Passages challenging Calvinism

[Kilk1]

Worse. I'm the dreaded universalist!

You're one of those? Uh-oh! (Lol.) Are the rumors correct that you universalists believe everyone's going to heaven?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You're one of those? Uh-oh! (Lol.) Are the rumors correct that you universalists believe everyone's going to heaven?

Haha sure, if they overcome by washing their robes in Lamb's blood - Come, say the spirit and the bride, the water of life's a free gift for those in the fire (Rev 22:17), and the bonus leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations (22:2) who have emerged from the lake of fire purified to enter in and worship God (21:24-27). Now who could resist that divine 'twofor' deal? I'm still waiting for a viable alternative exegesis for the happy ending of the grace of our Lord Jesus upon all (22:21). Can you bring us back to putrefaction and agony, puhlease - cause that's God, in a nutshell - NOT.

If Jesus can save you and me, don't you think he can save anyone? Or do you think he likes you specially over others, or he fails in his mission to save the world, and God's plan to be all in all is thwarted by those bad bad sinners? Nope, God's war is on sin, He'll burn it right out and make honest men of us yet. So let's encourage each other and our neighbour - the good news is for everyone after all.

 

[Kilk1]

Do you realize that the Jews who were broken off who did not believe where born as jews? So yes they were broken off from the true vine as they did not believe. The OC was obsoleted, their is no OC anymore. But there cant be any gentiles broken off as they were never jews of the OC ways who had been having their sins forgiven by animal sacrifices, the ones who did live in the OC, also did have faith.

You cant escape this, Jews thought themselves the chosen ones of God, but they were broken ff because of unbelief in Christ, they never did believe when God made the transition in the NC.

But all those saved in the NC are eternally saved as they wont give up their faith if they were truly saved at all before.

If you view the being broken off as people groups, jews and gentiles, who do not believe, then the gentile nations who fall away due to apostasy could be considered being broken off due to the great apostasy that is coming and seems to be here today proceeding the revealing of the Antichrist figure.

I dont think your ever going to understand that God knows those who are His, they will remain faithful to the end, as He chose them from the beginning for salvation and they will persevere in faith, it is the P in the TULIP.

2 Thessalonians 2
13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work.

God has given them everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, as they have been chosen by Him from the beginning (before the foundation of the earth, read Ephesians 1), for salvation through sanctification and belief in the truth.

And this NC established by Christ in His blood functions totally different than the OC with the Jews who had to offer continual sacrifices for their sins, and God did not write His laws into their hearts and minds so that they would know Him and not leave Him which many of the Jews did throughout their histories.

Hebrews 8

A New Covenant
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

And besides all this, if your still reading, no one who is saved in the NC can sin, note v9.

1 John 3:8
He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 3:9
Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

And if you don't know what this means, and pop up objections contrary to v9, I am not sure you are a New Creation in Christ, but I hope you are.

Before we move into other Scriptures, I want to stay within the context of Romans 11 and figure out where we agree/disagree. If the cultivated olive tree is God's people, those cut off would be unbelieving Israelites/Jews (v. 20) because under the new covenant, the standard for being grafted in is faith (v. 20) as opposed to being a Jew. Also, the branches God grafted in would be Gentiles who "stand by faith" (vv. 19-20) because they weren't originally considered God's people under the old covenant, but now are, fitting the criteron of "faith" (v. 20).

Do we agree on the above paragraph? If not, where does my train of thought fall? Thanks!

 

[Kilk1]

Haha sure, if they overcome by washing their robes in Lamb's blood - Come, say the spirit and the bride, the water of life's a free gift for those in the fire (Rev 22:17), and the bonus leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations (22:2) who have emerged from the lake of fire purified to enter in and worship God (21:24-27). Now who could resist that divine 'twofor' deal? I'm still waiting for a viable alternative exegesis for the happy ending of the grace of our Lord Jesus upon all (22:21). Can you bring us back to putrefaction and agony, puhlease - cause that's God, in a nutshell - NOT.

If Jesus can save you and me, don't you think he can save anyone? Or do you think he likes you specially over others, or he fails in his mission to save the world, and God's plan to be all in all is thwarted by those bad bad sinners? Nope, God's war is on sin, He'll burn it right out and make honest men of us yet. So let's encourage each other and our neighbour - the good news is for everyone after all.

Do you believe everyone can be saved or more specifically that everyone will be saved?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Do you believe everyone can be saved or more specifically that everyone will be saved?

