The Eternal Purpose of Christ PT 3

[DHK]

Everything God made is good, never stated differently. However, man has corrupted it by their sinful, wicked heart. God made intercourse to be an holy occasion for the husband and wife to be fruitful and to enjoy each other. Mankind has corrupted it by being g@y, sleeping with animals, others outside their marriage, doing it for money, &c.

Unless you take a non-Cal stance and base things on the omniscience of God rather than God simply choosing some to eternal life and the rest to eternal damnation (as the confessions say) before the foundation of the world, then God is a cruel monster. Man did nothing wrong. He didn't sin. He did no wickedness--none of the things that you accuse him of. Before the world was created the Fall had not yet happened, but man is already condemned. That makes God the monster and the author of sin.

That is why they were not included in the canon of scripture.

True, but it is the picture of God that the Calvinists paint--whatever God wants to do he can do: Create and destroy at random--Just like Jesus supposedly did. This is the exact picture given before the foundation of the world where Calvinists say: God elected some and reprobated others. (Jesus created some and destroyed others). Perhaps the author of the story was the "first Calvinist"

God is love, I have never said anything to the contrary. However, we are not. We loved ourselves. We who truly love, have been born of God.

We didn't love ourselves before the foundation of the world, but God condemned most of the human race before the foundation of the world. On what basis?

Sin unpaid for is dealt with justifiably on the day of Judgment. God is just to leave everyone of us in our sins, yet, He sent a Lamb to hang, bleed, and die for a multitude of sinners who justly deserved hell.

Christ paid for all of our sin on the cross. He is the propitiation for our sins, not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world.
On the basis of refusing or rejecting Christ will a person be condemned to Hell.
Yet your stand is that that decision is made for most people, if not all people, before the foundation of the world. That negates evangelism, the Great Commission, praying of the salvation for others, etc.
This is what it was like in William Carey's day.

John Collett Ryland is said to have challenge to missions: "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid and mine." (Wikipedia)
--And that is the logical end of Calvinism. It certainly was in Carey's day.

In my opinion? I never stated such a perverted idea. God is immutable. He changes not. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. God never wooed and pleaded with Adam. He called and they came out of hiding. That is effectual calling at its finest.

God loved the elect enough to save them.
God hated the non-elect enough to damn them.
Therefore is he love or hate? He cannot be a schizophrenic. He is one or the other. What made God change?

God never wooed and pleaded with Satan and his minions to come back into fellowship with Him. He justly(fairly) condemned them to the lake of fire without any offer of reconciliation. God does with His creation, both angels and man, as He deems fit.

Satan rebelled against God. God justly dealt with it. What is the problem there. You think God is the author of evil and pre-determined it all to happen? I don't.

You do not receive grace without mercy and vice versa. God would have been just(right and fair) to consign us to hell and not send Jesus to begin with. That is justice. In grace and mercy, He sent His Son to die for us.

This is a side-issue. God is a God of gentleness, longsuffering, kindness, etc. There are scores of attributes of God. Every time I am going to mention a Biblical truth are you going to throw a monkey wrench into the mix because one of God's attributes was not included. I think you can do better than that. It is a simple deflection from the truth of what has been said.

Paul simply said: "For by grace are ye saved through faith..."
Was he also wrong because he didn't mention mercy?

 

[percho]

The Eternal Purpose of Christ PT 3 -----OP

It was determined from / before the foundation of the world that the Lamb without spot and without blemish would be slain. And the blood shed by being slain would be for redemption.

Are those two statements true or false?

Was the death absolutely necessary for the destruction of him that has the power of the death, that is the devil? Heb. 2:14

Was the Son of God manifested, as a man, subject to the death in order to destroy the works of the devil? Are those works inclusive of the death? Was the devil a sinner from the beginning, of something? 1 John 3:8

The only ones in the garden God planted Eastward in Eden and put the man, Adam were Adam, the woman taken from him, Eve and the devil who had the power of death. Why? Why? Why?

Adam became tempted when he was drawn away in his own lust, relative to the devil having deceived the woman, Eve and his lust conceived and brought forth sin, and sin brought the death of which the devil had the power thereof.

Is that true or false?

There was going to be redemption because God created Adam, flesh and blood, carnal, sold under sin, in order for the Son of God to be manifested to redeem back the man and destroy the devil and his works.

I wonder how much of the death God intends to redeem that was caused by the devil having the power of the death, over all the carnal men who have lived.

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Romans 7:24

I wonder what Calvin thought about all this? Or JA for that matter?
I think both of them were thinking about how man was going to save himself.

 

[Rippon]

I wonder what Calvin thought about all this? Or JA for that matter?

