Are you saved because you believe? Or do you believe because you are saved?

[RickReads]

so let me get this right- love means love but hate doesn't mean hate. yikes

God told Esau He would make a great nation out of him Nice thing to do for someone you hate.

 

[John Mullally]

so let me get this right- love means love but hate doesn't mean hate. yikes

Just being funny here because you did provide good points in that earlier thread: But didn't you start a thread that "Always" does not always mean "Always"?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Just being funny here because you did provide good points: But didn't you start a thread that "Always" does not always mean "Always"?

indeed good point

 

[John Mullally]

Why did they comply with Peter if they didn't believe?

Please point out where you got that from something I said.

I see here in Acts 2 the same pattern in Romans 10:6-10, which is Belief + Responding Action leads to Salvation. Although you think that this is a works based salvation, it is the salvation pattern seen in the New Testament. Nobody is getting saved by trying to keep the 10 commandments or anything like that.

This thread you started is about which came first Belief or Salvation.

 

[Matthew Parsons]

Jesus said; “Those who believe in the Son have eternal life, but those who do not obey the Son will never have life. God’s anger stays on them.” John 3:36 (NCV)

Eternal life is without beginning or end, just as God is eternal. This would mean whom he regenerates with his Spirit was saved eternally in God's mind and plan.

“And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” John 11:26 (KJV 1900)

So is believing in Christ God's fruit of salvation that tells you he saved you? Or is it a law you must obey in the flesh to earn salvation?[

And all Gods children said AMEN !

AMEN ;hug;

 

[Matthew Parsons]

AMEN

 

[1an]

so let me get this right- love means love but hate doesn't mean hate. yikes

I'm into medieval history going back to the 1400's, which is only 600 years ago, language has changed such a lot since then. When someone was Good it meant they were clever or skilful at what they did. Good Robin Hood was a skilful archer and not necesarrily a good man. A gentle knight, a contridiction in terms, from the Latin gentilis, was from the same clan, and probably a gentleman or a sir. A man who was weighty, was not fat, but was a powerful opponent, meaning he was fit, fast and strong.

I am becoming more and more convinced that this change of meaning over the years, is leading to errors in our understanding of scripture. As a result, context is becoming more and more important. Our understanding is especially helped when we are familiar with the theme of the message under discussion.

I have just looked up the word 'hate' and this is what I am getting:
The verb is from Middle English haten‎, from Old English hatian‎ "to treat as an enemy."
.

 

[Dave L]

Please point out where you got that from something I said.

I see here in Acts 2 the same pattern in Romans 10:6-10, which is Belief + Responding Action leads to Salvation. Although you think that this is a works based salvation, it is the salvation pattern seen in the New Testament. Nobody is getting saved by trying to keep the 10 commandments or anything like that.

This thread you started is about which came first Belief or Salvation.

Salvation leads to faith and repentance which demonstrate the person is saved.

 

[QvQ]

Why did they comply with Peter if they didn't believe?

God is not an idea. God is manifest. A person can correctly believe he sees the light from a light bulb (God) but to truly understand light bulb (God) require words (Bible) and teaching (Preaching)
If Peter spoke Truth (pointed to a light bulb), gave a True Account (explained electricity) then men would say "Amen."

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Would you call him hypocritical to tell us "thou shalt not kill", and to love our enemies, but command Israel to wipe out whole nations, and by himself to wipe out all the inhabitants of the earth but a few, with a flood?

No. It's all about context. The command for us to not kill has to do with the fact that vengeance is the Lord's (Romans 12:19). If God wants to take out His vengeance using His people then He can do that.

Let me make something clear. When I say that God loves all of His enemies, and He does, I mean that He cares about all people and wants all people to repent and to be saved, which Calvinism shamefully denies.

Ezekiel 18:21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

1 Timothy 2:3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

1 John 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

We don't operate on his level. (A somewhat humorous sidenote: I have noticed, particularly in debating with Atheists, but also liberal Christians, that they will deny a doctrine, saying that God would be hypocritical to say (think, command, whatever) this or that, if he himself doesn't abide by it, but they seem to have no problem with a Congress that doesn't have to abide by the regulations they impose on the general public.)

Did you actually think that I didn't already know this? Of course we don't operate on His level. That's why vengeance against His enemies is His and not ours.

I think it is worth noting that God's hatred isn't like ours. It is not as though he isn't in control of those he hates like we are not, but it is closely related to his abhorrence for injustice and sin. He is altogether just, and those at enmity with him are therefore under his condemnation.

Romans 9:13 Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated.

Psalm 5:5 “The arrogant cannot stand in Your presence; You hate all who do wrong.

Psalm 139:21 Do I not hate those who hate you, Lord, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you? 22 I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.

Context is very important. You're correct that God's hatred isn't like ours and I'm very thankful for that. But, my point is that God does not hate His enemies and loves His enemies or else He would be hypocritical. I stand by that statement. Nothing you said here changes that. You quoting the verses above was very predictable.

