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

[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.

I'm convinced you can't

 

[Iconoclast]

"InTheLight,

I don't know anything about whether or not DHK deletes posts. Don't care. He's a mod. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Get over it.

This has happened over the last two years...it is important if you want to understand what is going on.

I see. When you see something you believe to be false doctrine you address the problem. When I see something that is false doctrine, and make no mistake about it, Calvinism is false doctrine, I'm on a jihad.

ITL....if you believe it to be false, that does not make it so, when I believe something to be false, that does not make it so....What scripture teaches makes it so however.
You think Calvinism is wrong, ok...show it scripturally...I do not believe you can do it.
If you can by all means...I will interact with you scripturally.
If you do not insult me saying I believe what cults do, or an accursed gospel of works, I would not speak to you in a harsh manner.
Many do not even respond to DHK anymore because of how he conducts himself....not just what he believes or does not believe...it is the dishonesty. re-read the posts....be objective.

You are going to need to show me where I keep accusing you of a works based gospel.

I did not say you did, unless I mixed up your quote with his....he has done it several times in the thread....do I have to repeat them for you? or can you read his responses to me and to {IT} and to brother Joseph?

I did say (once) if one believes in "repenting of your sins" for salvation, then yes, that is works based.

ok...but read carefully...that is not my wording...it is how DHK delibrately twists my words, or rippon, or OR's words, or INTERNETS Theologians words
...that is the whole basis of this pathetic bickering...he does it in every thread, as his hatred of calvinism must be inserted everywhere...read the whole thread...we are used to his attack mode, and his M.O> so we attack him right from the get -go. We each know what he does.

Unsaved people repent of their sins all the time. The drunk can quit drinking, the thief can quit stealing, without conversion to Christ.

That is more of a fleshly reformation...not a God given repentance and faith...we repent and keep on repenting...we are commanded to MORTIFY all sin....rom 8, col 3

What do you call it when you constantly ascribe Finneyism to DHK and he states he thinks Finney is a heretic and he doesn't agree with him? Is that not lying by your definition (above)?

DHK has said several times that Finney was a heretic, that is true. That is after we brought it up to him several years ago....meanwhile he teaches the same main teachings Finney did.

 

[MB]

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

Here you go.

Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

MB

 

[DHK]

DHK: Constantine did not create a Christian Church. You come up with the wildest things.

And you have not answered why you jumped from Constantine to the First Crusade 770 years later as if it was next chronology.

Constantine made Christianity "the official religion" and made it a "state-religion". Once united with the state IMO that was the official beginning of the RCC. He paganized Christianity. He made Christianity, so-called, palatable for the pagans as it remains to this day. It was more political than Christian. It still is.

What did Constantine say when he saw his vision of a cross? He would conquer through it. It was the foundation of the 11th and 12th century crusades. He himself went on a crusade persecuting others.

Read a little about the life of Constantine from A.T. Armitage:

In his early manhood, he worshiped at the shrine of the gods, but, after the removal of the government to Constantinople, he forbade pagan worship in that city and leveled its temples throughout the Empire. Having renounced that religion himself, he persecuted the unconverted pagan for his constancy therein. He is said to have seen the cross in the sky, but possibly his Christianity had Rome a higher character had he discovered love for the true cross of Christ in his soul; crosses in the firmament are of rather light moral worth. Unfortunately, it was years after this traditional vision that his nominal Christianity allowed him to kill his son, his second wife, and others of his family. Full of ambition and passionate resentment, it would require considerably more today than a sky miracle, a sword in the hand, and a conquering army at the Malvian Bridge to give him membership “in good standing” in the Baptist Church recently established at Rome. It is said that the cross in the heavens was attended with the inscription: “By this sign conquer!” What and whom? His own sin? His own soul? It seems not. But rather Maxentius and Rome and a throne. At the beginning, Jesus had made himself king in Zion, to disallow all imperialism there; and did he now rise from his throne to hang his cross of peace an ensign of blood in the firmament, and to indicate that he turned over his universal lordship to an unregenerated heathen? This cross story needs thorough revision.

