Josh Duggar And The Message Of Forgiveness

[Foxfyre]

For the left/libs "forgiveness" is only for those WHO they deem should get it

and that means. everyone who is a Democrat. No matter they are: an adulterer, a drowner of women, a Former KKK member, a homosexual who ran a underage brothel out of his home. AND their sick judgment of all Mankind goes on and on

oh did I mention. Anyone who is Conservative/Republican gets NO FORGIVINESS from them. they think they should automatically be sent to hell

that's a two faced hypocrite

If Josh Duggar owned up and paid his debt to society and served his time, I'd let him vote. Conservatives wouldn't.

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth that caused no lasting harm?

Not sure what crime was committed by Barny Frank, and Bill Clinton got away with stupidity only because his wife forgave him - again no crime was committed - but the point you're trying to make is valid - justice in America seems to have less to do with the truth than the resources that the accused can commit to lawyers and campaign contributions, and that truly is a disgusting black eye worn by all of us.

If Josh Duggar were truly repentant, he would confess his crimes publicly and accept whatever punishment society wanted to throw at him without so much as a word in his own defense. Sure, as a believer in Jesus, The Christ, as described in The Torah and The New Testament, he could rest in the forgiveness from God that his faith provides, but his debt to society is between us and him. Just because God forgives him doesn't mean that humanity at large is under the same obligation.

What debt to society does a person owe when those he offended see no reason to impose any penalty or judgment? In most or all states, all other crimes in which there is no lasting harm, the juvenile is 'forgiven' by society when he reaches the age of majority and his record is sealed and can't be held against him. Again what purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something wrong he did in his youth that caused no lasting harm?

If a man beats his wife daily, and daily she forgives him, are We, The Peeps under no obligation to protect her anyway by locking his ass up for a spell?

As one who has helped to found a domestic violence association including a shelter for such women, that is a subject near and dear to my heart. Yes, we protect all the innocent who are being harmed. But what does that have to do with Josh Duggar. Josh Duggar is not accused of daily beating his wife. Josh Duggar is not accused of anything he has done for the last 12 years. If anybody was accusing him now, I would say yes--if he is guilty let's deal with it appropriately. But to punish him now for something he did as a 14 year old? I just can't see it.

 

[Papageorgio]

The system should have been properly engaged rather than the parents going to a pedophile trooper friend for help (I mean, does it get more perverse than that?) or sending the boy to a molester's ranch. The system would have actually given him counselling, taken him out of the family and then sealed his record. He would have been better off than he is now. The fact that they didn't meant that the report could be released when he reached 18. Ironically the cover up has led to total exposure. I think that that is God's work.

No one knew what the trooper was at that point, the Duggar's taking it to law enforcement is one thing they did right, they are not a fault there they didn't know the guy was a perv.

 

[jillian]

Well done, Saint. Well done.

awwwww.... look at the rightwingnuts still shilling for the pedophile

Awww, or it could be someone agreed with his statement. Not everybody plays your game.

okie dokie snookums.

 

[featherlite]

There's so much going on with this story, so much more than really needs to be included.
Because of this I keep excusing someone who might harm another child. Adults can protect themselves...kids cant. Being on offender list is probably a smart thing.

 

[Valerie]

I would not worry too much about Josh.

i'm concerned for his daughter...

 

[AVG-JOE]

If Josh Duggar owned up and paid his debt to society and served his time, I'd let him vote. Conservatives wouldn't.

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth that caused no lasting harm?

Not sure what crime was committed by Barny Frank, and Bill Clinton got away with stupidity only because his wife forgave him - again no crime was committed - but the point you're trying to make is valid - justice in America seems to have less to do with the truth than the resources that the accused can commit to lawyers and campaign contributions, and that truly is a disgusting black eye worn by all of us.

If Josh Duggar were truly repentant, he would confess his crimes publicly and accept whatever punishment society wanted to throw at him without so much as a word in his own defense. Sure, as a believer in Jesus, The Christ, as described in The Torah and The New Testament, he could rest in the forgiveness from God that his faith provides, but his debt to society is between us and him. Just because God forgives him doesn't mean that humanity at large is under the same obligation.