JA? Do you mean JO --John Owen?

 

[Rippon]

God is a cruel monster.
God the monster and the author of sin.

You really need to clean up your act. Stop using such disgraceful language about God.

the picture of God that the Calvinists paint--whatever God wants to do he can do:

It is the very picture that Scripture paints --God does whatever He pleases anywhere in the universe He created with the people He made. If you reject that you have rejected Christ and the Word of God in the process.

On the basis of refusing or rejecting Christ will a person be condemned to Hell.

Many have never heard of Christ or the gospel. They will be condemned for their sin.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Unless you take a non-Cal stance and base things on the omniscience of God rather than God simply choosing some to eternal life and the rest to eternal damnation (as the confessions say) before the foundation of the world, then God is a cruel monster. Man did nothing wrong. He didn't sin. He did no wickedness--none of the things that you accuse him of. Before the world was created the Fall had not yet happened, but man is already condemned. That makes God the monster and the author of sin.

The non-cal stance is all over the place. Faith is faith but not all faiths save. Salvation is 100% of the Lord...'but I had to...'. Justification is by faith(and it is) and all men have faith, so all men possess justification, but not all are justified. God is not willing any perish but many die lost. God is in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their sins unto them, but many die not being reconciled. God so loved the world then tosees many of His objects of love into the fire. God is also a God of wrath, but not really mad, just annoyed at them. Not even angry with Satan, just annoyed.

God made everything good, but man corrupted it. Blame man, not God. Until you learn our position, please stop. You grossly misrepresented me. I exposed your plagarism and you got away with and suffered no consequences.

True, but it is the picture of God that the Calvinists paint--whatever God wants to do he can do: Create and destroy at random--Just like Jesus supposedly did. This is the exact picture given before the foundation of the world where Calvinists say: God elected some and reprobated others. (Jesus created some and destroyed others). Perhaps the author of the story was the "first Calvinist"

Your hatred of 'all things Calvinist' is quite telling. Look, God made Satan and his minions knowing full well they would sin and suffer eternal torment. God created man knowing many would die lost and suffer eternal torment.

In your schema, you feel satisified if God gives everybody at least one calling. Then God has fulfilled His obligation of trying to save them. God has never tried to save anyone, He either does or does not. He does not try anything.

In your schema, God has a line drawn in the sand. He will come to that line and will not cross it. Man is the one who has to come. God will not violate man's (free) will. In your schema, God does His part, now man must do his. It is nothing more than a 'hand shake' deal. Admit it, God does His part, they must do theirs.

We didn't love ourselves before the foundation of the world, but God condemned most of the human race before the foundation of the world. On what basis?

Huh? Whaa? Did God put the tree of knowledge in the Garden? Why? Did God place the serpent in the Garden? Why?

Christ paid for all of our sin on the cross. He is the propitiation for our sins, not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world.
On the basis of refusing or rejecting Christ will a person be condemned to Hell.
Yet your stand is that that decision is made for most people, if not all people, before the foundation of the world. That negates evangelism, the Great Commission, praying of the salvation for others, etc.
This is what it was like in William Carey's day.

Take that up with those who are anti-missionary.

John Collett Ryland is said to have challenge to missions: "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid and mine." (Wikipedia)
--And that is the logical end of Calvinism. It certainly was in Carey's day.

Take that up with the anti-missionary.

God loved the elect enough to save them.
God hated the non-elect enough to damn them.
Therefore is he love or hate? He cannot be a schizophrenic. He is one or the other. What made God change?

God's love is centered on Christ.

Satan rebelled against God. God justly dealt with it. What is the problem there. You think God is the author of evil and pre-determined it all to happen? I don't.

All the info we have is post-creation. We do not know what happened to cause satan to rebel and fall. You also speak rubbish here. I have been civil with you and you clearly have not me. You continually hit below the belt.

This is a side-issue. God is a God of gentleness, longsuffering, kindness, etc. There are scores of attributes of God. Every time I am going to mention a Biblical truth are you going to throw a monkey wrench into the mix because one of God's attributes was not included. I think you can do better than that. It is a simple deflection from the truth of what has been said.

You are the one who is continuing harping on 'God is love' as if we disagree with that. But God is also a God of wrath, but to you He is just annoyed. Shoot, He is not even angry with satan, just miffed at Him.

Paul simply said: "For by grace are ye saved through faith..."
Was he also wrong because he didn't mention mercy?

Mercy is part of God's attributes. You want to harp on the favorite saying the LGBT community harps on...'God is love...'

 

[Iconoclast]

You really need to clean up your act. Stop using such disgraceful language about God.

