“My church practices the ‘Sinner’s Prayer'”

Several readers have asked us, “What should I do if I am attending a church that practices the Sinner’s Prayer?”

If you’ve ever been to an evangelical church service or ministry outreach, you know the drill: Head down, no looking around, just you and God, sappy background music, and just slip your hand up if you want to invite Jesus into your heart. I see that hand in the second row. Thank you. Anyone else?

I can certainly understand why many people feel uncomfortable. There are some elements of it that are good, like confessing our belief in Jesus, admitting we are sinners and saying “I’m sorry,” but the most dangerous part of the practice comes at the end, when the minister declares, “If you prayed that prayer with me, congratulations and welcome into the kingdom of God!”  Telling someone that he or she is saved by reciting a prayer is a lie from the pit of Hell.

Salvation is God’s work, and His gift of Grace. When He calls us to repentance and opens our eyes to who He is 2 Timothy 2:25, Phil. 1:29, our regeneration in the Holy Spirit happens in an instant.

But wait, what if someone is really saved by the sinner’s prayer?  Here’s the thing: Faith comes by hearing or reading the Word of God – the true Gospel. So if the person has just heard the Gospel preached before reciting the prayer, this may indeed be that moment. But regeneration does not magically happen because someone repeated those words.

I remember meeting with a pastor years ago about my oldest, because he was questioning his own salvation. The pastor squinted his eyes in all wisdom and, staring off into the distance asked, “did he ever say the Sinner’s Prayer?”

I was crestfallen at that.  I knew then that we needed a much better understanding of salvation. That this prayer was producing a slew of false converts who were still dead in their sins, thinking that they are saved from God’s wrath because their pastor lead them in an incantation.

This article over at CARM has some good points about what the Sinner’s Prayer is, and why it doesn’t save anyone.

The Sinner’s Prayer is actually an invention from a couple centuries years ago by a man named Charles Finney, who wanted to get more members into churches for growth and income. You can read about the evolution of the Sinner’s Prayer here.  Finney’s techniques have been repeated millions of times around the world in the years since. But if you really want your mind blown about this man’s theology, here is a little more homework for you:

  1. Charles Finney’s Influence on American Evangelicalism: Exposing Charles Finney’s Heretical Teachings

      2. The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney

3. This video is also helpful:

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Berean Research Articles, discernment. Bookmark the permalink.

179 Responses to “My church practices the ‘Sinner’s Prayer'”

  1. lyn says:

    Excellent post

    Yes, salvation is ALL of God, and none of man. The ONLY thing we contribute is our vile sins.

    The only ‘sinner’s prayer’ you will find in the bible is this, ‘And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.” Luke 18:13

    Billy Graham was notorious for playing ‘Just as I am’ at his ‘crusades’, inviting people to come forward, declaring them saved, and then sending them back to whatever brand of religion they came from – such as Roman Catholicism.
    The Apostle Paul made it clear where the power to save comes from-
    1 Cor. 1:17- For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

    Coercing sinners to come forward, using sappy music to help ‘set the mood’ is NOT how God saves. The sinner must come under conviction – and that is the ministerial work of God the Spirit. Brokenness over sin is a result of this, leading to the tax collector’s prayer found in Luke 18.
    American Christianity has taken the power out of the Gospel of Christ and placed the ability to be saved on the sinner – by his/her choice, decision, inviting Jesus into their hearts, etc. The sinner works with God to save, so they think.
    Yet, God makes it clear in His word who saves and how, ‘for by grace are you saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANY MAN BOAST. How many have you heard take credit for ‘being saved’ by saying something like ‘ I accepted Jesus’, or ‘ I invited Jesus into my heart’? These types cannot be convinced they may not be saved, for they rely on their ‘work’ as evidence. How tragic!!
    As for Finney, he was a heretic and has led multitudes down the broad road with his heresy.

