The Children whom God hath given me

[BrotherJoseph]

Brother DHK and RevMCC,

Here is another post that was failed to be answered in this thread. Please respond.

Brother DHK,

Now if rejecting Jesus is the only thing that damns one to hell, but the preacher didn't get to all nations, kindred, tribe, tongues (e.g. American Indians before Columbus how can these people be dammed if the only reason one goes to hell is rejecting the gospel and they never heard it? Wouldn't this logically lead you to conclude they go to hell for something else (i.e. their sin)? And if that is so, that means Christ didn't atone, pay ransom, etc for their sins, does it?

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Brother DHK and Reveemwc,

One final old post from this thread that was never answered. (There seems to be a lot of these, I wonder why). Also it appears Revmwc has elected to withdraw himself from the thread all together, perhaps he is just busy, but the timing of his withdraw from the posts seems more than coincidental, wouldn't you agree Brother Sovereign?

Revemwc and Brother DHK,

If I am understanding the both of you correctly, you both assert one goes to eternal damnation for rejecting Christ. What about those who never hear the gospel? Also, if hearing and not believing the gospel is what damns one to hell, it seems we would all be better off not preaching the gospel, thus nobody would go to Hell.

Brother Joe

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

You and I have debated 2eter 2:1 before. I am posting my same reply to that verse I gave you several months ago.
This passage is not the death nail to limited atonement. The following is from a commentary article on this verse titled "2 Peter 2:1 and Universal Redemption" by Simon Escobedo III. If interested, the whole article can be found here http://vintage.aomin.org/2PE21.html

I looked at it. Of course it is written from a Reformed perspective and I found a lot of loopholes in it.

"To summarize this argument, then: in the thirty New Testament occurrences, where the Greek term agorazo is used (this is the greek word for the word "bought" in the verse), only five texts are clearly and indisputably redemptive (2 Peter 2:1 being the lone exception). Furthermore, in these five instances, there are seemingly three undeniable contingencies or features that strengthen the redemptive contexts. Namely, a) the purchase price or its equivalent is stated in the text (i.e., the blood, the Lamb; cf., 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; and Rev. 5:9), or the purchase price is implicit in the immediate context (Rev. 14:3, 4); b) redemptive markers or language is used, and b) in every case the context is restrictive to believers (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4). None of these features or contingencies are to be found in 2 Peter 2:1.

It is not the frequency or the number of times a word is translated a particular way that determines its particular meaning, but rather the context. I would rather say that the context demands the meaning of "redeem," and my interpretation can be backed up by a number of translations. "Bought" and "redemption" are interchangeable in many places.

It has been demonstrated that the term “Master” (despotes) refers to an owner in a master- slave relationship. The meaning here is not of Christ as Savior or Mediator (despotes is never used as a redemptive title), but to Christ (or the Father) as Sovereign. It has also been demonstrated that the term “bought” (agorazo) in the New Testament is most frequently used in non-redemptive contexts. When used redemptively there are specific pointers that are conspicuously absent in 2 Peter 2:1 (such as the purchase price, believers as the lone object, or the presence of other mediatorial or redemptive features). Since this is so, it of necessity eliminates the assumed non-Reformed interpretation, at the very least, as the only viable interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1

This again, I remember addressing. As a Calvinist you probably believe in what is known as "Lordship Salvation," which demands that Christ be Lord of your life as salvation, as well as Savior. That would require such a word as despotes. Or at least it certainly wouldn't be out of place. When one gets saved he becomes our Master, and we his servant. That is not unusual, and is used a number of times in that context which I remember referencing the last time we spoke on this. Christ is Lord, Master, Saviour.

(WNT) But there were also false prophets among the people, as there will be teachers of falsehood among you also, who will cunningly introduce fatal divisions, disowning even the Sovereign Lord who has redeemed them, and bringing on themselves swift destruction.
--Fairly clear here isn't it? (1912 Weymouth)

In Conclusion

We are left then with two possible understandings to the text:

1. The term is being used redemptively. Hence these were men who were bought by Christ (purchased, redeemed) but lost their salvation when they became apostate.

No, they were unsaved false teachers who taught that: not all could be saved. Perhaps it was an excuse for them to continue in their destructive teaching and not come to Christ.