Well I'm fortified in the conviction that any and all who are judged dead in their sins and sentenced to the lake will emerge alive, by Ezekiel 47:1-12:
Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 47 - New International Version

Can you see why?

 

[Kilk1]

Well I'm fortified in the conviction that any and all who are judged dead in their sins and sentenced to the lake will emerge alive, by Ezekiel 47:1-12:
Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 47 - New International Version

Can you see why?

Sorry, I'm not sure I see why. I guess you do believe people will go to hell, just temporarily? In the end, everyone will be in heaven. Am I interpreting your view correctly?

 

[Kilk1]

Do you realize that the Jews who were broken off who did not believe where born as jews? So yes they were broken off from the true vine as they did not believe. The OC was obsoleted, their is no OC anymore. But there cant be any gentiles broken off as they were never jews of the OC ways who had been having their sins forgiven by animal sacrifices, the ones who did live in the OC, also did have faith.

You cant escape this, Jews thought themselves the chosen ones of God, but they were broken ff because of unbelief in Christ, they never did believe when God made the transition in the NC.

But all those saved in the NC are eternally saved as they wont give up their faith if they were truly saved at all before.

If you view the being broken off as people groups, jews and gentiles, who do not believe, then the gentile nations who fall away due to apostasy could be considered being broken off due to the great apostasy that is coming and seems to be here today proceeding the revealing of the Antichrist figure.

I dont think your ever going to understand that God knows those who are His, they will remain faithful to the end, as He chose them from the beginning for salvation and they will persevere in faith, it is the P in the TULIP.

2 Thessalonians 2
13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work.

God has given them everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, as they have been chosen by Him from the beginning (before the foundation of the earth, read Ephesians 1), for salvation through sanctification and belief in the truth.

And this NC established by Christ in His blood functions totally different than the OC with the Jews who had to offer continual sacrifices for their sins, and God did not write His laws into their hearts and minds so that they would know Him and not leave Him which many of the Jews did throughout their histories.

Hebrews 8

A New Covenant
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

And besides all this, if your still reading, no one who is saved in the NC can sin, note v9.

1 John 3:8
He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 3:9
Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

And if you don't know what this means, and pop up objections contrary to v9, I am not sure you are a New Creation in Christ, but I hope you are.

Before we move into other Scriptures, I want to stay within the context of Romans 11 and figure out where we agree/disagree. If the cultivated olive tree is God's people, those cut off would be unbelieving Israelites/Jews (v. 20) because under the new covenant, the standard for being grafted in is faith (v. 20) as opposed to being a Jew. Also, the branches God grafted in would be Gentiles who "stand by faith" (vv. 19-20) because they weren't originally considered God's people under the old covenant, but now are, fitting the criteron of "faith" (v. 20).

Do we agree on the above paragraph? If not, where does my train of thought fall? Thanks!

Wednesday, I replied to your post but have not heard a reply since. If you look at other Calvinists in this thread, the same has happened once we get to Romans 11. Calvinists would continue to discuss with me on Luke 8, and I think they did on Jeremiah 18 as well, but when we got to Romans 11, the conversation ended after a few posts.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything; maybe these are just a series of coincidences. I myself take a few days before posting a lot of times, even weeks, and I in no way want to rush you. However, I'm beginning to think that Romans 11 refutes Calvinism because it is where my previous conversations on this thread have ended. If you're planning to reply but are still working on it, on the other hand, I completely understand. Here's the paragraph from my last post, showing my current thought:

If the cultivated olive tree is God's people, those cut off would be individual Israelites/Jews who don't believe (v. 20) because under the new covenant, the standard for being grafted in is faith (v. 20) as opposed to being a Jew. Furthermore, the branches God grafted in would be Gentiles who "stand by faith" (vv. 19-20) because they weren't originally considered God's people under the old covenant, but now are, fitting the criterion of "faith" (v. 20).

Do we agree on the above paragraph? If not, where does my train of thought fail? Thanks!

