Did Jesus assert that some OT laws weren't God's ideal

[janxharris]

I'm not sure there is any such thing as "informed faith." That is, IMO, merely "intellectual agreement," which is not faith at all.

It actually doesn't matter. It really doesn't.

How much of this did Cornelius know?

Or the Philippian jailer? Look carefully at that situation. Had the Philippian jailer gotten a thorough discourse of Romans 9 before declaring, "What must I do to be saved?"

What I'm pointing out is the very real phenomenon of "enabled by the Father," by which persons say, "What must I do to be saved" without first having all those extraneous theological issues resolved.

If I am being enjoined to believe in the Calvin God then, no, it's not for me.

He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." -- John 6

So if God does turn out to be "the Calvinist God," do you have another option?

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

If I am to believe in Jesus then nothing prevents me from inferring that such belief should include every verse that speaks of Him.

 

[janxharris]

I don't know, nor does it matter for evangelism.

Did Jesus shed his blood for Judas Iscariot?

 

[janxharris]

I don't know, nor does it matter for evangelism.

It does matter. Please tell me if you preach as Paul and the apostles did:

1 Corinthians 15:
1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Paul and the apostles told unbelievers that Christ died for them.

 

[RDKirk]

I am not a little astonished by this. You don't know and say that it doesn't matter? The doctrine (of the Calvinist) is clear - God chooses person A and not person B for reasons NOT based on whether they have done anything good or bad.

You are comfortable with such a God? That's quite a faith to have - that somehow, despite all that logic points to, you assume this God remains untainted?

That such a God does not consider this a huge elephant in the rooms so as to furnish us with an explanation is baffling.



Why would I assume there is any truth to scripture when the elephant in the room (that the doctrines of grace may be inferred from the bible) is crying out for an explanation?

Does Jesus's death and resurrection and the hope that it offers override all such anomalies for you?

No, it does not matter for evangelism.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him

Evangelism only benefits those who are enabled by the Father. It's not necessary for me or you or anyone to have figured out out the spiritual mechanism of enablement, any more than it's necessary to have figured out the spiritual mechanism of salvation, for a person who is enabled to accept the gospel.

We only have to get out there and give them the gospel, and if they've been enabled they will accept it.

 

[janxharris]

No, it does not matter for evangelism.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him

Evangelism only benefits those who are enabled by the Father. It's not necessary for me or you or anyone to have figured out out the spiritual mechanism of enablement, any more than it's necessary to have figured out the spiritual mechanism of salvation, for a person who is enabled to accept the gospel.

We only have to get out there and give them the gospel, and if they've been enabled they will accept it.

Since you allow for the possibility that some are without recourse to salvation (you said you did not know if this was the case or not regarding Esau and Pharaoh), then you are entertaining the possibility of telling such a person that Christ died for them and rose for them and that they may believe it.

Even if you merely think it possible (that God has predetermined some to damnation), then it must be incumbent on you to make this explicit when delivering the Gospel - otherwise folk aren't getting the whole truth.

Paul made no such caveat. His Gospel and that of the apostles was 1 Corinthians 15:3ff.

 

[janxharris]

I don't know, nor does it matter for evangelism.

You believe in a God who may have raised Pharaoh up only for the purpose of having His might proclaimed to all the nations and that he was moulded to destruction, without any chance of mercy and salvation?

 

[RDKirk]

You believe in a God who may have raised Pharaoh up only for the purpose of having His might proclaimed to all the nations and that he was moulded to destruction, without any chance of mercy and salvation?

I believe in a God whose intent and judgments are righteous.

I don't know how He makes those judgments.

Nor do I need to know in order to carry out the mission He's given me.

But if you think you can't engage in the mission until you know everything God knows, then you're free to take a seat.

 

[janxharris]

I believe in a God whose intent and judgments are righteous.

I don't know how He makes those judgments.

Nor do I need to know in order to carry out the mission He's given me.

But if you think you can't engage in the mission until you know everything God knows, then you're free to take a seat.

Thanks.

Just to be clear - do you tell unbelievers that Christ died for them?

 

[RDKirk]

Thanks.

Just to be clear - do you tell unbelievers that Christ died for them?

There was time back in the 80s, in the days of more one-income families, when I sold life insurance. I always made sure never to have a sales discussion with just the husband, but always to get the husband and the wife at the same table so that both were listening.

That's because even though I spoke to both of them, and even directly to the husband, it was the wife my pitch was actually crafted for.

So I would ask a simple question of the husband: "Sir, if you were to die tonight, which of the household bills would stop?"

And then, after a moment, I'd see the wife's eyes widen. Both had ears, but often only one heard.

 

[Hawkins]

Would you cite a scripture for this please?

Galatians 3:10ff.

That's the whole OT. Or else what do you think that how the Jews before Jesus were saved?

 

[janxharris]

There was time back in the 80s, in the days of more one-income families, when I sold life insurance. I always made sure never to have a sales discussion with just the husband, but always to get the husband and the wife at the same table so that both were listening.

That's because even though I spoke to both of them, and even directly to the husband, it was the wife my pitch was actually crafted for.

So I would ask a simple question of the husband: "Sir, if you were to die tonight, which of the household bills would stop?"

And then, after a moment, I'd see the wife's eyes widen. Both had ears, but often only one heard.

If you believe it possible that Christ may not have provided salvation for all men without exception (which you have implied by answering you didn't know regarding Esau et al), then it would be wrong to preach the gospel to all and sundry without an explicit caveat...but then, of course, you end up without any good news.

Do you use the words, as Paul did when speaking to unbelievers, 'Christ died for OUR sins'?

Not knowing if Jesus Christ provided for all means you don't know what the Gospel actually is.

 

[RDKirk]

If you believe it possible that Christ may not have provided salvation for all men without exception (which you have implied by answering you didn't know regarding Esau et al), then it would be wrong to preach the gospel to all and sundry without an explicit caveat...but then, of course, you end up without any good news.

Do you use the words, as Paul did when speaking to unbelievers, 'Christ died for OUR sins'?

Not knowing if Jesus Christ provided for all means you don't know what the Gospel actually is.

You're working full time trying to tell me what I believe about Romans 9 without actually addressing the issue of whether Romans 9 was ever necessary before anyone could begin evangelizing the gospel. It appears that your intention is not to attend to the Lord's mission but just to win debates on debatable matters (see Romans 14).

 

[janxharris]

You're working full time trying to tell me what I believe about Romans 9 without actually addressing the issue of whether Romans 9 was ever necessary before anyone could begin evangelizing the gospel. It appears that your intention is not to attend to the Lord's mission but just to win debates on debatable matters (see Romans 14).

I'm not a Christian. I have merely been asking for clarification with regard to Jesus and whether He provided good news for all.

I'm fine if you want to stop.