Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Have fun arguing your religion. I'm done guys.
If being a calvinist makes you a better person, more power to you.
If not, then good.
He asked a question and we answered it truthfully. He didn't seen to like the answers so he left.
That is funny. Where's your smiley?
Where in that passage does it say that he wasn't elect and that the grace was resistible?
If you could answer the question I asked, that would be awesome.''Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household' (Acts 16:31 ESV) means '[You] believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household' in the original language.
How do I know? The Greek tells me so.
'Believe' is pisteuson which is 2nd person, singular, aorist, imperative. It is a command which means that Paul and Silas commanded the jailer, 'Believe', meaning 'you believe' as it is the second person 'you' referring to the jailer.
There is no unconditional election or irrestible grace in this language. While salvation is all of God, there would be no salvation unless the jailer chose to believe.
That's Bible.
Oz
If you could answer the question I asked, that would be awesome.
Here it is again. Where in that passage does it say that he wasn't elect and that the grace was resistible?
Acts 16:31 deals with what the jailer had to do to receive salvation. He was commanded to believe. What happened? 'You will be saved, you and your household'.
I didn't say he wasn't elect. I believe the Bible teaches election, but not Calvinistic unconditional election.
When he had to believe to be saved, it infers that he could have chosen not to believe.
We have examples in OT and NT of those who chose not to serve the Lord God. We see this in Joshua:
‘And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord’ (Joshua 24:15 ESV).
In the NT, God, by grace and through faith in Jesus Christ, by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, saves believers. God has graciously chosen to save the ones who will believe in Christ (John 3:15, 16, 36; 4:14; 5:24, 40; 6:47; 6:50-58; 20:31; Rom 3:21-30; 4:3-5; 4:9, 11, 13, 16; 4:20-24; 5:1, 2; 9:30-33; 10:4; 10:9-13; 1 Cor 1:21; 15:1-2; Gal 2:15-16; 3:2-9; 3:11; 3:14, 22, 24; 3:26-28; Eph 1:13; 2:8; Phil 3:9; Heb 3:6, 14; 3:18-19; 4:2-3; 6:12; 1 John 2:23-25; 5:10-13, 20) (source).
So did the jailer choose to believe or not?
Oz
We know faith precedes justification. But where in the text does it say or imply that he was/was not regenerate when he asked his question, or when he believed?Acts 16:31 deals with what the jailer had to do to receive salvation. He was commanded to believe. What happened? 'You will be saved, you and your household'.
I didn't say he wasn't elect. I believe the Bible teaches election, but not Calvinistic unconditional election.
When he had to believe to be saved, it infers that he could have chosen not to believe.
We have examples in OT and NT of those who chose not to serve the Lord God. We see this in Joshua:
‘And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord’ (Joshua 24:15 ESV).
In the NT, God, by grace and through faith in Jesus Christ, by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, saves believers. God has graciously chosen to save the ones who will believe in Christ (John 3:15, 16, 36; 4:14; 5:24, 40; 6:47; 6:50-58; 20:31; Rom 3:21-30; 4:3-5; 4:9, 11, 13, 16; 4:20-24; 5:1, 2; 9:30-33; 10:4; 10:9-13; 1 Cor 1:21; 15:1-2; Gal 2:15-16; 3:2-9; 3:11; 3:14, 22, 24; 3:26-28; Eph 1:13; 2:8; Phil 3:9; Heb 3:6, 14; 3:18-19; 4:2-3; 6:12; 1 John 2:23-25; 5:10-13, 20) (source).
So did the jailer choose to believe or not?
Oz
We know faith precedes justification. But where in the text does it say or imply that he was/was not regenerate when he asked his question, or when he believed?
What argument from silence am I making? I see you making one, but it appears you are accusing me of that.Argument from silence is a logical fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning.
What argument from silence am I making? I see you making one, but it appears you are accusing me of that.
I wasn't asking for an example. I figured post 108 was what you were referring to. I asked what argument from silence was I making. If you can't answer a direct question, you kill off having an intelligent conversation.#108 is an example of your argument from silence. When you committed a logical fallacy like this, you kill off having an intelligent conversation.
Bye,
Oz
If you look at a history of his posts you will see a pattern of accusation of logical fallacies and then ignore. It is what he does when he can't make an argument. He has done that to several of us.I wasn't asking for an example. I figured post 108 was what you were referring to. I asked what argument from silence was I making. If you can't answer a direct question, you kill off having an intelligent conversation.
If you look at a history of his posts you will see a pattern of accusation of logical fallacies and then ignore. It is what he does when he can't make an argument. He has done that to several of us.
I wasn't asking for an example. I figured post 108 was what you were referring to. I asked what argument from silence was I making. If you can't answer a direct question, you kill off having an intelligent conversation.
Your inability or unwillingness to answer the question does not make my question a fallacy. Sorry, but it's an obvious attempt to avoid answering a question.Your argument from silence in #108 is in the question you asked of me: 'But where in the text does it say or imply that he was/was not regenerate when he asked his question, or when he believed?'
That's fallacious reasoning, argument from silence (even though asked in the form of your question to me).
Oz
Your inability or unwillingness to answer the question does not make my question a fallacy. Sorry, but it's an obvious attempt to avoid answering a question.
Nice try, but your allegation is false.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?