Biblical Order of Salvation

[The Archangel]

Nobody here has shown, or said man is "neutral". That is your strawman you have erected. You are a hard person to figure out. You can be quite cordial in discussions to some, then quite arrogant and rude in your discussions with others. You state it's not about calvinism and arminianism...yet 3/4 of your post is geared towards just that

The comments about man being "neutral" based in what people have argued for--they are owed (not the word they'd use) an opportunity of repentance. Typically and historically, this idea comes from a theological idea of man being "neutral."

And humans being the only way the Gospel is preached, which is what I've been arguing for, is neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian discussion. It is a biblical one that does not seek to systematize.

The passion expressed in these postings, which you have seen as rudeness--despite all attempts to add words to express just the opposite, is for one reason: This topic goes to the very heart of the Gospel.

You are a hard person to figure out. You can be quite cordial in discussions to some, then quite arrogant and rude in your discussions with others.

Coming from you?! Pot...kettle...never mind. Your vitriol is known by all here.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

The comments about man being "neutral" based in what people have argued for--they are owed (not the word they'd use) an opportunity of repentance. Typically and historically, this idea comes from a theological idea of man being "neutral.

Again...a strawman since nobody has stated (even as you have admitted) such verbiage, or even insinuated as such.

And humans being the only way the Gospel is preached, which is what I've been arguing for, is neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian discussion. It is a biblical one that does not seek to systematize.

Really? Who preached the Gospel to Saul? Who is preaching the Gospel in Rev. 14:6? Are you telling God how He can share the Gospel?

The passion expressed in these postings, which you have seen as rudeness--despite all attempts to add words to express just the opposite, is for one reason: This topic goes to the very heart of the Gospel.

Let's see...passion, or rudeness? Give me a break! Don't say dumb stuff.

Coming from you?! Pot...kettle...never mind. Your vitriol is known by all here.

If slinging mud makes you feel better. Continue on with your Jeckyl and Hyde postings...

 

[The Archangel]

Again...a strawman since nobody has stated (even as you have admitted) such verbiage, or even insinuated as such.
Really? Who preached the Gospel to Saul? Who is preaching the Gospel in Rev. 14:6? Are you telling God how He can share the Gospel?

Point given on Saul. But, I'm sure we'd agree that it is a special case and quite out of the ordinary.

No, I'm not telling God how He can share the Gospel. I'm telling people what the Bible says in regards to how God has chosen to share the Gospel. Again, Romans 10.

Time and time again we are told Christ shares the Gospel, but it is through His Church--the individual believers, as His representatives--that this is done.

Let's see...passion, or rudeness? Give me a break! Don't say dumb stuff.

Given my tendencies to use large words when seeking to demean someone (and I do work on this constantly), this comment is not rude. The printed page, unfortunately, doesn't carry the inflection that was intended. This phrase is more dismissive than anything else--at least that's how it was meant.

If slinging mud makes you feel better. Continue on with your Jeckyl and Hyde postings...

Frankly, I have rarely seen Jekyll postings from you. In the years that I have been reading postings on this site, I have almost never seen you carry on a cordial conversation. Perhaps, as in the case above, I can't tell the tone of your postings by simply reading them.

This is not slinging mud--it seems to me that you seek to "destroy" opponents rather than discuss with them. Again, my impression. So I took your encouragement to be more cordial in my postings to be like Richard Nixon encouraging people to be more honest.

Again, not meant to incite a further disagreement. I'm being frank with you--which you deserve (not in any punishment sort of way, but because you are a brother in Christ).

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

Point given on Saul. But, I'm sure we'd agree that it is a special case and quite out of the ordinary.

We can't, and don't know...so I can't agree. I have read some testimonies of those in countries hostile towards Christians, and some sound similar to Saul's account.

No, I'm not telling God how He can share the Gospel. I'm telling people what the Bible says in regards to how God has chosen to share the Gospel. Again, Romans 10.