What debt to society does a person owe when those he offended see no reason to impose any penalty or judgment? In most or all states, all other crimes in which there is no lasting harm, the juvenile is 'forgiven' by society when he reaches the age of majority and his record is sealed and can't be held against him. Again what purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something wrong he did in his youth that caused no lasting harm?

If a man beats his wife daily, and daily she forgives him, are We, The Peeps under no obligation to protect her anyway by locking his ass up for a spell?

As one who has helped to found a domestic violence association including a shelter for such women, that is a subject near and dear to my heart. Yes, we protect all the innocent who are being harmed. But what does that have to do with Josh Duggar. Josh Duggar is not accused of daily beating his wife. Josh Duggar is not accused of anything he has done for the last 12 years. If anybody was accusing him now, I would say yes--if he is guilty let's deal with it appropriately. But to punish him now for something he did as a 14 year old? I just can't see it.

I meant that a repentant Young Mr Duggar would accept whatever punishment that society decided to put him through after his public confession, and do so without trying to defend his actions, and if society wants to give him a break because of youth or religious affiliation, that's society's business.

 

[Mertex]

I'm not an American so I prefer not to be lumped within a camp of liberal or conservative.

Child abuse is a crime and should be treated as such. When a person who is guilty of such crimes takes to the podium to accuse an entire group of people (gays) of being pedos, when he in fact showed those tendencies, it is called projecting. When he uses his family and their stage to do this, it is just mental.

It seems to me that within the family's circle too many are sexually deviant (evidenced by the state trooper that they went to doing time for child pornos and the center he went to being run by a sexual abuser who has also has had to step down). In fact the father said as much in his interview.

The measures they introduced to protect their daughters, basically making them mistrust men and boys, reveals to me how poorly they dealt with this issue. They are raising a new generation of girls who fear all men, even their own flesh and blood. That is insane.

This family covered up a serious issue, swept it under the rug and acted like seeking God would be the solution to a mental health issue. It isn't and that is why there are proper ways to deal with this. They failed the victims and their son too.

This has nothing to do with religion or politics but law - and there is a reason for that. I am shocked that homeschoolers and other extreme groups can skirt the law as they did and get away with it, all the while enjoying a stage to propagate hate and judge innocent people as being immoral.

It stinks to high heaven.

Your ignorant post stinks to high heaven, especially the part where you diagnosed him with an ongoing mental illness when in fact he just made a mistake as a child and shows no signs of it continuing into adulthood. And the family handled it just fine, just like any of you hypocrites who, if you had this happening among your own children, would likely seek resolution through counseling as well. That's what's so enraging about this, the hypocrisy of you Leftists (you're lumped in) pretending that you would have done differently if it were your children. As a father of 4 beautiful children, I gotta say.....

Bullshit!

If you are the father of 4 children, I sure do hope no one molests your kids...but in the meantime, you have no idea how it feels to have your child molested and you have no idea how the child feels. Molesting someone is not a mistake. A 14 year old knows it is wrong. I'll bet you are all in favor of a 14 year old murderer being tried and sentenced as an adult. A 14 year old knows right from wrong.

1 in 3 girls are molested as a child and 1 in 4 boys. Yes it's that common....

So let me say, you have no idea who you're talking to, or what I know or understand how it feels, and your ASSumption is offensive.

And no, I don't agree that 14 year olds have developed the mens rei to be held fully accountable for criminal acts, whether we're talking about sexual molestation or murder.

Again, ASSumptions.

So, if I understand your reasoning, all males 14 and under that molest a child should be given a chance to repent and ask forgiveness and then there should be no retribution for the crime, right?

 

[Mertex]

I love watching you fundies argue.

But that doesn't change the Fact that you are defending a pedo.

I'm defending forgiveness, something you spurn to the peril of your eternal soul.

Someday you are going to stand before the Almighty while every one of your sins is named. On that day you will be the recipient of the condemnation you now so gleefully dish out. Josh Duggars will go to heaven, his sins covered by the blood of Christ, but you will be condemned eternally because you thought gawking at the sins of others somehow absolved you of your own iniquity.

