Timely Salvation

Okay. I'll let Young the Literal Translator deal with what you were saying, and let's see who is ignoring what the Bible is saying. Now you say you're not a King James Version hater, take a look at your King James as well. Young, by the way, is a Modern Version:
Romans 3:22 - and the righteousness of God [is] through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, -- for there is no difference,

Galatians 2:16 - having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through the faith of Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh.'

Galatians 3:22 - but the Writing did shut up the whole under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ may be given to those believing.

Philippians 3:9 - not having my righteousness, which [is] of law, but that which [is] through faith of Christ ....

Then you are a humanist, and nothing else, if you say this. In the same way that Christ had to be the One who obeyed the Law, without any break and without any flaw, for His people, since they obviously cannot keep the whole Law, He also had to do the believing, and He had to have faith in what His Father promised Him, for His people's sake. That is why He alone is entitled to all glory.

You on the other hand, would raise man up by saying Christ did not have to do everything for man, and that man alone is capable of believing.

Blasphemer !

A soldier has complete understanding of what he is doing, and when he gets to the battlefield still gets overwhelmed by the conditions and the tragedies of war, but, in theory he was trained for it. Besides, he is human and knows sin intimately because sin is in him.

Christ had complete understanding of what He was doing. He knew He was doing it in accordance with His Father's will, but, you need to keep in mind, He never stopped being God, and God may know sin in the sense of defining what it is, but he does not know sin in the sense you and I know, right in our flesh !

You not only blaspheme Christ and de-glorify Him, you make Him your level, who wouldn't flinch at sin !

If it is man's faith that justifies him in the sense of getting him eternally saved, then man has no hope. And there your humanism clearly shines forth.

Abraham's faith justified him in the sense that one gets justified in putting his trust on someone because that someone proved to be the right choice.

There are many uses of the terms justified and justification in the Bible. Study some more instead of simply parroting your seminary.

Like I said, your tactic of debating is secular, attribute to your opponent what he did not say.
Review everything I have said. But, I doubt you will, not your kind. So, here goes:

• God saved His people because HE wanted to save them, not because they were worth saving, or wanted to be saved;
• Christ put on human flesh, lived as a man, and went up on that cross to save all His Father's people in order to glorify His Father and receive His Father's promises to Him and for them;
• ALL means ALL, past, present, future. Therefore, He saved all before any of His future people believed. That is what His death on the cross attained - their redemption and salvation, and when He entered heaven with His blood, He finished the atonement for ALL.
  
  If you deny that ALL covers ALL his people, then, you deny that the believers' sins are ALL atoned for, past, present, future.
  
  If you say that one MUST believe in order for Christ's death on that cross to be effective for him, then YOU , not I, are denying Christ His glory and placing the final outcome of His finished work on the believer's ability to believe and to be faithful.
  
  You might as well join the 7th Day Adventists and preach Investigative Judgment.
  
• Therefore, if ALL that needed to be redeemed are redeemed in fact because of Christ's finished work, PRIOR belief was never required of them by God or by Christ !
  
• The Holy Spirit, in His own time, will regenerate ALL His people, effectually call them, INDEPENDENT of Daniel David's 'eloquent' preaching, of Daniel David's 'wisdom', and of Daniel David's 'obedience' to the 'great commission', because God doeth what He will in the armies of heaven and earth, and so why the heck does He need to rely on you to finish HIS work for Him ?
  
• ALL of God's people will be converted, in different ways, different degrees, to the true God, and IF perchance a gospel preacher gets to them, they will be brought to gospel obedience and a knowledge of Christ here in time but, either way, their eternal destiny is IN Christ, not in Daniel David.
  
  
  
  A cult is one that points to personalities, and eventually, to self. I have always consistedly pointed to Christ for everything, and have always denied 'self' ability.
  
  On the contrary, you, IFB Reformer, Terry Harrington, and others have joined voices in protest against my insistence that the cross of Christ demanded nothing from the sinner prior to his salvation.
  
  You all insisted that its final efficacy depended on the sinner's ability to believe, which a dead, unregenerate sinner is unable to do, according to the word of God.
  
  Now, who is a cult ?

 

Perhaps because Baptists are so full of themselves and can hear only what they are saying, to the exclusion of others.

They think they have the truth, and anyone not saying what they are saying is of the lie.

These people here have jumped to the conclusion that we, Primitive Baptists, are heretics, and one of them began badmouthing us.

I offered to explain what we believe and that is, Christ's eternal salvation of His people demanded nothing of them to be effective for them, that He did everything that had to be done, including faith and belief, it is all grace, none of works, of which faith and belief are, and for that they started their tagging and labeling and name calling.

If they were unbelievers, I will turn the other cheek meekly, but they profess to be Christians, so I offer no apologies either for my view of them.

Christ did the same to the Jews when He said: ..."If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." John 9:41.

Love is not unbounded. Its boundaries are truth and knowledge.