It is the very picture that Scripture paints --God does whatever He pleases anywhere in the universe He created with the people He made. If you reject that you have rejected Christ and the Word of God in the process.

Many have never heard of Christ or the gospel. They will be condemned for their sin.

Yes.....he has defiled himself once again with a disgraceful attack upon the biblical God.
BB rules forbid such an attack....but DHK ignores the rules to speak against God in an ungodly manner.....a real abomination.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Day after day we have the spectacle of DHK with his 24/7 anti cal agenda demonstrating that all such posts are void of any true biblical content in any positive way. The only "biblical content" is when a cal answers and refutes his false theories and carnal philosophy...we can illustrate it once again.

Unless you take a non-Cal stance and base things on the omniscience of God

This means he intends to ignore God's decree

rather than God simply choosing

Does the biblical God...do anything "simply" as if by chance? You see a disturbed pattern of thought as if there is no acquaintance with the scriptural truth...but rather guesswork on the way.

rather than God simply choosing some to eternal life and the rest to eternal damnation (as the confessions say)[/QUOTE]

scripture and the confession of faith are clear and yet...DHK cannot read the confession correctly...he adds or takes away from it. He does not grasp that this document while man made is scripture based and carefully worded to protect the saints against false teaching and those who offer false teaching as DHK abundantly provides everyday.
The confession protects against the false musings of DHK....

Here DHK twists the truth...lets look

3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )



The confession is clear...in the blue portion...others BEING LEFT TO ACT IN THEIR SIN TO THEIR JUST CONDEMNATION....

DHK cannot answer this as written so he twists it when no one see's the wording....:laugh:
look ...to highlight his falsehood...he puts it in parenthesis

(as the confessions say)

:laugh: the confession does not say that...you do!

before the foundation of the world,

DHK evidently thinks nothing happened before the world was:laugh:

"the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world"
rev13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

He has seen this truth many times and hates it....like this;
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,


instead he would substitute the failed "forseen faith" theory...which is soundly rejected.

then God is a cruel monster.

here is DHK's root bitterness against God who elects, predestines, ordains....he hates that teaching everytime he sees it

Man did nothing wrong. He didn't sin. He did no wickedness--none of the things that you accuse him of. Before the world was created the Fall had not yet happened, but man is already condemned. That makes God the monster and the author of sin.

Because DHK cannot grasp God's revealed truth....he lashes out against the very thing he cannot grasp.....God is God......DHK is not God. DHK thinks he knows what God should have done instead of what scripture says.....

look at his vile statement;

That makes God the monster and the author of sin.

On BB....this is not allowed for anyone to post{except DHK and other anti-cal posters} they can question the biblical God Cals worship.

To suggest this as they do is to proclaim that Cals do not have knowledge of God or his salvation. To question others salvation is against board rules.

True, but it is the picture of God that the Calvinists paint--whatever God wants to do he can do:

Yes...the evil Calvinist Psalmist says it:

2 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?

3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

DHK must fly into a rage when he sees what this Calvinist Psalmist confesses.
Notice.....any other god is the god the heathens worship in contrast to the living God.

Create and destroy at random--

God does not do "random"
He moves to protect and avenge those Covenant Children He has;
deut32
39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.

41 If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.

42 I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.

43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Just like Jesus supposedly did. This is the exact picture given before the foundation of the world where Calvinists say: God elected some and reprobated others. (Jesus created some and destroyed others). Perhaps the author of the story was the "first Calvinist"

See...DHK hates God's eternal purpose...he hates this verse and does not trust God....

17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

We didn't love ourselves before the foundation of the world, but God condemned most of the human race before the foundation of the world. On what basis?

He saw us all as dead in Adam.....elected out of the dead multitude a multitude that no man could number...in perfect wisdom and righteous judgment......the DHK would question!

Yet your stand is that that decision is made for most people, if not all people, before the foundation of the world. That negates evangelism, the Great Commission, praying of the salvation for others, etc.

Nonsense...this red herring died long ago

God loved the elect enough to save them.
God hated the non-elect enough to damn them.
Therefore is he love or hate?

God hates all the workers of iniquity. He loves sinners In union with His Son. Apart from the Son they are past by.....preterition.....left in their condemnation in adam.

He cannot be a schizophrenic. He is one or the other. What made God change?

These are blasphemous thoughts that have no place on a Christian board,,,

 

[percho]

JA? Do you mean JO --John Owen?

Jacobus Arminius

 

[percho]

You really need to clean up your act. Stop using such disgraceful language about God.

It is the very picture that Scripture paints --God does whatever He pleases anywhere in the universe He created with the people He made. If you reject that you have rejected Christ and the Word of God in the process.

