Is Calvinism a heresy?

[jameslouise]

I'd say at least 6,000 years after being chosen. But the question is not when it happens, but HOW it happens. One does not, nor can they, choose God until their hearts and wills have been raised from death to life. Romans 8, Ephesians 2

But the reference in Rev 3:20 sounds to me more like fellowship than initial point of salvation. Just sayin'...

There are two 'chosens' remember one as you say about 6000 years ago Eph 1:4 but also another one in Romans 8:30 and Matt 22:14 at some stage prior to salvation. I believe we 'choose to be chosen' for both of them. 'Choose to be chosen' is not original from me but a quote of a quote. I humbly ask you to prayrfully ask the Holy Spirit if is from Him?

 

[jameslouise]

I'm assuming that it's wrong because it is unjust (insofar as injustice is wrong), and I'll assume for the sake of argument that you're right, that it's unjust to condemn someone for not accepting Jesus when they have never heard of him. And I will assume all that in order to ask you the following question:

• Who said that's the reason they are condemned to hell?

The fact that they didn't believe in Jesus Christ is the reason they remained condemned, but it was for their manifold sin that they were condemned. If they never heard the commandment to repent and believe, then maybe they were not condemned for that. But there was no shortage of sin by which they stood condemned before God.




I look forward to it.

Yeh,I think your wording is better, so let me word it differently 'God does not send anyone to Hell, they send themselves there by rejecting Christ' John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: To reject Christ you have to be offered him?

 

[jameslouise]

How righteous was Noah who, after the Flood, got himself completely drunk on the wine he made and committed an exceedingly immoral act? Righteous enough to find grace from God?

Are people on earth today more righteous than the people of Noah's day? More righteous people today, only 8 then? I think the presence of The Holy Spirit in men (the restrainer) is why?

 

[Mark Quayle]

There are two 'chosens' remember one as you say about 6000 years ago Eph 1:4 but also another one in Romans 8:30 and Matt 22:14 at some stage prior to salvation. I believe we 'choose to be chosen' for both of them. 'Choose to be chosen' is not original from me but a quote of a quote. I humbly ask you to prayrfully ask the Holy Spirit if is from Him?

If it is not in Scripture, you can rest assured that it is not the Holy Spirit's words. Nevertheless, I do not disagree that we 'choose to be chosen', and have never disagreed with that. In fact, I'm the only one here that I have heard say, "We do so because it IS so." We do choose, and we always choose according to our inclinations, if only for that instant of choice. And that choosing is sometimes in keeping with our status in Christ. Chosen. Our choosing fulfills, but does not cause God's choice.

I am curious why you find a difference between those chosen before the foundation of the world in Ephesians 1:4, and those predestined, called, justified and glorified in Romans 8:30, or, for that matter, those chosen from all the invited to the wedding feast, in Matthew 22:14.

 

[jameslouise]

Thank you for answering my answers directly. Apparently (correct me if I am mistaken) although you agree that God has predestined everybody to be conformed to the image of His son you do not believe that God is able and willing to accomplish that which He predestined. Therefore, predestination becomes watered down to sweet intentions and kind thoughts.

I find the aspect of pre-existence as biblically defensible as reincarnation. The Mormon Church has developed its dogma of pre-existence not primarily from the Bible but from the inspiration of Mr. Smith and his successors even as the RCC has refined its four Marian dogmas not primarily from scripture, but from Tradition expressed through the ex-cathedra statements of its Popes since 1870. The fact is that orthodox Christianity does not accept the concepts of pre-existence or reincarnation.