    Like

    • lyn says:

      From Paul Washer…

      “The problem is, even when we preach the Gospel correctly, then we go to this thing on how to invite men and it’s not biblical or historical. We get them to jump through some evangelical hoops and say, “yes” to the appropriate questions and we pope-ishly announce them to be saved.
      When someone comes along later and tries to preach the Gospel to them because they’re living in the world, they won’t listen.
      How many people do you know believe they’re going to heaven because, they’re not trusting so much in Christ as they are the sincerity of the decision they made a long time ago?” ~Paul Washer

      Check this out as well – https://youtu.be/Z8ohGt7YE0A

      Like

  2. Robert Trohon says:

    Lyn.and others…I am not looking for a debate here…just want to state my thoughts and opinion.

    The verse ‘for by grace are you saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANY MAN BOAST.

    The part “not of yourselves” and “NOT OF WORKS,” does refer to salvation and the faith through which it comes.

    Believing in Jesus Christ’s Gospel is not a work, it is a God-given belief; a belief of which a person may accept or reject by free will. That is why John answers the question of why men are condemned….because they loved their darkness more than truth (paraphrased.). John 3:19 “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”

    Romans 1:18b … men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness…vs 21a although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God…

    So, the way I see it…man is responsible for either accepting the truth that God has put in his heart or rejecting it. Accepting TRUTH is nor a “Work.”

    If, and I say IF, you have Calvinistic beliefs, you probably won’t agree with most of this, as I am putting part of salvation on man’s shoulders (the acceptance of our inborn faith in God and a desire to follow Him).

    On the part about the “Sinner’s Prayer.” If a person in church (or through TV or any other means) hears the TRUE Gospel and is asked to proclaim his faith and repentance in Jesus Christ, whether it be quietly with all heads bowed, or coming up front to the alter, or even just secretly in their own heart at home…and that sinner is sincere and truly reaches out to God in faith for forgiveness and help in following Jesus…then that person is TRULY saved at that moment. The Holy Bible teaches that. I don’t care what purpose Charles Finney had. I didn’t even read that part of the Berean research article.

    The “Sinner’s Prayer”, at least to me, is any prayer that reaches out to Father God in faith and repentance, believing who Jesus is (God the Savior) and what He accomplished on the cross and through His resurrection. It is that simple.

    Blessings.
    Robert Trohon
    Assistant Pastor, Calvary Chapel Greeneville, TN

    Like

    • Cheryl says:

      Thanks Robert, well said. Salvation is merely coming to terms with our sin, realizing we need the savior- Jesus- and confessing it to him, or in simple terms saying yes to Jesus! Whether that be at a church service, or at home, or wherever, it doesn’t matter if your heart is sincere. When God calls, respond. We don’t need the sappy music, and certainly shouldn’t be pressured (Jesus said to count the cost). But to say you aren’t saved if you’ve been in those meetings and prayed it is very wrong. It can be a yes, or a no.God sees the heart and how that moment of faith has grown.

      Like

  3. James Pam says:

    Thanks, Pastor Robert Trogon. You said it all. Whoever and whatever Finney was, is immaterial. Whether by the sinners prayer, private prayer, or other method, so long as a sinner hears the message of salvation through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit convicts him of his sinful state and the need for God’s forgiveness, and such a person asks for salvation, HE IS SAVED, whether a preacher says so or not. What happened on the day of Pentecost when Peter’s listeners were.”cut in the heart” and asked, “Brethren, what must we do?””. Three thousand were saved. If I see such happening today. Why shouldn’t I declare such persons saved on the spot?
    Rev. James Pam

    Like

    • Robert Trohon says:

      You are welcome James. I appreciate you succinct reiteration of the heart of a person desiring salvation from hell and the grace of Heaven.

      Like

  4. We are all sinners until we are in Heaven with our Savior, therefore we need to pray daily and repent so that we will find forgiveness for our sins. Salvation is from God alone, and all that we contribute to our Salvation is our sins. Accepting Jesus into one’s heart and saying a “Sinners prayer” is a work, s one is basically saying what Jesus did was not enough, and I have to do my part and contribute to my salvation, when Scripture says quite the opposite.

    Like

  5. Tim Whelly says:

    Whosoever means we have to respond to the gospel. God will not save me if I don’t want to be saved.