2. The term is being used non-redemptively; hence Peter is not addressing the extent of the atonement, but is providing an OT example (similar to Deut. 32:5-6) of a sovereign master (despot) who had purchased slaves and on that basis commanded their allegiance. "

Brother Joe

That solution doesn't make sense. If he is using the term in the sense of a "sovereign Master or Lord, that would immediately imply redemption, as Weymouth's translation describes. A sovereign Lord demands allegiance. The sovereign Lord of this universe happened to give his life and pay the purchase price of all our sin. This, these false teachers, deny.

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

Now if rejecting Jesus is the only thing that damns one to hell, but the preacher didn't get to all nations, kindred, tribe, tongues (e.g. American Indians before Columbus how can these people be dammed if the only reason one goes to hell is rejecting the gospel and they never heard it? Wouldn't this logically lead you to conclude they go to hell for something else (i.e. their sin)? And if that is so, that means Christ didn't atone, pay ransom, etc for their sins, does it?

It amazes me how many people profess to have so much concern for the unsaved who "don't have any chance of hearing the gospel" when all to often they are the very ones that don't have any interest in being a missionary to the same ones that are lost and dying without any chance to hear the word. (not attacking you personally because I don't know you, but it is a general observation in my travels throughout North America).

"But the preacher." What preacher? Who are you speaking about, and how do you know specific history about any specific people?

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
--Somewhere along the line the people that you are referring to "held the truth" in unrighteousness. They had the truth; they rejected the truth.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
--They had enough revelation to know about the triune Godhead which would include Christ. They were without excuse. They rejected the revelation they were given.

Let me ask you a personal question, rather a supposition.
I assume you are saved. You are married and have children.
For some reason one or more of your children go astray. They don't come to Christ. Then their descendants don't come to Christ, and likewise theirs, down to the fifth generation where there is an entire multitude now that "has never heard Christ." Why have they never heard Christ? Where does the responsibility lie? On you? On a rebellious child? God knows.

The word says:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
--They hold the truth in unrighteousness. There was no excuse.

Now the responsibility lies in the hands of someone who does have the truth to go to them and evangelize them via the Great Commission.

And if that is so, that means Christ didn't atone, pay ransom, etc for their sins, does it?

The truth is: We don't know 'what was so.'
You are just speculating.

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

Based upon your interpretation of that verse in Peter, you must believe all the adherents to Calvinism are unsaved or at least the teachers. That is an extreme position that I have never heard any non Calvinist take, but thanks for your explanation. How can you claim one who trusts in Christ's death alone for salvation is dammed? (If this is not your view, please explain). Are these teachers saved?

Brother Joe

I took great pains in that post to say, that is not what I believe.
Here is the very thing I said in that post:

Let's look at it again, and some of the major differences.

First Peter is addressing false teachers, those that already were not saved. That is the major difference here. I am addressing those that are saved; Peter was not. They were false teachers that had infiltrated the church--unsaved false teachers.

Isn't that clear enough in and of itself?
My explanation went on to explain other differences, but I made it clear right from the start that Calvinists were saved. It was the doctrine that was "destructive," as many are.

I know many sincere Pentecostals. Many of them saved. But speaking in tongues is a very destructive doctrine. We have a couple of Baptists on this board who believe in speaking in tongues. That doesn't mean they are unsaved.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I looked at it. Of course it is written from a Reformed perspective and I found a lot of loopholes in it.

It is not the frequency or the number of times a word is translated a particular way that determines its particular meaning, but rather the context. I would rather say that the context demands the meaning of "redeem," and my interpretation can be backed up by a number of translations. "Bought" and "redemption" are interchangeable in many places.

This again, I remember addressing. As a Calvinist you probably believe in what is known as "Lordship Salvation," which demands that Christ be Lord of your life as salvation, as well as Savior. That would require such a word as despotes. Or at least it certainly wouldn't be out of place. When one gets saved he becomes our Master, and we his servant. That is not unusual, and is used a number of times in that context which I remember referencing the last time we spoke on this. Christ is Lord, Master, Saviour.

(WNT) But there were also false prophets among the people, as there will be teachers of falsehood among you also, who will cunningly introduce fatal divisions, disowning even the Sovereign Lord who has redeemed them, and bringing on themselves swift destruction.
--Fairly clear here isn't it? (1912 Weymouth)


No, they were unsaved false teachers who taught that: not all could be saved. Perhaps it was an excuse for them to continue in their destructive teaching and not come to Christ.

