The Cross

[AustinC]

No. When Christians talk of "the Cross" we do not mean just two pieces of wood. Likewise, when we Christians talk about Christ's death, we do not simply mean Jesus died. He ransomed us, delivered us from bondage.

That is what the Passover and the deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt foreshadowed.

What we mean by "the Cross" is the work of Christ (the Incarnation through the Resurrection). It is a way of speaking of redemption. We were purchased with the blood of Christ, ransomed and delivered from our bondage to sin and death.

I am not sure why you make up things about me. I suppose it is easier for you to debate invented arguments than to engage my actual beliefs. But that seems somewhat cowardly and dishonest to me. You are fighting windmills. I don't see what benefit there is in arguing falsely.

You used the word, ransom, a couple times. The Bible uses that term as well. Who did Jesus pay off to ransom people? Did he ransom all humanity or was it a particular people?
Jon, I am simply digging to find out what it is you actually believe since you don't seem to have defined it for yourself.

 

[DaveXR650]

If, as Owen argues, the atonement means that unbelief doesn't disqualify someone from salvation, that seems to imply that faith makes no difference in whether one is saved.
The question then is how can faith making no difference in whether one is saved be reconciled with salvation through faith?

Owen's argument was a hypothetical setup to argue against the Arminian and Universalist position. It was not Owens own view.
Here's Owen's view on the necessity of belief:
"But indeed Christ has no such power, no such ability; he cannot save unbelieving, impenitent sinners, for this cannot be done without denying himself, acting contrary to his word, and destroying his own glory. ...Christ is able to save all them, and only them, who come to God by him. Whilst you live in sin and unbelief, Christ himself cannot save you".

So I know the next question. "Well I guess Owen wasn't really a Calvinist then." A couple sentences later, same paper, same context "This therefore we also give testimony unto in our exhortation to come unto him, namely - that his power to save those that shall comply with his call is sovereign, uncontrollable, almighty, that nothing can stand in the way of. All things in heaven and earth are committed unto him; - all power is his; - and he will use it to this end, - namely, the assured salvation of all that come unto him."

You have to read that carefully, several times or you will miss the thinking of the Calvinist Puritan. It takes a long time to understand how they could preach and invite people to come to Christ; (And "invite" is their word) and yet have a high view of the God's sovereignty and salvation as monergistic. I honestly don't know if it works for the modern mind and I'm not sure if the reason is that we have an improved or more scientific logic or if we are deficient.

 

[Silverhair]

You wrote



You seriously misconstrue Owen's position. I know he is not an easy read but maybe you should look over more carefully what he wrote.

What did I misconstrue?

Parsing out what Owen is saying,
But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If [unbelief is] not [a sin], why should [unbelievers] be punished for it? … If [Christ did die for the sin of unbelief], then why [would the sin of unbelief] hinder [the unbelievers from being saved any] more than their other sins for which [Christ Jesus died]?

Fourthly, if this reconciliation of the world consists (as it does) in a non-imputation of sin, then this is either a non-imputation of all their sins, or only of some sins. If it is only of some, then Christ saves only from some sins. If it is of all sins, then it is of unbelief also, or else unbelief is no sin; if that were true, then all the men in the world must be saved, because their unbelief is pardoned. The world here, then, is only the world of blessed, pardoned believers, who are “made the righteousness of God in Christ.” (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Book 4, ch 3)

His words again that unbelief is pardoned at the cross. Now if this be so then every believer in Christ Jesus would be born righteous. They would have had all their sins forgiven.
So his argument is that if Christ died for all men’s unbelief (along with their others sins), then all unbelievers must be pardoned. Just like his trilemma, the argument here can only float if one assumes that subsequent belief is not needed to obtain said pardon, i.e. that salvation is not by faith.

 

[Silverhair]

Do you really believe it is for the whole world"? Did He die for HItler? If you say "Yes" then you have God either not being omniscient or Him dying for someone He knew would be supremely evil.

Did He die for the sins of those who had long since died before the Incarnation? David? Yes, certainly. I think we would agree on that. But how about Pharoah - a man God set up for His glory? Or Nimrod? Does it make any sense to you that God would die for those whose eternal destiny has long since been settled?

If you admit - as I think you ought - that Christ's atonement for those who lived pre-incarnation was not universal then why should those living from the Incarnation onward to our time be any different? God's foreknowledge makes one era as clear to Him as the other.