 

[agedman]

Maybe you could show where the free gift of Salvation is effectual to everyone.
For me the Holy Spirit was effectual in convincing me of the truth eventually. It is He that truly brings men to Christ. I was raised in a Baptist Church and I myself rejected Christ many times before I finally became convinced of Christ.
I accepted Christ and I surrendered to Him. but it took14 years of hearing the gospel for me to actually come to that point of being saved
MB

MB,
Thank you for that good testimony.

I think John is clear that only those who do not turn from the light are "given the power to become (saved) the sons of God."

Paul saw light and responded to the light and understanding the voice. The ones traveling with him heard the voice, but saw no light (acts 9). Paul (as others) are chosen (as all believers) for a specific "mission" and purpose (Acts 15).

Christ said, "All that the Father gives to me will come." Such do not come of their own determination, but by the direct purposed will of the Father. How each comes is part of that determination. It took you 14 years, and as a result, the salvation is unique. Others are brought in the first hearing, the salvation is unique.

You came, because the Father gave you the power to come. That you came was never in doubt to the Father.

Again, thank you for the testimony.

 

[agedman]

Constantine made Christianity "the official religion" and made it a "state-religion". Once united with the state IMO that was the official beginning of the RCC. He paganized Christianity. He made Christianity, so-called, palatable for the pagans as it remains to this day. It was more political than Christian. It still is.

What did Constantine say when he saw his vision of a cross? He would conquer through it. It was the foundation of the 11th and 12th century crusades. He himself went on a crusade persecuting others.

Read a little about the life of Constantine from A.T. Armitage:

I read A. T. Armitage as "Sten-Erick Armitage" a faculty member of DTS.

I think I am getting sleepy.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Thank you brother for being cordial.

Joh_3:20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

These have rejected the light of God that will save them. they hate the light neither will they come to the light. This shows they can see the light but still will not come.

Hi again Brother MB,

John 3:20 is not proof of one rejecting salvation it simply says that evil people #1 hate the light # 2 never come to the light as it will expose their deeds as evil. There is nothing that says the light is being offered.

No where in scripture are we called to Salvation. The Gifts and calling both happen after Salvation has been received. The gifts are spiritual and the calling is an appointment to a specific job such as preaching or missionary or any number of different callings. Please reread this chapter and you will under stand..

Jesus issues a sovereign effectual call to His elect with His voice to, "25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" A man can give the words of Christ but not His voice, thus this can't be referring to the gospel. Also, John 10:27-28, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me...28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish "

Maybe you could show where the free gift of Salvation is effectual to everyone.

For me the Holy Spirit was effectual in convincing me of the truth eventually..

All analogies of the new birth presented in the scriptures suggest an irresistible power working on a passive object. In particular, the acquisition of spiritual life is presented in the scriptures as being analogous to:
1) birth - Jn 1:11-13, Jn 3:3-8
2) quickening - Eph 2:1-5, Col 2:13
3) translation - Col 1:12-13
4) resurrection - Jn 5:25-29
5) creation - 2Cor 5:17, Eph 2:10

No individual experiencing any of the above transitions ever contributed in the least degree to the transition, nor have they ever successfully resisted it.

. I accepted Christ and I surrendered to Him.

No scripture in the Bible speaks of us “accepting” Christ to be saved, as a matter of fact the opposite is true, when acceptance is mentioned in the New Testament it is Christ making us accepted through the atonement, “To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:6). Also, no scripture talks of salvation being an “offer” and the “sinner’s prayer” is also an invention of man and not found in the preaching of the gospel in Acts or for that matter any place in scripture. The new birth is the result of God's will, not man's will, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13)

God bless you,

Brother Joe

 

[InTheLight]

Hi again Brother MB,

John 3:20 is not proof of one rejecting salvation it simply says that evil people #1 hate the light # 2 never come to the light as it will expose their deeds as evil. There is nothing that says the light is being offered.

