours. God is not sitting on the edge of His seat waiting to bestow His love and grace if only we would say the magic words and accept His love and forgiveness. That puts limits and binds on His love. When He loves, He loves completely and forever. If we have the power to accept Christ as our Savior, wouldn't that also mean we have the power to reject Him? That would mean God's promises hold no power. The power is in our hands to accept/reject the gospel. And God doesn't love everyone. His love is complete and perfect - if He loves everyone, wouldn't that mean everyone is saved? Again, that would take the power away from God and give it to us sinful humans. God doesn't think, "I loved all these people but they didn't love me. Oh shoot, I would have loved to save them and bring them to heaven, but it's too bad they didn't believe the gospel. Nothing I could do, my hands were tied." I don't think it's logical to say once you accept Christ you are saved and there is no turning back. If you have the power to accept Him, then you have the power to change your mind and reject Him later. Ok, not "saved" in the first place? Wasn't a real conversion or acceptance? Doesn't matter. It's still putting the power of salvation in our own human hands and taking it OUT of God's hand. He's not sitting on His throne of grace as the God of the universe and creator of everything around us... just waiting for us to accept and acknowledge Him. Nope, the only reason we can love Him is because He loved us first and made us alive in Christ. I'm not certain about the theology of election, however, I don't think it is a requirement for faith, or as you said a deal breaker. Nevertheless, as I stated previously, I am uncomfortable with the term. The reason is contained in your last sentence. Logically then, it seems to me, one can say, "Nope, the only reason one can hate Him is because He hated this one first and made this one dead to Christ."
"the love and hate of God towards men is immutable and eternal, existing, not merely before there was any merit or work of ‘free-will,’ but before the world was made" - Martin Luther
I am uncomfortable with that.
|
|
|
Post by mercy on Sept 18, 2015 19:18:46 GMT
I know election is not the topic of this thread... and I think there is an "election" thread out there but I couldn't find it when I quickly looked. That said, I wanted to reply because I think that my comment about God holding the power (not us) to forgive sins also applies to salvation. (And the election word is not a "deal breaker" when it comes to salvation. We humans get a lot of things wrong... thankfully we have a very merciful and forgiving Father!) This is what I believe in a very condensed paragraph: We are dead in sin. (Eph 2:1 & 5, Col 2:13) God made us alive in Christ *while we were still dead in our sins.* We don't have the power to save ourselves, and we don't have the power of faith without Christ....and...we love Jesus Christ only because He loved us first (1 John 4:19.) Christ comes first, not us. If we are totally depraved, we are spiritually dead and unable to revive ourselves (have faith or choose to believe Christ is our savior.) In fact, our totally depraved self hates God. (Quick side note - I think a denial of total depravity is pride creeping in. We don't like to think of ourselves as totally depraved and dead in sin, we'd like to think we have a little good left and a choice in the matter. Ok, ending my side note or this post will be way to long!) So.... if we have any power to believe the gospel, love God, or have faith in Christ, that takes the power of grace and forgiveness OUT of God's hands and puts it in ours. God is not sitting on the edge of His seat waiting to bestow His love and grace if only we would say the magic words and accept His love and forgiveness. That puts limits and binds on His love. When He loves, He loves completely and forever. If we have the power to accept Christ as our Savior, wouldn't that also mean we have the power to reject Him? That would mean God's promises hold no power. The power is in our hands to accept/reject the gospel. And God doesn't love everyone. His love is complete and perfect - if He loves everyone, wouldn't that mean everyone is saved? Again, that would take the power away from God and give it to us sinful humans. God doesn't think, "I loved all these people but they didn't love me. Oh shoot, I would have loved to save them and bring them to heaven, but it's too bad they didn't believe the gospel. Nothing I could do, my hands were tied." I don't think it's logical to say once you accept Christ you are saved and there is no turning back. If you have the power to accept Him, then you have the power to change your mind and reject Him later. Ok, not "saved" in the first place? Wasn't a real conversion or acceptance? Doesn't matter. It's still putting the power of salvation in our own human hands and taking it OUT of God's hand. He's not sitting on His throne of grace as the God of the universe and creator of everything around us... just waiting for us to accept and acknowledge Him. Nope, the only reason we can love Him is because He loved us first and made us alive in Christ. Can you clarify the bolded sentence above? I agree that God does not have a "saving love" toward all people, where he's waiting for us to decide. However, your sentence implies that God has no love toward his creation. Is that what you meant? That's a really good question and I will try to clarify. No, I don't mean to imply that God has no love toward His creation. He did create all things and "it was good" until man screwed it up by disobeying. I don't think God now hates everything He created, but I do think there is a differentiation between His people and not His people. The grass, the trees, the air, the sky... they don't have souls so I'm not sure how God views them. I guess it matters more how we view/use them. John 1 (and other passages) explain that the world was created by and for Christ. The plan of salvation was in place before the world was created. So God created man knowing he would fall and need a savior... that's beyond what my mind can explain, but it's comforting to know the salvation plan was in place. Jesus Christ was Plan A, not Plan B when we screwed things up. So the love of God was there at the beginning. But His love is undeserved and He doesn't give it to everyone. Does that clarify my sentence? Or did I make everything more muddled??