Do I really believe that the atonement is for the whole world? YES Do you not believe what the bible say?
Hebrews 2:9 ...should taste death for every man.
1John 2:2 propitiation for the whole world.
1Timothy 4:10 savior of all men.

On what do you base your comment "If you say "Yes" then you have God either not being omniscient or Him dying for someone He knew would be supremely evil." What does one have to do with the other? Since the bible says that He did die for all that would logically include the supremely evil, Pharoah, Hitler, or any other sinner. Romans 5:6-11 Would you not agree that we are all ungodly sinners that deserve the wrath of God? But God is a merciful God that desires to save all 1Timithy 2:3-4 God...desires all men to be saved that is why He gave Himself as a ransom for all men 1Timothy 2:5-6 ...gave Himself a ransom for all

So yes it makes a lot of since that God would die even for those that would reject Him, that is what the bible tells us so why do you not believe it?

 

[DaveXR650]

Do I really believe that the atonement is for the whole world? YES Do you not believe what the bible say?
Hebrews 2:9 ...should taste death for every man.
1John 2:2 propitiation for the whole world.
1Timothy 4:10 savior of all men.

There is nothing wrong with that view. A particular atonement is not universal among Calvinists. Calvin himself is ambiguous on it, although he had a very strong view of a meticulous sovereignty of all details so you can draw your own conclusions. Calvinists hedged a lot by saying Christ's death was sufficient for all, but effectual only for the elect. J.C. Ryle was of that opinion and here's what he said:

Our duty is to invite all. To every unconverted soul without exception we ought to say, "God loves you and Christ has died for you". To everyone we ought to say "Awake, repent, believe, come to Christ, be converted, turn, call upon God, strive to enter in,
come, for all things are ready." To tell us that none will hear and be saved except God's Elect, is quite needless. We know it very well. But to tell us on that account it is useless to offer salvation to any at all, is simply absurd. Who are we that we should pretend to know who will be found God's Elect at last? (end quote)

"God loves you and Christ has died for you" sounds awfully close to what some fresh faced college Campus Crusade worker might say. But this was J.C. Ryle. Two things here. One, anyone who demeans the true, free "offer" of salvation to everyone does not understand Calvinism, at least not the way those who practiced it did. And two, you guys who don't like Calvinism as a theological system have got to understand that there are many past and current serious Calvinists who are excellent at sharing the gospel and yes - even what you could call "soul winners".

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Do I really believe that the atonement is for the whole world? YES Do you not believe what the bible say?
Hebrews 2:9 ...should taste death for every man.
1John 2:2 propitiation for the whole world.
1Timothy 4:10 savior of all men.

On what do you base your comment "If you say "Yes" then you have God either not being omniscient or Him dying for someone He knew would be supremely evil." What does one have to do with the other? Since the bible says that He did die for all that would logically include the supremely evil, Pharoah, Hitler, or any other sinner. Romans 5:6-11 Would you not agree that we are all ungodly sinners that deserve the wrath of God? But God is a merciful God that desires to save all 1Timithy 2:3-4 God...desires all men to be saved that is why He gave Himself as a ransom for all men 1Timothy 2:5-6 ...gave Himself a ransom for all

So yes it makes a lot of since that God would die even for those that would reject Him, that is what the bible tells us so why do you not believe it?

So you believe in an Armenian doctrine; that is, a doctrine of works which teaches a general or universal atonement, meaning that Christ died for every person who has ever lived.

But I’m a Primitive Baptists who believes in a
particular atonement, meaning that Christ died for the sins of His elect only and not for the sins of every man.(Isaiah 53:10; John 10:11,14-15; Romans 9:11-24; Romans 8:29-33; Ephesians 1:4-5; John 17:6-9; I Peter 1:2; I Thessalonians 1:4). If Christ died for every person who has ever lived, all would be saved and this we know is not true for He said, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day" (John 6:37-39).

 

[Silverhair]

Owen's argument was a hypothetical setup to argue against the Arminian and Universalist position. It was not Owens own view.
Here's Owen's view on the necessity of belief:
"But indeed Christ has no such power, no such ability; he cannot save unbelieving, impenitent sinners, for this cannot be done without denying himself, acting contrary to his word, and destroying his own glory. ...Christ is able to save all them, and only them, who come to God by him. Whilst you live in sin and unbelief, Christ himself cannot save you".

