Featured "Personal Savior"

@AustinC . The Puritans often used scripture beyond the barest exegesis that guys like you confine it to. Honestly you could do that to the point where almost nothing could be used from scripture. With this particular passage I was brought up with the children's song that goes "Behold, behold I stand at the door and knock, knock, knock .....If any man heareth my voice..." and so on. When I became a Calvinist I read all new reformed guys and I found out that indeed, that passage was not about salvation. But after further reading I realized a couple of things. One, the Puritans and older writers seemed to have no problem using scripture like that in rather loose ways. And two, I discovered that the older writers did not have the rigid, mechanistic and sometimes obnoxious theology that I saw from the modern Calvinists. And I realized that if some of these Calvinists who lived it were OK with using this passage maybe the problem was more with the modern perfectionists who had a problem with it.

The fact is, it is perfectly acceptable to use an example of Jesus gently inviting sinners. People are not machines or stones and people must use their wills and mental faculties in coming to Christ. This does not take away from God's sovereignty but rather is a more detailed theology than those of you have who reduce it all to a magic wand approach. I would suggest reading "God's Way of Peace" by Horatius Bonar and if time is limited you will find what I'm saying in chapter 1 "The New Life". You want to introduce folks to Jesus as well as scare them to death about their lost condition. While the context may not be perfect the fact is that is Jesus knocking and that information is good to know.

 

I have no problem with that but do not think that means that God and the Holy Spirit was not at work in your life BEFORE you got saved. You should read that stuff from Bonar too. It's free on the web. And Bonar was unapologetically a Calvinist, since that has come up as it always does on here.

 

Will you ever address the context of the passage or will you continually fall upon some man-made tradition or thought that ignores context?

I want to teach God's word as it is presented, not by trickery or misappropriating the scripture to get an emotional response. God is more than capable of redeeming without me speaking incorrectly just because I think it stirs up an emotional response.

 

Sure. It was part of the letter to the church of Laodicea. It was a lukewarm church and of all the churches it probably received the strongest rebuke. There was nothing good said about that church. Still. Right after such a stern warning you have Jesus standing at the door and knocking and offering them the possibility of repentance.

Are you actually going to keep this up where you accuse all the pastors who used this in this way of trickery or misappropriating scripture? Do you realize that not only are you making yourself look like a pharisee but you are arrogantly critiquing some of the finest Calvinist divines who ever lived. Who in the world do you think you are?

 

Christ does not knock at the door

He kicks the door in

 

Acts of the Apostles 17:30. 'God........ now commands all men everywhere to repent.'
If God commands all men everywhere to repent then it is clearly the duty of all men everywhere to do so. And if they do so, then God promises not to cast them out (John 6:37).
But nor can I go with the idea that the Lord Jesus knocks on the door of the heart, receives no reply, and says, "OK, that's it! You had your chance and you blew it; I'm gone!" In that case I would have been lost about 20 times!
I don't know if anyone has read Francis Thompson's poem, 'The Hound of Heaven The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson 1890 - Hound of Heaven It's not the easiest of reads, but it expresses my experience. Christ will not lose even one of those for whom he died.

I know there's a paradox here, but I will trust what the Bible says above my own fallible sense of logic.

 

In the passage Jesus stands at the door of the Christians houses and knocks. It is never stated, nor implied that he does so with the unredeemed. With them he must, like he did with us, break into the dungeon of our old master and "personally" save us. There is no tap, tap, tap, "would you pretty please open the door and let me save you." No, there is a Commander of the Lord's Army "Seal Team" that breaches the compound and goes to our cell and utterly rescues us with the enemy desperately trying to stop the mission. But God....

Daniel 10, Daniel 11 and Daniel 12 give us a glimpse of the battle. Paul, in Ephesians 6, adds to that spiritual battle. There is no romantic thing happening in the heavenlies when we are set free. It isn't some tap, tap, tap door knocking going on.

 

Well you brought up the knocking on the door thing which triggered the Calvinists like yelling "squirrel" when you're near my dog.
But it's your thread and I respect that. But notice how some of the Calvinists don't think Jesus knocks at all, he crashes the door like a commando. I say he might knock and then he might stop knocking. Others say no, he keeps on knocking. One thing I know is that we Calvinists have it all together and we never use scripture out of context. Well, except when we take Lazarus being raised from the dead the same as a spiritually dead person being made alive, but other than that.

 

S

was Abram seeking God? Or Did God seek Abram?

did Saul seek God, or did God seek Saul?

was Cornelius seeking God, or did God seek him?

what about the jailer in Acts?

we do not seek God as the natural man. God draws us unto Himself.

we’re the Ninevites seeking God? No, He sought them out to display his grace and mercy to the Nations.

 

Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. - John 21:22

Jesus has a purpose and a plan for each individual, and that is as distinct as each individual. He is an intensely personal savior.

 

It demonstrates what a personal Saviour and Good Shepherd that He truly is towards us

 

Dave, I don't consider you a part of the Reformed belief. You float around like a balloon in the wind trying to make everyone happy.
You have completely failed to address the actual scripture on this issue, which is the very source by which we can teach someone about God's work in their lives.

Do you imagine the unredeemed live in a nice cozy cottage where life is just peachy and God tenderly waits for a door to be opened? If so, you have a small grasp of God as the Commander of the Lord's Army and his role in directing his troops to save sinners.

 

@AustinC . I'm not offended but Jonathan Edwards is mad at you, I hear. Let's not go on since this is off topic. But this is:

"What is true religion? Here is a question we need to ask ourselves; and in the case of Edwards the answer is perfectly clear. It is what is called today an existential meeting with God. God and myself, these 'two only realities'. Religion is something, to Edwards, that belongs essentially to the heart. It is essentially experimental, essentially practical." From The Puritans, page 357, by D.M. Lloyd-Jones

So in other words, an individual encounter one on one with God.

 

Do you remember which Puritans said that and in what work?

who are your favorite Puritans?

 

At what point do you intend to address scripture, Dave?

 

Isn't that the scripture in question? I'm not sure what you want. I don't feel any need to defend Edwards to you if that is what you mean. I gave you the reference. Look up his use of the passage. The fact is in your zeal to ruin someone's joy that they got out of a particular verse you stepped in it because one of the most brilliant reformed theologians of all time used it the same way. But rather than just say well, OK, you tried to take Edwards on. You said to me I bounce around trying to please everyone but I can't help you here. Dig out of this on your own, defender of Reformed Theology.