In salvation there is nothing we 'have to do'. If there is anything, even just to accept the offer, in salvation, that we 'must do', it becomes a salvation by works and of our own righteousness - it became legalism. Because to 'have to', or, to 'must do', is 'law' - 'law', whereby no one shall be justified.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Matt 7's "I never knew you" continued
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
The only thing natural man CANNOT, is to 'accept'. From there on - after having received the grace to accept - there is nothing impossible for the saved. Every further 'good work' of one saved, had been 'prepared for' him; therefore he will find it always possible, "through Jesus Christ".
The Gospel of Jesus' salvation is so simple.
The Gospel of Jesus' salvation is so simple.
CheeseCrackerKidd said:
CheeseCrackerKidd said:
GE:
We are talking about the many who never had heard of Jesus.
One knows this, because, First, The Word says it; Next, the world says it.
CheeseCrackerKidd said:
CheeseCrackerKidd said:
GE:
How unmistakably are you mistaken; you do live in a dream-world.
Says Bob Ryan:
John Calvin says:
"[God] devotes to destruction whom he pleases ... they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will. ... he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name by glorified in their destruction. .. God chooses whom he will as his children ... while he rejects and reprobates others" (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 23).
Notice the ....!
So here's what John Calvin says, which BR showed the grace to supply us the place of, otherwise it would not have been recognisable with all his left-outs. In fact, here is another of Bob Ryan's many "impudent and malicious calumn(ies) against this doctrine (of God's Election) that destroys all exhortations to a pious life". (3/23/13)
I must go now, and will fill the readers of this thread in with the 'left-outs' of BobRyan's left-overs, in my next posts, DV.
John Calvin says:
"[God] devotes to destruction whom he pleases ... they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will. ... he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name by glorified in their destruction. .. God chooses whom he will as his children ... while he rejects and reprobates others" (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 23).
Notice the ....!
So here's what John Calvin says, which BR showed the grace to supply us the place of, otherwise it would not have been recognisable with all his left-outs. In fact, here is another of Bob Ryan's many "impudent and malicious calumn(ies) against this doctrine (of God's Election) that destroys all exhortations to a pious life". (3/23/13)
I must go now, and will fill the readers of this thread in with the 'left-outs' of BobRyan's left-overs, in my next posts, DV.
CheeseCrackerKidd
New Member
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
It is not a dream world I live in Gerhard. I live in a foreign world.
The Word of God clearly says Christ died for all. All leaves no one out; no, not one. Christ's gift of eternal life is offered to every man, woman and child. Not all accept that gift. Because they do not accept it, it is not received by them.
God's Word says He is not a respector of persons. If He was picking only people He wanted to receive the gift of love that He has to offer, He would be a respector of persons.
The fact is, we receive the gift of eternal life because we chose to place our faith in Jesus Christ.
Those who refuse the gift have chosen to deny the Son.
It is not that Jesus does not want them to come to Him, it is that they of their own choosing, will not go to Him.
Just as the people in Jeremiah had a choice to trust in God, people in the New and all through the centuries after Jesus' birth had or have a choice.
Says Bob Ryan:
John Calvin says:
"[God] devotes to destruction whom he pleases ... they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will. ... he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name by glorified in their destruction. .. God chooses whom he will as his children ... while he rejects and reprobates others" (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 23).
Notice the ‘....’ – the omissions!
Now here's what John Calvin says, which BR showed the grace to supply us the place of, otherwise it would not have been recognisable with all his left-outs. In fact, here is another of Bob Ryan's many "impudent and malicious calumn(ies) against this doctrine (of God's Election) that destroys all exhortations to a pious life". (3/23/13)
I must go now, and will fill the readers of this thread in with the 'left-outs' of BobRyan's left-overs, in my next posts, DV.
First, in fuller context, BR’s first clause, quoting - Bob Ryan says -, Calvin (emphasis GE):
3/23/2 “These observations (in 23/1) would be amply sufficient for the pious and modest, and for such as remember that they are men. But because many are the species of blasphemy which these virulent dogs utter against God,, we shall, as far as the case admits, give an answer to each. Foolish men raise many grounds of quarrel with God, as if they held Him subject to their accusations.
First, they ask why God is offended with His creatures, who have not provoked Him by any previous offence; for, to devote to destruction whomsoever He pleases, more resembles the caprice of a tyrant than the legal sentence of a judge; and therefore there is reason to expostulate with God, if, at his mere pleasure, men are without any desert of their own, predestinated to eternal death.”
