PhileoAgpao

A father. A servant. An Engineer.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

"Why do you need to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?"

Because the Trinity is not a man-made doctrine, it is how God has revealed Himself in Scripture.

What the Trinity Means:
There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4) who exists eternally in three distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each Person is fully God, yet there is only one God.

Why It’s Essential:

1. Jesus claimed it
Jesus taught that He is the eternal Son of the Father (John 8:58, 10:30, 17:5) and that the Holy Spirit is another divine Helper (John 14-16). He commanded baptism “in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

2. The Apostles taught it
- The Father is God
- The Son is God (John 1:1, 20:28; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8)
- The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18)

3. Salvation depends on it
- Only God can save us from sin.
- Only a true man can represent us.
- Jesus must be both fully God and fully man (the Incarnation) for the cross to work.
- The Holy Spirit must be divine to apply salvation to our hearts.

If you deny the Trinity, you are not worshiping the God revealed in the Bible. You are worshiping a different god — one that cannot save.

Historical Reality:
Every major Christian tradition for 1,700+ years (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) has confessed the Trinity as essential to Christianity. The early church fought hard against heresies (like Arianism) precisely because denying the Trinity destroys the gospel.

You don’t have to understand the Trinity perfectly to be saved. But you must believe in the Triune God who has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because that is who Jesus is, and that is who saves us.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

"Who gave you the Bible?"

This is a common Catholic argument, but it’s based on a misunderstanding.

The Church Did Not “Give” Us the Bible

The Bible is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). The Church did not create or authorize the Scriptures. Instead, the early Church recognized which books God had already inspired.

The books of the New Testament were widely accepted and used by Christians long before any council officially listed them. By the mid-2nd century, most of the New Testament books were already being read in churches as Scripture.

Important Historical Facts:

- The Old Testament canon was already settled by the time of Jesus and the apostles.
- The New Testament books were recognized because they were written by apostles or their close associates and were consistent with the gospel.
- The first time the Roman Catholic Church officially and dogmatically defined the canon (including the Apocrypha) was at the Council of Trent in 1546 — over 1,400 years after Christ, and in direct response to the Protestant Reformation.

The Real Question is this. If the Church “gave” us the Bible and has final authority over it, then:
- Why did it take until 1546 for Rome to officially close the canon?
- Why did many early church fathers (like Athanasius in 367 AD) already list the same 66 books Protestants use today?

Sola Scriptura does not mean the Church had no role in history. It means that Scripture alone is the final and infallible authority, not the Church, not tradition, and not councils. The Church is called to submit to the Word of God, not stand above it.

The Bible didn’t come from the Church.
The Church came from the Word of God, and it is called to remain under its authority.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

@RealShahriqKhan Very true indeed.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

Hi Malik,

You're right, it doesn't make sense from a human perspective. And that's actually part of what makes it so powerful.

The Bible never tries to make the incarnation and the cross seem reasonable or logical by our standards. Instead, it calls it the wisdom and power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). What looks like weakness and foolishness to the world is actually God's greatest act of love and justice.

Consider this:
▫️ The eternal Son of God, who created all things, humbled Himself to become one of us (Philippians 2:5-8).
▫️ He didn't come in glory and power. He came in weakness, lived in poverty, and was rejected by the very people He came to save.
▫️ Then He willingly allowed His own creation to nail Him to a cross.

Why? Because love required it.
▫️ ��For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
▫️ “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

The cross doesn’t make sense if you think God owes us anything, or if you think we’re basically good people who just need a little help. But when you see how deep our sin really is, and how holy and just God is, the cross becomes the only thing that does make sense.

It’s not that God became a man and got killed.

It’s that God became a man so He could be killed, in our place, for our sin, out of love.

That’s not something we would have ever thought up. That’s why it’s called grace.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

This is a common Hyper-Dispensational view, but it creates a division the New Testament does not support.

The Bible Teaches One Gospel. When Jesus began His ministry by preaching, saying “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15)

After His resurrection, Jesus commissioned His disciples to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name to all nations (Luke 24:47).

Paul preached the same message. He said: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…” (Romans 1:16)

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul summarizes the gospel as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the very heart of what Jesus accomplished to bring in the Kingdom.

The Church Did Not Begin with Paul. It began at Pentecost (Acts 2), not in the middle of Acts with Paul. On that day, Peter preached repentance and the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38), and about 3,000 people were added to the Church.

