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

[OldRegular]

Foreknowledge is to simply know something before it happens.

I know this is confusing to you, because you have been taught that God elects a person unconditionally and not upon any foreknown faith in the believer.

I am not the one who is confused Winman.

As for what I have been taught: No one taught me other than the Holy Spirit through study of Scripture. He will do the same for you if you get the big I out of the way.

But the scriptures are clear that God knows who will believe and who will not before it actually takes place.

God knows [When I say knows that means He knows the person.] who will believe because He chose them unto Salvation in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; [Ephesians 1:4-7]

Please notice Winman that the above passage tells us that it is God who made us accepted in the beloved. And he did it all according to the good pleasure of his will. Not your will, not my will but His will. I know this is an ego buster. I know you like to believe that it was you but it really was not regardless of your opinion.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So you and Winman would have us believe that God wrote all names in the Book of Life just so He could erase them.

You are jumping to presumptuous conclusions: I did not say I agree with him. This is, in fact, the first time I have ever heard someone make the contention he is making soI would not be dogmatic about it either way, as I have not really studied that particular topic well enough myself.

The part I quoted is not a contradiction....I think you are super-imposing your view of God's relationship to time upon the text he wrote, and my guess is....he does not share the same view as you do, Thus, from the entire body of his posting....You will find consistency IF you pay close attention to his point of view. I could (I believe) accurately articulate his position....You (I think) could not.

You have omnipotent, omniscient God playing games. Shame on you

Again....I am not sure I share his point of view about this...You should allow him to be heard, or you will never be sharpened.....and He should listen to you as well, or he will not be.

 

[Winman]

I reread him numerous times and responded each time. His comments regarding the Book of Life contradict each other. The quote you presented is itself a contradiction.



So you and Winman would have us believe that God wrote all names in the Book of Life just so He could erase them. You have omnipotent, omniscient God playing games. Shame on you

And you would have us believe God is a liar.

Rev 22:19 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.

God warned in this verse that any man who takes away from the words of the book of Revelation, God would take away "his part" out of the book of life.

How can God "take away" something that was never there? How can it be taken "out" if it was never "in" the book of life?

In your view, God is speaking nonsense, and he is basically lying.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

As for what I have been taught: No one taught me other than the Holy Spirit through study of Scripture. He will do the same for you if you get the big I out of the way.

If you are contending that without ANY exterior influence or any exterior teaching by anyone other than your own personal reading of the Scriptures (with the Holy Spirit) you came to all of these conclusions yourself you are decieving yourself. Everyone has been influenced or taught to some extent...I am pretty sure that God tells us in his word that HE has given us "pastors and teachers" and those who labour in the perfection of the saints and that it is not a bad thing.....or do you despise God's gift to the Church of men wise in the faith?

 

[OldRegular]

And you would have us believe God is a liar.

Be careful Winman. Just because you cannot understand Scripture do not make false accusations.

 

[Benjamin]

I think you are super-imposing your view of God's relationship to time...

I agree, and perssonally see no reason to chase this over-worked rabbit whichs avoids the premise at hand began by the OP's claim of the "need" to "reclaim" his interpretaion of this particular passage (Rev 3;20).

This whole tread had been derailed from who is the audience being addressed in Rev 3:20 to the ole worn out smokescreen tactic of foreknowledge must = pre-determinism argument and proof-texting given to support a boxed systematic theory of determism; after all it is a vital necessity for the doctrines of Calvinism to hold true from T to P.

Hank D’s direct argument as to the audience was ignored except for the statement: Originally posted by OR: “The passage has reference only to the local Church, not the individual sinner.”

My reply to the practicality of that statement was also ignored: Originally posted by Benjamin: “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 and 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.”

BTW; I find OR’s argument that the passage was “only in reference to the local church” amazing in that it is in disregard of why Jesus would have to call people in one of his "churches" to be saved?!

OR then responds by questioniing Hank D’s understanding and begs the question with the ole smokescreen about the book the life, or again, foreknowledge must = pre-determination and the cloud has been formed.