Many have never heard of Christ or the gospel. They will be condemned for their sin.

I agree with you Rip and I had rather put my life, spirit, in the hands of God than in my own.

 

[DHK]

The non-cal stance is all over the place. Faith is faith but not all faiths save. Salvation is 100% of the Lord...'but I had to...'. Justification is by faith(and it is) and all men have faith, so all men possess justification, but not all are justified.

First, "my position" is not all over the place. So many points to address. I will start with one that I have addressed many times and you consistently fail to respond to and therefore consistently repeat.
1. All men have faith. True.
2. All faith has an object: money, parents, fame, etc.
3. Only faith in Christ and his atoning sacrifice can save.

Is that clear?

Now answer this question:
Matthew 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
--Why did the Centurion have greater faith than anyone else in Israel, according to Jesus, and yet went away from Jesus not saved?

 

[SovereignGrace]

First, "my position" is not all over the place. So many points to address. I will start with one that I have addressed many times and you consistently fail to respond to and therefore consistently repeat.

Which points have I not addressed? I will answer those I have not. We have thrown much at each other, so I guess we do miss some points of each other's posts.

1. All men have faith. True.

Trusting in one's companion is not comparable to believing Christ in salvation. One is carnal the other is Spiritual.

2. All faith has an object: money, parents, fame, etc.

Not all faiths are the same, even per you.

3. Only faith in Christ and his atoning sacrifice can save.

Bingo! :thumbsup:

But this faith is God-given. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.Is that clear?[1 Jn. 5:1] Those who believe(present tense) have already been born of God. Being born of God is regeneration via the Spirit, and with it comes faith and repentance. As John wrote in 1 John 4, those who love are born of God. It takes a birth of the Spirit before faith and repentance are exercised.

Now answer this question:
Matthew 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
--Why did the Centurion have greater faith than anyone else in Israel, according to Jesus, and yet went away from Jesus not saved?

That Centurion had been in the presence of Christ and His disciples. He had heard their preaching. Christ healed the syrophoencian woman's child, too. They both had faith. But they had witnessed Christ's healings and His words. They had ears to hear with.

 

[DHK]

Which points have I not addressed? I will answer those I have not. We have thrown much at each other, so I guess we do miss some points of each other's posts.

The one point that we are about to address which brings about false allegations demonstrates my point.

Trusting in one's companion is not comparable to believing Christ in salvation. One is carnal the other is Spiritual.

And yet it is still trust (i.e. faith).

Not all faiths are the same, even per you.

Faith is faith. It is the object of faith that is different. Faith is confidence, trust.

Bingo! :thumbsup:

Context is always a good thing. Yet all men still have faith. They might not have faith in the blood of Christ, but they still have faith.

But this faith is God-given. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.Is that clear?[1 Jn. 5:1] Those who believe(present tense) have already been born of God. Being born of God is regeneration via the Spirit, and with it comes faith and repentance. As John wrote in 1 John 4, those who love are born of God. It takes a birth of the Spirit before faith and repentance are exercised.

I disagree, and I don't think you have any scriptural evidence to stand on.
Faith is not God given. Hundreds of examples can be given in the gospels and in the book of Acts. Hundreds more can be given out of the OT. None of them demonstrate that faith is a result of regeneration. Jesus Himself compared faith to that of little children, and surely they were not saved.
You have no evidence to stand on here.

That Centurion had been in the presence of Christ and His disciples. He had heard their preaching. Christ healed the syrophoencian woman's child, too. They both had faith. But they had witnessed Christ's healings and His words. They had ears to hear with.

But he was not saved!!!!
And that shoots down your whole argument above. You just finished explaining that faith comes from God, from the new birth, etc., etc.,
He was not born of God, not regenerated, not saved in any way. He was a Gentile Roman Centurion, an idolater. And yet he had more faith than all of Israel. How can that be true? He was an unbeliever, not saved.

 

[SovereignGrace]

And praytell, how do you know he was unsaved? Could you look in his heart? He was humble when he approached Christ. He knew what others, other Jews did not, Jesus was able to heal. There had to be something revealed to him.

