SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : All Men Everywhere

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next Page )

Joined: 2007/9/12
Posts: 15
Buffalo, NY


"Easy-believism, prosperity preaching, seeker-friendlyness; when was the last time you saw any of today's well-known reformed ministers (Piper, MacArthur, Packer, Sproul) endorse these things?"

Brother, First, I do not endorse easy believism, prosperity preachers,seeker friendly churches, etc. Second, whatever or who ever the preachers are that you mentioned, I follow none of them. And third in regard to this, If we are to going to talk about character of preachers, lets not forget about calvins character, and many of the false teachings that Luther esposed and his attitude towards the Jews. It looks like we all may have some logs to extract. There may be many non calvinist preachers off the wall, but please don't steriotype them all. I don't know the numbers, but I would guess that non calvinist preachers out number calvinists a thousand to one. So yes, in proportion you most likely will find more non calvinist preachers into and preaching off the wall non sense in that number. I will agree with you on that. I am embarrassed by many of them.

I do want to comment on something Spurgeon wrote about 1 Tim 2:3-4
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth"

(Good and acceptable - here we have the Lords assesment of His good pleasure regarding salvation for mankind-we don't have to guess, wonder, or make conjectures about it -it is plainly stated, but this is my comment not Spurgeon)

Spurgeon commented: "Here is how our older Calvinist friends deal with the text. "all men" say they -"that is some men";as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if He had meant some men. "All men" say they - "that is some of all sorts of men" if He had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the Apostle has written "all men", and unquestionably he means "all men"

Spurgeon added " I was reading just now the exposition of a very stable doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away: he applies grammatical gun powder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text as if it had read, "who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to the knowlege of the truth"

" I do not know how that squares with this" adding "I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistant with myself than be inconsistant with the word of God"

At least Spurgeon was honest !

And what about 1 Tim 4:10 "The Saviour of all men, especially those who believe"
1 Tim 2:6 "Who gave Himself a ransom for all"
Heb 2:9 "that He by the grace of God may taste death fpr every man"
Acts 17:26-31, and so many many more........This leaves one of two choices. Either univeralism is true, or POTENTIAL salvation is true for all men. There are no other choices. Potential is the only biblical aternative. Christ died for ALL. To as many as recieved Him, to them He gave authority to becomne the sons of God. This should settle the issue.

I'll say it once more, whatever mystery election, foreknowledge, choosing, predestination... may hold....and no doubt I do not know how it all comes together for certain, but I do know it is not properly explained by a man named calvin or his contemporaries with 5 point theology.

God bless, Bob


 2007/10/27 17:51Profile

 Re: All Men Everywhere

Again, you have a problem here, read the virst part of this verse, and find the problem, it says, "WHO WORSHIPPED GOD", here is the issue pointed out, a woman who was a devout worshipper of God, so much so that the scripture points it out, is hardly a woman whose mind is rolled up and held captive by the evil one.

Yes God opened her heart, but she was already serving God, and had not yet heard the news of the gospel.

Just like Cornelius?

Ben, I believe there are several additions men make to scripture, around Cain and Abel. One is to assume Abel had an altar. Another is to assume Abel's sacrifice was a sin-offering, when it is much more likely to have been a thank offering.

About Cain, I believe one of the reasons his offering was not accepted, was because God had cursed the ground for Adam's sake (Adam himself was not cursed.) and therefore its produce was not what He wanted to be offered. Perhaps Cain was being defiant even to go there.

Much later, Moses predicts that disobedience will result in curses being outworked against Israel. Finally, Malachi is still using the word 'curse', and also about the people.

 2007/10/27 19:01

Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California


About Cain, I believe one of the reasons his offering was not accepted, was because God had cursed the ground for Adam's sake (Adam himself was not cursed.) and therefore its produce was not what He wanted to be offered. Perhaps Cain was being defiant even to go there.

Sister Dorcas, thank you for your insight into this. Yes it seems that Cain was offering an offering of that which was deemed cursed. Abel's offering was not and thus was accepted by God.

There are many parallels to be seen here, but most alarming to me is that part of me that wishes to take any part of my flesh and present it before God, and say, "this is why you must accept me, because I have done...."

Christ Himself was made a curse that we believe in Him are justified by having His robes of righteousness placed over our filthy rags. Isn't it beautiful and wondrous!!!!

patrick heaviside

 2007/10/27 20:17Profile

Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


roaringlamb wrote:
About Cain, I believe one of the reasons his offering was not accepted, was because God had cursed the ground for Adam's sake (Adam himself was not cursed.) and therefore its produce was not what He wanted to be offered. Perhaps Cain was being defiant even to go there.

