To non believers reading, make no mistakes, we welcome genuine questions about the Christian faith. We might not all believe in completely the same things, but I think we will make it a conscious effort to agree to disagree in all non essentials matter of the faith.

But to troublemakers who are obviously trying to twist words, this is not the place to do it.

Somebody has pm'ed me regarding the Trinity asking, isn't this contradictory?

If Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Spirit is God, doesn't that conclude Jesus = Father = Spirit?

Also, doesnt that make it 3 Gods?

First, the Trinity is not a contradiction.

If we say God is 1 in essence and 3 in essence, then that is a contradiction.

A logical contradiction is being A and not A in the same time and in the same relationship.

But the confession is God is one in A and 3 in B, (A = essence, B = person), so it is not a contradiction.

We also confess there is only ONE God, contrary to many claims that this confession is polytheism. God is singular here.

The reason that this tripped so many Christians in history is because there is nothing in the created universe that parallels this truth. Nothing in this world can describe or can be compared to the nature of God.

Everytime you try to compare it to anything, you automatically fail to capture the nature of God with words.

This is unique to God alone.

More reading from the Westminster's confession of faith, Chapter 2, 3rd section:

Yeah, I've seen people describing God as ice-water-vapour, light-heat-wave, and one of the most cringe-worthy one, nescafe 3 in 1.

God is not nescafe

Eh, thread cleaned up again..

Hi friend,

It is my belief that if scriptures mean what it says, and says what it means, then it can be understood in only one way, and the Calvinists’ reformed sotieriology is true.

However, there are many scriptures and definitions to go through if we want to have a good conversation, and I’m not sure if this thread allows for that.

Let’s see if we can get approval from @unknownwarrior.

Just a bit of sharing..

I once had a long discussion with a pastor, who taught at bible colleges, was a PhD candidate in theology, and we were talking about Calvinism and Arminianism.

I had nothing but a commitment that if bible is true, and if it says what it means and mean what it says, there can only be one correct interpretation.

He was adamant that he was neither, but attacked all the calvinists points.(with plenty of wrong information and mis definition)

In the end, he had to concede that both Calvin and Arminian are correct.

I asked him, regardless of what they said, how can the bible teach that you can both lose and not lose your salvation at the same time?

That was the end of the conversation. :sweats:

Hi friend,

I remember we had the same conversation years ago, so I don’t want to go through the same thing all over again.

Maybe let’s see what we can agree on and don’t agree on.

We both agree that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ for the glory of God alone.

We both agree the scriptures call for obedience/good works.

What we don’t agree on is the end result of obedience.

If you analyse your beliefs, obedience to you is a condition to keep your salvation.

In reformed theology, obedience is called for because of the salvation and grace and love that is dispensed by God.

Chapter 16 of the Westminster confession of faith on Good Works:

Hi Mr. Wong,

I believe the verses you quoted about people being righteous are not talking about salvific justification.

All of God’s people from either side of the cross in history has always been saved by believing in God, and believing that He will send the Messiah their saviour.

There is a saving righteousness that can only come through faith in Jesus Christ.

Adam was saved when he believed that God will send the Seed through him, and God clothed him with an animal garment (picture of atonement)

In John 8, Jesus said to the Pharisees, Abraham
rejoiced to see His day, he saw it, and he was glad.

But we know Abraham failed to trust God (you know the story), he had multiple wives too. But yet, he was justified when he believed.

Moses died right outside the promised land, because God said he did not treat Him as holy (Deuteronomy 32), but he appeared with Elijah in the Transfiguration of Christ. He is with the Lord.

David, a man after God’s heart, failed again and again, but I think nobody will agree he is in hell.

Do you agree?

Been been having trouble sleeping lately, dunno why :sweating:

From Reformed POV, justification is imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, and the sinners sin is imputed to Christ on the cross. (Doctrine of double imputation)

That means the sinner is counted righteous not because of his own works, but Christ’s.

Romans 4:3, Abraham believed, and it was ‘accounted’ to him for righteousness.

Many fights between Protestants with Catholics in the past because of this word. I believe the whole of Romans makes it very clear.

Somehow I kind of think you are more similar to Catholicism than Protestant no offence meant.

In fact, let me put this out here,

Nobody in redemptive history, not even Israel, was saved by keeping the law.

This post has been edited by thomasthai: Sep 25 2020, 11:48 AM

Hi yeeck,

Thanks for your views.

From our point of view, everybody, from either side of the cross, was/is/wil be saved by believing in God and His promises.