P.S. I'm going to try to contact the others who stopped replying to me as well. Maybe I can hear back from them in case they were just coincidences.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Wednesday, I replied to your post but have not heard a reply since. If you look at other Calvinists in this thread, the same has happened once we get to Romans 11. Calvinists would continue to discuss with me on Luke 8, and I think they did on Jeremiah 18 as well, but when we got to Romans 11, the conversation ended after a few posts.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything; maybe these are just a series of coincidences. I myself take a few days before posting a lot of times, even weeks, and I in no way wanted to rush you. However, I'm beginning to think that Romans 11 refutes Calvinism because it is where my previous conversations on this thread have ended. If you're planning to reply but are still working on it, on the other hand, I completely understand. Here's the paragraph from my last post, showing my current thought:

If the cultivated olive tree is God's people, those cut off would be individual Israelites/Jews who don't believe (v. 20) because under the new covenant, the standard for being grafted in is faith (v. 20) as opposed to being a Jew. Furthermore, the branches God grafted in would be Gentiles who "stand by faith" (vv. 19-20) because they weren't originally considered God's people under the old covenant, but now are, fitting the criterion of "faith" (v. 20).

Do we agree on the above paragraph? If not, where does my train of thought fail? Thanks!

P.S. I'm going to try to contact the others who stopped replying to me as well. Maybe I can hear back from them in case they were just coincidences.

Good afternoon...

Okay, so let me see if I can grasp what your getting at here.

Now, if I'm understanding your posts correctly, you understand Jesus to be corporate Israel and thus as Israel in righteousness He becomes the corporate head of righteousness, much in the same way that Adam was corporate head of sinful humanity.

But just as Jesus is representative of all of Israel in righteousness and thus we obtain salvation through Him by Faith, we still have Israel as a people and a nation.

In this, Israel as a nation as a people group, a remnant will be saved - those who believe in Jesus.

However, as a whole the light that was in Israel's hands as a people group was taken due to disbelief..

So we see the unproductive fig tree cursed and withered, and the branches of the "tree" broken off and new branches grafted in.

The branches are Israel, the people group, and in this people group some are broken off due to disbelief and others - Gentiles - grafted in, in their place.

Where I think your confused is that the warning in 11 is to Gentiles as a people group - not individuals, although it will be individuals who will be cut off if the Gentiles fail in their duty.

The warning says don't be complacent, don't be arrogant as to our position lest it be taken away.

That doesn't mean that the individual people who are broken off are saved people who fell away, as it's still talking about a people group..

Right now, Gentiles possess the light of God to the nations, and have a responsibility to the command and if we fail in the command, as a people group, the light will just as easily be taken from our hand and given back to Israel as a people group.

Believers have a task to fulfull. A duty as it were to be the light of God, of Christ, to the lost.

It seems, from my perspective at this point is that you confusing people groups and individuals.

Tell me if I'm following you correctly here, and if I'm not understanding your position or your understanding then I ask you to correct my misunderstanding..

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

P.S. I'm going to try to contact the others who stopped replying to me as well. Maybe I can hear back from them in case they were just coincidences.

I don't know about the others, but I don't do endless debate. I make a point of limiting my participation in any thread. These debates have no judge or jury, apart from the prosecutors, who have a vested interest in the outcome. No one wins. I'm easily content to agree to disagree.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why you think Romans 11 in any way refutes Calvinism. I see in it the same predestination that appears obvious throughout the entire book.

Predestination is complex, and a paradox. It simultaneously holds to several seemingly contradictory ideas. For example, you have asked if a person has free will. The answer is yes, that a person does, indeed, exercise free will. Yet, you ask if God has the entirety of history scripted, and the answer is still yes. He knows the end well enough to predict it in prophecy, and he has every intention of directing the outcome, also. You also ask if God interacts with us, responding to our good and bad decisions, reacting to them, and answering our prayers when we ask, instead of doing whatever he will do, regardless. The answer is also yes. He does interact with us. While these ideas may seem to run contrary to each other, I would argue that they do not.

Hamlet, for example, did as he thought best. He believed that he had free will to choose, and in the context of Hamlet's sense of reality he was right. At his level he did have free will, and so do we. Yet, the entirety of Hamlet's life was scripted by Shakespeare. These do not run in contradiction, because Shakespeare's reality is greater than Hamlet's. From Hamlet's perspective he is free. From Shakespeare's perspective...not so much. Yet, Shakespeare did interact with Hamlet, in a manner of responding to his own character's deeds. Many authors build their villains up for destruction, and build their heroes up for victory, responding to their deeds with just outcome. Yet, these same authors often also interact with their characters in yet another way, by writing themselves into the story. An author can become a character, interacting with the other characters at their own level.