I wrote this thread to tell you it doesn't have to be that way. Repent and ask for forgiveness. I exhort you with all fervency to do this.

Every Christian should be telling you this. I'm sorry if I'm the only one.

I exhort you with all fervency to do this.™

Does that come with a jingle?

Only in the very dark place that is christian fundamentalism is the child molestor to be protected.

Who's protecting him? This thread is about the forgiveness he received from God after repenting, the same forgiveness that's available to you. You are guilty in the eyes of the Lord like everyone else and pointing the finger at others won't conceal your own iniquity. Please repent and be saved. Jesus paid a high price to offer you forgiveness and offer it for free. All you have to do is say yes.

How do you know he repented? He can show signs of repentance but you can't say for sure whether he has or not. It is in your heart you repent and only God can read the heart.

His testimony. It's a Christian thing, you wouldn't understand.

Many prisoners doing time for sexual crimes have given their testimony and claim they have repented and have been forgiven, shouldn't they be let go, if Josh doesn't have to pay for his crime, why should they?

 

[Foxfyre]

Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.

I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth that caused no lasting harm?

Not sure what crime was committed by Barny Frank, and Bill Clinton got away with stupidity only because his wife forgave him - again no crime was committed - but the point you're trying to make is valid - justice in America seems to have less to do with the truth than the resources that the accused can commit to lawyers and campaign contributions, and that truly is a disgusting black eye worn by all of us.

If Josh Duggar were truly repentant, he would confess his crimes publicly and accept whatever punishment society wanted to throw at him without so much as a word in his own defense. Sure, as a believer in Jesus, The Christ, as described in The Torah and The New Testament, he could rest in the forgiveness from God that his faith provides, but his debt to society is between us and him. Just because God forgives him doesn't mean that humanity at large is under the same obligation.

What debt to society does a person owe when those he offended see no reason to impose any penalty or judgment? In most or all states, all other crimes in which there is no lasting harm, the juvenile is 'forgiven' by society when he reaches the age of majority and his record is sealed and can't be held against him. Again what purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something wrong he did in his youth that caused no lasting harm?

If a man beats his wife daily, and daily she forgives him, are We, The Peeps under no obligation to protect her anyway by locking his ass up for a spell?

As one who has helped to found a domestic violence association including a shelter for such women, that is a subject near and dear to my heart. Yes, we protect all the innocent who are being harmed. But what does that have to do with Josh Duggar. Josh Duggar is not accused of daily beating his wife. Josh Duggar is not accused of anything he has done for the last 12 years. If anybody was accusing him now, I would say yes--if he is guilty let's deal with it appropriately. But to punish him now for something he did as a 14 year old? I just can't see it.

I meant that a repentant Young Mr Duggar would accept whatever punishment that society decided to put him through after his public confession, and do so without trying to defend his actions, and if society wants to give him a break because of youth or religious affiliation, that's society's business.

A young Josh Duggar did go to his parents, confessed his sin, and did accept the consequences imposed upon him for it. He has never attempted to justify it or minimalize it so far as I know. And so far as anybody knows, once he acknowledged his sin and accepted the consequences, he has not been suspected or accused of any further misconduct.

There is a degree of proportion in this stuff. Saying that a penalty or punishment is excessive for the crime is not the same thing as saying there should be no penalty or punishment for the crime. Should a 14-year-old kid behaving inappropriately with his sisters be subject to the same consequences and penalty as those who commit sexual assault or rape? Most especially when he realizes it was wrong and has incurred the punishment deemed appropriate for it?

Dealing with domestic violence cases, the guy who slaps his wife in a fit of rage is not the same guy who is a serial offender and regularly beats and injures his wife. Both must be considered serious and intervention is appropriate. But one can often be 'cured' by simply being taught that anger and hitting are not the same thing. And the offense is never repeated. One deserves jail and an iron clad court order that says this guy will never be allowed anywhere close to his victim again.

I think the attention and condemnation being heaped on an adult Josh Duggar for something he did 12 years ago as a very young teen is harmful not just to him and his immediate family but also his extended family who didn't deserve all this really vicious publicity. The facts in evidence simply do not justify it.