|
|
|
Post by mercy on Sept 18, 2015 19:36:58 GMT
I'm not certain about the theology of election, however, I don't think it is a requirement for faith, or as you said a deal breaker. Nevertheless, as I stated previously, I am uncomfortable with the term. The reason is contained in your last sentence. Logically then, it seems to me, one can say, "Nope, the only reason one can hate Him is because He hated this one first and made this one dead to Christ."
"the love and hate of God towards men is immutable and eternal, existing, not merely before there was any merit or work of ‘free-will,’ but before the world was made" - Martin Luther
I am uncomfortable with that. (edited to add: I'm also uncomfortable with ML's quote. I can't pinpoint why right now so need to think it over.... but ML words are not infallible!) Yes, I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure that sentence can be turned around. Here is my logic: God created a perfect world. Man had one requirement, to not eat of the tree of good and evil. He would die if he did. Man disobeyed. Man now knows good and evil and will die. Man is sinful. God's requirements have not been met. God is under no obligation to love/save man. Man will die, and die unhappy. God's Plan A was to send a savior to take the punishment for these sins. God is the creator, He's the potter (we are merely clay,) He is in charge. The savior He sends will not save everyone. Nobody really deserves this savior in the first place. So I guess my point is that God didn't hate first, man did. We're the ones who screwed up. We made ourselves hate God and made ourselves dead to Christ. We did this to ourselves. God was merciful and loved us despite of our rebellion and hate. He made His people alive, and left others dead in their sin. HE didn't make them dead, man did that to himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2015 20:58:33 GMT
I'm not certain about the theology of election, however, I don't think it is a requirement for faith, or as you said a deal breaker. Nevertheless, as I stated previously, I am uncomfortable with the term. The reason is contained in your last sentence. Logically then, it seems to me, one can say, "Nope, the only reason one can hate Him is because He hated this one first and made this one dead to Christ."
"the love and hate of God towards men is immutable and eternal, existing, not merely before there was any merit or work of ‘free-will,’ but before the world was made" - Martin Luther
I am uncomfortable with that. (edited to add: I'm also uncomfortable with ML's quote. I can't pinpoint why right now so need to think it over.... but ML words are not infallible!) Yes, I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure that sentence can be turned around. Here is my logic: God created a perfect world. Man had one requirement, to not eat of the tree of good and evil. He would die if he did. Man disobeyed. Man now knows good and evil and will die. Man is sinful. God's requirements have not been met. God is under no obligation to love/save man. Man will die, and die unhappy. God's Plan A was to send a savior to take the punishment for these sins. God is the creator, He's the potter (we are merely clay,) He is in charge. The savior He sends will not save everyone. Nobody really deserves this savior in the first place. So I guess my point is that God didn't hate first, man did. We're the ones who screwed up. We made ourselves hate God and made ourselves dead to Christ. We did this to ourselves. God was merciful and loved us despite of our rebellion and hate. He made His people alive, and left others dead in their sin. HE didn't make them dead, man did that to himself. How would you respond to Luther's quote above? (Sorry: didn't see your edit). I think election, taken to its logical conclusion is that God chose some for eternal life and others He chose for damnation. Nevertheless, I think it best to follow Luther's advice on predestination: "Moreover in trying to understand predestination, we forget God, we cease to praise and begin to blaspheme. In Christ, however, are hid all treasures; without him none may be had. Therefore we should give no place whatever to this argument concerning predestination." - Martin Luther
Regardless of the truth or falseness of election and predestination, do you feel that the prc uses predestination as an identifier and a divisive tool? Do they use it to separate themselves from others, even others who believe in this doctrine, by their insistence of belief in it by parishioners, and by what seems to me to be their desire to have this argument, and by placing so much importance on the doctrine ? I think H.H. even called it the "heart of the gospel". One certainly could not renounce the "heart of the gospel" and still be saved, could they? Do you feel many in the prc would think that a belief in predestination is a requirement, not only for membership of course, but for salvation?