That solution doesn't make sense. If he is using the term in the sense of a "sovereign Master or Lord, that would immediately imply redemption, as Weymouth's translation describes. A sovereign Lord demands allegiance. The sovereign Lord of this universe happened to give his life and pay the purchase price of all our sin. This, these false teachers, deny.

Brother DHK,

I respect your views that you are entitled to regarding the Peter verse, but I think it no surprise to both of use that we will have to agree to disagree in regards to its interpretation. I believe the article I provided puts forth a viable interpretation of that verse that should be considered. Nevertheless, thanks for your views. Isn't it nice that we live in a country that allows us to discuss and disagree on issues regarding our religion! The Muslims do not have this freedom. Dissenters from Sharia law risk being beheaded.

 

[Iconoclast]

For all your babble, name-calling and false accusations, go back and read my posts. I quoted you word for word, and the confession word for word. Please don't infer that I am lying. If you don't have the ability to respond to my post then just say so.

You are being dishonest...I will show you it's not hard....you do it everyday.

watch

I quoted you word for word, and the confession word for word

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.


Here is what you said....It is not word for word....that would make you a liar-

Even if they receive the gospel, believe the gospel, are called by the Spirit to believe the gospel, yet they still cannot be saved. This is reprobation and entirely contrary to the teaching of the Word of God

Pay attention DHK....these words you claim are word for word are not anywhere in this paragraph as you claim you quoted word for word

here is what you said...
if they receive the gospel?...where is that?

believe the gospel ? where is that?

are called by the Spirit to believe ????,,,,where is that?

here is what it does say:
yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ,

That is "not word for word":laugh:


I cannot believe you can even attempt this nonsense...$

4 starts with-

Of Effectual Calling
4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess

 

[BrotherJoseph]

When Calvinism sets into a church often the spiritual ruin of that church will happen quickly. It will stunt the growth of that church. The believers will become as the believers in Corinth--carnal, giving into immorality, drunkenness, taking one another to court, etc. Their spiritual life will be brought to "ruins" which doesn't mean they will lose their salvation.
However, the phrase goes back to the one bringing in the doctrine. They will be the ones responsible for this chaos and will stand before God and give account for it.

Brother DHK,

History does not prove that those who adhere to Calvinism live abominable lives engrossed in sins. Case in point, the Puritans. There name speaks for themselves. When I was in college at a secular university taking a American History class, even the class taught about the upright lives these people lived, even though admittedly, all groups have there flaws, such as the Puritans burning so called witches and persecuting Baptist.

The London Baptist Confession of faith makes it clear in several points
that those believing in the doctrines of grace will have good works.

"2._____ These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness they may have the end eternal life.
( James 2:18, 22; Psalms 116:12, 13; 1 John 2:3, 5; 2 Peter 1:5-11; Matthew 5:16; 1 Timothy 6:1; 1 Peter 2:15; Philippians 1:11; Ephesians 2:10; Romans 6:22 )

3._____ Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ; and that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is necessary an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure; yet they are not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty, unless upon a special motion of the Spirit, but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.
( John 15:4, 5; 2 Corinthians 3:5; Philippians 2:13; Philippians 2:12; Hebrews 6:11, 12; Isaiah 64:7 )


._____ They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
( Acts 20:32; Romans 6:5, 6; John 17:17; Ephesians 3:16-19; 1 Thessalonians 5:21-23; Romans 6:14; Galatians 5:24; Colossians 1:11; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 12:14 )

3._____ In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed them.
( Romans 7:23; Romans 6:14; Ephesians 4:15, 16; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 7:1 ) "

It is my opinion that in fact many of those who are not Calvinists who hold to the doctrine of "easy believism" are in fact the ones living sinful lifestyles, despite proclaiming themselves as profession Christians.

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoseph]

It amazes me how many people profess to have so much concern for the unsaved who "don't have any chance of hearing the gospel" when all to often they are the very ones that don't have any interest in being a missionary to the same ones that are lost and dying without any chance to hear the word. (not attacking you personally because I don't know you, but it is a general observation in my travels throughout North America).

"But the preacher." What preacher? Who are you speaking about, and how do you know specific history about any specific people?

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
--Somewhere along the line the people that you are referring to "held the truth" in unrighteousness. They had the truth; they rejected the truth.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
--They had enough revelation to know about the triune Godhead which would include Christ. They were without excuse. They rejected the revelation they were given.

