Opinions?

[Rose Rayne]

Okay so today I was at gym, changing in the locker rooms. there were like 3 girls near me changing and I could over hear their conversation. They were discussing religious views and the whole 2012 ordeal. So I guess the girls were christian. But it kinda went like this.

"... The world isn't gonna end in 2012, but there will be some kind of catastrophe during that year. And something will happen to America in 2015. Because America has like gays and stuff."

She also said something about a rock from the mountain or a piece of mountain brought down to ground level or something that related but I cannot remember.

Im tired of hearing things about the world ending. And I'm also tired of people telling us how we should behave. I do remember reading the bible and reading about how God prefers us to be straight but he made us. And it is also said that he loves us for who we are, am I correct? So whose to say someone can't be gay. Being bisexual, I have not once felt like I have been punished for it. Neither has my gay friends. But anyways...

I don't believe that God would tell you when the world would end. Yeah its been billions of years since the world was created but still! Who began all of this talk? And why did God choose them specifically to figure this all out?

BTW, Im agnostic. I believe some stuff but I like to believe scientific reasoning as well. Yes I pray to God and I believe he exists but there are certain things I just don't believe in. As in like Hell. I think it was made up to keep order. That is my belief and Im not asking anyone to convience me to change that but I want to see what other people believe on the end of the world argument. I'm curious. Opinions?

[Megan1]

It doesn't sound like those girls were talking from a Christian view, because the bible says that nobody will know when Jesus is going to come back (and the end of the world happens some time after that, so therefor nobody can know when the end of the world will be). We can see the signs that Jesus told us to look out for and realize that it could happen soon, but there's no way to know exactly "this will happen in 2012 and this will happen in 2015". Those girls sound like they are confused and taking information from a bunch of different places.

We can know that we can trust the bible, because all of it's prophecies about the messiah (meaning the Son of God who comes to Earth to pay for our sins- Jesus) came true, which scientists have concluded would have been mathmatically impossible if He wasn't the Son of God. For example, it was predicted that when the messiah was killed, His hands and feet would be pierced. This came true with Jesus, even though that was predicted over 400 years before they ever started killing people in that way! And even though there are 66 books in the bible with dozens of different authors from all around the world and were written thousands of years apart, they all fit together to tell one amazing story that doesn't contradict itself at all. Those are only a few of the literally thousands of reasons to believe that the bible is reliable.

I don't want to get into a huge "why homosexuality is a sin" thing here, because we've discussed it so many times and it has led to a huge debate every time. If you want to talk more about that part of it though, feel free to send me a private message.

[Angel]

Gay people have been around. I don't see how that would make a difference.

[Rose Rayne]

@Megan1; Okayy and I see where yours getting at and it makes sense. Me as a person, im afraid of dying. And at first the whole end of the world in 2012 scared the life out of me but now... its slightly annoying. it will happen when it happens, Im sure. And there is nothing you will be able to do about it but accept it. -_- And I didnt know the girls so i am not sure what religion they are. I think they said Christian but after over hearing their disscussion i got a bit sick thinking of it but soon forgot it.

@ Angel; Me either. So I will not get into that much. it's just a life style.

[Megan1]

They may be Christians and just don't know a lot about the end times yet. They could be "baby Christians" who just recently accepted Jesus and don't know a lot of detail yet.

You said that you're afraid of dying, and I'm really sorry you feel that way. If you don't mind me asking, what do you think will happen after you die?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

First, I question whether you're actually agnostic. Before you say, "yes I am" or "you're right, I'm not", tell me what you define agnosticism as so I don't use a different interpretation and we get into a mindless semantics debate.

If they are Christians, they know diddly shit about Christianity and probably have not read or understood much of the bible at all. If memory serves, it was a bunch of paranoid Christians that thought the world will end in 2012 due to a huge misinterpretation of the Mayan calender.

As for the fact of god making us heterosexual, it's not as clear-cut as you may think. For starters, particularly in Leviticus, it's not aimed at all people, it's aimed at Israeli children (it specifically says this about 12 times). At this point, you have to ask yourself, does it matter that god said it in the first place OR does it matter that it only applies to a select group of people?

