Behold!... I Stand At The Door And Knock

[Alan Gross]

Having said that, it would be inaccurate to say that Christ does not dwell within us, based on Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." I don't know that you say this, but some do.

No wonder there is no need for the Gospel, or Repentance and Faith, or Regeneration of the lost soul for them to have a heart to open.

They have "Christ in" them and Jesus is just on the outside(?)

Or, maybe not.

Maybe, this verse in only talking about saved souls that are already "in Christ" that have Christ in them.

Actually, many non-Calvinists believe in total depravity. I myself taught it in my doctrines class yesterday. Our textbook by Rylie uses that term. What is not believed by non-TULIP followers is "total inability," which is the correct Calvinist formulation.

So, now it's Total Depravity being said to be turned into Anti-Total Depravity, and not "total inability," at the same time.

Is this the evidence of the Total Depravity of lost people or the flesh of saved people doing this?

Both those are possible, from my point of view.

The carnality of the saved person would just be agreeing with the spiritually dead person.

Happens all the time.

Hanserd Knollys

John Bunyan

Benjamin Keach

Owen, Edwards and Bonar

I give these men permission to have been dead wrong on this point.

They have now been corrected.

As a side note, it's also interesting that if you look up Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermon on Revelation 3:20 he says it should never be used evangelistically

Because, he was called to preach against the blind sinful condition of the lost?, Repentance?, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

...as opposed to, "open your heart".

Good for him.

He probably preached against the mourner's bench, too.

And the many "another gospels" in his day...and ours, if he was still here.

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave, where do you get your theology from? Is it from the Bible or from the vast number of secondary sources you seem to read, above the Bible?

This statement is a perfect example of the problem guys like you get in to. The fact is, I get my theology mainly from secondary sources. This is because as a layman with no formal training, for me to come up with my own theology, even if I could self-righteously claim that is was all from scripture, would be a disaster. As you and some of the other guys on here prove. Here you get on here and take on many of the giants of the very theology you claim to adhere to and it doesn't seem to bother you that you are looking like a neophyte.

Take an hour or so and read Bunyan's work: SAVED BY GRACE. It's probably free on line. That is the work where Bunyan used the illustration that bothers you so much about the door. I suggest you read it because in it is one of the most complete and strong defenses of STRONG 5 point Calvinism that I have ever seen. And he is no less strong on the absolute sovereignty of God in a persons salvation. And he goes into more detail about exactly how the Spirit brings a person to actual faith and how faith can be said to be of God and yet something you must do. There is a balance and a truth that seems to elude you as you arrogantly attack me for using someone like Bunyan who not only knew his theology and how to APPLY it, but used so many scripture references that the charge of not relying on the Bible becomes as ridiculous as the rest of your half baked internet theology.

It would be refreshing if you spent your time talking about God's word.

And you are a poster boy for why many of you should swallow your pride and read some of these secondary sources and reference them before you spout off.

 

[DaveXR650]

He probably preached against the mourner's bench, too.

And the many "another gospels" in his day...and ours, if he was still here.

I think he did preach against the mourner's bench and he apparently refused to cooperate with some of the crusades that were going on at the time of his ministry. But like I said he also quoted Wesley and was actually a big fan of that "heretic". His sermon on Revelation 3:20 is about the danger of us as modern church members thinking that we have all our theological ducks in a row and thinking we lack nothing when in reality we are in a pathetic condition.

Lloyd-Jones was interesting in that he said that Calvinism, without a dose of Methodism tended to become intellectual and lifeless.

 

[tyndale1946]

This statement is a perfect example of the problem guys like you get in to. The fact is, I get my theology mainly from secondary sources. This is because as a layman with no formal training, for me to come up with my own theology, even if I could self-righteously claim that is was all from scripture, would be a disaster. As you and some of the other guys on here prove. Here you get on here and take on many of the giants of the very theology you claim to adhere to and it doesn't seem to bother you that you are looking like a neophyte.