Therefore, predestination becomes watered down to sweet intentions and kind thoughts. No it is our choice and he predestines us to have this choice. Rom 8:29 He predestined to be conformed NOT predestined all will be conformed. The very next verse describes these predstined being called and we know from Matt 22:14 that all of these are not chosen. So all who are prestinined are not conformed?
you do not believe God is able and willing to accomplish God can do anything but appears to value freewill very highly and will not 'Jedi mind trick' us to say yes. It has to be our will.
I find the aspect of pre-existence as biblically defensible as reincarnation. I think reincarnation means the spirit/soul in another body-so two organic bodies and i also think it is taken to mean just on earth. It is appointed unto man to die once. Heb 9:27. Our spirit is placed in a body is not reincarnation, by your definition you would say Jesus was then????
The fact is that orthodox Christianity does not accept the concepts of pre-existence or reincarnation. It is not reincarnation but as i describe it, What you gonna go with orthodox Christianity or scripture? For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring Acts 17 28.
It is about as clear as it could be, we lived, we moved around and we were a being, an existence. It just cannot be anything else.and this is before Jesus' time on earth.I suggest with all the other references in message 100 it is In God the Father and a strange use 'offspring' is maybe a hint at this base spirit's origin?

 

[jameslouise]

If it is not in Scripture, you can rest assured that it is not the Holy Spirit's words. Nevertheless, I do not disagree that we 'choose to be chosen', and have never disagreed with that. In fact, I'm the only one here that I have heard say, "We do so because it IS so." We do choose, and we always choose according to our inclinations, if only for that instant of choice. And that choosing is sometimes in keeping with our status in Christ. Chosen. Our choosing fulfills, but does not cause God's choice.

I am curious why you find a difference between those chosen before the foundation of the world in Ephesians 1:4, and those predestined, called, justified and glorified in Romans 8:30, or, for that matter, those chosen from all the invited to the wedding feast, in Matthew 22:14.

If it is not in Scripture, you can rest assured that it is not the Holy Spirit's words.. so The Holy Spirit only speaks to people in scripture? Not speaking to us now then?
I am curious why you find a difference between those chosen before the foundation of the world in Ephesians 1:4,. It is a long answer but the term Foundation of the world (FOTW) (katabole kosmos )is very interesting. It testifies to Jesus at many levels. It is mentioned 10 times and 3 times refers to before the FOTW and refers to Jesus/God in Heaven and the next 7 are after the FOTW and refer to Jesus as a man or man. Intrigued? I have a theory that it has multiple meanings, because it has multiple meanings there are two 'chosens' I have writen an essay on it about a 15 minute read foundation of the world

 

[Mark Quayle]

If it is not in Scripture, you can rest assured that it is not the Holy Spirit's words.. so The Holy Spirit only speaks to people in scripture? Not speaking to us now then?
I am curious why you find a difference between those chosen before the foundation of the world in Ephesians 1:4,. It is a long answer but the term Foundation of the world (FOTW) (katabole kosmos )is very interesting. It testifies to Jesus at many levels. It is mentioned 10 times and 3 times refers to before the FOTW and refers to Jesus/God in Heaven and the next 7 are after the FOTW and refer to Jesus as a man or man. Intrigued? I have a theory that it has multiple meanings, because it has multiple meanings there are two 'chosens' I have writen an essay on it about a 15 minute read foundation of the world

You may have heard the saying, "No new revelation." Scripture is clear that plenary verbal inspiration belongs to Scripture alone. That doesn't at all mean he doesn't speak to us nowadays, but he doesn't REVEAL anything new that is not already in Scripture. Of course we "hear his voice", and Scripture tells us plenty about what he does in us, but what he does is not Scripture anymore. I'm not even going to say it is impossible to audibly hear his voice, but he still does not give us new Scripture. Not the Holy Spirit's Words.

While I can't say I put forth much effort reading your article, your run-on sentences and jumping around half-self-explanatory statements, lousy punctuation and so on make it hard to follow what you are saying in your article. What's worse, from what I can tell, anyhow, you go way outside orthodoxy* to posit a theory that your scriptures only seem to support, according to your personal use of them. From what little I read and did try to follow, and from what you say here, I don't even begin to see a reason why even YOU think there are two 'chosens'. No, not intrigued.