Of course I figured the argument brought up by the OP pertaining to the intended audience of this passage would not be based on rational Biblical understand directly associated to that passage but resort to use alternative tactics because of necessity of avoiding these on topic arguments because they: Originally posted by Benjamin: “…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.”

Meanwhile, the OP’er as well OR center on things like arguing that they only get their information from study of the scriptures and outright selectively reject any historical arguments from those other scholars that agree the audience was universal. And the OP’er after expressing the need to “reclaim the meaning of Rev 3;20” claims victory in the argument while rejecting rational arguments as to the audience because they not sensitive enough to refrain from offending him and also bows out from addressing the opinion of others directly related to the passage in question by claiming he gets his info from the Bible, not the thoughts of others as to the meaning of the passage in regards to the intended audience.

Where was I?!? Oh yeah, "I think you are super-imposing your view of God's relationship to time..." Exactly! ...and good luck chasing that rabbit in a forum with the typical MO to deter the premise if they can't handle the argument. The process is backed up by...well... unlimited options to do so, because they are allowed to multiply in disreagrd of the of staying on topic like....well rabbits. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[asterisktom]

I agree, and perssonally see no reason to chase this over-worked rabbit whichs avoids the premise at hand began by the OP's claim of the "need" to "reclaim" his interpretaion of this particular passage (Rev 3;20).

This whole tread had been derailed from who is the audience being addressed in Rev 3:20 to the ole worn out smokescreen tactic of foreknowledge must = pre-determinism argument and proof-texting given to support a boxed systematic theory of determism; after all it is a vital necessity for the doctrines of Calvinism to hold true from T to P.

Hank D’s direct argument as to the audience was ignored except for the statement: Originally posted by OR: “The passage has reference only to the local Church, not the individual sinner.”

My reply to the practicality of that statement was also ignored: Originally posted by Benjamin: “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 and 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.”

BTW; I find OR’s argument that the passage was “only in reference to the local church” amazing in that it is in disregard of why Jesus would have to call people in one of his "churches" to be saved?!

OR then responds by questioniing Hank D’s understanding and begs the question with the ole smokescreen about the book the life, or again, foreknowledge must = pre-determination and the cloud has been formed.

Of course I figured the argument brought up by the OP pertaining to the intended audience of this passage would not be based on rational Biblical understand directly associated to that passage but resort to use alternative tactics because of necessity of avoiding these on topic arguments because they: Originally posted by Benjamin: “…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.”

Meanwhile, the OP’er as well OR center on things like arguing that they only get their information from study of the scriptures and outright selectively reject any historical arguments from those other scholars that agree the audience was universal. And the OP’er after expressing the need to “reclaim the meaning of Rev 3;20” claims victory in the argument while rejecting rational arguments as to the audience because they not sensitive enough to refrain from offending him and also bows out from addressing the opinion of others directly related to the passage in question by claiming he gets his info from the Bible, not the thoughts of others as to the meaning of the passage in regards to the intended audience.

Where was I?!? Oh yeah, "I think you are super-imposing your view of God's relationship to time..." Exactly! ...and good luck chasing that rabbit in a forum with the typical MO to deter the premise if they can't handle the argument. The process is backed up by...well... unlimited options to do so, because they are allowed to multiply in disreagrd of the of staying on topic like....well rabbits. :smilewinkgrin:

Wow. You went to a lot of work to give us this cleverish recap of the thread. Fairly accurate in many parts also.

But I am not sure just who this "OP" is. I guess it must stand for "Other Person". It cannot stand for original post because you have me saying or claiming things I never did. For one, I never "claimed victory". And my reason for "bowing out" is different from what you surmised.

But, oh well, this is your story. And I know you will stick to it. One of the tiresome things about these threads is that they all too often slide down from doctrinal discussion to an endless cycle accusations - and counter-defenses - of motives.

