I understand what you're trying to say.
but to those young christians, first time hearing people, or unsaved people, its important they do rather than me.
its confusing putting in statements such as salvation = works + faith and salvation = faith is false teachers..

and btw.. u can have sanctification without justification.. if you follow the Bible close enough.. it is possible..
Simple question.. Was Lot saved or unsaved? Lot did numerous sins.. he was even one of the influential figures in the wicked city of Sodom.. The whole purpose (I believe) why there were also two sinners with Jesus on the day of his crucifixion was to also teach us one thing, salvation is PURELY on faith.. and CAN go without JUSTIFICATION.. just by word and by faith, you can get to heaven..

In fact, you can go to heaven without works..You can be saved and still sin.. BUT... Like i said.. IF YOU WERE SAVED.. would you continue sinning? ...
its the simple question of me asking Are you able to stay conscious while you are sleeping?
Yea, you ARE able to stay conscious while you are sleeping.. then if is so, were you even sleeping to begin with?
lols.. something like that

Hey, while I was discussing Jesus with BF, we found these two geneologies

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...w+1&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3:23-38

I only know that Matthew is a Jew and Luke is not, so their way of writing genealogies may differ.

So why is Luke's list different from Matthew?

What does Leviticus 23:15 - 16 mean?

What does 'new meat' mean?

And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:

16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the Lord.

other versions even use the term 'grain' instead of meats.

are we not the new meat presented to Him?

and what about the 7 day counts from the Sabbaths + 1 extra day mean?  When do we start counting?

Thanks for the link.

So Pentecost started almost 2000 years ago. Do you agree that we are still in the season & it has not ended yet? A 2000 year long season ending with a harvest?

Would the day counts still be in operation today although its from the OT?

Would there be a specific day to begin the count?
I see a lot of 7s & 50s 

Do these mean anything to you :
1)  2nd Kings Chapter 1 (ver 1 - 14)



Does 50 point us to Pentecost? Are there parallels to our present time?

Can we perhaps speculate that the Pentecost Season will end at the end of a specific Biblical count?

If so, which is the beginning/or the 1st day to start counting?
2)   Leviticus Chapter 23 (ver 15 - 16)



So looking at the count, lets take a hypothetical start date on a Sabbath, say 23rd Sept 2017, would the following be correct?



The day of the end of the 50 day count would be - 31st Dec 2017
amazing huh? 

Leviticus 23:10 and 11 say, "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.” Then the people were to count seven Sabbaths from the day of the offering of the sheaf of the firstfruits of the harvest:

Okay guys and to all Christians here,

How many Christians actually observe the Sabbath day? Most of you here observe them on Sunday instead of SATURDAY. Look at the Bible where it talks about Sabbath day. The Sabbath was instituted in the very beginning (Gen 2:1-3; Ex 20:11), before the nation of Israel existed. At the time, there was no religion, no covenant, no law, no nation, no Jew or Gentile and, of course, no racial distinction. Jesus said the “Sabbath was made for man” (Mk 2:27)—not only for the Jews. Remembering the Sabbath day is the fourth of the Ten Commandments. Even though they were first entrusted to the chosen people of the Old Testament, God’s commands are passed on to the chosen people of the New Testament (see Acts 7:38). The Ten Commandments have never been abolished; they still need to be kept by Christians today (Lk 18:18-20; 1 Cor 7:19; 1 Jn 5:2-3; Rev 14:12).

Baptism as well.

Even Christmas is a pagan worship celebration, Easter, palm sunday, good friday etc.
Revelation 22:18-19New King James Version (NKJV)
18 For[a] I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[c] his part from the Book[d] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Im open to meet up to share further if anyone is keen/interested. Subang Jaya.

God bless.

Thank you bro.

I think the forum code is messed up. I had the same problem.

Hebrews was written mainly as a warning to intelectually convinced jews, people who believe the gospel but are not willing to made a commitment to Christ, fence sitters.

They are unwiling to get thrown out of their synagogues and community, hence their unwillingness.

If Hebrews was written to christians, I will have tons of problems with other doctrines, doctrine of election, predestination, effectual calling, assurance, covenant of redemption.

It puts salvation into my own hands, I can choose not to let God save me, I decide my own fate, etc. It flips the whole gospel on its head.

I will watch that video anyway to see his argument.

Thanks.

The author treats them as believers and identifies himself so closely with them that division into true and false believers is impossible.

Let me rephrase that, hebrews was written to jewish christians AND fence sitters.

Does that solve the problem?
www.gotquestions.org/amp/Book-of-Hebrews.html

so book of James is also only for Jews?

seriously?

This will probably be my last post on this issue. Im doing my best to juggle between my work and spending time here.

I think the key to properly understanding hebrews boils down to 2 points here:

1) context: we know that many jews were persecuted by their own people for being a christian. Many of them are thinking of abandoning the faith and going back to the law system. Thus hebrews is an exhortation letter, to exhort, encourage and stir them up to not leave the faith.

