Knocking on Whose door? Rev. 3:20 Biblically reclaimed

[Benjamin]

The message to the "churches" in the Revelation of Jesus Christ is a message to a mixed multitude and a rebuke to all.

Yup...

Unbelievers (the tares) had infiltrated the local churches: the followers of Jezebel, the Nicolaitans, those of the synagogue of satan, etc.

Yup...

These local churches are probably representative of divided bickering denominational "christendom" the mixture of the wheat and the tares of Matthew 13 each with an axe to grind.

Yup...

At the end of the Book of Revelation an invitation goes out to whomsoever will hear it.

Yup...

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.​

Yup...​

Come.

There it is! An offer of fellowship for "whosoever will" in an example by the Lord in how to properly deliver His message of light He brought into "all the world". Kinda makes waste to the OP's efforts to force fit this message into the systematic theological box of being only for the specially preselected few.​

 

[asterisktom]

Yup...


Yup...


Yup...



Yup...

Yup...​

​

There it is! An offer of fellowship for "whosoever will" in an example by the Lord in how to properly deliver His message of light He brought into "all the world". Kinda makes waste to the OP's efforts to force fit this message into the systematic theological box of being only for the specially preselected few.​

Case closed. Last one out turn off the lights.

I've learned not to prolong these discussions when I see responses like this.

Yup.

 

[OldRegular]

The passage has reference only to the local Church, not the individual sinner.

 

[Benjamin]

Weeellll…..The passage is either using universal language that presents that the scope of grace is an offer applicable to non-believers and meanwhile giving a good example which represents the view of prevenient grace or if it is only addressing pre-elected believers “in” the church then the Calvinist now have a BIG problem with their view of eternal security because immediately prior Jesus spoke of spitting these same people out of His mouth.

 

[Jerome]

And. . .Oops. Why didn't these old-time Baptists put the OP/'Reformed' twist on this scripture?:

Hanserd Knollys, The World to Come (London, 1681), pp. 35-36

Secondly, Open your hearts to Christ, when he knocks at the Door of your Souls, and calls you to come to him, to receive him, and let him come into your hearts, and dwell in your hearts by his holy Spirit, and sanctifying Grace, Rev. 3.20. Behold I stand at the Door and knock, if any man hear my voice, and will open the Door, . . I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. If the Sinner be willing to open the door of his heart, Christ will come in by his holy Spirit, and HE will communicate of his Grace to his Soul.

John Bunyan, The Doctrine of the Law and Grace Unfolded (London, 1685), pp. 309-310

Object[ion]: But, I am afraid the day of Grace is past, and if it should be so, what should I do then?

Answ[er]: . . . .First, doth the Lord knock still at the door of thy Heart by his Word and Spirit? If so, then the day of Grace is not past with thy Soul; for where he doth so knock, there he doth also proffer, and promise to come in and Sup, (that is, to Communicate of his things unto them) which he would not do, was the day of Grace past with the Soul, Rev. 3. 20.

Thomas Killcop, The Pathway to Justification (London, 1660), p. 19

Obj: There is a passive receiving of Christ without a hand, when God forceth open mans spirit, and powreth in his Son in despite of the receiver.

Answ. This contradicts Christ, who saith, Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any man will open to me, I will come into him and sup with him, and he with me, Rev. 3.20.

Benjamin Keach, The Glory of God's Rich Grace Displayed (London, 1694), p. 386

O know you, Sinners, this Day, that Jesus Christ, this glorious King, and Prince of the Kings of the Earth, this mighty Saviour is come to your Doors: Behold, I stand at the Door and knock: Rev. 3.20. Will you not open the Door, nor cry to him to help you to open to him, to enable you to believe in him? What do you say, shall the Son of God stand at your Doors, and you not so much as ask, Who is there? Who is at my Door? Shall Christ be kept out of your Hearts, and stand at your Doors, whilst Sin commands the chiefest Room, and has absolute Power over you, and rules in you? How will you be able to look this Blessed Saviour in the Face another Day?

