Luke 15:17-18, what do we see in these two verses. It states that when he came to himself that is saw his depraved state, he said within himself, I will arise and go into my Father. Now this son realized his sinful state just like unbelievers realize theirs. He says I will that is of his own free will he arose and went to the Father. The father didn't put this in him it says he came to himself, humbling himself and confessing himself a sinner. Isn't that what mankind must do humble themselves before God and confess themselves sinners in need of salvation. Christ perfectly shows us how everyone comes to the Father once they come to realize their own sinful state. Then there's the other brother who doesn't recognize his sin and sees himself as safe. He would be who says I did all these things for you Lord and will be told depart I never knew you. Volition played into both of their decisions and the sin nature was active in both until the one came to himself.
-
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!
The Parable of the Lost-Centering on the Lost son
- Thread starter revmwc
- Start date
- Status
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
No one outside of Christ is free in will or in any other spiritual sense, John 8:31ff. It is plain and right there in front of you.
The above is mere anthropocentric soteriology. It is not biblically accurate.
No one comes to the Father unless it was granted to them to do so; John 6:65. No one can come to the Father unless the person is drawn; John 6:44.
More man exalting error. Man must do, must do, must do. Not a thing about what God does as of yet. Everything you've stated is focused on man and man's ability. Scripture shows man cannot come, not man may not come.
Scripture? There you go again, what 'they' (man) does.
Poor fellow, if he would only do something to save himself!
You have it backwards. In your theological stance seen in this very OP it is those you claimed to be saved by their own efforts that would be saying to the Lord 'Look what I have done'.
So show where the Father came and retrieved the son and said come to me and I will receive you back as a Son.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Why would I try and help you to see the Father's active work in redemption when all you see is what man does, and thus far all you've stated is just that?
Now you condescend and ask for proof of God at work in salvation? Do you not see your grave error? It is so blatant and dishonoring to the work of God. You've just spent all your time exalting man and nothing, not one thing about the work of the Spirit of God on man.
I'd say it is unbelievable but this is your method day in, day out.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." Was Jesus emphasizing man's part? Nicodemus literally had given his entire life to God. Jesus told him there was one more thing that he must do. He needed to give his heart to God.
God had already done His part. For every man, woman, boy, and girl today, God has already done His part. Non-Cals do not minimize or eliminate the work of God in salvation; we simply realize that the work of God is finished, 100% completed.
God had already done His part. For every man, woman, boy, and girl today, God has already done His part. Non-Cals do not minimize or eliminate the work of God in salvation; we simply realize that the work of God is finished, 100% completed.
Sorry didn't know asking for proof of what you say as condescending. Didn't mean it that way.
This thread came to me as I read the thread on 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 and since I didn't want go off topic for the OP there I created this. As I was trying to follow that post this example just came to me. I posted as it came and reading through it makes it clear the prodigal had to make a choice to go to the Father just as all men must take the step of faith and come to Christ.
The whole parable of the lost is a beautiful picture of God's plan for mankind salvation. In the shepherd we see Christ coming and seeking His sheep. He left the 99 the Pharisees in the wilderness because they felt they needed no salvation. He through the redemptive work on the cross Found His sheep that were lost and are found. We see in the story of the woman sweeping to find the lost coin. The Holy Spirit is seen sweeping that uncovering the hidden things in us to convict us of what we try to hide. Then the Father we see God the Father patiently waiting on the lost son to return. The whole parable was directed at the Pharisees who in their lost state thoughtbthemselves saved.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Hi Pastor Bob,
No, Christ was showing him that salvation was 100% from and of God.
No, he didn't. There is no such thing as true religion and true devotion to God outside of regeneration and salvation. Note Romans 3:10ff, and Romans 8:8.
Where is that in the text?
You're adding it in, it is not there, it is merely presupposition being added to the text as this is not there.
I don't go and preach 'Hey, you've already given your life to God, you're half way there (or however much). Now, give your heart to Jesus'! That is not the gospel. This 'give your heart to Jesus' is not biblical and it emphasizes man. The former (you have given your life to God) is also man glorifying. None have done this until after conversion, not prior.
Man does not need to hear how good he is. No man is saved until he realizes he is lost, that in him there is nothing good, Luke 18:10-14; 1 Timothy 1:1-15.
Nope. .God has done it ALL. Soli Deo Gloria.
See above response.
Now you go from God did His part, to God did it all only after showing that man is good, can give his life to God prior to conversion and man needs to take another step as well. With all due respect I beg to differ that this is not minimizing the Gospel message.