This, Bob Ryan without a blush, says, Calvin says. Well, Bob Ryan here, as many time before, once again exposes himself for the liar he is.
The reader has before him the text in full in Henry Beveridge’s translation, Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, p. 227.
Note the last sentence: “… if, at his mere pleasure, men are without any desert of their own, predestinated to eternal death.” Bob Ryan’s ‘quote’, has, “… they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will.” Now there are several translations of Calvin’s ‘Institutes’, even a few manuscripts. So maybe the extra words may be found in one variant or another. But I doubt, because I think no one would use different editions when putting together references from the same book. Methinks those words I underlined, are Bob Ryan’s; not any translator’s. But that’s not so bad, as these statements are supposed by Calvin, the statements of the adversaries of God and of His doctrine of sovereign election.
Nevertheless, Bob Ryan carefully avoided Calvin’s immediate comment on the slander of the adversaries. Or, come to think of it, No, Bob Ryan very negligently, bothered not to go check up the context, but blindly parroted someone else, and therefore he mentions not what Calvin says right after,
“If at any time thoughts of this kind come into the mind of the pious, they will be sufficiently armed to repress them, by considering how sinful it is to insist on knowing the causes of the divine will, since it is itself, and justly ought to be, the cause of all that exists. For if His will has any cause, there must be something antecedent to it, and to which it is annexed; this it were impious to imagine.”
Calvin thinks of those false things attributed to him falsely (by Bob Ryan &co.), as of a sinful kind and impious to imagine – things that should be repressed from the thoughts. But BobRyan maintains these are the things Calvin teaches.
Not so, Calvin taught on these thoughts, where he without stop continues to say, this, its exact opposite,
“The will of God is (Note well Calvin’s explanation of God’s will! GE) the supreme rule of righteousness so that everything which He wills, must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of His willing it.”
Enough for now; to be continued.
John Calvin says:
"[God] devotes to destruction whom he pleases ... they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will. ... he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name by glorified in their destruction. .. God chooses whom he will as his children ... while he rejects and reprobates others" (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 23).
Notice the ‘....’ – the omissions!
Now here's what John Calvin says, which BR showed the grace to supply us the place of, otherwise it would not have been recognisable with all his left-outs. In fact, here is another of Bob Ryan's many "impudent and malicious calumn(ies) against this doctrine (of God's Election) that destroys all exhortations to a pious life". (3/23/13)
I must go now, and will fill the readers of this thread in with the 'left-outs' of BobRyan's left-overs, in my next posts, DV.
First, in fuller context, BR’s first clause, quoting - Bob Ryan says -, Calvin (emphasis GE):
3/23/2 “These observations (in 23/1) would be amply sufficient for the pious and modest, and for such as remember that they are men. But because many are the species of blasphemy which these virulent dogs utter against God,, we shall, as far as the case admits, give an answer to each. Foolish men raise many grounds of quarrel with God, as if they held Him subject to their accusations.
First, they ask why God is offended with His creatures, who have not provoked Him by any previous offence; for, to devote to destruction whomsoever He pleases, more resembles the caprice of a tyrant than the legal sentence of a judge; and therefore there is reason to expostulate with God, if, at his mere pleasure, men are without any desert of their own, predestinated to eternal death.”
This, Bob Ryan without a blush, says, Calvin says. Well, Bob Ryan here, as many time before, once again exposes himself for the liar he is.
The reader has before him the text in full in Henry Beveridge’s translation, Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, p. 227.
Note the last sentence: “… if, at his mere pleasure, men are without any desert of their own, predestinated to eternal death.” Bob Ryan’s ‘quote’, has, “… they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will.” Now there are several translations of Calvin’s ‘Institutes’, even a few manuscripts. So maybe the extra words may be found in one variant or another. But I doubt, because I think no one would use different editions when putting together references from the same book. Methinks those words I underlined, are Bob Ryan’s; not any translator’s. But that’s not so bad, as these statements are supposed by Calvin, the statements of the adversaries of God and of His doctrine of sovereign election.
Nevertheless, Bob Ryan carefully avoided Calvin’s immediate comment on the slander of the adversaries. Or, come to think of it, No, Bob Ryan very negligently, bothered not to go check up the context, but blindly parroted someone else, and therefore he mentions not what Calvin says right after,
“If at any time thoughts of this kind come into the mind of the pious, they will be sufficiently armed to repress them, by considering how sinful it is to insist on knowing the causes of the divine will, since it is itself, and justly ought to be, the cause of all that exists. For if His will has any cause, there must be something antecedent to it, and to which it is annexed; this it were impious to imagine.”
