Featured Behold I STAND at the door and Knock Rev 3

The Biblicist

Yes....that is clearly a big problem and of course it leads to all manner of error.

Winman denies the supernatural aspect of salvation because he does not understand the NT.teaching.That is why every post he offers can not line up with truth as you offer it to him. Here in his own words he denies the supernatural element;

Paul used the supernatural work of God in creation to illustrate what is necessary for a dead sinner to be made alive-

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

 

Mark my brother..... read this & think about it, "This is how they interpret scripture" ..... just as Systematic Theology is how we interpret scripture. Theirs is a lens of synergy/ an anthropocentric perspective where man (you just saw it in these folks statements) becomes the point of reference. While we view it from a monergists/ theocentric perspective. These are points of view (point from the view).

If you were to ask me personally my doctrinal perspective, well Im firmly encamped with the Monigerist primarily because I have seen the results of not standing by salvation by grace alone vs salvation by divine grace plus human effort.... come to New Jersey and I will show you. Doctrine goes out the door, the name of churches get changed, focus is on seeker friendly environments...... then the spiritual landscape becomes dry & arid. Pathetic really.

 

Winman,

I started a point by point rebuttal of your response to my confession but decided it was useless. It saddens me to say this but you are like the person the Apostle Peter rebukes in the following Scripture:

Acys 8:23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, .

In fairness perhaps it is simply the result of the intensity of your feelings but many of your posts have a tinge of bitterness. This is particularly evident when you are responding to those who believe in the Doctrines of Grace. Now I have poked fun at those of your persuasion, frequently calling them “freewillers” but I don’t believe I have ever said they were intellectually dishonest.

I will make a few general comments.

1. You should read before you respond. I made no mention of conscience in my confession.

2. Your false understanding of Scripture {All means ALL.} leads to universal salvation and to open theism!

3. You really need to go back and read the story of Cornelius. The relation of Cornelius with God was not that of an unregenerate man. In fact, I believe that the story of Cornelius is a demonstration of the Grace of God in election!

 

ALL in the Body of Christ /Church/Bride etc are saved, none will get lost...

Verse is asking Christians there assembled in that church to heed Him, and to invite the Lord to come as he desires into their assemblies and personal lives!

 

I do not deny the supernatural in salvation, regeneration is supernatural and only God can regenerate a man.

But believing is innate in all men.

If only God can cause a man to believe as Calvinism teaches, it would be ridiculous and nonsensical to command any man to believe as Paul and Silas told the Philipian jailer.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

This command to believe would be absolutely nonsensical if Calvinism is true, because in Calvinism no man has the ability to believe. It would be equal to commanding a man to part the Red Sea of his own power, or to make the Sun darken, the Moon turn to blood, and the stars to fall from the sky. Only God has the power to do these things, and in Calvinism only God has the power to cause a man to believe. So to command any man to believe would be utterly ridiculous, and Paul and Silas would have easily understood this.

All men have the innate ability to believe, but that does not regenerate them. God regenerates the man who believes, that is his promise. Paul told the Philipian jailer to believe on Jesus, and then God would save him.

Yes, but what is the light? It is the gospel. It is the message that teaches and illuminates a man, giving him knowledge, enabling him to believe. This is why Paul said preachers must go forth and preach the gospel.

These verses only confirm what I have been saying, it is KNOWLEDGE that enables men to believe. As Paul implied in Romans 10:14, a man must HEAR the gospel to believe, and he cannot HEAR unless a preacher be sent.

Paul did not say one word about the necessity of a man being supernaturally regenerated to have the ability to hear or believe the gospel. I would say that is a MONUMENTAL omission if Calvinism is true (it isn't).

 

Don't worry, you'll get over it.

I say most Calvinists/Reformed/DoG are intellectually dishonest because it is true. Calvinsts constantly deny scripture and redefine words. This is no secret, it is well known. Recently I posted the famous "Calvinist dictionary" where Calvinism is mocked because it redefines so many words in scripture;

I didn't make that up, Calvinists are FAMOUS for redefining words. That is what I mean by intellectually dishonest, and it is perfectly true.

You can rewrite the story if you wish, but scripture says he was not saved, and that he did not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter preached to him, so he could not possibly have been regenerated when he prayed always and gave alms to the poor.

You said you abhorred the doctrines of grace. The word abhorred means to regard with hate and disgust.

I seem to remember 3 or 4 years ago you explained why you did not like the Doctrines of Grace at first. You believed they made God to appear unjust and cruel, but in time you got over these feelings and accepted DoG.