    Like

    • lyn says:

      Tim,

      Concerning John 3:16 and ‘whosoever’ – The New Testament was not written in English, any less the King’s English. It was written in Greek. And, there is no Greek equivalent for the English word “whosoever.” The Apostle John did not write, “Whosoever believeth.” That word construction was never part of his original letter. What he did write was, “pas ho pisteuoon.” The two little Greek words “pas ho” are literally translated “all the.” “Pisteuoon” is a form of the word “pisteuo,” the verb form of “pistis,” or “faith.”

      The King James translators’ choice of the single word “whosoever” to translate the two-word phrase “pas ho” was not an entirely errant decision. In the King’s English, “whosoever” did not have the connotation of randomness or free choice that it has come to represent in contemporary English. Originally, “whosoever” designated a particular group – as in “whosoever possesses these certain qualities.” In this case, the group included only those who believed, as opposed to those who did not.

      But, more to the point, “pas ho” simply does not mean “anyone at all who chooses to exercise their choice.” It specifically means “all the” and it serves to designate a particular group of people who share a defining characteristic -“faith” or “believing.”

      So, when we read, “whosoever believeth,” we must understand that what John literally wrote was “all the believing.” In other words, the benefits of God’s love are not indiscriminately available to anyone who chooses to possess them. Only the particular group – “all the believing” – are gifted with eternal life. From Jim McClarty http://salvationbygrace.org/current-qa/about-john-316/

      Like

  6. Q says:

    Amy,

    The link you provided – (“You can read about the evolution of the Sinner’s Prayer here” http://gospelcall.blogspot.com/2010/05/short-history-of-sinners-prayer.html ) teaches baptism is necessary for salvation.

    Is that something you believe?

    Like

  7. Darrel says:

    Robert, James, & Tim,

    I’m glad to see that you have the Salvation of the Great God and His Son, Jesus Christ so neatly curled up in a little ball for all to play with as they deem fit. The problem is your are al WRONG to the very core because you have injected the poison of a man’s “free-will” into your equation for the supposed “salvation” you claim to possess. Robert Trohon, Assistant Pastor, Calvary Chapel Greenville, TN. and Rev. James Pam you should know better because you have obviously “studied” the Scriptures under the tutelage of a well respected “Professor” at the seminary of your choice, but the end result is that you are now twice as much a child of hell as was your “professor”—Matt. 23:15. You mock God, THE God of Salvation by interjecting the “necessity” of a man’s “free will” for him to “be able to obtain salvation” while you reject and ignore dozens of verses that tell you the precise opposite. Since you were taught that the “free will” of man was not affected by the fall of Adam, is still intact, and able to operate outside the knowledge, consent, and purview of the Creator, it is only fitting for you to elevate yourselves and your “free will” above the Throne of the Sovereign God who created you from the dust. What a tremendous “high” it must be for you to be seated above the Throne of God.

    Your hatred of the Lord Jesus Christ is exhibited in your own words: “the acceptance of our inborn faith in God and a desire to follow Him” What “inborn faith?” There is no such thing found anywhere in Scripture—a fact that you readily know, but have chosen (by your free will?) live, speak, and teach otherwise AGAINST the Scriptures. You have suppressed the truth that all men are totally depraved, alienated from God even before they are born (this you also know but refuse to acknowledge). Jesus Christ IS the Word of God, so why do you mock Him by attempting to delete the ‘unwanted truths’ that do not suit this free will nonsense and teaching other men that “salvation” may be attained if one “sincerely seeks God and is truly sorry for his sins”? Why have you redacted Rom. 3:10-18 from your “bible” and skip to Rom. 3:23 to begin your “Roman Road (to hell) and shelve the pesky truth found in these and other verses? Because you are evil. Robert, you really should read up on your catholic brethren (perhaps you do—daily?) because the second to last paragraph sounds so very roman catholic. But you blew your own cover in your last statement “…and what He accomplished on the cross and through His resurrection.” If what Christ did was enough why do you insist that a man’s “free will” enter into the mix? Scripture teaches that Christ’s oblation was ENOUGH just as it teaches that a man’s will has NOTHING to do with God saving him—these facts you very well know, but by your own “free will” have chosen to rebel against the Lord and teach heresy. 2 Peter 2:1-22 describes such a man and his eternal fate.