Sister Dorcas, thank you for your insight into this. Yes it seems that Cain was offering an offering of that which was deemed cursed. Abel's offering was not and thus was accepted by God.

[b]Hebrews 11:4[/b] [color=990000]By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent (or more of a) sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaks.[/color]
It wasn't nesesarily the offering its self, but the intent of the offering.

 2007/10/27 22:14Profile

 Re: All Men Everywhere

Hi Patrick,

Thank you for the acknowledgement. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was reading my posts, let alone understanding them... ;-) - but I know I'm not very good at pleasantries and can honestly say that's as far as my 'wonder'ing went :-) .

I think perhaps Logic has touched on a valid observation to add to mine about Cain... the intent of his heart.

I am reminded of when Satan turned up on the presence of God in Job 1:6, when his presence was obvious to God - perhaps because of his attitude. (Perhaps I've been wrong to think all angels look alike, as they have names and individual roles. Perhaps also, Lucifer looked very different after he'd become the prince of the power of the air.)

Christ Himself was made a curse that we believe in Him are justified by having His robes of righteousness placed over our filthy rags.

Brother, I believe Christ does far more than this for us. I am glad, though, that you wrote this, because I want gently to challenge (through scripture), this not uncommon view.

First yes, Christ was made a curse for us. I don't want to discuss that large topic. (The curse came through the law, and disobedience to it attracted curses (beginning in Deuteronomy).

But, the idea that Christ's righteousness is 'placed over our filthy rags', is not in scripture (I believe).

Zechariah 3
3 Now Joshua [Jesus, our substitute] was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.
4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, [u]Take away the filthy garments from him[/u]. And unto him he said, [b]Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment[/b].
5 And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by.

I feel we should remember that Jesus had His seamless undergarment taken from Him before He was nailed to the cross. Although the New Testament doesn't make this absolutely obvious, He [i]was[/i], therefore, naked (a truth which comforted Corrie Ten Boom and others while in concentration camp).

Personally, I believe this is important, as nakedness is mentioned in different contexts in scripture. One of them is idolatry. Another is materialism. (Same thing.) In Revelation 3, a spiritual nakedness is implicit in the letter to the Laodiceans:

18 I counsel thee to [b]buy of me[/b] gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; [u]and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [i]that[/i] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear[/u]; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

It is quite clear, here, that the white raiment is instead of the nakedness.

Exodus 32
25 And when Moses saw that the people [i]were[/i] naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto [i]their[/i] shame among their enemies:)
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who [i]is[/i] on the LORD'S side? [i]let him come[/i] unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

(I feel I should say here, that I've no idea if anything I'm writing cuts across Calvinism. If it does, I'm not writing it [i]because[/i] it does.)

So, with nothing to bring to commend themselves to God, they had to come, with their sin absolutely open to Him:

Hebrews 4
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things [i]are[/i] naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast [i]our[/i] profession.

At this point of choice, also, notice how Moses' relatives lined up with him. I had to smile when I re-read Aaron's account of what had happened. It bears a significant amount of tweaking from the truth, culminating with the impression he tries to give that the golden calf formed itself into that shape all by itself as it came out of the fire.

There are many sinners who might fear Christ had never felt shame, humiliation, embarrassment (and many other crippling emotions), had He not been made to suffer the indignities he experienced before and during His crucifixion. It is also very important (I believe) that the Pharisees tried so hard to find false witnesses against Him. How many? lies did He listen to that night? How many times is a reputation of a person undermined because someone lies about them, or, enhances their own reputation, by lying about themselves? For Jesus to have gone through all this was essential to His claim of 'Saviour of the world' being believable.

While He Himself was above all of them - He despised the shame Heb 12:2 - nevertheless Psalm 22 opens our understanding to His prayers during His time on the cross. (These also refer to devils and the artefacts of idolatry, such as 'bulls of Bashan'.)

Regarding the robe of righteousness, Jesus (Matt 22) told about a man who came to a wedding in his own clothes. This simply was not 'done', as a 'wedding garment' would be supplied for each guest. This was another reason the king wanted people to furnish his feast. It didn't matter that they had been living on the street, because he was going to take off their rags and put them in 'rich robes' (NKJV Zech 3).