*For example, a quote from your article: "Kerr has revealed that we lived inside God before being ‘assigned’ to Earth and we were not sinful at this time" —Who is Kerr, and why should I care what Kerr thinks? "Kerr has REVEALED"??? Who is Kerr to be revealing anything, as though she speaks for God or something? If that is her stance, then I can only categorize her with Ellen White as FALSE. And you BELIEVE her when she comes up with stuff Scripture does not tell us? I have plenty of theories that came to me as a result of reading Scripture prayerfully and carefully, and have been unable to discard them via exegesis, and I believe them, but only as understanding that they are incomplete, and only true 'in a sense'. Just as an example: "God is timeless" is only a truism at best. We actually do not know what the situation is there. After all, since time proceeds from God, and is therefore perhaps even somewhat or somehow representative of his nature, we don't know that his nature is accurately described as 'timeless'. We only know that it is different from what we see here, and that logically, he is not subject to time. The same goes for the positive attributes we in our temporally dependent, compartmentalizing, nature ascribe to him; we MUST bear in mind that we are using OUR language to do so, and that we are like children babbling about what we don't understand.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yeh,I think your wording is better, so let me word it differently 'God does not send anyone to Hell, they send themselves there by rejecting Christ' John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: To reject Christ you have to be offered him?

Out of curiosity, do you believe that the hundreds of millions of people alive this very moment who will never ever hear the name of Jesus Christ, will be going to Hell because they are actually rejecting Jesus Christ?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Therefore, predestination becomes watered down to sweet intentions and kind thoughts. No it is our choice and he predestines us to have this choice. Rom 8:29 He predestined to be conformed NOT predestined all will be conformed. The very next verse describes these predstined being called and we know from Matt 22:14 that all of these are not chosen. So all who are prestinined are not conformed?
you do not believe God is able and willing to accomplish God can do anything but appears to value freewill very highly and will not 'Jedi mind trick' us to say yes. It has to be our will.
I find the aspect of pre-existence as biblically defensible as reincarnation. I think reincarnation means the spirit/soul in another body-so two organic bodies and i also think it is taken to mean just on earth. It is appointed unto man to die once. Heb 9:27. Our spirit is placed in a body is not reincarnation, by your definition you would say Jesus was then????
The fact is that orthodox Christianity does not accept the concepts of pre-existence or reincarnation. It is not reincarnation but as i describe it, What you gonna go with orthodox Christianity or scripture? For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring Acts 17 28.
It is about as clear as it could be, we lived, we moved around and we were a being, an existence. It just cannot be anything else.and this is before Jesus' time on earth.I suggest with all the other references in message 100 it is In God the Father and a strange use 'offspring' is maybe a hint at this base spirit's origin?

As I am sure you are aware, there is a considerable difference between being predestined to have a choice and being predestined to make a choice. The first is not predestination, but foreknowledge. The second is actual predestination. It seems to me that you ascribe to a variant of Molinism.

Jesus Christ, as God incarnate, exists eternally. Mankind, however, was created by God. Adam did not exist before God created him, nor did Eve, nor any of their innumerable descendants. The mystery of the incarnation of Jesus Christ is that the eternal God chose to enter human experience as a fully human baby, yet being the eternal God at the same time.

 

[jameslouise]

You may have heard the saying, "No new revelation." Scripture is clear that plenary verbal inspiration belongs to Scripture alone. That doesn't at all mean he doesn't speak to us nowadays, but he doesn't REVEAL anything new that is not already in Scripture. Of course we "hear his voice", and Scripture tells us plenty about what he does in us, but what he does is not Scripture anymore. I'm not even going to say it is impossible to audibly hear his voice, but he still does not give us new Scripture. Not the Holy Spirit's Words.

While I can't say I put forth much effort reading your article, your run-on sentences and jumping around half-self-explanatory statements, lousy punctuation and so on make it hard to follow what you are saying in your article. What's worse, from what I can tell, anyhow, you go way outside orthodoxy* to posit a theory that your scriptures only seem to support, according to your personal use of them. From what little I read and did try to follow, and from what you say here, I don't even begin to see a reason why even YOU think there are two 'chosens'. No, not intrigued.