Now, I could be mistaken, that was quite a few years ago, but I think my memory is fairly accurate.

If not, please explain why you were so "abhorred" with DoG at the first.

 

Look at what Winman says versus what he presents as proof.

1. What he says, "becasue it redefines so many words IN SCRIPTURE"

2. What he presents as proof contains 62 words but only 25 or less than one half are actually found in Scripture. The other 37 are words not found in Scripture..

Out of the 25 that are found in scripture many of his definitions are complete distortions of what Calvinist believe - lies.

This shows you once again that Winman and those of his kind don't fact check what they are saying compared to what they are presenting. They handle the scriptures the same way.

However, the signifcant issue is that Winman is admitting defeat as he is changing the subject rather than sticking to the OP simply because his interpretation has been thoroughly and repeatedly exposed as complete and utter error by sound contextual based evidence - evidence he has not dared to address to this very moment and all who have been following this OP knows that because it is self-evident.

 

Then post that Scripture.

Perhaps because, like you, I put Big I ahead of the Grace of God. But Praise God He opened my eyes 40+ years ago!

 

The only practical reason for responding to Winman, Van or Bob is for the sake of other readers who would be led astray by their errors. That is the only thing that keeps me on this forum.

 

I don't know why I have to teach you scripture, but I will.

We are first told that Cornelius was devout, prayed always, and gave much alms to the poor.

Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Was Cornelius saved here? Absolutely not, because we are told that the angel that appeared to Cornelius told him to send for Peter whereby he would hear words and be saved.

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

So, when the angel spoke to Cornelius, he was not saved. And not only was he not saved, he also did not have the Holy Spirit until AFTER Peter told him the gospel and he BELIEVED. Therefore he also could not have been regenerated, as Romans 8:9 tells us a man without the Spirit is "in the flesh".

Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

As you can see, Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit AFTER he believed. This proves an unregenerate man has the ability to believe the gospel. This completely refutes Calvinism/DoG.

No, perhaps because you were not brain-washed with false doctrine.

Cornelius refutes Calvinism in every way. Here was an unsaved, unregenerated man without the indwelling Holy Spirit who was able to believe in God and do good works that God recognized.

 

a word about that.....I rely at times on you fellows to teach me stuff. see to my way of thinking, dissent, even conflict are necessary to my seeing the whole argument totally from both sides......so therefore whenever you guys leave the forum you invariably eliminate that dissent & conflict dynamic. And w/o that precious dissenting views dynamic, there is no understanding ..... so these pitched battle exercises are good (for me anyway) to sort out things, to gain consensus & finally to commit to a higher plane of understanding.

One caution though & perhaps the most important..... if we are all professing Born again Christians we must always remember that we are all brethren & the lords servants. How we treat our brethren will one day be measured. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I know that Winman does not want to admit this but the word "saved" covers more territory than regeneration. Second, Peter was shown unclean animals that God says He had ALREADY CLEANSED and Peter was not to call them unclean any longer.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

The words "hath cleansed" translate an Aorist tense verb demanding it is already a completed action. Lost people are not already cleansed by God. Corneilius had already believed in the OT gospel as presented in Acts 10:43 but simply did not know that Jesus was that prophetic Christ.

Furthermore, Prior to identifying Jesus as the Christ Peter recognized that persons like Corneilus were already accepted by God:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

All the above verbs are in PRESENT TENSE - "feareth" and "worketh" and so is "IS accepted with him" proving they had already been accepted by God according to these stated characteristics that DECLARED them "clean" in God's sight.

While Peter was preaching the Holy Spirit fell on them as it did on the 120 on Pentecost. The 120 were not saved on Pentecost but were simply empowered and endowed with spritual gifts. Neither was Corneilus saved at that point but merely received the same empowerment and endowment along with Gentile believers.

Hence, "saved" does not refer to regeneration but to their present tense salvation brining them into the congregation of Christ at Jerusalem through baptism. The Jews would have never baptized them in water without the divine empowerment and visible endowment of spiritual gifts.

1. They were already CLEAN in God's sight before Peter came.
2. They were already ACCEPTED by God before Peter came.
3. They were already God fearers and working righteousness in God's sight before Peter came.

They were not "saved" in the sense of PRESENT TENSE salvation which begins with water baptism under the New Covenant administration of the keys of the kingdom. They were not part of the congregational body of Christ which is the ordained way of service under the New Covenant administration. Their lives were being saved just as in the case of Apollos.