|
|
|
Post by mercy on Sept 18, 2015 21:26:42 GMT
Doesn't sound too logical to me. God created a perfect world, but his perfect creation Man made a mistake. No wonder so many have mental problems. One man sins and billions upon billions are judged for it. Sounding more and more like a fairy tale.Fair enough. I may have overstepped the creation account in the Bible - "it was good" and without sin. Maybe saying "perfect" went too far, because obviously man had the option to disobey and to sin. I don't object to saying my depravity originated with Adam & Eve's sin. Even if they hadn't sinned, could I have lived a sinless life? No, very likely not. Billions and billions of people are not being judged for Adam & Eve's sins, they are being judged for their own sins. Adam & Eve's was simply the first and that sin did originate the depravity of man. (Sinful people cannot procreate sinless people - that's not logical either.) After sinning 1000 times per day, I dare not shake my fist at God and say, "It's Adam and Eve's fault! Do not judge me!" That's not logical either - if you want to use the logic of personal accountability, then logic says you have plenty of sins beyond Adam's one sin of eating of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. His "one" sin cannot negate or justify the multitude of sins we commit every day.
|
|
|
Post by mercy on Sept 18, 2015 21:38:47 GMT
(edited to add: I'm also uncomfortable with ML's quote. I can't pinpoint why right now so need to think it over.... but ML words are not infallible!) Yes, I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure that sentence can be turned around. Here is my logic: God created a perfect world. Man had one requirement, to not eat of the tree of good and evil. He would die if he did. Man disobeyed. Man now knows good and evil and will die. Man is sinful. God's requirements have not been met. God is under no obligation to love/save man. Man will die, and die unhappy. God's Plan A was to send a savior to take the punishment for these sins. God is the creator, He's the potter (we are merely clay,) He is in charge. The savior He sends will not save everyone. Nobody really deserves this savior in the first place. So I guess my point is that God didn't hate first, man did. We're the ones who screwed up. We made ourselves hate God and made ourselves dead to Christ. We did this to ourselves. God was merciful and loved us despite of our rebellion and hate. He made His people alive, and left others dead in their sin. HE didn't make them dead, man did that to himself. How would you respond to Luther's quote above? (Sorry: didn't see your edit). I think election, taken to its logical conclusion is that God chose some for eternal life and others He chose for damnation. Nevertheless, I think it best to follow Luther's advice on predestination: "Moreover in trying to understand predestination, we forget God, we cease to praise and begin to blaspheme. In Christ, however, are hid all treasures; without him none may be had. Therefore we should give no place whatever to this argument concerning predestination." - Martin Luther
Regardless of the truth or falseness of election and predestination, do you feel that the prc uses predestination as an identifier and a divisive tool? Do they use it to separate themselves from others, even others who believe in this doctrine, by their insistence of belief in it by parishioners, and by what seems to me to be their desire to have this argument, and by placing so much importance on the doctrine ? I think H.H. even called it the "heart of the gospel". One certainly could not renounce the "heart of the gospel" and still be saved, could they? Do you feel many in the prc would think that a belief in predestination is a requirement, not only for membership of course, but for salvation? Election is a very interesting topic and I appreciate that this discussion is making me really think about what I believe! I don't think election is unique to the PRC, but I will still try to answer your questions regarding election and the PRC. You're right - while I'm uncomfortable with thinking that God CHOSE people for hell, I guess that IS the logical conclusion. It's simply a play with words, but I'd change it to "God chose not to save some people." Does that make it better? I view it as: Man screwed up and died (in sin.) God chose to revive some people (election) and left the others dead. So yes, I guess He's choosing to not love those people... I want to emphasize that WE screwed up and WE don't deserve to be revived. The burden to love is NOT on God's shoulders. *He is not to blame* for those who aren't saved. So yeah, God decided to not love some people. But it's more of an *inaction* than an *action* on His part. Crazy tiny details, but that best explains where I'm coming from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2015 22:03:22 GMT
How would you respond to Luther's quote above? (Sorry: didn't see your edit). I think election, taken to its logical conclusion is that God chose some for eternal life and others He chose for damnation. Nevertheless, I think it best to follow Luther's advice on predestination: "Moreover in trying to understand predestination, we forget God, we cease to praise and begin to blaspheme. In Christ, however, are hid all treasures; without him none may be had. Therefore we should give no place whatever to this argument concerning predestination." - Martin Luther