Paul himself said that the gospel he preached was the same gospel the other apostles preached:
“I went up [to Jerusalem]… and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles… they added nothing to me.” (Galatians 2:1-6)

He even called Peter, James, and John “pillars” and recognized their ministry to the circumcised, while his was to the Gentiles, but it was the same gospel (Galatians 2:7-9).

Dividing the “Gospel of the Kingdom” from the “Gospel of Grace” usually leads to:
▫️ Downplaying or ignoring large parts of the New Testament (especially the Gospels and early Acts).

▫️ Creating two different ways of salvation.

▫️ Undermining the unity of Scripture.

Jesus preached the gospel of the Kingdom. Paul preached the gospel of the Kingdom fulfilled in Christ’s death and resurrection. It is the same gospel, now clearly revealed after the cross and resurrection.

The New Testament does not present two separate gospels for two separate audiences. It presents one gospel for one people of God, in the one Church, through the one Savior, Jesus Christ.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

I totally agree.

Before regeneration, we naturally think “my way is right” and that we can manage our own salvation (Pelagianism). We all think we’re basically good and in control of our own salvation.

After regeneration, God opens our eyes, breaks our self-righteousness, and gives us the gift of faith. Only when God gives us a new heart do we finally see the depth of our sin and our desperate need for grace.

This is why the gospel is such good news: God doesn’t wait for spiritually dead people to “make the right choice.” He graciously gives them new life so they can believe.

“Everyone’s a Pelagian until they’re born again.”
That’s not just a clever saying, it’s a biblical description of the human condition apart from God’s regenerating grace. The fact is, we are all Pelagians by nature, until God makes us Christians by His wonderful grace and sovereignty.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

I am just pointing out that Calvinists are also biblically literate and also apply the proper biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. You are also biblically literate, we simply interpret these texts differently based on what theological lens we held on to.

And since you have posit a particular verse, let me exegete it also according to my diligent study of the revelations of God.

You said on your thread that "Romans 9 is not about individual election to salvation". This is a very common reinterpretation, but it doesn't hold up under careful exegesis.

Context of Romans 9:
Yes, Paul is addressing the Jew/Gentile issue and why so many Jews rejected the Messiah. But the way he answers that question is by going back to God’s sovereign election.

Let’s Look at Romans 9:11-16 Exegetically:
“Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy…’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”

Key Issues with your interpretation:

1. Paul explicitly uses the word “election” (eklogē) - He says God’s purpose of election continues. This is the same word used for election to salvation elsewhere (Romans 11:5, 7).

2. “Before they were born and had done nothing good or bad” - Paul goes out of his way to eliminate any human condition (works, foreseen faith, ethnicity). This is the very definition of unconditional election.

3. “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated” - This is not just about nations. Esau and Jacob were individuals. Paul applies this to God’s sovereign choice of persons, not merely corporate groups.

4. “It depends not on human will…” (v.16) - This directly contradicts the idea that election is based on human response. Paul is ruling out human will as the decisive factor.

Paul’s entire argument in Romans 9–11 is:
• God’s word has not failed (9:6).
• Because not all ethnic Israelites are true Israelites (9:6).
• Because God has the right to choose individuals according to His mercy (9:11-16).
• Therefore, the inclusion of Gentiles and the hardening of many Jews is according to God’s sovereign purpose.

Paul is not disproving election to salvation. He is defending God’s right to elect some and pass over others according to His will.

Your attempt to turn Romans 9 into a denial of unconditional election actually turns Paul’s argument on its head. Paul is using God’s sovereign election of individuals to explain why not all Jews were saved.
This is one of the clearest passages on unconditional election in the entire Bible.

----
Once again, many Calvinists — including those previously mentioned — strongly dispute the claim that 'Calvinism as a system has already lost because of proper biblical hermeneutics and exegesis.'

We can vigorously discuss our differing interpretations, but we should not casually dismiss the scholarly work and serious exegesis done by both sides in this debate.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

Your statement: “Any system that says ‘free, but not yet fully free’ is not in Christ.” is a misunderstanding of both the gospel and John 8:36.

What John 8:36 Actually Means:
Jesus says: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”

He is speaking about freedom from the guilt and bondage of sin — the freedom of justification and regeneration. This is real freedom! A Christian is no longer a slave to sin’s guilt or dominion (Romans 6:6-7, 14).