Take an hour or so and read Bunyan's work: SAVED BY GRACE. It's probably free on line. That is the work where Bunyan used the illustration that bothers you so much about the door. I suggest you read it because in it is one of the most complete and strong defenses of STRONG 5 point Calvinism that I have ever seen. And he is no less strong on the absolute sovereignty of God in a persons salvation. And he goes into more detail about exactly how the Spirit brings a person to actual faith and how faith can be said to be of God and yet something you must do. There is a balance and a truth that seems to elude you as you arrogantly attack me for using someone like Bunyan who not only knew his theology and how to APPLY it, but used so many scripture references that the charge of not relying on the Bible becomes as ridiculous as the rest of your half baked internet theology.


And you are a poster boy for why many of you should swallow your pride and read some of these secondary sources and reference them before you spout off.

Thanks Dave I will check it out... And for the rest of you brethren, here it is... Brother Glen

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/bunyan/SavedbyGraceJohnBunyan.pdf

 

[AustinC]

This statement is a perfect example of the problem guys like you get in to. The fact is, I get my theology mainly from secondary sources. This is because as a layman with no formal training, for me to come up with my own theology, even if I could self-righteously claim that is was all from scripture, would be a disaster. As you and some of the other guys on here prove. Here you get on here and take on many of the giants of the very theology you claim to adhere to and it doesn't seem to bother you that you are looking like a neophyte.

Read your Bible. That's where you get theology. Once you have observed the word, asked questions of the word and interpreted the word...then you can read the interpretations of others who came before you. If your interpretation is not held by any other, then you know you are wrong.
This is not difficult. A layman (that's what Bunyan was) can do this. It isn't self-righteous for me to point you to God's word. Therefore I will keep pointing you there.

Take an hour or so and read Bunyan's work: SAVED BY GRACE. It's probably free on line. That is the work where Bunyan used the illustration that bothers you so much about the door. I suggest you read it because in it is one of the most complete and strong defenses of STRONG 5 point Calvinism that I have ever seen.

If I have time, I will read it. I am presently reading Revelation, observing, asking questions, interpreting, and checking with others regarding their interpretation. I am presently up to Revelation 15. It is currently a 17 week process to this point.
I studied Revelation 3. My favorite interpretation on verse 20 came from Robert H Mounce in his commentary. His commentary is a gold standard on Revelation.

And he is no less strong on the absolute sovereignty of God in a persons salvation. And he goes into more detail about exactly how the Spirit brings a person to actual faith and how faith can be said to be of God and yet something you must do.

Sounds good. Dave, what does the Bible tells you on this topic?

There is a balance and a truth that seems to elude you as you arrogantly attack me for using someone like Bunyan who not only knew his theology and how to APPLY it, but used so many scripture references that the charge of not relying on the Bible becomes as ridiculous as the rest of your half baked internet theology.

Dave, you seem to think I am attacking you. I am admonishing you to read your Bible first. Find out what God says, then check what others had to say on that verse and passage.

And you are a poster boy for why many of you should swallow your pride and read some of these secondary sources and reference them before you spout off.

As you can read, I do look at secondary sources, after I have done my own study of God's word. That, by the way, is what Bunyan did, what Calvin did, what Luther did, what Owens did, etc.
You are upset because I am pushing you to read God's word first and foremost. That anger is on you, not me. Put down Bunyan and pick up your Bible. When you are done doing your diligent observation, questioning, and interpreting, then go get a commentary by Bunyan and see what interpretation he came to.

 

[DaveXR650]

" Thanks @tyndale1946 . The "knocking at the door" is on page 44 and 45 if you use the Monergism posting. But seriously, read the whole thing as you have time. You will not find a more serious treatment and support of the sovereignty of God in our salvation anywhere compared to what you find there.

And also, you find that tenderly entreating people to come to Christ is in no way incompatible with Calvinism. And, as you scan through that, notice the ton of scripture references you have. But they are in context and explained along with background theology and in addition it is applied at the same time because it is in the form of a pamphlet that regular folks were to read, not systematic theology.