No, Christ was showing him that salvation was 100% from and of God.
No, he didn't. There is no such thing as true religion and true devotion to God outside of regeneration and salvation. Note Romans 3:10ff, and Romans 8:8.
Where is that in the text?
You're adding it in, it is not there, it is merely presupposition being added to the text as this is not there.
I don't go and preach 'Hey, you've already given your life to God, you're half way there (or however much). Now, give your heart to Jesus'! That is not the gospel. This 'give your heart to Jesus' is not biblical and it emphasizes man. The former (you have given your life to God) is also man glorifying. None have done this until after conversion, not prior.
Man does not need to hear how good he is. No man is saved until he realizes he is lost, that in him there is nothing good, Luke 18:10-14; 1 Timothy 1:1-15.
Nope. .God has done it ALL. Soli Deo Gloria.
See above response.
Now you go from God did His part, to God did it all only after showing that man is good, can give his life to God prior to conversion and man needs to take another step as well. With all due respect I beg to differ that this is not minimizing the Gospel message.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
You do this because you read things through your presuppositional lens. You want to see how man does it, you want to see how man decides, so that is all you can see even when the rest of Gospel truth denies this as valid or true.
Take note that in this rendering that you've given that no glory is given God whatsoever. Frown
No I actually go into these asking God to show me the truth. To show me which is correct with no presupposed thought and seeking after what He has for me to learn. Following 1 John 4:1 believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God. Because if a believer is filled with the Holy Spirit as Paul commanded in Ephesians 5:18, then the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth. How are we filled with the Sporit by having sin confessed and abiding in Christ
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
Good morning, Brother.
Did Nicodemus get saved? Why or why not?
I in no way implied that he had "true" religion. There can be no doubt that he did indeed have "religion." He had given his life to his perception of what the law demanded, just like many in our world today have given their life to their religion. Yet, one thing is lacking; they have never been born again.
It is clearly there. Jesus said, "Ye must be born again." Nicodemus had believed with his head his entire life but now he needed to believe with his heart (Romans 10:9).
Perhaps I can help you here. Try preaching, "You've given your life to mere religion. You are on the right track in your search to fill that void in your life. Now, you must simply give your heart to the Lord Jesus Christ."
Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
I'm not going argue with you over semantics. The fact of the matter is, when we trust the Lord Jesus Christ as our personal savior, the Holy Spirit of God comes to reside in the heart of man.
Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Again, you're choosing to argue semantics. God indeed has completed and finished the work of salvation. His part in the redemption of man is 100% finished. That having been done, He now extends an open invitation to every man, woman, boy, and girl to accept and appropriate the finished work of Calvery to their individual life.
This is clearly explained in John 316.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
God gave + I believe = everlasting life
Jesus did not tell Nicodemus what he needed to do. He did explain the necessity of the new birth.
If God has done all He can.....no one else will be saved.
Nowhere are sinners told to "give their heart to Jesus".
Instead God gives a new heart and opens it.
"Because God, in this manner, loved the world, He gave His Only Begotten Son, that the ones believing in Him can never perish, but have life eternal."
God gave His Son + God gave me faith to become a believing one = salvation.
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
All of the OT saints, who belonged to the Father, came to Christ and not a single one was lost.
Nicodemus, along with Joseph, claimed the body of Christ and placed it in the tomb. He started out rather weak, coming to Christ under cover of darkness out of fear, but grew into a bold Christian openly standing by the Lord after His crucifixion.
It is interesting that he, a ruler of the Jews, came to Christ to talk, not about the state of affairs of Israel, but the state of his own soul.
As the bible teaches that the natural man can not receive spiritual truth, he cannot know spiritual truth, and he does not seek spiritual truth, I can only assume that Nicodemus, who came seeking spiritual truth, was one of the OT saints making up spiritual Israel who, according to John 6:37, would recognize and come to Christ as Messiah and not a single one of them would be lost.
It is often difficult for early 21st century baptists to understand the transitional nature of the Gospels and the Book of Acts. Moving from the OT economy under the Old Covenant to the New Testament economy under the New Covenant is something we have no experience with. We were born under the New Covenant, and were born again under the New Covenant, so there is no confusion in our experience as was endured by the OT saints making the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.
It is best to just accept the narrative in John for what it is, a narrative of the transition of one OT saint from the Old to the New Covenant. When we try to over-analyse it and "make it walk on all fours" we increase the level of confusion. This is, of course, the grave danger of "proof texting." We try to make a text say something it was never intended to say. John 3 is not about we who are born and born again under the New Covenant. It is about those who made the transition from the Old to the New. We face no such challenges. And when we try to apply a descriptive narrative as a theological cornerstone we create a serious anachronism.