So I know the next question. "Well I guess Owen wasn't really a Calvinist then." A couple sentences later, same paper, same context "This therefore we also give testimony unto in our exhortation to come unto him, namely - that his power to save those that shall comply with his call is sovereign, uncontrollable, almighty, that nothing can stand in the way of. All things in heaven and earth are committed unto him; - all power is his; - and he will use it to this end, - namely, the assured salvation of all that come unto him."

You have to read that carefully, several times or you will miss the thinking of the Calvinist Puritan. It takes a long time to understand how they could preach and invite people to come to Christ; (And "invite" is their word) and yet have a high view of the God's sovereignty and salvation as monergistic. I honestly don't know if it works for the modern mind and I'm not sure if the reason is that we have an improved or more scientific logic or if we are deficient.

I am not questioning the necessity of belief but the problem is that Owen does say that unbelief was covered by Christ Jesus at the cross. He then qualifies by saying it is only for the "elect". If all the "elects" sins were forgiven then there is no consequence for anything that they do and conversely those that are not of the "elect" can not have any of theirs forgiven as it was all completed at the cross.
His argument flies in the face of scripture so no matter how you want to phrase it Owens argument is flawed and un-biblical.

1} All the sins of all men
2} All the sins of some men, or
3} Some of the sins of all men
{QUESTION: why does {2} require that it only apply to the Calvinist version of elect as Owen would suppose}

"If it was for the second, which is what we affirm, that Christ in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world."..."But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it is, then Christ either underwent the punishment for it, or he did not. If he did, then why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death more than their other sins for which he died? If he did not undergo the punishment for it, then he did not die for all their sins" (Bk 3 Ch 3)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There is nothing wrong with that view. A particular atonement is not universal among Calvinists. Calvin himself is ambiguous on it, although he had a very strong view of a meticulous sovereignty of all details so you can draw your own conclusions. Calvinists hedged a lot by saying Christ's death was sufficient for all, but effectual only for the elect. J.C. Ryle was of that opinion and here's what he said:

Our duty is to invite all. To every unconverted soul without exception we ought to say, "God loves you and Christ has died for you". To everyone we ought to say "Awake, repent, believe, come to Christ, be converted, turn, call upon God, strive to enter in,
come, for all things are ready." To tell us that none will hear and be saved except God's Elect, is quite needless. We know it very well. But to tell us on that account it is useless to offer salvation to any at all, is simply absurd. Who are we that we should pretend to know who will be found God's Elect at last? (end quote)

"God loves you and Christ has died for you" sounds awfully close to what some fresh faced college Campus Crusade worker might say. But this was J.C. Ryle. Two things here. One, anyone who demeans the true, free "offer" of salvation to everyone does not understand Calvinism, at least not the way those who practiced it did. And two, you guys who don't like Calvinism as a theological system have got to understand that there are many past and current serious Calvinists who are excellent at sharing the gospel and yes - even what you could call "soul winners".

That’s a good reason NOT to be associated with Calvinism, because of Mr. Ambiguous/ John Calvin. I’m sorry but I find Puritans to be extremely legalistic and the rest (Methodism, Lutherans & Episcopals to be sacramentalists… almost emulating the Catholics)

 

[DaveXR650]

"If it was for the second, which is what we affirm, that Christ in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world."..."But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it is, then Christ either underwent the punishment for it, or he did not. If he did, then why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death more than their other sins for which he died? If he did not undergo the punishment for it, then he did not die for all their sins" (Bk 3 Ch 3)

After "world" above. The original says "If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, 'Because of their unbelief, they will not believe'. Then the rest of your quote "But this unbelief......"
"If the first" refers to no. 1 above in your quote which would be universalists or Arminians. If the second refers to Owen's position, which the person you got the quote from conveniently left out so it would look like it was Owen proposing the idea that "unbelief" was already forgiven and therefore the "elect" did not have to believe. I'm telling you, your quote misrepresents Owen's position by leaving out the sentence where he specifically said that this is the position no. 1, not his. It completely changed he intent of Owen.

To be clear: The "Because of their unbelief" above is Owen stating the position of the Universalists, not his own position. They and the Arminians were saying that Christ died for everyone and that you were only lost because of the sin of unbelief - hence Owen made that argument. Owen's position was that the elect and only the elect's sins were atoned for but that they are the same people who unfailingly are given repentance, faith, and are born again.

