Divine Illumination/ Divine Enablement

[DHK]

DHK
Based on your post here you are still struggling mightily do understand these things.

I don't struggle Icon. I know whom I have believed. I know the truth. Those that treat the Bible in such an allegorical way that they don't know what it says any more should be ashamed.

As all men sinned and Died in Adam....and salvation is of the Lord...what everyone else understands is that any and every time someone gets saved, God has granted the gifts of saving repentance and faith to that elect sinner and translates them from darkness to light.

We all believe salvation is of the Lord. Some just like the throw around false accusations.
As to faith being given as a gift of God to the unregenerate you have never demonstrated to this day that this a Biblical truth--not one verse.

It is the work of God the Holy Spirit in the unseen realm working in the sinner, performing a Divine spiritual surgery DHK. Sorry you do not like the truth as it has been revealed in scripture but that is between you and God as He wrote it.

"the unseen world;" "spiritual surgery;" That is not biblical truth. Witch-doctors use the same terminology. It is popular in Wiccan circles. You don't have the truth. You can't explain biblical regeneration and don't.

Can you show anywhere that I quoted from Calvin?

This is Calvinism right in this post:
"God has granted the gifts of saving repentance and faith to that elect sinner and translates them from darkness to light."

--A statement you have never demonstrated to be true--where does it say God gives faith to the unregenerate? Do we have a mob of unregenerated people that have been give faith by God and yet have not been saved wandering around?? Ridiculous.

I have offered you scripture as has O.R.....you cannot welcome it however and state that it has "no meaning" unless we give it meaning???? This is indeed strange fire you offer;
10 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.

This does not demonstrate that faith is given to the unregenerate. It is an OT story that has no bearing on the subject. Why are you trying to deflect the subject. You have no answer. You haven't offered scripture that has an answer to the question. You have no answer.

lately you show more and more along with two or three other posters that you are not interested in truth.

You don't have the truth. You can't answer a simple question. Where does the Bible show that God gives an unregenerated man faith?

You hold what is known as the carnal Christian heresy.

If it is a heresy, then you are calling Paul a heretic, for he is the one who called the brethren at Corinth, carnal, and he did it on more than one occasion. I would rather believe Paul than you.

You were offered direct proof which you rejected and would not listen to so your error remains.
It was you who said you would not listen to the sermons and teaching offered, so I have no sympathy for your posting of error.

I was offered man's philosophy not the Word. I don't need to listen to your error. I showed you straight from the Word where you are wrong. I expounded the scripture for you. But you don't want the Word; you like your philosophy instead. You hang on to Calvinism instead of the exposition of the Word of God.

Your attempt to explain this error fails on several levels...but as you do not want truth at all I will leave you in your error until such time you want to learn.

You didn't and can't refute it. You won't even try. You simply state that it is wrong. Truly sad.

No...you are in damage control mode.
I have shown what you have said and when you yourself see it in print, you are shocked at how bad it is.
Everyone has commented that you have totally missed it so now you are attempting to reword it, even borrowing language from the cal teaching in an effort to make it seem like you believe enough truth to make it equivalent to what others have said.....IT DOES NOT.....IT FAILS.

I have never said that salvation is not all of God, for salvation is all of God.
Now you are the one that is making false accusations. However it is a gift to be received by faith. That is where you fail. Salvation is by grace through faith as the Bible teaches. If faith is not exercised there is no salvation.

The teaching that salvation is of "grace" is a mandatory teaching. Non cals do not believe it is ALL of grace. The limit which part of salvation is of grace.
You do it in this very post.

And you are lying, or at the very least misrepresenting our beliefs.

Strawman.....Cals do not teach "forced grace" Psalm 110:3

Psa 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
--And what has this to do with anythng?

You believe that because man is elect before the foundation of the world, he will be regenerated. He does not need to hear the Word. God will regenerate him so that he will have the faith to hear and believe the Word in order to be saved. That is fallacious. And that is not what grace is all about. That is not what salvation is all about. You are confused. What I just described is your belief of a "forced regeneration" where man has no choice but to be regenerated because of "his election."