Regardless of the truth or falseness of election and predestination, do you feel that the prc uses predestination as an identifier and a divisive tool? Do they use it to separate themselves from others, even others who believe in this doctrine, by their insistence of belief in it by parishioners, and by what seems to me to be their desire to have this argument, and by placing so much importance on the doctrine ? I think H.H. even called it the "heart of the gospel". One certainly could not renounce the "heart of the gospel" and still be saved, could they? Do you feel many in the prc would think that a belief in predestination is a requirement, not only for membership of course, but for salvation? Election is a very interesting topic and I appreciate that this discussion is making me really think about what I believe! I don't think election is unique to the PRC, but I will still try to answer your questions regarding election and the PRC. You're right - while I'm uncomfortable with thinking that God CHOSE people for hell, I guess that IS the logical conclusion. It's simply a play with words, but I'd change it to "God chose not to save some people." Does that make it better? I view it as: Man screwed up and died (in sin.) God chose to revive some people (election) and left the others dead. So yes, I guess He's choosing to not love those people... I want to emphasize that WE screwed up and WE don't deserve to be revived. The burden to love is NOT on God's shoulders. *He is not to blame* for those who aren't saved. So yeah, God decided to not love some people. But it's more of an *inaction* than an *action* on His part. Crazy tiny details, but that best explains where I'm coming from. I appreciate your response and understand from where you come. However, could you please answer the questions in regards to the prc specifically?
|
|
|
Post by mercy on Sept 18, 2015 22:51:07 GMT
I appreciate your response and understand from where you come. However, could you please answer the questions in regards to the prc specifically? Yes, sorry, got called away from the computer for a bit. do you feel that the prc uses predestination as an identifier and a divisive tool? Do they use it to separate themselves from others, even others who believe in this doctrine, by their insistence of belief in it by parishioners, and by what seems to me to be their desire to have this argument, and by placing so much importance on the doctrine ?
Yes, I think that does happen. Predestination is not unique to the PRC, though. We're quick to label people as Armenian, but the bigger picture gets lost in the details about salvation. Belief in election/predestination is not a prerequisite for salvation. Salvation is not in the details, and we're quick to get caught up in the details. That said.... I think it's a pretty important detail so we shouldn't diminish it and it's worth discussing. I think it's important because God has all the power, not us. I really do believe we are dead in sin and cannot accept Christ on our own accord. It's only because He loved us first that we can love him back and have faith. So while it's important and a significant difference between some beliefs (and I appreciate discussing it!), it's not a prerequisite for salvation. I think H.H. even called it the "heart of the gospel". One certainly could not renounce the "heart of the gospel" and still be saved, could they? Do you feel many in the prc would think that a belief in predestination is a requirement, not only for membership of course, but for salvation?Well, I can't speak for the entire PRC membership... but I certainly don't think the predestination doctrine is required for salvation. I would say the "heart of the gospel" is that Christ paid for the sins of His people. The "heart" of the gospel is not defining "WHO" are His people (predestination) - that would be taking the focus off Christ and putting it on us. Here we go again... NO! The heart of the gospel is CHRIST. Not us.
|
|
|
Post by mercy on Sept 18, 2015 23:00:46 GMT
So yeah, God decided to not love some people. But it's more of an *inaction* than an *action* on His part. Crazy tiny details, but that best explains where I'm coming from. I appreciate your response and understand from where you come. However, could you please answer the questions in regards to the prc specifically? I think this is a great topic/discussion. You asked me a pointed question, so I'm going to ask you (or anyone out there...) a pointed question: If you do not agree/believe predestination or election, doesn't that give man more power than God? If he can chose to accept or reject God or the gospel, does that not give him more power than God? God wants to save him if only he accepts? God's hands are tied and His love is limited until someone decides to believe? Quoting myself : WE screwed up and WE don't deserve to be revived. The burden to love is NOT on God's shoulders. He is not to blame for those who aren't saved.
|
|