A False Teaching on Christ’s Satisfaction Exposed

[Protestant]

Let me reiterate and repeat what I said in my last post:

You fail at answering direct questions?

IOW, you never answered the post. You just avoided the points I made, and went on your merry way espousing your 16th century Calvinism. Do you really think you are going to convince me without any serious discussion?

Furthermore, as mentioned before, I am neither Pelagian nor Arminian. You can drop the monikers any time now.

What direct question did I fail to answer?

Furthermore, I have already proven the Pelagian and Arminian doctrines to which you hold:

Pelagian: Man has the innate power and ability to believe, if he so wills. Original sin did not destroy that power.

Arminian: God elects those whom He foresees will accept Christ.
Man makes the ultimate decision first, God then respects that decision as his final destiny.

 

[DHK]

What direct question did I fail to answer?

You cannot refute the words of Christ himself:

The depravity of man is not equal to the the Calvinist's Total Inability of man which is not a scriptural doctrine. Calvin did not invent the Bible. Man has a sinful nature, but that doesn't mean he can't choose or think or make choices of his own will.
Jesus said:
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
--He gave man a choice: to believe or not.

Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
--Again, the choice is man's: to believe or not to believe.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
--Man's choice: to believe or not to believe. God doesn't force him.

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
--The theme of the entire book is summarized right here in this verse:
Man has a choice that is set before him: to believe or not to believe. Which choice will he make?

Furthermore, I have already proven the Pelagian and Arminian doctrines to which you hold:

Pelagian: Man has the innate power and ability to believe, if he so wills. Original sin did not destroy that power.

Arminian: God elects those whom He foresees will accept Christ.
Man makes the ultimate decision first, God then respects that decision as his final destiny.

If I could show you a point of Arminianism that you believed, would that make you an Arminian? Most people have some points in common. The name-calling is not edifying.

You believe in the trinity, and in the deity of Christ; ergo you are a Roman Catholic. Right!

 

[BrotherJoseph]

You fail at answering direct questions?
What is the motive of a mother nursing her own child?
Is it a good work?
Her motive is the physical salvation/well-being of her child. If she doesn't nourish him he will die. Is it therefore a "good work"? Of course it is!
Even Jesus would classify it as a good work..I will tell you that a person can do good. Obviously a mother nourishing her child is a good thing.

Brother DHK,

An unsaved mother nurses her kid because it is her family, her flesh. Animals also nurse their young because this is what nature teaches them, but by your definition they are doing a good work too? That is absurd! A mother nurses her child because she is looking after her own self in doing so (her own self interest), "...He that loveth his wife loveth himself.29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it...", obviously this particular passage is talking about husband and wives, but likewise a mother child relationship is also family of the same flesh, thus the same principle applies. If I do something to benefit my own flesh, why is that a good work?

I will also tell you that a sinner can actively seek God for God has put it in their hearts to do so:
Seek the Lord while you may find him.
Now God commands all men to repent..

A dead sinner does not seek per scripture, " There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God" (Romans 3:11). I suppose you will try to tell me the "none" in this verse does not mean "none"? A dead person doesn't do anything.

God commands all men to love their neighbor as themselves--a command that he gave to unsaved lawyers, Pharisees, etc. He expected them to keep it..

Jesus expected them to keep it? Really? I guess he was surprised then when nobody did? "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?" (John 7:19a) God gave the commandments of the law knowing that nobody could or would obey them, the purpose of the law was only to condemn, "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19). The fact that nobody keeps the law is further proof of the doctrine of total depravity.

--Doing good won't get one to heaven, but it is expected of all mankind.
Jesus told the rich young ruler: "Keep the law, and you shall live."
He was expected to do good. He had a reputation of being good before he even approached Jesus. ..

Jesus knew the rich young ruler, like everyone else, was not good, "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" (Mark 10:18). It is true Jesus did tell the rich young ruler that to inherit eternal life he needed to keep the commandments, but why did he say this when we know that is impossible to do? Because the rich young ruler did not see himself as a sinner, that is why he said such things as, " what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" and regarding keeping the commandments he replied to Jesus, "Master, all these have I observed from my youth." However I believe Jesus knew that the commandments would act as a prosecutor to the rich young ruler by showing him his sin that he is guilty, thus driving him to the cross for mercy. This is why Jesus said to him, " One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions." I am sure you don't want to assert Jesus was actually teaching the rich young ruler he could merit eternal life by keeping all the commandments.