    Like

    • SusanJ says:

      Darrel, I urge you to look at some of your statements, comments and words again and see the sarcasm and awfulness about some of it. And how offensive it is. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. Worst is you call Robert “evil”. And “you are now twice as much a son of hell”.

      I do not know Robert any more than I know you and it is likely I would not be in total agreement with him on every single thing. Which is ok. But because he puts his full name and position on here many of us have no doubt googled and found out something about him. And I can find a lot of good things on him as a brother in Christ. And his comments above tell me he has the same heart of concern for the lost as I do, for which I am glad.

      Like

      • Darrel says:

        I will answer your concerns, SusanJ, despite the fact that you have treated me rudely from day one; you have NEVER answered any question I posed to you; you have NEVER addressed any of the concerns I voiced and twice now you demand that I look at my words because you don’t like the “tone” or I’m just not nice enough to suit you. As for Robert, he IS evil and he IS twice as much a son of hell as are his mentors because he teaches a false gospel. He tells people that there is another “way” to heaven, namely that of the Arminian/ Free-Will heresy. He mocks the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with these lies and you want me to “tone it down” and be “nice” to someone who has just insulted my Lord? NEVER going to happen! Please show me where the Lord Jesus was ever “nice” by your standards to the EVIL Pharisees. Nevermind, I forgot, your still rude and are above answering questions you can’t answer. Since you are an advocate of the AFW lying heresy try to conjure up some humility and repentance as you grope in the darkness of the lie you cherish. As long as you ally yourself with the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ we will be enemies.

        Like

      • Robert Trohon says:

        Wow! Thanks Susan. I appreciate the support. I only state my belief in hopes that it is truth, as I strongly believe it is, and that it may bring the light of TRUTH to others.

        As you so truthfully stated…it is not for us to insult one another. That is not of God. Also, as I stated in my first line (or second) in my original post, I am NOT going to debate anyone over Calvinism vs other styles of Gospel belief…it tends to come out as a fruitless, time-wasted effort— at least for me.

        I stand on scripture, research (including Dave Hunt’s book “What Love is This?’), debates between Hunt and many Calvinists where he just makes them look foolish, and especially this verse;
        1 Timothy 2:4 (God), who desires ALL men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

        I am very comfortable in my faith (which is a gift from God of which I did not reject via my Free Will, and my salvation which is also a gift from God which I did not reject– but actually sought by that same Free Will. I take NO credit for my salvation. I was offered a gift and I accepted.

        I will not get worn out by throwing the PEARLS I have received (from God) to swine (sorry if that sounds a bit insulting but it is scripture. Matthew 7:6

        I shudder to think someone ends up in Gehenna (Hell/Hades/Lake of Fire) because they teach or believe a different Gospel than the one Paul taught :
        Galatians 1:7b and 8 but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (That is a scary thought.)

        I am NOT saying Calvinists, or those adherents to TULIP or the people who preach God’s 100% sovereignty (controlling and directing EVERYTHING) to the exclusion of man’s Free Will are accursed to Hell…but it is something to ponder. Only God knows.

        May you walk in fellowship with the Holy spirit daily sister.

        Robert Trohon
        Assistant pastor,
        Calvary Chapel Greeneville, TN

        previously Pastor of La Via-The Way (Calvary Chapel, Managua, Nicaragua)

        Facebook: Robert Trohon
        and Calvary Chapel Greeneville

        Like

      • Darrel says:

        So much for not debating, you just thought you could bring more poison to the table and run and hide. I wonder if Susan will jump down your throat, Robert, for referring to those that preach the truth as “swine”, probably not. Dave Hunt was/is a Jesuit shill, just like you are, Robert. You speak lies with a soft voice and flatter people to gain their support. I, for one, am sick of your kind parading about in your pious robs of religious service and ego laden “credentials” you post as if to give added credibility to your heresies. You teach lies and that makes you a liar. Do you know the fate of liars? You sit on the fence and say that both Arminianism and the doctrines of grace are true, but you do lie, sir. You think you can smooth over your lies by flattery? or perhaps you consider your audience too stupid to see through your façade of lies, which is it?Take your own advice and consider the Lake of Fire, the future residence of ALL unrepentant liars. Will you be there?