That is found in John 1:9

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Can you see where you assume? I didn't say man makes it work, you did. You see your trying to place words in my mouth. God is the one who makes it work He just does not force it down our throat

God does both the willing and the doing of our salvation, "
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)

 

[BrotherJoseph]

That is found in John 1:9

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

[/QUOTE]

Hi Brother IntheLight,

I am afraid you are misinterpreting that verse. The correct interpretation is below.

"The light shines upon the dead and blind as well as upon the living, who have eyes to see and enjoy it. As light maketh manifest, so by the true light every thing is made manifest. This true light reveals to those, who have eyes, all things exactly as they are. The Jews who trusted in their own legal righteousness are exposed by this light. “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloke for their sin.” John 15:22. Such is the effect of light, it makes manifest that which the darkness concealed. There is a wide difference between lighting and enlightening. Every man that cometh into the world is manifested in his real character by the true light; for it discriminates between life and death, between truth and error, between nature and grace. The sense in which it is said, “That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” cannot be rendered enlightened, without conflicting with the immediate connection. He who is this true light was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. The world then was not enlightened; yet the true state of the world was made manifest by this true light. The natural sun lightens the natural world, and shines as well upon the blind as on such as can see. It lightens the inanimate as well as the living. The world must be the same world into which the incarnate Word came, when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us; the same world which was made by him, and yet knew him not. The world by wisdom knew not God. None of the princes of this world knew him; for if they had known him, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But the light of revelation so shines upon the hidden things of dishonesty as to bring them to light. It shineth in even darkness itself, but the darkness comprehendeth it not." http://www.asweetsavor.info/egb/advent.php

 

[DHK]

God does both the willing and the doing of our salvation, "
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)

If this were written to the unsaved it would be a works based "gospel."
But it is not. It is written to believers. Therefore it is speaking of progressive sanctification, of crucifying the old man on a day to day basis, of dying to self, of yielding to the Holy Spirit, of presenting your body as a living sacrifice holy, acceptable unto God which is only reasonable. Salvation in this sense has three parts to it: justification, sanctification and glorification. This verse refers to "sanctification," not justification.

 

[Revmitchell]

Oh, please tell me again that in the 2nd epistle of St. Peter chapter 3, verse 9:

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.


.... is written to believers who have ALREADY REPENTED.

Just because they are believers that have already repented does not define the context as meaning after salvation. You usually make pretty good arguments even when I do not agree with them. On this issue you seem to struggle.

 

[Iconoclast]

If this were written to the unsaved it would be a works based "gospel."
But it is not. It is written to believers. Therefore it is speaking of progressive sanctification, of crucifying the old man on a day to day basis, of dying to self, of yielding to the Holy Spirit, of presenting your body as a living sacrifice holy, acceptable unto God which is only reasonable. Salvation in this sense has three parts to it: justification, sanctification and glorification. This verse refers to "sanctification," not justification.

The old man has been crucified.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

. Salvation in this sense has three parts to it: justification, sanctification and glorification. This verse refers to "sanctification," not justification.

Hi Brother,

I agree with you that salvation has multiple phases. All phases of salvation are "of the Lord". This is seen in this verse "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 in this verse, and all the work of God.

 

[DHK]

Hi Brother,

I agree with you that salvation has multiple phases, but I disagree with you by saying the salvation that God works out the "will" and "to do" of His good pleasure in Philippians is restricted to sanctification because the epistle was written to believers.. All phases of salvation are "of the Lord". This is seen in this verse "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 in this verse, and all the work of God.

The fact that Philippians was written to believers does not mean Paul could only be talking about "sanctification", otherwise we would have to conclude Romans, Galatians, etc. that were also written to believers could only be taking of sanctification, not all phases of salvation and I think we can both agree that is not the case.

He is not talking of their past salvation because they were saved. That part they did not need "to work out." We should be able to agree on that. If they still had to work out their salvation (justification), then of necessity they were not saved.