Let me ask you a personal question, rather a supposition.
I assume you are saved. You are married and have children.
For some reason one or more of your children go astray. They don't come to Christ. Then their descendants don't come to Christ, and likewise theirs, down to the fifth generation where there is an entire multitude now that "has never heard Christ." Why have they never heard Christ? Where does the responsibility lie? On you? On a rebellious child? God knows.

The word says:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
--They hold the truth in unrighteousness. There was no excuse.

Now the responsibility lies in the hands of someone who does have the truth to go to them and evangelize them via the Great Commission.


The truth is: We don't know 'what was so.'
You are just speculating.

Brother DHK,

What do those who never hear the gospel and go to Hell for or do you believe everyone throughout history has heard the gospel? I am glad to hear you assume I am saved, despite me preaching what you believe is "damnable heresies" and being a "false teacher" per your interpretation of 2eter 2:1. As far as your question regarding if I had children who are reprobate, I could preach the gospel to them over and over, but what does the scripture tell us, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish (the reprobate) foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God" Notice the reprobate receive the gospel as foolishness, but those who are already saved (not will be saved) receive it as the "power of God". That those without the Spirit cannot believe the gospel due to their total depravity is reiterated about by Paul, "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." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

God's sheep will come in time as they are called out directly by the Father unto regeneration and learn of him, "To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out." (John 10:3) The gospel preacher can preach the words of Jesus, but only Jesus can use His voice. And again, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16). Can the preacher use Jesus's voice?

Jesus leaves no doubt that his sheep will learn of him and follow him, there are no contingencies they wont. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" (John 10:27). Again this is the voice of Christ, not the preacher. It is called the "inward calling".

They are taught by their father God, before being taught by the gospel preacher and will come, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh" unto me" (john 6:45).

Those spiritually dead in sin hear Christ's voice and our quickened by His sovereign grace, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (John 5:25).

God teaches his children directly is even seen in the Old Testament as well, "33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord" (Jeremiah 31:33-34)

After this, the gospel preacher ordinarily (but not in all cases such as for elect infants dying in infancy, the aborted, the mentally handicap) arrives and produces conversion. As the London Baptist Confession of Faith rightly declares regarding those incapable or receiving the outward call, " Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 ). They learn of Christ through the inward call by Christ's voice. This explains how David was made to hope when he was yet an infant nursing on his mothers breast. It is the only doctrine that offers hope to the helpless (infants dying in infancy, mentally handicap, the aborted) and is found to be scriptural

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoseph]

"But the preacher." What preacher? Who are you speaking about, and how do you know specific history about any specific people?

Brother DHK,


What preacher? Any preacher! I know the specifics about spefic people throughout time by the science what is called history with its citations. It tells us when the first missionaries first bought the gospel to various tribes and peoples throughout time. Do you reject history? You may have to in order to maintain your doctrine. Do you belieive contrary to every known historian going to assert every human being died having heard the gospel? If not, what do those who die and go to Hell without ever hearing the gospel go there for? After all, they couldn't go there for rejecting Christ if they never heard of them Is it for their sins (that is what I believe), but how could you believe this if you also believe Christ paid the penalty for all sins of every human being who ever lived? Can you give me any historical references or Bible references that indicate the American Indians for example received the gospel prior to Columbus's arrival?

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I took great pains in that post to say, that is not what I believe.
Here is the very thing I said in that post:

Isn't that clear enough in and of itself?
My explanation went on to explain other differences, but I made it clear right from the start that Calvinists were saved. It was the doctrine that was "destructive," as many are.

I know many sincere Pentecostals. Many of them saved. But speaking in tongues is a very destructive doctrine. We have a couple of Baptists on this board who believe in speaking in tongues. That doesn't mean they are unsaved.

Brother DHK,

I am glad you believe your Calvinist brothers are saved. I believe those such as yourself also are saved, though we differ on many important subject, but you and other nonCalvinists are trusting solely in the atonement for their salvation. I am sorry I misunderstood your position.

Brother Joe

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

History does not prove that those who adhere to Calvinism live abominable lives engrossed in sins. Case in point, the Puritans. There name speaks for themselves. When I was in college at a secular university taking a American History class, even the class taught about the upright lives these people lived, even though admittedly, all groups have there flaws, such as the Puritans burning so called witches and persecuting Baptist.