I see verses that to me indicate that there may be something to the argument that Christ died for everyone and the big, final, and heinous sin may very well be that many will voluntarily persist in a love of sin and refuse to believe and trample under foot the blood of Christ, thus sealing their doom. But the argument above re Owen is false, based on a butchered quote.

 

[DaveXR650]

Puritans to be extremely legalistic and the rest (Methodism, Lutherans & Episcopals to be sacramentalists… almost emulating the Catholics)

As much as I like the Puritans, there is a lot of truth to that. Everyone of those groups have major flaws and if there is one thing I know for sure it's that every one of us that ends up saved really did get "saved" in spite of ourselves.

 

[JonC]

You used the word, ransom, a couple times. The Bible uses that term as well. Who did Jesus pay off to ransom people? Did he ransom all humanity or was it a particular people?
Jon, I am simply digging to find out what it is you actually believe since you don't seem to have defined it for yourself.

In Isaiah 43 God tells Israel that He has redeemed them, that He has given Egypt as their ransom, Cush and Seba in their place.

Who did God pay off to ransom Israel?

That is a rhetorical question. God ransomed Israel, but He did not pay anybody off. While "ransom" is often taken to mean paying somebody, the word also means "to free from captivity by paying a price (without somebody receiving a payment)".

Our nation was ransomed from English tyranny by the blood of American patriots willing to give their lives for freedom from an oppressive rule.

That does not mean the American colonists paid England for our freedom. It means they gave their lives for our freedom.

The question "who was paid off" is an illegitimate question as Scripture uses the word to refer to a price paid, not a payment received. Scripture does not address the notion of anybody being paid off.

 

[Silverhair]

There is nothing wrong with that view. A particular atonement is not universal among Calvinists. Calvin himself is ambiguous on it, although he had a very strong view of a meticulous sovereignty of all details so you can draw your own conclusions. Calvinists hedged a lot by saying Christ's death was sufficient for all, but effectual only for the elect. J.C. Ryle was of that opinion and here's what he said:

Our duty is to invite all. To every unconverted soul without exception we ought to say, "God loves you and Christ has died for you". To everyone we ought to say "Awake, repent, believe, come to Christ, be converted, turn, call upon God, strive to enter in,
come, for all things are ready." To tell us that none will hear and be saved except God's Elect, is quite needless. We know it very well. But to tell us on that account it is useless to offer salvation to any at all, is simply absurd. Who are we that we should pretend to know who will be found God's Elect at last? (end quote)

"God loves you and Christ has died for you" sounds awfully close to what some fresh faced college Campus Crusade worker might say. But this was J.C. Ryle. Two things here. One, anyone who demeans the true, free "offer" of salvation to everyone does not understand Calvinism, at least not the way those who practiced it did. And two, you guys who don't like Calvinism as a theological system have got to understand that there are many past and current serious Calvinists who are excellent at sharing the gospel and yes - even what you could call "soul winners".

I agree that many Calvinists have hedged their views but what it comes down to is not what they say or believe but what does the bible say.

I agree with what J.C. Ryle said to a point. He has to add the Calvinist slant to the invitation of it will only be the "elect " that will respond. He has it backwards. The bible tells us that it is those that respond that are the elect. God via His foreknowledge knows all that will freely trust in His son. Those that are in the Son are the elect and you are not in the Son until you believe. Foreknowledge is not forecausation. God being omniscient knows all that will happen but does not cause it to happen.

As to your two points. I do not know much of what the old time calvinists practiced but when you read calvin he paints a terrible picture of the way God deceives the reprobate with a false sense of faith.
...the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace...
Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them...
Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent...
When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection.
( Calvin's institutes Bk 3 Ch 2 Sec 11)

Point two I do not doubt that there are some calvinists that actually do share the gospel but I do not see how they can be consistent with their theology or actually why they would think it necessary to do so.