--It is our good that will not get us to heaven. But it is still good.
Your interpretation of these verses is wrong.
In Isaiah, he says all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. True. But they are still righteousnesses. The point is that they, in the sight of God, will not get us to heaven.

I am afraid your interpretation of Isaiah 64:6 is incorrect. The ESV and Amplified bible say our righteousness are as a "polluted garment". In other words they are tainted out of motives. Something that is polluted is not pure or "good". More accurate are other versions such as the DRA that call our righteousness as " the rag of a menstruous woman " and the CRB, "like a menstrual rag". This translation is correct. According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance the Hebrew word used literally means, "From an unused root meaning to set a period (compare adah, uwd); the menstrual flux (as periodical); by implication (in plural) soiling -- filthy" See http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5708.htm

--I do understand it. The depravity of man is not equal to the the Calvinist's Total Inability of man which is not a scriptural doctrine. Calvin did not invent the Bible. Man has a sinful nature, but that doesn't mean he can't choose or think or make choices of his own will. ..

Unsaved man does have a free will to choose according to his nature, however as you agree above his nature is sinful, thus he will always choose according to his nature sinful choices. A creature can only choose according to it's nature. A lizard cannot choose to fly, but only walk because it does not have wings, in a similar manner a sinner can only choose to do according to his nature.

--Jesus said:
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
--He gave man a choice: to believe or not...

There is no choice presented here. You are reading into the verse something that is not here. The verse simply states with what is true, those that believe are not condemned, those that don't aren't.

--Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
--Again, the choice is man's: to believe or not to believe....

Again, there is no choice presented here, the verse only says those that believe have eternal life and those that do not believe do not have life. Also notice, it says those that believe already have everlasting life , it does not say those who believe get eternal life as you teach.

--Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
--Man's choice: to believe or not to believe. God doesn't force him. ....

Again this verse does not teach two alternatives, it only says he that hears and believes "hath" (already has-past tense) eternal life. Again, I reiterate, it does not say, he who hears and believes gets eternal life.

--Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
--The theme of the entire book is summarized right here in this verse:
Man has a choice that is set before him: to believe or not to believe. Which choice will he make?....

Does not earlier in the same book teach regarding the new birth, "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). Paul reiterates this in his epistle to the Romans, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16). The point is scripture explicitly states in these verses, not implicitly (though it does this as well elsewhere), that salvation is not of man's will. Finally, nowhere in the New Testament are the words "free will", "choice", "choose", "accept", "invite", "invitation", "opportunity", or "offer" used in regards to salvation. If I am wrong, give me the verses. As a matter of fact, the one time scripture uses the word "accept" in regards to salvation, it is Christ making us accepted, "wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved" (Ephesians 1:6)

--No contradiction. When have I ever even inferred that it isn't?

No I don't agree. Regeneration IS salvation.

Read 1Pet.1:23 and then believe it. Don't deny it.

Regeneration is salvation. Even if you define it differently it happens at the same time.

You believe man is the cause of their regeneration via faith, thus the logical conclusion to this belief is "salvation is of DHK" or "salvation is of Brother Joe". This is not scriptural. It is heresy.

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Brother DHK,

I do not contend that he gives faith to the unregenerate, unregenerate people have no faith. Regeneration occurs and at the same moment as a result of regeneration faith is immediately imparted to the child of God because they now have God's spirit living in them and He cannot deny Himself. The fact is in 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3 Paul thanks God for the saints at Thessalonians for their faith. If God had not given faith to them, had they obtained it on their own, he would have no reason to thank God for them having it! However, if you want to take the position that an undegenerated person can have faith in the gospel, thus becoming regenerated and then God will give them additional faith, you still have a problem because Paul adds additional information in I Thess. 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." Notice in this verse it is man's reception of the Gospel that is the explicit "cause" for which Paul is thanking God! Paul puts in God's account man's initial reception of the Gospel, and subsequently thanks God for it continually. Why is God to be thanked by Paul for them believing the gospel if they did it on their own? I'll tell you why, because they didn't do it on their own, that is the only logical explanation!