 

[Mertex]

A young Josh Duggar did go to his parents, confessed his sin, and did accept the consequences imposed upon him for it

The consequences proposed by the parents is not what society proposes to others who commit the same type of crime. Christians who commit crimes are not exempt from society's rules and a good Christian would be more than willing to pay for his crime. We don't know if Josh Duggar is completely cured, or if he is just more cautious, and our duty to innocent children should supersede any pity we might have for someone no matter how Christian/penitent he may seem to appear.

Most especially when he realizes it was wrong and has incurred the punishment deemed appropriate for it?

Excuse me, but who decided that the punishment he incurred is deemed appropriate? His parents? His political peers?

 

[Foxfyre]

A young Josh Duggar did go to his parents, confessed his sin, and did accept the consequences imposed upon him for it

The consequences proposed by the parents is not what society proposes to others who commit the same type of crime. Christians who commit crimes are not exempt from society's rules and a good Christian would be more than willing to pay for his crime. We don't know if Josh Duggar is completely cured, or if he is just more cautious, and our duty to innocent children should supersede any pity we might have for someone no matter how Christian/penitent he may seem to appear.

Most especially when he realizes it was wrong and has incurred the punishment deemed appropriate for it?

Excuse me, but who decided that the punishment he incurred is deemed appropriate? His parents? His political peers?

A police report was filed. Apparently the authorities were satisfied that the punishment was appropriate. Unless we were there, unless we were in a position of authority in that situation, we have no basis to judge that the situation was not handled appropriately or at least as well as anybody knew to do at the time. The misconduct was not ignored, it was not minimalized, it was not excused.

I am in no position to say that Josh Duggar must now pay for something he did as a kid 12 years ago. I don't think anybody here is qualified to demand that unless you know precisely what the situation was and what is in Josh Duggar's mind and heart.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Between the RWnuts trying to mitigate Josh Duggar's wrongs and trying to mitigate Dylann Roof's crimes,

it's been quite a typical week on USMB.

 

[Mertex]

A young Josh Duggar did go to his parents, confessed his sin, and did accept the consequences imposed upon him for it

The consequences proposed by the parents is not what society proposes to others who commit the same type of crime. Christians who commit crimes are not exempt from society's rules and a good Christian would be more than willing to pay for his crime. We don't know if Josh Duggar is completely cured, or if he is just more cautious, and our duty to innocent children should supersede any pity we might have for someone no matter how Christian/penitent he may seem to appear.

Most especially when he realizes it was wrong and has incurred the punishment deemed appropriate for it?

Excuse me, but who decided that the punishment he incurred is deemed appropriate? His parents? His political peers?

A police report was filed. Apparently the authorities were satisfied that the punishment was appropriate. Unless we were there, unless we were in a position of authority in that situation, we have no basis to judge that the situation was not handled appropriately or at least as well as anybody knew to do at the time. The misconduct was not ignored, it was not minimalized, it was not excused.

I am in no position to say that Josh Duggar must now pay for something he did as a kid 12 years ago. I don't think anybody here is qualified to demand that unless you know precisely what the situation was and what is in Josh Duggar's mind and heart.

Er, the police report was not filed at the time that it happened. His parents knew about it and didn't report it for a year. How in the hell do we trust anything they say? Like, he's been cured....looks to me like a coverup has been underway for a long time. That's not the way these cases are handled for others.

Jim Bob and Michelle, reportedly knew about the accusations, but didn't report them to police for over a year.
What counseling did Josh Duggar undergo HLNtv.com

Josh was 14 and 15 when the improper touching occurred, but the police report wasn't filed until 2006 — four years after the incidents.
Josh Duggar Molestation Report Was NOT Illegally Released City Attorney Says PerezHilton.com

To add insult to injury, Josh turned around and sued DHS for investigating him.

I find it highly offensive for those who claim to be Christian to say that Josh received proper counseling, considering the founder of the so-called Christian treatment center was apparently suffering from the same illness.....and considered himself cured, I'm sure, until he was found out.