        If it’s not ok to insult one another where do you get off insulting the Lord Jesus Christ by speaking lies in His name? Christ was full of insults for the Pharisees of His day, but you expect to be able to freely insult Him and get a pass? Not on my watch. By the way, Robert, you’re still evil and still twice as much a child of hell as your teachers.

        Like

    • Lestie Ann Damon says:

      Darryl,

      One of the greatest indications of salvation is love for the brethren. Clearly you are not demonstrating love in in your attack on Robert, James and Tim. Much of this debate really stems from those of you who believe that one cannot be saved unless one is a Calvinist. Your unkind and ungracious words show nothing of the Love of Jesus Christ, nor do they show concern for those who are lost, but rather they are like the words of the Pharisee who believed that he alone was worthy of salvation.

      Like

      • Darrel says:

        Are you buds with Susan? There is nothing in the comments left above by Robert, James, or Tim to indicate that they are saved because they all espouse, cling to, and insist upon the Arminian heresy of “free will”. It is the root of the “another gospel” of Gal. 1:6-9. They preach it as if it were the truth—which it is not, but a lie. By doing so they insult the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit so please show me from the Scriptures where it says I must be “nice” to them as you demand. Love your enemies by speaking the truth and not coddling their feelings. A person is saved (or not) by the choice made by the Father before time began, a man’s will, his cooperation, etc. has no effect on the choice made by the Father, nor does “Calvin” enter into the equation, another lie by the AFW’s. So would you have me (and yourself) be “nice” to someone who lies constantly, gets paid to do so, and whose life is an insult to my Savior? Surely, you don’t expect that!

        Like

      • Lestie Ann Damon says:

        Question: “What does it mean to love one another?”

        In John 13:34 Jesus taught, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” Then He added, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (verse 35).

        The “one another” in these verses is a reference to fellow believers. A distinguishing mark of being a follower of Christ is a deep, sincere love for brothers and sisters in Christ. The apostle John reminds us of this fact elsewhere: “He has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister” (1 John 4:21). And of course there is Romans 12:10 which teaches us to be kindly affectioned one towards the other…

        Like

      • Darrel says:

        You quote Scripture well and your conclusions are correct. The one fatal flaw in all your logic is that you believe that Robert, James, and Tim are “saved” and therefore “brethren” in Christ. but they have by their own words proven themselves to be “false brethren” and therefore are to be rebuked and if they refuse to listen they are to be counted as heathen and not a brother in Christ. Until they repent they will be considered imposters to the faith and not in Christ.

        Like

      • Lestie Ann Damon says:

        we must be very careful not to be too judgmental too quickly. It is a serious thing to say that someone is or is not saved. If you are unsure about the salvation of someone, then you should pray for that person, ask God to work in a person’s life, and ask the Lord to give you wisdom. You are very busy condemning everyone else to hell Darryl, perhaps you ought to examine your own heart.

        Like

      • Lyn says:

        I wonder what Peter was thinking when he told Simon the sorcerer this, -Act 8:20  But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 
        Act 8:21  Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 
        Act 8:22  Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 

        Examining the fruit of others is not unbiblical. Using right judgment is not sinful either.

        Presenting your theology and backing that with God’s word is a must. This thread has deteriorated into a mud-slinging contest. May God work in ALL hearts that comment here..

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        Right you are Lestie. Accusing the brethren is Satan’s job and God is the only judge of whether one has eternal life. But for some they take on the responsibility of both. In Acts 8 Peter did not condemn Simon to hell. The gift Simon sought to purchase was the laying on of hands not the gift of life. Simon is said to have believed the message of Philip. He believed just like the rest of the Samaritans did and had passed from death to life. When Peter said let your money perish with you he did not think the money would go to hell with Simon. Peter uses the word perish like Paul does in 1Cor 8:10 where Paul speaks of a weaker brother (meaning believer—a person for whom Christ died) perishes. The Calvinists say Christ died only for the elect so “brother” must mean that the one who perishes is saved! So perish does not always mean in hell fire.

