Featured 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved'

Not quite.

 

The above is very similar to what I posted before, and yet you rejected it. Why?

This is man-centric. You have man at the center of salvation working out his own salvation. How do you account for that? This is the accusation that you constantly charge us, and yet you have man at the center of salvation. It also seems like a works based salvation "working out your own salvation."

Scripture please. Where does it say that the unsaved man needs sorrow for his sin?
Where does it say that the unsaved man must repent of all remaining sins?
What were the sins that he first repented of?
You sound very confused here. Where is the scripture for all of this?

 

Specifically? I don't believe in yours. It is another gospel. I believe in the Gospel of Christ that frees men from sins, that He brings them to a place of repentance, who are disciples, not charlatan believers that have options to follow/not follow, obey/not obey, believe/not believe, remain faithful/apostatize, live a lifestyle of sin or choose sanctification.

Iconoclast does not believe in a works Gospel, but your gospel is most definitely a gospel of works;

Concerning that it is impossible with men to be saved you stated 'It is difficult, not impossible'. Yep. We get it. In your gospel men can do it, but it's difficult! You also say Christ didn't say with men it is impossible, but we have His recorded words in Matthew 19:26 that disprove your statement and gospel.

https://www.baptistboard.com/thread...us-christ-and-you-will-be-saved.97511/page-12

 

I simply quoted you scripture that:
1. Refuted your position.
2. Defined the gospel for you.
--If you don't understand the gospel from the Bible I don't know what you believe, and it is certain from your post that you don't know what I believe. Either that or deliberate misrepresentation is a quality you practice.

Icon can speak for himself.

The word "difficult" comes directly from scripture, just not the KJV. Your argument is with God.
The word "impossible" comes directly from scripture, as does the word "possible." You argument is with God. Having said that it seems you have more a problem with comprehension. Or perhaps it is a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation. You can explain which you were doing.

 

"DHK,

YOU DID MISREPRESENT ME....YOU DO 98%OF THE TIME.

THAT IS A LIE.....DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SPEAK FOR ME. YOU CANNOT BE TRUSTED.....OFFER A DIRECT QUOTE.

BUT YOU HAVE AND IT SEEMS QUITE DELIBERATELY.

 

You're living in a dream world, you've done nothing such. Ever. Nor can you.

What you've really done is:

1. Misrepresented my position, or as you like to lay the charge on others, you 'lied'.
2. Defined your works based religion.
3. Twisted Scripture.

...and all can see it plainly.

 

No, he believes a biblical Gospel...and you believe in the total ability of man and preach that with man salvation 'is possible but difficult'. The Christ of God says with men it is impossible. Your gospel is unbiblical and against the Word of Christ.

 

You are set in your ways almost in the same way that you describe the unsaved man of whom you say cannot believe, and so you will not believe even if I showed you otherwise.

Total Inability is not taught in Scriptures, and the verses you give do not support it.
Concerning Jer.13:23, I used to teach it as you do, but then I saw the error in it. I also saw that people do come to Christ in spite of their wickedness which cannot be denied.
Clarke says:
...who have been accustomed to do evil. It is a matter of the utmost difficulty to get a sinner, deeply rooted in vicious habits, brought to the knowledge of himself and God. But the expression does not imply that the thing is as impossible in a moral as it is in a natural sense: it only shows that it is extremely difficult, and not to be often expected; and a thousand matters of fact prove the truth of this. But still, what is impossible to man is possible to God.

It is not impossible. With God nothing is.
1Cor.2:14 is abused, butchered, taken out of its context, etc. Its misinterpretation leads to the denial of a proper interpretation of the following verses in chapter 3, where Paul addresses the believers at Corinth as "carnal," and so they were. To deny this fact is simply a plain denial of Scripture. However, who was being addressed in this passage in 1Cor.2:12-15? It was the saints at Corinth! These carnal Christians were acting out of the flesh, that is carnally, or just like the unsaved. That was Paul's point here. If you are engaged in ungodly activity or you are not growing spiritually for some worldly reason, then you will not receive the light of the Word that you ought to. This is addressed to Christians. It has an application to unbelievers but is addressed to carnal believers. It is not an absolute statement that the unbeliever is unable to understand the Word of God. That application cannot be made.
I have heard many testimonies of individuals who were saved by just reading the Bible with no outside influence, one just recently. If that be true, then of course the Calvinist has attached a wrong meaning to the verse just eisigeted.

 

Certainly, one cannot separate "faith and repentance" but the faith is not ours "to place in Christ." It is His faith measured out (Romans 12:3) to every believer in which cannot help but cause the person to repent. That all Godly repentance is generated from God (2 Corinthians 7:10, 2 Timothy 2:24).

Salvation is not an act of will (John 1) but the direct and purposed work of God to those in whom He has claimed as His own children. (Romans 8:16, 9:8, 1 John 3)

There will always be a tension between those who embrace the DofG and those opposed to that view.