I remember when I was in seminary one of our assignments was to prepare and preach a sermon to our homiletics class. We, the other students, then graded each students' messages.
One young man preached on "Fire From Heaven" and went on and on about how badly we needed "Fire from Heaven" just like Elijah experienced on Mt. Carmel. When it came time to grade the young brother's sermon I gave him an "F." He was quite upset and demanded an explanation. I told him that God sent fire from heaven to burn up the sacrifice, the wood, the water, and even the stone because He was demonstrating His great power over the prophets of Ashtoreth who worshiped the Sidonian Fire god in the form of lightening coming down from the sky. God was showing that His fire from heaven made the lightening, thought to be from the Sidonian Fire god, pale and puny in comparison. As we don't do battle against those who worship the Sidonian Fire god today no such display is necessary. Today, the evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit is that we "speak the word of God with boldness" (Acts 4:31).
Remember the very basics of our understanding of the bible is the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic. We must understand what we read in the context of what was happening at that time in history. And John 3 is no exception.
Nicodemus accepted what Jesus was teaching him, not in order to be saved, but because he was already a believing part of spiritual Israel.
God gave His Son + God gave me faith to become a believing one = salvation.
Yes. The question is "when." He made the transition from OT saint to NT saint.
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
All of the OT saints, who belonged to the Father, came to Christ and not a single one was lost.
Nicodemus, along with Joseph, claimed the body of Christ and placed it in the tomb. He started out rather weak, coming to Christ under cover of darkness out of fear, but grew into a bold Christian openly standing by the Lord after His crucifixion.
It is interesting that he, a ruler of the Jews, came to Christ to talk, not about the state of affairs of Israel, but the state of his own soul.
As the bible teaches that the natural man can not receive spiritual truth, he cannot know spiritual truth, and he does not seek spiritual truth, I can only assume that Nicodemus, who came seeking spiritual truth, was one of the OT saints making up spiritual Israel who, according to John 6:37, would recognize and come to Christ as Messiah and not a single one of them would be lost.
It is often difficult for early 21st century baptists to understand the transitional nature of the Gospels and the Book of Acts. Moving from the OT economy under the Old Covenant to the New Testament economy under the New Covenant is something we have no experience with. We were born under the New Covenant, and were born again under the New Covenant, so there is no confusion in our experience as was endured by the OT saints making the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.
It is best to just accept the narrative in John for what it is, a narrative of the transition of one OT saint from the Old to the New Covenant. When we try to over-analyse it and "make it walk on all fours" we increase the level of confusion. This is, of course, the grave danger of "proof texting." We try to make a text say something it was never intended to say. John 3 is not about we who are born and born again under the New Covenant. It is about those who made the transition from the Old to the New. We face no such challenges. And when we try to apply a descriptive narrative as a theological cornerstone we create a serious anachronism.
I remember when I was in seminary one of our assignments was to prepare and preach a sermon to our homiletics class. We, the other students, then graded each students' messages.
One young man preached on "Fire From Heaven" and went on and on about how badly we needed "Fire from Heaven" just like Elijah experienced on Mt. Carmel. When it came time to grade the young brother's sermon I gave him an "F." He was quite upset and demanded an explanation. I told him that God sent fire from heaven to burn up the sacrifice, the wood, the water, and even the stone because He was demonstrating His great power over the prophets of Ashtoreth who worshiped the Sidonian Fire god in the form of lightening coming down from the sky. God was showing that His fire from heaven made the lightening, thought to be from the Sidonian Fire god, pale and puny in comparison. As we don't do battle against those who worship the Sidonian Fire god today no such display is necessary. Today, the evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit is that we "speak the word of God with boldness" (Acts 4:31).
Remember the very basics of our understanding of the bible is the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic. We must understand what we read in the context of what was happening at that time in history. And John 3 is no exception.
Nicodemus accepted what Jesus was teaching him, not in order to be saved, but because he was already a believing part of spiritual Israel.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
Again, nowhere did I say or even imply that "God has done all He can." You are reading something into my post that I am definitely not saying. Obviously, God could save everyone if He chose to do so.
Let me restate it again here very clearly: God's work has been completed. The work of redemption is finished.
Now, God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. This very clearly means that it is God's desire that all men be saved. God has provided a way for every man to be saved (John 1:9, Titus 2:11).
