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

[agedman]

Is there any disagreement that God does not first work in the heart and life of a heathen to awaken them to the claims of Christ? I haven't encountered anyone on this board who does.

Is there any disagreement that every true believer has a core change, a new nature, in which presses battle against the old heathen nature? I haven't encountered anyone on this board who does.

Is there any disagreement that without the work of the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit not a single person would be born again? I haven't encountered anyone on this board who does.

So, when one boils the controversy of this thread down to the very basics, the crusty residue is made up of disagreements over ________.

When presenting the gospel, what is it that God uses to open the understanding of the heathen heart? A preacher/teacher's words, or the Scriptures?

When one is saved, who or what is it that saved that person?

Can a heathen save a heathen?

Can one who has as their only frame of reality what is presented by the father of all lies take, from that enemy of believers, anything in which to bring awareness of the need of salvation much less the salvation?

Personally, there is a sense of being a manic depressive when reading this thread. Driven to laugh at some of the silly arguments and then nearly to dismay and tears as I realize that the quests who might have been taught something of truth get nothing but bitter disputations from those that should have abundant grace and love for each other.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I said you are a lot closer to Finney's theology than to that of Charles Spurgeon.

Soteriologically speaking he is not even close to Spurgeon. Spurgeon would never claim salvation as an act of the will. DHK And Finney both have claimed this and both are in error.

You charged that Augustine persecuted Bible-believing Christians. That is completely untrue. Of course we all expect you to falsify history as you have done so on countless occasions here on the BB.

Now, back up your charge. Document. If you can't document than admit you have been wrong. It's that simple.

He cannot produce this and simply will not. If he'd admit he is wrong it would do him a world of good.

 

[agedman]

A basic difficulty in which there is much disagreement is the thinking of how much responsibility God places upon humankind.

There are those of the Calvinistic thinking that stress (to an extreme in my opinion) that humankind has literally no responsibility, that God has appointed a specific time that person will acknowledge salvation.

There area those of the Arminian thinking that stress (to an extreme in my opinion) that humankind have an innate quality of freedom to use as a catalyst to acquire salvation.

Both sides want to show in Scriptures the validity of the view and have little tolerance for those that disagree.

Finney (as a typical lawyer trained person) was also of this "rigidly only right view" character, so was Luther, Calvin, and Knox. A student of history will recognize the same was also in the temperament of Moody, Spurgeon, Darby, Bob Jones, Sunday, and other dynamic personalities. Each held a certain amount of difficulty tolerating thinking and views in which they saw as oppositional.

The balance is found by taking Scriptures at face value.
Based solely upon John 1, the following must be acknowledged:

God calls all humankind to repent and believe, and gives light to all.
However, humankind do not take kindly to the light and purposely turn away from the light, shun the light, and mock the light.
So, God has chosen some to be saved.
Those chosen have done nothing to merit that choice, rather what they have not done which was to turn from the light.
Because the light is not turned away, shunned, and mocked, such are given the authority to become God's children, by God.
All given such authority are believers.​

Now, there is no conflict at this point with either the balanced D. of G. or the balanced Arminian views.

Both hold that God is the author and the finisher of the faith.

Those that desire to place man as instrumental in salvation, or completely passive are those that argue from a fringe extreme group.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Of course you said you did. You meant John Knox --but even if you had said John Knox you would have been totally wrong, as I have pointed out.


Based on your posting history I doubt that you can tell what is truth and what is error.

Don Knox? Or was it John Knotts? I can't remember which of the two was the MD.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Right he was. Why else would he right away ask what the Lord would have him do. Asking what some one wants of them is a choice. He didn't have to ask. He was willing to do what ever the Lord asked and did
MB

So he made himself willing, then salvation was able to work, as in your gospel? I'm only going by what you've been saying here and teaching, each of these teachings of yours can be quoted as your statement, it's all I have to go on.

 

[MB]

Of course you said you did. You meant John Knox --but even if you had said John Knox you would have been totally wrong, as I have pointed out.


Based on your posting history I doubt that you can tell what is truth and what is error.

You sir are falsely accusing me of something I did not do. I'm know you cannot prove it So as the saying goes put your money where your mouth is. Or forever be known as someone who speaks falsely about others
.

 

[MB]

So he made himself willing, then salvation was able to work, as in your gospel? I'm only going by what you've been saying here and teaching, each of these teachings of yours can be quoted as your statement, it's all I have to go on.

No you aren't. I did not say the above you did. The reason it's all you have to go on is because you refuse to read what I actually wrote. Then go by what I wrote.