Matthew Henry:

This centurion was a heathen, a Roman soldier. Though he was a soldier, yet he was a godly man. No man's calling or place will be an excuse for unbelief and sin. See how he states his servant's case. We should concern ourselves for the souls of our children and servants, who are spiritually sick, who feel not spiritual evils, who know not that which is spiritually good; and we should bring them to Christ by faith and prayers. Observe his self-abasement. Humble souls are made more humble by Christ's gracious dealings with them. Observe his great faith. The more diffident we are of ourselves, the stronger will be our confidence in Christ. Herein the centurion owns him to have Divine power, and a full command of all the creatures and powers of nature, as a master over his servants. Such servants we all should be to God; we must go and come, according to the directions of his word and the disposals of his providence. But when the Son of man comes he finds little faith, therefore he finds little fruit. An outward profession may cause us to be called children of the kingdom; but if we rest in that, and have nothing else to show, we shall be cast out. The servant got a cure of his disease, and the master got the approval of his faith. What was said to him, is said to all, Believe, and ye shall receive; only believe. See the power of Christ, and the power of faith. The healing of our souls is at once the effect and evidence of our interest in the blood of Christ.



Adam Clarke:

I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel - That is, I have not found so great an instance of confidence and faith in my power, even among the Jews, as this Roman, a Gentile, has shown himself to possess.

From Luke 7:5, where it is said of this centurion, "he loved our nation, and has built us a synagogue," we may infer that this man was like the centurion mentioned Acts 10:1; a devout Gentile, a proselyte of the gate, one who believed in the God of Israel, without conforming to the Jewish ritual or receiving circumcision. Though the military life is one of the most improper nurses for the Christian religion, yet in all nations there have been found several instances of genuine humility, and faith in God, even in soldiers; and perhaps never more, in the British military, than at present, a.d. 1831.


That centurion saw Christ for who He was. God had quickened him, given him eyes to see with, ears to hear with, and a new heart. Read about centurions. Most used /abused their slaves, some even killed them. But this one loved his. He was different.

 

[DHK]

And praytell, how do you know he was unsaved? Could you look in his heart? He was humble when he approached Christ. He knew what others, other Jews did not, Jesus was able to heal. There had to be something revealed to him.

He wasn't a godly man by simply reading the context. I can point to you many unsaved people that are religious but not saved; humble but not saved; etc. That is simply a works based salvation. He knew the same thing that scores of others knew--Jesus could heal. Everyone knew that. He healed right in the presence. How could one not know that?

Matthew Henry:

This centurion was a heathen, a Roman soldier. Though he was a soldier, yet he was a godly man.

You don't need to read any further than this to see the contradiction. MH says that he is a heathen and a godly man in the same sentence. How is that??

Simply because he asks to be healed doesn't make him saved or godly.

Adam Clarke:

I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel - That is, I have not found so great an instance of confidence and faith in my power, even among the Jews, as this Roman, a Gentile, has shown himself to possess.

From Luke 7:5, where it is said of this centurion, "he loved our nation, and has built us a synagogue," we may infer that this man was like the centurion mentioned Acts 10:1; a devout Gentile, a proselyte of the gate, one who believed in the God of Israel, without conforming to the Jewish ritual or receiving circumcision. Though the military life is one of the most improper nurses for the Christian religion, yet in all nations there have been found several instances of genuine humility, and faith in God, even in soldiers; and perhaps never more, in the British military, than at present, a.d. 1831.

But he is wrong. There is nothing to connect this man to Cornelius. There are too many assumptions made here.
First note:
Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
--Cornelius was from Caesarea, which is on the coast of the Mediterranean. If you could fly a plane from Capernaum to Caesarea it would be 80 miles, but the geography makes it much father.

Luk 7:1 Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.
Luk 7:2 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
--The centurion was from Capernaum.
These are two different men, not to be confused.

That centurion saw Christ for who He was. God had quickened him, given him eyes to see with, ears to hear with, and a new heart. Read about centurions. Most used /abused their slaves, some even killed them. But this one loved his. He was different.

He was not saved. God had not quickened him. You are reading your Calvinism into this. The scripture nowhere says this. Why must you read Calvinism into the scriptures even when it isn't there?

I believe I am right simply because it follows the pattern of another incident, which is the passage of scripture I should have referred to in the first place.
Let's look at it:

Joh 4:47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judaea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death.
Joh 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.
--This time Jesus is going from Judea into Galilee. A nobleman approaches him and beseeches him to heal his son for he is dying. The same situation is in play. He is exercising great faith.

oh 4:49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die.
Joh 4:50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.
--His faith was not as great as the centurion's in that he wanted Christ to come to his house. But Jesus told him his son was healed. Then the account reads the man believed the word Jesus had spoken unto him which makes his faith as great as the centurion's for his son was some distance away. He had great faith. He believed. But was he saved? What was the source of his faith?

Joh 4:51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth.
Joh 4:52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.
--Having left Jesus he continues on his way home. His servants meet him on the way and inform him that his son, previously at the point of death, is now healed. He asked what time? It was yesterday at the 7th hour. That was the time that he was speaking to Christ!