By "doctrinal discussion" I mean using the Bible in response (or agreement) with the OP. To their credit Winman, RevMWC, and a few others used Scripture in their rebuttal to me. I respect that. You, by contrast and per expectation, bypassed all that and went right for discussing motives.

That is what I bow out of. Having to humor tiresome little pups like you who mistake cleverness and insinuations of bad character for edifying content.

 

[OldRegular]

If you are contending that without ANY exterior influence or any exterior teaching by anyone other than your own personal reading of the Scriptures (with the Holy Spirit) you came to all of these conclusions yourself you are decieving yourself. Everyone has been influenced or taught to some extent...I am pretty sure that God tells us in his word that HE has given us "pastors and teachers" and those who labour in the perfection of the saints and that it is not a bad thing.....or do you despise God's gift to the Church of men wise in the faith?

You do err knowing neither me or the Holy Scripture.

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.

1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

And if you can find a Southern Baptist pastor who believes and teaches the Doctrine of Grace you are fortunate.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You do err knowing neither me or the Holy Scripture.

And if you can find a Southern Baptist pastor who believes and teaches the Doctrine of Grace you are fortunate.

Dude....what is your problem??? I don't know the Scripture???? You have no idea what I do or do not know about the Scripture....Is it hard to admit that on some level or another we all have exterior influences???? It is not a bad thing. Are you seriously trying to defend the position that you ostensibly became a 5 point Calvinist through merely searching the Scriptures alone? Is that seriously your claim?

I am not looking for a SBC pastor who teaches the "Doctrine of Calvin-worship" or whatever you call it. I know several, and the number of them is growing...especially the YRR's coming out of the Seminaries....you'll find one soon enough....the problem is, if they are new in a Church they won't admit it. It's not like they are straightforward with what they believe until they have been there for a while. So don't ask them whether they are Calvinist or not.....Ask them something like "Does the Bible teach that Regeneration precedes Faith?" And when they answer in the affirmative....you know you got one. They just don't tell that to the more Arminianistic and un-suspecting congregations whom they want to draw a pay-check from when they present themselves as a candidate. Look for a younger guy. Happy hunting!! :thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

Revelation 3:20, KJV
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Tom,

In an earlier post I made the following comment about the verse in question.

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

Given the context of the passage I believe it is clear that the passage has reference to the local church. I believe someone has used Revelation 3:19 to reinforce the same conclusion.

Revelation 3:19, KJV
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

I have heard this passage used many times during invitations and sermons. Some on this Forum have taken the position that it is an invitation to the lost. Others have taken the position that even if it is addressed to the church it is appropriate to use to evangelize.

The problem that I have with using this passage as an invitation is that it most often misused to present a false picture of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was not a wimp, He was not a sissy, He was not effeminate. In fact Jesus Christ was a man as demonstrated by His cleansing of the temple. Jesus Christ usually walked. That means His feet got dirty, His clothes got dirty. Yet most if not all pictorial representations we Have of Jesus Christ show Him in a snow white robe with long hair seeming to float slightly above the dirt.

The false picture presented of Jesus Christ is that He must beg, plead, and some evangelists would have Him groveling, to get people to "make decisions for Jesus"! I find no where in Scripture where this occurs. Some kind soul on this Forum will correct me I am sure. There are indeed places where an invitation to follow Jesus Christ is given, but no pleading. Two passage come to mind, one an invitation by Jesus Christ, a second by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 11:28, KJV Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

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.

But no pleading!

 

[Alive in Christ]

Of course, Calvinists will say the unregenerate man does not have the ability to hear, but I would disagree with this.

I am amazed at Calvinists, this is one of the greatest salvation verses in all of scripture and shows just how easy it is to be saved, and what a man must do to be saved. He must simply open the door of his heart or will and invite Jesus in. Yet Calvinists try to steal this verse away. It is almost as if Calvinists do not want people to be saved.

I am amazed regarding calvinists as well. In a very very sad way.

So very sad.

 

[asterisktom]

Revelation 3:20, KJV
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Tom,

In an earlier post I made the following comment about the verse in question.