He that believeth AND is baptized shall be SAVED - Mk. 16:16

 

What a total bunch of baloney. When Peter saw the sheet descend from heaven it was to show him that the gospel was open to any man and not Jews only.

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

This verse explains exactly what the vision of the sheet coming down showed Peter. Being a Jew he believed it was unlawful for a Jew to keep company or enter the house of someone from another nation, but God showed him he should not call any man common or unclean. Therefore he did not hesitate to go to Cornelius. And that is exactly what Peter said next.

Acts 10:29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?

This verse does not say one word about God saving Cornelius before he heard the gospel, which is ridiculous. Cornelius was not saved until Peter preached the gospel unto him and he believed.

Calvinism must butcher scripture in a vain attempt to fit scripture. FAIL.

 

If that were his only statement then you might have some legitimate point to consider. However, AFTER stating that, he then made a further definitive statement using present tense verbs describing the same characteristics found in Cornelius BEFORE Peter came that demand he was already regenerate as the only works of righteousness acceptable to God originate from a regenerate condition rather than an unregnerate condition and I quote:

34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Note the immediate context of this statement. It was said in response to the testimony of Corneilus BEFORE Peter was sent to him by God. This statement proves you are wrong because these things are products of regeneration not found in unregenerated persons as Ephesians 2:10b explicitly states follows being created in Christ rather than precedes being created Christ. We are "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works." The lost man can do NOTHING GOOD in God's sight because the motive behind all that he does is wrong and that is why he needs a NEW HEART.

Furthermore, Mark 16:16 does in fact associate "saved" with baptism and not merely faith. These were already believers in the OT gospel and their DEVOUT LIFE OF OBEDIENCE TO GOD proves this.

 

Unbelieveable! This is my very point! Cornelius was not saved according to the angel that spoke to him, and he did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he was able to believe in God and do righteous works that were acceptable to God!

You just don't get it, this scripture refutes Total Inability!

You are trying to make the ridiculous argument that Cornelius was saved before Peter preached the gospel to him and before Cornelius believed and received the Holy Spirit! Absurd!!

This is why I said Calvinists are intellectually dishonest. This scripture utterly refutes Calvinism, yet you and Icon will distort and wrest scripture in a vain attempt to make it fit Calvinism.

 

He was not saved in the sense of baptism (Mk. 16:16) under the New Covenant congregational administration nor did He possess the miraculous gifts of the Spirit such as tongues.

However, he had already been "accepted" by God BEFORE Peter was sent, already "cleansed" by God before Peter was sent. His alms and prayers had already been received by God BEFORE Peter was sent.

God never accepts works by lost unregenerated persons as "righteousness" because that would invalidate the need for Christ's righteousness if the works of lost men are accepted as "righteousness" before God.

Your problem is that you have not done a thorough research on the meaning of the word "saved" as you are restricting it only to initial salvation when those "saved" initially need additional salvation in regard to their daily life in progressive sanctification, their bodies in glorification. The same word "saved" is used for all three aspects. The word "saved" is used for intial faith but also for baptism - Mk. 16:16b as baptism is the first step of obedience in saving your daily life in the service for Christ. Look at the use of the word "saved" in 1 Cor. 3:16 where it does not refer to initial salvation.

 

Oh brother, now a Calvinist is telling me that I do not understand what the word "saved" means.

People need "additional salvation"? Unbelievable, where does the nonsense end?

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The scriptures tell me I have already been saved (past tense), that God has shed the Holy Spirit on us (past tense) and that we have been justified by his grace (past tense).

But perhaps you have not been saved yet, or you need some "additional" salvation??

 

Yes, I am telling you that you are completely ignorant of the usage of "saved" in scriptures or you would not be spouting this complete nonsense and I will prove my point.

1. Explain how "saved" includes baptism in Mark 16:16 if "saved" always refers to the initial point of faith?

2. Explain how "saved" refers to the future judgement of rewards in 1 Cor. 3:16.

3. Explain how "saved" includes perseverance unto the end if it has nothing to do other than initial salvation in Matthew 10:22.

4. Explain how "saved" includes child bearing in 1 Tim. 2:15 if it has nothing to do other than intial salvation.

5. Explain how "saved" includes water at the time of the flood when Noah found "grace" in the eyes of the Lord 500 years before the flood if "saved" has nothing to do other than initial salvation - I pet. 2:20

 

I need some more help understanding Scripture Winman. Where does it say Cornelius believed after hearing Peter?

Many Thanks!