However, the situation gets more complicated when you consider the particular version of the bible you're using. In the ancient Greek version (or what's left of it), there's no mention of homosexuality. The Greek words that some people say refers to homosexuality are context-dependent because they refer to non-homosexual behaviours, such as, murder, prostitution, etc... nearly 80% of the time. But, many people ignore this and simply use whatever version they have lying around, so you have to ask yourself, do you care what the ancient Greek versions say or would you rather stick with whatever version you have that's been translated countless times across countless cultures?

If you're scared of dying, do you get scared every time there's an outbreak of a disease? For example, H041 (mostly in Japan and Sweden), H1N1 - Swine Flu, etc...? Why do the crackpot theories of the world will end in some year in the future scare you so much?

[Megan1]

^ I really don't want to get into this huge "why homosexuality is wrong" thing here again, because I don't want to fight....but I also don't want to just sit here and not say anything when this stuff is being said. What I am about to post is from the most accurate/original Greek based version of the bible available in English (NASB).

You're convinently forgetting Romans 1:27 which also says that it is wrong for man to be with another man....there is no other way to translate that and it is not written about a specific thing like adultry or rape. It just says "Men abandon the natural function of the woman and burned their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error". That's the new testament, not the law written for Israel, and not a word that is mistranslated into "homosexual". It plainly says that those men committed sin by performing homosexual acts.

And I'm not sure about this one, but 1 Timothy 1:10 (in the NASB translation, which is the most literal available to us) lists homosexuality as sin. It's talking about people who are "lawless and rebellious", and it lists "immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching". However, you may be right about that one being mistranslated from another word, I'm not sure. I'll have to look in a Greek/Hebrew study bible and see what the original word used was.

[Rose Rayne]

@The Man And XX Master; Well Agnosticism, from what I know, is the fact of being unsure of your religion, beliefs, etc. Not specifically Christian/Chatholic or Atheist.

I am not sure where they got their information or this thought process of theirs, I've only considered it as a possibility. I, myself have a translated version of the bible but I have never fully read it cover to cover. Only certain selections. I read the begining of how God created the Earth in just a few days and also a bit after. I jump around in my bible. But I probably have not taken in much of the information I read because I cannot recall it. That and I am one with terrible memory. Dx

Also because the bible has been translated over so many times, it makes me iffy on what I am reading leaves me wondering if it is real, or not. Which is why I wish to have a copy of the first bible, word from word (in english of course) so I can understand for myself.

And now that I think of it When you put it like that, its not the thought of dying that scares me, but painful death. And knowing that you can never undo it and that its a matter of time before it happens. Its like an unavoidable change that I am certainly not ready for. And the unexpected. You dont know when it will happen or how even. And sometimes you just cant live everyday to its fullest. But that is irrelevant to what i was saying

[JKmadu619]

Gay people versus Christians if a more pointless battle than the crusades. And at least the crusades was to protect holy land, and took place in simplier times.
I see no excuse for such ignorance in modern times.

The endpoint is, the passage in the bible referring to the damnation of gays was added in the 1600s (1600 years after Jesus was said to live.) by a corrupt king who was losing popularity, and decided to pull such a stunt to regain his losening grip. It's total bullshit, and to be honest, the idiotic Christians (As in, the Christians who behave idioticly.) want to believe that by hating gays they are somehow pleasing God, which quite frankly proves their intelligence, or therefore lack of.

Also consider this, if 50% is the average intelligence, then that means 50% of people fall below the average. I don't see someone with an above average intelligence spewing such bigotry.

- Justin

[MichWolverineFreak]

Those girls were stupid.
Technically thats not agnostic, though. Youd have to not believe in God but say He's only a possibility. I really wish Christains would stop oppressing gay people, it makes the rest of us look bad...