Your own commentary from Mr. MacDonald you provided me regarding the verse in Thessalonians that mentions the Thessalonians "work of faith" says faith is a work! Here is the quote you provided from Mr. MacDonald, "In this sense, faith is an act or deed. But it is not toil by which a man earns merit or in which he can boast. In fact, it is the only work that man can perform without robbing Christ of His glory as Savior and without denying his own status as a helpless sinner. Faith is a non-meritorious work by which the creature acknowledges his Creator and the sinner acknowledges his Savior". Two times he calls it a "work" and once he calls it an "act or deed". He tries to back pedal by calling it a "non-meritorious work". That is an oxymoron! Can you give me other examples of "non-meritorious works"? There is no such a thing and the doctrine is foreign from scripture. The Bible only knows of works or grace, not grace, works , and "non-meritorious works". Salvation is of grace thus it is not of works or even "non-meritorious works" if you will! Faith is a result of regeneration and not the cause of it that is why it is called a "fruit" of the Spirit.

Brother DHK,

Please answer the post above I previously posted as time allows.

God bless!

 

[BrotherJoseph]

IOW, you never answered the post. You just avoided the points I made, and went on your merry way espousing your 16th century Calvinism. .

The doctrines of grace (besides being in the Bible) were also taught by Augustine who was born in AD 354. They did not originate in the 16th century with Calvin.

 

[BobRyan]

Welcome back, Bob.

Thanks - good to be back.

Great topic you have here.

If you would, please note in Matt. 18:27, Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

In your opinion, who is the lord and who is the servant referred to by Christ?

The Lord represents God - and the servant who owes the great debt is the lost sinner.

Then in verses 28ff. the parable takes a dark turn.

The forgiven servant does not forgive others.

His lord then revokes his forgiveness,

True. The Lord says "I forgave you ALL" and then remarks that the servant was "expected" to forgive others JUST AS he HAD been fully forgiven himself.

As you point out - failure to do so on the part of the servant - resulted in "Forgiveness revoked".

delivering the unforgiving servant to the tormentors where he is tormented until his debt is paid in full.

The "Wages of sin is death" Rom 3:23 not simply the first death - but the 2nd death. For in John 11 Christ Himself declares that the first death does not even count.

In your opinion, does this parable teach:

1. Christians may lose their salvation.

Yes - unless there is such a thing as forgiveness where you then pay off your own debt. Which I think is a self-conflicted view.

2. Those tormented in Hell are only tormented for a specific time: the more the debt owed the longer the time period.

Yes - Luke 12:42-50 degrees of torment rather than "infinite torment for all". Some with many stripes some with fewer. But it is "stripes'' -- torment not "cash" that might be added to someone's wealth.

In your opinion:

3. Who paid the debt of the saints?
4. Why?

Christ.

Because "God so loved the WORLD that HE gave"

"the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for our sins only - but for the sins of the Whole World" 1 John 2:2.

5. Will the unsaved ever pay back their debt through suffering in the Lake of Fire?

Yes they will pay their debt in full - in the lake of fire. Every moment of torment "owed" -- paid in full.

Bob, in your opinion:

6. To whom was the debt paid?
7. Why?

No one receives payment in the Gospel - rather God is tortured, God is tormented - on our behalf -- which only "increases" the suffering of God - it does not decrease it.

If someone breaks a lamp in your home - they may "pay you back" and you are "paid" -- they could even "pay you back 10 fold" and ... "you are paid" by every measure.

But let's say someone kills your child -- then hands you ten dollars.. are you "paid in full" ??

What if they gave you a million dollars? -- are you yet "paid in full"??

The damage done to God - the Father via sin - is to take from Him one of his children. To separate them through sin and doom them. What then can someone "pay God" to make it all better -- all "the same" as if He had not lost that child??

The lake of fire is "payment" the way that cancer surgery is "payment". It is necessary suffering to prevent further death of the body.

8. Was the debt paid on behalf of the entire world?

1 John 2:2 states that the atoning sacrifice on the cross was "for OUR sins and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"

But because that "payment" comes in the form of "torturing God more" -- it cannot be viewed as "Hey God -- here is some cold hard cash -- we should be even now".

It is not that sort of payment at all. Because "God does not ENJOY being tortured".