Time and time again we are told Christ shares the Gospel, but it is through His Church--the individual believers, as His representatives--that this is done.

I agree we are to share the Gospel, and God intends to spread the Gospel through man, however, we are not told we are the only means of doing so. If an angel can proclaim the Gospel, and we know Christ proclaimed it Himself, it is a reach to claim that only humans are known to do so.

Given my tendencies to use large words when seeking to demean someone (and I do work on this constantly), this comment is not rude. The printed page, unfortunately, doesn't carry the inflection that was intended. This phrase is more dismissive than anything else--at least that's how it was meant.

Frankly, I have rarely seen Jekyll postings from you. In the years that I have been reading postings on this site, I have almost never seen you carry on a cordial conversation. Perhaps, as in the case above, I can't tell the tone of your postings by simply reading them.

Provide one instance of this prior to your accusation. Start with this very thread if you like.

This is not slinging mud--it seems to me that you seek to "destroy" opponents rather than discuss with them. Again, my impression. So I took your encouragement to be more cordial in my postings to be like Richard Nixon encouraging people to be more honest.

Another false accusation (whether it is your impression or not). Also, take note I didn't encourage you to be more cordial in your postings.

Again, not meant to incite a further disagreement. I'm being frank with you--which you deserve (not in any punishment sort of way, but because you are a brother in Christ).

I think you are quite mistaken, but to each their own

 

[MB]

sez you, that is.

Well if you could find such scripture you would be the first to post it on the board.
MB

 

[The Archangel]

TheArchangel...

I fled the blasphemous "Great Whore" back 27 years ago when God drew me to Himself and sealed me into His body.

For this I am quite glad for you. I went to a catholic high school for 3 years and taught at a catholic high school for 2 years, all the time being a Baptist.

I dont know about your Baptist group, but mine places a high priority on the "priesthood of the believer", meaning of course that we all have the freedom to search the scriptures...sola scriptura...and come to our scriptural convictions.

This particular subject is not even close to being a "foundational truth" such as sola scriptura, justification by faith alone, the Trinity, etc etc.

You are entitled to your view, and I am entitled to my view.

The "priesthood of the believer" does not mean that it is OK for one to come up with an interpretation of Scripture that is contrary to the printed word. This would be like suggesting that 2+2=5 is not wrong, it's just that 5 is your interpretation of the equation.

2 Peter 1:19-21 says:

And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (ESV)

At the very least it means what God intends to say is the most important. It is not important what our interpretation is; it is of vital importance what His interpretation is.

Why do you keep taking what I am saying and thrusting it into some other context that I am not adressing.

Let me try it...ONE...MORE...TIME...

I am NOT talking about me, you, my church, your chuch, my baptist group, your baptist group, or evangelicalism in general.

I am talking about millions of people (either centuries past or now) who live their entire lifetime and for whatever reason...never...one...time...hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Since the scriptures seem to indicate that its possible, and since we know God can see peoples heart and can speak to them in that way, I believe its possible for God to take the gospel to those people, communicate it to them in their heart and conscience, and the ones who enter into faith...God can save them.

But I believe our God is great and mighty and can do as He pleases with His creation.

Because He uses us for His purposes does not mean God Almighty is DEPENDANT upon us for anything.

I understand exactly what you are saying. You seem not to understand what I am saying.

What I am saying is this: God can and does save. But, His saving message, the Gospel, is preached only through believers taking the Gospel to every tribe, tongue, and nation. That is exactly what Romans 10 is saying.

I'm not saying God can't save in the way you are describing; I am saying that He won't. He won't do this because He has stated His one and only means of preaching the Gospel--the believers.

...and you think He is dependant on US to save someone???

C'mon.

No, I don't. I'm simply taking the Scripture at its word--that God has ordained the one and only means of sharing the Gospel. That singular means is believers. To suggest anything else is to go beyond the Scripture, which you insist on doing.

