All the best! God be with you

My SA brother in Christ😍. God bless you bro. Let me know how Mdiv goes on this chat, looking at doing it after my undergrad

If it’s God’s plan, who or what can be against you?!

May the door open if its God's will, where did you study in South Africa? I'm from Cape Town

Okay when you said that, something just ringed in me. I hope we all get to sit at the feet of Jesus like that.

Does salvation require baptism?

Does salvation require baptism?

Does salvation require baptism?

​@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000nope

Does salvation require baptism?

Piper needs to apologize to no one. In case you don´t know your history--Hitler was against any kind of extra-marital anything yet look what else he did. Why is abortion the ONLY thing that concerns you, while America slaughters youth and adults!!!! You are such a Christian yet you vote for a man who is a serial adulterer and proud to brag about it. How many times has he been divorced, assaults women and brags about it. He only opposed divorce because it will get him elected. He does not believe in anti-abortion in his mind or his heart. He is a 78 year old man who does not have to even worry about it. You are the hypocrite and you hide behind God to placate your ignorance.

We get it. You worship the non-Christian Trump over Jesus Christ.

I believe he believes that God will speak to her through the message he preached and we also don’t know if he spoke to her privately but it kinda disturbed me all through but we must sympathize with people like this and speak to them in grace ❤️

I dont think so. This is something he must do before the camera starts, so that the girl and the viewer not come in this situation...

Does salvation require baptism?

This is what legalism looks like. You don’t know “the girl” don’t know her heart, her story, don’t hear what she has to ask, the time she put into reading a whole book while studying and working, don’t know about her relationship with God, you know nothing, and of everything in the video that’s your only comment. So sad. I think you need more grace than that “girl”. Your comment sounds just like this passage: “And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭7‬:‭5‬-‭7‬ If I were you, I would be more worried about Jesus saying that of my heart. Check your own heart before calling out on something so small and unimportant. If Jesus would come back you would be the first one to criticize him just as you have done with Piper.

It is strange how Piper is talked about here as if he himself were the Christ, whom one is not allowed to criticise. But now to the accusation. I'm not saying anything about anyone's heart. I am merely pointing out that the one girl is not dressed according to 1 Tim 2:9 ("I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety") and other scripture passages. This is the Word of God. Piper himself would hardly disagree with that. Piper and those responsible have done neither themselves nor the girl any favours.

Nothing immodest about shorts.

@@bryan54577 Agreed. What shorts though? I can't see them... that's the problem.

When you've been brainwashed by the inappropriate clothing that's all around in this 21st century context, even many Christians can't tell whether a way of clothing is appropriate or inappropriate... What would have Isaiah said if he saw that?

Does salvation require baptism?

@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000 Irrelevant to my point.

Women can't wear shorts? Seems like you enjoyed looking at her body.

I don't know, if anything I feel more led to Christ after seeing her.

This is what legalism looks like. You don’t know “the girl” don’t know her heart, her story, don’t hear what she has to ask, the time she put into reading a whole book while studying and working, don’t know about her relationship with God, you know nothing, and of everything in the video that’s your only comment. So sad. I think you need more grace than that “girl”. Your comment sounds just like this passage: “And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭7‬:‭5‬-‭7‬ If I were you, I would be more worried about Jesus saying that of my heart. Check your own heart before calling out on something so small and unimportant. If Jesus would come back you would be the first one to criticize him.

Haha agreed... not sure what they are going for here. This looks more like a Christmas gathering than a talk show... I am almost expecting there to be babies crawling on the floor or something. Maybe they need more money to afford more chairs.. 😅

What does partiality means? Do all men get justified?

@@LRibeiro97 Is English your first language? Is that why you are asking the first question? If English is not your first language then let me explain - partiality is favouritism - bias. So the Acts 10 passage is saying that God does not show favouritism - he doesn't choose one person instead of another when there is no reason to do so. As to your second question - not all men are saved - universalism (the idea that everyone is saved by Jesus' death) is not supported in the bible - so there must be a sense in which all people are made right with God because of Jesus' death - but that people must then receive his death for themselves. Calvinism cannot provide any possible explanation - since according to Calvinists God had already chosen who would be saved before Jesus died on the cross. This was how things worked in the offering of sacrifices in the Old Testament. People offered sacrifices to God in order to be forgiven - sacrifices didn't cover people until they were offered by the people to be forgiven with the right heart. Except in the case of people whose sin was unintentional - weakness - or ignorance. See Leviticus 4 for examples of people offering sacrifices in order to be forgiven.

