My questions as I study Reformed Theology

If I listen to you, won't I have the same problem? :laugh:

 

Jesus said, "if any man hear my voice".

Now how in the world can you read this verse and not hear his voice?

I read commentaries on occasion. But like my pastor said many years ago, you often find these writers do not understand the truly difficult passages any better than he did.

I have found that true. You read a verse or passage that is difficult to understand, look it up in a number of commentaries and find that these writers struggle with it as well, and often cannot agree with each other. How is that helpful?

And by the way, many commentators say Rev 3:20 is a universal invitation.

Here's what Matthew Henry said of this verse:

Barnes' Notes says it is a universal invitation:

So, you guys need to quit saying that all theologians say this only applies to the church.

 

Those two men got it wrong. It was unto the churches.

How in the world can you not see it is unto the churches?

What versions do you use?

You have taken Rev. out of context, refusing to see where it says "unto the churches". Also, you have grace and faith backwards bud. That's error, since you like to throw that word around.

Also, no one said "all theologians" say that. You came up with the all part on your lonesome.

It's really simple, this invitation is unto the churches. It is not a GOSPEL invitation. So you're wrong. So are Barnes and Henry. Weren't you just against using "big men"? Or is it OK as long as they also misinterpret like you have???

BTW what is the Gospel?

 

Apparently there were MANY who read that and did not hear his voice.

If I say to my church, "If anyone hear's my voice we have a fellowship Wed. Night."

Is someone supposed to think I mean for the Prime Minister of Australia to attend?

 

What a joke, you criticize me for not listening to the writings of theologians, you claim no theologians see Rev 3:20 as a universal invitation, and then when I prove you wrong you simply say these two men got it wrong! :laugh:

How do you know they got it wrong? I think they got it right. I think the theologians you study got it wrong. Why is your opinion any better than mine?

It was Luke that said no reputable theologian sees it this way. And who determines who is reputable? He does. What a joke. By the way, both Henry and Barnes were Calvinists.

If anything, this just shows me that your mind is already made up, and you will reject anyone who does not agree with your presuppositions.

You don't have to have a degree in theology to understand "any man".

 

See there's your problem Winman- you are listening to man. :tonofbricks:

 

I accused you of not listening to theologians now too? Wasn't me friend. I never said "no" theologians say that.

That you twist and put words in my mouth in addition to your errors tells me a lot about what the problem is!

It says "unto the churches" I'll stick with WHAT THE BIBLE IS SAYING HERE PLAINLY, and not what men have said it means. The text is plain.

You not only got this wrong, you also have grace and faith backwards.

Error #2.

I don't need a degree in theology to see that "any man" is specifically qualified to those "in the churches." Use context. It's simple, remember?

It's plain and simple friend.

What versions do you use?

What is the Gospel?

:wavey:

 

No, I understood easily that Jesus was speaking to all men. I simply showed you Henry and Barnes because you said no reputable theologian agrees with my view. I would say both Barnes and Henry are reputable.

And preacher4truth, isn't it obvious what scriptures I use?

Why do you keep asking me what the gospel is, don't you know the gospel?

 

Let's stick to the issues here:

1. You accused me of 2 things, saying you don't use theologians, and no theologians agree with you. Let's get an apology here since you talk of humility and being teachable, while accusing others of being the opposite. Let's see you exemplify your sermon.

2. Rev. 3:20-22 here is "unto the churches" and "any" is directly referring to those in the churches. It is not a Gospel invitation.

3. You have faith and grace backwards. It's plain in Scripture He extends favor (grace) first, as in the case of Abram, Moses, David, sending of His Son first, then we react in faith to that invitation of grace extended to us. You've got that backwards which is really quite dangerous to do so to be honest. Grace, then faith. You have got to get a grip on that fundamental truth. It is very important.

4. What are all the versions of Bible you use?

5. I know what the Gospel is. I asked you to tell me what you think it is.

:wavey:

 

Look, I was dealing with you and Luke, Luke is the one who said no reputable theologian agrees with my view. I proved him wrong.

You insist Rev 3:20 is not a universal invitation, I say it is, and Barnes and Henry agree with me. Oh, I'm sure you could find many Reformed theologians who disagree, what does that prove? Nothing.

I don't have faith and grace backwards. God has revealed the grace that brings salvation to all men. That must come first, you cannot possibly believe the gospel if you have never heard it.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

But you must have faith to enter "into" this grace.

Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

An analogy. You can see an airliner at the airport. It has "appeared" to you. But you do not have "access" and cannot enter "into" the plane until you show your ticket.

You cannot receive God's grace as an unbeliever, Jesus said if you have not believed then the wrath of God abides on you.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The Bible says you cannot please God without faith, so how can God show you grace or favor until you first believe?