[Megan1]

Christians (well, I can't speak for all of them....but the ones who follow the bible to a T) aren't "against gays". We believe that homosexual acts are sin, yes, but that's different than being against the people. We are against homosexual acts in the same way that we are against lying, using God's name as a curse word, etc....Homosexual acts are the same as any other sin. We can't be against someone just because they have committed a sin. If that were the case, we would have to be against everybody including ourselves. We don't see homosexual acts as any worse than lying or any other sin. A sin is a sin, and just because something is a sin doesn't mean that we should hate the person who committs it. All humans are sinners in different ways. Some people have sinned with homosexual acts, while others (like me) have sinned by lying and disobeying their parents. The only difference is that some people repent of their sins and ask Jesus to save them, and some don't.

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

The endpoint is, the passage in the bible referring to the damnation of gays was added in the 1600s (1600 years after Jesus was said to live.) by a corrupt king who was losing popularity, and decided to pull such a stunt to regain his losening grip.

Where did you get that information? If you look at the original scrolls written by Paul less tha 30 years after Jesus lived, the very first version, it says the same thing about homosexual acts being sin. The original scrolls are still available, and they say the same thing as our bible says now. How could a king have just edited hand written scrolls? Many bible translations (such as the one that I own) have been translated straight from the original scrolls as recently as 1970, and those ones also translated it to say that a man lying with man as man lies with woman is a sin (see Romans 1:27).

[Of Mike and Men]

Originally Posted by Megan1

Christians (well, I can't speak for all of them....but the ones who follow the bible to a T) aren't "against gays". We believe that homosexual acts are sin, yes, but that's different than being against the people. We are against homosexual acts in the same way that we are against lying, using God's name as a curse word, etc....Homosexual acts are the same as any other sin. We can't be against someone just because they have committed a sin. If that were the case, we would have to be against everybody including ourselves. We don't see homosexual acts as any worse than lying or any other sin. A sin is a sin, and just because something is a sin doesn't mean that we should hate the person who committs it. All humans are sinners in different ways. Some people have sinned with homosexual acts, while others (like me) have sinned by lying and disobeying their parents. The only difference is that some people repent of their sins and ask Jesus to save them, and some don't.


Where did you get that information? If you look at the original scrolls written by Paul less tha 30 years after Jesus lived, the very first version, it says the same thing about homosexual acts being sin. The original scrolls are still available, and they say the same thing as our bible says now. How could a king have just edited hand written scrolls? Many bible translations (such as the one that I own) have been translated straight from the original scrolls as recently as 1970, and those ones also translated it to say that a man lying with man as man lies with woman is a sin (see Romans 1:27).

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

The endpoint is, the passage in the bible referring to the damnation of gays was added in the 1600s

That's weird. St. Augustine (354-430 CE) must have stepped into a time machine because he has an exegesis on Romans 1, as well as other ECFs, included but not limited to: Justin Martyr, Clement, John Chrysostom, Basil, Eusebius, Arnobius, Cyprian, Novatian, Tertullian, as well as various writings in the didache. All of these occurred before 500 CE.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Christians (well, I can't speak for all of them....but the ones who follow the bible to a T) aren't "against gays".

You have to be careful here. Many "claim" to be following the bible. Even Westboro claims to. And guess what, they have support for their beliefs. Biblical support. So, really, it depends on your interpretation of the Bible. And you interpretation of the Bible concludes this, but not others.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Some people have sinned with homosexual acts, while others (like me) have sinned by lying and disobeying their parents.

I just want to point this out, not necessarily to you, but others. Romans 1 is not a judgment against homosexuality. It is a judgment against sin. It is not saying, "ONLY these people are going to Hell." It is saying, "EVERYONE, homosexuals, and non-homosexuals, are going to Hell." It then proceeds in Romans 2 to say, "YOU THEN who judge others, YOU are guilty of the same things!" So, Paul is making a case, that we've all sinned, that we've all failed, and thus are all damned. Thus, yes, Romans 1 and 2 should be offensive, but it must be kept in mind that it is a judgment against all of mankind. Not specific individuals.

Originally Posted by Megan1

The only difference is that some people repent of their sins and ask Jesus to save them, and some don't.