*For example, a quote from your article: "Kerr has revealed that we lived inside God before being ‘assigned’ to Earth and we were not sinful at this time" —Who is Kerr, and why should I care what Kerr thinks? "Kerr has REVEALED"??? Who is Kerr to be revealing anything, as though she speaks for God or something? If that is her stance, then I can only categorize her with Ellen White as FALSE. And you BELIEVE her when she comes up with stuff Scripture does not tell us? I have plenty of theories that came to me as a result of reading Scripture prayerfully and carefully, and have been unable to discard them via exegesis, and I believe them, but only as understanding that they are incomplete, and only true 'in a sense'. Just as an example: "God is timeless" is only a truism at best. We actually do not know what the situation is there. After all, since time proceeds from God, and is therefore perhaps even somewhat or somehow representative of his nature, we don't know that his nature is accurately described as 'timeless'. We only know that it is different from what we see here, and that logically, he is not subject to time. The same goes for the positive attributes we in our temporally dependent, compartmentalizing, nature ascribe to him; we MUST bear in mind that we are using OUR language to do so, and that we are like children babbling about what we don't understand

It is not for my glory that i am writing these essays but His. I do not mind too much if it is not scholarly or erudite,Bit rough at the edges, bit like me so i do not really care if it is not eloquent-it is understandable enough. I WANT TO PRESENT REVELATION AND INSIGHT not go on intellectual trips. You make so many points that I would like to take up with you I do not know where to start. Never heard of Ellie White btw.
it is your choice if you believe modern day prophets and revelators or not as there are so many false ones I understand your stance but its not a biblical one. but it is the stance of Christian orthodoxy. The essays stand on their own anyway.
You seem to think that all scripture interpretation is completely settled well I ask you please read the main page on the site Genesis Similitudes
You will not be so certain then that there are no new insights to be found. Especially the use or 'kind' and it was so' In Genesis 1 and 2 which absolutely prove Gap theory beyond any doubt. The creation argument is over.
.
I notice you have not commented on the idea of man's spirit preexisting and the evidence in scripture I provided for it? How come that is not in orthodoxy? how was that missed by orthodoxy? Tell me your stance on it?
Anyway back to this essay and one at a time,
The term 'Foundation of the world' (FOTW) when was it? Hebrews 9 25-26 describes Jesus, if he hadnt sacrificed Himself once and for all, He would had to have done it yearly since a time called FOTW and likens this time to a time when the 'as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;' i.e. since this time So, the establishment of a remission of sins by blood sacrifice would seem to be significant as to when the FOTW actually was and not from Genesis day 6 which is what it sounds like . So when is the FOTW?

 

[jameslouise]

Out of curiosity, do you believe that the hundreds of millions of people alive this very moment who will never ever hear the name of Jesus Christ, will be going to Hell because they are actually rejecting Jesus Christ?

The question seems to be misunderstanding my position? How can they reject Christ if they are not offered him?

 

[jameslouise]

As I am sure you are aware, there is a considerable difference between being predestined to have a choice and being predestined to make a choice.

Yeh in tense only, you have a choice then you make that choice, Are you saying God makes that choice for you or just knows what that choice will be, I am the latter

The first is not predestination, but foreknowledge. The second is actual predestination. It seems to me that you ascribe to a variant of Molinism.

Never heard of Molinism, yeh he actually predestines the choice, what scripture says otherwise? Do you accept that Rom 8 30 describes some of the people who you say are predestined with their positive choice already made yet still drop out as many are called few are chosen?? A direct contradictio

Jesus Christ, as God incarnate, exists eternally. Mankind, however, was created by God. Adam did not exist before God created him, nor did Eve, nor any of their innumerable descendants. The mystery of the incarnation of Jesus Christ is that the eternal God chose to enter human experience as a fully human baby, yet being the eternal God at the same time.

Where/when does the Bible say man's spirit was created? It says man was created, but the text is consistent with an existing spirit inside God being breathed out. Still not had any answer about my 13 bits of scripture confirming our pre existent spirit? How come? Do you just ignore scripture that doies not suit?