Calvin thinks of those false things attributed to him falsely (by Bob Ryan &co.), as of a sinful kind and impious to imagine – things that should be repressed from the thoughts. But BobRyan maintains these are the things Calvin teaches.
Not so, Calvin taught on these thoughts, where he without stop continues to say, this, its exact opposite,
“The will of God is (Note well Calvin’s explanation of God’s will! GE) the supreme rule of righteousness so that everything which He wills, must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of His willing it.”
Enough for now; to be continued.
Eliyahu said:
GE:
BR is the one who stuck his neck out with 'quoting' Calvin -- ugly and falsely. You think I shall keep silent?
In any case whether in Mt7 or Mt25, If God says, "I never knew you", He speaks His will.
CheeseCrackerKidd
New Member
Man chooses to reject God. Man refuses to receive the gift offered.
CheeseCrackerKidd said:
GE:
Not for a moment denied! Hear yourself saying it!
Have you read the opposite? Haven't you read God chooses, "many", or 'some', or 'all'? God, chooses them; not they, Him. And if they do it is still of God's doing that they will to will and will to do and in fact do do!
I cannot speak for Jump. But I have an older brother who has embraced the same teaching of these passages because of the doctrine of a seperate salvation needed for the soul apart from a salvation needed for the spirit. It is very complicated, surely you seen our discussion over it awhile back.
Here is what my brother told me as to why he embraced the doctrine, I might add that he resisted it for about two years before his former pastor convinced him it was correct, he said it just didn't seem fair that he suffered for Christ bearing his own cross while other Christians seemed to live like the world and in the end we all get to enjoy heaven together. Thus, to solve this problem the doctrine places these bad children into punishment for 1000 years. I guess this makes the good children feel better. It is not enough for the lazy ones to get a lesser reward, they want to add some serious pain to the equasion.
This also appears to them to solve the said problems of OSAS. It is obvious that a great many Christians have a very difficult time harmonizing those passages of scripture, that without careful study, can appear to say one can lose their salvation. SO what this doctrine does is it divides all "saved but lost" passages into two seperate issues "spirit" and "soul". In this doctrine one can be saved in spirit but lose their soul at the JSOC.
It is just amazing what man has come up with in intepreting God's word. I can understand one not understanding OSAS, but some of these doctrines are just head shakers. :tonofbricks:
God Bless! :thumbs:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
steaver said:
Well said sir.
I actually pointed out that this was an attempt to spare OSAS from the problems of the "perseverance vs lost-Salvation" texts that are used by those of us that do not find OSAS to be supported in the Bible.
The advantage to what J Jump is doing - is that he finds a way for "lost to be lost" the problem though is that he is trying to hold to both-sides of the fence at once - and that leaves his argument totally exposed in places like Matt 7 where he has to insist that "never knew you" is "saved anyway".
Because he has turned "lost" into a "kind of saved" in order to solve the problems of the other texts.
in Christ,
Bob
CCK : Everyone has been offered salvation ? Every man woman and child ? That's absurd . Again , since multiplied millions have never even heard the Gospel ( or read about it ) -- how is that you claim it has been offered to all ?
I know this rankles the free-will set -- but the Lord has chosen. He has elected . He picked the ones who He wanted . Afterall , the Bible says that He has mercy on those He wants to have mercy and He hardens those whom He wants to harden. Yeah , He's God . He's in charge and does whatever He wants and need not consult any of us about the matter . Who are you O man ?
The mercy in Romans 9 is salvific -- it is not temporal -- it is not dealing with Christian service .
I know this rankles the free-will set -- but the Lord has chosen. He has elected . He picked the ones who He wanted . Afterall , the Bible says that He has mercy on those He wants to have mercy and He hardens those whom He wants to harden. Yeah , He's God . He's in charge and does whatever He wants and need not consult any of us about the matter . Who are you O man ?
The mercy in Romans 9 is salvific -- it is not temporal -- it is not dealing with Christian service .
CheeseCrackerKidd
New Member
Rippon said:
The Word of God tells us it is offered to all. 'God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him mighth be saved.' 'God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.'
You cannot tie God's hands, He said the gift of Salvation was for all, not some.
He may not need to consult us, but we do need to converse with Him. Jesus promised in John 12 that if he was lifted up, He would draw ALL MEN unto Himself.
News Flash!! Jesus was lifted up on the cross, and because of that cross, and Christ's promise, all men have the offer of Salvation.
Let Him that is athirst, Come...
Calvinism says only the elect are saved...
And you know you are elect because?