I'm a little bit confused because that does not sound like something our God would do, in creating someone ONLY to hate them. It's His will that none would perish but all repent. And He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. So if He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, why then would men be created ONLY for the reason for them to be hated by Him, since He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. Obviously I could be wrong, but I just don't see this being the case

@@philipbenjamin4720 Ok, so I'll answer the comment you deleted and this one as well. I'll try to give quick, precise answers to save your time and mine. First: "You don't have to receive the obvious meanings of these passages if you don't want to. Nobody's forcing you. If that's what you plan to do - to avoid the obvious meanings of these passages - why embarrass yourself by sharing your inner workings out loud?" Well, this is just a sinful projection of you trying to judge my heart and intentions based on 2 simple questions. It is obviously wrong and it is clear why you deleted it. Thank you for that. (I'm not going to waste my time giving you answers you can find in a dictionary - or help you if you think that either limited atonement or universalism is a sensible interpretation of Romans 5:18 - waste someone else's time)." Well, since you did waste your time responding to my question of definition, I'll answer that. And you are the one who quoted Rm 5:18. There are many other verses that say pretty much the same thing. And the question is: well, what do they mean? They obviously can't mean that everyone gets saved. And everyone agrees they mean that Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient for all men to be saved. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." So the sense in which "the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" is not a sense in which the gift actually performs said justification. And both calvinists and non calvinists agree that what is going to make a difference is faith. ========================= Second: "If English is not your first language then let me explain - partiality is favouritism - bias. So the Acts 10 passage is saying that God does not show favouritism - he doesn't choose one person instead of another when there is no reason to do so." Actually, partiality is not treating people differently. God does treat people differently all the time. He created people with different heights, different voices, different weights. He gives more wealth to some and less wealth to others. Some of His children are "faster" in santification, some are "slower". In order to chose leaders in the church, God discriminates against a whole bunch of people, like new borns in the faith. Is that "partiality"? So what God doesn't do, and commands us to not practice as well is an unjust, unfair treatment of others. Or better, that we treat people differently based on bad criteria, instead of good criteria. For instance, you should treat men and women differently,you know that. Is that "partiality"? No, because sex is a good reason to treat people differently. Now, the example in James is where they were treating people better based on the money/status they had. Now, that's a bad reason to treat people differently, so it is wrong to do so. Now, given that definition, the verse in Acts says nothing about the doctrine of election. First, because God can't be unfair in anything He does. So, if God did chose unconditionally His people, that would not be partiality, because all are sinners and no one deserved to be chosen in the first place. Secon, even if you believe in the conditional election view (that God chose those who He foresaw would believe) well, He is being partial in favor of those who believe. So your attempt to use this verse as an argument really stands on nothing. If the verse is a problem (based on a poor definition of the term partiality), than it is a problem for both. If the verse is not a problem (based on a correct definition of the partiality) than it's what I said, the verse implies nothing in favor or against any view of election. "As to your second question - not all men are saved - universalism (the idea that everyone is saved by Jesus' death) is not supported in the bible - so there must be a sense in which all people are made right with God because of Jesus' death - but that people must then receive his death for themselves. Calvinism cannot provide any possible explanation - since according to Calvinists God had already chosen who would be saved before Jesus died on the cross." Well, the sense in which "all people are made right with God" is the sense that Jesus's death provides a sufficient sacrifice for all men everywhere. Both Calvinists and non-calvinists agree with that. Now, based on this sentence "according to Calvinists God had already chosen who would be saved before Jesus died on the cross" you really need to talk to some better calvinists, lol. Whenever we are talking about God chosing, we are talking about eternity past, so it can't be "before" or "after" anything. Eternity is timeless. Now, God, before the foundation of the world had already determined Jesus' death (Acts 4: 27,28). So if God had elected some in eternity past, that would not have been "before" Jesus's death, but alongside it. Now, it is pretty unhelpful and immature to try to shut down a conversation/debate from 2 verses taken out of context and misaplied. If you wish to reject calvinism, the first thing you need to do is get a proper definition of all 5 TULIP points. I can help you with that, if you like. Once you get the 5 definitions straight, than you can attempt to show how in the Bible they are wrong. And the person debating with you would do the same for your view. What I can guarantee is that in this hypothetical discussion, none of the sides would quote any of these 2 verses as an argument against the other because they really are inconsequential to the disagreement.

