Featured Behold I STAND at the door and Knock Rev 3

You can't debate with most Calvinists, the vast majority are intellectually dishonest.

There are a few, but very few, that will honestly listen to another view.

 

Oh, if it was some verse about man's depravity, they would be the first to say Jesus's statement was universal. You would never hear the end of it.

But they do not like Rev 3:20 because it shows a man participates in his salvation. Jesus stands at the door and knocks, but the man must answer and open the door. This refutes their system and they know it, so they MUST explain this scripture away.

 

You see Bob, you and I disagree on eternal security, but there is a huge difference between how we disagree as contrasted to how non-Cals disagree with Calvinists.

I can easily see there are MANY scriptures that do seem to say a man can lose salvation at first glance. It would be ridiculous to say otherwise. Now, that said, I sincerely do not believe that is what these scriptures are really saying, but I can understand how you and others could believe they are saying a man could lose salvation.

But the Calvinist is a different story altogether. You have to throw out half the Bible to believe Calvinism. I mean, they must CONSTANTLY redefine words and wrest scripture to make their system fit.

And they are not unaware of this, they have all sort of books, and thousands of excruciating commentaries carefully explaining how "all" does not mean all, or that Jesus didn't buy the false teachers with his blood, etc... They have libraries of this stuff.

Boy, when some guy spends an hour and a half trying to tell me a word does not mean what it plainly says, that is when I would get up and leave and NEVER come back. My mother did not raise a fool.

 

Readers, here is how Bob and Winman deal with a contextual problem with their interpretation of "any man" in Revelation 3:21 - they simply IGNORE IT and go right on there merry way. They simply change the subject and direct readers away from the problem.

Use some common sense! If John is writing to seven churches and let's suppose that each church at least numbers two or three members at minimum this is a total of 14-21 persons being written to. However, some of the wording in these letters demand far more members than that.

Now, if we spell out a problem IN THAT CHURCH or problems IN THOSE CONGREGATIONS that need to be corrected and we explicity state these letters are directed by the Spirit of God "TO THE CHURCHES" Plural, then mere common sense demands the words "any man" refers to any particular individual within the numerous members who alone can correct these problems. The lost world cannot correct these problems and to presume on the basis of NOTHING that the world is being addrssed in the face of EXPLICIT REPEATED STATEMENTS that it is directed to church members is the epitomy of EISGESIS and the total lack of any common sense.

The fact that Rev. 3:19 is not an isolated text but provides the very basis for the condition describe in verse 20 is so plain and obvious that it takes willful blindness to jerk it out of its context and say it is addressed to all human beings in the world.

This kind of mindset that is being characterized by Bob and Winman is nothing less than a seared conscience - 1 Tim. 4:1-2 as there is no other rational or reasonable explanation for it.

 

Better never go into Sales, you will starve to death.

 

Reader, note again that I provided contextual based reasons with substance to defend my position and to expose their flimsy interpretation and their only recorse is ridicule. That shows the absolute bankruptcy of their interpretation. If they could respond with any kind of contextual based susbstantive arguments they would but they can't.

 

Does the man open the door of his own free will or because God enabled him? On another thread you said:

So which is it Winman?

{The above vitriolic response by Winman was not to me but another "brother" on this Forum.}

 

Why do you and Winman shuffle your feet and evade verses 3:19 and 3:21 like they were poison. And they are poison to your argument.

 

Is it intellectually honest to take a passage completely out of context to justify your doctrine?

Is it intellectually honest to continuously question the honesty of those with whom you disagree. You have expressed this same attitude since you have been on this Forum.

In years past I have tried to explain to you that I once rejected the thought that God chose some unto Salvation in Jesus Christ; it was abhorrent to me. But my study of Scripture, my experience with people, and a better understanding of my own nature convinced me that Salvation is the work of God alone. Now you can use whatever term that "turns you on" to characterize that truth but calling it intellectually dishonest reflects more on your character than it does those who believe as I do, however they were led to that truth.

 

You should have listened to your conscience. Calvinism was abhorrent to you because your conscience told you it was wrong. Your conscience was right.

I believe Calvinism deceives people because it is logical within itself. It is consistent within itself. It is like a puzzle where all the pieces fit.