I disagree. Sticking with the context of Romans, it is not that people have "asked Jesus to saved them." It is that Christ had been given a a select few from the Father, and has died for them. God chose, in His wisdom, to save some, and damn others. Romans does not say, "You're saved because you accepted God." It says, "He was delivered for our [the elects] transgressions, and raised for our [the elects] justification." How do I know it is a reference to the elect only? Because, if it was meant that the whole world was loved by God, and that Christ died for the world, the entire world would be saved. Why? Because He raised for my justification. I didn't accept Him for my justification, He raised for my justification.

And so we arrive at Romans 9, which says:

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

And I'm sure you're planning on pointing out the verse which says, "Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved." In Romans 10, it is not giving a law of obedience that must be required to be saved. It is simply stating that those who are saved, call upon the name of the Lord. They are NOT saved for calling on it, but because they are saved, they call on it. Because they are saved, they believe in their heart. Etc. I can go on and on, and explain various commentators, etc. But I've done a wide study on this, and again, this is my understanding of it, it could be wrong, but it is not what most people make it out to be, that is, "The Romans Road to Salvation."

There is no road to salvation. There is only God's love for His elect who were raised form the dead with His Son, Jesus Christ. Those elect were given grace before the foundations of the world. "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

You're convinently forgetting Romans 1:27 which also says that it is wrong for man to be with another man....there is no other way to translate that and it is not written about a specific thing like adultry or rape. It just says "Men abandon the natural function of the woman and burned their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error". That's the new testament, not the law written for Israel, and not a word that is mistranslated into "homosexual". It plainly says that those men committed sin by performing homosexual acts.

When I mentioned the passage referring to Israeli children, I was referring to Leviticus 18:22 since it is used every time these homosexuality and the bible debates arise.

Regarding Romans 1:27, you've stumbled on your feet for two reasons. First, you've just made the argument homosexuality or "homosexual" means homosexual sex acts. Second, Romans 1:28-30 lists the unacceptable behaviours these men and women did and there is no mention of sex acts. This is important because it clarifies exactly what "indecent acts" in Romans 1:27 refers to.

Originally Posted by Rose Rayne

Well Agnosticism, from what I know, is the fact of being unsure of your religion, beliefs, etc. Not specifically Christian/Chatholic or Atheist.

That's not exactly what agnosticism is, at least the commonly-accepted definitions. For most people, the main definition of agnosticism is a philosophy in which one is either indifferent about any religion (i.e. doesn't care), believes their religion to be true but acknowledges it is not factually proven true or believes some sort of being(s) exist but cannot identify with any particular religion.

Originally Posted by Rose Rayne

Also because the bible has been translated over so many times, it makes me iffy on what I am reading leaves me wondering if it is real, or not. Which is why I wish to have a copy of the first bible, word from word (in english of course) so I can understand for myself.

Unfortunately, that only reduces some uncertainty from all the translations but it still leaves some uncertainty since you want it translated into English. For simplicity sake, take any modern-day language and try to translate every single word into English. You'll realize it's not possible as there will be several words in the language with different meanings but in English, they have the same meaning. For example, in French, the words, "car" and "parce que" both mean "because", or "ou", "lorsque" and "quand" all mean "when". Alternatively, there are words where their meaning varies not just on context but by the particular geographical area. For example, in French, the word "plein" can mean full stomach, drunk or pregnant.

Or, some words in the language have no literal translation in English. For example, in German, the word "Schadenfreude" isn't easy to translate to English because there's no one-word equivalents. You can have English words that have a similar meaning but it's not the same.

Lastly, and most problematic, are expressions or phrases. For example, in French, if you say, "j'ai un chat a la gorge", it literally means, "I have a cat in my throat". To any person, that makes no sense at all but once you learn the culture, you know it means, "I have a sore throat".

Point is, if you want to understand the ancient versions, you got to learn the ancient language and culture.

[Megan1]

We are soooo off topic seeing as this thread was originally about the end of the world and just briefly mentioned homosexuality. lol

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

You have to be careful here. Many "claim" to be following the bible. Even Westboro claims to. And guess what, they have support for their beliefs. Biblical support. So, really, it depends on your interpretation of the Bible. And you interpretation of the Bible concludes this, but not others.