@@LRibeiro97 Just to clarify - the reason I deleted my first reply was not because it would have been an inappropriate reply to someone like yourself - someone who has now confirmed my initial conclusion in the nature of your second reply - that conclusion being that the first reply was from someone who was theologically aware and revealed right from the get go that they were not interested in offering any interpretation of these passages - only to suggest why the verses were confusing - as if God is going out of his way to cause us difficulty - I deleted it because when I saw your initial reply - which said: “What does partiality means?” (note the s on the end of mean) - I suddenly thought that I might be interacting with someone who didn’t speak English well and was only asking for more information. It turns out that that isn’t the situation - but I’m glad I catered for it. At the end of my first reply to you I said that I would not be continuing our interaction if you did not prove that you were seeking to be constructive by presenting your understanding of the meaning of these passages - and since you haven’t bothered to do that (instead engaging in a completely ridiculous exploration of types of partiality which obviously have no relevance to Acts 10:34-35 because the verses are about God NOT SHOWING PARTIALITY - yet all you want to talk about are ways that God does show partiality without being unfair. And you conclude your diversion with this: “So your attempt to use this verse as an argument really stands on nothing”. Really - because you cannot manage to focus on the partiality that God DOESN'T show? And also: “based on a poor definition of the term partiality”. Every word you wrote reflected acceptance of my definition of partiality - which was that God does not choose between people for no good reason (the verse then shows an example of when he ought not to). So then what’s coming out of your typewriter keyboard stands on nothing. You wicked person - you’re only interested in confusing the truth - why else would you not provide any interpretation of the passages - or at the least accept that there is ABSOLUTELY nothing that you can suggest that the cross does that relates to ALL MEN finding justification and life under limited atonement - and before faith. But thank you for at least taking the time to ensure that any reader of this thread who had any doubt about your motives was left in doubt no longer. I can’t say it’s been a pleasure Mr Pharisee - Mr “let’s discuss the number of angels on the head of a pin” (even when I set an expectation of what being cooperative would require from you - you couldn’t even manage TO PRETEND to do it) - I repeat my attitude as you just repeated yours - I’m only interested in seeking to best interpret the bible (I’m not a liberal like yourself who argues consistent with the bible not having any clear meaning - but you’re so dim of understanding you no doubt didn’t even notice that you didnt offer any interpretation of either what kind of partiality God doesn't show - or how the cross enables all men to find justification and life which doesn't make nonsense out of limited atonement) - I’m not going to spend time allowing you to bury other people’s interpretations in a pile of irrelevant information - so I won’t be engaging further. Calvinism is GROSS FIRST ORDER DOCTRINAL FAILURE - and those who knowingly believe it are wicked - they refuse to see the heart of God - instead of doing what any person who had experienced mercy would feel compelled to do - which would be to find every place where scripture includes instead of excludes - you instead refuse to welcome the testimony of the Holy Spirit (since you cannot have it and your beliefs - since how can the Spirit testify to you what God's character is towards the unchosen if you are chosen - or testify to you concerning his character towards the chosen if you are unchosen? - and how can you draw ANY conclusions about God's character unless you experience all of his character? - so you are left with your salvation resting on your fallen mind) - you are dancing at the door of hell - you are determined to diminish God’s character and glory.

Does salvation require baptism?

Christians can't wear shorts? 🤷 seems lik3 you're focusing on the wrong things.

“And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭7‬:‭5‬-‭7‬

Amen

If your struggle with lust is so pervasive in your heart, you should not be watching videos on the internet at all. This dark and wicked world needs men who have slain lust in such a way that they can be offered Potiphar’s wife over and over and still resist by saying “how could I do this great evil against my God?” Satisfy your heart with God and get rid of your computer/smart phone. Don’t blame her for wearing shorts. Shame on you.

Such a weak comment. Doesn't reflect well on you.

@user-xq2bm3nq8y Because conservatism was becoming a golden calf, whereas wokism is more of an obvious bad.

I am so glad John Piper has pointed out the blasphemer that Trump is. How ignorant are they that think that Trump really believes in anti-abortion. He is saying what gets him elected!!!!!! Why is abortion the only thing that worries you. You are concerned for unborn babies---under the guise of pro-life and yet you have no problem with millions starving and dying in the streets. You have no problem with all the people who die of starvation or lack of adequate health care. You are sorely misguided. Where does Jesus ever say that the government must uphold is precepts!!!

John Piper said he would never vote for anyone who supports abortion. Also Biden is so obviously not a good president their is not much to talk about

@@gummylens5465 So success in keeping children alive, not making war, keeping inflation low and standing against transgenderism was worshiping a golden calf? And those are the reasons Piper excoriated Trump? And Biden’s evils are obvious, and need no condemnation? Wow. Just wow.

​@@user-xq2bm3nq8y Hank, it's about time you grew up and moved away from your silly complaints.