|
Post by brandon on Oct 30, 2018 4:20:44 GMT -6
I am asking for all of your biblically based opinions, as to when God's work of regeneration begins in the life of the redeemed. Is it the moment you believed or did you believe because God regenerated your dead spirit? Even more specifically, I would like your thoughts towards the following artical about "God's Sovereignty in Salvation." bible.org/seriespage/sovereignty-god-salvation-romans-91-24My reason for asking is due to an atheist friend I know who basically thinks the God is unfair to those who grow up in circumstances were they will not hear the gospel. On a side note, do you believe the "Lamb's book of Life" is a different or the same book as the "Book of Life." Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 30, 2018 6:46:31 GMT -6
Brandon, I briefly replied to you on the main page regarding this and after reading the article you provided see why there is confusion. There are some who believe that God choose some and not others for salvation, which is how the article is written. Other feel that God still allows us to make that choice although he already knew the outcome before we made that choice, meaning He is still in control. I agree with your atheist friend that it is unfair of God to have some hear the good news and others not and those that don't are damned. I dont want to serve a God like that do you?
This debate over predestination and choice has gone on far longer than I am qualified to speak on and wont be settled here or anywhere, until He actually returns to show us the whole truth. Remember our ways are not His ways nor our thoughts His thoughts. He chooses and chose to reveal certain things to us and other things we will hopefully find out soon!
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Oct 30, 2018 8:02:23 GMT -6
The unfortunate thing for your atheist friend brandon is that he himself has been fortunate to hear the Word, or rather unfortunate, as he is refusing to hear the call of his own self. His response to God is a judgement of something he has no knowledge of..he has been given a chance to be thankful and honor God for allowing him to hear the Word, but instead despises God and follows his own understanding. What he could do is research it himself by going to the scriptures, and asking God or rather, asking Jesus to help him sort out this mystery. None of us knows who the Lord uses to call others. And too, there is Romans 1 where we are told that the work of God is in everything so that no man is without excuse... 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Like mike said, it is not for us to understand why, but to rather seek Him, who is Truth, and not rely on our own accord or understanding which misleads. I read Frank Turek's book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". He does a pretty good job of asking questions that then leads one to reexamine their reasons for disbelief.. Lord, we lift up brandon's friend who is blinded by his own lawlessness toward You. Give strength to brandon and the words through Your Holy Spirit that should brandon's friend need Truth, it is spoken thru brandon to him not in vain, but purpose. Amen
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Oct 30, 2018 12:51:12 GMT -6
I am asking for all of your biblically based opinions, as to when God's work of regeneration begins in the life of the redeemed. Is it the moment you believed or did you believe because God regenerated your dead spirit? Even more specifically, I would like your thoughts towards the following artical about "God's Sovereignty in Salvation." bible.org/seriespage/sovereignty-god-salvation-romans-91-24My reason for asking is due to an atheist friend I know who basically thinks the God is unfair to those who grow up in circumstances were they will not hear the gospel. On a side note, do you believe the "Lamb's book of Life" is a different or the same book as the "Book of Life." Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this topic. Hi brandon, When I read your post, the first thing that came to mind was, How can an atheist think that God is unfair? I mean, to think that God is unfair necessitates a belief in God and indicates that your friend is not an atheist but a lost believer. For instance, an atheist would say there is no God; therefore, since there is no God to be unfair, then God is not unfair. I hope this makes since because for a person to say that God is unfair it first necessitates a belief in God. I mean, it takes a belief in God to believe that he is unfair. Right? Therefore, if we are saying something is unfair then we are saying, I believe but do not understand. Thus, all things that seem unfair are simply things that we do not understand. The logic holds for anything that seems unfair. As to the larger question; God knows everyone before they exist. God knows everything forever. It is a burden that he must carry for us, that we might live and have joy. It would not be a fun job, in my opinion, to know all things. Thus, where does God's reward come from? Why does he do what he does? Because he loves us, and wants us to experience joy. Thus, his reward is in us via our obedience to his laws that we might have joy. Otherwise, he would have a very lonely existence; knowing everything, forever, with no joy. So he sets laws and has joy in those who follow his laws when they have joy; and that is his reward. Therefore, the redeemed were redeemed from their beginning; because, from that creation God knew their choices. All who choose to be in the Book of Life are, and all who choose not to be in the Book of Life are not. Those choices are based upon obedience to God's laws. Thus, those who obey God's laws are in the Book of Life, and those who do not obey God's laws are not in the Book of Life. The interesting thing is that God's laws are that we follow Jesus Christ. We are to do as Christ taught, to repent, to forgive, to love, and have compassion. These are God's laws and all who follow them are in the Book of Life. That is, all who follow God's laws as given through his Son, Lord Jesus, are in the Book of Life; the Lamb's Book of Life. When I share the gospel message with another person they either accept the message or reject it, it's their choice. I do not try to convince them because I do not know their growth. Later, that seed that I planted may sprout and grow, or it may die. If it sprouts and grows then I have contributed to the salvation of a lost soul. One more thing about this subject. The classic example is the Apostle Paul who was a highly educated man and firm in his belief as a Jew. The Savior in his ministry taught him briefly as the wealthy young man that did everything from his youth (vv. Matt. 19:20, Mark 10:20, Luke 18:21, Acts 26:4). However, Paul was later brought into the church when it needed relief from persecution. His joining gave it more credibility to the Jews and gave it (the church) rest (Acts 9:31). Thus, the young man that could not give up his money later became a moral booster to the church. The seed that the Savior started in Paul (as a young man) grew to become a light to the Jewish Christian church and to the gentiles even down to our time.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 30, 2018 17:45:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Oct 30, 2018 20:00:34 GMT -6
Agree with mike, though I am puzzled about how Paul was the rich young ruler from your scripture passage. Would be interesting to see how you drew that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by stormyknight on Oct 31, 2018 9:05:53 GMT -6
My reason for asking is due to an atheist friend I know who basically thinks the God is unfair to those who grow up in circumstances were they will not hear the gospel.also:
"If a man who is not circumcised keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?" Rom. 2:26
IMO, for a morally grounded person who has not heard the gospel, his/her high moral standard will be reckoned to him/her as righteousness. Remember, God knows what is in the heart of man.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 31, 2018 9:24:54 GMT -6
Stormy that point you make reminds me of OT saints who had their standing in right relationship with God. For example we see God set the example of blood covering sin with Adam & Eve. Nowhere between that instance and Moses does the Bible express that blood needs to be shed for sin, but it happens quite a bit doesn't it? Look at Abraham for Isaac. Consider Noah after the flood or even during. Although we're not told they had to do this, they were clearly shown that it was proper. This pattern of instruction was passed from God Himself to Adam to his children, grandchildren and so on as examples of how to honor God. My point being how did they know because we aren't expressly told this was proper in the Bible yet we see it done many times. I don't think anyone would disagree that it was clear that blood had to be shed for remission of sin. We have to explain history to our friends and family through the lense of truth brandon. There are so many lies told that people really don't know any better. Ask your friend some simple practical questions about his worldview. Being an atheist he likely believes the earth and stars are billions of years old, why? He also likely believes we evolve from the ooze, why? Does he realize the flood really happened and completely wiped out the entirety of the world, save Noah? Is he aware there is strong evidence that confirms that we all have a common set of ancestors? Do some homework to help open the eyes of your friends understanding. I really like Answers in Genesis and Genesis Apologetics for this scientific evidence of these things. The world is looking for answers and will accept things that fit their current worldview. But if you can crack that view with truth your friend has a chance!
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Oct 31, 2018 10:45:36 GMT -6
Agree with mike, though I am puzzled about how Paul was the rich young ruler from your scripture passage. Would be interesting to see how you drew that conclusion. This reminds me that I need to finish some work on another thread. Paul was the rich young ruler proved as follows: 1) Gamaliel was a doctor of the law and had a good reputation among the Jewish people (Acts 5:34). 2) Paul was a student of Gamaliel and was taught in the manner of the law; thus, Paul was a lawyer (Acts 22:3). 3) The gospel writers often did not use their own names in their gospel work. Like the gospel writers not using their own names in their gospel work, they often did not use others names in their gospel work. For instance, Luke did not use Paul's name in his gospel work but referenced him as a "a certain lawyer" in Luke 10:25. "And behold, a certain lawyer stood up an tempted him (Christ) saying Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life" (Luke 10:25). 4) This "certain lawyer" asking Christ about eternal life in Luke 10:25 is the same "certain ruler" asking Christ about eternal life in Luke 18:18. "And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master what shall I do to inherit eternal life" (Luke 18:18). 5) Since Saul/Paul was a lawyer and a ruler (Acts 23:6), then he is the "one" "young man" having "great possessions" in Matt. 19:16, 22, the "one running" having "great possessions" in Mark 10:17,22, and the ruler of Luke 18:18. It seems to me that Saul was paying some retribution to the Christians when he was persecuting them because he believed in Christ and felt snubbed. It was more than attacking them for their belief, but payback and personal. Thus, he attacked the followers of Christ; the one Christ in whom he believed and was snubbed. It is for that reason that the Savior said "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." In other words, Lord Jesus had "pricked" him when he (Saul) had been some time earlier been rebuked for his wealth. Thus, Saul was kicking Christ who "pricked" (poked) him. Christ poked Saul about his wealth. It was that wealth that restricted Saul from eternal life, and in my opinion, was the thorn in his (Paul's) side for the remainder of his life. The wealth that he loved and despised. I am not saying that Paul did not have eternal life because he does. What I am saying is that his struggle in life was the temptation of wealth. Not the vices of some other men such as pornography, and the like. But Paul loved wealth. It was his vice and life long struggle. Yes he was victorious, but had to work at it. Side Note: The word "certain" is used approximately 43 times in the Gospel According to Luke, and approximately 58 times in the Book of Acts. He loved that word.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 31, 2018 15:00:02 GMT -6
BOR - while your conclusion is plausible, it is not certain who the lawyer was.
We have to insert that Paul met Jesus long before the crucifixion and also assume that the lawyer did not or was not able to receive the end result of this exchange which was "go and do likewise"
Now we can state that Luke wrote his gospel about 30 yrs after Christ and Acts probably after that or shortly after. I do not know at the moment how much time passed between this story (Good Samaritan) and Saul/Paul conversion but to state definitively that the lawyer was Paul...is a stretch
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Oct 31, 2018 17:56:11 GMT -6
Agree with mike, though I am puzzled about how Paul was the rich young ruler from your scripture passage. Would be interesting to see how you drew that conclusion. This reminds me that I need to finish some work on another thread. Paul was the rich young ruler proved as follows: 1) Gamaliel was a doctor of the law and had a good reputation among the Jewish people (Acts 5:34). 2) Paul was a student of Gamaliel and was taught in the manner of the law; thus, Paul was a lawyer (Acts 22:3). 3) The gospel writers often did not use their own names in their gospel work. Like the gospel writers not using their own names in their gospel work, they often did not use others names in their gospel work. For instance, Luke did not use Paul's name in his gospel work but referenced him as a "a certain lawyer" in Luke 10:25. "And behold, a certain lawyer stood up an tempted him (Christ) saying Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life" (Luke 10:25). 4) This "certain lawyer" asking Christ about eternal life in Luke 10:25 is the same "certain ruler" asking Christ about eternal life in Luke 18:18. "And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master what shall I do to inherit eternal life" (Luke 18:18). 5) Since Saul/Paul was a lawyer and a ruler (Acts 23:6), then he is the "one" "young man" having "great possessions" in Matt. 19:16, 22, the "one running" having "great possessions" in Mark 10:17,22, and the ruler of Luke 18:18. It seems to me that Saul was paying some retribution to the Christians when he was persecuting them because he believed in Christ and felt snubbed. It was more than attacking them for their belief, but payback and personal. Thus, he attacked the followers of Christ; the one Christ in whom he believed and was snubbed. It is for that reason that the Savior said "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." In other words, Lord Jesus had "pricked" him when he (Saul) had been some time earlier been rebuked for his wealth. Thus, Saul was kicking Christ who "pricked" (poked) him. Christ poked Saul about his wealth. It was that wealth that restricted Saul from eternal life, and in my opinion, was the thorn in his (Paul's) side for the remainder of his life. The wealth that he loved and despised. I am not saying that Paul did not have eternal life because he does. What I am saying is that his struggle in life was the temptation of wealth. Not the vices of some other men such as pornography, and the like. But Paul loved wealth. It was his vice and life long struggle. Yes he was victorious, but had to work at it. Side Note: The word "certain" is used approximately 43 times in the Gospel According to Luke, and approximately 58 times in the Book of Acts. He loved that word. Thanks for posting your explanation. It seems a plausible hypothesis (and an interesting one); though I am not sure I find it definitive. Mostly because I believe that not everything is explained in the scriptures. Some stuff is just not critical enough to need the minutiae of detail; and some stuff is not supposed to be widely (if at all) understood or known. I think it is okay to speculate, and infer for purposes of discussion: in non-essentials... liberty... I appreciate you sharing your view.
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 2, 2018 6:57:14 GMT -6
BOR - while your conclusion is plausible, it is not certain who the lawyer was. We have to insert that Paul met Jesus long before the crucifixion and also assume that the lawyer did not or was not able to receive the end result of this exchange which was "go and do likewise" Now we can state that Luke wrote his gospel about 30 yrs after Christ and Acts probably after that or shortly after. I do not know at the moment how much time passed between this story (Good Samaritan) and Saul/Paul conversion but to state definitively that the lawyer was Paul...is a stretch Mike, I see what you are saying and had not considered that the Savior was telling the lawyer to be a Good Samaritan; to go and be a good neighbor. If my analysis is correct and Paul is that lawyer then being a bad neighbor was in Saul's future, and it was perhaps Christ that was among thieves when they (Saul and friends) went to Damascus to capture and kill the saints there. Thus Christ was the one that was injured in the story of the Good Samaritan, and Paul would be the one to nurse him (the church) back to health. Or, Saul was among thieves and Christ nursed him back to health. Thus, Christ was the Good Samaritan.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Nov 2, 2018 9:32:32 GMT -6
Thanks for the feedback guys. I appreciate it. On a side note, Paul was a tentmaker by trade, which is specified in Acts 18:3. However, I can see why you've added in the law spin too.
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Nov 2, 2018 9:58:01 GMT -6
Thanks for the feedback guys. I appreciate it. On a side note, Paul was a tentmaker by trade, which is specified in Acts 18:3. However, I can see why you've added in the law spin too.
Sorry about being off track on your thread brandon. I was just thinking that prior to being a tent maker when he was persecuting the Christians he might have been a lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Nov 28, 2018 16:34:09 GMT -6
Agree with mike, though I am puzzled about how Paul was the rich young ruler from your scripture passage. Would be interesting to see how you drew that conclusion. This reminds me that I need to finish some work on another thread. Paul was the rich young ruler proved as follows: 1) Gamaliel was a doctor of the law and had a good reputation among the Jewish people (Acts 5:34). 2) Paul was a student of Gamaliel and was taught in the manner of the law; thus, Paul was a lawyer (Acts 22:3). 3) The gospel writers often did not use their own names in their gospel work. Like the gospel writers not using their own names in their gospel work, they often did not use others names in their gospel work. For instance, Luke did not use Paul's name in his gospel work but referenced him as a "a certain lawyer" in Luke 10:25. "And behold, a certain lawyer stood up an tempted him (Christ) saying Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life" (Luke 10:25). 4) This "certain lawyer" asking Christ about eternal life in Luke 10:25 is the same "certain ruler" asking Christ about eternal life in Luke 18:18. "And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master what shall I do to inherit eternal life" (Luke 18:18). 5) Since Saul/Paul was a lawyer and a ruler (Acts 23:6), then he is the "one" "young man" having "great possessions" in Matt. 19:16, 22, the "one running" having "great possessions" in Mark 10:17,22, and the ruler of Luke 18:18. It seems to me that Saul was paying some retribution to the Christians when he was persecuting them because he believed in Christ and felt snubbed. It was more than attacking them for their belief, but payback and personal. Thus, he attacked the followers of Christ; the one Christ in whom he believed and was snubbed. It is for that reason that the Savior said "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." In other words, Lord Jesus had "pricked" him when he (Saul) had been some time earlier been rebuked for his wealth. Thus, Saul was kicking Christ who "pricked" (poked) him. Christ poked Saul about his wealth. It was that wealth that restricted Saul from eternal life, and in my opinion, was the thorn in his (Paul's) side for the remainder of his life. The wealth that he loved and despised. I am not saying that Paul did not have eternal life because he does. What I am saying is that his struggle in life was the temptation of wealth. Not the vices of some other men such as pornography, and the like. But Paul loved wealth. It was his vice and life long struggle. Yes he was victorious, but had to work at it. Side Note: The word "certain" is used approximately 43 times in the Gospel According to Luke, and approximately 58 times in the Book of Acts. He loved that word. Going to disagree with you about St. Paul..........
Based off the text 1Corinthians 15:8
"...and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born... (NIV)"
"...Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him....(NLT)"
"...And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time....(KJV)"
It appears Paul never met Jesus in the Flesh -- if that is true it would be hard for Paul to ask Jesus a question....
This next evidence is also more implied rather than direct ... in that Saul (the young man who became Paul) was not "in authority" at the stoning of Stephen -- meaning he (Paul) was there but he did not organize or had the authority to authorize stoning .... so he might be a lawyer in training -- but he had not arrived at that status yet......
Acts 7:58.
“And cast him out of the city, and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.”
Paul’s education may be a hint at his social status. If he came to Jerusalem at a young age, then he was likely from a “well-to-do” family which could afford to send a son to study on Jerusalem. However, Family wealth does not mean the wealth was transferred to him ... if his father "turn away" from him because of his promoting Christianity ..... It certain explains why Paul continue to "pay his way" as a tent maker during his travels....
Acts 18:3 and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them.
Seems to me Paul (Saul) -- never encountered Jesus in real Life........ but the biggest "clincher is"
Acts 22:8 "'Who are you, Lord?' I asked. "'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied.
|
|