The question is does the opposing views represent a different gospel, or merely an opposing view.

Adrian Rogers was not one who embraced the DofG, yet did he represent a different gospel?

What of W. A. Criswell or John R. Rice who neither would be seen as endorsing all elements of the DofG, do they represent a different gospel?

I ask, because when does a "view" become the only right?

 

When Jesus healed, he always healed "according to YOUR faith," not according to HIS faith. The faith was not of God, but of them, unsaved people coming to Christ. In the Scripture you quote, Rom.12:3 is written to Christians and speaks of the gift of faith, a spiritual gift given to believers only. It has nothing to do with salvation. Likewise in 2Cor.7:10, the repentance and sorrow mentioned refer to the sorrow of believers over a specific sin in the church, not to salvation of believers. These scriptures are taken out of context.
The Lord does not command man to believe and to repent, only then to say that he will do it for him.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It was an act of the will.
The Ethiopian will acted on his own: "What does hinder me to be baptized"? If you believe...
And he replied: "I believe..." An act of the will.

Dave Hunt wrote "What Love is This" in which every point of TULIP is strongly refuted.

Wesley and Whitefield were opposed as two individuals could be in their theology but best of friends to their dying days.

 

Brother DHK,

The next verse accounts for how one can "work out" their own salvation, but salvation be all of grace,"
work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:12-13)

As far as what salvation is, Allow me to share a few quotes on an article on the subject from Elder Jim Poole,

"For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which is lost (Luke 19.10)." We are fully persuaded that Jesus will be thoroughly successful in both His seeking and His saving. He will find all He is seeking, and save all He finds. No exceptions. This is salvation in its most commonly used sense. As none but those that are lost will be sought and saved, we must conclude that none but His chosen family are numbered among the lost. Whom will He then seek and save? The lost. All of them. Thus, we are brought to the unmistakable conclusion that there is no plan of salvation for all the world; only for the ones Jesus finally saves. Salvation then, may be said to be the reconciling of the lost to God. The lost are the elect. As John Newton blissfully put it, "I once was lost, but now am found." The elect being found is salvation.

...There are many well-known texts in the Bible touching on the subject of salvation. Many of these texts make the conclusion to be unmistakable that salvation was accomplished in time past, and yet is to be accomplished. None make this clearer than the following: "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life (Romans 5.9,10).

Being now justified" is clear enough, even to those of us that are not language scholars. "Now," does not mean off in the far distant future. Those "being now justified" are surely now delivered, or presently saved from their culpability. The next expression does place salvation in the future, however. "We shall be saved from wrath." "Shall be" was true when Paul penned it, and it is equally true today. As for the word, wrath, we understand its use in this verse to mean the final doom of the unsaved. We see, then, salvation in verse 9 to be both present and future, yet one whole salvation as described in Matthew 1.21, "He shall save his people from their sins."

Verse 10 of Romans 5 employs a division of present salvation from future salvation as well. "We were reconciled to God" cannot possibly be construed to mean a future salvation any more than "being reconciled" can. In this text reconciliation to God is essentially the same as being saved from enmity, or as it is stated in verse 8, "While we were yet sinners." Again, however, verse 10 shifts from present salvation to future salvation with the following language: "we shall be saved by his life." No one with a grain of honesty could make shall be anything but future

What we have tried to show is that salvation, as used here is what we might call a multi-dimensional work. First, last, and always, "Salvation is of the Lord." Salvation involves His every activity that could be embraced in His words, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God (Hebrews 10.9)." It was for the salvation of the elect when Jesus lived under the law. It was for the salvation of the elect when He died at the hands of sinners. So too was it for their salvation when He came forth from the tomb. He sits at the right hand of the father for the salvation of His family. Surely he will return in glory to finally save His people. In whatever tense the word salvation may be employed, it is of grace. We could safely say that Jesus is our salvation, whenever or wherever salvation takes place.

Probably the most irrefutable text dealing with future salvation is "....for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed (Romans 13.11)." If Paul's, and the Roman's, salvation was nearer than at the time they believed then belief did not accomplish for them that future salvation. They yet awaited it. The belief spoken of is a product of faith, and faith is the gift of God, imparted to us, imputed to us, and worked in us when the Spirit brings forth His fruits.

...All of this leads us to the conclusion that salvation is the whole work of deliverance embracing everything that finally brings us to heaven our home. Salvation embraces all that is past, that is present, and that is to come, which delivers us to our eternal union with the Triune God when time shall be no more.

Were we to confine ourselves to one text that sums up the whole matter of our deliverance it would be the following: "Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us (II Corinthians 1.10)." Past, present, and future deliverance; a whole salvation, and all the work of God."