We learn, also, that sins could not be forgiven under the law (Heb 10:4). (They were merely covered by the blood.) Now, our sins are are cleansed by His blood, (1 John 1:7) as tbey are brought into the light of God's knowledge. This is the exact opposite of covering.

Heb 10
21 And [i]having[/i] an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed* with pure water.

*This is in line with what the High Priest had to do naturally under the Old Covenant, to wash and dress appropriately to appear in the presence of God. (The picture is in Exodus 30:18 - 21.)

As I said above, I am not consciously offering a counter-Calvinistic argument. For all I know, Calvin would agree with me! This is what the Bible says and it is difficult to draw any other conclusion, than that our old rags (law-keeping\works) are taken off and our sins are washed away prior to our nakedness being clothed in any robe of righteousness.

To go further, 1 Cor 1:30 says that by God, [u]Christ is made to us[/u]... 'righteousness' - among other attributes - so this kind of righteousness is not external at all. It is because He is within, [u]being[/u] our Righteousness, that we are ever deemed clean [i]enough[/i] to wear white robes.

 2007/10/28 18:27

 Re: All Men Everywhere

Hi Ben,

I wanted to draw to your attention this, that John 8:32 does not use the word '... SETS ...'. If you bear this in mind as you meditate upon scripture generally, it will grow to have rather a different sense to it, than 'sets'.

John 8
31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.
32 "And [u]you shall know the truth[/u], and [u]the truth shall [b]make[/b] you free[/u]."

 2007/10/28 18:32

Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


dorcas wrote:
Hi Ben,
I wanted to draw to your attention this, that John 8:32 does not use the word '... SETS ...'. If you bear this in mind as you meditate upon scripture generally, it will grow to have rather a different sense to it, than 'sets'.

John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.
32 "And [u]you shall know the truth[/u], and [u]the truth shall [b]make[/b] you free[/u]."

I am not seeing the diference between "sets" & Making"/
Olease explain the diference.
You could translate the Greek to say:
[b]John 8:32[/b] [color=990000]and you shall be knowing the truth, and the truth shall be freeing you.[/color]

"shall be freeing" is:
Verb, future active, indicative, 3rd person, singular.

So what is the diference between:
"shall be making you free"
shall be setting you free"

 2007/10/28 22:21Profile

Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4821
Savannah TN


I have not kept up with this thread...but another section of Scripture came to mind concerning this thread...I don't want to side track the current discussion...this is just an offering...

Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock. 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.”

Everyone builds a house. Those who hear and do nothing are foolish. Those who Jesus speaks of hear...47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them,..these have choosen to listen.

Cain built his house on sand, Abel built his house on the rock.

In Christ

Jeff Marshalek

 2007/10/29 2:21Profile

Joined: 2006/12/11
Posts: 351
El Paso, Texas


roaringlamb, you consistently draw my words out of context from a point I make, while I have made it easy to see where a poit begins and ends, still only small portions are addressed, and the pieces you lack answers to are passed by. You continue to make many statements about the things I say, dismissing them outright. While I have gone painstakingly through the process of exogesis of different passages, you are content to just say "you are wrong" while providing no evidence against what I say.

Nevertheless, while you do not answer my questions, I will answer yours. As I have shown myself dillegent to do throughout this conversation.

roaringlamb wrote:

Christ draws all kinds of men to Himself, not all men. If this was true, then all men would be saved. Rather, because men are unable to respond in their natural abilities, they reject Christ and are enemies of God this you cannot deny.

This is an inaccurate argument against the point made, while it is a typical response that I expected, it holds no scriptural or linguistic truth. Allow me to offer evidence to the truth.


1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively
a) some of all types[/b]

Now, the first point to note is that the verse says "ALL", it does not say "ALL KINDS", while you may use your argument of, well there are some places that all does not mean all, then I would like to take you to a passage written by Paul where all now does not neccesarily mean all by your own definition.

[b][color=FF0000]Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;[/color][/b]

Based off of your own argument, we can come to the conclusion from this verse, that Paul did not mean "ALL" have sinned, he only meant "ALL KINDS" have sinned, and thus, there are some who are perfect of us, from birth till now.

Ok, so you see how that argument is a flawed one, and cannot be applied so easily, each time the word all is used, it must be interpreted by context, not a flawed argument.

Now, point two on this is that the most common definition of that word, as we see from strongs is "ALL" and means "ALL".

However, I will now point out again, as I did in my last post that you did not fully address, there is no place in scripture, old testament or new that states that every man that is drawn by Christ is saved.