Given the context of the passage I believe it is clear that the passage has reference to the local church. I believe someone has used Revelation 3:19 to reinforce the same conclusion.

Revelation 3:19, KJV
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

I have heard this passage used many times during invitations and sermons. Some on this Forum have taken the position that it is an invitation to the lost. Others have taken the position that even if it is addressed to the church it is appropriate to use to evangelize.

The problem that I have with using this passage as an invitation is that it most often misused to present a false picture of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was not a wimp, He was not a sissy, He was not effeminate. In fact Jesus Christ was a man as demonstrated by His cleansing of the temple. Jesus Christ usually walked. That means His feet got dirty, His clothes got dirty. Yet most if not all pictorial representations we Have of Jesus Christ show Him in a snow white robe with long hair seeming to float slightly above the dirt.

The false picture presented of Jesus Christ is that He must beg, plead, and some evangelists would have Him groveling, to get people to "make decisions for Jesus"! I find no where in Scripture where this occurs. Some kind soul on this Forum will correct me I am sure. There are indeed places where an invitation to follow Jesus Christ is given, but no pleading. Two passage come to mind, one an invitation by Jesus Christ, a second by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 11:28, KJV Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

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.

But no pleading!

We are in total agreement on the actual purpose - and the all too common abuse - of this passage. It strikes me as funny those who say that our not letting this verse be abused for evangelistic purposes is somehow a proof that we are against evangelism.

But that is what comes of creating straw men. Furthermore, it isn't as if there aren't other evangelistic verses in the Bible that we absolutely have to use this one.

 

[gb93433]

Jn. 16:7-11, "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged."

If people are unable to hear then that makes the Spirit null and void and the scripture a lie and the one who said it a liar.

 

[HankD]

Hi Tom, the usual firestorm has ignited.

But before this thread is totally derailed I would like to ask you as a full preterist a question which would (IMO) have a bearing on one of the debated passages (Rev 22:17).

Is the Holy Spirit in the world today convicting, inviting and presumably drawing sinners to Christ in the full preterists theology of 21 century method of divine salvation?

Not a trick or "gotcha" question but a sincere request.

There is however a follow up question: If the answer is no - what then is the source/cause of the "thirst" of the "whosoevers"?

Thanks
HankD

 

[percho]

Hi Tom, the usual firestorm has ignited.

But before this thread is totally derailed I would like to ask you as a full preterist a question which would (IMO) have a bearing on one of the debated passages (Rev 22:17).

Is the Holy Spirit in the world today convicting, inviting and presumably drawing sinners to Christ in the full preterists theology of 21 century method of divine salvation?

Not a trick or "gotcha" question but a sincere request.

There is however a follow up question: If the answer is no - what then is the source/cause of the "thirst" of the "whosoevers"?

Thanks
HankD

Hank not Tom but I have a couple of questions concerning your questions.

Thanks in advance.

Are the whosoever of Rev. 22:17 relative to the time concept of 21:1 which I believe to still be future taken in the same context with: John 7:38,39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Now who actually received the Spirit after he was glorified except the, remnant according to the election of grace, the ones God is taking out of the nations as, a people for his name. Therefore Should John 7:38 be in the context of when the Prophet, see V40 stated this;
Verse 37 In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Lev. 23:39 Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: on the first day a sabbath, and on the eighth day a sabbath.

Is this eighth day sabbath, that great day of the feast, prophetic of the new heavens and new earth and is that when the "whosoever" applies?

 

[asterisktom]

Hi Tom, the usual firestorm has ignited.

But before this thread is totally derailed I would like to ask you as a full preterist a question which would (IMO) have a bearing on one of the debated passages (Rev 22:17).

Is the Holy Spirit in the world today convicting, inviting and presumably drawing sinners to Christ in the full preterists theology of 21 century method of divine salvation?

Not a trick or "gotcha" question but a sincere request.