Like I explained to you a few weeks ago....you keep returning to your error, because you cannot accept your narrow fundy views do not cover the whole topic.....so you try and drag the discussion back to what you think is true.

While I understand why you do this, the quicker you come to grips with the fact that you have strayed from the correct teaching and offer a shallow ,weak version that has as much error as it does truth ,the better off you will be.

Let me quote the verse so you can see it for yourself:
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
--Now you call into question the veracity of Paul's teaching here and call it error. My stand is that "faith" comes from the Word of God, and you called that error. That is exactly what you just did.
--You believe that faith somehow comes from another source, before a person even hears the word; that regeneration gives a man faith. That is not true. You have yet to prove it. You are in error.

Most Christians know and understand differently. When Ezk. 36 was written it was future .

Do you know how silly you sound:

"When Ezekiel 36 was written it was future."

Yeah, right! Ezekiel lived in the late 6th century B.C. almost 600 years before Christ. They were justified by faith--by faith in God, and in the truth of God that had been revealed to them at that time.
Ezekiel 36 was written to Israel. It is still written to Israel. It speaks of Israel's restoration in its own land, the land of her fathers, which is still in future. Even a Calvinist like MacArthur will tell you the same. You are way off base.

The fact that God's design included elect gentiles grafted in was a surprise to Jews and evidently to you also:

God judged the Jews. They are blinded for a season, until the fulness of the Gentiles is come. But there will come a time when they will recognize their Messiah for who He is and turn to him. This is not a surprise to me, but a denial of yours.

Nt. revelation like all revelation was progressively given. What was a one point a mystery is now revealed.
We are in the Kingdom now as it grows in the midst of it's enemies.

You are in denial. If we were in the Kingdom, Christ would be ruling and the world would not be in chaos. But instead Satan is the god of this world as Scripture says he is, and we are in a spiritual warfare. ISIS is running amock and even our government leaders realize that evil abounds. But you are blind to it.

Progressive revelation or not, Ezekiel was not addressing you, he was addressing the nation of Israel and those promises are still addressed to her. You allegoric method of interpretation simply butchers the word of God.

Certainly they were. Comments like this are why I learned if I was going to learn truth, I would need to flee from dispensationalism.

Yes...you are playing the part of the fool and slow of heart to believe ALL the prophets have spoken

That scripture doesn't prove anything. It gives you an opportunity to use derogatory language.
Concerning the disciples:
And yet they still did not comprehend. Even after the resurrection, Thomas doubted until he had actually seen the prints in his hand. The OT saints never saw Christ or his resurrection at all.

DHK......I can present the gospel from all 66 books because I am not bound by the shackles of dispensationalism.....

In fact if you are not teaching Calvinism you are preaching or teaching a defective message.

And that arrogant statement demonstrates you don't know what the gospel is.

That is a fine section of scripture, but it is not as specific as what is being discussed here...it does not get you off the hook....Your denials are already in print.

I am not the one that denies salvation; but when you equate it with TULIP, then you have.

 

[RLBosley]

Not really. The more I read about Calvinism the more inconsistencies and contradictions I find. The one you expressed is one of them. IMO it is totally inconsistent.

Then you aren't paying attention. Nothing I said was contradictory or inconsistent. Your (mis)understanding is what makes it appear inconsistent.

--"The reading of the Word will not do anything for the unregenerate."
--"They can't fully comprehend it as the scriptures are spiritual and they are not."
Your next statement is what non-Cals believe. "There is nothing at all preventing God from using the written Word to enlighten the sinner to the truth of the Gospel.".

It's not actually. Look at how I said it. It is God that uses the written Word to enlighten the sinner to the gospel. Your view is that there is something intrinsic within the man that allows him to understand and believe the gospel. The Spirit may convict of sin after he reads and understands, but logically your position demands that the man have natural ability of himself to understand first.