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Calvinism gets everything exactly backwards, they say you must have life to believe, the scriptures say you must believe to have life. Calvinism teaches that God gives you grace before you believe, the scriptures say you cannot have favor with God and that his wrath abides on you until you believe.

The difference between me and you is that I have multiple verses of scripture to support my view, you have none.

 

I don't go searching out "reformed theologians" for answers. I use dispensational theologians works, arminian, reformed.

Revelation 3, is again, not universal, although the Gospel invitation is a universal invitation in itself. But this is not a gospel invitation. You, Barnes, and Henry have it wrong. The context says this is "unto the churches" not "unto everyone" and "any" is qualified by verse 22 "unto the churches." He is dealing with His Church here, not lost mankind. Look at the context, you won't even need a commentary, it's as plain as day. I think you are starting to come around.

I see now, and it will suffice, that you are admitting now that grace does come first, where in the past you have had it completely backwards. Good job! Grace, then faith. I knew you'd come around if I pounded you with it enough, as in the past you said it was faith, then grace.

Calvinism does not get everything exactly backwards, so don't go painting them with your broad brush as though it is all error. You're just showing your hatred for the theology. Anyhow, God did give grace before Paul believed, did He not? Acts 9? What came first? The extension of grace first, then he believed. Oh boy. That is not backwards friend. This was also the case for Abram, David, Moses, ALL that God called. He first showed favor (grace) then they responded in faith. So, His grace was upon them, whether you like it or not, it's right there. It's simple.

What is the Gospel?

What versions of Scriptures do you use?

 

This discussion has devolved into an ad hominem free for all. I enjoy a good debate, but this is getting ridiculous. How about we get back to a theological debate & cease the character assassinations?

How does the phrase "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" support or disprove either position? If God's will is always perfectly fulfilled, then why would it be different on earth than it is in heaven?

Too often, men will pervert the natural grammatical sense of Scripture in order to defend a particular system of theology. And of course, we all think those who agree with "our" favorite system are highly educated & intelligent, while our detractors MUST be theological neanderthals.:BangHead: Hence, I claim no allegiance to any particular system & follow no man's teaching as if it were from God Himself.

 

There were no character assassinations whatsoever. Good debate? Yes.

How was this not a good theological debate? It was one of the best I have seen on here. And it ended up correcting an error.

As a matter of fact we had some learning going on here. Threads don't stay on course. No need to shed negative light on something you in your own mind already deem to be so.

By the way, the phrase ad hominem is used to ad nauseam. Ad hominem doesn't apply here.

Who has claimed their system to be as if it were coming from God Himself? Not from me certainly.


:wavey:

 

I'm not saying that it has not been a good debate, just that there are entirely too many attacks upon the intelligence of one another. If we do not believe that our "system" is of God, then why believe it? I am not condemning any person in particular, just the tone this thread has taken.

 

I've not seen any of those attacks. If I did, I certainly wouldn't bring it up afresh.

Systems are not inspired, therefore they do not come from God.

They are about God, not of God.

 

We will never agree. Jesus said "He that hath an ear, let him hear". Well, I've got an ear, so I believe Jesus wants me to hear this. And as has been shown, there are reputable theologians who agree with my view.

I have never said that faith precedes grace, I've said that faith precedes "receiving" grace. That is a huge difference for any discerning person.

God has been showing his grace to man from the garden of Eden when he made the first promise to send a Saviour. Ancient men did not know the gospel as we know it, but they knew God was going to send someone to save them. That is grace.

But it is obvious not all men receive God's grace, or all men would go to heaven and none would go to hell. What is the difference?

In your system, God simply elects some persons to receive his grace and passes by the rest. You even try to say it is unconditional. Well, that's kind of a problem, as it argues God acts without reason. He must have some reason to elect some, and some reason to pass by others. If he has any reason, then it is conditioned on that reason.

For me this is not a problem. The scriptures clearly say we have access by faith into grace. The scriptures say without faith we cannot please God. Jesus said if you have believed not, then the wrath of God abides on you.

Your system contradicts Jesus. You have God giving unbelievers whom God's wrath abides on grace. Gotta tell you, that doesn't make sense at all. You have God giving grace to unbelievers when the scriptures say it is impossible to please God without faith. Again, that is totally nonsensical. You know, the first part of John 3:16 agrees with your view, it says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" Now, if that is all it said, it would support your view to a degree. But that is not all it says, after that it says, "that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life". Well, there you go, this shows only those who believe and have faith receive this grace.

But hey, you've got a stack of books written by uninspired men that agree with your view.