However, the Bible also teaches that this freedom is not yet complete in this life:
• Romans 7:22-23 — Paul says, “I delight in the law of God in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind…”
• Galatians 5:17 — “The desires of the flesh are against the Spirit… to keep you from doing the things you want to do.”
• Philippians 3:12 — “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on…”

We are truly free from sin’s penalty and power (in principle), but we are not yet fully free from sin’s presence and remaining corruption until glorification.

This Is By God’s Design
The tension between the “already” and “not yet” is biblical, not a flaw in Calvinism:
• We have been saved (past)
• We are being saved (present)
• We will be saved (future)

This progressive sanctification is exactly what we see throughout the New Testament. Claiming that any remaining struggle with sin means we are “not in Christ” would condemn every honest Christian alive today.

Bottom line:
Jesus makes us free indeed — free from condemnation, free from sin’s mastery. But full deliverance from the presence of sin awaits the resurrection. That is not a contradiction. That is the Christian hope.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

“Calvinism has already lost because of proper biblical hermeneutics…”

This is a bold claim, but it doesn’t hold up.
Many of the most careful, rigorous, and biblically literate scholars in church history have been Reformed (Augustine, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, Packer, etc.). Dismissing them all as “not doing proper exegesis” is convenient but not convincing.

Let’s Talk Actual Texts:
• Romans 9:11-16 — God chose Jacob over Esau “before they were born and had done nothing good or bad… so that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls.”
• Ephesians 1:4-5 — “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world… according to the purpose of his will.”
• John 6:44 — “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”
• Romans 8:7-8 — “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God… it cannot submit to God’s law.”

These are not obscure verses. They are straightforward and require serious hermeneutical work to explain away.

The real issue isn’t lack of biblical literacy. Many who reject Calvinism are very biblically literate — they simply interpret these texts differently. The debate is not about who reads the Bible more. It’s about whose interpretation is more faithful to the whole counsel of God.

Pride exists on all sides. But accusing everyone who holds to Reformed theology of being too prideful to admit defeat is just a way to avoid engaging the actual texts.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

The first picture is not even close to reality (in the context of what it was presented). There are no innocent children, as a matter of fact, the Bible says we are the willing criminals. That changes everything.

God is not the author of sin — He is the righteous Judge who chooses to show mercy to some guilty sinners while giving others what they deserve (Romans 9:15, 22-23). Both His justice and His mercy are glorified.

Both analogies are not true. Better analogy should be like this:

Imagine five guilty murderers who have all jumped into the lake on purpose, are actively swimming away from the rescuer, cursing him, and trying to drown themselves and others.

The rescuer (who had every right to let them drown) sovereignly decides to save some of them. He dives in, overcomes their resistance, and pulls them into the boat against their will, not because they were seeking rescue, but because he chose to show them mercy.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

"No sinner is 'in control' of their own salvation."

That’s the whole point.

If Christ didn’t die for a particular person, it’s not because that person was “in control.” It’s because they are spiritually dead and hostile to God (Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 8:7).

Limited Atonement doesn’t remove man’s control, it simply confesses that man never had it to begin with.

Salvation is of the Lord from start to finish (Jonah 2:9). Christ didn’t just make salvation possible for all. He actually secured it for His people.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

"The Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election to salvation is a false teaching that causes many to stumble."

This is a serious charge, but it is not true.

1. Unconditional Election is Biblical
The Bible clearly teaches that God chooses people for salvation not based on anything in them, but according to His own good pleasure:

- Ephesians 1:4-5 “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world… according to the purpose of his will.”
- Romans 9:11-13 - God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was made “before they were born and had done anything either good or bad.”
- John 6:37, 44, 65 “All that the Father gives me will come to me… No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. ”

Election is unconditional because it is based on God’s grace, not human merit, foreseen faith, or works.

2. Does It Cause People to Stumble?
No. In fact, the doctrine of election protects people from stumbling in several ways:

- It humbles human pride. No one can boast that they chose God first (1 Corinthians 1:29-31). Salvation is entirely God’s doing.
- It gives real assurance. If my salvation depended on my performance or my “free will,” I would have no confidence. But if God chose me before the foundation of the world, I can rest in His unchanging love.
- It fuels evangelism and missions. Paul, the great evangelist, was deeply committed to election (see Romans 9–11 and 2 Timothy 2:10). He knew God had “many people” in Corinth (Acts 18:10), so he kept preaching.