 

[asterisktom]

And. . .Oops. Why didn't these old-time Baptists put the OP/'Reformed' twist on this scripture?:

Hanserd Knollys, The World to Come (London, 1681), pp. 35-36


John Bunyan, The Doctrine of the Law and Grace Unfolded (London, 1685), pp. 309-310


Thomas Killcop, The Pathway to Justification (London, 1660), p. 19


Benjamin Keach, The Glory of God's Rich Grace Displayed (London, 1694), p. 386

Same song, 4th verse. "What about this guy? What about that guy?"

What about the Bible? It is all well and good to keep in mind the conclusions of others, but they should not upstage the inspired text.

Maybe you get your theology from a bunch of dead guys who may or may not be right on many things. But I try to base mine on the Bible.

And if I don't, Jerome, why don't you at least take a stab at using the Source we all should respect to show me just where I am "twisting" the Bible?

 

[convicted1]

Same song, 4th verse. "What about this guy? What about that guy?"

What about the Bible? It is all well and good to keep in mind the conclusions of others, but they should not upstage the inspired text.

Maybe you get your theology from a bunch of dead guys who may or may not be right on many things. But I try to base mine on the Bible.

And if I don't, Jerome, why don't you at least take a stab at using the Source we all should respect to show me just where I am "twisting" the Bible?

Well, Brother Tom, what about all DoGer's who defer to Gill, Calvin, Pink, et al? This goes on on your side of the debate as well.

 

[asterisktom]

Well, Brother Tom, what about all DoGer's who defer to Gill, Calvin, Pink, et al? This goes on on your side of the debate as well.

I have serious issues with all three gentlemen mentioned above. In another thread from a few days ago (The Song of Moses one), in my OP, I differed markedly with Gill who, presumably, is part of my "side".

Search through all my posts here and you will not see a single human authority I brought forward. Show me where there was any deference to them on my part. On occasion I have referred to some, usually with a side-order of caveat, but that is not the same. Reference is not deference.

Hey, that rhymes.

 

[OldRegular]

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Scripture is inerrant and infallible but understanding is not. The whosoever will are those whose names are written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, chosen by God Himself unto salvation in Jesus Christ!

 

[convicted1]

I have serious issues with all three gentlemen mentioned above. In another thread from a few days ago (The Song of Moses one), in my OP, I differed markedly with Gill who, presumably, is part of my "side".

I pray that you didn't think I was using this post as a "calling you out", Brother Tom, but only to show that there is way too much deferring to fallible man, and not the scriptures. Too much of, "Well, I'll have to defer to Pink on this one", or, "I will have to defer to Gill on this one", etc. As gifted as the likes of Gill, Bunyan, Calvin, Clarke, Tozer, Luther, Spurgeon, etc., on their best day, they were never under the inspiration of the Spirit when they wrote their words.

Search through all my posts here and you will not see a single human authority I brought forward. Show me where there was any deference to them on my part. On occasion I have referred to some, usually with a side-order of caveat, but that is not the same. Reference is not deference.

Hey, that rhymes.

I agree that you use the Word for your defense, and not a fallible man. Too many on here want to defer to others, and not the Word...and that's a shame.

 

[HankD]

Scripture is inerrant and infallible but understanding is not. The whosoever will are those whose names are written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, chosen by God Himself unto salvation in Jesus Christ!

I don't generally chime in on this never-ending debate but FWIW here are my thoughts once again:

The invitation does not make that distinction, so why should we?
whosoever will means whosoever will (PERIOD) without addressing the ability to be willing (Which in reality is not the point of my post).

In addition we don't know the criteria of God's choice of the elect apart from it being after the counsel of His own will and our total helplessness.

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:​

We don't know if there was a personal inquiry into each individual mind or not. It's possible because with God all things are possible.

If it is possible for Jesus Christ to be slain at a point before the foundation of the world perhaps even in the eternal state then personal human choice is also a possibility under that same condition.

The scripture seems to indicate both the sovereignty of God and the protection of the free will of man as to choice of light or darkness.

