Christ's cross not sufficient ?

But then whenever is the cross useful to the souls already in hell ? Or do you mean to say that his salvation extends to the souls in hell ?

So, were you there when God planned the salvation of His people ? I do not remember reading anything in the Bible that says God consulted with man as to his responsibility in His redemption of souls.

Is everything He told His disciples and apostles always addressed in a general way to all men and concerns all ?

Where specifically is the Scripture that references this action to be done by the creature so the Creator can save him ? And the Scripture that says the act of redemption and salvation must be followed by assent to that salvation on the part of the sinner ?

The problem is I am not the one on record in the Bible as saying it is finished. Christ Himself is. Now, either He lied, or He was in extreme duress He did not know what He was saying. Can you clarify that for Him ?

Well then Paul was lying when he said the Ephesians were seated at heavenly places in Christ Jesus, and he lied a second time when he said he was crucified with Christ because the Bible never said he was already there during the execution of Christ, and if Paul lied, then the Bible is not worth believing, right ?

If on the other hand you will argue to the contrary why shouldn't I be able to say "at Calvary".

Nope. I would rather rely on what is on record about Christ, who He is, what He did, and the hope that those who trust Him have, than to utter words that I will doubt tomorrow, then claim again the next day, and be kept in a vicious cycle of human frailty.

 

Sorry, tinytim.
I post in between calls.
I work in a call center as HiSpeed tech support and we're getting a lot of flack from some customers undergoing migration.
Real pressure.


Now, to the post.

Maybe as fellow believers, at this point in time, on the surface it appears we mean the same thing but express it differently, however, I am talking in terms of someone who has heard the gospel, seen the various ways it was presented, participated in those various ways myself, and come to the conclusion that there is no way, just no way, that God would use means to save His own.

You, John, and various others on this board, come from the direction of means. John's is missions and missionaries, maybe because that's where he is right now, and that's what he is, a missionary. Various others here, including yourself, propose that God saves His own by the preaching of the gospel to which the hearer must FIRST respond BEFORE any salvation must take effect.

To his credit, John of Japan never said that, or at least, I don't remember him saying that.

You, in fact, have, sadly, been so bold as to say that the ultimate sacrifice made by the Father of His Son is meaningless without the sinner believing in that sacrifice, that is, accepting that sacrifice, as if the very efficacy of Christ's blood depended on the sinner's will and faith, and not on the mercy and grace of God and His will to save many from His wrath.

Let me say that if there is one thing Satan would have prevented if it was within his power, it would have been the death of Christ on the cross because that cross represented all the glory and power of God, all His grace and mercy, all His unselfishness and love, all expressed in Christ, for His people whom He foreknew and whom He loved from before the foundation of the world.

Yet you boldly proclaim that sacrifice meaningless and useless without the participation of the sinner's will.

What I am saying, have always said, and will continue to say till I get to Heaven, if indeed Christ had put me under the wings of His mercy, is that even if I had never heard the gospel, even if I believed the way you do, or the way I do now, or not at all, had I been born in a place where the gospel would never penetrate, the eternal salvation of God's people, of whose number I hope I belong to by Christ's grace, rests solely and purely on God's will.

Good works is expected of me if perchance I get under the preaching and hearing of the Bible not so it will add to the surety of my salvation, or testify to the fact of my salvation, since even you, my friend, perhaps will admit that good works never guarantees one's salvation, nor does it guarantee one is indeed a Christian factually and not only by name.

Now, before I get you all hyperventilated and apoplexied let me say that I am not an antinomian. Far from it. However, my expectation of gospel obedience, gospel and Christian behavior, and gospel church membership extends only to those who know the Savior thru the preaching of the Savior, and not to those known of and by the Savior but who may never have heard of Him either because of credal constraints, racial constraints, or geographical constraints, or whatever else may be restricting the gospel from getting to them. Or perhaps they may have heard of the Savior, albeit vaguely.

Do those facts negate the effectivity of Christ's blood on the cross if the blood was shed for them also ? If Christ knew them and wrote their names in His Book solely because He wants to save them, do their not hearing the gospel and therefore being saved, in time, from their ungodly behavior, their ungodly religions and creeds, negate the eternal gains that Christ's sacrifice on the cross intended for them ?

In your book, the answer will be yes. Sadly.

In my book, the answer will be no. They were redeemed by the Savior for Himself, for His kingdom which is not of this world, and the Savior had not put any conditions to their entry into eternal life but that that entry be through Him, Him, and Him only. No plus. No minus. No if's. No but's.

Well, the phones have begun picking up again, tinytim.

See you tonight. Or is it - read you tonight ?

Ciao.:wavey:

 

Agreed.

Nothing in the Bible where Paul "accepted" Christ as the term is meant in today's Christian circles. He bowed to Christ, Christ brought him low, and brought him back to Himself.

The rich young ruler may have turned his back on following Christ, but there is no record of Christ turning His back on him.

Agree and disagree. He does not expect to be Master of our lives. He commands us to make Him master of our lives. And herein is resistance possible, as shown by the rich young ruler. Herein are choices made. Do I ? Or do I not ? Can I ? Or can I not ? Herein are many called, and few chosen. Herein is the road "straight and narrow", no pun to you intended, and wide, that leads to life (blessings) or perils (chastisements).

 

Ever heard the song 'Windmills of Your Mind" Jack ?

That's where we're headed because we're going to go around and around and around with me arguing that "all men" do not mean all mankind but, in the context of Paul's times, all manner of men whether Jew, Gentile, bond, free, master, slave, tall, short, young, old. And you arguing it means all mankind everywhere, anywhere.

And then there is the matter of connecting "savior" to "believe".

As a Primitive Baptist, my understanding is whenever an action is required of the "believer" or the elect or the addressees in the Bible, then the salvation being referred to is not the eternal salvation authored in eternity by the Triune God, and effected in time by Immanuel, because that salvation is solely and purely and singularly OF THE LORD, belongs to Him, granted only by Him, and is never conditional to the sinner.

Therefore, the salvation being referred to is in the timely sense, which is the same results you, as a professing believer and teacher of the gospel, hope your hearer and students will come to. Their deliverance from their previous ungodly religion, ungodly creeds, ungodly ways of life, ungodly thoughts and their turning to the living God in praise and worship and study which will naturally result in their temporal blessings here on earth as children of God.

If you note most of Paul's letters, he almost always began with doctrine, and then progresses to application, and he always spoke of Christ's salvation as purely, solely, and absolutely God's alone, by grace, never by merit.