The real stumbling block is not election, it is the pride of the human heart that wants to be the final decision-maker in salvation.

3. The Real Danger
What actually causes many to stumble is the **opposite** teaching: that salvation ultimately depends on our own choice or goodness. This leads to:
- Anxiety (“Did I believe enough?”)
- Pride (“I chose God”)
- False assurance (“I made a decision once”)

Unconditional election removes all grounds for human boasting and places our salvation squarely in the hands of a loving, sovereign God.

The gospel is this: God, in His great mercy, chose a people for Himself in Christ before the world began, and He is calling them to Himself through the preaching of the gospel. Those who believe were chosen. Those who reject do so because of their own sin and rebellion.

Election does not cause stumbling. It magnifies grace and gives believers rock-solid hope.

Personal experiences and anecdotes don’t determine whether a doctrine is true. The question is: What does the Bible actually teach? I have replied with what the Bible teaches, I hope you do the same.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

"Biblical question: When Abraham offered up Isaac, who did that justify him to? God or other men?"

Both, but in different ways.

1. Abraham was justified before God by faith alone
This happened years before the offering of Isaac:

> “And he [Abraham] believed the Lord, and **he counted it to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6)

Paul uses this exact verse to prove justification by faith alone. Romans 4:3 “For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.’”

At this point, Abraham had done no great works. He was justified by faith alone, before God.

2. The offering of Isaac justified / vindicated him before men (and confirmed his faith)

James speaks about this event in James 2:21-23 “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? … and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’, and he was called a friend of God.”

James is not contradicting Paul. He is using “justified” in a different sense: vindicated or proven genuine before others.

- Before God → Justified by faith alone (imputed righteousness).
- Before men → Justified (shown to be righteous) by works.

The offering of Isaac didn’t make Abraham righteous before God. It demonstrated that his faith was real and living.

Abraham was declared righteous before God the moment he believed (Genesis 15).
The sacrifice of Isaac proved to the world (and to himself) that his faith was genuine (Genesis 22).

This is the classic biblical distinction between justification (before God) and vindication (before men). Both Paul and James are correct when read properly.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

You said: "Philippians 1:29 is about the opportunity to believe, not the ability to believe." Allow me to respond to this.

This interpretation misses the meaning of the verse and the Greek word used.

“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” (Philippians 1:29)

The key Greek word is ἐχαρίσθη (echaristhē), from χαρίζομαι (charizomai). It means “to give graciously” or “to grant as a favor.” It is the same word used for God’s gracious giving in salvation (e.g., Romans 8:32, Galatians 3:18).

Paul is not talking about a neutral “opportunity.” He is saying that both believing in Christ and suffering for Christ are gracious gifts from God to the believer.

Your argument says: “Everyone already has the ability to suffer from birth, so the ‘giving’ cannot mean ability.”

This misses the point. Paul is not talking about the natural ability to suffer. He is talking about the privilege of suffering for Christ’s sake as a Christian. Not everyone suffers for Christ. That is a special grace given to believers.

In the same way, while every human being has the natural ability to believe something, the Bible teaches that fallen sinners do not have the spiritual ability to savingly believe in Christ apart from God’s grace (John 6:44, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:8-9).

Paul deliberately puts "believing" and "suffering together" as two things that are graciously granted by God.

- Suffering for Christ is not something we naturally desire or do on our own.
- Saving faith in Christ is also not something we naturally desire or do on our own.

Both are gifts of God’s grace in the Christian life.

In Philippians 1, Paul is writing to believers who are already suffering for the gospel. He is encouraging them that their faith and their suffering are both part of God’s gracious purpose for them. This is not about giving unbelievers an “opportunity.” It is about what God has already granted to those who are in Christ.

In its context, Philippians 1:29 does not teach that God merely offers people the chance to believe. It teaches that saving faith itself is a gracious gift from God, just like the privilege of suffering for Christ is a gracious gift.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

Let me reply to what you have said, I hope this will enlighten you. If not, then this is for the others in this thread for edification and inspiration.

"Another contradiction no Christian can answer?" Actually, this one has been answered for centuries.

The Two Genealogies Explained:

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give two different genealogies of Jesus on purpose.

- Matthew’s genealogy (through Solomon) traces Joseph’s legal line**. It shows Jesus is the legal heir to David’s throne through Solomon. This is the royal line. Note that Matthew says Joseph is the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16).

