- Apr 5, 2007
- 140,012
- 25,179
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
And does that apply to your response as well?
Of course. Always has.
Upvote
0
And does that apply to your response as well?
Several have already.A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. (Acts 16:14 NASB)
Why was it necessary for Jesus to open her heart? What was wrong with her in the first place? Did she not have the free will to choose prior to that?
Just in case anyone wants to actually address the OP.
No. It remained simple.After The Lord opened her heart it was straightforward , prior to that it's was far from simple .
No one argues for a "merely kind gesture". Strange choice of words, imho.There is a spectrum of how The Lord saves , if one compares Paul's conversion ordeal with Lydia's there is a vast difference , yet both are a direct result of Gods will not human choice , The Lord opened Lydia's heart to receive ! Divine Grace is powerful. It isn't merely a kind gesture
Possibly. But they fold up on the follow up questions.Several have already.
Because that's not what the OP is about.Why hasn't the question of WHY she was a worshiper of God as an unbeliever, since RT claims that the unregenerate all hate God?
Not in this thread, since that's not the topic. Do you have anything to contribute to the actual topic?Also, Cornelius, prior to his salvation, also worshiped God, who answered his prayers! How so, since he was unregenerate, and RT claims that the unregenerate hate God?
Also, several Calvinists have said that faith and regeneration occur at the same time. Yet both of these people worshiped God WAY before they believed.
So it is that RT has some explaining to do.
OK, we'll see.As Ronald Reagan once said, "There ya go again." You're taking scripture out of context again.
I'm not sure what your point is here. My point about v.17 is sequence: when anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. That is clear enough.Paul said that it is only in Christ that the veil taken is away (verse 14). So He was NOT talking about non-Christians. Paul was speaking to Christians. The issue Paul was addressing was their reliance on the letter of the law. Beginning with verse 4 Paul was trying to move them from the observance of letter to service in the spirit.
Glad we agree!It is CHRISTIANS who when they turn (rely) on the Lord that the veil is taken away and they can walk in liberty.
Why do you keep telling me what I don't like, when you have no idea whatsoever. Please keep your erroneous opinions to yourself.Btw, this next point may be off topic but I cannot resist.
If you look at the narrative regarding Lydia it says that she invited the apostles to her house if they judged her faithful to the Lord, that is, if they counted her a true believer (vs. 15).
There's that apostolic authority popping up again I was telling you about, which you don't like.
There is zero support for your opinion here. If your opinion were true, why was Paul trying to PERSUADE men to believe the gospel? That wouldn't be necessary. All he'd have to do is hum a few bars of "Just as I am" and the elect would all come on down the aisle. Acts 18:4, 26:28, 28:23, and 2 Cor 5:11. These verses refute your opinion.The apostles knew who would believe and who was and was not a true believer. As it was conferred upon Christ to know those things, so it was conferred upon the apostles by Christ to know those things.
Your opinions are wrong when attempting to assert them on the views of others.It looks like the little lady who sold purple linen had a higher view of apostolic authority than you.
My questions are totally related to the OP. The OP has been answered; you don't like the answers and call them non answers.Possibly. But they fold up on the follow up questions.
Because that's not what the OP is about.
Not in this thread, since that's not the topic. Do you have anything to contribute to the actual topic?
My questions are totally related to the OP. The OP has been answered; you don't like the answers and call them non answers.
However, RT has the burden to explain WHY 2 Biblical people, as unregenerate unbelievers, were worshiping God in the first place.
The dilemma: RT cannot explain why any unregenerate, whom RT claims hates God, would be described as worshiping God.
So, the only solution to the dilemma: ignore the questions as not "about" the OP.
Anyway, anyone reading these threads will see the dilemma and the non-response by RT regarding the dilemma.
'nough said.
Paul was NOT speaking about men turning to the Lord for salvation. Yesterday I said that Paul was speaking about Christians turning to the Lord. But that bothered me a little because I have suspected for a while that Paul was actually referring to Moses turning to the Lord because he said, "Whenever he turns to the Lord the veil is removed." It does NOT say, "Whever anyone turns to the Lord the veil is removed."I'm not sure what your point is here. My point about v.17 is sequence: when anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. That is clear enough.
Already explained. God gave Paul to know who would listen (Acts 28:28). The apostles were prophets and they had the authority to remit and retain sins just as Jesus did. They would have to have known who would and would not believe. Nathan the prophet had that authority. He pronunced to king David, "Your sins are taken away." All God's prophets by virtue of their authority had the capactity to know the hearts of men if God revealed it to them, and consequently could make judgments.There is zero support for your opinion here. If your opinion were true, why was Paul trying to PERSUADE men to believe the gospel? That wouldn't be necessary. All he'd have to do is hum a few bars of "Just as I am" and the elect would all come on down the aisle. Acts 18:4, 26:28, 28:23, and 2 Cor 5:11. These verses refute your opinion.
I have no idea what you are talking about.Your opinions are wrong when attempting to assert them on the views of others.
Do you have anything to add to the actual topic?Why Google something for which you seem to have an idiosyncratic meaning? It was your exclamation, not Google's.
Yes, what I said! Is it not OK to ask another poster for clarification on a matter?
Several have already.
Why hasn't the question of WHY she was a worshiper of God as an unbeliever, since RT claims that the unregenerate all hate God?
Also, Cornelius, prior to his salvation, also worshiped God, who answered his prayers! How so, since he was unregenerate, and RT claims that the unregenerate hate God?
Also, several Calvinists have said that faith and regeneration occur at the same time. Yet both of these people worshiped God WAY before they believed.
So it is that RT has some explaining to do.
I was seeking clarification from griff re his exclamation.Sure. Let's try.
So until the Lord opened her heart, there was no way she could respond positively to the gospel?
To me, worship is inherently connected to faith. You're not truly worshipping God if you don't have faith. I'd say if faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob doesn't count as real faith then worship of that God doesn't count as real worship.
The NT has a problem with people, Jews or otherwise, who reject Jesus, but I don't believe there's any suggestion that the many people who knew God without having heard of Jesus were anything other than true believers. Saying that makes a mockery of the whole OT.
But I think you have two possibilities for Lydia and Cornelius. Either they were regenerate and had faith, and then came to understand that the God whom they worship had been incarnate in Jesus; or they had not had saving faith, in which case their worship was not true worship.
I was seeking clarification from griff re his exclamation.
Re your question: I've already responded to that question. You don't seem to have liked my reply. I won't be responding further.
I was seeking clarification from griff re his exclamation.
Re your question: I've already responded to that question. You don't seem to have liked my reply. I won't be responding further.