Yes many CLAIM to be following the bible....and some people are following the bible is some ways but not others....however, I'm saying that the people who take the biblical approach on homosexuality aren't "against gays". There is no verse in the new testament that says "hate someone because of their sins". That is not biblical. And no, Westboro actually does a lot of things that clearly go against the bible. There are a lot of things they do that there is no way around saying that it goes against the bible. They only listen to the parts of the bible that they want to.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I just want to point this out, not necessarily to you, but others. Romans 1 is not a judgment against homosexuality. It is a judgment against sin. It is not saying, "ONLY these people are going to Hell." It is saying, "EVERYONE, homosexuals, and non-homosexuals, are going to Hell." It then proceeds in Romans 2 to say, "YOU THEN who judge others, YOU are guilty of the same things!" So, Paul is making a case, that we've all sinned, that we've all failed, and thus are all damned. Thus, yes, Romans 1 and 2 should be offensive, but it must be kept in mind that it is a judgment against all of mankind. Not specific individuals.

Yes, Romans one isn't JUST about homosexuals, it's about a lot of different sins, and is saying that we have ALL sinned so we would ALL go to hell without Jesus.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I disagree. Sticking with the context of Romans, it is not that people have "asked Jesus to saved them." It is that Christ had been given a a select few from the Father, and has died for them. God chose, in His wisdom, to save some, and damn others. Romans does not say, "You're saved because you accepted God." It says, "He was delivered for our [the elects] transgressions, and raised for our [the elects] justification." How do I know it is a reference to the elect only? Because, if it was meant that the whole world was loved by God, and that Christ died for the world, the entire world would be saved. Why? Because He raised for my justification. I didn't accept Him for my justification, He raised for my justification.

And so we arrive at Romans 9, which says:

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

And I'm sure you're planning on pointing out the verse which says, "Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved." In Romans 10, it is not giving a law of obedience that must be required to be saved. It is simply stating that those who are saved, call upon the name of the Lord. They are NOT saved for calling on it, but because they are saved, they call on it. Because they are saved, they believe in their heart. Etc. I can go on and on, and explain various commentators, etc. But I've done a wide study on this, and again, this is my understanding of it, it could be wrong, but it is not what most people make it out to be, that is, "The Romans Road to Salvation."

There is no road to salvation. There is only God's love for His elect who were raised form the dead with His Son, Jesus Christ. Those elect were given grace before the foundations of the world. "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"

Well we're getting kinda off topic now, but you're right that it's not the "sinner's prayer" that saves you. I mean, when I witness to someone who then gets saved, I do lead them through the sinner's prayer just because it's a way of making it "official" and leading them through their first prayer. However, we are saved when we believe the gospel and God gives us repentance. Those aren't acts that we do ourselves, they are God working through us.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

When I mentioned the passage referring to Israeli children, I was referring to Leviticus 18:22 since it is used every time these homosexuality and the bible debates arise.

I know that you were referring to Leviticus 18:22, and I almost posted my view on that scripture (that even though it was originally written for the Israelites, Jesus said that we should still follow the laws written for Israel/law of Moses), but I decided to not add extra confusion since Romans 1:27 was the main point that I wanted to make.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Regarding Romans 1:27, you've stumbled on your feet for two reasons. First, you've just made the argument homosexuality or "homosexual" means homosexual sex acts. Second, Romans 1:28-30 lists the unacceptable behaviours these men and women did and there is no mention of sex acts. This is important because it clarifies exactly what "indecent acts" in Romans 1:27 refers to.

Yes, it's homosexual acts that I am against and that the bible speaks against. Just having homosexual feelings isn't.....well, lust is a sin, so in a way I guess.....but it's homosexual acts that I and the bible are talking about. And about verses 28-30...that isn't describing what they did in verse 27. Verse 28 starts with "AND just as...", that's starting to talk about something separate.

Not to mention (and I know you're going to say "that isn't enough evidence" because this one doesn't just come right out and say it) that several verses in the new testament that talk about marriage say that a proper marriage is "when a man has one wife". Not one wife or one husband, but one wife. And I know you'll probably say "That doesn't mean it can't be the other way; it just doesn't mention it"....and yes, this one isn't 100% evidence, it's just another thought to add. I'm sure you'll find a bunch of ways around it.