If anything we OWE more in that sort of deal.


This is something many people totally miss.

the whole point in the Bible/Atonement/subtitutionary sacrifice model is not "CASH being paid" and someone being "enriched by the payment" - rather it is "sin debt is suffering and death" and the reason is because in this sort of justice system murder has to have "punishment" associated - so that no more murderers will surface in the kingdom of this universe.

IT is "THAT" sort of "payment" that we are talking about.

So the Gospel provides our payment in the form of "Atonement".

Lev 16 - Atonement.

With Christ as the "Lord's Goat" - the "Sin offering" in that chapter.
AND with Christ as the "High Priest" as Heb 8:1-6 tells us.

Those who accept the Gospel get atonement - those who reject it - get the Lake of Fire - and pay their debt in full.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

The doctrines of grace (besides being in the Bible) were also taught by Augustine who was born in AD 354. They did not originate in the 16th century with Calvin.

Quite right. Calvin adored Augustine. He quoted him extensively. Much of his work consists of Augustine. One might say that Calvinism is "Augustinianism Revised."
But then who is Augustine? A heretic. He is one of the founders of the RCC. He believed in baptismal regeneration, in purgatory, and in all the basic doctrines of the RCC, which he defended.
Your association with Augustine is more with a heretic than with orthodox Christianity IMO.

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

I do not contend that he gives faith to the unregenerate, unregenerate people have no faith. Regeneration occurs and at the same moment as a result of regeneration faith is immediately imparted to the child of God because they now have God's spirit living in them and He cannot deny Himself.

Nonsense. There is no scripture that teaches that God gives "faith" to the unregenerate. Everyone has faith. Faith is simply confidence or trust. You exercise it every day. In fact if you didn't exercise faith daily in one form or another you wouldn't be alive today. When you were younger you had to trust your parents for their protection, provision, etc. Later you may have trusted teachers for your education, police for your protection, the judicial system for justice system, automakers for a car that runs safely, etc. You have been trusting people all your life. Without "faith" you would not be alive and could not function in society. We all exercise faith every day.
Faith is faith.
The most important aspect about faith is the object of faith.
In the beginning of life the object of a small child's faith is their parents. That is what Jesus was referring to when he said:

Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
--The children came to Jesus by faith; they trusted him.
Most children do not trust strangers; they cling to their parents and do not easily go to others. They put their faith or confidence in their parents because they know that they are the ones that will protect them, not a stranger. It is a simplistic faith.
--One needs to put faith in Christ the same way children put their faith in their parents, simple, unadulterated, uncomplicated faith.
It is the object of the faith that counts. Faith is faith. Faith does not come from God.

The fact is in 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3 Paul thanks God for the saints at Thessalonians for their faith. If God had not given faith to them, had they obtained it on their own, he would have no reason to thank God for them having it!

Yes. It was their faith. They had confidence in God. Is there anything wrong with that? Do you have confidence in God? God doesn't walk the Christian walk for you.

However, if you want to take the position that an undegenerated person can have faith in the gospel, thus becoming regenerated and then God will give them additional faith, you still have a problem because Paul adds additional information in I Thess. 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

--Nothing difficult here. It was their faith. They received the Word of God as Paul said. They received it as truth. It did a work of grace in them because they believed. But they were the ones that believed.

Notice in this verse it is man's reception of the Gospel that is the explicit "cause" for which Paul is thanking God! Paul puts in God's account man's initial reception of the Gospel, and subsequently thanks God for it continually. Why is God to be thanked by Paul for them believing the gospel if they did it on their own? I'll tell you why, because they didn't do it on their own, that is the only logical explanation!

That is your spin. It doesn't say that. Paul was thankful because:
They received the word of God, not as men, but as truth.
It was the word of God that worked in them, them that believed.
Therefore, their belief produced salvation, just as Jesus said in the many verses that I previously quoted to you (John 3:16).
Check Heb.4:12. The Word of God worked effectively in their lives because they believed.