That is an assumption based off of a bad contextual representation.

Brother many "hear" the Gospel, with their natural ears, but are not convinced of their need of Christ. It has nothing to do with "choice". Their ears are dull of hearing, and until God grants them spiritual ears to hear, they will not.

Show me the scripture behind this argument, or do not use it, I have already shown conclusively, contextually, and otherwise that man's believing the gospel is contingent upon him hearing it.

What amazes me is that you do not factor into this equation that even as saved men, we must have revelation from God to know Him. How then can you say that a man who has no inclination to God whatsoever can of his own desire understand spiritual truths, and make himself spiritual.

What is revelation, exept truth?

As I have stated already, God shows the "TRUTH" through preaching, and those who "HEAR", choose to either believe it or not.

What you do not seem to understand is that God is giving revelation through the message of the gospel to those who are unsaved.

Now you of all people, who believes so much in the sovereignty of God, should know that if He wants to show the truth to a man, He can.

What is it to you if He shows the truth to every living creature on the earth? He already commanded us to do so.

If indeed man can make himself spiritual any time he chooses, then Christ is a fool. For the He really did not need to die, and sen His spirit to convict the world of sin. He really did not even need to die, because after all man can fulfill the law of God, I mean why else would God command us to do something?

A man does not "MAKE" himself spiritual, how simply must I state things so that all who read them would understand.

I have said nothing of a man saving himself.

I have said nothing of a man making himself spiritual.

I have said nothing of a man regenerating himself.

You have misunderstood me. What I have said is that God's "TRUTH" or the "GOSPEL" gives authority to a man to make a decision to repent, or to continue in sin.

As dorcas said, the "TRUTH' shall "MAKE" you free.

By the way, I have proven this to be true through scripture, you have not even made an attempt to disprove it with scripture. All you have done is state your doctrinal stance.

So I conclude, either you have no answer, or you refuse to answer.

This view is foolish and though you may give lip service to needing Christ, in your heart you must not believe this. Because you boast of your ability to keep the law and its commands. So you have in essence made yourself your own savior because you did something to make God accept you, and you are better than other people who don't get it, or who don't have the spiritual understanding you have.

You put words in my mouth, I boast of nothing, except that maybe I'm good at video games. I boast of no ability to keep the law, nor of the commandments.

First of all, the law was not given to the gentiles, of which we are.

The conscience, and the revelation of God according to Romans 1 was given to us.

We as gentiles are not held accountable to the law of the Jews, but to the law of our conscience.

I have fallen more than short of my conscience, so much so that I was dangling over the pit of hell. I was saved by grace, by hearing God's truth, and hearing about God's wrath, I heard it, and knew it was true, and I repented and gave my life to Christ, I put my faith in Him, and have chosen every day to believe in Him.

I am not my own saviour, and neither is any other man, I have not made myself to be such, but I have made God, and His truth to be the instrument of conversion by which God then saves those who repent and believe.

It has nothing to do with anyone being better or worse than anyone, it has to do with a man choosing to believe the truth when God reveals it to him.

I would have to say you are incorrect, and rather your view does not believe that God can set men free, and keep them, and make them persevere. Because you believe it is all man and man's will.

Under your view, though a man professes faith, at any moment if he does not keep the law, he could be lost.

No, my view has Christ fully paying for, and the Spirit fully changing men into the image of Christ, and men may have full assurance that they are Christ's and He is theirs.

Again I respond by saying, God sets men free with the truth. God innitiates it, man responds or does not. God is ultimately responsible for giving the man the option of being saved, and saving the man once the man has believed.

I fully believe that God causes those that are saved to persevere in their faith. But I also believe that a man can make a conscious decision from a place of free will, (even as adam) to stop believing the truth, or he can be deceived by the evil one to believe in a lie and not the truth. (Galatians)

However, what I do not believe is that a man's salvation is dependant (as you so readily said I did) upon his sin, or his works.

Upon your third point, I fully agree.

Brother if any read into texts, I would have to say it would be those who champion your cause. For you take a text where God says, "if you will", and then automatically assume ability to do.

It's as if God could say to a man, "if you will raise the dead, I will accept you." To this you would reply, then we must be able to raise the dead. Or if God said, "if you walk on water, I will save you", and you say, "then I must be able to walk on water!"

I do not defend others positions that I do not know, nor do I condone the out of context method used by many today. I can only defend my own posistion which lies right in the middle of the two positions. Calvinists over emphasize God in salvation, and Arminians over emphasize man in salvation. Both have flaws in theology, both do not know fully which is the truth, (although both will claim they do) so they both read in and out texts they do not understand.