My position - the Cal position - is exactly as I said. Simple reading will do nothing for the unregenerate as they cannot comprehend spiritual things. However, God can use the reading of scripture to open the sinners heart to the gospel.

Do you not see the vast difference?

Now I said something close to that in my testimony, and Icon jumped on me saying that my salvation is not of God but all man-centered, coming close to calling me not saved. Why? Because I understood the Scriptures that were being explained to me. Why am I castigated for saying such a statement? In Icon's view I simply used the first person singular "I." Salvation is all of God, which I never denied.

Saying "Salvation is all of God" is great - now what does that mean?

Read Icon's view of regeneration. It is all from Ezekiel 36. God does it all by exchanging your heart and sprinkling you with water. Totally incomprehensible. This is what I am against. No belief; no faith; no Word of God. It is a mystical undefinable operation taken out of the OT from a passage which deals directly with Israel.

Icon is 100% right. Ezek 36 is about regeneration. What do you think Jesus was talking about in John 3?

 

[RLBosley]

I agree!

I like what God says about His Word!

Isaiah 55:11. So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

What a beautiful promise. :godisgood:

 

[DHK]

Then you aren't paying attention. Nothing I said was contradictory or inconsistent. Your (mis)understanding is what makes it appear inconsistent.

It's not actually. Look at how I said it. It is God that uses the written Word to enlighten the sinner to the gospel. Your view is that there is something intrinsic within the man that allows him to understand and believe the gospel. The Spirit may convict of sin after he reads and understands, but logically your position demands that the man have natural ability of himself to understand first.

My position - the Cal position - is exactly as I said. Simple reading will do nothing for the unregenerate as they cannot comprehend spiritual things. However, God can use the reading of scripture to open the sinners heart to the gospel.

Do you not see the vast difference?

Not really. Here is the problem.
your position demands that the man have natural ability of himself to understand first.
My position - the Cal position - is exactly as I said. Simple reading will do nothing for the unregenerate as they cannot comprehend spiritual things.
The Bible, at least parts of it, is often used in university for literature. Unsaved students are required to study it, "understand it," write about it, and even be tested on it. They must understand the subject. There are entire theological departments at universities quite often run by liberals, unsaved individuals. That doesn't mean they have no understanding of the Bible. Being unsaved does not negate understanding or comprehension. There must be a conviction of sin, a realization of the need of a Savior, before an individual will come to Christ.
I went to one of the most conservative Bible colleges that one could go to. One of the girls that went there, went because her parents sent her. She went through all four years, class after class, chapel every day, a Bible major, and then on the day before graduation finally got saved. Did she understand what she had learned. Probably. She passed all her courses. It was the rebellious heart, not the comprehension that kept her from Christ.

Man does have the ability to understand. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that he can't. Some verses are taken out of context. He can't understand the deeper truths of God. But there is nothing preventing him from understanding the milk of God's Word, as the Corinthians did.

Saying "Salvation is all of God" is great - now what does that mean?

"For by grace are ye saved through faith..."
The grace refers to the work of Christ. It was His work and His work alone that will save us. He said: "It is finished," meaning there is nothing that we can do to merit eternal life. Christ did it all. Salvation is all of God.
But the gift of God is eternal life. it is a gift. And that gift must be received.
Wherever you look in the Bible grace is always received. It always has a recipient.

Icon is 100% right. Ezek 36 is about regeneration. What do you think Jesus was talking about in John 3?

He is 100% wrong. That passage is directed at Israel and no other person. It even speaks of Israel going to the land of their fathers. To allegorize it to mean something else is not doing justice to the Scriptures.
Christ never referenced Ezekiel 36 when speaking to Nicodemus. Not one reference to that chapter or even to that book.

