Biblical Order of Salvation

The comments about man being "neutral" based in what people have argued for--they are owed (not the word they'd use) an opportunity of repentance. Typically and historically, this idea comes from a theological idea of man being "neutral."

And humans being the only way the Gospel is preached, which is what I've been arguing for, is neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian discussion. It is a biblical one that does not seek to systematize.

The passion expressed in these postings, which you have seen as rudeness--despite all attempts to add words to express just the opposite, is for one reason: This topic goes to the very heart of the Gospel.

Coming from you?! Pot...kettle...never mind. Your vitriol is known by all here.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Again...a strawman since nobody has stated (even as you have admitted) such verbiage, or even insinuated as such.

Really? Who preached the Gospel to Saul? Who is preaching the Gospel in Rev. 14:6? Are you telling God how He can share the Gospel?

Let's see...passion, or rudeness? Give me a break! Don't say dumb stuff.

If slinging mud makes you feel better. Continue on with your Jeckyl and Hyde postings...

 

Point given on Saul. But, I'm sure we'd agree that it is a special case and quite out of the ordinary.

No, I'm not telling God how He can share the Gospel. I'm telling people what the Bible says in regards to how God has chosen to share the Gospel. Again, Romans 10.

Time and time again we are told Christ shares the Gospel, but it is through His Church--the individual believers, as His representatives--that this is done.

Given my tendencies to use large words when seeking to demean someone (and I do work on this constantly), this comment is not rude. The printed page, unfortunately, doesn't carry the inflection that was intended. This phrase is more dismissive than anything else--at least that's how it was meant.

Frankly, I have rarely seen Jekyll postings from you. In the years that I have been reading postings on this site, I have almost never seen you carry on a cordial conversation. Perhaps, as in the case above, I can't tell the tone of your postings by simply reading them.

This is not slinging mud--it seems to me that you seek to "destroy" opponents rather than discuss with them. Again, my impression. So I took your encouragement to be more cordial in my postings to be like Richard Nixon encouraging people to be more honest.

Again, not meant to incite a further disagreement. I'm being frank with you--which you deserve (not in any punishment sort of way, but because you are a brother in Christ).

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

We can't, and don't know...so I can't agree. I have read some testimonies of those in countries hostile towards Christians, and some sound similar to Saul's account.

I agree we are to share the Gospel, and God intends to spread the Gospel through man, however, we are not told we are the only means of doing so. If an angel can proclaim the Gospel, and we know Christ proclaimed it Himself, it is a reach to claim that only humans are known to do so.

Provide one instance of this prior to your accusation. Start with this very thread if you like.

Another false accusation (whether it is your impression or not). Also, take note I didn't encourage you to be more cordial in your postings.

I think you are quite mistaken, but to each their own

 

Well if you could find such scripture you would be the first to post it on the board.
MB

 

For this I am quite glad for you. I went to a catholic high school for 3 years and taught at a catholic high school for 2 years, all the time being a Baptist.

The "priesthood of the believer" does not mean that it is OK for one to come up with an interpretation of Scripture that is contrary to the printed word. This would be like suggesting that 2+2=5 is not wrong, it's just that 5 is your interpretation of the equation.

2 Peter 1:19-21 says:

At the very least it means what God intends to say is the most important. It is not important what our interpretation is; it is of vital importance what His interpretation is.

I understand exactly what you are saying. You seem not to understand what I am saying.

What I am saying is this: God can and does save. But, His saving message, the Gospel, is preached only through believers taking the Gospel to every tribe, tongue, and nation. That is exactly what Romans 10 is saying.

I'm not saying God can't save in the way you are describing; I am saying that He won't. He won't do this because He has stated His one and only means of preaching the Gospel--the believers.

No, I don't. I'm simply taking the Scripture at its word--that God has ordained the one and only means of sharing the Gospel. That singular means is believers. To suggest anything else is to go beyond the Scripture, which you insist on doing.

Blessings,

The Archangel


God bless.[/quote]

 

Their sins are sufficient to consign them to everlasting perdition. You consider pagans who've never heard the Gospel of Christ to be innocent and therefore need a reprieve of God to commute their sentence.

That is, your version of God -- which differs from the biblical model.

That was completely uncalled for. He said or implied no such thing.

 

Only in WD's world has every single individual heard the Gospel. WD, this is not a Calvinist vs. Arminian issue. Multiplied millions before and after the Incarnation have never heard the Good News.