Does this mean that all men will be saved? No. This begs the question, "Who is responsible for men who remain lost?" God desires that all men be saved, yet all men will not be saved. God's work has been completed. Man has the obligation to place his faith and trust in that finished work.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
I know you do my friend. However that does not dismiss your presuppositional view.
OK. Now, I have asked you and have shown you in your position there is no glorifying of Christ, but of man, yes. It is about man, his freedom, his ability etc. This is what you 'preached', that is man, his will, ability, power if you will, his deciding power. All of it pointed to man with Christ named once in it which came across as a token naming only.
Now, you prayed to God that you would see the truth. OK. But there is this problem in that, yet I know you are sincere, but you are sincerely mistaken.
You claimed Holy Spirit leadership to guide you. When He does guide us, who does He glorify? That's right, you know the answer it is Christ Himself, and not man or ever man, or even Himself; John 16:13-14. Yet my friend this did not take place once in your interpretation and you've failed to answer to this all along. You glorified man in your OP and since, and are claiming Holy Spirit put you up to this. At this point I do not wish for you to even address this because of the fact you will attempt to undo yourself out of it instead of accepting the Scriptures provided and seeing your error.
You glorified man, and that my friend did not come from the Holy Spirit, it is not Biblical.
Last edited:
The "any" means "any of those who believe" and not "each and every person without exception." You are reading something into the verse that just isn't there.
Let's look at the context: 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
Now notice who is being talked to here. He (God) is not slack concerning his promise to us. He is talking to us. To the elect. In fact the entire context of 2nd Peter is about God destroying the wicked. Peter is assuring us, the elect, that none of us, none of the elect, will perish, but that all of us will come to repentance."
Excellent question. They are responsible. They are sinners. They are condemned already. (John 3:18.)
Therefore, either God is impotent or "all men" does not mean "all men everywhere without exception."
1 Tim 2:4 "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
The idea of "will have all" men to be saved is a statement of His desire, not His eternal decree of purpose.
God does not desire that His people sin. He hates sin with all His Being. (Psalm 5:4 and 45:7). But He allows it.
God hates the consequence of sin. He does not want people to remain in sin and suffer the consequences of eternity in hell fire.
Yet, He allows it. "God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." (Romans 9:22.)
Again, context is key.
Either it is complete or man must add something. If man has to add something then it is not complete. It is not finished.
My brother, I know how hard it is to objectively evaluate something you have come to think of as the "enemy." Something you have come to think of as "heresy."
But the bottom line is that, if man must add something, it is not the finished work of Christ. He did not purchase our salvation, He only paid the down payment and we must pay the rest by "placing our faith" in Him. Or "praying the sinner's prayer." Or "walking the aisle." All of those are the result of our salvation, never the cause of it.
Only one problem. Who was he when he was in the hog wallow? He was the SON! (It's right there in the title of the parable "The Prodigal SON.")His relationship with his father had not changed. He was BORN into the family of his father. He was the SON. Only his fellowship with his father was changed. When he came to himself he realized he was a SON. So he went home.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
TC, if I build you a brand-new home and finish it completely - 100%. What has to happen for you to take possession of that home? Is my work not completed until you actually take possession of the home?
The only man I glorify is the man named Jesus who was the ChristAs I have always stated His blood paid the price for the sins of mankind. Yours, mine everyone. He paid the price for Adam and Eve's sin too. But not for ours only but for the world that is all mankind. One man who supplied the way and means of Salvation, Regeneration, Justification He and only He brought to those who will believe imported Righteousness. Who receives this WHOSOEVER by Faith chooses by their volition to believe on Him! How do they believe, the Holy Spirit brings conviction upon their heart and that heart which is willing to receive Him does so again by their one free accord that is their volition. Where did the volition come from God supplied it to all mankind but He will not force anyone to believe. He will by the power of the Holy Spirit as John 16:12-14 states reveal the truth to mankind but man still must by his God given volition receive Christ by Faith. John 3:15-16 shows us man has volition. God on His Soveriegnty knows exactly who will make what choice, how do we know this Romans 9:11-14. He knew the choices that Jacob and Esau would make, does that make Him unrighteous Paul says God forbid, God's Soveriegnty is not challenged by Him supplying man volition. No in His Soveriegnty He supplied it to man to show us His Righteousness, then when we place our Faith in Him He rewards us by imputation of Righteousness as He did for Abraham. All is His plan based on His Soveriegnty.
- Status