There is however a follow up question: If the answer is no - what then is the source/cause of the "thirst" of the "whosoevers"?

Thanks
HankD

Hi Hank,

I guess that the best answer to begin with is that I am not Full Preterist in the way that some may think. I believe there still remains for each one of us the time when we meet God. This is what is spoken of in verses like Heb. 9:27. "It is given unto men once to die and then the judgment."

This is necessarily still future, though it is personal and individual.

So, getting to your verse, yes, the Holy Spirit is still - and always will be - in the world drawing sinners (as well as guiding and admonishing believers).

A study of those New heavens and new Earth passages (Isaiah, Cor., Rev, etc) have convinced me that we are now in that time. But the time of "who ever will" coincides with it.

I hope that clarifies my view.

Tom

 

[OldRegular]

We are in total agreement on the actual purpose - and the all too common abuse - of this passage. It strikes me as funny those who say that our not letting this verse be abused for evangelistic purposes is somehow a proof that we are against evangelism.

But that is what comes of creating straw men. Furthermore, it isn't as if there aren't other evangelistic verses in the Bible that we absolutely have to use this one.

If my memory serves me well I believe the first foreign missionaries among Baptists were those who adhered to the Doctrine of Grace!

 

[HankD]

Hank not Tom but I have a couple of questions concerning your questions.

Thanks in advance.

Are the whosoever of Rev. 22:17 relative to the time concept of 21:1 which I believe to still be future taken in the same context with: John 7:38,39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Now who actually received the Spirit after he was glorified except the, remnant according to the election of grace, the ones God is taking out of the nations as, a people for his name. Therefore Should John 7:38 be in the context of when the Prophet, see V40 stated this;
Verse 37 In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Lev. 23:39 Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: on the first day a sabbath, and on the eighth day a sabbath.

Is this eighth day sabbath, that great day of the feast, prophetic of the new heavens and new earth and is that when the "whosoever" applies?

I believe Rev 22:17 is timeless (in a new and different way than OT believers). However the ultimate realization of this passage probably awaits the resurrection of our bodies, - new, no more pain, sorrow, crying or tears. For now we have the earnest of the Spirit, the indwelling Spirit, the pledge of the life force of our resurrected bodies.

All (whosoever will) without distinction are invited to come and drink of this water.

Yes I believe there is something to the "eighth" day sabbath of the Leviticus passage, though I haven't fleshed it out in my own mind.
That is, I'm not sure whether it points to the millennium or the eternal state, guessing I would say the eternal state (in my view of things) but then again Leviticus is a very "fleshy" book.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Hi Hank,

I guess that the best answer to begin with is that I am not Full Preterist in the way that some may think. I believe there still remains for each one of us the time when we meet God. This is what is spoken of in verses like Heb. 9:27. "It is given unto men once to die and then the judgment."

This is necessarily still future, though it is personal and individual.

So, getting to your verse, yes, the Holy Spirit is still - and always will be - in the world drawing sinners (as well as guiding and admonishing believers).

A study of those New heavens and new Earth passages (Isaiah, Cor., Rev, etc) have convinced me that we are now in that time. But the time of "who ever will" coincides with it.

I hope that clarifies my view.

Tom

Yes it does, thanks Tom.
HankD

 

[percho]

I believe Rev 22:17 is timeless (in a new and different way than OT believers). However the ultimate realization of this passage probably awaits the resurrection of our bodies, - new, no more pain, sorrow, crying or tears. For now we have the earnest of the Spirit, the indwelling Spirit, the pledge of the life force of our resurrected bodies.

All (whosoever will) without distinction are invited to come and drink of this water.

Yes I believe there is something to the "eighth" day sabbath of the Leviticus passage, though I haven't fleshed it out in my own mind.
That is, I'm not sure whether it points to the millennium or the eternal state, guessing I would say the eternal state (in my view of things) but then again Leviticus is a very "fleshy" book.

HankD

I will agree it is fleshy in the following concept see the next post of me to Tom. It is fleshy things that point to spiritual things.