        Like

      • Lyn says:

        No, Peter clearly told Simon his ‘heart was not right’ with God. He knew Simon was a false convert and he called him out. He knew he was not born again by God, for his ‘fruit’ was bad. A bad tree bears bad fruit, a good tree bears good fruit.

        Don’t forget, the bible says that demons believe as well, does that mean they are going to heaven?

        Or this – Joh 2:23  Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed {pisteuo- have faith} in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 
        Joh 2:24  But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 
        Joh 2:25  And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. 

        Merely stating one believes is not evidence of salvation, which is why Christ said this in Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

        Who wrote those verses, Calvin or God the Spirit?

        Like

      • Lyn says:

        From Acts 8:20, the word ‘perish’ – ἀπώλεια
        apōleia
        ap-o’-li-a
        From a presumed derivative of G622; ruin or loss (physical, spiritual or eternal): – damnable (-nation), destruction, die, perdition, X perish, pernicious ways, waste.

        Like

  8. Cheryl says:

    Am I missing something here, because some of these comments and ideas are really wacky! Not quite sure which gospel they are preaching but it’s not that of Jesus! The invitation is open for all who choose to believe. Jesus said to come and he would not cast you away! To each God gives a measure of faith. Jesus said to go out and preach the gospel to everyone.To all who believe and confess with their mouth, and repent and obey are saved! There is no ‘standard’ prayer to say just say you believe Jesus is God’s son that he came, died, rose again..As it is taught in scripture. Romans 10: 9 and others…

    Like

    • rascott247 says:

      Cheryl

      It’s called Calvinism. It usually dressed up and called the “doctrines of grace” wherein it is adherents believe that Jesus did not propitiate for the sins of the whole world but only for a preselected group called the “elect” who were chosen in Christ before they came to faith in Christ (in fact before creation). Calvinists read Rom 5:2 (among other passages) backwards so instead of “we have access by faith into this grace” they teach “we have access by grace into this faith”. They believe the “elect” are irresistibly drawn, regenerated, given faith and that the “reprobate” are those God did not chose, will not draw and Jesus did not atone for them so they are incapable of understanding their condition and need for salvation.

      Salvation is by grace through faith alone in the person and work of Christ alone and everlasting life is a free gift not an exchange for good living or suffering for Christ. The cost was on Jesus part not ours. There is a cost to discipleship but there is also great eternal reward, which is not the gift. A prayer does not save; Jesus saves through our believing in His promise of everlasting life. If somebody is saying the prayer and does not believe in the propositions and promise of Christ they are not saved. And if a person believes in the propositions and promise of Christ they are saved before they pray.

      Like

      • Darrel says:

        You’ve definitely got your “twist-o-matic” working well today, rascott247. While you are accusing “Calvinists” of reading a verse backwards you have left out the FACT that faith is the gift of God “For by GRACE you have been saved through FAITH and that not of yourselves; IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD.” So which is it, rascott 247, the ‘faith’ you claim to have been born with and are free to exercise or not exercise? or is salvation the gift of God? As for the doctrine of Reprobation, why do you lie by omission and refuse to acknowledge the existence, muchless the truth of 2Peter 2:1-22; Jude 4-19; Rom. 9:10-13? Your words: “There is a cost to discipleship but there is also great eternal reward, which is not the gift.” Do you say this from an unannounced verse or two, or is this from your fertile imagination? You speak of the “propositions” of Christ which are what? There are no “propositions” of Christ, there are commands, like repent, believe the Gospel. no this is not “splitting hairs” this is you adding to the Word of the Gospel. Stop it! Repent.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Why do you ‘free willers’ continue to accredit Calvin with what God has written and taught? Why is it you ignore verses like Eph 2:1,5, 8,9 that state you are ‘dead in sin’, that God quickens,that salvation and faith are a ‘gift of God not of works’? Why do you shun verses like 2 Thess. 2:13, “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:” that clearly state God chooses sinners to save? And you say Calvin wrote those verses? Why shun what the Spirit of God has written and twist God’s truth to fit your man made theology?

