With God all things are possible.
except for the things God sets in stone, like we must believe to be saved....
And I don't mean that to sound like an easy "catch all" answer. snip for space
haven't heard the song...as to who God is...He tells us in His word that belief brings salvation, nothing else. It appears like you are allowing your compassion to cloud your understanding of Love. Love being the very nature of God. You see, Love is compassionate, but compassion isn't Love. Compassion can sometimes lead us away from truth, make us unjust, etc. But, Love always rejoices in truth, Love is always just, both things that God always is. A lot of times, we get ourselves messed up because we try to see God through man's eyes, rather than seeing God through the eyes of Love. I don't know, that is how I see your comments after studying biblical Love for years now. God is the God of Love, but man's sense of compassion isn't necessarily Love. We can talk more about that if you like, even what heaven will be like, does not suggest that your understanding from the song is accurate, in fact, scripture says that we won't even remember this earth, it also says that in heaven there will be no marriage or giving in marriage...a very different set of rules and "compassionate" responses than what we know here on earth. And, our compassionate response doesn't change who God is...
So when you ask "how is that possible without her choosing to receive it?" It's like asking "how is it possible that God would be so gracious?".snip for space
well, first we haven't shown without doubt that I Corinthians 7 tells us that some can come without that conscience effort, which leaves a huge problem. In fact, what I can find suggests otherwise, but we are still discussing that, so we will see how the discussion ends. Secondly, the difference between children and adults is their ability to choose whom they will follow. It is about when they are mature enough to understand. Your children for example (kiddy Psych 101) can't distinguish truth from fantasy. In fact some suggest they aren't able to really know the difference before 8 to10 years of age. This would suggest that they are incapable of knowing what to believe about God before the age of 8 to 10, in this one area of development, and that is only one area of development. By contrast, an adult has already gone through that developmental process and is able to distinguish between what is true and what is fantasy, as such, there is no reason for God to make them an exception when the law says death. It really all goes back to the bible and what the bible tells us, but modern day understanding helps us understand. Scripture says, we must believe, no exceptions, so why then would we try to fit I Cor. 7 into a different truth?
On the contrary. We have been discussing such verses all along.
1 Corinthians 7:14
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [a]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
And don't forget that we as the bride of Christ all inherit a clean slate from our husband, even though we don't deserve it. snip for space
well, as to the sanctified part, I showed you from word study that it's intended meaning was that of undefiled, not salvation, so I'm not sure why we can't talk about that a bit, and deal with that portion of the argument, but as to the second part, the difference is a spotless, blameless, perfect husband, verses an unholy, sinful, husband. Unless you are trying to claim that a human husband is loving his wife like Christ Loved the church, there is absolutely no comparison in what they can do and give one another. If your claim is that he is loving her like Christ loved the church, I will show you in scripture where God calls you a liar. salvation is through Christ and Christ alone, there are so many scriptures that tell us that I don't even know where to begin.
And according to scripture, when the two join they become one. Any part of that union can not be unholy or the entire union is unholy. If the root is holy, all the branches are holy." Not, all the branches will hopefully eventually mostly become holy. No, they are holy. It's automatic.
And? If I am married to an unbeliever, my union is unholy...no big surprise there. But there is nothing in scripture that suggests that I can force that union to be holy...notice even in that passage, there are two possibles, that of a holy union and that of an unholy one. Two possibles...
And it only makes sense, if you think about it. We like to call marriage "holy matrimony", but can the union be holy at all if only one half of the couple is saved?
we call it holy matrimony, where does God call it such? The marriage union is only holy when both partners are believers, striving for the same goal, that of setting their marriage apart for the glory of God. If one of the partners is an unbeliever, the goals are not the same, therefore, the union is not holy. My salvation doesn't change my spouses purpose for marriage, therefore, my salvation cannot make the union holy.
Would God even consider that a valid union?
scripture says He does, but valid and holy are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, in a marriage where one spouse is a believer and the other an non believer, the believers goal is to win the nonbeliever to Christ, thus creating a holy union. IN fact, if salvation was inherited, there would be no purpose for trying to win the non believer for Christ (church wording), because they would automatically inherit it anyway...which brings up another question for your theory...what happens if the non believer dies before the believer, who then inherits the salvation?
Isn't that like trying to join two negatively charged magnets together?
yep...
That's not a union. To make a union is to make two separate parts into one single part. And if the union is sanctified by God then there are no longer two separate parts but one part and it is that one single part that is sanctified by God. Husband and wife together.
If holy is that which is set apart, which we talked about, then one can have a union that is not holy. In fact, we see this in everything from casual sex, prostitution, civil unions, homosexuality, etc. Unions that are unholy...
