Featured A Non Elect Person Saved

The nonsense interpretations of dr. faux take place when a passage is divorced from each and every biblical step of salvation; election, the call, sanctification, redemption, justification, regeneration, glorification &c...and these are not necessarily in their proper ordo salutis as I've given.

Thus no passage being used soteriologically is properly interpreted or exegeted without seeing all of these things also within the text. There is no other order of salvation and there are no missing parts in proper salvation.

To interpret otherwise is an attempt to cause another to climb into the fold some other way.

- Blessings

 

Jew: We are the apple of God's eye. Kowtow to us or God will curse you.

 

If Paul said, keep it simple, stupid, then stop with the supralapsarianism and monergism nonsense, so a lay person can understand what you are saying. The long words that most normal people do not use, contribute nothing to the issue, and certainly do nothing if you were telling others the Gospel.

You are one to tell another about a full deck. In one statement you say keep it simple, and the next statement, the two words no one knows or cares what they mean..

So, to rephrase your own words, "keep it simple; stupid. Notice the comma after simple has changed to a semi-colon.

 

It's good to know how you really view A Mary ca.

 

Kentucky is the state I live in, and you can start by shutting your ignorant, fat mouth. Your stupidity shows in this post like all the others. Kentucky was not a southern state. You worry about what goes on in Israel. Take your fake doctorate and start a hog farm.

 

The "non-elect" in either system, the FW camp and/or Sovereign Grace camp, are ones who will not get saved. Now, granted, both camps arrive at their conclusions differently of how the "elect" are saved, but both sides do advocate the "elect" and "non-elect", and the "non-elect", not one of them will be saved.

The "elect" are those who God has chosen. I, being in the FW camp, arrive at this conclusion differently than my Sovereign Grace Brethern. Again, you can not argue that a Moab named Ruth was amongst the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11. So was Rahab the harlot. The "elect" in the OT were both Jews and Gentiles, and the bible supports it.

I agree that the drawing far exceeds the "elect:, but only those who heed to the call/draw will be saved, and therefore, they constitute the "elect".

Well, repentance and faith are God's gift to man, but unfortunately, most don't exercise their God-given gift(this is where my Sovereign Grace Brethern disagree with me, btw).

Can't say I disagree with this.

God will draw all, but only those who are obedient to the call will be saved. They are the "elect". Those who willingly reject the call, constitute the "non-elect".

Again, she saw His miracles, and that He was able to heal her daughter. What made her different than the others around her who chided with Jesus? God had revealed this to her, and she saw Jesus for who He really was.

No one has a desire to come of their own volition. None have a desire to seek God w/o first being drawn. We love ourselves too much to put God first. It is when God acts upon the heart, the mind, the eyes, that our desires are changed by Him.

Again, no one will come to Christ unless first drawn by the Father.

God has dealt the measure of faith to man(Romans 12:3). God is the Author and Finisher of our faith(Hebrews 12:2). There is a spirit in man that God gives understanding to(Job 32:8).

I am not convinced Cornelius wasn't saved. I don't believe that God would send an angel to speak to someone who was lost. At the time of Acts, there was a transition period, where they were coming out of Judaism into christianity. In Acts 19, you can ever read where some had be baptized unto John's baptism, but hadn't even heard if they was a Holy Ghost. Then Apostle Paul laid his hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost. Simon could have been one of those who had been baptized with John's baptism, and God sent word by an angel to send for Peter. I am not sure this was the case, but it is just a thought. But God wouldn't send an angel to a lost man, imo.

Until Christ call's, none of us has a choice. We have no innate ability/desire to come to God in our fallen state. We loved darkness, and enjoyed wallowing in it. It is only after God confronted us with our position, and just how lost, ruined, vile, self-loving, haughty, prideful, we really are, and that w/o Him, we're gonna die forever lost, that we can turn to Him.

I agree with this right here. But to say an "non-elect" can, and will, be saved, is foreign to both camps. It's akin to saying one of the "elect" will die lost. This too, would be foerign to both camps.

 

Amen ... LOL!

 

What a novice.

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
​

and

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit . . .
​

The woman of Canaan was elect.

 

I think it would be quite a stretch to assume she was.

But not for salvation, as you say, but for healing for her daughter.

She repeated what she heard the Jews saying, hoping to get his attention.

No doubt, she humbled herself before Him for the sake of her daughter, not for salvation.

For her daughter's sake, not for her own.

I already addressed that.

And Jesus did not use that phrase with the Syro-Phoenician woman. He didn't say, "your sins are forgiven" (she didn't ask for that), or that her faith had "saved her" (she didn't ask for that) but He gave her the desire of her heart, which was healing for her daughter.

It is a stretch to put them into the same category, since Jesus specifically told the one "your sins are forgiven", but nothing of the sort for the other.

This woman's focus was not on herself, but her daughter.

This is not a passage of text that addresses election or total depravity or even salvation for the woman. The passage demonstrates our Lord's compassion and mercy.

 

Actually Paul is very clear about it in other places:

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

And Christ is very clear about it also:

......the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they art not, but are a synagogue of Satan.....

....the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie.... Rev 2:9;3:9

 

dr. faux should probably rename himself 'Dr.Concordance'. He can find the verses but we all know a concordance can't interpret.

 

I've not read any creeds or confessions.

 

I quoted a creed? You're trippin' hard on something.

I've never read a creed or confession. Anywhere. Now I am certain they are valuable, but you simply slander everything, and many great men of God in the meantime.

So by using the term ordo salutis you derive all this other nonsense? You're talking about when I stated election, calling, justification &c correct? If so, that's called Biblical terminology. Based on this I'm thankful that Paul too is DoG/Reformed.

No wonder you struggle with interpretation. You've just eisegeted what I said in the same manner you eisegete Scripture. It's a pattern for you.