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

I'm convinced you can't

 

"InTheLight,

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

I think I am getting sleepy.

 

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.

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 "

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.

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

 

That is found in John 1:9

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

 

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)

 

[/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

 

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.

 

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.

 

The old man has been crucified.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.