Not being a hyper calvinist here, but believers still need exhortation dont they.

By one device or another, the Calvinist view of Hebrews 6, and of the whole book in general, reduces the warning passages to a gospel exhortation and defers the consequences of falling away to unbelievers only.

First, then, we answer the question, WHO ARE THE PEOPLE HERE SPOKEN OF? If you read Dr. Gill, Dr. Owen, and almost all the eminent Calvinistic writers, they all of them assert that these persons are not Christians. They say, that enough is said here to represent a man who is a Christian externally, but not enough to give the portrait of a true believer. Now, it strikes me they would not have said this if they had not had some doctrine to uphold; for a child, reading this passage, would say, that the persons intended by it must be Christians. If the Holy Spirit intended to describe Christians, I do not see that he could have used more explicit terms than there are here. How can a man be said to be enlightened, and to taste of the heavenly gift, and to be made partaker of the Holy Ghost, without being a child of God? With all deference to these learned doctors, and I admire and love them all, I humbly conceive that they allowed their judgments to be a little warped when they said that; and I think I shall be able to show that none but true believers are here described.

2) many terms here (once enlightened, partakers of the holy spirit) are not salvation terms. They are unique to hebrews, and unique to this particular audience. These terms are not used anywhere else, or to the gentiles in the NT.

Despite having the revelation of the OT, the miracles done, and even the messiah  among them, they still rejected the gospel. This is to sin willfully and destined for eternal condemnation.
Jesus taught the same idea in mark 3:20, despite my miracles you still think im from the devil (blespheming the holy spirit, unforgivable sin). John piper puts it this way, 'beyond repentance'. What else can still be done?

Interpreting hebrews in light of the rest of scriptures makes plenty of sense to me.

Im going with calvin and the westminster divines with this.
Cheers.

I think we all can accept, the message in the book of Hebrews were written specifically to the Jews, that was the point of arresting the meaning of sinning willfully.

As to how it can apply to all believers, for me it applies when one tries to mix up both law and grace as one.

Cant go too deep with you, Im no bible scholar

Just want to add here, the jews are the only people who have seen Jesus' and his miracles, yet rejected him. This is also isaiah's prophecy. If anyone can blaspheme the Spirit, the jews can.

Anyway are you Armenian? I can't say Ive met any armenians before

Just about to ask you that

Macarthur once said, all good arminians are calvinists

that is true

one can't simply think part of bible is not applicable for them
some even think ten commandments is no longer a benchmark of how Christian should behave. well you know those grace only folks

Guys, how do you explain the concept of predestination?

Are some people created just to be condemned to hell? I had heard the answer "God is God, who are we to argue?" But we don't know who's predestined for what.

Also, how do we know we are predestined for where, if the doctrine of total depravity means we can't conceive the truth at all. What if we live thinking we're right, but in reality wrong?

I'll be honest. It troubles me deeply ever since i heard these from Calvinists. Could i be the one predestined for hell? Or heaven? According to their explanation i would never know because of a human's total depravity.

What you written only shows one thing.  You can interpret the Bible to mean everything you want to say.

On one hand you said its God's will. On the other hand you say that if man is not willing, God cannot do anything. Clearly this contradicts what Jesus say. Jesus said that with man it's impossible but with God everything is possible.  Based on your warped logic. Pharaoh could not have possibly followed god's will because he is not willing.

You seem to forget that God's standard is much higher then man's standard. What we think is good is not good by God's standard.

Also,  let me give you an analogy of a dog. You see dogs in general knows the basic laws of the universe. They do good by protecting their own kind. They protect their masters. They protect their own kind. Etc. But then at the same time they just do not have the ability to recognise what is good. In fact at times,  they even bite people who may have actual good intentions of helping them. The thing is.,  just because a person is doing good does not make them good out of a sudden. The same analogy can be given as dogs.

You are clearly a very dishonest person by saying in one hand that it's god's will but at the other hand it's man will.  In fact you are even willing to lie to non believers pertaining to the Bible.  You seem to forget that the Bible was meant to be offensive.

Your so called goodness may be filled with expectation and other motives. In fact.  Man probably recognise what is good. If they cannot recognise what is good then how can God condemn them. But then at the same time they reject what is holy as well. They think just because they did some things good,  they get a free pass. You see,  the act of condemning things even though they know what is good actually condemns them even more.  Your assumption is that man can choose to accept and believe. But then isn"t it clear that the Bible say that this is impossible.

You are obviously looking from man's way of thinking which is probably what your church trains you to think. I mean it is only natural to Not to tell a non believer that he cannot be saved by his own efforts. Is this not a clear case of you adapting to man's way of thinking . Similarly isn't it natural for an unsaved person to trample on thethings that are good? Not that hard right after my explanation but you just need to introduce man's ways in the gospel just like any natural person would do right?