But, do you know what those verses actually mean? Are they saying that God hates people in the sense that He hated them from birth and never wanted them to repent so that they could be saved? Absolutely not! That would contradict a lot of scripture. If He hated people in that way then it would make no sense that He takes no pleasure in their death and wants all people to repent.

What verses like Psalm 5:5 and Psalm 139:21 mean is that He hates unrepentant sin so much that His character demands that He must punish people for that. So, He only "hates" them in that sense. People who sin and refuse to repent became His enemies. He loves them in the sense that He cares about them and wants them to repent and He is very patient in giving them opportunities to repent, but His patience does not last forever and He will eventually punish people if they refuse to repent.

As for Him loving Jacob and hating Esau, Calvinists take that verse completely out of context.

Before I show the context of that verse, let me show you how the word "hate" can be used in a different sense than what we would normally think it would be used.

Luke 14:26 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

Is Jesus saying here that we should hate our family members and even ourselves? Of course not, right? Using scripture to interpret itself, we can determine the context.

Matthew 10:37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Now we can see that Christ's command to hate our family members has to do with not loving them more than we love Him and has nothing to do with literally hating them (having disdain in our hearts for them).

With this in mind, let's see what it means for God to love Jacob and hate Esau.

Romans 9:9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

The context here indicates that God loved Jacob and hated Esau in the context of His purpose in election. It has nothing to do with God sovereignly deciding (for His own reasons that were not made known) to love Jacob and hate Esau in terms of having predestined Jacob to salvation and Esau to damnation and has nothing to with God literally hating (opposite of loving - having disdain for) Esau himself.

So, in what sense did God love Jacob and hate Esau in relation to His "purpose in election"? It had to do with God choosing to bring salvation to the world through Jacob's lineage rather than Esau's. That's it. As I said before, it had nothing to do with their individual salvation or damnation.

Genesis 25:19
This is the account of the family line of Abraham’s son Isaac. Abraham became the father of Isaac, 20 and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan Aram and sister of Laban the Aramean. 21 Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. 22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. 23 The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.” When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 25 The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau. 26 After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them.

Romans 9:12 says "the older will serve the younger" which is a quote of Genesis 25:23. We can see what that really means by looking at the passage from Genesis 25 above. It's not talking about Esau serving Jacob. If you read about them you will not find anything to support that idea.

Instead, the older serving the younger has to do with the two nations (Israel and Edom) that would descend from Jacob and Esau. The people of Edom did indeed serve the people of Israel. And Israel, rather than Edom, would be the nation through which God would bring salvation to the world by sending His Son to be born as a descendant of Jacob to fulfill His "purpose in election". It is in that sense that God chose Jacob (Israel) rather than Esau (Edom) and it is only in that sense that God "loved" Jacob and "hated" Esau.

I noticed something interesting when reading further in Genesis 25.

27 The boys grew up, and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the open country, while Jacob was content to stay at home among the tents. 28 Isaac, who had a taste for wild game, loved Esau, but Rebekah loved Jacob.

This says that Isaac loved Esau but Rebekah loved Jacob. Does that mean Isaac hated Jacob and Rebekah hated Esau? Of course not. It just means that Isaac loved both (of course), but got along better with Esau because of their shared love "of the open country" and their "taste for wild game". Rebekah loved both (of course), but got along better with Jacob because he "was content to stay at home" so she spent more time with him. It's all about context.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You said, "How does it make sense for you to say that he withholds His mercy from others in light of what it says here:" and you brought up

Romans 11:30-32
"Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." --I assume the reason you brought up this passage is because of the idea of God having mercy on all the disobedient.

Notice that Paul is referring here to the mercy of God toward Gentiles as a result of the disobedience of the Jews. His "all" here, has to do with the inclusiveness of all peoples, both Jew and Gentile. It is not saying that God will indeed have mercy on absolutely everyone henceforth. Are you a Universalist?

You obviously did not read my post carefully (if you read it at all) where I explained my understanding of the passage. I said clearly that I believe God wants to have mercy on all people in the same sense that He wants all people to repent (Acts 17:30-31, 2 Peter 3:9) and to be saved (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2, 1 Tim 2:3-6).

But also, there is a use of the passage in which Paul rhetorically includes absolutely everyone [since mercy is the only way out for any (assumed though not spoken)] --and is not saying that absolutely everyone will, or even possibly can.

(You might note that you must assume some provisional mercy by God upon absolutely everyone, in order to avoid universalism in saying mercy on all. You must say, "The term, "might", means it may or may not actually come to fruition. It provides for the possibility." I bring this up, in case you object to me saying something is assumed though not spoken, because that is what you must do too, unless you are a universalist.)

If you actually took the time to read what I said about the passage, you wouldn't have wasted your time saying this. Nowhere did I say that God has mercy on all people. But, He clearly wants to have mercy on all people or else the fact that He wants all people to repent and be saved wouldn't be true.