You are upset because I am pushing you to read God's word first and foremost.

I do read the word but I try not to give theological opinions without checking out - theology, first. I do get upset , well, not really upset as much as astounded when people get on here try to trash one of the most beloved Puritans of all time, a guy who Owen himself said was far beyond Owen in spiritual grace, a guy who spent 12 years in prison for preaching and could have been freed at any time if he would have agreed not to preach; because he used an illustration that is out of fashion among modern Calvinists.

 

[Alan Gross]

Lloyd-Jones was interesting in that he said that Calvinism, without a dose of Methodism tended to become intellectual and lifeless.

By, "a dose of Methodism", if he went so far as to preach, "you will He quicken, who just believe you are not dead in your trespasses and sins"(?) then why wouldn't he preach, "open your heart"?

Because, if he did he'd be denying more than Calvinism.

...

To be in fashion among modern emotionalism and sentimentality that is not Spirituality;

...he changed an illustration of Jesus, when;

"he used an illustration that is out of fashion among modern Calvinists."

...and that would be the Bible.

Pre-Calvinist and with any consistent Calvinist.

 

[tyndale1946]

Read your Bible. That's where you get theology. Once you have observed the word, asked questions of the word and interpreted the word...then you can read the interpretations of others who came before you. If your interpretation is not held by any other, then you know you are wrong.
This is not difficult. A layman (that's what Bunyan was) can do this. It isn't self-righteous for me to point you to God's word. Therefore I will keep pointing you there.


If I have time, I will read it. I am presently reading Revelation, observing, asking questions, interpreting, and checking with others regarding their interpretation. I am presently up to Revelation 15. It is currently a 17 week process to this point.
I studied Revelation 3. My favorite interpretation on verse 20 came from Robert H Mounce in his commentary. His commentary is a gold standard on Revelation.


Sounds good. Dave, what does the Bible tells you on this topic?


Dave, you seem to think I am attacking you. I am admonishing you to read your Bible first. Find out what God says, then check what others had to say on that verse and passage.


As you can read, I do look at secondary sources, after I have done my own study of God's word. That, by the way, is what Bunyan did, what Calvin did, what Luther did, what Owens did, etc.
You are upset because I am pushing you to read God's word first and foremost. That anger is on you, not me. Put down Bunyan and pick up your Bible. When you are done doing your diligent observation, questioning, and interpreting, then go get a commentary by Bunyan and see what interpretation he came to.

Ah a Revelation man, maybe we speak the same language... Tyndale New Testament Commentaries... Revelation by Leon Morris and Worthy Is The Lamb by Ray Summers (Interpreting The Book Of Revelation In Its Historical Background)... Just a couple off the top of my Head... Both about twenty bucks apiece... Brother Glen

 

[AustinC]

Ah a Revelation man, maybe we speak the same language... Tyndale New Testament Commentaries... Revelation by Leon Morris and Worthy Is The Lamb by Ray Summers (Interpreting The Book Of Revelation In Its Historical Background)... Just a couple off the top of my Head... Both about twenty bucks apiece... Brother Glen

I have to confess, I was raised a pre-trib rapture, interpret Revelation as such, person. I hadn't really done the work of observation, question, interpret, based purely on the text. What I am finding is a book of encouragement like none other for us today. I have been brought to tears of worship as I follow the tapestry of what John is seeing. It's like I am a little kid, opening up a new present and getting to praise my Father for the gift. God's word never fails to excite.

 

[tyndale1946]

I have to confess, I was raised a pre-trib rapture, interpret Revelation as such, person. I hadn't really done the work of observation, question, interpret, based purely on the text. What I am finding is a book of encouragement like none other for us today. I have been brought to tears of worship as I follow the tapestry of what John is seeing. It's like I am a little kid, opening up a new present and getting to praise my Father for the gift. God's word never fails to excite.