MB

 

[DHK]

I said you are a lot closer to Finney's theology than to that of Charles Spurgeon.

I will simply say I am closer to the Bible, which I follow, and not man.

You charged that Augustine persecuted Bible-believing Christians. That is completely untrue. Of course we all expect you to falsify history as you have done so on countless occasions here on the BB.

A.T. Armitage, in his "A History of the Baptists," says this of Augustine:

The first injunction of infant baptism by Church authority was at Carthage, in 397; the second at Milevium (416); and this last African decree, being confirmed by Innocent I, was the first indorsement of the innovation by authority at Rome. But the great fight, which Augustine made on the subject, marks it as an African movement from the first and shows that it provoked resistance at every step, until his brave contest enforced it on the fifth century. Winer, the learned German, sums up the whole case thus in his Lectures: “Originally, only adults were baptized; but at the end of the second century in Africa, and in the third, generally, infant baptism was introduced; and in the fourth century it was theologically maintained by Angustine.” This great critic thus explains the fact that Augustine (A.D. 353-430) was the first theologian who maintained a place for it in Christian theology and attempted to indicate its theological bearings on the whole Christian system. He presided at the Council of Milevium and was bound to defend the ground which its ninety-two members had taken. Having collected his brethren and pronounced a curse upon those who denied that immersed babes were washed from moral pollution thereby, he was forced to defend the error. And, so, this great mind went from one error into another, until he became the champion of ecclesiasticism, sacerdotalism, and sacramentarianism, all distorted into monstrous proportions.

He pronounced a curse on those who denied that immersed babes were washed from moral pollution.
He grew up in a culture where the RCC persecuted others started by Constantine just over a hundred years earlier who said: "By this cross I shall conquer." And then the crusades began. The state-church of Catholicism started at that time also, which Augustine also believed in, and which Calvin took his ideas from.
Augustine, along with Constantine persecuted the Donatists for they wouldn't go along with Constantine's idea of "unity."

 

[Rippon]

You sir are falsely accusing me of something I did not do. I'm know you cannot prove it.

If the old search system was still in play I could find it easily enough. It is indelibly etched in my mind. I laughed my head off with that remark of yours. Neither some "Knotts" or John Knox himself ever had anything negative to say about John Calvin.

 

[DHK]

Um, no, I'm not wrong. You've only provided general scant things about him, mentioned 'Oberlin Theology' and none of his soteriological views because you know none of them.

That is the context of his teachings in this thread and in what we are discussing. Instead of providing that you talk about Oberlin College and generally nothing about his soteriology. This my friend is because you don't know what he taught soteriologically.

What were his ideologies called? Google it, because you do not know, and if you did know it would be something you would have known to use right off the bat and you'd also be fully aware that his views are an exact match of your views.

You bluster does not replace your ignorance. I am not accountable to you. Do your own homework.

 

[MB]

A basic difficulty in which there is much disagreement is the thinking of how much responsibility God places upon humankind.

There are those of the Calvinistic thinking that stress (to an extreme in my opinion) that humankind has literally no responsibility, that God has appointed a specific time that person will acknowledge salvation.

There area those of the Arminian thinking that stress (to an extreme in my opinion) that humankind have an innate quality of freedom to use as a catalyst to acquire salvation.

Men do not use freedom to be saved they use it to reject Christ.

Both sides want to show in Scriptures the validity of the view and have little tolerance for those that disagree.

Finney (as a typical lawyer trained person) was also of this "rigidly only right view" character, so was Luther, Calvin, and Knox. A student of history will recognize the same was also in the temperament of Moody, Spurgeon, Darby, Bob Jones, Sunday, and other dynamic personalities. Each held a certain amount of difficulty tolerating thinking and views in which they saw as oppositional.

The balance is found by taking Scriptures at face value.
Based solely upon John 1, the following must be acknowledged:

God calls all humankind to repent and believe, and gives light to all.
However, humankind do not take kindly to the light and purposely turn away from the light, shun the light, and mock the light.
So, God has chosen some to be saved
​

You don't have scripture for this do you.

Those chosen have done nothing to merit that choice, rather what they have not done which was to turn from the light.
Because the light is not turned away, shunned, and mocked, such are given the authority to become God's children, by God.
All given such authority are believers.​

Now, there is no conflict at this point with either the balanced D. of G. or the balanced Arminian views.

Both hold that God is the author and the finisher of the faith.