Lastly (the point):
There is definitely something wrong with this divisiveness on both sides because the usual ending is a consignment to damnation on both sides.​

Of course said damnation now has to be disguised (e.g. you don't understand God, the scriptures, etc) or some other ad hominem as it is forbidden by the BB to throw each other into the lake of fire.​

One thing is for sure and takes no personal judgment of individuals, (IMO of course), the kind of attitude engendered by this relentless bickering is not of the Spirit, it is divisive and has hampered the gospel and made for a very poor witness to those who are observing.​

I believe many of us will be held accountable for this and it's not going to be pretty.​

HankD​

 

[quantumfaith]

I don't generally chime in on this never-ending debate but FWIW here are my thoughts once again:

The invitation does not make that distinction, so why should we?
whosoever will means whosoever will (PERIOD) without addressing the ability to be willing (Which in reality is not the point of my post).

In addition we don't know the criteria of God's choice of the elect apart from it being after the counsel of His own will and our total helplessness.

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:​

We don't know if there was a personal inquiry into each individual mind or not. It's possible because with God all things are possible.

If it is possible for Jesus Christ to be slain at a point before the foundation of the world perhaps even in the eternal state then personal human choice is also a possibility under that same condition.

The scripture seems to indicate both the sovereignty of God and the protection of the free will of man as to choice of light or darkness.

Lastly (the point):
There is definitely something wrong with this divisiveness on both sides because the usual ending is a consignment to damnation on both sides.​

Of course said damnation now has to be disguised (e.g. you don't understand God, the scriptures, etc) or some other ad hominem as it is forbidden by the BB to throw each other into the lake of fire.​

One thing is for sure and takes no personal judgment of individuals, (IMO of course), the kind of attitude engendered by this relentless bickering is not of the Spirit, it is divisive and has hampered the gospel and made for a very poor witness to those who are observing.​

I believe many of us will be held accountable for this and it's not going to be pretty.​

HankD​

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[Winman]

Scripture is inerrant and infallible but understanding is not. The whosoever will are those whose names are written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, chosen by God Himself unto salvation in Jesus Christ!

What you fail to see is that originally everyone's name is written in the book of life. You never read of anyone's name being written in the book of life in time, only of persons having their name blotted out. If their name is blotted out, then originally their name was in the book of life.

Exo 32:31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Notice in verse 32 that Moses speaks of God's book that he has written (past tense). This book was written in the past. Moses requests his name be blotted out, but God answers that whosoever hath sinned against him, his name will be blotted out. So, originally these persons were in God's book of life.

We know that person's names are blotted out in time.

Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

We can see from Exodus 32:33 and Revelation 3:5 that a person's name is blotted out in time. But again, a person's name must have originally been in the book of life to be blotted out, unless you believe a person can lose their salvation.

We see in Revelation 3:5 that those who overcome will not be blotted out, and Jesus will confess their name before his Father. This tells us who will be blotted out, those who deny Jesus.

Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Now we see what determines who overcomes, this person confesses Jesus before men. This is a believer.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

So, those who are blotted out are those who do not confess Jesus before men, and do not believe on him.

But God knew who would do this before the foundation of the world. This is foreknowledge.

Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

So, you see several things here that must not contradict itself.

#1 The scriptures always speak of a person's name being blotted out of the book of life in time. There is no mention of a person's name being added to the book of life in time.

#2 Persons who confess Jesus are those that overcometh. We know this because Jesus said he would confess their name before his Father, and Jesus said he would only confess those persons before his Father who confessed him before men. If a man denies Jesus, then Jesus will deny that man before the Father.

#3 Those who believe on Jesus from the heart and confess him are saved. A person can only believe on Jesus and confess his name in time.

#4 Those who worship the beast were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. There are two possibilities here, either these persons were never written in the book of life, or their names were blotted out of the book of life before the foundation of the world.

I personally believe everyone's name was originally written in the book of life. But those who sin against God and do not believe on him are blotted out. God knew who would not believe before the foundation of the world, this is when their name was blotted out.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

The only explanation for this is foreknowledge. How can a person's name be blotted out if it were not in the book of life? And we see whoever denies Jesus shall be blotted out in time. We see from Exodus 32 that a person who sins in time shall be blotted out. But we also see that some person's names were not in the book of life from the foundation of the world.