I prefer to believe what the scriptures clearly and easily say.

 

Dude, hang up your accusations and haughty polemic nonsense. You don't know me and you are clearly incorrect on Revelations 3. I don't have God doing anything. You just can't admit His grace was bestowed CLEARLY upon men PRIOR to them having saving faith.

And tell me exactly what "my system" is.

You in fact did say faith comes before grace. Any discerning person can go back and see it in this thread.

Do you use any books written by uninspired man? Such as Barnes, and Henry?

If you believed the Scriptures for what they clearly and plainly say, you'd see plainly and clearly that Rev. 3:22 is "unto the churches" without having to consult uninspired mans opinion. I got the correct interpretation of Revelation 3:20-22 without having to consult a soul, because it is crystal clear who it is to in the text. Your interpretation is erroneous because you struggle with contextual analysis. With your methods, any time the word "any" is in Scripture it means the whole entire kosmos. That's fallacious.

What is the Gospel?

What other versions do you use?

 

Well, I believe I am correct on Rev 3:20 and I have shown proof that some noted theologians agree. We will have to agree to disagree.

The scriptures do not say God's grace was bestowed on anyone prior to faith, are you speaking of 1 Cor 15:10?

1 Cor 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

This verse does not even mention faith or believeing. You cannot possibly use this verse to prove that faith is given through grace.

In fact, the scriptures clearly say we are saved by grace "through faith".

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Yes, we are saved by grace, but it is through faith. Faith is our door to enter into grace, it is our bridge or tunnel that gives us access to grace.

Your interpretation is the opposite of what scripture says. If you were correct Ephesians 2:8 should say:

For by faith are ye saved through grace; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

No, we have access into God's grace through faith, and this is what the scriptures say.

Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

I've shown you a verse that says we have access by faith into grace, now you show me a verse that says we have access by grace into faith.

 

Grace was clearly bestowed upon Abram prior to him having saving faith. Go read Genesis 12. You are in total error here. God doesn't give us grace because we go to Him and ask for it, He gives grace due to His desire to give it to whom He wills, prior to faith all on His own.

Also God's grace was again bestowed upon Saul in Acts 9 prior to him being saved. You are clearly wrong about this.

I never used nor implied using this Scripture to prove anything. You came up with this all on your own. So it is not a valid point.

Uh, no. I've always held it was by grace we are saved, but there you go again twisting my words backwards. I never said anything close to what you say here. My faith didn't save me. His grace did. You're clearly missing this doctrine of being saved by grace. Yep, the Scripture says by grace are you saved. Not by faith are you saved. As a matter of fact, you quoting Ephesians backwards there is exactly what you were espousing and saying earlier in this thread. Now you attempt to lay the charge on me. You in fact said faith comes first, then grace, to which you denied, but as you read down what you say now where I quoted you, you are saying this error again. You act as if we have EARNED grace due to our faith. That is borderline semi-pelagianism. Total error there.

Your faith didn't save you. You completely misunderstand. Grace is what saved us, not faith. If you think your faith saved you, it shows a clear misunderstanding of things soteriologically. There is no one in heaven when being asked "what got you to Heaven?" that they say "My faith." They all say "By Grace." I would spend time explaining more of this to you, but bro, if you can't see Revelation 3:20-22 when it plainly says in the text it is unto the churches, how will you understand deeper things?

Try to understand this: Your faith is useless without Him extending grace.

Thus, grace was clearly bestowed on lost persons prior to salvation. It is all throughout the Scriptures. You just refuse to be open minded and see it.

God never implied nor alluded to the things you are saying, that is, that we earn His grace because we show faith. This is exactly what you are implying whether you know it or not. This is a total denial of the Gospel of grace, whether yo see what you are doing or not. I honestly don't think you can see what you are doing with what you are teaching.

Now, answer this: What is the Gospel?

 

EAR is not talking about what lies on the side of your head. This means understanding.

Isa 43..
10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“and my servant whom I have chosen, >>>>>>>>>so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.

The choice is for the believing.

2 Tim 2...

4No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him >>>>>>>>>>>>>to be a soldier.

Indeed...and notice man ran from God, and it was God that came to man. Not like free willers say, that God would not force himself on anyone.

So what you are saying, because YOU dont understand what the Bible clearly says happens, you will not believe it. I thik I would believe the Bible when it says...

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
​

Yes I do understand it is a problem with you. You need to pray to God and ask him to help you in this area.

whosoever believeth on him.......ALL BELIEVERS
should not perish, ...............DO NOT PERISH
but have everlasting life........BUT GO TO HEAVEN.

This verse has nothing to do with human will.

That is a bold face lie. We agree with the Bible. We follow no man, save Christ.