Therefore:
Joh 4:53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
--Now he believed that Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God. Now he and all his family were saved. This is the time of his salvation--more than a full day after he believed or put his faith in Christ to heal his son.

The centurion put faith in Christ to heal his daughter. That doesn't mean he was saved. It was faith in Christ's ability to heal, not ability to save. Nowhere does the account say that. The account is just like this one. One cannot read into the account more than it says.

Many put their faith in Christ to heal, but not to save.
Ten lepers came to Jesus. All put their faith in Christ to heal them.
Only one put his faith in Christ to save him, and he was a Samaritan.

 

[percho]

What is and whose is, "the faith," that declares one to be righteous?

for sin over you shall not have lordship, for ye are not under law, but under grace. Rom 6:14 YLT What exactly removed one from being under the law?

And before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith about to be revealed, Gal 3:23

Whatever declared one to be righteous, was the faith, revealed. And is the faith, one heard of, by which one received the Spirit rather than by the works of the law.

much more, then, having been declared righteous now in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the wrath; Romans 614 YLT
so that the law became our child-conductor -- to Christ, that by faith (By His Blood?) we may be declared righteous,

But it required more than just the shedding of blood, the pouring out of the soul unto death, for nothing dead could bring righteousness. If Jesus the Christ had remained dead, we would still be in our sins. 1 Cor 15:17 YLT and if Christ hath not risen, vain is your faith, ye are yet in your sins;

Paul, an apostle -- not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who did raise him out of the dead -- Gal 1:1 YLT

for by grace ye are having been saved, through (the) faith, and this not of you -- of God the gift, Eph 2:8 YLT

that having been declared righteous by His grace, heirs we may become according to the hope of life age-during. Titus 3:7 YLT


Does God give one the Spirit because they believe that or something else? Or is God taking out of the nations a people for his name and giving them the Spirit of truth?

Only worthily of the good news of the Christ conduct ye yourselves, that, whether having come and seen you, whether being absent I may hear of the things concerning you, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one soul, striving together for the faith of the good news, and not terrified in anything by those opposing, which to them indeed is a token of destruction, and to you of salvation, and that from God; (Eph 2:8) because to you it was granted, on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also on behalf of him to suffer; Phil 1:27-29 YLT

And the Lord said unto him, 'Be going on, because a choice vessel to Me is this one, to bear My name before nations and kings -- the sons also of Israel; for I will shew him how many things it behoveth him for My name to suffer.' Acts 9:15,16 YLT

 

[SovereignGrace]

He wasn't a godly man by simply reading the context. I can point to you many unsaved people that are religious but not saved; humble but not saved; etc. That is simply a works based salvation. He knew the same thing that scores of others knew--Jesus could heal. Everyone knew that. He healed right in the presence. How could one not know that?


You don't need to read any further than this to see the contradiction. MH says that he is a heathen and a godly man in the same sentence. How is that??

Simply because he asks to be healed doesn't make him saved or godly.


But he is wrong. There is nothing to connect this man to Cornelius. There are too many assumptions made here.
First note:
Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
--Cornelius was from Caesarea, which is on the coast of the Mediterranean. If you could fly a plane from Capernaum to Caesarea it would be 80 miles, but the geography makes it much father.

Luk 7:1 Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.
Luk 7:2 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
--The centurion was from Capernaum.
These are two different men, not to be confused.

He was not saved. God had not quickened him. You are reading your Calvinism into this. The scripture nowhere says this. Why must you read Calvinism into the scriptures even when it isn't there?

I believe I am right simply because it follows the pattern of another incident, which is the passage of scripture I should have referred to in the first place.
Let's look at it:

Joh 4:47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judaea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death.
Joh 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.
--This time Jesus is going from Judea into Galilee. A nobleman approaches him and beseeches him to heal his son for he is dying. The same situation is in play. He is exercising great faith.

oh 4:49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die.
Joh 4:50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.
--His faith was not as great as the centurion's in that he wanted Christ to come to his house. But Jesus told him his son was healed. Then the account reads the man believed the word Jesus had spoken unto him which makes his faith as great as the centurion's for his son was some distance away. He had great faith. He believed. But was he saved? What was the source of his faith?

Joh 4:51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth.
Joh 4:52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.
--Having left Jesus he continues on his way home. His servants meet him on the way and inform him that his son, previously at the point of death, is now healed. He asked what time? It was yesterday at the 7th hour. That was the time that he was speaking to Christ!

Therefore:
Joh 4:53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
--Now he believed that Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God. Now he and all his family were saved. This is the time of his salvation--more than a full day after he believed or put his faith in Christ to heal his son.