Your own commentary from Mr. MacDonald you provided me regarding the verse in Thessalonians that mentions the Thessalonians "work of faith" says faith is a work! Here is the quote you provided from Mr. MacDonald, "In this sense, faith is an act or deed. But it is not toil by which a man earns merit or in which he can boast. In fact, it is the only work that man can perform without robbing Christ of His glory as Savior and without denying his own status as a helpless sinner. Faith is a non-meritorious work by which the creature acknowledges his Creator and the sinner acknowledges his Savior". Two times he calls it a "work" and once he calls it an "act or deed". He tries to back pedal by calling it a "non-meritorious work". That is an oxymoron! Can you give me other examples of "non-meritorious works"? There is no such a thing and the doctrine is foreign from scripture. The Bible only knows of works or grace, not grace, works , and "non-meritorious works". Salvation is of grace thus it is not of works or even "non-meritorious works" if you will! Faith is a result of regeneration and not the cause of it that is why it is called a "fruit" of the Spirit.

I thought he defined it well. It is a non-meritorious, or as we would call it, not a work at all. It is the same thing that Jesus was teaching in John 6. He wasn't teaching that faith is a work. He was teaching that the only thing that they could "do."
They had asked:
John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
There was only one thing they could "do"
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
--This was a play on works. It is not a teaching that faith is a work.

 

[Protestant]

Pastor DHK wrote:

Man has a sinful nature, but that doesn't mean he can't choose or think or make choices of his own will.

Man, like animals, always thinks and acts according to his nature.

Great whites do not good pets make.

Man’s nature is sinful, as you rightly stated.

How sinful?

Jesus revealed to the religious they had the nature of Satan, their spiritual father. (John 8:44)

He revealed to the non-religious town folk that they, too, were evil, though not evil to the max. (Luke 11:13)

Not a great way to win friends and influence people!

But Jesus was no Joel Osteen.

He was brutally honest to the point that the disciples were worried for His safety. (Matt. 15:12)

If sinful man could desire and embrace the holiness of God in Christ, then there would be no reason for Jesus to place supreme emphasis on the necessity of being born of the Spirit.

Flesh is the enemy of the Spirit.

Sin is the enemy of holiness.

Man is the natural enemy of Christ, just as Great Whites are the natural enemy of man.

How sinful is man?

Sinful man would rather kill Christ then kiss Him.

However, once born of the Spirit by the grace and omnipotent power of God, man and God can now become reconciled through faith in the blood of Christ shed on behalf of His Elect.

Are spiritual truths becoming any clearer?

I hope so.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Nonsense. There is no scripture that teaches that God gives "faith" to the unregenerate. Everyone has faith. Faith is simply confidence or trust. You exercise it every day. In fact if you didn't exercise faith daily in one form or another you wouldn't be alive today. When you were younger you had to trust your parents for their protection, provision, etc. Later you may have trusted teachers for your education, police for your protection, the judicial system for justice system, automakers for a car that runs safely, etc. You have been trusting people all your life. Without "faith" you would not be alive and could not function in society. We all exercise faith every day.
Faith is faith.
The most important aspect about faith is the object of faith.
In the beginning of life the object of a small child's faith is their parents. That is what Jesus was referring to when he said:

Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
--The children came to Jesus by faith; they trusted him.
Most children do not trust strangers; they cling to their parents and do not easily go to others. They put their faith or confidence in their parents because they know that they are the ones that will protect them, not a stranger. It is a simplistic faith.
--One needs to put faith in Christ the same way children put their faith in their parents, simple, unadulterated, uncomplicated faith.
It is the object of the faith that counts. Faith is faith. Faith does not come from God.


Yes. It was their faith. They had confidence in God. Is there anything wrong with that? Do you have confidence in God? God doesn't walk the Christian walk for you.

--Nothing difficult here. It was their faith. They received the Word of God as Paul said. They received it as truth. It did a work of grace in them because they believed. But they were the ones that believed.


That is your spin. It doesn't say that. Paul was thankful because:
They received the word of God, not as men, but as truth.
It was the word of God that worked in them, them that believed.
Therefore, their belief produced salvation, just as Jesus said in the many verses that I previously quoted to you (John 3:16).
Check Heb.4:12. The Word of God worked effectively in their lives because they believed.


I thought he defined it well. It is a non-meritorious, or as we would call it, not a work at all. It is the same thing that Jesus was teaching in John 6. He wasn't teaching that faith is a work. He was teaching that the only thing that they could "do."
They had asked:
John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
There was only one thing they could "do"
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
--This was a play on works. It is not a teaching that faith is a work.