My mistake. I thought you and I were on the same page regarding the word "sanctified". According to your definition to be sanctified is to be purified and washed clean. Is that not the way scripture describes those who are saved?
snip for space
If "to make holy" can not be equated with salvation then I don't know what can.
salvation is an act of holiness, but holiness is not salvation. Equally, to be washed is what happens when we are saved, but salvation isn't solely to be washed clean. Look at the foot washing...what did Jesus say? John 13:10... Jesus answered, Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.
Obviously, it is possible to be partially washed, but not completely washed.
A person's exposure to Christ certainly has the potential to lead one to Christ, but it is far from a guarantee. You and I both know that.
And with all due respect the text does not say "the unbelieving wife will be influenced by her believing husband so that she may potentially some day turn to Christ". It clearly says "the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [a]her believing husband". Not maybe, or perhaps, or someday hopefully. No, it says she is sanctified. It's automatic.
I'm not questioning that portion, sorry for the misunderstanding...what I am saying is that when we put the I Peter passage up next to this one, we see that sanctified fits if we understand that we can be partially clean but not totally clean. How I see our difference at this point, is that you see things as all or none, that is we are perfect and clean, or we are vial and defiled. Yet scripture shows us that we can be clean and defiled, sanctified (that is clean) and at the same time dirtied with sin. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting we can be partially saved, that is crazy, what I am suggesting...let's go back to an example. When my husband was into inappropriate content and our marriage was falling apart, we were both believers, but sin had defiled us. He was the one who sinned, but his sin because of our marriage union, also defiled me. The purity of our lives was tarnished, we needed our feet washed. Likewise, salvation doesn't come outside of belief and belief is not something you can inherit. The unbelieving wife must come to her own belief, she might live in an union set apart for God, but she isn't submitting to that union unless or until she decides to follow God.
Belief brings us salvation, yes. But according to 1 Corinthians chapter 7, being married to a saved husband or wife also brings salvation. That's just what it says.
no, it says sanctified, not salvation...it is important to see what it says, not read into it what is not there. Previously you spoke of word choice...so let me throw this out there, if Paul had intended that to read salvation, why would he choose the word sanctified, rather than salvation?
She does not inherit her husbands belief. She inherits her husbands salvation. Subtle yet significant difference.
How so if salvation is only through belief? That makes no sense, I'm really anxious to see your thought process on that. If salvation only comes through belief, as scripture says time and time again, and that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, how then is it possible for a non believing spouse to inherit salvation without also inheriting belief and Christ? I can't make any sense out of that at all.
It doesn't contradict it because having sanctified your husband through your own faith, does not mean you don't also want him to accept Jesus. snip for space
I think I am beginning to see the difference between what you and I are saying and believing...which is why I previously asked you what the wife would be saved from....Salvation is that word that expresses our ransom, our payment for the death that we earned. In that ransom, we no longer need to die, the penalty is paid, the difference however, is that from my study of scripture, that life begins the moment I come to Christ. A missionary friend says it this way, if God only wanted to save you from hell, then at the moment of conversion you would be instantly transported to heaven. Salvation isn't about avoiding hell, it's about life.
In fact, we are currently teaching biblical Love in SS, recently we talked about how God lavishes us with Love. To see that, we went to Rev. 21 and talked about heaven. But, there is also a list and if you like, I can post a copy of that list, of some of the lavishness we are given here in the here and now. You are separating the two, our life from our salvation. What I am suggesting is that our life is part of our salvation. Salvation isn't something we get when we die, it's something we get this very moment and for the rest of eternity. Life begins today, not at death....a fundamental difference that might be the root of our disagreement and how we see these passages...
Naturally. But I am not talking about inheriting a belief system. Nobody can tell you what to believe. In order to understand what I'm saying you have to be able to separate salvation from faith. If you insist that they go together then this will never make sense.
all I know is what scripture says and Ephesians 2:8...For it is by grace you have been saved,
through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--...seems pretty clear to me....
I realize it's a different way of looking at things, but if you let the scriptures lead you it's really not that hard to believe. God is a gracious God. When Jesus said "What God has brought together, let man not separate" do you think he forget to tell us that God himself would separate the couple at the gates of heaven? Did he forget to mention that, or did he not mention it because it would never happen?
He didn't say He wouldn't separate, He said MAN should not separate. I find this over zealous need for compassion to be a huge problem for many...so let's look at it for a moment. In our Masters program, we are currently studying Job, how do you see Job in relation to this compassionate God you speak of? How could a God so compassionate that He would not separate a husband and wife at the gates of heaven, inflict/allow Job to be inflicted with such great pain as he knew?