I have expounded that chapter many times on this board.
In very brief summary: you must be born of water and the Spirit.
What does the water mean? Catholics point to baptism, but that would be heresy. The scriptures point to the Word itself (Psa.119:9; John 15:3; James 1:18; 1Pet.1:23; Titus 3:5).
In 1Pet.1:23 especially it tells us "born again of the Word of God".
Thus there are two things that are necessary in the new birth: The Word, and the Holy Spirit. One cannot be born again without the Word and without the Holy Spirit. God uses the Holy Spirit as man hears (or reads) the Word. He must hear the gospel before he is regenerated/saved (they happen simultaneously. It is the hearing of the Word that gives faith (Rom.10:17), for faith is simply confidence. If you hear the Word of God, the gospel, you can be confident of the truth that you heard that it makes sense and is truth.
Our faith is not blind, but is founded upon reason and truth.
Salvation is all of God. Christ paid it all. The message of grace, God's grace is there. But it must be received. And it must be received by faith.
Salvation is by grace through faith.
The Spirit works through the Word to bring a person to Christ. He receives God's gift of salvation by faith. He is regenerated and saved at the same time. It is simultaneous. One cannot be regenerated without the gospel and faith in the gospel.
Faith is not a work. Romans 4:1-5 plainly tells us that faith is not a work. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know their Bible very well. Faith is opposed to works. Salvation is a gift received from God. It is God's grace. But grace received.

Marvelous grace of our loving Lord,
Grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt,
Yonder on Calvary's mount out-poured,
There where the blood of the Lamb was spilt.

Grace, grace, God's grace,
Grace that will pardon and cleanse within;
Grace, grace, God's grace,
Grace that is greater than all our sin.

3 Marvelous, infinite, matchless grace,
Freely bestowed on all who believe;
All who are longing to see His face,
Will you this moment His grace receive!

 

[Rippon]

From 4/15/2008
Rip : God mercifully intervened and caused you to be born from above.
DHK's reply : God did not force me to do anything. He knew ahead of time what decisions I would make, but he didn't 'cause me' or force me to make them. I would almost put that in the class of damnable heresies...

What makes thee to differ DHK? Apparently not God, but yourself.

 

[RLBosley]

Not really. Here is the problem.
your position demands that the man have natural ability of himself to understand first.
My position - the Cal position - is exactly as I said. Simple reading will do nothing for the unregenerate as they cannot comprehend spiritual things.
The Bible, at least parts of it, is often used in university for literature. Unsaved students are required to study it, "understand it," write about it, and even be tested on it. They must understand the subject. There are entire theological departments at universities quite often run by liberals, unsaved individuals. That doesn't mean they have no understanding of the Bible. Being unsaved does not negate understanding or comprehension. There must be a conviction of sin, a realization of the need of a Savior, before an individual will come to Christ.

Again you simply must be trying to misrepresent what I and Icon and OR are saying. Of course they can read and understand the facts of what occurs in scripture! No one doubts that. When we talk of comprehending and believing we mean the spiritual things of the Word. Understanding the facts of Jesus life death and resurrection as presented in the Bible is vastly different than understanding the spiritual truth of it. I can't believe that you honestly need me to explain this to you. Or do you really believe that comprehending the scripture and believing God only involves mental assent to the facts?

I went to one of the most conservative Bible colleges that one could go to. One of the girls that went there, went because her parents sent her. She went through all four years, class after class, chapel every day, a Bible major, and then on the day before graduation finally got saved. Did she understand what she had learned. Probably. She passed all her courses. It was the rebellious heart, not the comprehension that kept her from Christ.

You literally just proved my point! She read over and over and over yet it did nothing for her until God moved and opened her mind to the truth of the gospel! She could understand the facts, but did not have spiritual understanding.

Man does have the ability to understand. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that he can't. Some verses are taken out of context. He can't understand the deeper truths of God. But there is nothing preventing him from understanding the milk of God's Word, as the Corinthians did.

1Co 2:14 HCSB - But the unbeliever does not welcome what comes from God's Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated spiritually.​

He is not able.

Rom 3:11 HCSB - There is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.​

None understand or seek God.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith..."
The grace refers to the work of Christ. It was His work and His work alone that will save us. He said: "It is finished," meaning there is nothing that we can do to merit eternal life. Christ did it all. Salvation is all of God.
But the gift of God is eternal life. it is a gift. And that gift must be received.
Wherever you look in the Bible grace is always received. It always has a recipient.