Brother DHK,

I am not going to be on the forum after tonight until Tuesday. I have enjoyed our discussion and keeping it cordial. I knew going into it we would not come to an agreement LOL! Though I disagree with much of what you say, I admire you for replying to all my points. I know you are far outnumbered on the board by those of us you believe are "heretics" for teaching the "damnable heresy" of limited atonement. (I know you said that is what is in the King James study Bible regarding the Peter verse). In all seriousness, I don't know if I could keep up with replying to all of the posts on this board if I had so many posters disagreeing with me! Enjoy your weekend!

 

[Protestant]

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
--He gave man a choice: to believe or not.

On the contrary, this is a simple statement of fact. Nowhere does it state, ‘You now have a choice to make.’

Furthermore, the verses following interpret Jesus’ teaching here:

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Man does not enter this world believing on Jesus Christ.

Therefore, he enters condemned as a child of wrath with a fallen sin nature. (Eph. 2:3)

Unless the Lord performs the miracle of spiritual regeneration, that child will grow into a man loving darkness rather than the holiness and truth of Christ.

Why?

Because an evil nature naturally loves darkness and hates the light.

This explains why the Jews rejected and killed Christ.

(Note to Bob Ryan: He came unto his own, and his own received him not. They received Him not because they were evil and their deeds were evil, as are all men unless regenerated by the Spirit. Sadly, were, you and I there, we, too, would be shouting for Barabbas' release.)

Had we not been regenerated, circumcised of heart, having had our sin debt paid in full by Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice, and given the gifts of faith and repentance which He purchased, we, too, would continue in unbelief and hatred of God.

But alas, due to His sovereign grace given to us in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world, we have peace with God and assurance of eternal life.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Quite right. Calvin adored Augustine. He quoted him extensively. Much of his work consists of Augustine. One might say that Calvinism is "Augustinianism Revised."
But then who is Augustine? A heretic. He is one of the founders of the RCC. He believed in baptismal regeneration, in purgatory, and in all the basic doctrines of the RCC, which he defended.
Your association with Augustine is more with a heretic than with orthodox Christianity IMO.

The 'rapture doctrine' started in the mid-1800's when a young girl said she had a dream that Christ returned twice, non?

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is what John said, quoting the words of Jesus:
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

If you read Romans 4:1-5, you will find that faith is not a work, but placed in opposition to works.

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
--The teaching here is that salvation is by faith and faith alone, and that faith can in no way be considered a work. Therefore what do you mean when you say "salvation is by one's own merits"?
Who said it was?
Where do you get that idea from?
Do you even believe in sola fide?

Yes, as the truth is that any sinner is saved by the Frace of God alone, received thru and by faith alone, but the truth also is that John is making it quite clear that those who het saved is not due to them accepting jesus by act of the will and faith alone, that God Himself has authored that to come to pass!

 

[Yeshua1]

The 'rapture doctrine' started in the mid-1800's when a young girl said she had a dream that Christ returned twice, non?

No, as it was taught by Apostle Paul!

 

[DHK]

The 'rapture doctrine' started in the mid-1800's when a young girl said she had a dream that Christ returned twice, non?

Fiction and/or urban legend. You have no historical basis for such a statement.
Even some of the early church fathers believed in a rapture.
They were called Chiliasts.

 

[Iconoclast]

If you have an intelligent comment or question, ask it.
Personal attacks are not tolerated here.

 

[Protestant]

Thanks - good to be back.

Great topic you have here.

Hello Bob:

I have carefully reviewed your responses and thank you for answering each point. Although there was one area a bit fuzzy to me, on the whole I understood your POV.

If I may, I wish to address a few key points you made:

Those who accept the Gospel get atonement - those who reject it - get the Lake of Fire - and pay their debt in full.

This is the same exact argument which Pastor DHK made which prompted my writing this thread in the first place: Christ paid your sin debt if you will accept it.

In my response to the Pastor I brought up the point that if a sin debt was paid in full then there was no debt remaining.

Yet you both insist that, in reality, not all sinners’ sin debt is paid in full.

Thus, they must pay their debt in the Lake of Fire.

Do you see the conflict, Bob?