I done a lot of what you haven't done... Probably been doing it since the age of 22, now 77 but if you are finding the joy and the encouragement to praise the Lord... That's all that matters... That is the amazing thing about this last book of the Bible you discover something new everyday... Brother Glen

 

[DaveXR650]

By, "a dose of Methodism", if he went so far as to preach, "you will He quicken, who just believe you are not dead in your trespasses and sins"(?) then why wouldn't he preach, "open your heart"?

No. Lloyd-Jones was talking about Welsh Calvinistic Methodism, which he felt was really the only true Calvinism. "Calvinism without Methodism has certain dangerous tendencies, which we must recognize." He also said that Calvinism without Methodism leads to "intellectualism and scholasticism - that is it's peculiar temptation". It's off topic but he tended to define "Methodism" as having an experiential or experimental emphasis and then points out how much those Methodists read the Puritans and so then it starts coming together.

He also said Calvinism without Methodism tends to discourage prayer. And he said that Calvinism without Methodism tends to produce "a joyless, hard, not to say a harsh and cold type of religion.

Regarding the last point, he said:
"All this results from intellectualism of course, and the more the intellect dominates, the less joy there will be, and a hardness,
and a coldness, and a harshness, and a bigotry tend to come in. I had almost said that Calvinism without Methodism tends
to produce 'dead Calvinism' but I'm not saying that. Because I regard the term 'dead Calvinism' as a contradiction in terms. I
say that a dead Calvinism is impossible, and if your Calvinism appears to be dead it is not Calvinism, it is a philosophy. It is a
philosophy using Calvinistic terms, it is an intellectualism, and it is not real Calvinism."

I'm just saying to all you guys on here that when we see something so beautifully and lovingly done like Bunyan's pamphlet "Saved By Grace" and the first thing we think of is that he didn't exegete Rev. 3:20 properly, well, isn't it at least a possibility that we might be drifting a little toward the directions Lloyd-Jones was talking about?

 

[Alan Gross]

it is a philosophy

And it's adding to the scriptures and a lie of the devil.

Men can be wrong.

Sentimentality is not Spiritually, no matter how far someone thinks it is great to go away from Calvinism.

Just making up stuff is dead wrong.

Jesus Christ was not directly addressing anyone lost, in Revelation 3:20.

To say He was is Anti-Christ.

"Open the door and I will come in", said to the lost is a drop dead lie of the devil and utter deceit.

Jesus Christ knows better, whether any man knows or not or wants to open the door and sup with him.

The devil is a liar.

He has been altering texts of the Bible since the garden of Eden.

His alterations have to be depended on to change doctrine from God-Pleasing, to soul damning and that is what he has done here.

That is not how to worship God or win the lost.

There are not two ways of Salvation, or more.

Jesus was nailed to the cross by sin.

And it is sin that advocates a lost sinner open their sin-cursed heart of flesh that can do nothing.

And it is worse sin to advocate that the Lord does not have the Power to save, unless or until they do.

Making this wholesale addition to scripture is just sin all around.

 

[DaveXR650]

And it is sin that advocates a lost sinner open their sin-cursed heart of flesh that can do nothing.

And it is worse sin to advocate that the Lord does not have the Power to save, unless or until they do.

Making this wholesale addition to scripture is just sin all around.

The pamphlet by Bunyan shows the step by step logic of just how the Holy Spirit brings a person to faith. It's a little long because he uses different types of sinners and different arguments that people use for not coming to Christ. And he treats them all in great detail. I think it's completely valid to use the aspect of Christ coming (this time) as a gentle savior and entreating sinners, and telling them, after all they have done and after all their provocation, He is still actually asking them to come to Him. Someday the time of calling and grace will be over, either because the hearer dies, or the end of the age comes, or the Holy Spirit just quits calling. But for now, I don't see anything wrong with, in a case where someone might say "It's too late for me. I've lived a selfish life and I have gone too far for too long", for you to say that Jesus is now "knocking" and would actually like it if you opened the door to Him. Yes, that is an invitation and it's an offer. It is not putting the sinner in control. He knocks when He wants, sovereignly, but it's just as much an error to get mad that He knocks. We end up sounding like the elder brother in the prodigal son story.