Of course it's received. The only problem is that the natural man hates God and would rather go to hell than submit to him. This is why the Lord must call some to himself and open their hearts to the gospel. It's all of grace.

He is 100% wrong. That passage is directed at Israel and no other person. It even speaks of Israel going to the land of their fathers. To allegorize it to mean something else is not doing justice to the Scriptures.
Christ never referenced Ezekiel 36 when speaking to Nicodemus. Not one reference to that chapter or even to that book.

Unreal. If you can't read Ezek 36 and see it's fullfillment and culmination in the New Testament church then I simply can't help you. I don't even know where to begin with such silliness.

I have expounded that chapter many times on this board.
In very brief summary: you must be born of water and the Spirit.
What does the water mean? Catholics point to baptism, but that would be heresy. The scriptures point to the Word itself (Psa.119:9; John 15:3; James 1:18; 1Pet.1:23; Titus 3:5).
In 1Pet.1:23 especially it tells us "born again of the Word of God".
Thus there are two things that are necessary in the new birth: The Word, and the Holy Spirit. One cannot be born again without the Word and without the Holy Spirit. God uses the Holy Spirit as man hears (or reads) the Word. He must hear the gospel before he is regenerated/saved (they happen simultaneously. It is the hearing of the Word that gives faith (Rom.10:17), for faith is simply confidence. If you hear the Word of God, the gospel, you can be confident of the truth that you heard that it makes sense and is truth.

It is not within man to comprehend spiritual things without God enabling him. You have far too high of a view of man. As for what the water symbolizes, you are correct that the Word of God is often portrayed that way, however there is no indication that that is what Jesus is symbolizing in John 3. As the J,F&B commentary states:

5. of water and of the Spirit--A twofold explanation of the "new birth," so startling to Nicodemus. To a Jewish ecclesiastic, so familiar with the symbolical application of water, in every variety of way and form of expression, this language was fitted to show that the thing intended was no other than a thorough spiritual purification by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, element of water and operation of the Spirit are brought together in a glorious evangelical prediction of Ezekiel ( Eze 36:25-27 ), which Nicodemus might have been reminded of had such spiritualities not been almost lost in the reigning formalism. Already had the symbol of water been embodied in an initiatory ordinance, in the baptism of the Jewish expectants of Messiah by the Baptist, not to speak of the baptism of Gentile proselytes before that; and in the Christian Church it was soon to become the great visible door of entrance into "the kingdom of God," the reality being the sole work of the Holy Ghost ( Tts 3:5 ).

Our faith is not blind, but is founded upon reason and truth.
Salvation is all of God. Christ paid it all. The message of grace, God's grace is there. But it must be received. And it must be received by faith.
Salvation is by grace through faith.

The Spirit works through the Word to bring a person to Christ. He receives God's gift of salvation by faith. He is regenerated and saved at the same time. It is simultaneous. One cannot be regenerated without the gospel and faith in the gospel.
Faith is not a work. Romans 4:1-5 plainly tells us that faith is not a work. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know their Bible very well. Faith is opposed to works. Salvation is a gift received from God. It is God's grace. But grace received.

But where does faith come from? The grace of God or our reason? If it is only reason then why are some of the most intelligent people around the world utterly opposed to the gospel, even knowing the facts of scripture?

While witnessing I met a man this past weekend, named Ernie (pray for him). This man had gone through hell on earth - you could see it in his bloodshot eyes. He knew the facts of the Bible. He even read the Bible he said. He knew exactly what Jesus said about hell and salvation. He didn't care. He utterly rejected the gospel saying he didn't care if he died and went to hell - he wanted his sin. The man was clearly intelligent and clear thinking - maybe even reasonable in speaking of earthly things. But there was nothing in him that wanted God.

How can you explain that? If everyone has innate ability to believe and faith is simply the combination of reason and understood truth (as you indicate) then there is no reason for that man to reject the gospel.