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is not for my glory that i am writing these essays but His. I do not mind too much if it is not scholarly or erudite,Bit rough at the edges, bit like me so i do not really care if it is not eloquent-it is understandable enough. I WANT TO PRESENT REVELATION AND INSIGHT not go on intellectual trips. You make so many points that I would like to take up with you I do not know where to start. Never heard of Ellie White btw.

Take your pick, but first understand that we seem diametrically opposed concerning the notion of modern day revelation. Scripture is clear about adding to or taking away from the word of God. There is no point in going forward with this unless you will submit to that Scriptural norm.

it is your choice if you believe modern day prophets and revelators or not as there are so many false ones I understand your stance but its not a biblical one. but it is the stance of Christian orthodoxy. The essays stand on their own anyway.

There are no modern day prophets or revelators, in Biblical sense, unless you are referring to false ones.

You seem to think that all scripture interpretation is completely settled

Not even close.

You will not be so certain then that there are no new insights to be found. Especially the use or 'kind' and it was so' In Genesis 1 and 2 which absolutely prove Gap theory beyond any doubt. The creation argument is over.

How in the name of good sense do you translate, "No new Revelation", to mean "no new insights"? But beyond that, superlatives do not make an argument look good. I immediately stand back when I hear, "absolutely prove". It's like a meme, where I am told to say "Amen!". If I think something is worth saying Amen to, I will do so, and if I don't, I won't. If your evidence absolutely proves anything, I don't need you to say so. I need the evidence, and I will assess it apart from your cheerleading. So far, the only thing that has ever been absolutely (logically) proven to me is that God is God Almighty. And the only thing beyond that, that has been absolutely proven to me Biblically, is that God is absolutely faithful, and that I (if indeed I exist) am in desperate need of him, and that Salvation is through God alone. There are a few other things in which I am absolutely confident, though my understanding of them also is necessarily skewed to some degree.

I notice you have not commented on the idea of man's spirit preexisting and the evidence in scripture I provided for it? How come that is not in orthodoxy? how was that missed by orthodoxy? Tell me your stance on it?

Why should it be addressed by Orthodoxy? Is there something in Scriptures that says the same thing as what your false prophet, what's-her-name, says, or that anyone else says, who claims something outside of Orthodoxy? I'm a long way from claiming Orthodoxy incorporates all truth, but I can tell you that what I don't see in Orthodoxy is automatically and immediately suspect.

The term 'Foundation of the world' (FOTW) when was it? Hebrews 9 25-26 describes Jesus, if he hadnt sacrificed Himself once and for all, He would had to have done it yearly since a time called FOTW and likens this time to a time when the 'as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;' i.e. since this time So, the establishment of a remission of sins by blood sacrifice would seem to be significant as to when the FOTW actually was and not from Genesis day 6 which is what it sounds like . So when is the FOTW?

It doesn't say that He would have had to have done it yearly since a time called FOTW. You make several logical leaps to arrive at the conclusion that WHEN the FOTW was —ie, "not from Genesis day 6"— is particularly significant to the principle of remission of sins by Christ's sacrifice vs yearly blood sacrifices, if your logic is drawn from this passage.


Now if you want to slow your roll a bit, and admit it is, (at best), (to your mind), some pretty compelling speculation, then have at it. If it is New Revelation, I want nothing to do with it, and if it is "absolutely proven", then my part in this discussion is done here.

The question seems to be misunderstanding my position? How can they reject Christ if they are not offered him?

Romans 1 "Wherefore they are without excuse."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yeh in tense only, you have a choice then you make that choice, Are you saying God makes that choice for you or just knows what that choice will be, I am the latter

Never heard of Molinism, yeh he actually predestines the choice, what scripture says otherwise? Do you accept that Rom 8 30 describes some of the people who you say are predestined with their positive choice already made yet still drop out as many are called few are chosen?? A direct contradictio

Where/when does the Bible say man's spirit was created? It says man was created, but the text is consistent with an existing spirit inside God being breathed out. Still not had any answer about my 13 bits of scripture confirming our pre existent spirit? How come? Do you just ignore scripture that doies not suit?