Those that desire to place man as instrumental in salvation, or completely passive are those that argue from a fringe extreme group.[/QUOTE]
No doubt like you as well as me.
MB

 

[Internet Theologian]

You bluster does not replace your ignorance. I am not accountable to you. Do your own homework.

No bluster nor ignorance on my part. Whats wrong, you couldnt find the answers on Google? You don't know just admit it. If you did you'd post it. Any person that has studied Finney's teachings knows the answer to my question.

You've taught what he taught; salvation is an act of the will.

 

[Internet Theologian]

If the old search system was still in play I could find it easily enough. It is indelibly etched in my mind. I laughed my head off with that remark of yours. Neither some "Knotts" or John Knox himself ever had anything negative to say about John Calvin.

Just Google it. I do and find all kinds of things that some have taught and deny they've taught. Just put in the username, a brief statement of what was said and 'baptistboard' and you'll find what you're looking for.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

There are over 300 posts now. ITL pointed out your contradictions as far back as post #88.

I made post 88....there were a few links offered...no contradictions of anything. What a surprise you do not know what you are talking about again.

You are so upset now that you have called me "a liar" five times in this one post alone.

Upset...no not at all. I am just disgusted that you are able to get away with your lying day after day.
Noun 1.

liar - a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly
prevaricator
beguiler, cheater, deceiver, trickster, slicker, cheat - someone who leads you to believe something that is not true
false witness, perjurer - a person who deliberately gives false testimony
fabricator, fibber, storyteller - someone who tells lies
square shooter, straight arrow, straight shooter - a frank and honest per

You are a bit out of order don't you think?

If you were not a liar and i said what I said...I would be out of line. As I have posted direct evidence of
your repeated lying ...I am a faithful witness against you and your lies.

This is what your theology teaches.
On the one hand you say a person must repent of all his sins. You have said that many times.

The bible teaches that God hates sin. Men need to repent of their sins. I believe what the bible says.

Can you now tell us....what sin is OKAY?
You seem to suggest that we do not need to repent of all sin, so which ones are okay....give a verse that says what you suggest.

OTOH, you have said that it is God that grants repentance to man.

Yes ...all grace gifts come from God.
.

I have shown you why, and how you take Acts 11:18 out of its context.

Your weak and defective attempt at an explanation was what was out of context as you seek to explain away verse after verse.

That you don't listen or are not teachable, that I cannot help.

I do not listen to carnal speculation. I am quite teachable as I used to believe the whole false theory of dispensationalism, until I studied the bible some more and realized it was not the truth.

It is sad you have to resort to such ad hominems.

When a person lies and instead of discussing the bible makes personal attacks...any response will have to address the person. There is no way around it. When you did not post for a few days did you notice there was almost no such attacks....just discussion back and forth among those who do not agree, but can discuss ?

OTOH, you are asking the impossible from me. You have a wrong definition of repentance, a definition which is not found in the Bible. as I have said.

You make this claim and yet...you have not addressed any link offered , or shown anything close to this.

Now you want me to show in the Bible where your unbiblical definition is not found??Laugh

I know you cannot really prove anything from the bible so I do not look for you to answer anything.

Since you have made that statement many times, it is my opinion that the salvation message you preach, whether you believe it or not, is basically a works based salvation.

because I believe the message Peter preached on pentecost does not equal a works gospel.
So when I tell you over and over no one is saved by works and you keep stating that I believe such, I believe as the liar you are, the administration should remove you from functioning as a "moderator"

If one must repent of his sins in order to be saved, then that is works

Tell That to the Apostle Peter who taught this;
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.



.

 

[Rippon]

Augustine, along with Constantine persecuted the Donatists for they wouldn't go along with Constantine's idea of "unity."

Augustine did not persecute anyone. Evidence please.

 

[Rippon]

Just Google it. I do and find all kinds of things that some have taught and deny they've taught. Just put in the username, a brief statement of what was said and 'baptistboard' and you'll find what you're looking for.

I cannot google here in China. I have done web searches but they are not as effective as the old BB search engine was.

 

[kyredneck]

he right away ask what the Lord would have him do

??? Can you point me to where Paul said that?

 

[Rippon]

IT, what did I spell incorrectly in post 369?

 

[Rippon]

He grew up in a culture where the RCC persecuted others started by Constantine just over a hundred years earlier who said: "By this cross I shall conquer." And then the crusades began.

Augustine died in 430, predating the Roman Catholic Church. You said "And then the Crusades began." The first Crusade was in 1099. Your "history" is all messed up.

 

[Internet Theologian]

IT, what did I spell incorrectly in post 369?

I'm on a tablet and probably hit that by accident. My apologies.