Marvelous grace of our loving Lord,
Grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt,
Yonder on Calvary's mount out-poured,
There where the blood of the Lamb was spilt.

Grace, grace, God's grace,
Grace that will pardon and cleanse within;
Grace, grace, God's grace,
Grace that is greater than all our sin.

3 Marvelous, infinite, matchless grace,
Freely bestowed on all who believe;
All who are longing to see His face,
Will you this moment His grace receive!

Lovely song.

 

[RLBosley]

From 4/15/2008
Rip : God mercifully intervened and caused you to be born from above.
DHK's reply : God did not force me to do anything. He knew ahead of time what decisions I would make, but he didn't 'cause me' or force me to make them. I would almost put that in the class of damnable heresies...

What makes thee to differ DHK? Apparently not God, but yourself.

1Pe 1:3 NASB - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,​

Jas 1:18 NASB - In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.​

Hmm... interesting that.

 

[DHK]

1Co 2:14 HCSB - But the unbeliever does not welcome what comes from God's Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated spiritually.​

He is not able.

I just explained this verse yesterday. It is one that is misused so often by Calvinists.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2191040&postcount=132

psuchikos (the word for "natural")
Thayer Definition:
1) of or belonging to breath
1a) having the nature and characteristics of the breath
1a1) the principal of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes
1b) governed by breath
1b1) the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion

The definition doesn't necessarily define the unsaved, though it could. It defines the sensual. A sensual man can be either saved or unsaved. Many of the Corinthians were sensual, carnal. They were saved. But they hadn't grown in Christ. They had neglected the Word. They had only progressed so that they were able to drink milk and not yet eat meat. It was the most carnal church in the area--every chapter, a chapter of correction.
--2:14 refers to the carnal Christians so defined by Paul in chapter 3.

1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
He calls them "brethren," "babes," and "carnal" twice.
They were carnal Christians.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
--This verse refers "to the deep things of God," to "the meat of the Word," not to the "milk of God's Word," not to the gospel.

 

[RLBosley]

I just explained this verse yesterday. It is one that is misused so often by Calvinists.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2191040&postcount=132

No. You tried to explain it away. You are wrong.

 

[Iconoclast]

From 4/15/2008
Rip : God mercifully intervened and caused you to be born from above.
DHK's reply : God did not force me to do anything. He knew ahead of time what decisions I would make, but he didn't 'cause me' or force me to make them. I would almost put that in the class of damnable heresies...

What makes thee to differ DHK? Apparently not God, but yourself.

Thank you brother ...I am not good at doing the search thing , but I know he has said these things over and over:thumbsup::laugh::thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

No. You tried to explain it away. You are wrong.

The word that was used was used of man at his apex , even the intellectual and philosopher...it was not what DHK offers:laugh:

the word used for neither can he know them is the word that translates to dynamite or power...he cannot he does not have the power or ability to know.

The Spirit is given so we can welcome the truth...no Spirit , no truth.:thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

dhk

Christ never referenced Ezekiel 36 when speaking to Nicodemus. Not one reference to that chapter or even to that book.

I have expounded that chapter many times on this board.
In very brief summary: you must be born of water and the Spirit.
What does the water mean? Catholics point to baptism, but that would be heresy. The scriptures point to the Word itself (Psa.119:9; John 15:3; James 1:18; 1Pet.1:23; Titus 3:5).

wrong again....


Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,.... Not baptismal water, as Jerom; an ordinance indeed of the Gospel, and to which the Jews will submit when converted; and which is performed by water, but not by sprinkling, nor does it cleanse from sin; and is administered by men, and is not an operation of God, as this is: rather the regenerating grace of the Spirit; though this does not purify from all sin, and besides is intended in the next verse: it seems best to understand it of the blood of Christ, the blood of sprinkling, and of justification from sin, and pardon of it by it; so Kimchi and Jarchi interpret of purification by atonement; and the Targum is,

"I will forgive your sins, as one is cleansed by the water of sprinkling, and the ashes of a heifer, which is for a sin offering:''

and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you; the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin; by it men are justified from all things, and are made perfectly pure and spotless in the sight of God; they are cleansed from original sin, the pollution of their nature; from all actual sins and transgressions, which are very defiling; from sins of heart, lip, and life; even from such as are idols, set up in the heart, and served.

sprinkle … water—phraseology taken from the law; namely, the water mixed with the ashes of a heifer sprinkled with a hyssop on the unclean (Nu 19:9-18); the thing signified being the cleansing blood of Christ sprinkled on the conscience and heart (Heb 9:13, 14; 10:22; compare Jer 33:8; Eph 5:26).

 

[Rippon]

I know he has said these things over and over

Back on 4/16/2008 I had posed the question :"Is it due to someone's superior wisdom, strength, insight, keen perception or independent mindset that they are born again?"

On the same date DHK gave an example of Josh McDowell's conversion and conjectured how Josh was translated into the kindom of of God.

"Thus through a combination of 'superior wisdom' and 'keen perception' he came to Christ."

It is hard to come to any other conclusion than that DHK credits himself for his own saving faith. He certainly is against giving the glory to the Lord for his new birth. This wonderful translation from darkness to light is usually called born again. Yet it can also be called 'born from above.' That would certainly negate anyone but God getting credit for one's conversion.

DHK must think that his his own abilities saved him. He thinks his superior wisdom and keen perception brought him into the Kingdom of God. He must not think that Josh's experience was singular --he must think that anyone who is saved is due to their natural endowments --not the Lord.

And, of course, all that is bogus. But DHK persists with such stuff despite all the evidence against him --evidence that demands a verdict --to borrow a well-known phrase. ;-)

 

[OldRegular]

Back on 4/16/2008 I had posed the question :"Is it due to someone's superior wisdom, strength, insight, keen perception or independent mindset that they are born again?"

On the same date DHK gave an example of Josh McDowell's conversion and conjectured how Josh was translated into the kindom of of God.

"Thus through a combination of 'superior wisdom' and 'keen perception' he came to Christ."

It is hard to come to any other conclusion that DHK credits himself for his own saving faith. He certainly is against giving the glory to the Lord for his new birth. This wonderful translation from darkness to light is usually called born again. Yet it can also be called 'born from above.' That would certainly negate anyone but God getting credit for one's conversion.

DHK must think that his his own abilities saved him. He thinks his superior wisdom and keen perception brought him into the Kingdom of God. He must not think that Josh's experience was singular --he must think that anyone who is saved is due to their natural endowments --not the Lord.

And, of course, all that is bogus. But DHK persists with such stuff despite all the evidence against him --evidence that demands a verdict --to borrow a well-known phrase. ;-)

What is strange is that DHK thinks Scripture is meaningless unless some person gives it meaning?????

Originally Posted by DHK
The scripture remains meaningless until someone gives it meaning.

****************************************************************************************************

 

[DHK]

Back on 4/16/2008 I had posed the question :"Is it due to someone's superior wisdom, strength, insight, keen perception or independent mindset that they are born again?"

On the same date DHK gave an example of Josh McDowell's conversion and conjectured how Josh was translated into the kindom of of God.

"Thus through a combination of 'superior wisdom' and 'keen perception' he came to Christ."

It is hard to come to any other conclusion than that DHK credits himself for his own saving faith. He certainly is against giving the glory to the Lord for his new birth. This wonderful translation from darkness to light is usually called born again. Yet it can also be called 'born from above.' That would certainly negate anyone but God getting credit for one's conversion.

DHK must think that his his own abilities saved him. He thinks his superior wisdom and keen perception brought him into the Kingdom of God. He must not think that Josh's experience was singular --he must think that anyone who is saved is due to their natural endowments --not the Lord.