 

[DaveXR650]

A non-Calvinist view that is close to the Calvinist view would be the free will Baptist view of Thomas Grantham. You have a penal-satisfaction view of the atonement but as far as I can tell here's where it's different from the Calvinists. Christ's death was the atonement for the sins of the whole world. There need not be any logical gyrations of "well if a sin was covered then how can it be charged to someone who is not saved" and so on. The reason is that he said that the active and passive obedience is imputed to us that are saved when we believe as "that fine linen, white and clean, which arrayeth the Church of God, Rev. 19:7. In other words, we are identified with Christ and have a union with Christ based on faith, and then the imputed righteousness of Christ is given like a garment of righteousness. And faith is considered a condition for this to happen.

This faith is not a gift in the Calvinist sense, although the Holy Spirit helps the person to be enabled to believe, but it is not irresistible. He does not present it as God setting out a plan and waiting to see what would happen but it is not presented as being wrought in us with the same irresistible force as a Calvinist would put it.

As far as I can tell, this is very close to what most non-Calvinist Baptists believe with the exception that Grantham was free will and did not believe in OSAS. His view on the need of the Holy Spirit to enable one to believe is also stronger than many Baptists, who think you should be able to decide this on your own.

 

[Silverhair]

So you believe in an Armenian doctrine; that is, a doctrine of works which teaches a general or universal atonement, meaning that Christ died for every person who has ever lived.

But I’m a Primitive Baptists who believes in a
particular atonement, meaning that Christ died for the sins of His elect only and not for the sins of every man.(Isaiah 53:10; John 10:11,14-15; Romans 9:11-24; Romans 8:29-33; Ephesians 1:4-5; John 17:6-9; I Peter 1:2; I Thessalonians 1:4). If Christ died for every person who has ever lived, all would be saved and this we know is not true for He said, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day" (John 6:37-39).

Not Arminian just biblical. You may hold to some man made theology but I hold to what the bible clearly teaches. What you think of Arminianism is really immaterial but from what I have read of them your understanding is flawed but I am sure you know that but you still throw out that old canard of works salvation. Thought you were better than that but alas you have proved me wrong.

What does the bible, which is our standard, tell us about who and how one is saved?

Well we know that Christ Jesus was the atonement for all men (Hebrews 2:9, 1John 2:2, 1Timothy 4:10) and we know this actually includes all men because we are told that He died for ungodly sinners, which I am sure you would agree we all were (Romans 5:6, Romans 5:8) We were all under the wrath of God before we trusted in His son. (John 3:36) But God had made a way for man to be reconciled to Him, Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:18-19)

Are we to follow the commission of Christ Jesus, "...preach the gospel to all creation" (Mark 16:15) or are we to consider that He was being disingenuous in that injunction. Are we to dismiss it as just so much fluff (John 3:14-18) Did God really not mean what He said and if not why say it?

So the question becomes how are we saved and who are given to the son?
The bible is clear that it is through the gospel message that we trust in the Son. (Romans 10:17) So those that hear and believe (Ephesians 1:13) and call out to Him (Romans 10:13) and confess Christ Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9-10) are saved by the grace of God (Ephesians 2:8)

And that is not a work as you falsely asserted. Man can not do enough good works to earn his salvation that is why we have to humble ourselves and trust in the finished work of Christ Jesus for our salvation. (Galatians 2:16, Romans 4:5) We are saved only by the grace of God so we know we are not saved by any works we can do. (Romans 11:6, Romans 3:28)

 

[Silverhair]

After "world" above. The original says "If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, 'Because of their unbelief, they will not believe'. Then the rest of your quote "But this unbelief......"
"If the first" refers to no. 1 above in your quote which would be universalists or Arminians. If the second refers to Owen's position, which the person you got the quote from conveniently left out so it would look like it was Owen proposing the idea that "unbelief" was already forgiven and therefore the "elect" did not have to believe. I'm telling you, your quote misrepresents Owen's position by leaving out the sentence where he specifically said that this is the position no. 1, not his. It completely changed he intent of Owen.

To be clear: The "Because of their unbelief" above is Owen stating the position of the Universalists, not his own position. They and the Arminians were saying that Christ died for everyone and that you were only lost because of the sin of unbelief - hence Owen made that argument. Owen's position was that the elect and only the elect's sins were atoned for but that they are the same people who unfailingly are given repentance, faith, and are born again.

I see verses that to me indicate that there may be something to the argument that Christ died for everyone and the big, final, and heinous sin may very well be that many will voluntarily persist in a love of sin and refuse to believe and trample under foot the blood of Christ, thus sealing their doom. But the argument above re Owen is false, based on a butchered quote.