The only explanation is foreknowledge. The only other option is that some people are never written in the book of life, and that some persons who's name was written are blotted out. This would mean you could lose your salvation, that the elect could be lost.

 

[OldRegular]

What you fail to see is that originally everyone's name is written in the book of life. You never read of anyone's name being written in the book of life in time, only of persons having their name blotted out. If their name is blotted out, then originally their name was in the book of life.

Nonsense! That is pure supposition on your part!

Exo 32:31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Notice in verse 32 that Moses speaks of God's book that he has written (past tense). This book was written in the past. Moses requests his name be blotted out, but God answers that whosoever hath sinned against him, his name will be blotted out. So, originally these persons were in God's book of life.

We know that person's names are blotted out in time.

Did Moses sin against God. Most certainly! Was his name blotted out of the Book of Life? Definitely not! [See Matthew 17:3]

Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

We can see from Exodus 32:33 and Revelation 3:5 that a person's name is blotted out in time. But again, a person's name must have originally been in the book of life to be blotted out, unless you believe a person can lose their salvation.

We see in Revelation 3:5 that those who overcome will not be blotted out, and Jesus will confess their name before his Father. This tells us who will be blotted out, those who deny Jesus.

Can you provide one single verse of Scripture that says a persons name is actually removed from the Book of Life. If sin can remove our names from the Book of Life then there is no such thing as "Security of the Believer" and we are all lost. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

More later!

 

[agedman]

Winman,

You posted interesting thinking that I will need to mull over some more.

The thinking would resolve the infant issue, the mentally deficit and other such conditions relating to salvation.

It would also remove another song from the song books "There's a New Name Written Down in Glory."

It would validate the Calvinistic argument in effect remove all other objections.

Interesting post.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

You posted interesting thinking that I will need to mull over some more.

The thinking would resolve the infant issue, the mentally deficit and other such conditions relating to salvation.

It would also remove another song from the song books "There's a New Name Written Down in Glory."

It would validate the Calvinistic argument in effect remove all other objections.

Interesting post.

How does this validate Calvinism? It overthrows Calvinism, especially particular or limited atonement.

You are correct about the song.

 

[Winman]

Nonsense! That is pure supposition on your part!



Did Moses sin against God. Most certainly! Was his name blotted out of the Book of Life? Definitely not! [See Matthew 17:3]

Moses of course committed sin, but what is the sin shown in this passage? It was turning away from the true God in unbelief and worshipping an idol.

Can you provide one single verse of Scripture that says a persons name is actually removed from the Book of Life. If sin can remove our names from the Book of Life then there is no such thing as "Security of the Believer" and we are all lost. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

More later!

Yes, anyone who adds to, or takes away God's words.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[agedman]

How does this validate Calvinism? It overthrows Calvinism, especially particular or limited atonement.

Just off the top of my head, mind you, ... (thinking of the "mind" threads)...

If everyone's names were already written and deleted before the foundations of the world as you posted, doesn't that follow limited atonement more in line with Calvinistic rather than Arminianistic?


Doesn't it remove the whole thinking about man's free will choice?

Could it be that it fits rather wonderfully into the typical "tulip" thinking rather than the others?

 

[asterisktom]

Too many on here want to defer to others, and not the Word...and that's a shame.

:thumbs::thumbs:
This is the real problem right here. I am very much in agreement with you on this.

 

[Winman]

Just off the top of my head, mind you, ... (thinking of the "mind" threads)...

If everyone's names were already written and deleted before the foundations of the world as you posted, doesn't that follow limited atonement more in line with Calvinistic rather than Arminianistic?


Doesn't it remove the whole thinking about man's free will choice?

Could it be that it fits rather wonderfully into the typical "tulip" thinking rather than the others?

Quite the contrary, if everyone's name was in the book of life originally, then God intended to save all men. It is those who turn away in unbelief whose name's are blotted out.