I think it is a combination of the two. Both apply. This is, of course, just my take --I don't represent Calvinism in this, though I have heard Reformed Theologians and teachers use one or the other ways of looking at it.

Also, I find it necessary to object to your phrase "withholds his grace", once again. It is not as though he unfairly keeps it from some. No! -- He unfairly gives it to some. We all get what we deserve, except those of us to whom he has chosen to show mercy.

I agree that He is not obligated to show grace to anyone and have never said otherwise. And if you would have read what I said before more carefully, you would already know that.

But, my point is that if God decides to graciously offer salvation to anyone then His character trait of being impartial would demand that He offer salvation to all people. The alternative would be to not offer it to anyone, which would not violate His character trait of impartiality. But, that would still violate His own character as well since "God is love" (1 John 4:8). It doesn't say "God is love and hate".

Romans 9 says,
"15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

I love this part of the Chapter, although I particularly delight in the whole chapter, as you might guess, since I'm of the Reformed persuasion, and indeed I love the whole Book of Romans.

I love it as well. Very much. There's no need to be of the Reformed persuasion for that to be the case.

Of course, I see Romans 9 as related to Romans 11, (and the whole rest of the book, for that matter). Earlier in Romans 9 in the discourse of the potter and his clay vessels, some chosen for honorable use and some for dishonorable use, the point is clearly made that this is all the work of God, and that he will do as he sees fit with what is his by right of ownership (i.e. by right of creation and ultimate lordship as God). The clay cannot speak back to the potter, nor does man have the status to judge God.

When the potter makes a vessel for a specific use, he will do to it as he pleases, and will not consult the clay as to its preferences or wishes. (My note: "It is, after all, not even alive.") So he will have mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and harden whom he chooses to harden.

You, I assume, like many others here, want Romans 11 to say that God has mercy on everyone, (having died for everyone),

Nope. I'm really getting tired of you misrepresenting my view. But, that is typical of Calvinists. They understand their own view very well, but often have no clue about what others believe.

I don't believe God has mercy on everyone. Otherwise, everyone would be saved. Obviously, that isn't the case. Like I said before, I believe He wants to have mercy on everyone just like He wants everyone to repent (Acts 17:30-31, 2 Peter 3:9) and to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6).

but that through Free Will they have rejected him. I do not deny that absolutely all indeed have chosen to reject him, but Romans 9 shows that "it does not depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy" who will receive Salvation. This also does not deny, as I have repeatedly stated on this forum, that man indeed does choose God, but God's mercy does NOT depend on what man desires or chooses, no matter the degree of his integrity of choice.

I don't see it that way. My view is that God can show mercy to whoever He wants without man being able to complain about it and without man deciding who He should have mercy on.

But, thankfully, scripture teaches that God wants to have mercy on all people, but requires them to repent and believe in His Son, Jesus Christ in order to obtain it. Man did not have any say in what God would require man to do to be saved, God determined that Himself.

 

[John Mullally]

Salvation leads to faith and repentance which demonstrate the person is saved.

I have demonstrated that in Acts 2, Peter is calling upon the unsaved to repent and be baptized on the day of Pentecost resulting in 3000 new disciples. And I have answered a number of your objections to my reasoning.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Repentance was part of the works of the Law that could not save.

Please give scriptural evidence for this.

 

[Dave L]

Please give scriptural evidence for this.

If you have read Paul even once in a watered-down paraphrase, you should know these things.

 

[Dave L]

I have demonstrated that in Acts 2, Peter is calling upon the unsaved to repent and be baptized on the day of Pentecost resulting in 3000 new disciples. And I have answered a number of your objections to my reasoning.

Jesus says all who believe have salvation. These all believed or they would not have been at Pentecost.

 

[Dave L]

God is not an idea. God is manifest. A person can correctly believe he sees the light from a light bulb (God) but to truly understand light bulb (God) require words (Bible) and teaching (Preaching)
If Peter spoke Truth (pointed to a light bulb), gave a True Account (explained electricity) then men would say "Amen."

And the born again (saved) heard him.

 

[John Mullally]

If you have read Paul even once in a watered-down paraphrase, you should know these things.

Not an argument.

 

[John Mullally]

And the born again (saved) heard him.

Peter addressed the "Be saved from this perverse generation", not the already saved.

 

[QvQ]

And the born again (saved) heard him.

Do you mean Peter was preaching to the choir? I don't think "hearing" requires a familiarity with the doctrine before the doctrine is heard and accepted. That would mean that the only existence and proof of God is the doctrine.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you have read Paul even once in a watered-down paraphrase, you should know these things.

Thank you for confirming that you are unable to provide scriptural evidence to back up your claim that "Repentance was part of the works of the Law that could not save." as evidenced by the fact that you didn't provide any.

I could be like you and just tell you to read Paul so that you would see things my way, but that doesn't make for a very convincing argument, does it?