The question seems to be misunderstanding my position? How can they reject Christ if they are not offered him?

Thanks for understanding my question. There seem to be two sides to the situation. The first is positive - all who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved. The flip side is that all who do not believe in Jesus Christ will be lost. The difficulty arises for some with the question of the fate of those who never even hear the name of Jesus Christ. Some folks take the position that all those who never hear cannot be lost, because God would be exceedingly unfair to condemn them for something they never knew. Hence they will be saved. The very sticky part of that is if these folks are saved without hearing the gospel and believing, then it is manifestly best to keep everyone quite ignorant of the gospel in order that they will be saved. Of course, that wholly contradicts the Great Commission as well as all of the New Testament.

So, if the Bible is true and if faith in Jesus Christ is essential for salvation, it really does not matter if one consciously rejects Jesus Christ.

You believe in foreknowledge and not predestination. The God you believe in merely knows what will happen, but is either unwilling or incapable of causing things to happen. Therefore, there can be no "acts of God" in nature. God did not part the waters of the Red Sea for the Israelites to flee from the Egyptian army. Nor did God perform any of the miracles attributed to him. He merely knew that they were going to happen.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Yeah, I think your wording is better. So, let me word it differently: God does not send anyone to hell, they send themselves there by rejecting Christ.

That is irrelevant to the point you were making (and I was refuting). You said it would be wrong for God to condemn a person to hell for not accepting Jesus when that person never heard of Jesus. We may assume that's true for the sake of argument in order to confront this question: "Who said that's the reason they are condemned to hell?"

We're talking about people who have never heard of Jesus. How, then, can you say they rejected him?

(1) They are guilty of sin. (2) They have never heard of Jesus. (3) God condemns them for their sin. (4) That is fair.

You said, "I completely disagree that all who have never heard the Bible will be condemned." Do you want to retract that? Or do you still think it's defensible?

 

[bbbbbbb]

That is irrelevant to the point you were making (and I was refuting). You said it would be wrong for God to condemn a person to hell for not accepting Jesus when that person never heard of Jesus. We may assume that's true for the sake of argument in order to confront this question: "Who said that's the reason they are condemned to hell?"

We're talking about people who have never heard of Jesus. How, then, can you say they rejected him?

(1) They are guilty of sin. (2) They have never heard of Jesus. (3) God condemns them for their sin. (4) That is fair.

You said, "I completely disagree that all who have never heard the Bible will be condemned." Do you want to retract that? Or do you still think it's defensible?

Well said. Thank you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If it is not in Scripture, you can rest assured that it is not the Holy Spirit's words.. so The Holy Spirit only speaks to people in scripture? Not speaking to us now then?
I am curious why you find a difference between those chosen before the foundation of the world in Ephesians 1:4,. It is a long answer but the term Foundation of the world (FOTW) (katabole kosmos )is very interesting. It testifies to Jesus at many levels. It is mentioned 10 times and 3 times refers to before the FOTW and refers to Jesus/God in Heaven and the next 7 are after the FOTW and refer to Jesus as a man or man. Intrigued? I have a theory that it has multiple meanings, because it has multiple meanings there are two 'chosens' I have writen an essay on it about a 15 minute read foundation of the world

Personally, (I can't speak for others), I would appreciate it if you made it more plain than simply by putting into italics, who said what. I don't want what I said to be confused by any reader with what you said. But I can say that it is confusing when you write what someone else said in the body of the paragraph of what you are saying, with no more of a distinction than that it is in italics and bolded. When I first come upon your paragraphs, I'm automatically thinking YOU are making the statement with emphasis, and not quoting. I read a little further and it looks like you are contradicting yourself. By the time I figure out what is going on, I am tired enough of the whole matter I feel like just moving on, without figuring out what you really are saying.

 

[jameslouise]

Take your pick, but first understand that we seem diametrically opposed concerning the notion of modern day revelation. Scripture is clear about adding to or taking away from the word of God. There is no point in going forward with this unless you will submit to that Scriptural norm.

