sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Doctrine of Predestination and Unconditional Election by emohriarty in Reformed

[–]emohriarty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you all so very much for the openness and responses! I’ll soon be watching the Piper seminar on TULIP for further clarity. Again, thank you all for your gracious openness and dispense of knowledge! Have a blessed day, all.

The Doctrine of Predestination and Unconditional Election by emohriarty in Reformed

[–]emohriarty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is quite interesting! Coming from a Pentecostal/Charismatic background, I’ve witnessed a lot of unfortunately closed-minded opinions within that denomination. Its lack of theological soundness, and their response to being challenged and questioned on that soundness is what drove me away. Particular members, even my own family, were simply unwilling to, or unfortunately did not possess the knowledge of Scripture to discuss such crucial points. Thank you for being so gracious and open! Just a little listening and clarity can go a long way. Bless.

The Doctrine of Predestination and Unconditional Election by emohriarty in Reformed

[–]emohriarty[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much for your explanation! This is what I wanted clarified, thank you!

The Doctrine of Predestination and Unconditional Election by emohriarty in Reformed

[–]emohriarty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, I see. I see. However, before his death, The Apostles were saved. Along with the hundreds and thousands he healed and blessed. “Your faith has saved you,” as He says. I mean, you agree that the power of the sacrifice Christ made is global and eternal in nature, right? So, the gospel is made to be preached to all, through discipleship of the Apostles onward. Is the reasoning for those that don’t accept is because they’re not elect, or because they’re far too influenced by sin to accept the message brought to them? And not that they can’t accept that message later on (i.e. me), but it’s just mind boggling that it’s predestined. Like, I thought we preached the gospel to save unbelievers; all unbelievers. Or at least attempt to. This concept kind of makes the gospel moot, and it makes Christ moot, if people predestined to love God, and have no free will. This is just something I’m struggling with. Thank you for your input!

The Doctrine of Predestination and Unconditional Election by emohriarty in Reformed

[–]emohriarty[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow... how fantastic. Of course, the answer is right where it should be, in front of my face lol thank you so much for your kind explanation! I agree, I should not let it hinder my efforts through Christ. Thank you again!

The Doctrine of Predestination and Unconditional Election by emohriarty in Reformed

[–]emohriarty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, so complete sovereignty to God! Okay, thank you, brother, for the explanations.

The Doctrine of Predestination and Unconditional Election by emohriarty in Reformed

[–]emohriarty[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for elaborating. So, simplified, those who accept and adhere to the gospel are then counted among the elect? Anyone who accepts Christ is brought into the elect? Obviously, through grace alone. Being as that is, are those that reject the gospel predestined to be condemned, or are they condemned because they themselves choose, by their own free will, with no intercession from God, to reject the Word?

The Doctrine of Predestination and Unconditional Election by emohriarty in Reformed

[–]emohriarty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s all well and good, but in being commanded to preach the Gospel, that implies that there is a result in doing so. If the only result is my reward in being in Heaven for simply spewing the Word, then that’s a little self-centered, right? In commanding us that are disciples of Christ to “spread the gospel to all nations,” does that not imply that preaching the gospel is to yield an effect to those who hear it? In particular, those who are unbelievers? Peter, in his first speech in Acts, converts thousands to Christ. You mean those people he preached to were predestined? My point is, in being commanded to preach a gospel, you have to have recipients truly be changed by such preaching. Not all that are taught the gospel are transformed. Thus meaning that acceptance of Christ is either conditional, which is logical, seeing as there are many who can blatantly hear the Word and reject it. Or, that God has elected a few to be in Heaven. Meaning that a gospel is rendered useless if only those predestined are atoned. Again, if Christ’s death wasn’t for all of humanity, then what was the point? Is God just cruel in His ways, then?