But it is not consistent with the word of God. You must constantly wrest scripture and the definitions of words in scripture to make Calvinism work within scripture. You must redefine "all" to mean only the elect. You must ignore when unregenerated men do good such as Cornelius.

But what is most terrible is that you must believe that God actually delights in destroying men for his glory, even though God clearly says otherwise.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

You should have listened to your conscience, your conscience was right.

 

I sincerely hope he is heeding the pronouncement of God through scripture vs his own flesh which is always worldly. The latter is what that UM pastor is doing with marrying homosexuals and stressing the gay lifestyle as alternative.

 

Man cannot come to God because he is ignorant. No man is born knowing of the true God or salvation through Jesus Christ. And if God did not reveal himself to men, man would be in complete darkness and without hope of being saved.

There is an inability, but it is not an inability to believe, it is ignorance. No man can believe what he does not know and has not heard.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Here, Paul directly addresses the question of HOW a man believes. Does he ask how can a man believe unless he is supernaturally regenerated? NO, he simply asks how a man can believe in Jesus unless he has heard of him. So man's inablity is due to ignorance, due to a lack of knowledge.

And this is in perfect agreement with what Jesus said in John 6:45;

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Jesus said that a man must be TAUGHT to come to God. And what does teaching impart? KNOWLEDGE.

But the man is responsible to HEAR and LEARN. But those men who do listen to God and learn from him will surely come to Jesus.

So, men's ability is due to ignorance, not inability to believe.

That is why Jesus commanded us to go into the world and TEACH.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

So, no man can come to God unless God teaches that man and gives him knowledge. But the man must listen and learn.

 

Why would he listen and learn whenhe doesn't believe?

 

What does God saying he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked have to do with homosexuality?

Do you really think this was a valid argument? You would have horribly failed Debate 101.

But you would make a great lawyer or politician. :thumbs:

 

How bout salesman...lol

 

Oh, I don't know, why did men who believed the world was flat listen to scientific evidence and come to believe the world was round?

Because man ( at least some) are rational beings who can think and consider evidence.

 

We are allowing them to change the subject and stray from the OP. They changed the subject because their interpretation of Revelations 3:19-20 was completely exposed to be entirely false. They could not make any intelligent response to the contextual based evidence. Their only escape was to ridicule or change the subject and that is precisely what has happened.

Readers, here is how Bob and Winman deal with a contextual problem with their interpretation of "any man" in Revelation 3:21 - they simply IGNORE IT and go right on there merry way. They simply change the subject and direct readers away from the problem.

Use some common sense! If John is writing to seven churches and let's suppose that each church at least numbers two or three members at minimum this is a total of 14-21 persons being written to. However, some of the wording in these letters demand far more members than that.

Now, if we spell out a problem IN THAT CHURCH or problems IN THOSE CONGREGATIONS that need to be corrected and we explicity state these letters are directed by the Spirit of God "TO THE CHURCHES" Plural, then mere common sense demands the words "any man" refers to any particular individual within the numerous members who alone can correct these problems. The lost world cannot correct these problems and to presume on the basis of NOTHING that the world is being addrssed in the face of EXPLICIT REPEATED STATEMENTS that it is directed to church members is the epitomy of EISGESIS and the total lack of any common sense.

The fact that Rev. 3:19 is not an isolated text but provides the very basis for the condition describe in verse 20 is so plain and obvious that it takes willful blindness to jerk it out of its context and say it is addressed to all human beings in the world.

 

You give humans far more credit than I do.

In Romans we see the following:

Romans 3:23 ESV

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 3:10 ESV

As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

 

As an FYI (Arthur Pink)

Second, his confession was a humble one. That is the next thing which God requires from the praying soul—that he strip himself of the rags of self-righteousness and come before Him as one who is sinful and needy. This is very evident from the Epistle to the Laodiceans—they refused to abase themselves and take their proper place before the Lord. His charge was, "You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked!" (Rev. 3:17). Alas, to how many professing Christians do those solemn words apply today! To all such Christ says, "I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see" (v. 18). It is just at this very point, that the Christian is distinguished from the hypocrite—the former humbles himself and takes his place before God in the dust, acknowledging his wicked unbelief.