Blessings,

The Archangel


God bless.[/quote]

 

[Rippon]

You say that are damned to hell for not having faith in Christ, even though they never heard of Him.

Their sins are sufficient to consign them to everlasting perdition. You consider pagans who've never heard the Gospel of Christ to be innocent and therefore need a reprieve of God to commute their sentence.

I have more confidence in God than that.

That is, your version of God -- which differs from the biblical model.

You dont consider Jesus Christ to be a person?

That was completely uncalled for. He said or implied no such thing.

 

[Rippon]

You have started with the the presupposition that not all have heard, something that cannot be proven or disproved by either you or I.

Only in WD's world has every single individual heard the Gospel. WD, this is not a Calvinist vs. Arminian issue. Multiplied millions before and after the Incarnation have never heard the Good News.

 

[MB]

Only in WD's world has every single individual heard the Gospel. WD, this is not a Calvinist vs. Arminian issue. Mutiplied millions before and after the Incarnation have never heard the Good News.

Doesn't give anyone an excuse. The Bible plainly states that if Christ was lifted up He would draw all men to Him.(John 12:32) It also says.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Yet you deny the truth of scripture. Men have the truth manifest with in and denying it won't help them. Men are drawn to seek God out. Don't you believe God can cause men to seek Him?
MB

 

[Rippon]

The Bible plainly states that if Christ was lifted up He would draw all men to Him.(John 12:32) It also says.

The word "men" is not in the text -- just some translations. Christ draws all of His own scattered throughout the earth, both Jew and Gentile, to Himself.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Yet you deny the truth of scripture.

I do no such thing. You're trying to make Ro. 1:20 tie in with John 12:32 and there is no connection.

Men are drawn to seek God out.

No they aren't. No Scripture says that. Go to John 6 if you want to read about being drawn.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Well if you could find such scripture you would be the first to post it on the board.
MB

Lots of scriptures have been posted before by others. You and others gleefully and wishfully ignore it.
Why should I bother just for your sake ?
The truth is even if Jesus Christ Himself appears and tells you that truth you will still argue that He is wrong.:laugh::laugh:
Yeah, like Christ said, "even if Moses ......"

 

[Rippon]

Well if you could find such scripture you would be the first to post it on the board.
MB

Your dishonesty is of the jaw-dropping variety. You and I had extensive conversations on the subject about a year or so ago. You deny more Scriptures than affirm them.

 

[MB]

[/size]

The word "men" is not in the text -- just some translations. Christ draws all of His own scattered throughout the earth, both Jew and Gentile, to Himself.

That's not what the text says. It says all it doesn't say of "His own".

I do no such thing. You're trying to make Ro. 1:20 tie in with John 12:32 and there is no connection.

The whole of the Bible is connected. I did no such thing I just showed you two separate scriptures that supports two different aspects of the whole truth.

No they aren't. No Scripture says that. Go to John 6 if you want to read about being drawn.

I know what Jn 6:44 says and it does not imply a particular election.
Particular election was created by men not God and they didn't even have a passage that supported it.
MB

 

[Rippon]

I know what Jn 6:44 says and it does not imply a particular election.

You had said that "Men are drawn to seek God out." I responded by saying that is not found in Holy Writ. Please furnish proof of your assertion.

Now you are going to John 6:44:"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." You also need to see 6:37,39 and 65. "All whom the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled the." No one can come unless the Father draws them -- and they alone will be raised up at the last day. It's pretty particular.

It's rather clear that the Lord has certain people in mind to draw -- not everyone in general."All whom the Father gives" is a marking-off. "I shall lose none of those he has given me" is a delimitation.

Particular election was created by men not God and they didn't even have a passage that supported it.
MB

Well, I have just proven how wrong you are with just a fraction of biblical evidence MB. This doctrine is solidly scriptural. Don't deny the Word of God.

 

[Darrenss1]

Their sins are sufficient to consign them to everlasting perdition. You consider pagans who've never heard the Gospel of Christ to be innocent and therefore need a reprieve of God to commute their sentence.