The centurion put faith in Christ to heal his daughter. That doesn't mean he was saved. It was faith in Christ's ability to heal, not ability to save. Nowhere does the account say that. The account is just like this one. One cannot read into the account more than it says.

Many put their faith in Christ to heal, but not to save.
Ten lepers came to Jesus. All put their faith in Christ to heal them.
Only one put his faith in Christ to save him, and he was a Samaritan.

Well, let me see. In Luke 7 Christ raised a widow's son without that dead man having faith. Lazarus was devoid of faith when Christ cried "Lazarus come out!" Ezekiel prophesied and a bunch of bones came back to life without exercising faith. Elijah brought the widow's son back to life without any faith being exercised by that son. Peter raised Dorcas/Tabitha without any faith on her part. Christ raised Jairus' daughter without her exercising faith. Paul raised Eutychus without him exercising faith.

God has done many things like I mentioned without faith being exercised. Those 10, nine received common grace to be healed. Those nine were healed bodily, but the Samaritan was healed both body and spirit. God wrought a work in his heart that caused him to turn around and fall at Jesus' feet. I know you will disagree.

Here is something worthy of perusing...

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/42-220/ten-men-healed-one-man-saved

 

[savedbymercy]

percho

But it required more than just the shedding of blood, the pouring out of the soul unto death, for nothing dead could bring righteousness.

This is blasphemy at its Highest against the Death and Blood of Christ. The Death of Christ alone made them He lived and died for Righteous ! Heres proof Rom 5:19

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The Obedience of One here refers strictly to Christ's Obedience unto Death Phil 2:8

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

By this obedience of His, Many are made Righteous ! The word made in Rom 5:19 is the greek word kathistémi:

I set down, bring down to a place; I set in order, appoint, make, constitute,

"to set down as, constitute (Latinsisto), equivalent to to declare, show to be":

So Christs death alone declared them Righteous !

The Resurrection of Christ is proof of what His Death done, so we read Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for[because of] our offences, and was raised again for[because of] our justification.

He was raised again because of our Justification, which was accomplished by His being delivered for our offences !

The Resurrection proves your comment to be blasphemous and against Christ, this comment right here of yours:

But it required more than just the shedding of blood, the pouring out of the soul unto death, for nothing dead could bring righteousness.

Because Christ's Death, being dead, did bring Righteousness ! Thats why Jesus said at the moment of His decease Jn 19:30

30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

This fulfilled the Prophecy of Daniel Dan 9:24

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Please do not respond to above post, monsieurs. Please do not derail/hjack this thread. Merci beaucoup.

 

[DHK]

Well, let me see. In Luke 7 Christ raised a widow's son without that dead man having faith. Lazarus was devoid of faith when Christ cried "Lazarus come out!" Ezekiel prophesied and a bunch of bones came back to life without exercising faith. Elijah brought the widow's son back to life without any faith being exercised by that son. Peter raised Dorcas/Tabitha without any faith on her part. Christ raised Jairus' daughter without her exercising faith. Paul raised Eutychus without him exercising faith.

God has done many things like I mentioned without faith being exercised. Those 10, nine received common grace to be healed. Those nine were healed bodily, but the Samaritan was healed both body and spirit. God wrought a work in his heart that caused him to turn around and fall at Jesus' feet. I know you will disagree.

Here is something worthy of perusing...

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/42-220/ten-men-healed-one-man-saved

Now you are coming closer to my position. Yes, Jesus healed multitudes whether or not they had faith. I agree with MacArthur sermon, always have. That is exactly what I have been pointing out all this time. They had the faith to believe Christ could heal, but not that Christ could save.
The same is true with the centurion; faith that Christ could heal, but not that Christ could save.
The same was true of the nobleman; faith that Christ could heal but not that Christ could save. However, with the nobleman when his son was healed, the evidence was there, and he did believe, not just that Christ healed but that he was the Messiah the King of Israel, and he became a believer right then and there. That is what the account says.

In both of those accounts we have expressions such as "according to your faith," "believed," etc. Faith is involved. They did have faith.

Jesus can and did heal multitudes that had no faith. That is another topic.
In fact I use that argument a lot with faith healers today in James 5.
Whose faith is held accountable when one is not healed? (Actually it is God's will). But the passage in James 5 says,
Jas 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick,...
The prayer of faith is that of the pastor's, not that of the sick person.
Today's so-called faith healer blames the sick and tells them they didn't have enough faith. But that is a different topic.

Jesus healed all that came to him whether or not they had faith.