No, I assume that if a God can directly command a person to repent, then He directly has given them the ability to do what He has commanded them.

I assume that if they cannot, then God is a cruel God who's desire is not for righteousness in His own creatures.

I assume that if His desire is not for righteousness from all His creations, then He has evil desires.

I assume that if He has any evil desires at all, then He is not perfect, and He is not God.

I assume that if He is not God, then He is not to be worshipped.

All other evidences given, are not assumed, they are based upon logic and reason. You have yet to give the reason why God did not explain to cain that he was not a chosen one, instead of telling Him something that is untrue.

Your God is not a God who directly states the truth, rather He is a God that can only be understood by understanding first your doctrine. That is a limitation that is not found in scripture.

To your last statement about raising the dead, or walking on water. Absolutely, I agrre, for a God who can make an impossible demand of a creature, not give them the ability to carry it out, and threatens eternal punishment for such a thing is no God at all, He is a cruel task master.

You read into texts that man has free will to choose God, and then read out election, foreknowledge to form a god to fit your own ideas about God.

I have not read out election, I have read out the calvinist interpretation of election.

I fully believe in election, but it is based off of a foreknowledge by God of those who would be saved, and not an eternal choice from ages past.

I believe fully that we are the chosen of God, but we are chosen by Him because we believed.

I believe fully that we are drawn by God, but so are all men.
(Again, no place in scripture says that all who are drawn, are saved.)

What you have done to 1 Corinthians 2 is not what is being said.

The deep wisdom Paul speaks of it the Gospel, and Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom. There is not some "deeper" wisdom that Paul was speaking about.

Um... have you ever read what theologians have to say about the cross? I fully believe that the magnitude, and revelation of God's wisdom in the croos of Christ will be continually revealed to a greater level throughout all of eternity.

We will be awed by the revelation of wisdom that we see in the cross.

I believe that the people of corinth were trying to persuade men to be christians by espousing pieces of wisdom that they had come to understand, thinking that men would be saved by seeing their wisdom. Which is why Paul confronts that so strongly for all of chapter 1 & 2 of corinthians.

If you do not reckognize that there is a deeper wisdom in the cross, than just the forgiveness of sins and salvation, then I move to say that you have never meditated on the cross in prayer, and you have not studied all the implications that it creates. From the blood of Christ, to the cross itself, every piece of the crucifiction holds symbolic, and literal wisdom, it even has allegorical prophetic fulfilment out of Isaiah.

I do not think that I need to go into the issue of the cross having a greater, or deeper wisdom, because it unquestionably does. Paul made this point by saying that when he came to the corinthians in their usaved state that he "determined to know nothing except Christ crucified." His point was, did you notice that when I preached the gospel to you, I was not making a big show of my wisdom about God and His salvation?

Even if this were true brother, how does a man go from natural to spiritual? Does he do it on his own?

A man believes on his own, if God believed for him, then faith is a non-existing thing. To say God gives a man faith to believe is reasonable, if one reckognizes that to every man is given a measure of faith as Jesus told His disciples. So all men already have a measure of faith.

You cannot say, oh but he could have given some no faith, and that is their measure.

This would be on all counts a logical impossibility.

First, you cannot give someone nothing.

Second, you cannot measure nothing.

Third, Christ says "EVERY MAN" has been given "A MEASURE" of faith. The words "A MEASURE" refers to an amount, or a measureable amount of something.

Fourth, the conclusion is undisputable, every man has been given a measure of faith, the gospel is to be preched to every man, every man is commanded to repent, every man must choose to repent and believe, or not.

llow me to apply your reasoning to a portion of Scripture from within this section we are discussing.

1Corinthians 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Now if I followed your way of thinking, I could look at this verse and say, "aha free will! For if they would have understood, then they would not have crucified Christ. Oh but sadly because they did not exercise their free will and choose Christ, He had to be crucified."

After all, this is what you have done with passages like the one where Christ says, "how often I would, but you would not."

yet we know that Christ is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the Earth, and that God works things "according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" We know that those who believe were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, that all who are called were predestined and are justified, and will be glorified. (Romans 8:29,30).

We also know that the Cross was God's plan(temporally)back in Genesis 3, and that the crucifixion was prophesied in many passages such as Isaiah 53, Psalm 22.