Therefore, when arguing against a Calvinist, one must realize that proving free will makes no case against the doctrine of predestination. One must also realize that arguing that God's mind can be changed, that humans can interact with God and have him respond to us, is also no case against predestination. If I say that God predestines us, and you show me scripture indicating that we have a free choice, then I shrug my shoulders and say that I know. If you say that a person must hear the gospel to believe, making him a product of circumstance, then I agree. If you tell me that we can pray, and alter what God would have done, or if you tell me that his punishments and rewards are a response to our actions, then I tell you that of course such things must be true. None of that makes any case either for or against predestination. The only way to make a case against it is to address it directly. If scripture says that we are not predestined, then we are not predestined. However, if it says that we are predestined, then no case can be made against it. The fact is that scripture does say we are predestined. Therefore, there really is no sense in trying to argue why scripture doesn't say what it obviously says. It would be a better use of our time to understand how we are predestined.

But then this debate would be concluded by now, wouldn't it?

 

[Kilk1]

Good afternoon...

Okay, so let me see if I can grasp what your getting at here.

Now, if I'm understanding your posts correctly, you understand Jesus to be corporate Israel and thus as Israel in righteousness He becomes the corporate head of righteousness, much in the same way that Adam was corporate head of sinful humanity.

But just as Jesus is representative of all of Israel in righteousness and thus we obtain salvation through Him by Faith, we still have Israel as a people and a nation.

In this, Israel as a nation as a people group, a remnant will be saved - those who believe in Jesus.

However, as a whole the light that was in Israel's hands as a people group was taken due to disbelief..

So we see the unproductive fig tree cursed and withered, and the branches of the "tree" broken off and new branches grafted in.

The branches are Israel, the people group, and in this people group some are broken off due to disbelief and others - Gentiles - grafted in, in their place.

Where I think your confused is that the warning in 11 is to Gentiles as a people group - not individuals, although it will be individuals who will be cut off if the Gentiles fail in their duty.

The warning says don't be complacent, don't be arrogant as to our position lest it be taken away.

That doesn't mean that the individual people who are broken off are saved people who fell away, as it's still talking about a people group..

Right now, Gentiles possess the light of God to the nations, and have a responsibility to the command and if we fail in the command, as a people group, the light will just as easily be taken from our hand and given back to Israel as a people group.

Believers have a task to fulfull. A duty as it were to be the light of God, of Christ, to the lost.

It seems, from my perspective at this point is that you confusing people groups and individuals.

Tell me if I'm following you correctly here, and if I'm not understanding your position or your understanding then I ask you to correct my misunderstanding..

Thanks for the reply! For clarity, this is my current position: There are two olive trees, a wild olive tree and a cultivated olive tree (notice v. 24). The cultivated tree represents the group/body of God's people (Israel), which used to include all individual Israelites/Jews; the wild tree embodies everyone else. However, under the New Testament, the standard of being in Israel (the true, spiritual Israel) is no longer about being a Jew. Rather, it's about standing "by faith" (v. 20, NKJV). Because of this, the unbelieving Jews were "broken off" the cultivated tree (the true Israel) while the believing Gentiles were "grafted in" (vv. 19-20). (The distinction between the national Israel and the true, spiritual Israel can be seen in 9:6.)

As far as I can tell, the branches represent individual Jews and Gentiles. If not, what would you say the two trees (v. 24) represent? And what do the trees' branches represent? Thank you!

 

[Kilk1]

I don't know about the others, but I don't do endless debate. I make a point of limiting my participation in any thread. These debates have no judge or jury, apart from the prosecutors, who have a vested interest in the outcome. No one wins. I'm easily content to agree to disagree.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why you think Romans 11 in any way refutes Calvinism. I see in it the same predestination that appears obvious throughout the entire book.

Predestination is complex, and a paradox. It simultaneously holds to several seemingly contradictory ideas. For example, you have asked if a person has free will. The answer is yes, that a person does, indeed, exercise free will. Yet, you ask if God has the entirety of history scripted, and the answer is still yes. He knows the end well enough to predict it in prophecy, and he has every intention of directing the outcome, also. You also ask if God interacts with us, responding to our good and bad decisions, reacting to them, and answering our prayers when we ask, instead of doing whatever he will do, regardless. The answer is also yes. He does interact with us. While these ideas may seem to run contrary to each other, I would argue that they do not.