Sorry no textural needed on my side. It's clear to Christians everywhere that God hardened Pharoh heart. You are obviously twisting scriptures to make it seem not. Not interested in playing word games with you. In fact your intention is to divert the attention away from the main topic at hand anyways . Will continue after lunch or dinner. Need to work.

A study of the Exodus narrative shows that Pharoah hardened his own heart before God hardened it. And even after God hardened it, Pharaoah still had power to harden it further.

"In De Princiipii, Origen emphasizes the voluntary nature of Pharoah's hardening .... Nevertheless, he says that the Apostle Paul knew the difference between the 2 kinds of hardening. On the one hard, Pharaoh voluntarily hardens his own heart by resisting divine mercy, and Origen adduces Romans 2:4-5 to explain the consequnces of his impenitence. On the other hand, God also "hardens" Pharoah for reason beyond our comprehension"

The text says 7 times that Pharoah hardened his own heart before God hardened it (see Exo. 7:13-14; 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7)

Pharoah had hardened his own heart before. God hardens no man's heart who has not first hardened it himself.

Funny though.
Seems that you are so quick to jump on the trigger. Even though I have not written anything so far. I mean why are you so quick to reply to my partial reply to you? Is that how you take advantage of the situation? But then my guess is morally, you are not really sound anyways.

Anyways, you are implying then that you are a free will proponent then and not really someone who subscribed to the fact that God's will is the determining factor. The dishonest part is your implication that both are actually possible. Pure logic would say it is not. For example. Your argument using the Pharoah's example clearly shows that you are more of a free will proponent. Are you not implying that if Pharoah did not hardened his heart, God would not have hardened his heart further? Well. My question to you then is, how is God going to display his miracles to the Jews then. You see, one of the purpose of God hardening Pharoah's heart is because He wanted to show Israel His miracles. Are you implying that if Pharoah was "kind", God would not have hardened his heart. Well. Then you are also implying that God needs the consent of Pharoah in order to display His miracles to His people.

Obviously, Pharoah would not have done the action he did if God did not hardened his heart further. It was actually not by his will that Pharoah did those action rather it was by God's will. God decided to make Pharoah do the things that he did. Similarly, God made all the other rulers discipline Israel as well. The point of Pharoah's heart being hardened all along is moot here. The point is that Pharoah was doing things that were against his will. In fact, it was not natural for Pharoah to be doing the things he was doing. Normally when someone suffers like what Pharoah did, he would not continue anymore.

On God's standard. Well. There are a few verses that describe this.
For example
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

On whether there is a person who is good. Well.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

And also for people who seemingly looks good on the surface, there is even a particular verse for them.
If you were of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

You see. It's only natural that the world would love it's own and thus by definition, do good to it's own. Then does it make them good in Gods' sight? Obviously not.

Similarly, there is another verse that states that our good deads are like filthy rags in Gods' sight.

You see, there is also another term to describe people who are not saved.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

If it was based on their free will, then why use the word natural. I mean does not natural means that it's a second nature that they are doing those things? If it is second nature, then how can we attribute their will towards those things.

It's funny how you can even say man is good when it's basic doctrine that it's because man is not good and that is why man needs a savior. In fact you totally missed the point of my earlier post. I did actually say that man knows what is good. And that is why God can condemn them because man know what is good and yet choose not to do good. You actually twisted what I written to say otherwise showing how dishonest you are.

19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

The thing is. It is so clear that one can make a outward profession of their faith and yet still remain condemned as what is demonstrated by the verses above. Now can I assume that when you told your friends to believe, you are telling them to make an outward profession like above right? And their outward profession is equivalent to their belief right?

Yeah, based on the text. Or based on your interpretation of the text.

There is nothing much to discuss actually. You have shown yourself to be very dishonest which is actually a common practice of your "denomination". After all, only someone who has something to hide has to say that they believe that it's God's will at the same time it's man's will. It's better to be honest then to appear to support 2 contradicting view point. Just like the Muslim terrorist who are honest when they commit acts of terrorism.

The irony is that even though you are even wrong on basic Christian doctrine, no one is calling you out on this. I mean your idea that man is actually naturally good when fallen man are not good already says a lot about your real beliefs. I do not even need to discuss with you scripture at this point when your basic beliefs are different from what Christians believe in.

The pitiful thing about this world is that people often look at the surface to determine how "spiritual"  a person is. Just because a person uses complex wording and philosophies, suddenly that person becomes more spiritual. When one looks deeper, it's more then meets the eye actually.

The other thing also is. Seem that people are paying close attention to me. People like Yeeck. It shows that I did make a deep impression towards him. I must be doing something right if say he still remembers me and can even identify me based on how I have written right? I mean if I was a nobody, he probably cannot do that. It also tells me that there will be no excuse of ignorance at the seat of judgement for him.

As for UW, the irony is that he actually sent me a reconciliation pm a month ago. I guess based on his response, he probably did not really mean it.  Guess he has been pretending all these while.

Anyway. No worries, I will not be posting in lowyat too often nowadays. I think people probably know that I am not making as strong an effort as I normally do.