But when the passage specifically speaks about faith we must deal with that faith.
When it says that the centurion had greater faith than anyone else in Israel what does it mean? Faith to be healed or faith to be saved? I think the answer is obvious.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Now you are coming closer to my position. Yes, Jesus healed multitudes whether or not they had faith. I agree with MacArthur sermon, always have. That is exactly what I have been pointing out all this time. They had the faith to believe Christ could heal, but not that Christ could save.
The same is true with the centurion; faith that Christ could heal, but not that Christ could save.

But the Roman Centurion and the Samaritan came to Him in contrition. Read about how the Centurions treated their slaves. They could kill them without reaping any repercussions. Yet this Centurion loved his slave. He had even helped to build the Jews' synagogue. He had sent several Jews' unto Jesus wanting to have Him heal his servant. Matthew 8 states he went unto Jesus and Luke 7 states he sent some Jews, so I do not truly understand the difference these two writers made. As this story unfolds, we can read When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.” Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?” The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”[Matt. 8:5-12] All that that Centurion said was not common for them to say. They, according to what info I could find about them, treated them horribly. The word used was 'pais' and that also had a horrible rendering. Some have tried to say the Centurion's slave was his s3x slave, but I do not believe that to be the case. But according to the blue letter bible, it means boy or girl, child, infant, slave, servant, attendant. I think they use Vine's.

This Centurion and Samaritan, who were outside of Jesus' target audience, the Jews, saw Him for who He was. Heard His words for what they meant. They had to have had 'ears to hear with.' This was an indictment to the Jews' continual unbelief and rebellion towards God. God has sent His Son unto them, yet they fail to believe. This was a fulfilling of “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.[Matt. 21:43] MacArthur had stated in one of his sermons that this Centurion was saved. I am having a hard time finding that quote, though. MacArthur mentioned that Capernaum was not very far from where Christ gave His 'Sermon on the Mount', in fact, one could walk there. Here is what MacArthur stated Now if you remember the sermon, you will remember that Jesus described a true disciple in some very clear terms. A true disciple, true believer, child of God, member of the Kingdom was humble, repentant over sin, loved even his enemies with a supernatural love, was generous, was merciful, compassionate, did good, was righteous, was devoted to the Lord and obedient. And he is the one who built his house on the rock and survives the judgment. This Centurion was highly favored amongst the Jews. They even said “This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.”[Lu 7:4b-5] The Jews hated anyone not a Jew, but they apparently loved him...even bragged about him to Jesus. He was the Jews' enemy, yet he loved them.

Here is MacArthur's sermon about the Roman Centurion...


http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/42-92/the-man-who-amazed-jesus-part-2

The same was true of the nobleman; faith that Christ could heal but not that Christ could save. However, with the nobleman when his son was healed, the evidence was there, and he did believe, not just that Christ healed but that he was the Messiah the King of Israel, and he became a believer right then and there. That is what the account says.

Yes. But still, it all boils down to why they believed. It was not just the fact that they saw his son's healing. If that were the case, no one who witnessed Lazarus' resurrection would have failed to believe. It is more than just seeing the miracles, it is more than just hearing His words(many heard and died lost), it was more than talking to Him. It is about the efficacious works of faith wrought upon the heart.

In both of those accounts we have expressions such as "according to your faith," "believed," etc. Faith is involved. They did have faith.

Again, you said grace is grace, but not all grace saves. And you also said faith is faith, yet not all faith saves. People have faith in themselves to do a job, but that does not save. You can be gracious to your wife, and you better be......but that does not save, either. You can have faith in your parents, but that does not save. You can have faith a chair will hold you, but that does not save. It is 'according to your faith' as it states in Heb. 12:2 that God is the Pioneer/Author and Perfecter/Finisher of our faith. To author a book means you created it. For God to Author our faith, He placed it within us. But you will disagree, so I digress.

Jesus can and did heal multitudes that had no faith. That is another topic. In fact I use that argument a lot with faith healers today in James 5.
Whose faith is held accountable when one is not healed? (Actually it is God's will). But the passage in James 5 says,
Jas 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick,...
The prayer of faith is that of the pastor's, not that of the sick person.
Today's so-called faith healer blames the sick and tells them they didn't have enough faith. But that is a different topic.

No disagreement from me here.

Jesus healed all that came to him whether or not they had faith.

Yes. He bestowed common and saving grace.

But when the passage specifically speaks about faith we must deal with that faith.
When it says that the centurion had greater faith than anyone else in Israel what does it mean? Faith to be healed or faith to be saved? I think the answer is obvious.

Actually, both. But, in my opinion, this was moreso an indictment against the Jews' unbelief and rebellion. These two, the Centurion and Samaritan were non-Jews...I am thinking Samaritan were half-Jew and half-Gentile....and they were saved by Christ.