Hamlet, for example, did as he thought best. He believed that he had free will to choose, and in the context of Hamlet's sense of reality he was right. At his level he did have free will, and so do we. Yet, the entirety of Hamlet's life was scripted by Shakespeare. These do not run in contradiction, because Shakespeare's reality is greater than Hamlet's. From Hamlet's perspective he is free. From Shakespeare's perspective...not so much. Yet, Shakespeare did interact with Hamlet, in a manner of responding to his own character's deeds. Many authors build their villains up for destruction, and build their heroes up for victory, responding to their deeds with just outcome. Yet, these same authors often also interact with their characters in yet another way, by writing themselves into the story. An author can become a character, interacting with the other characters at their own level.

Therefore, when arguing against a Calvinist, one must realize that proving free will makes no case against the doctrine of predestination. One must also realize that arguing that God's mind can be changed, that humans can interact with God and have him respond to us, is also no case against predestination. If I say that God predestines us, and you show me scripture indicating that we have a free choice, then I shrug my shoulders and say that I know. If you say that a person must hear the gospel to believe, making him a product of circumstance, then I agree. If you tell me that we can pray, and alter what God would have done, or if you tell me that his punishments and rewards are a response to our actions, then I tell you that of course such things must be true. None of that makes any case either for or against predestination. The only way to make a case against it is to address it directly. If scripture says that we are not predestined, then we are not predestined. However, if it says that we are predestined, then no case can be made against it. The fact is that scripture does say we are predestined. Therefore, there really is no sense in trying to argue why scripture doesn't say what it obviously says. It would be a better use of our time to understand how we are predestined.

But then this debate would be concluded by now, wouldn't it?

Thanks for replying! I confess that I didn't expect you to believe in man's free will or that man can altar what God would have done. Calvinists such as Stephen Garrett and, I think, James White deny man's free will. However, I guess we agree on these points. We also agree that God is in control and that predestination is in the Bible. I guess the disagreement is on whether everything is scripted, like Hamlet, as you believe, or if some things are left open for us to influence (the position I'm currently holding).

If we can altar what God would have done, would this go against God scripting 100% of everything that takes place? Thanks!

 

[Hammster]

I don’t deny free will if it simply means making a choice to do A or not A. But two things must be considered. One, what is the nature that informs that choice? And two, do we believe that God’s will can trump our will?

One, if it’s our old nature, then we will freely reject God because we have no affection for Him. If it’s our new nature, we freely choose to follow because our new heart is turned towards Him.

Two, yes God’s will can trump our will.

The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
— Proverbs 21:1

 

[Kilk1]

I don’t deny free will if it simply means making a choice to do A or not A. But two things must be considered. One, what is the nature that informs that choice? And two, do we believe that God’s will can trump our will?

One, if it’s our old nature, then we will freely reject God because we have no affection for Him. If it’s our new nature, we freely choose to follow because our new heart is turned towards Him.

Two, yes God’s will can trump our will.

The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
— Proverbs 21:1

Okay. I know some Calvinists accept free will while some reject it. What about the perseverance of the saints? Do you believe that all who truly have faith will remain, or can they be rejected? Thanks!

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

"joshua 1 9,

Election is based on who so ever and we know that God's desire is for all to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." All is a powerful word.

Under Calvin why would people need to repent if they had no choice in their depravity?[/QUOTE]
wrong

 

[Hammster]

Okay. I know some Calvinists accept free will while some reject it. What about the perseverance of the saints? Do you believe that all who truly have faith will remain, or can they be rejected? Thanks!

Why would God reject someone who had faith?

 

[Kilk1]

Why would God reject someone who had faith?

Lol, sorry, I didn't explain that very well. Could someone who stands by faith be rejected if they failed to "continue in His goodness" (Rom. 11:22, NKJV)?

 

[Kilk1]

"joshua 1 9,

Election is based on who so ever and we know that God's desire is for all to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." All is a powerful word.

Under Calvin why would people need to repent if they had no choice in their depravity?
wrong

I think this was formatted incorrectly. Just letting you know.

 

[Hammster]

Lol, sorry, I didn't explain that very well. Could someone who stands by faith be rejected if they failed to "continue in His goodness" (Rom. 11:22, NKJV)?

Short answer, a good Father will not abandon His child.

 

[Kilk1]

Short answer, a good Father will not abandon His child.

But could a bad child leave his father (Rom. 11:19-22)?

 

[Hammster]

But could a bad child leave his father (Rom. 11:19-22)?

Yes, of course. And while that may affect the communion, it doesn’t affect the union.

And the Shepherd goes after the sheep.