This is the best article on explaining the terms "saved, save, and salvation" in a short, but concise way I have and I was just within the last couple days blessed to have found and read it. Elder Poole writes , "We cannot possibly, within the limits of this article, examine all the texts in the Bible that pertain to these three words. We shall, therefore, address the matter as fully as possible, and leave it to the readers, to search further. To view the grand business of salvation we shall first seek to learn, "What is salvation?" Second, we shall ask, "When are the subjects of salvation actually saved?" Third, we shall inquire, "Is there more than one salvation?"

If anyone cares to read it the link is here http://www.asweetsavor.info/ejp/saved.php

I would especially recommend it to you brother DHK.


God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Thank you for stepping up and speaking truth of what dhk does on this board. It is noted as commendable.

 

Dave Hunt this and Dave Hunt that. David Cloud this and David Cloud that.

Your sources are pathetically weak. D.H. had not a clue about Calvinism. He would cite verses and never exegete. He was a personable guy and wrote some good stuff --but he was out of his element when it came to Calvinism. And that means he did not know the Scriptures.

You have poisoned wells from which you gather foul water.

 

Keep trying to twist what people say. You say salvation is possible with men 'but difficult' placing man as his own capable savior.

Christ says with men salvation is impossible. You disagree and said Christ didn't make such a statement. Is your system more precious to you that you must wrest, deny things that Christ said, and twist other things that are said and be deceitful?

I simply keep pointing out what you say, how you claim Christ never said Matthew 19:26, how you've said salvation is possible with men which is works salvation.

You? You continue to attack me personally and make fabricated false accusations on me while telling me I don't believe the Scriptures. This is among other personal and inflammatory assaults such as calling me a liar many times.

I've quoted what you said several times in this thread, proving your error and substantiating with facts.

You make up things I've not said because there is no place I've said them therefore you cannot quote it. Obviously you think low of people on here and must think they're moronic and can't see what you do on a daily basis and several times daily. All can see what you do. Frankly that behavior is old and several have pointed it out to you.

 

Taking Wesley and Whitefield, how would you compare the theology expressions on the BB as it relates to friendship?

Could it be that they could acknowledge their theological differences, and then not be compelled to prove the other wrong, but glory that the preaching of Christ would result in the redemption of those appointed to be saved?

 

"DHK

You never get it right, you cannot.

This shows you do not understand the terms being used.It happens a little bit too fast for you.
When the verse says God gives a new heart.....it is God centered

Man as a sinner is the object of salvation.is instructed to work out his own salvation.
You wonder how I account for that??? I believe the scripture and understand God's grace in salvation unlike you.
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

You do not and evidently cannot understand scripture concerning the grace of God.

 

Trouble with comprehension? With following a discussion. Let's try it again. I simply quoted you Scripture, and you have abused it.
Here it is:
Mark 10:23 Jesus looked around, and said to his disciples, "How difficult it is for those who have riches to enter into the Kingdom of God!" (WEB)
--Jesus said it was difficult in this verse, not impossible. True or false?

You are making accusations and claims that I never made.
Christ said: It is difficult for those who have riches to enter into heaven. (vs.23)
Then again:
Mar 10:24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!(vs.24) [ESV]
--A second time he emphasized it is difficult to enter into the kingdom of God.

Here he speaks of the degree of difficulty:
Mar 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
--It is not impossible, but quite difficult.

And then:
Mar 10:26 And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?"
Mar 10:27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God."
--It is not impossible for all things are possible with God. I have never said anything different. But you have continually misrepresented what I have said. Is it clear now?

Which is a complete misrepresentation of the facts as I have just demonstrated to you.

 

DHK

You are a liar. I have contradicted nothing.

You are a Liar. I would never say God changes His mind. you have no problem taking the name of God in vain in such a profane manner.

You are a liar....show where this is found.

You are a Liar.
I have spoken very plainly on this that I do not believe in any form of works salvation, Brother Joseph pointed out your lie and slander. Internet theologian has pointed out you lies and slander.
You are unfit to be a moderator on a Christian message board. You are a disgrace....Cautious
You post this vile filth;

You are a liar, unfit to be a moderator.

Brother Joseph said this;

Internet theologian said;
Iconoclast does not believe in a works Gospel,

DHK says

You are a liar and unfit to be a moderator

I posted this;

dhk said

 

Yep. He is all that. He still is trying to twist his error that he believes with man salvation is possible its just that it is difficult. It is up above this post. He goes to another passage outside of the context of discussion and erects a straw man argument.

He claimed Christ did not say salvation with man is impossible which is bearing false witness.

He starts off his responses with name calling, demeaning accusations such as we can't comprehend, don't believe the Bible all the while fabricating an entire post in deceit. Obviously he thinks people are incapable of seeing his behavior and cover ups. They're smarter than that.

The fact remains that this moderator has taught salvation is possible with men while denying the Christ of God taught the exact opposite. So he runs to another text altogether and wrests it in attempt to clean up his messy works based theology.