Even though in the Old Testament, the gospel of Christ hasn’t been fully revealed yet, we see Abraham was accounted to him for righteousness.

Who’s righteousness was accounted to him? It must Have come from someone else.

In Romans 5, Paul makes an argument.

- The first man (Adam) sinned, and through him came death.
- Since then, everyone that came after Adam died, even when they did not sinned like Adam
- This is the evidence that sin is imputed to all man, because all died.
- Adam is a type of Jesus Christ.
- In the same way as Adam’s sin was imputed to all, the second Adam’s obedience and righteousness will be imputed to all who believes. They all will live.

That is why we say that the Lord is our righteousness/ Jesus our righteousness (Jehovah Tsidkenu). It is all over the OT and NT.

We will ultimately he judged by the righteousness that is given/imputed by Christ by faith, not our own.

The is the heart of Reformed soteriology.

Just another way to look at this faith and obedience issue.

Obedience is only called for those who [/b]already[/b] have faith and are children of God.

The unsaved cannot have obedience because they don’t believe in God anyway. It is impossible to call them to obedience.

We say good works is always a [/b]manifestation [/b]of faith.

You can force good works, but not faith.

I think assurance is a very important part of the Christian life. It is called for by scriptures.

Imagine living everyday thinking,have you done enough good works to qualify for heaven today? Are your accounts with God tarry? How much more do you have to put in the church offering?

It falls back into works salvation.

Just like to add,

On the other hand, if every ‘good work’ is done to keep yourself out of hell, it is by definition not a good work anymore.

At best, it becomes a transaction.

If i did a good work purely because I want to display Christ and not to keep myself out of hell, I know that is the Holy Spirit working in me.

Disagreement over this issue is not new. It’s been there since.. Augustine?

The church in most of its history, has always been confused between justification and sanctification.

You can do a search on Robert Godfrey: A survey of church history to maybe see our point of view on all these issues. There are videos and books I believe.

He is a professor in church history, and an excellent scholar.

This post has been edited by thomasthai: Sep 30 2020, 09:21 AM

I think it is important to understand that Israel wasn’t saved by keeping the law. This is the biggest misunderstanding by Christians today.

For this, I want to appeal to The book of Romans again, to have a closer look at a portion of text that I myself have never really understood until lately.


Many commentators agree that Paul was having a dialogue with an imaginary Jew, every argument in Romans is a counter argument that a Jew might have against his message.

Here, we can imagine that a Jew would say to Paul after all the arguments about being justified by faith, he would say, “but Moses preached the law!”

The Jews were essentially pitching Moses against Paul.



So Paul pitched Moses against Moses here (Deuteronomy 30).

Paul is saying, Moses was also preaching faith in Christ! We are not preaching different things here.

Salvation has always been by Grace, through faith in Christ.

It was the same as With Abraham, Moses, and the so on.

Hi Mr Wong,

In the New Testament, law means different things depending on the context.

Sometimes it means the 10 commandments, sometimes it means the 5 Books of Moses, some times the whole OT, sometimes the interpretation of laws by the rabbis, at times it mean the 600 odd laws between Exodus and Deuteronomy.

I think the discussions here are so repetitive because everybody is using a different law verse.

I’ll just say quickly, in the Reformed view, only the 10 commandments are binding to all men.

The 600 odd laws in Exodus to Deuteronomy were binding only to Israel. It’s a covenant made between God and Israel.

When Jesus came, he obeyed perfectly the 10 and done away (no need anymore) the 600, because they were pointing to him. (Hence, He fulfilled all law)

The 10 commandments are still standing as the perfect laws of God. I never advocated that we don’t have to obey the 10, if that’s what you are accusing me of.

How did the Reformers came to this conclusion?

The 10 commandments appeared twice in the OT, once in Exodus, once in Deuteronomy. If you compare them and see the difference, you’ll understand why.

To answer your question, why does following the laws of Moses bring condemnation, you need to differentiate the 10 and the 600.

Israel was condemned because they hung on to the 600 that points to Jesus, and missed Jesus Christ!

The first revelation of the Decalogue in Exodus 20, the 4th commandment tells Israel to observe the Sabbath because it’s to remember creation


Therefore it is binding to all His creation.

In Deuteronomy 5, the reason to remember Sabbath became different:


It is to remember that God brought them out of Egypt, and this became the condition of Covenant for Israel.

You are right, Methodist.

I’ve never met a Malaysian Eastern Orthodox before.

I’ve only seen them on tv

Nice to meet you

I thought you were Methodist??

What church do you go to?

They used to be one until the great schism around year 1000ad