Josh's parents sent their son to a Christian treatment center which was founded by Bill Gothard, a 'Christian' writer, who later left after reaching out and touching as many as 30 girls in his ministry.
Josh Duggar Sued Arkansas After They Investigated His Sex Crimes Liberaland

 

[Foxfyre]

A young Josh Duggar did go to his parents, confessed his sin, and did accept the consequences imposed upon him for it

The consequences proposed by the parents is not what society proposes to others who commit the same type of crime. Christians who commit crimes are not exempt from society's rules and a good Christian would be more than willing to pay for his crime. We don't know if Josh Duggar is completely cured, or if he is just more cautious, and our duty to innocent children should supersede any pity we might have for someone no matter how Christian/penitent he may seem to appear.

Most especially when he realizes it was wrong and has incurred the punishment deemed appropriate for it?

Excuse me, but who decided that the punishment he incurred is deemed appropriate? His parents? His political peers?

A police report was filed. Apparently the authorities were satisfied that the punishment was appropriate. Unless we were there, unless we were in a position of authority in that situation, we have no basis to judge that the situation was not handled appropriately or at least as well as anybody knew to do at the time. The misconduct was not ignored, it was not minimalized, it was not excused.

I am in no position to say that Josh Duggar must now pay for something he did as a kid 12 years ago. I don't think anybody here is qualified to demand that unless you know precisely what the situation was and what is in Josh Duggar's mind and heart.

Er, the police report was not filed at the time that it happened. His parents knew about it and didn't report it for a year. How in the hell do we trust anything they say? Like, he's been cured....looks to me like a coverup has been underway for a long time. That's not the way these cases are handled for others.

Jim Bob and Michelle, reportedly knew about the accusations, but didn't report them to police for over a year.
What counseling did Josh Duggar undergo HLNtv.com

Josh was 14 and 15 when the improper touching occurred, but the police report wasn't filed until 2006 — four years after the incidents.
Josh Duggar Molestation Report Was NOT Illegally Released City Attorney Says PerezHilton.com

To add insult to injury, Josh turned around and sued DHS for investigating him.

I find it highly offensive for those who claim to be Christian to say that Josh received proper counseling, considering the founder of the so-called Christian treatment center was apparently suffering from the same illness.....and considered himself cured, I'm sure, until he was found out.

Josh's parents sent their son to a Christian treatment center which was founded by Bill Gothard, a 'Christian' writer, who later left after reaching out and touching as many as 30 girls in his ministry.
Josh Duggar Sued Arkansas After They Investigated His Sex Crimes Liberaland

So which was it. Over a year? Or four years? The accusations and blame and finger pointing are coming from all directions. But nobody wants to hear from those who were actually there--they aren't credible it seems even though there is no evidence they have falsified anything. Regardless of when the police report was filed, obviously the police saw no reason to pursue prosecution of Josh Duggar. So were they covering up something?

The fact is none of us know. The fact is none of us have a clue how we would handle that situation if it was our own teenage kid. A whole bunch of people are sitting in judgment gleefully gobbling up what scandal any tabloid or news source can make out of the situation, and not one has a clue about about what really happened or how it was actually handled.

But without evidence that Josh Duggar is a danger to himself or anybody else, to drag all these people through the mud 12 years later for no better reason than it can be done and it is a slow news week is just wrong.

 

[AVG-JOE]

A young Josh Duggar did go to his parents, confessed his sin, and did accept the consequences imposed upon him for it

The consequences proposed by the parents is not what society proposes to others who commit the same type of crime. Christians who commit crimes are not exempt from society's rules and a good Christian would be more than willing to pay for his crime. We don't know if Josh Duggar is completely cured, or if he is just more cautious, and our duty to innocent children should supersede any pity we might have for someone no matter how Christian/penitent he may seem to appear.

Most especially when he realizes it was wrong and has incurred the punishment deemed appropriate for it?

Excuse me, but who decided that the punishment he incurred is deemed appropriate? His parents? His political peers?

A police report was filed. Apparently the authorities were satisfied that the punishment was appropriate. Unless we were there, unless we were in a position of authority in that situation, we have no basis to judge that the situation was not handled appropriately or at least as well as anybody knew to do at the time. The misconduct was not ignored, it was not minimalized, it was not excused.