To demand that an unregenerate sinner must first believe in order for Christ to save him, is not gospel and not truth.

 

I will agree with what you said about judging, and admit that I was harsh in reaction to cruelty which came from them first, but why do you laugh and make light of this conversation ?

Do you think both sides believe really that the unregenerate has no spiritual life at all to believe to his saving ?

 

Then you're on the Arminian and Calvinist side.

Thank you.
Have a good day, too.

 

Excuse my ignorance, Squire.

A mug I know. But, what's a wamp ?

And what exactly are you trying to say ?

 

Daniel David:

I am tired and weary of all the sharp words we insert in our reasonings with each other.

I realize that I have allowed pride to take control instead of a gentle spirit.

Therefore, I will no longer use words that return insult for insult, not for the sake of man, but because I fear God.

Again, I point out that none believe who were not previously made alive first. Their belief is proof that they are regenerate.

The faith is from Christ to the believer and goes back to Christ, no faith that results in one's salvation is possessed by the natural unregenerated man, therefore, it is not a requirement before one's salvation.

You, on the other hand, have refused to see my line of reasoning, because you have made up your mind beforehand that I am a heretic.

I have never denied that all of God's elect will believe in Christ. I have always stated that the Holy Spirit will do His work of regenerating all of God's elect, wherever they are, with or without a gospel preacher.

You and the others on the other hand, insist that all these must be done thru the agency of the gospel.

We part ways again because I believe the gospel is simply good news intended to be heard by the elect and to be carried by human means to as many as they can carry it. The gospel is by no means an agency of salvation, neither is it a means of regeneration. It can be used to help the regenerated child of God in the processes of conversion, and in conversion he learns love, faith, and obedience, which in turn redounds to timely blessings for him.

However, the inability of humans to be everywhere at all times will not at all alter God's plans for His people. He will quicken them, in His own time.

You say, 'anyone who fails to embrace Christ in faith' will be in hell.

I agree, because anyone who fails to embrace Christ is not of the elect. The question is: How will they embrace Christ in faith ?

If you attribute their 'embracing him in faith' to the ability of man to go and preach the gospel to them, I beg off, and repeat, all the elect will be regenerated, and their regeneration will be passive, that is, not based on anything they do, just as their salvation is passive, not based on any faith or trust or belief on their part but on the grace and mercy of God, and come to some degree of conversion, with or without a gospel preacher, but is not passive, because then their previously dead spiritual eyes see and they are able to reason out to their conversion.

Finally, any scripture you quote to me where faith, trust, obedience, and belief is discussed were written to those who already believe and are already children of God.

 

MTA -

There is nothing new in what you have said. I've heard it all before, from the Philippines to here.

Yes, regeneration is irresistible, if that's the way you put it, because regeneration is only for those who have been saved at the cross by God's choice, not theirs.

So Philip asked the eunuch. So, what's the big deal ? When you have a candidate for baptism standing in the water with you, don't you ask him questions as to his belief in the Lord Jesus Christ before you bury him into the water ?

Does that mean your candidate just got saved at that point ? Or are you making sure he knows why he is being baptized. Even Primitive Baptists ask the same questions.

You can go ahead and start a thread in foreknowledge and predestination if you like, and I'll be happy to join the discussion.

Again, I disagree with the requirement of hearing the gospel, literally or figuratively, in order to be saved.

I can only once more point you to the fact that gospel means 'good news', and just like news it did not happen because you heard it, but you heard about it because it happened, and the news is not true or untrue because you believe it to be true or untrue.

The truly convicted sinner you refer to is an already regenerate child of God. I think you are confusing regeneration with conversion, they are not one and the same.

Paul's conversion was at the Damascus Road. Exactly when he was 'born again', no one knows, since the Lord Himself compared the New Birth to the wind which one cannot see but is sure to be there, the evidence of which is the sound of it.

The sinner you say 'hardens his heart' is not a 'born again' child of God because God did not work in him to will and to do of His good pleasure.

 

Terry:

I think the administrators and the moderators on this board are more of a position to know what is heresy and who is heretic than you think you know.

It is their job to see to it that no heresies are allowed here which is why there are no Jehovah's Witnesses here.

If charges of heresies are to be thrown around, I would say your doctrine of a God who wants to save everybody but is powerless to do so because of that fallen creature's free will, which He respects while the fallen creature spat on His goodness by believing another fallen creature, is the one which is heresy straight from hell.

 

Terry:

That's fine with me. I will face my God with my belief.

And just to clarify, I never attributed everything that happens in this fallen world to God.

I attribute everything that happened pertaining to the eternal salvation of His people to Him only.

And I do not think the Holy Spirit was confused in inspiring this same man Paul who wrote the verse you use as your basis to write a very contradictory verse in another Scripture.

To wit:

He wants to save humankind, but at the same time, he is the one who pass others by as vessels of destruction ?

Yeah, right.