- Luke’s genealogy (through Nathan) traces Mary’s line (Jesus’ biological line). Luke is careful to say “Jesus… being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23). The phrase “as was supposed” signals that Joseph was not His biological father.

Why Two Different Fathers for Joseph?
Joseph had a legal father (Jacob) and a biological father (Heli). This is easily explained by levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-6), a common practice in Israel. If a man died without children, his brother would marry the widow and raise up children in the dead brother’s name. This creates two lines: one legal, one biological.

This is not a contradiction, it is two different perspectives:
- Matthew → Legal / Royal line (for kingship)
- Luke → Biological / Blood line (for humanity)

Why It Matters:
This beautifully fulfills prophecy. Jesus is both:
- The legal descendant of David through Solomon (fulfilling the royal promise).
- The biological descendant of David through Nathan (through Mary).

Far from being a contradiction, the two genealogies together prove Jesus is the rightful Messiah both legally and biologically.

The claim that this is an “unanswerable contradiction” is simply not true. It has been answered consistently by Bible scholars for over 1,700 years.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

@JoshuaBarzon ESV for me.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

"If Sola Scriptura is true, how did the early Church function without the full Bible?"

This is a fair question, but it misunderstands what Sola Scriptura actually means.

Sola Scriptura does not mean “the Bible is the only thing Christians ever used.”
It means: Scripture alone is the infallible, final authority for doctrine and practice. Everything else (tradition, councils, leaders) must be tested and corrected by it.

How the Early Church Functioned:

1. They had the Old Testament
The apostles constantly preached from the Hebrew Scriptures (which Jesus called “the Scriptures” that testify about Him — John 5:39). The Bereans were commended for testing even apostolic teaching against the Old Testament (Acts 17:11).

2. They had living apostolic authority
In the earliest decades, the apostles themselves were still alive and teaching. Their oral teaching carried full authority because they were directly commissioned by Christ. This oral teaching was later written down and became the New Testament.

3. The New Testament was being written and circulated
Paul told churches to read his letters as authoritative (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Peter already referred to Paul’s letters as “Scripture” (2 Peter 3:16). The early church recognized apostolic writings as God’s Word as they were produced.

The early church operated under apostolic authority, first in person, then in writing. Once the apostles died and the New Testament was completed, Scripture became the enduring, sufficient standard (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

This is exactly what Sola Scriptura affirms: the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20), and that foundation is preserved for us in the Scriptures.

The Reformers were not inventing a new system. They were recovering the principle that God’s written Word must judge all traditions and teachings, even those of the church. This why the reformers used the Latin word: Ad fontes ("to the sources")

The early church did fine without a bound 66-book Bible because they had the apostles and the Old Testament. We have something even better: the completed, written Word of God.

[PhileoAgpao @DareSayAgain]

"This view seriously underestimates what the Bible means by 'dead in spirit.'"

We are afraid not because we are separated from his love, we are afraid because we are under God's wrath because of our sins.

The post makes spiritual death sound like a simple lack of information as if we’re just uninformed and need better evidence of God’s love. But Scripture says something much deeper:

1. Spiritual Death Is Not Just “Not Knowing”
Ephesians 2:1-3 “You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked… by nature children of wrath.”

“Dead” does not mean “uninformed” or “afraid because we don’t know God.” It means spiritually lifeless, unable to perceive, respond to, or love God on our own (1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8). We don’t just lack information. We have a corrupt nature that is hostile to God.

2. The Cross Is Not Just “Information”
Yes, God demonstrated His love at the cross (Romans 5:8). But the natural man does not automatically respond to that information with saving faith. The natural heart suppresses the truth (Romans 1:18) and finds the cross foolish (1 Corinthians 1:18).

That’s why we need more than information, we need regeneration. God must first make us alive (Ephesians 2:4-5) so we can see the glory of Christ and trust Him.

3. Faith Is Not a Neutral “Choice”
The post presents faith as something we can simply decide to do once we see God’s love “in the flesh.”

But Jesus said:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44).

And:
“Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

We do not “make the choice to trust Him” with an unchanged heart. God must first give us a new heart so that we *want* to trust Him.

The cross is not merely a demonstration of love that we evaluate with neutral minds. It is the power of God that saves those who are spiritually dead, but only after God makes them alive by His sovereign grace.

We don’t just need better information.
We need a new heart.

That’s why regeneration must come before faith not as a result of it.