Absolutely, scripture is enough and can not be added to or have anything taken away. We agree on something, but what about a revelation that opens up scripture? Not adding to or taking away but gives insight. Eg 'What's his name' describes man as being a 3 day job to make. 'No way' you say as did I but when you look at Genesis 2:5 it describes a time 'before' plants were in the earth. i.e day 3, the subsequent text is thus, in this time frame and one of the actions in that 'before' time frame is 'and the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground'-then finished on day 6.This also then obviously opens up very provocative parallels with Jesus 3 days in the grave. Intrigued?- prob not considering you weren't for the Foundation of the world. Does that type of revelation bother you? But I am intrigued a lot by it, But its all about scripture

There are no modern day prophets or revelators, in Biblical sense, unless you are referring to false ones.

Please give me your biblical reference for this stance? Are there any other Holy Spirit gifts that He has stopped giving? Do you just mean 'big' biblical type prophets? If so give me your scripture reference for this too please

How in the name of good sense do you translate, "No new Revelation", to mean "no new insights"? But beyond that, superlatives do not make an argument look good. I immediately stand back when I hear, "absolutely prove". It's like a meme, where I am told to say "Amen!". If I think something is worth saying Amen to, I will do so, and if I don't, I won't. If your evidence absolutely proves anything, I don't need you to say so. I need the evidence, and I will assess it apart from your cheerleading. So far, the only thing that has ever been absolutely (logically) proven to me is that God is God Almighty. And the only thing beyond that, that has been absolutely proven to me Biblically, is that God is absolutely faithful, and that I (if indeed I exist) am in desperate need of him, and that Salvation is through God alone. There are a few other things in which I am absolutely confident, though my understanding of them also is necessarily skewed to some degree.

I like the (if indeed I exist) so that is a PB for you . I would add to your proven list, the Bible is the infallible word of God, so by extension I know that Moses existed and Adam and Eve, all proven and much more because the Bible tells me so. So Genesis 1 refers to a previous creation 6 times in plain text so It proves that to me too.
Tell you what why don t you actually lower those literary standards and actually read the link, Genesis Similitudes
I personally try to be like the Bareans and 'search the scriptures to see if it is true' how about you

Why should it be addressed by Orthodoxy? Is there something in Scriptures that says the same thing as what your false prophet, what's-her-name, says, or that anyone else says, who claims something outside of Orthodoxy? I'm a long way from claiming Orthodoxy incorporates all truth, but I can tell you that what I don't see in Orthodoxy is automatically and immediately suspect.

I do not get your response I have provided 13 biblical references to support what 'whats her name ' said ( In message 100). I am not asking you to comment on 'whats her name ' but on the scripture? Especially Acts 17:28. Still waiting.....

It doesn't say that He would have had to have done it yearly since a time called FOTW. You make several logical leaps to arrive at the conclusion that WHEN the FOTW was —ie, "not from Genesis day 6"— is particularly significant to the principle of remission of sins by Christ's sacrifice vs yearly blood sacrifices, if your logic is drawn from this passage.

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us

Nor yet that he ( still Jesus Christ) should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others (like the high priest does yearly)

For then must he (still Jesus Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world (FOTW) (the time these sacrificial practices started taking place) but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (He would have had to have done it yearly but did it in one go)

There were no yearly sacrifices in temples at the time of Adam so The Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenant come into focus.I suggest these yearly practices had to be started with the Abrahamic Covenant but that is a longer argument for another day

You say It doesn't say that He would have had to have done it yearly since a time called FOTW. I am bewildered by your answer because yes it does, it does not require any ‘logic leaping’ just reading????