 

Doesn't give anyone an excuse. The Bible plainly states that if Christ was lifted up He would draw all men to Him.(John 12:32) It also says.
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:

Yet you deny the truth of scripture. Men have the truth manifest with in and denying it won't help them. Men are drawn to seek God out. Don't you believe God can cause men to seek Him?
MB

 

The word "men" is not in the text -- just some translations. Christ draws all of His own scattered throughout the earth, both Jew and Gentile, to Himself.

I do no such thing. You're trying to make Ro. 1:20 tie in with John 12:32 and there is no connection.

No they aren't. No Scripture says that. Go to John 6 if you want to read about being drawn.

 

Lots of scriptures have been posted before by others. You and others gleefully and wishfully ignore it.
Why should I bother just for your sake ?
The truth is even if Jesus Christ Himself appears and tells you that truth you will still argue that He is wrong.:laugh::laugh:
Yeah, like Christ said, "even if Moses ......"

 

Your dishonesty is of the jaw-dropping variety. You and I had extensive conversations on the subject about a year or so ago. You deny more Scriptures than affirm them.

 

That's not what the text says. It says all it doesn't say of "His own".

The whole of the Bible is connected. I did no such thing I just showed you two separate scriptures that supports two different aspects of the whole truth.

I know what Jn 6:44 says and it does not imply a particular election.
Particular election was created by men not God and they didn't even have a passage that supported it.
MB

 

You had said that "Men are drawn to seek God out." I responded by saying that is not found in Holy Writ. Please furnish proof of your assertion.

Now you are going to John 6:44:"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." You also need to see 6:37,39 and 65. "All whom the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled the." No one can come unless the Father draws them -- and they alone will be raised up at the last day. It's pretty particular.

It's rather clear that the Lord has certain people in mind to draw -- not everyone in general."All whom the Father gives" is a marking-off. "I shall lose none of those he has given me" is a delimitation.

Well, I have just proven how wrong you are with just a fraction of biblical evidence MB. This doctrine is solidly scriptural. Don't deny the Word of God.

 

And my question was simple, does God love them? That's all I wanted to know.

Darren

 

This again... And since God didn't regenerate them before they were saved your whole interpretation of John 6:37 falls by the wayside. I'm always stunned at how interpreting 1 little passage in 1 book can cause so much trouble interpreting the rest of the 65 books of the bible.

Darren

 

I used to ask the same questions many years ago.
I suggest doing a study on the Book of Life, the owner of whom is the Lamb of Glory, and written from before the foundation of the world, when there were no stars or planets and as in Genesis 1:1 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

No pagans, no atheists, no Muslims, no Baptists, no Roman Catholics, no racists, no liberals, no nobody and no nothing, and the Bible says was when God wrote His people's names in His book (which I understand to be His mind, and the basis of His "I never knew you" statement. He just couldn't remember those who are not His).

If God loved all mankind, then left them to their own corrupt nature to choose Him for their eternal salvation, how unwise a decision for someone who is Omniscient.

 

Rippon...

Thats true of all of us.

None of us are innocent.

>>>NEWS FLASH<<<



Christ did that on the cross.

Our death sentance was pardoned as a result of Christs sacrificial, propitiary death on our behalf. It takes effect when we are born of the Spirit through faith in Christ.

Normally that is through hearing the gospel. But some live their entire lives and never hear the gospel...from earthly witnesses.

The scriptures I have shared give evidence that God Himself can give those millions enough information, in their heart and conscience, to enter into saving faith, or reject it.

The Apostle Paul is a good example of this direct revelation from God.

 

All men are drawn or called, but not everyone who is called will come to Christ.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Matt 22:14 disproves Calvinism. According to Calvinism, a man cannot resist the grace of God. But this verse says many are called but only few are chosen.

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

This invitation is to any man who desires it.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

All men are invited to come to Christ, but many refuse.

 

This says otherwise:

In the Greek, the implied answer to all of the questions is "they won't."

No, it isn't. Although he didn't believe, Paul knew exactly who Jesus was and he knew exactly what Jesus claimed Himself to be. Paul had heard about (or perhaps seen, at some point) Jesus. Paul persecuted Christians for what they believed (which means he knew exactly what they believed) and was present at Stephen's testimony during his stoning.

So, no, Paul is not a good example. The incident on the road to Damascus served only to make Paul a believer, not to introduce him to Christ in the first place.

Blessings,

The Archangel