The London Baptist Confession of faith makes it clear in several points
that those believing in the doctrines of grace will have good works.

Brother Joe

The Puritans?

In the year 1653 the birth of a fourth child brough to an issue doubts that he appears to have entertaine for some time regarding infant baptism. He now definitely made known his conviction that oniy believer should be baptized, and set forth his reasons in sevem sermons. Great excitement was at once provoked by this procedure of Dunster’s, and no wonder. The deniof infant baptism was a blow at the very foundations a the Puritan theory of Church and State, and Dunster had become a dangerous enemy of the Commonwealth. Either he must be suppressed or the whole social fabric of Massachusetts must be remodeled. We need not be surprised that the former alternative was chosen. Dunster was virtually compelled to resign the presidency at the college, but it is possible that no further proceeding would have been taken against him save for his own in discretion. He insisted on being heard during a service of the Cambridge church, and set forth his views a length. For the offense of thus disturbing worship, he was indicted, tried, and condemned to receive an admonition from the General Court. He was also presented for refusal to have his child baptized, and required to give surety for his further appearance in court at Boston, in September, 1657. No record of further proceedings against him remains, and his (leath in 1659 removed him from the jurisdiction of the General Court of Massachusetts.

What he thus escaped may perhaps be inferred from the treatment of John Clarke, the founder of the Newport church, and Obadiah Holmes, who was destined to be Clarke’s successor. While they were spending the Lord’s Day with a brother who lived near Lynn, it was concluded to have religious services in the house. Two constables broke in while Mr. Clarke was preaching from Rev. 3 10, and the men were haled before the court. For this offense they were sentenced to pay, Clarke a fine of twenty pounds, and Holmes one of thirty pounds, in default of which they were to be “well whipped.” A friend paid Clarke’s fine, and he was set at liberty whether he would or no; but on September 6, 165!, Holmes was “whipped unmercifully” (the phrase is Bancroft’s) in the streets of Boston, for the atrocious crime of preaching the gospel and of adding thereto the denial of infant baptism.

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/vedder/ch19.htm
These were not just flaws. This is history. They followed in the footsteps of Calvin--the work of state-church is never without violence.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

.


The truth is: We don't know 'what was so.'
You are just speculating.

Brother DHK, no it is not speculation, it is logic. If American Indians go to hell, but they never heard the gospel, it must be because of their sin. They cannot reject something they never heard. Therefore Christ must not have atoned for and paid their ransom for their sin if they go to Hell because of it. This proves the doctrine of limited atonement is scriptural. The only way you can get around this problem that I see is to try to assert that every human being throughout history has heard the gospel as Revmwc tired to assert, but now he has retreated from this thread as such an idea is easily exposed as false as a result of what history records. I do not believe you would make the same ridiculous assertion that Revmwc makes in regards to this as you appear to be one who the Lord has blessed with a good intellect judging from our prior exchanges on the board.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Brother DHK,

I am posting this question for the third time in this thread. I previously posted in this thread twice, but you failed to answer both times. Please answer. Revmwc I would also be interest in an answer from you too.

Originally Posted by BrotherJoseph View Post
Brother DHK,

I bought up separate classes of people such as infants dying in infancy, the mentally handicap, and aborted infants and I believe these are all atoned for and born again in the same manner as everyone. "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:11). For example, I have no problem with the scripture that John the Baptist had the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb. However as you believe in gospel regeneration, how do you believe these people (infants dying in infancy, the mentally handicap, etc) are born again? Aren't you the one who thus has to invent a "different way" or do you believe these people can understand and believe a gospel preacher, if so, what scripture do you have to prove this?
Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Brother DHK and RevMCC,

Here is another post that was failed to be answered in this thread that I am posting for the third time. Please respond.

Originally Posted by BrotherJoseph View Post
Brother DHK,

Now if rejecting Jesus is the only thing that damns one to hell, but the preacher didn't get to all nations, kindred, tribe, tongues (e.g. American Indians before Columbus how can these people be dammed if the only reason one goes to hell is rejecting the gospel and they never heard it? Wouldn't this logically lead you to conclude they go to hell for something else (i.e. their sin)? And if that is so, that means Christ didn't atone, pay ransom, etc for their sins, does it?

 

[DHK]

You are being dishonest...I will show you it's not hard....you do it everyday.