On the one hand, you believe Christ atoned/paid for the sins of all mankind.

And then, on the other hand, you believe Christ did not atone/pay for the sins of all mankind, resulting in many paying for their sins in the Lake of Fire.

No one receives payment in the Gospel - rather God is tortured, God is tormented - on our behalf -- which only "increases" the suffering of God - it does not decrease it.

If I follow your argument correctly I believe you are claiming God is the Father of all mankind and is Himself tortured when one of His sinful children are themselves tortured in the Lake of Fire.

Am I correct?

Next, I see you are a consistent Arminian in that you believe man can gain salvation by his free will and also lose salvation by his free will which God leaves intact.

Question: Is not that the fundamental reason for the Investigative Judgment? God cannot make a hasty decision as to a person’s salvation until that person dies. For it is possible that person may change his mind prior to death.

Question: Once a sinner has ‘paid off’ his sin debt in the Lake of Fire why wouldn’t the Lord welcome him into Heaven, purged of his sin? Why must that man be annihilated?

Question: Do you not see the Adventist concept of ‘paying off’ sin debt in the Lake of Fire as a replica of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory? Of course, the end result is quite different. The RCs believe once the sinner is purged of sins, he is then fit for Heaven.

The Universalists also hold to a purgatorial view of the Lake of Fire.

Bob, I look forward to your thoughtful and honest responses.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Fiction and/or urban legend. You have no historical basis for such a statement.
Even some of the early church fathers believed in a rapture.
They were called Chiliasts.

Google Margaret MacDonald.

 

[DHK]

Google Margaret MacDonald.

Why do you want to do that? Is it devious deception.
I have told you the name of the author "William MacDonald", and the name of the commentary, "Believer's Bible Commentary." You can google HIS name if you wanted to:

Career[edit]
After graduation, he was employed as an investment analyst at the First National Bank of Boston (now known as BankBoston) until 1942. During 1942, MacDonald enlisted in the Navy, where he served until 1946. He then served on the faculty of Emmaus Bible School until 1965, becoming President in 1959.[2] He contributed greatly to the Emmaus Correspondence School through his writings.

President of Emmaus Bible College (1959-1965)[edit]
While President of Emmaus Bible College, MacDonald made lasting contributions. Among his accomplishments are numbered:

Leading Emmaus Bible College to purchase of the 156 N. Oak Park facility
Leading the merging of the Toronto and Chicago schools in Oak Park
Leading the purchase of the Groveland building in 1960
Bringing the "Emmaus student enrollment above 100 in the resident school and above 60 in the evening school."
Post-Presidency Career[edit]
After 1965, he led a Bible teaching ministry in the USA, Europe and Asia until 1972. In 1973 he served on the faculty of the Discipleship Intern Training Program, based in San Leandro, California, until 1996. After 1996, MacDonald moved back to the Bible-teaching ministry, until his death on December 25, 2007.

What do you have a problem with?

 

[DHK]

Google Margaret MacDonald.

Wrong MacDonald and context.
This is from Wikipedia:

There have been a couple of attempts to locate a "source" for Darby's concept of the rapture. These attempts imply that Darby's concepts originated from a "false" (demonic) source. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles alleged that John Nelson Darby's concept of the rapture was taken from one of the charismatic utterances in Edward Irving's church. Since Tregelles regarded the utterances as "pretending to be from God," his implication is that Darby's rapture is from a demonic source. Dave MacPherson built upon Tregelles's accusation, and claimed the source for Darby's rapture was from an utterance of Margaret MacDonald.[5][6] However, scholars think there are major obstacles that render these accusations untenable. It is clear that Darby regarded the 1830 charismatic manifestations as demonic and not of God.[4] Darby would not have borrowed an idea from a source that he clearly thought was demonic.[7] Also Darby had already written out his pretribulation rapture views in January 1827, 3 years prior to the 1830 events and any MacDonald utterance.[8] When MacDonald's utterance is read closely, her statements show her to hold a posttribulationist position ("being the fiery trial which is to try us" and "for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus").[9][10] For these and other reasons, scholars consider MacPherson's alleged connection to dispensationalism as untenable.[11]

Darby was before MacDonald and all reputable Bible scholars reject MacDonald and her people.