We know that it was God's predetermined plan(Acts 2:23;4:28) so that if one was to say that if only the princes of the world used their free will then Jesus would not have been crucified is a foolish argument. God has already set who will be saved, and their sins were placed upon Christ. Now the Spirit applies that work to them.

I hate to bring this up, I thought it was obvious, "THE PRINCES" are demons, not people, according to scripture angels walk a fine line of one sin and you are cast down and lose your free will.

If you don't agree that they are demons, then tell me which of the Sanhedran court were princes? Or which roman governor was a prince.

No, the scripture shows they were demons, and that they did not know that they were fulfilling God's plan, they could not act upon knowledge they did not have.

Unlike the case of a man who hears "THE TRUTH" or knowledge of the gospel, and is then able to act upon it.

You jump to the conclusion that this means so and so will not be saved, and that is unfair. But how do you know? are you God?

Would you dare to say who will be saved, and who will not be saved? I hope you would not be so brash, and before you say I limit who will be saved, realize that we both do. you due to man's so called free will, and me because of God's free will to do with His creation as He will(which by the way is all throughout the Bible).

So, I am sorry to say brother you have yet to answer, how a man gives birth to himself, and makes himself alive spiritually. And if all men have this ability, then the Scriptures lie when they say that many are called, but few chosen.

I am not God, nor claim to be, I do not know who's heart is truly right with God, but I do know the fruit of a believer, which is how we are told we can judge whether a man is a believer or not.

If you believe that I limit salvation by saying that all men can be saved if they repent and believe, I agree, no man that does not repent and believe will be saved.

However, the limitations you place, go beyond that of the scripture, to the point of eliminating the need to repent and believe the gospel to be saved. They can be saved before they repent and believe, so it is a definition outside of scripture.

On your last point, I believe I have done a simple easy enough to understand definition of this in this post. If you do not understand it, then I can explain it further.

Lastly, I don't expect you to quote every passage of scripture that I do, or to necessarily quote every word I say, as I know that I type a lot. But I would appreciate it if when you address a point, if you would quote the whole point, so that the context of what I have said will remain consistent. Otherwise it makes it appear as though I have stated something completely by itself without explanation.

Benjamin Williams

 2007/10/29 12:58Profile

Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California


Brother ben, please forgive me for only taking portions, and addressing them. I hope that this does not take away from truth within either of our replies to one another.

I am not my own saviour, and neither is any other man, I have not made myself to be such, but I have made God, and His truth to be the instrument of conversion by which God then saves those who repent and believe.

The following quote from your last reply sums up what I believe. God uses the Gospel preached to regenerate the heart. The new heart understands its sin against the love, and holiness of God. The new heart sees the justice of God in making Christ sin for us, but also the grace in allowing us through Him to be the righteousness of God in Christ.

But I also see that God's truth by His Spirit causes repentance and faith in the person who God regenerates. Thus it is not God who repents for that person, but that person repents for himself. perhaps this has been an area of confusion as I did not make that point clear before.

At the moment, I do not have the wherewithal to answer all of your points, and I also see that neither of us will "prevail" upon the other(which was not my point). Just please do not lump all Calvinists as "fools", or "lesser brothers".

Now I would like to put forth an illustration for you and logic(if he chooses)to look at and give feedback.

Let us suppose a man has fallen into debt. He cannot repay this debt as he has nothing to pay with, he is utterly poor.

A bill collector comes calling, and says to the man, "you must pay the debt or you shall be punished."

To which the man replies, "Sir, I have nothing to pay with, please let me go free."

Now, is the bill collector unjust for demanding that which is impossible for the man to pay?

Or is the bill collector just for seeking the justice of what was demanded by the law, and the man a law breaker for not doing what was required by the law?

Now I think we agree that every man is guilty before God through the Law, and thus God is not unjust to demand what men cannot do, for man could do it before the fall. The effects of the fall, and the imputing of sin are clear.

Just so we understand that sin is not just counted against us because of imitation, but because of imputation, I ask you to look at the following truth which is observed in our daily lives.

Infants are subject to the effects of sin. They feel pain, they suffer illness, and they also die. Yet what sin has an infant committed? If they are unable to commit sin, yet suffer sin's effects, are they not guilty as well? If they are guilty, not because they have committed sin, then why? Does this not show that Adam's sin has been imputed to the world?

Your feedback is appreciated, and I wish to thank you, and may God continue to bless you through Christ Jesus our Lord.

patrick heaviside

 2007/10/29 13:55Profile

Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy