"Seven Reasons NOT to Ask Jesus into Your Heart"

General discussions about Christianity including salvation, heaven and hell, Christian history and so on.
Kerux
Established Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:57 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#166

Post by Kerux » Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:10 pm

You didn't use Acts?
Not what I wrote. What I wrote was "I didn't use just Acts."

And you didn't answer my important question:
The devil believes in God. Does the devil have salvation by believing?
"A wise man will listen and increase learning." Proverbs 1:5
******************************

Of course, I believe my views to be true.
If I didn't, I would change my views.

FFC
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:11 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#167

Post by FFC » Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:39 pm

Kerux wrote:
You didn't use Acts?
Not what I wrote. What I wrote was "I didn't use just Acts."

And you didn't answer my important question:
The devil believes in God. Does the devil have salvation by believing?
I believe he did.
Jac wrote:However, just to short-circuit the entire discussion, I do believe that Satan believes the Gospel just as well as any believer does. However, salvation is not offered to angels -- only to men (John 3:5). Therefore, even if Satan were to repent and beg for forgiveness, it would not be provided. His fate is sealed, as is the fate of those angels who did not follow in the rebellion
"Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible." - Corrie Ten Boom

Act 9:6
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?

Kerux
Established Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:57 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#168

Post by Kerux » Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:48 pm

Therefore, even if Satan were to repent and beg for forgiveness, it would not be provided. His fate is sealed, as is the fate of those angels who did not follow in the rebellion.
You've made an assumption, two of them in fact.

1. That "even if Satan were to repent and beg for forgiveness, it would not be provided." You appear to base your assumption upon one verse, John 3:5 and one belief, that salvation is not available to angels. At this point, I'm not in a position to disagree, but a couple of thoughts come to mind which makes me hesitant to agree 100%. And that is, I'm not aware of any direct statement in Scripture that says salvation is not 'offered to angels' with the possible exception of I Peter 1:12. Secondly, I have trouble with the idea, given God's forgiving nature, that if Satan did somehow repent and beg for forgiveness, that God wouldn't forgive. I also am aware of the fact that Christ's work was for man and not angels, so I'll have to study further.

2. You're saying that the angels that did not follow in the rebellion have had their fate sealed, that is, that they can never fall away no matter what. I'll have to give that some more thought also. But, that idea doesn't settle well with me at this time either.
notice that you put "believe" in apostraphes. Why? I suppose you would argue that there is a difference in someone who says that they believe versus someone who "really believes." I would disagree with that.
Most certainly would argue with that. So does Jesus Christ:

Matthew 7:21

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 13:24-43

24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. 27 "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 28 "'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 29 "'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"
Last edited by Kerux on Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
******************************

Of course, I believe my views to be true.
If I didn't, I would change my views.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

#169

Post by Jac3510 » Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:56 pm

That "even if Satan were to repent and beg for forgiveness, it would not be provided." You appear to base your assumption upon one verse, John 3:5 and one belief, that salvation is not available to angels. At this point, I'm not in a position to disagree, but a couple of thoughts come to mind which makes me hesitant to agree 100%. And that is, I'm not aware of any direct statement in Scripture that says salvation is not 'offered to angels' with the possible exception of I Peter 1:12. Secondly, I have trouble with the idea, given God's forgiving nature, that if Satan did somehow repent and beg for forgiveness, that God wouldn't forgive. I also am aware of the fact that Christ's work was for man and not angels, so I'll have to study further.
1. Has any angel ever been born of flesh? If not, then what does John 3:5 say about his ability to be saved?

2. If people in Hell were to beg for forgiveness, would God let them out? If not, what does that say about being sealed in a particular condition?
You're saying that the angels that did not follow in the rebellion have had their fate sealed, that is, that they can never fall away no matter what. I'll have to give that some more thought also. But, that idea doesn't settle well with me at this time either.
In heaven, will we be able to fall away? Do you believe we can lose our salvation now?
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Kerux
Established Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:57 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#170

Post by Kerux » Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:57 pm

The devil is not yet in Hell. Neither are his angels.

And you've changed the discussion from believing and repentance to losing salvation, something I have not addressed, much less believe.

Stay on topic please.
******************************

Of course, I believe my views to be true.
If I didn't, I would change my views.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

#171

Post by Jac3510 » Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:59 pm

No, but if he has been already condemned - sentenced, if you will - then it doesn't matter. And what does that specifically relate to? Anyway, the questions still need answering.

edit: I've not changed the discussion. You asked about angels. I am answering the question. Arrogant words don't fly well, Kerux.

edit2: I am going to have to ask you to read the thread. I've already dealt with the "Lord, Lord" passage EXTENSIVELY in this very discussion with ttoews. As for the parable of the wheat/tares, Jesus Himself tells us the field is the world, not the Church. Therefore, the passage has no bearing on that question, either.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Kerux
Established Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:57 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#172

Post by Kerux » Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:08 pm

Jac3510 wrote:No, but if he has been already condemned - sentenced, if you will - then it doesn't matter. And what does that specifically relate to? Anyway, the questions still need answering.

edit: I've not changed the discussion. You asked about angels. I am answering the question. Arrogant words don't fly well, Kerux.

edit2: I am going to have to ask you to read the thread. I've already dealt with the "Lord, Lord" passage EXTENSIVELY in this very discussion with ttoews. As for the parable of the wheat/tares, Jesus Himself tells us the field is the world, not the Church. Therefore, the passage has no bearing on that question, either.
No, I didn't ask about angels. I mentioned Satan believing in God. You brought angels into the discussion, not me.

Please don't accuse me of using arrogant words. my professing brother, I'm doing nothing more than asking questions and have stated plainly I still have to look more closely into certain areas we have discussed. But since you bring it up, I've noticed you haven't made such an admission, have you?
I've already dealt with the "Lord, Lord" passage EXTENSIVELY in this very discussion with ttoews. As for the parable of the wheat/tares, Jesus Himself tells us the field is the world, not the Church. Therefore, the passage has no bearing on that question, either.
Good, then I am not the only one who brought these passages into the discussion thinking they relate. And please remember, everything we think is just our opinion. We are not inspired of God.

And we have been given an example to "search the Scriptures.... to see whether those things are so." And that was when Paul was teaching.

IMO this passage is relevant also:

James 2:

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without F8 thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

IMO, the Bible teaches 'believing' is not enough. Trusting in the finished work of Christ will be accompanied by repentance and a turning to God.

Of course the field is the world. The gospel doesn't have to be preached to the 'church,' the ekkelsia, the called out ones. We are already saved. So, the passage certainly does have a bearing on this dicussion.
******************************

Of course, I believe my views to be true.
If I didn't, I would change my views.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

#173

Post by Jac3510 » Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:44 pm

No, I didn't ask about angels. I mentioned Satan believing in God. You brought angels into the discussion, not me.
Satan is an angel. If angels cannot be redeemed, neither can Satan.
Please don't accuse me of using arrogant words. my professing brother, I'm doing nothing more than asking questions and have stated plainly I still have to look more closely into certain areas we have discussed. But since you bring it up, I've noticed you haven't made such an admission, have you?
You've made more than a few comments that could be taken in a negative way. Maybe it is just trying to get used to this environment and it isn't intended. We can leave it at that.

As for James 2, I've already dealt with it, and I believe I've already supplied a link to you on that exegesis? Yes, I did . . . Sat., Aug 5. I gave you that link, plus a link to a paper.
IMO, the Bible teaches 'believing' is not enough. Trusting in the finished work of Christ will be accompanied by repentance and a turning to God.
Then you don't believe John 3:16? 6:47? 5:24?

Show me where in Scripture saving faith is always accompanied by repantance, turning from sin.
Of course the field is the world. The gospel doesn't have to be preached to the 'church,' the ekkelsia, the called out ones. We are already saved. So, the passage certainly does have a bearing on this dicussion.
No, because if the field is the world, then the tares represent unbelievers. Since unbelievers, by definition, do not believe, then the passage cannot be used to support your assertion that there is such thing as "really believing" vs. only professing belief.

Now, I'll ask you to do the same that I've done everyone else: if you are going to disagree, feel free, but interact with my exegeses rather than simply prooftexting. As you have not been here, I've given you the benefit of the doubt and provided links to where I've exegeted passages under consideration. If you wish to continue to disagree (which you are certainly free to do!), deal with them rather than just throwing up new verses.

God bless
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Kerux
Established Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:57 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#174

Post by Kerux » Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:53 pm

Debate on your terms or not at all?

Exegesis is the standard?

You haven't given the benefit of the doubt. You've taken offense when no offense was intended. And now you put your taking offense off onto me saying that is because I haven't been 'here' that long as if being 'here' is the only place Christian discussion concerning the meaning of Biblical passages takes place.
Last edited by Kerux on Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
******************************

Of course, I believe my views to be true.
If I didn't, I would change my views.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

#175

Post by Jac3510 » Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:59 pm

Would you propose discussing a theological issue without reference to Scripture? Obviously, neither my nor your interpretation is inspired, therefore, we have to deal with our exegeses, no? So, when you bring up a passage and I've already provided an exegesis, what would you suggest we do? Should I repeat myself? It seems that if you are going to disagree with my position, then you should deal with the arguments I am advocating. As they are rooted in Scripture, if you disagree with my interpretations, you go in and show me where you disagree with my thinking. Is there another way to discuss the matter?

Again, I would also like to see Scripture for the position you are advocating, as noted above. And, again, how do you take John 3:16, 5:24, 6:47, etc., since believing, for you, is not enough?
You haven't given the benefit of the doubt. You've taken offense when no offense was intended. And now you put your taking offense off onto me saying that is because I haven't been 'here' that long as if being 'here' is the only place Christian discussion concerning the meaning of Biblical passages take place.
You said you haven't made any arrogant remarks. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that those remarks that came across that way were unintended. As for being "here," since you have not been a member of the G&S community, I cannot expect you to be familiar with my exegeses. Therefore, I've provided links to where I have offered explanations. I don't see where there is a problem?
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Kerux
Established Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:57 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#176

Post by Kerux » Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:28 pm

I'm am new here and maybe you're the head guru here and I'm not aware of it.

Like I asked, exegesis is the standard? By your answer, I guess it is according to you. Of course I would not propose dicussing the topics herein w/o reference to Scripture. Being that I have plainly referenced Scripture, I am not sure why you would even ask that question.

There is more to studying Scripture than exegesis my friend. Exegesis is not the be all and end all. The Bereans did not have access to exegesis tools but were considered 'more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." I am quite capable of exegesis and do so when necessary and have done so on many of the passages refered to. However, exegesis in and of itself is only one approach to understanding Scripture and therefore the mind of God and His will for our life.

My guess is that there are other interested people viewing the posts made on the many topics covered. They will have to search the Scriptures provided to determine which 'things are so' for themselves.

"I'll give you the benefit of the doubt..."

You haven't given me the benefit of the doubt, which is the pont. You've right off taken offense because I've disagreed with and offered an alternative view to the topics raised. And you've even stipulated a set of rules by which those who disagree have to follow, ie pointing out where your exegesis is incorrect, as if exegesis is the only standard for the proper understanding of Scripture.

I'm not here for a fight. I'm here to discuss Biblical issues and hopefully learn more of God's unsearchable mind.

If I find that I can not pursue that goal in a friendly Chrisitan manner, then maybe I'll spend my time 'fighting' the unsaved that I discuss issues with on other forums where there is hostility instead of here. I don't need more unchristian like conflict.
******************************

Of course, I believe my views to be true.
If I didn't, I would change my views.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

#177

Post by Jac3510 » Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:53 pm

I'm am new here and maybe you're the head guru here and I'm not aware of it.
Haha, no . . . definitely not a "guru" of any kind. I've been here a really long time, but that doesn't mean anything, does it? My only point is that I've explained my understanding of the passages you've brought up. Nothing more, nothing less . . . if we are going to discuss these issues, then when you refer me to a passage, I will refer you to the relevant link. In this case, though, the majority of the passages you've brought up have been dealt with in this thread already, which was my original point.
Like I asked, exegesis is the standard? By your answer, I guess it is according to you. Of course I would not propose dicussing the topics herein w/o reference to Scripture. Being that I have plainly referenced Scripture, I am not sure why you would even ask that question.
How are you using the term "exegesis"? Maybe our misunderstanding is in that I am using the term to refer to your interpretation with consideration to the context, authorial intent, language and cultural barriers, etc.

Now, if you mean by "referencing" Scripture that the proof-text method is enough, then that does not fly for me. The reason is simple: you can say something and post a text to "prove" it, but that "proof" is based on your understanding of the text. Therefore, we need to be discussing why we understand certain texts in certain ways. That is, we can into and offer our various exegeses. Perhaps "exposition" might be a more appropriate word?
There is more to studying Scripture than exegesis my friend. Exegesis is not the be all and end all. The Bereans did not have access to exegesis tools but were considered 'more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." I am quite capable of exegesis and do so when necessary and have done so on many of the passages refered to. However, exegesis in and of itself is only one approach to understanding Scripture and therefore the mind of God and His will for our life.
The Bereans didn't have the time and culture gaps nearly to the extent that we do. Besides, I am sure that Paul expounded Scripture to them. Thus, they looked it up to see if his interpretation - exegesis - was valid. In all seriousness, how else would you suggest we approach understanding Scripture?
My guess is that there are other interested people viewing the posts made on the many topics covered. They will have to search the Scriptures provided to determine which 'things are so' for themselves
This is all true, but bear in mind that each thread is supposed to be on a topic - two or more people expressing their viewpoints. If I am reading through a discussion, if I am going to make anything like an informed decision on which party, if any, are correct, I need to see how they approach and apply Scriptures. That's all I am asking for. You hold a different position than I do, so provide your explanation of the passages you mention, as I do with mine. If I disagree with your interpretation, I will explain where I see the fault, as you do with me.
You haven't given me the benefit of the doubt, which is the pont. You've right off taken offense because I've disagreed with and offered an alternative view to the topics raised. And you've even stipulated a set of rules by which those who disagree have to follow, ie pointing out where your exegesis is incorrect, as if exegesis is the only standard for the proper understanding of Scripture.

I'm not here for a fight. I'm here to discuss Biblical issues and hopefully learn more of God's unsearchable mind.

If I find that I can not pursue that goal in a friendly Chrisitan manner, then maybe I'll spend my time 'fighting' the unsaved that I discuss issues with on other forums where there is hostility instead of here. I don't need more unchristian like conflict.
Kerux, I've not taken offense to anything you said. I pointed out a few words that could be taken as arrogant. You said you didn't intend them to be. Fair enough. As for your "alternate" explanation, all I have asked is that you defend your position and point out where you disagree with me.

I'm glad you aren't here to fight. Neither am I. However, if we are going to discuss these matters, then let's discuss them. If I recall, you are the one who disagreed with me?

God bless
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Kerux
Established Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:57 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#178

Post by Kerux » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:12 pm

"I am sure that Paul expounded Scripture to them. Thus, they looked it up to see if his interpretation - exegesis - was valid."

Now, you've expanded once again in reply to my statement that exegesis isn't enough. There is a standard defintion of exegesis and you've gone byond that to include 'expounded' as if expounded means exegesis. And you've mentioned exposition.

You seem to be very strict on one sense. ie exegesis and the meaning of the original languages used in Scripture, but your not so tight when it comes to the use of the English language.

Time constraints prevent my expanding on my thoughts at this time.

"I've not taken offense to anything you said."

It appears to me you have.
******************************

Of course, I believe my views to be true.
If I didn't, I would change my views.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

#179

Post by Jac3510 » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:31 pm

Now, you've expanded once again in reply to my statement that exegesis isn't enough. There is a standard defintion of exegesis and you've gone byond that to include 'expounded' as if expounded means exegesis. And you've mentioned exposition.

You seem to be very strict on one sense. ie exegesis and the meaning of the original languages used in Scripture, but your not so tight when it comes to the use of the English language.
You are right in that I am very strict in my exegesis of biblical passages. I'm very strict when it comes to theological explanation. You are also right in that I am not so strict when it comes to general communication . . . I don't really see how it is feasible to do that. If every word we write to each other is subject to that kind of semantic examination, we'll never get anywhere. I work under the general principle that we are communicating ideas to one another. If, in the course of discussion, we find we've been taking a term differently, we clarify. It's no big deal. You aren't dealing with an inspired writer any more than I am, so we simply talk about our ideas.

Now, all this is lovely, but to get back to the issue, if you are going to disagree with me, then I would ask you to point out where - to you - I have misunderstood Scripture. And I also have asked you about your understanding of certain passages as they relate to yours. If you have Scripture to back up explicit claims - ie, repentance always accompanies faith - I'd love to see it.
"I've not taken offense to anything you said."

It appears to me you have.
Then take me at my word that I haven't. I pointed out to you that your words could be taken in a certain way. You said that was not their intention. I believe you on that. Feel free to extend me the same courtesy.

I look forward to your exegesis/exposition/interpretation/whatever word you would prefer of the relevant passages under discussion when you get the time. No hurry, of course.

ttoews, I still haven't forgotten about you ;)

God bless
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Kerux
Established Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:57 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#180

Post by Kerux » Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:28 pm

Jac3510 wrote:In this case, though, the majority of the passages you've brought up have been dealt with in this thread already, which was my original point.
So, if I bring up a point about a passage, no matter what the passage and what the point, in the majority of the time, the point and the passage 'has been dealt with in this thread already?"

The matter, then, as far as you're concerned, the majority of the time, has been settled and no further discussion is necessary?

Anyone who brings up a topic that you have already dealt with, he should just refer to your link, read it and the matter is settled?

I'm sorry, but is your opinion etched in stone and did it come down from the mountain? You can't learn anything more about that topic? You're view is the right view and anything else brought up is superfluous?

Your view is the correct one and we should just accept what Thou has written? Or you can't be bother to re-examine your views or understanding of the passage? You can't learn anything from anyone else?
Last edited by Kerux on Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
******************************

Of course, I believe my views to be true.
If I didn't, I would change my views.

Post Reply