 

[MB]

Hi again Brother MB,

John 3:20 is not proof of one rejecting salvation it simply says that evil people #1 hate the light # 2 never come to the light as it will expose their deeds as evil. There is nothing that says the light is being offered.

The light it self is inviting to those who see it. What Keeps them away is the shame of there own sin. We are all born in sin none of us have no sin. We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. We are guilty every one of us. The light is the gospel and every one in the world knows the truth because it has been shown to them

Jesus issues a sovereign effectual call to His elect with His voice to, "25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" A man can give the words of Christ but not His voice, thus this can't be referring to the gospel. Also, John 10:27-28, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me...28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish "
[/quote
Christ called us sheep because we follow Him. People who do not follow Christ like sheep, are not His. Nor are they sheep, they are goats. They will be separated from us in the future. The only sheep Christ has are those given to Him. We are not sheep until we are saved.
Being chosen does not mean Salvation, it means we are chosen for Salvation. It's not a Guarantee of salvation.

All analogies of the new birth presented in the scriptures suggest an irresistible power working on a passive object. In particular, the acquisition of spiritual life is presented in the scriptures as being analogous to:
1) birth - Jn 1:11-13, Jn 3:3-8
2) quickening - Eph 2:1-5, Col 2:13
3) translation - Col 1:12-13
4) resurrection - Jn 5:25-29
5) creation - 2Cor 5:17, Eph 2:10

No individual experiencing any of the above transitions ever contributed in the least degree to the transition, nor have they ever successfully resisted it.

I did for 14 years I resisted the Holy Spirit. Everytime man sins he is resisting the Holy Spirit saved or not. Every time we resist we are rejecting God. Other wise you'd have to Claim that it's God will that we sin.

No scripture in the Bible speaks of us “accepting” Christ to be saved, as a matter of fact the opposite is true, when acceptance is mentioned in the New Testament it is Christ making us accepted through the atonement, “To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:6). Also, no scripture talks of salvation being an “offer” and the “sinner’s prayer” is also an invention of man and not found in the preaching of the gospel in Acts or for that matter any place in scripture. The new birth is the result of God's will, not man's will, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13)

God bless you,

Brother Joe

No scripture ever states that a Gift is something we have no choice in accepting either. How ever Christ has invited us to come to Him.

Mat_11:28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
An invitation does not include being dragged kicking and screaming against our will.
MB

 

[BrotherJoseph]

He is not talking of their past salvation because they were saved. That part they did not need "to work out." We should be able to agree on that. If they still had to work out their salvation (justification), then of necessity they were not saved.

Ok I am going to shock you on this one, but I believe I was wrong, the verse in Philippians is dealing with the future Holy Spirit working in us as it pertains to our sanctification as we had no work to "work out" for our justification.

 

[DHK]

Ok I am going to shock you on this one, but I believe I was wrong, the verse in Philippians is dealing with the future Holy Spirit working in us as it pertains to our sanctification as we had no work to "work out" for our justification.

I am glad we can agree.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I am glad we can agree.

Yes, this is a historic moment, has this ever happened with you and Brother Icon? LOL

 

[agedman]

Yes, this is a historic moment, has this ever happened with you and Brother Icon? LOL

Often, when posting, one majors on areas of disagreement, rather than agreement.

On some issues, I have seen Icon and DHK in agreement yet disagreeable. I think in earlier posts I pointed some of the agreeable ground that all the participants stood on to pant over as worn out, overheated runners.

What I seek to do is first find what ground is agreeable, and then lay out the disagreeable.

Seems to me that makes for a clearer understanding, keeps the personality posting as less important, and sharpens the focus upon supporting the specific area of a disagreement (showing the rational for the why of a view).

For example, DHK knows that I come to the topic of salvation from a reformed view (well sort of). I know that he does not. As a result, although he and I may have some sharp disagreement, there are aspects that we also can understand as part of the consistency to a view and the area of thinking the other person holds.