To which I may add this dilemma to our universalists: God imposed his wrath, and Christ underwent the pains of hell, either {1} for all the sins of all men, or {2} for all the sins of some men, or {3} for some of the sins of all men.

If it was the last, for some of the sins of all men, then all men have some sins to answer for; and so no man will be saved. For if God enters into judgment with us, even though it is with all mankind for one sin, no flesh will be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who would stand?” Ps.130:3. We all might as well cast all we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. 2:20, 21

If it was for the second, which is what we affirm, that Christ in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If it was the first, then why are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it is, then Christ either underwent the punishment for it, or he did not. If he did, then why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death more than their other sins for which he died? If he did not undergo the punishment for it, then he did not die for all their sins. Let the universalists choose which part they prefer. (Bk 3 Ch 3)

Owens view on the sin of unbelief being covered are clear in this quote or are you now going to say that I have misquoted him?

Owens position is that all sins were atoned for including unbelief. You may not like that news but is his words not mine. He was wrong in his view.

 

[Silverhair]

The above ^^^^^ and bolded has been demonstrably shown to be untrue. Your humanism is well known, Sliverhair.

As is your Gnostic philosophy that you hold to. I have shown you the root of your theology and you refuse to see it. The root is bad so is the tree. Augustine imported his Gnostic philosophy into his theology and and it was followed by Calvin and calvinists on down to this day. You just do not trust the bible.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Not Arminian just biblical. You may hold to some man made theology but I hold to what the bible clearly teaches. What you think of Arminianism is really immaterial but from what I have read of them your understanding is flawed but I am sure you know that but you still throw out that old canard of works salvation. Thought you were better than that but alas you have proved me wrong.

What does the bible, which is our standard, tell us about who and how one is saved?

Well we know that Christ Jesus was the atonement for all men (Hebrews 2:9, 1John 2:2, 1Timothy 4:10) and we know this actually includes all men because we are told that He died for ungodly sinners, which I am sure you would agree we all were (Romans 5:6, Romans 5:8) We were all under the wrath of God before we trusted in His son. (John 3:36) But God had made a way for man to be reconciled to Him, Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:18-19)

Are we to follow the commission of Christ Jesus, "...preach the gospel to all creation" (Mark 16:15) or are we to consider that He was being disingenuous in that injunction. Are we to dismiss it as just so much fluff (John 3:14-18) Did God really not mean what He said and if not why say it?

So the question becomes how are we saved and who are given to the son?
The bible is clear that it is through the gospel message that we trust in the Son. (Romans 10:17) So those that hear and believe (Ephesians 1:13) and call out to Him (Romans 10:13) and confess Christ Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9-10) are saved by the grace of God (Ephesians 2:8)

And that is not a work as you falsely asserted. Man can not do enough good works to earn his salvation that is why we have to humble ourselves and trust in the finished work of Christ Jesus for our salvation. (Galatians 2:16, Romans 4:5) We are saved only by the grace of God so we know we are not saved by any works we can do. (Romans 11:6, Romans 3:28)

the Primitive Baptists…all we are is Bible. And that quote, “old canard of works salvation” is bloody laughable.You are also insulting, probably because you have no recourse so that’s what you do! Freaking hilarious and sooo you.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As is your Gnostic philosophy that you hold to. I have shown you the root of your theology and you refuse to see it. The root is bad so is the tree. Augustine imported his Gnostic philosophy into his theology and and it was followed by Calvin and calvinists on down to this day. You just do not trust the bible.

 

[AustinC]

As is your Gnostic philosophy that you hold to. I have shown you the root of your theology and you refuse to see it. The root is bad so is the tree. Augustine imported his Gnostic philosophy into his theology and and it was followed by Calvin and calvinists on down to this day. You just do not trust the bible.

Well, so far you have not once shown me what my "gnostic" doctrine is, even though you have made the empty claim.
It was I who went through Ephesians 1, at your demand, and provided the exegesis that you have entirely ignored. You have shown yourself, over and over again, to be incompetent in your understanding of God's word, so you resort to empty claims and blame it on people long dead.

You glory in your position as co-savior with Jesus as you tell us that it was your own willfully generated faith that caused God to save you and you despise anyone who tells you that it was all God who saved you, without your help.

 

[AustinC]

Now that gets me on my feet, shouting Amen!!! Thanks for sharing EWF.