I am in no position to say that Josh Duggar must now pay for something he did as a kid 12 years ago. I don't think anybody here is qualified to demand that unless you know precisely what the situation was and what is in Josh Duggar's mind and heart.

I disagree. We can't help BUT to judge. We're Monkeys. And this thread is living proof that society is in the process of judging him now.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I would not worry too much about Josh. Like all the rest of the RW extremists who end up as losers, He will be offered a gig on FOX.

Juan Williams ended up on Fox. So did Geraldo. It seems they take losers from both sides. It's why I can't take them seriously.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Why should I feel shame for doing what Christ does? He is our advocate with the Father. He loves us despite us being sinners who often do horrible things. He defends us to the point that He bled for us.

Are you a Christian and not realizing that? He died for you, for me, and even for pedohiles. He died for everyone. Every single one of us.

If he was willing to die to give even the most vile of us a chance to change, who am I to not live to do the same?

No. He died for those that had already changed and received forgiveness. You probably need to reread that part.

That's some really bad theology there. Not even remotely true.

I'm not sure this is the proper venue for a theological discussion, but according to the bible, salvation is only given after forgiveness. Forgiveness only comes after repentance, which requires change. The death on the cross does nothing for those who don't repent and change. It was never intended to.

You are well intended but incorrect. Forgiveness and salvation are granted to the sinner immediately, and then the new regenerate undergoes a process of sanctification. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) is an important theological point, that salvation was not merited by our actions, but rather vouchsafed while we were in our wretched state. In fact, it cannot be understated that the initiative in the salvation process belongs to God alone: "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he would be Firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined He also called, and these whom He called He also justified, and these whom He justified, he also glorified." (Romans 8:29,30). This "golden chain of salvation" as some refer to it posits God as the "author and finisher of our faith". (Hebrews 12:2)

A response on our part is certainly required, to commit to a new way of living, and to act out our faith with good works, a requisite for salvation. But the initial act is not ours, it is God's.

So you're going with the predestination idea, where you are chosen, and a personal decision isn't required. As I've said before ... believe what you want.

No, quoting Scripture that Calvinists abuse does not mean I am preaching predestination. They don't own those Bible verses. I wouldn't be asking people here to receive the forgiveness of God if I didn't believe it is available for everyone.

 

[BULLDOG]

No. He died for those that had already changed and received forgiveness. You probably need to reread that part.

That's some really bad theology there. Not even remotely true.

I'm not sure this is the proper venue for a theological discussion, but according to the bible, salvation is only given after forgiveness. Forgiveness only comes after repentance, which requires change. The death on the cross does nothing for those who don't repent and change. It was never intended to.

You are well intended but incorrect. Forgiveness and salvation are granted to the sinner immediately, and then the new regenerate undergoes a process of sanctification. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) is an important theological point, that salvation was not merited by our actions, but rather vouchsafed while we were in our wretched state. In fact, it cannot be understated that the initiative in the salvation process belongs to God alone: "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he would be Firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined He also called, and these whom He called He also justified, and these whom He justified, he also glorified." (Romans 8:29,30). This "golden chain of salvation" as some refer to it posits God as the "author and finisher of our faith". (Hebrews 12:2)

A response on our part is certainly required, to commit to a new way of living, and to act out our faith with good works, a requisite for salvation. But the initial act is not ours, it is God's.

So you're going with the predestination idea, where you are chosen, and a personal decision isn't required. As I've said before ... believe what you want.

No, quoting Scripture that Calvinists abuse does not mean I am preaching predestination. They don't own those Bible verses. I wouldn't be asking people here to receive the forgiveness of God if I didn't believe it is available for everyone.

Make up your mind. You do know what requisite means don't you? Without the person choosing to fulfill that requisite, the sacrifice does nothing for him. As I said, and you just confirmed, the death on the cross does nothing for those who don't repent and change. It was never intended to. You just argue to be disagreeable. Why don't you ever read what is actually written before you spout crap?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's some really bad theology there. Not even remotely true.