 

[MrW]

The baby has no conscious decision in that.

Yet it happens. And God is gracious in allowing humans to choose or reject Christ. He in fact requires we choose.

He could have made us robots but clearly desires us to love Him by our own choice.

 

[AustinC]

I done a lot of what you haven't done... Probably been doing it since the age of 22, now 77 but if you are finding the joy and the encouragement to praise the Lord... That's all that matters... That is the amazing thing about this last book of the Bible you discover something new everyday... Brother Glen

I have read it many times. I always read it from a pre-trib point of view and the "left behind" fear. It became a letter that was basically irrelevant if I didn't care about interpreting numbers and wasting my time. But, when I let the text speak and I let the numbers be symbolic, I find that this letter is for today, not just for the future.
I am still not obsessed with this letter, but now I see the amazing relevance of every verse for today. I understand that the tribulation is present, right now, and the two beasts are present, right now, and the call to perseverance is present, right now, I understand that the present is connected to the past and to the rest of scripture (Psalm 2 for example).
Tossing aside my presupposition and allowing the text to speak without biased observation is a beautiful thing.

 

[AustinC]

No. Lloyd-Jones was talking about Welsh Calvinistic Methodism, which he felt was really the only true Calvinism. "Calvinism without Methodism has certain dangerous tendencies, which we must recognize." He also said that Calvinism without Methodism leads to "intellectualism and scholasticism - that is it's peculiar temptation". It's off topic but he tended to define "Methodism" as having an experiential or experimental emphasis and then points out how much those Methodists read the Puritans and so then it starts coming together.

He also said Calvinism without Methodism tends to discourage prayer. And he said that Calvinism without Methodism tends to produce "a joyless, hard, not to say a harsh and cold type of religion.

Regarding the last point, he said:
"All this results from intellectualism of course, and the more the intellect dominates, the less joy there will be, and a hardness,
and a coldness, and a harshness, and a bigotry tend to come in. I had almost said that Calvinism without Methodism tends
to produce 'dead Calvinism' but I'm not saying that. Because I regard the term 'dead Calvinism' as a contradiction in terms. I
say that a dead Calvinism is impossible, and if your Calvinism appears to be dead it is not Calvinism, it is a philosophy. It is a
philosophy using Calvinistic terms, it is an intellectualism, and it is not real Calvinism."

I'm just saying to all you guys on here that when we see something so beautifully and lovingly done like Bunyan's pamphlet "Saved By Grace" and the first thing we think of is that he didn't exegete Rev. 3:20 properly, well, isn't it at least a possibility that we might be drifting a little toward the directions Lloyd-Jones was talking about?

Please point us toward Christ, Dave. Your being enamored by a servant of Christ is teetering on worship of a personality who was as flawed as I am.
What does the Bible tells us?

 

[AustinC]

From Bunyan:

First, then, we may be said to be saved in the purpose of God before the world began. The apostle saith that "he saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim 1:9). This is the beginning of salvation, and according to this beginning all things concur and fall out in conclusion—"He hath saved us according to his eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus." God in thus saving may be said to save us by determining to make those means effectual for the blessed completing of our salvation; and hence we are said "to be chosen in Christ to salvation."

Second. As we may be said to be saved in the purpose of God before the foundation of the world, so we may be said to be saved before we are converted, or called to Christ. And hence "saved" is put before "called"; "he hath saved us, and called us"; he saith not, he hath called us, and saved us; but he puts saving before calling (2 Tim 1:9). So again, we are said to be "preserved in Christ and called"; he saith not, called and preserved (Jude 1). And therefore God saith again, "I will pardon them whom I reserve"—that is, as Paul expounds it, those whom I have "elected and kept," and this part of salvation is accomplished through the forbearance of God (Jer 50:20; Rom 11:4,5). God beareth with his own elect, for Christ's sake, all the time of their unregeneracy, until the time comes which he hath appointed for their conversion.