[Of Mike and Men]

Originally Posted by Megan1

Yes many CLAIM to be following the bible....and some people are following the bible is some ways but not others....however, I'm saying that the people who take the biblical approach on homosexuality aren't "against gays". There is no verse in the new testament that says "hate someone because of their sins". That is not biblical. And no, Westboro actually does a lot of things that clearly go against the bible. There are a lot of things they do that there is no way around saying that it goes against the bible. They only listen to the parts of the bible that they want to.

The Bible actually does teach this. So depending on your view of the relation between Old and New Testament, and in fact, for that matter, your interpretation of Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and Revelation. What I'm saying is, you seem to have a mindset (and we all have this), that, "My interpretation of what is biblical is biblical."

Ironically, there are people who believe they are Biblical, but aren't. Thus there's no fireproof way to prove that you are truly being Biblical.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Well we're getting kinda off topic now, but you're right that it's not the "sinner's prayer" that saves you. I mean, when I witness to someone who then gets saved, I do lead them through the sinner's prayer just because it's a way of making it "official" and leading them through their first prayer. However, we are saved when we believe the gospel and God gives us repentance. Those aren't acts that we do ourselves, they are God working through us.

Respectfully, my studies on this topic disagree thoroughly with your statement. A sinners prayer is a false assurance. It is not "official." What is more official than the Savior's blood? We aren't saved when we believe the Gospel. We are saved before the foundations of the world, and come to the knowledge of our election once we believe. But the reality is, we were saved before we were in our mothers's womb. I can cross reference this if you'd like. But I'll give you one example:

Acts 13:48 KJV
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

The word "ordained" here is τάσσω or tassō. It means:

A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, that is, assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot): - addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set.

In other words, God had already saved them, He already appointed them unto eternal life, and because God did this, they believed. They did not believe and were saved, they were saved, and so they believed.

John Gill:

and as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed; faith is not the cause, or condition of the decree of eternal life, but a means fixed in it, and is a fruit and effect of it, and what certainly follows upon it, as in these persons: some would have the words rendered, "as many as were disposed unto eternal life believed"; which is not countenanced by the ancient versions. The Arabic renders it as we do, and the Syriac thus, "as many as were put, or appointed unto eternal life"; and the Vulgate Latin version, "as many as were pre-ordained". Moreover, the phrase of being "disposed unto", or "for eternal life", is a very unusual, if not a very improper, and an inaccurate one; men are said to be disposed to an habit, or to an act, as to vice or virtue, but not to reward or punishment, as to heaven or hell; nor does it appear that these Gentiles had any good dispositions to eternal life, antecedent to their believing; for though they are said, Ac 13:42 to entreat the apostles to preach the same things to them the next sabbath, yet the words as there observed, according to their natural order, may be rendered "they", i.e. the apostles, "besought the Gentiles"; and in some copies and versions, the "Gentiles" are not mentioned at all: and as for their being "glad", and "glorifying the word of the Lord", it is not evident that this was before their believing; and if it was, such things have been found in persons, who have had no true, real, and inward dispositions to spiritual things, as in many of our Lord's hearers; besides, admitting that there are, in some, good dispositions to eternal life, previous to faith, and that desiring eternal life, and seeking after it, be accounted such, yet these may be where faith does not follow; as in the young rich ruler, that came to Christ with such an inquiry, and went away sorrowful: as many therefore as are so disposed, do not always believe, faith does not always follow such dispositions; and after all, one would have thought that the Jews themselves, who were externally religious, and were looking for the Messiah, and especially the devout and able women, were more disposed unto eternal life, than the ignorant and idolatrous Gentiles; and yet the latter believed, and the former did not: it follows then, that their faith did not arise from previous dispositions to eternal life, but was the fruit and effect of divine ordination unto it; and the word here used, in various places in this book, signifies determination and appointment, and not disposition of mind; see Ac 15:2 The phrase is the same with that used by the Jews, Mlwe yyxl wnqtad, "who are ordained to eternal life" {y}; and yyxl bytkd lk amle, "everyone that is written to eternal life"; {z} i.e. in the book of life; and designs no other than predestination or election, which is God's act, and is an eternal one; is sovereign, irrespective, and unconditional; relates to particular persons, and is sure and certain in its effect: it is an ordination, not to an office, nor to the means of grace, but to grace and glory itself; to a life of grace which is eternal, and to a life of glory which is for ever; and which is a pure gift of God, is in the hands of Christ, and to which his righteousness gives a title: and ordination to it shows it to be a blessing of an early date; and the great love of God to the persons ordained to it; and the certainty of enjoying it.{y} Zohar in Exod. fol. 43. 4. {z} Targum in Isa. iv. 3. Vid Abkath Rocel, p. 5. Ver. 49.