And my question was simple, does God love them? That's all I wanted to know.

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

Now you are going to John 6:44:"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." You also need to see 6:37,39 and 65. "All whom the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled the." No one can come unless the Father draws them -- and they alone will be raised up at the last day. It's pretty particular.

It's rather clear that the Lord has certain people in mind to draw -- not everyone in general."All whom the Father gives" is a marking-off. "I shall lose none of those he has given me" is a delimitation.

This again... And since God didn't regenerate them before they were saved your whole interpretation of John 6:37 falls by the wayside. I'm always stunned at how interpreting 1 little passage in 1 book can cause so much trouble interpreting the rest of the 65 books of the bible.

Darren

 

[pinoybaptist]

And my question was simple, does God love them? That's all I wanted to know.

Darren

I used to ask the same questions many years ago.
I suggest doing a study on the Book of Life, the owner of whom is the Lamb of Glory, and written from before the foundation of the world, when there were no stars or planets and as in Genesis 1:1 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

No pagans, no atheists, no Muslims, no Baptists, no Roman Catholics, no racists, no liberals, no nobody and no nothing, and the Bible says was when God wrote His people's names in His book (which I understand to be His mind, and the basis of His "I never knew you" statement. He just couldn't remember those who are not His).

If God loved all mankind, then left them to their own corrupt nature to choose Him for their eternal salvation, how unwise a decision for someone who is Omniscient.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Rippon...

"Their sins are sufficient to consign them to everlasting perdition."

Thats true of all of us.

"You consider pagans who've never heard the Gospel of Christ to be innocent..."

None of us are innocent.

...and therefore need a reprieve of God to commute their sentence.

>>>NEWS FLASH<<<



Christ did that on the cross.

Our death sentance was pardoned as a result of Christs sacrificial, propitiary death on our behalf. It takes effect when we are born of the Spirit through faith in Christ.

Normally that is through hearing the gospel. But some live their entire lives and never hear the gospel...from earthly witnesses.

The scriptures I have shared give evidence that God Himself can give those millions enough information, in their heart and conscience, to enter into saving faith, or reject it.

The Apostle Paul is a good example of this direct revelation from God.

 

[Winman]

You had said that "Men are drawn to seek God out." I responded by saying that is not found in Holy Writ. Please furnish proof of your assertion.

Now you are going to John 6:44:"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." You also need to see 6:37,39 and 65. "All whom the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled the." No one can come unless the Father draws them -- and they alone will be raised up at the last day. It's pretty particular.

It's rather clear that the Lord has certain people in mind to draw -- not everyone in general."All whom the Father gives" is a marking-off. "I shall lose none of those he has given me" is a delimitation.

All men are drawn or called, but not everyone who is called will come to Christ.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Matt 22:14 disproves Calvinism. According to Calvinism, a man cannot resist the grace of God. But this verse says many are called but only few are chosen.

Matt 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

This invitation is to any man who desires it.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

All men are invited to come to Christ, but many refuse.

 

[The Archangel]

Normally that is through hearing the gospel. But some live their entire lives and never hear the gospel...from earthly witnesses.

The scriptures I have shared give evidence that God Himself can give those millions enough information, in their heart and conscience, to enter into saving faith, or reject it.

This says otherwise:

14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:14-17 ESV)

In the Greek, the implied answer to all of the questions is "they won't."

The Apostle Paul is a good example of this direct revelation from God.

No, it isn't. Although he didn't believe, Paul knew exactly who Jesus was and he knew exactly what Jesus claimed Himself to be. Paul had heard about (or perhaps seen, at some point) Jesus. Paul persecuted Christians for what they believed (which means he knew exactly what they believed) and was present at Stephen's testimony during his stoning.

So, no, Paul is not a good example. The incident on the road to Damascus served only to make Paul a believer, not to introduce him to Christ in the first place.

Blessings,

The Archangel