And, of course, all that is bogus. But DHK persists with such stuff despite all the evidence against him --evidence that demands a verdict --to borrow a well-known phrase. ;-)

If man has no understanding of the gospel he cannot be saved.
If you are unable to present the gospel in an understandable way it is unlikely that the Lord will use you to lead anyone to Christ.
Paul was no doubt the most educated person alive at his time, and used his education. But he made the gospel very simple and understandable. The gospel is simple, easy to understand. The Calvinist is the one that tries to make it complicated, mysterious, mystical, undefinable, metaphysical in the unseen realm, etc. The Bible teaches no such thing.
In fact Paul states the opposite:
1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

 

[DHK]

dhk

wrong again....

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,.... Not baptismal water, as Jerom; an ordinance indeed of the Gospel, and to which the Jews will submit when converted; and which is performed by water, but not by sprinkling, nor does it cleanse from sin; and is administered by men, and is not an operation of God, as this is: rather the regenerating grace of the Spirit; though this does not purify from all sin, and besides is intended in the next verse: it seems best to understand it of the blood of Christ, the blood of sprinkling, and of justification from sin, and pardon of it by it; so Kimchi and Jarchi interpret of purification by atonement; and the Targum is,

"I will forgive your sins, as one is cleansed by the water of sprinkling, and the ashes of a heifer, which is for a sin offering:''

and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you; the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin; by it men are justified from all things, and are made perfectly pure and spotless in the sight of God; they are cleansed from original sin, the pollution of their nature; from all actual sins and transgressions, which are very defiling; from sins of heart, lip, and life; even from such as are idols, set up in the heart, and served.

And how is this supposed to convince me that Christ referenced Ezekiel 36??
It doesn't.

 

[DHK]

What is strange is that DHK thinks Scripture is meaningless unless some person gives it meaning?????

****************************************************************************************************

In the context of this discussion, as I clarified more than once already, you quoting scripture without context or meaning is meaningless.

For example, if I say: The Bible doesn't teach reprobation or the hatred of God.
And you do your usual habitual posting by copy and pasting half a dozen passages of Scripture without a single meaningful comment, then your scripture (in reference to the question or post) is absolutely meaningless.

Now does that put things in perspective?
Next time you quote that statement quote this entire post.

 

[OldRegular]

What is strange is that DHK thinks Scripture is meaningless unless some person gives it meaning?????

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK #88
The scripture remains meaningless until someone gives it meaning.

****************************************************************************************************

You clarified nothing DHK. And then you double down in post #93!

Originally Posted by DHK
I meant every word of it. Posting scripture without giving the meaning is meaningless.

And then DHK you tripled down on it in post #106

All scripture has meaning. But it is meaningless unless one gives it meaning.

The truth, DHK, is that most of the Scripture I posted is familiar to the "true believer" on this BB and requires no further interpretation by me. The Holy Spirit is available to those "true believers" to aid their understanding.

John 14:26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


Furthermore, DHK, Scripture has only ONE CORRECT MEANING or it would not be the inerrant Word of God. Believe it or not!

****************************************************************************************************

 

[DHK]

The truth, DHK, is that most of the Scripture I posted is familiar to the "true believer" on this BB and requires no further interpretation by me. The Holy Spirit is available to those "true believers" to aid their understanding.

Then we should close down all the debate forums for everyone agrees on the truth. We all know what it is. All Christian denominations should now join together and unite. There should now no longer be any more division between any Christian at all for the Holy Spirit is available to those true believers to aid their understanding.
Right OR, It proves that your fantasy of living in the Kingdom is not true.
We are not united.

John 14:26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


Furthermore, DHK, Scripture has only ONE CORRECT MEANING or it would not be the inerrant Word of God. Believe it or not!

Yes it does; unfortunately yours is not the right one.

 

[Iconoclast]

And how is this supposed to convince me that Christ referenced Ezekiel 36??
It doesn't.

Get a clue. Nicodemus had not read those NT. Verses you gave
but AS THE teacher in Israel he would know about the water of separation. .....not that you will get it but others will


You have been discovered as Rippon has brought to light new evidence. Time to confess and change.