Source: John Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible, http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

It is important to note that man is never saved by faith, or by works, but of God through Christ.
"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:"

It is because of God, we are in Christ, and Christ is our wisdom, our righteousness, our sanctification, our redemption.

I know you've read it, but read Ephesians 1 and 2. Salvation drags on and on about how GOD saved us, and it isn't until chapter 2 verse 8 (about 30 verses into the book), that there is even any mention of faith. And this faith is a cause of our election, our election isn't the cause of our faith.

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it." (cf. Colossians 2) Notice, it was done before we even had faith.

Blessings.

[Megan1]

I said the NEW TESTAMENT doesn't teach to hate those who sin. The old testament does sometimes, but that was before Jesus died to pay for our sins. Show me a verse in the new testament that says this if you disagree.

I think I mis-used the word "official" -that was my fault. Again, I know that it isn't the sinner's prayer that saves us. It is the blood of Jesus that saves us when we hear the gospel and receive it (which is a gift from God, not from anything that we've done). The sinner's prayer isn't wrong though; it's a great way to start off your life as a Christian....it just isn't what saves you. The bible says that we are saved "by grace, through faith". God gives us the grace to have faith/repentence ....it isn't us doing that ourselves. God is doing it through us.

I completely agree that we are saved because God called us to salvation. He gave us the faith/ability to believe/repentence ....we didn't do that ourselves.

[Of Mike and Men]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I said the NEW TESTAMENT doesn't teach to hate those who sin. The old testament does sometimes, but that was before Jesus died to pay for our sins. Show me a verse in the new testament that says this if you disagree.

As aforementioned it depends on ones understanding of various passages in: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and Revelation.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I completely agree that we are saved because God called us to salvation. He gave us the faith/ability to believe/repentence ....we didn't do that ourselves.

Here is where you misunderstand me. And I would not drone on, but it is of grave importance.

The idea that God gave us the ability to believe and repent is a thoroughly heretical idea. God didn't just give us the ability to believe, nor the ability to repent. He repented and believed for us, those whom He appointed unto eternal life. But in no wise is a man saved by faith, or repentance. As such, those are works to inherit eternal life. But the Lord, in His dying breath, said, "It is finished." Which it either is finished, or it isn't and we must believe and repent. I side with the former because it is what Christ said.

God calls people against their will. Examples being: Jeremiah, Jonah, and Paul. Paul didn't choose to have faith. God forced him to have faith. And God even calls and saves those who do not even repent or have faith. Solomon is an example that comes to mind on repentance. Read Ecclesiastes. How bad do you think that guy must have messed up? Those who don't have faith? You must think I'm thoroughly contradicting. But look what the Lord of sovereign grace said to the disciples, "And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?" Not, "how do you have so little faith," not, "how is it that you do not yet believe (as some render it)," but, "How is it that ye have no faith?"

Thus it is, our Lord does not save by faith. But by His blood whom He united a select few to His body on the cross making peace with God, nailing our transgressions to the tree, and thus, we are justified, we are sanctified, and we are glorified. Presently. This is not a process. It is done. Christ is justified, we are, He is sanctified, we are, He is glorified, we are. "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Again, it must be stressed, we are not saved because we believe. For then it remains entirely on the grace of God.

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Rom 9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
Rom 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works (not of faith, not of repentance), but of him that calleth)
Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

God saves before the sinner has faith.