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.

Of Effectual Calling
4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess

I did quote it word for word, just like you did--twice nevertheless.
Then I did what you did not do--explain it. Do you ever explain, expound, or exegete scripture so that others can understand it? I find that such verbose statements of the cof need to be explained as well, especially to those who may want to deny what is actually written. It is startling that you actually want to deny your own Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination (which includes reprobation).

What does it say?
1. Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,
--The non-elect may have heard the gospel (the ministry of the Word) correct? What is the ministry of the word if it is not the preaching of the gospel?

2. may have some common operations of the Spirit...
The operation of the Spirit is the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

(ASV) And he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

3. yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:
--Yet for all that they cannot be saved.

Thus: they can hear the Word, understand the gospel, be convicted of the Holy Spirit, and yet it is impossible for them to be saved.

What a cruel monstrous God!
But thankfully the God of love, with outstretched arms toward the believer knows no such nonsense, and is able to save even to the uttermost. There is no person He cannot save, contrary to what Calvinism teaches.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Brother DHK and Reveemwc,

One final old post from this thread that was never answered and I am posting for the third time in this thread. (There seems to be a lot of these, I wonder why). Also it appears Revmwc has elected to withdraw himself from the thread all together, perhaps he is just busy, but the timing of his withdraw from the posts seems more than coincidental, wouldn't you agree Brother Sovereign?

If this post and the other two I just posted before this remains unanswered despite being posted three times, I will not bring it up again and will just assume the lack of answers is due to having no answers for these questions.

Originally Posted by BrotherJoseph View Post
Revemwc and Brother DHK,

If I am understanding the both of you correctly, you both assert one goes to eternal damnation for rejecting Christ. What about those who never hear the gospel? Also, if hearing and not believing the gospel is what damns one to hell, it seems we would all be better off not preaching the gospel, thus nobody would go to Hell.

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoseph]

What a cruel monstrous God!
But thankfully the God of love, with outstretched arms toward the believer knows no such nonsense, and is able to save even to the uttermost. There is no person He cannot save, contrary to what Calvinism teaches.

Brother DHK,

I believe you preach the cruel and monstrous God (though out of ignorance I suspect, now willfully trying to propagate false doctrine as is the manner of some and there damnation is just). Just think about it, if what you say is true, that rejection of the gospel is what sends one to eternal damnation, but Jesus orders that the gospel be preached to every human being, this damns more people than it saves as more people in the world do not believe the gospel than the % of people who believe it. Thus, indirectly you are saying the gospel is the means of damming people to Hell.

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK, no it is not speculation, it is logic. If American Indians go to hell, but they never heard the gospel, it must be because of their sin. They cannot reject something they never heard. Therefore Christ must not have atoned for and paid their ransom for their sin if they go to Hell because of it. This proves the doctrine of limited atonement is scriptural. The only way you can get around this problem that I see is to try to assert that every human being throughout history has heard the gospel as Revmwc tired to assert, but now he has retreated from this thread as such an idea is easily exposed as false as a result of what history records. I do not believe you would make the same ridiculous assertion that Revmwc makes in regards to this as you appear to be one who the Lord has blessed with a good intellect judging from our prior exchanges on the board.

God bless,

Brother Joe

It is speculation, philosophy, human reasoning, etc. It is not scripture or based on the scripture. The scripture tells us plainly that there is one way to salvation. You want to deny that fact and prove your theory that there is more than one way.
Either that or you are making a racist suggestion.
They used to suggest that all descendants of Canaan were Negroes and therefore cursed. I hope we have gotten by such thinking.

Are you suggesting that salvation was given to Caucasians and Jews?

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

I believe you preach the cruel and monstrous God (though out of ignorance I suspect, now willfully trying to propagate false doctrine as is the manner of some and there damnation is just). Just think about it, if what you say is true, that rejection of the gospel is what sends one to eternal damnation, but Jesus orders that the gospel be preached to every human being, this damns more people than it saves as more people in the world do not believe the gospel than the % of people who believe it. Thus, indirectly you are saying the gospel is the means of damming people to Hell.

It is the disobedience of those who refuse to preach the gospel.
I believe that. When the Lord gave the responsibility of taking the gospel to the entire world into the hands of eleven men, he had no back up plan. If Christianity were to survive it would have to survive at the hands of those eleven men.
And thus it remains our responsibility today.
Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.