Diametrically opposed; I agree, So. we have a term FOTW completely different words to Foundation of the Earth, why? Means breaking down and re-establishing, occurs 10 times(a lot) the three times it says before FOTW refers to Jesus or the Triune God, The 7 times after to Jesus as a man or men. You say ‘I am not intrigued?? Well we have completely different ideas on exegesis because for me its got flashing lights and bells ringing all over it because FOTW likely testifies to Christ

And also with staggeringly elegant design of the scripture the (FOTW) seems also apply to man’s own salvation, and had you actually lowered your literary level to mine and actually read it ( or should that be my literacy levels J) you would have seen where the ‘two chosens’ came from

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

The text being applicable to man being chosen while in God the Father before the world was remade and then again in Jesus just before our salvation. We choose to be chosen for both. Beautiful beautiful text

Now if you want to slow your roll a bit, and admit it is, (at best), (to your mind), some pretty compelling speculation, then have at it. If it is New Revelation, I want nothing to do with it, and if it is "absolutely proven", then my part in this discussion is done

Romans 1 "Wherefore they are without excuse." Who is the 'they'? what were they shown? What was their punishment? Where was this punishment? I think Romans 1 and 2 supports my view btw.

 

[jameslouise]

Thanks for understanding my question. There seem to be two sides to the situation. The first is positive - all who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved.

Agreed but those who accept Christ

The flip side is that all who do not believe in Jesus Christ will be lost.

The difficulty arises for some with the question of the fate of those who never even hear the name of Jesus Christ. Some folks take the position that all those who never hear cannot be lost, because God would be exceedingly unfair to condemn them for something they never knew. Hence they will be saved.

Liked it very much until you said they will be saved, but they still have to accept Christ to be saved but the question is when and where and how. Can they be saved without knowing the Gospel?

The very sticky part of that is if these folks are saved without hearing the gospel and believing, then it is manifestly best to keep everyone quite ignorant of the gospel in order that they will be saved. Of course, that wholly contradicts the Great Commission as well as all of the New Testament.

No for the reason above-they all have to accept Christ, there is no other way.

So, if the Bible is true and if faith in Jesus Christ is essential for salvation, it really does not matter if one consciously rejects Jesus Christ. No they have to repent and accept Christ too.

You believe in foreknowledge and not predestination.

With respect that is not what I said. I believe God predestined me to be saved, if you like predestined me into a position of knowledge to be saved. For some reason that i do not understand you seem to think that is foreknowledge. N,o he put everything there for me to choose ,knowledge, the time and place, someone with me and prior to that the conviction in my heart via His Holy Spirit. Why isnt that pre-destination?

The God you believe in merely knows what will happen, but is either unwilling or incapable of causing things to happen. Therefore, there can be no "acts of God" in nature. God did not part the waters of the Red Sea for the Israelites to flee from the Egyptian army. Nor did God perform any of the miracles attributed to him. He merely knew that they were going to happen.

With respect again that is a totally unjustified extrapolation of what i said and i disagree with all of it.

 

[jameslouise]

Well said. Thank you.

That is irrelevant to the point you were making (and I was refuting). You said it would be wrong for God to condemn a person to hell for not accepting Jesus when that person never heard of Jesus. We may assume that's true for the sake of argument in order to confront this question: "Who said that's the reason they are condemned to hell?"

We're talking about people who have never heard of Jesus. How, then, can you say they rejected him?

(1) They are guilty of sin. (2) They have never heard of Jesus. (3) God condemns them for their sin. (4) That is fair.

You said, "I completely disagree that all who have never heard the Bible will be condemned." Do you want to retract that? Or do you still think it's defensible?

I absolutely think it is defensible and do not want to retract it at all. I also think the wording is relevant. God does not send anyone to Hell you send yourself there by rejecting Jesus ( and sinning as you point out). So they must have had knowledge of him or be offered him. I think The Holy Spirit can and does approach people who have never heard the Bible,
I want to at some stage talk AT LENGTH about miss-carried and aborted fetuses. I believe The Holy Spirit knits their spirit and soul to their bodies in the womb. Where are they going to spend eternity in your theological paradigm? Bit tough on them isnt it? Or what about children before an 'age of accountability' still a bit sinful but really old enough to understand salavtion? What about children in lost tribes too? They all never heard of Jesus at the time of their death?