Now this "saving" of us arises from six causes. 1. God hath chosen us unto salvation, and therefore will not frustrate his own purposes (1 Thess 5:9). 2. God hath given us to Christ; and his gift, as well as his calling, is without repentance (Rom 11:29; John 6:37). 3. Christ hath purchased us with his blood (Rom 5:8,9). 4. They are, by God, counted in Christ before they are converted (Eph 1:3,4). 5. They are ordained before conversion to eternal life; yea, to be called, to be justified, to be glorified, and therefore all this must come upon them (Rom 8:29,30). 6. For all this, he hath also appointed them their portion and measure of grace, and that before the world began; therefore, that they may partake of all these privileges, they are saved and called, preserved in Christ, and called.

 

[DaveXR650]

Please point us toward Christ, Dave. Your being enamored by a servant of Christ is teetering on worship of a personality who was as flawed as I am.
What does the Bible tells us?

That was a response to a specific accusation that Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a heretic. The response was appropriate. Don't worry about it as it did not pertain to you and was not intended to be against you or anyone. I am glad to see you quoting Bunyan above. My whole point in this was to show some of you guys that the use of a particular illustration should not "trigger" you to start shouting heretic. You don't need me to point you to Jesus. You seem to me to be well versed in scripture. But you are a militant Calvinist. The value of Bunyan to you would be that you would see how Calvinism can be applied and how someone with a high view of God's sovereignty still can have a warm style of preaching and that you might find it useful in your own life and in dealing with others. I highly respect the Puritans and Martyn Lloyd-Jones would be my favorite preacher post 1900 and I can honestly say that without having read so many Puritans and guys like Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, J.C. Ryle, and Horatius Bonar I would completely reject Calvinism. Before I started reading them I believed like my Baptist pastor told me, "Calvin was wrong on baptism, he was wrong on the Lord's Supper; why in the world would we listen to him on anything?"

 

[AustinC]

That was a response to a specific accusation that Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a heretic. The response was appropriate. Don't worry about it as it did not pertain to you and was not intended to be against you or anyone. I am glad to see you quoting Bunyan above. My whole point in this was to show some of you guys that the use of a particular illustration should not "trigger" you to start shouting heretic. You don't need me to point you to Jesus. You seem to me to be well versed in scripture. But you are a militant Calvinist. The value of Bunyan to you would be that you would see how Calvinism can be applied and how someone with a high view of God's sovereignty still can have a warm style of preaching and that you might find it useful in your own life and in dealing with others. I highly respect the Puritans and Martyn Lloyd-Jones would be my favorite preacher post 1900 and I can honestly say that without having read so many Puritans and guys like Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, J.C. Ryle, and Horatius Bonar I would completely reject Calvinism. Before I started reading them I believed like my Baptist pastor told me, "Calvin was wrong on baptism, he was wrong on the Lord's Supper; why in the world would we listen to him on anything?"

"A militant Calvinist" LOL!!!

Dave, I read the Bible. I see what it tells me and I stand up for what God's word says. If you consider that to be militant then I take that as badge of honor. To fight alongside my King for the honor of His Word is a good thing.
My question to you is, "Why are you so afraid to read God's word and honor the context of His Word?"
I think Bunyan would tell you to put down his writing and pick up your Bible and read it. Surely the Bible is worth an infinite number of books written by men, no matter how Godly they are.

 

[DaveXR650]

My question to you is, "Why are you so afraid to read God's word and honor the context of His Word?"

I do. I think that it is perfectly OK to use that passage to encourage anyone to come to Christ. "If any man hears my voice" means any man. End of argument. End of thread. Or, you could begin to argue and exegete and soon you would have to bring in other opinions and you would be right back where we are. Isn't the problem here really just that the guys I'm referring to happen to agree with me and the first and simplest reading of scripture that occurs? And, they happen to be real heavyweights when it come to theologians. I'm sorry, but the guys I quote are not equal to you in giving opinions. The fact that John Owen and John Bunyan used Revelation 3:20 to encourage the unsaved to come to Christ means something, whether you agree or not.