I'm not sure this is the proper venue for a theological discussion, but according to the bible, salvation is only given after forgiveness. Forgiveness only comes after repentance, which requires change. The death on the cross does nothing for those who don't repent and change. It was never intended to.

You are well intended but incorrect. Forgiveness and salvation are granted to the sinner immediately, and then the new regenerate undergoes a process of sanctification. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) is an important theological point, that salvation was not merited by our actions, but rather vouchsafed while we were in our wretched state. In fact, it cannot be understated that the initiative in the salvation process belongs to God alone: "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he would be Firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined He also called, and these whom He called He also justified, and these whom He justified, he also glorified." (Romans 8:29,30). This "golden chain of salvation" as some refer to it posits God as the "author and finisher of our faith". (Hebrews 12:2)

A response on our part is certainly required, to commit to a new way of living, and to act out our faith with good works, a requisite for salvation. But the initial act is not ours, it is God's.

So you're going with the predestination idea, where you are chosen, and a personal decision isn't required. As I've said before ... believe what you want.

No, quoting Scripture that Calvinists abuse does not mean I am preaching predestination. They don't own those Bible verses. I wouldn't be asking people here to receive the forgiveness of God if I didn't believe it is available for everyone.

Make up your mind. You do know what requisite means don't you? Without the person choosing to fulfill that requisite, the sacrifice does nothing for him. As I said, and you just confirmed, the death on the cross does nothing for those who don't repent and change. It was never intended to. You just argue to be disagreeable. Why don't you ever read what is actually written before you spout crap?

Do you? I've been a model of consistency throughout this thread. Forgiveness comes first, then sanctification. You argue that people need to change first, but that's not true, in fact it's impossible. The point of coming to God with a demeanor of surrender is that we are unable to change our ways. God gives us the power of a changed heart, making us a new creation. This is what Jesus meant when he taught that to enter God's kingdom one must be born again.

Living a changed life of repentance and renewal is our response to forgiveness, not a "requisite".

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not sure this is the proper venue for a theological discussion, but according to the bible, salvation is only given after forgiveness. Forgiveness only comes after repentance, which requires change. The death on the cross does nothing for those who don't repent and change. It was never intended to.

You are well intended but incorrect. Forgiveness and salvation are granted to the sinner immediately, and then the new regenerate undergoes a process of sanctification. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) is an important theological point, that salvation was not merited by our actions, but rather vouchsafed while we were in our wretched state. In fact, it cannot be understated that the initiative in the salvation process belongs to God alone: "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he would be Firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined He also called, and these whom He called He also justified, and these whom He justified, he also glorified." (Romans 8:29,30). This "golden chain of salvation" as some refer to it posits God as the "author and finisher of our faith". (Hebrews 12:2)

A response on our part is certainly required, to commit to a new way of living, and to act out our faith with good works, a requisite for salvation. But the initial act is not ours, it is God's.

So you're going with the predestination idea, where you are chosen, and a personal decision isn't required. As I've said before ... believe what you want.

No, quoting Scripture that Calvinists abuse does not mean I am preaching predestination. They don't own those Bible verses. I wouldn't be asking people here to receive the forgiveness of God if I didn't believe it is available for everyone.

Make up your mind. You do know what requisite means don't you? Without the person choosing to fulfill that requisite, the sacrifice does nothing for him. As I said, and you just confirmed, the death on the cross does nothing for those who don't repent and change. It was never intended to. You just argue to be disagreeable. Why don't you ever read what is actually written before you spout crap?

Do you? I've been a model of consistency throughout this thread. Forgiveness comes first, then sanctification. You argue that people need to change first, but that's not true, in fact it's impossible. The point of coming to God with a demeanor of surrender is that we are unable to change our ways. God gives us the power of a changed heart, making us a new creation. This is what Jesus meant when he taught that to enter God's kingdom one must be born again.

Living a changed life of repentance and renewal is our response to forgiveness, not a "requisite".

THEN MAKE UP YOUR MIND

your quote
A response on our part is certainly required, to commit to a new way of living, and to act out our faith with good works, a requisite for salvation