        Are you aware your theology is rooted in the RCC Jesuits? Are you are that Jacob Arminius was used by the Jesuits to infiltrate Protestantism with this false teaching? Are you aware your theology is the same as the Roman Catholic Church?
        A.W. Pink stated this, “In the year 1563 by the order of the Pope, there was a council held at Trent. And Rome then and there defined her theological position on the points that had been made by the Reformers, and one of their decrees read thus [now the decrees of the Council of Trent are their standard today on controverted points], “If anyone shall affirm that since the fall of Adam man’s free will is lost, let him be accursed”. I want to read that again, what I am reading now is Roman Catholic Doctrine according to their own standards the decrees of the Council of Trent 1563, “If anyone shall affirm that since the fall of Adam man’s free will is lost, let him be accursed”. So that those who insist on man’s free will place themselves side by side with Rome on that doctrine!”- from ‘studies in the Scriptures’ April 1926
        So, all who adhere to ‘free will’ align with Rome.

        The following quote came from a Jesuit, written in 1628 to the Jesuit Rector at Bruxels, to calm his nerves about an ensuing parliamentary call. The Jesuit writer tells the Rector that he has nothing to worry about, because the Jesuits have planted the seed “arminianisme” and it will certainly come to fruition:

        “March, 1628. Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine (sudden) and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it flourisheth and beares fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritanes, the
        Arminians have already locked up the Duke’s (of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke’s chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and carefull in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke:–OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISME” [Hidden works of darkness, p. 89, 90. Edit. 1645.] (emphasis added)

        JACOBUS ARMINIUS

        The young man Arminius lost his family during a war with the Spanish in 1575. As a fifteen year old orphan, he entered the University of Leyden, and under scholarship by the government of the City of Amsterdam, he was sent to the Theological school in Geneva for studies at the feet of the great Protestant reformers. At Geneva, Arminius studied under a professor named Theodore Beza, the man who had assumed the leadership role of the Protestant movement in Switzerland from John Calvin. For some reason that seems to be lost to history, Arminius immediately took a disliking to Beza, and found his forceful defense of the Doctrines of Grace to be harsh and unyielding.
        Here is where our mystery gets increasingly interesting. Back in Amsterdam there was a movement of “counter-reformation” begun supposedly by a rich merchant named Dirck Coornhert. Coornhert was a Dutch humanist who was enamored with the teachings of the Catholic humanist Desiderius Erasmus and a Spanish Jesuit monk named Luis de Molina.
        Erasmus has been rightly identified by Martin Luther and others as a “Pelagian in Catholic clothing”, so we can readily trace the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian heresies as they traversed their way through Amsterdam while Arminius was away in Geneva.
        Dirck Coornhert disdained the Reformation teachings on the Doctrines of Grace, and sought to confront them wherever he found them. Coornhert had read with growing affections the teachings of Luis de Molina regarding Free Will and Predestination. The Jesuits had hit on a brilliant way of dismantling the debate. They would preach that BOTH “free will” and predestination were true and that a good God who was truly sovereign surely might have given his creations a freedom of the will in order to allow them to choose to be saved. Luis de Molina was creating a doctrine that would eventually be called Media Scientia or “Middle-Knowledge”. Eventually this heresy would be known as Molinism.
        In an article on Luis de Molina entitled, Contending for the Faith, Rev. Bernard Woudenberg said of the Jesuit Luis de Molina,
        “Being a Romanist, he was forced to honor the theology of Thomas Aquinas with its acceptance of divine sovereignty, but at the same time, as a Jesuit, he was committed to defending the papacy against the growing influences of Calvinism. And so de Molina set forth to steer between these by proposing his original and highly influential concept of the media scientia, or “middle- knowledge.” In this he proposed that “between God’s knowledge of the cause and effect relations which He had implanted in the universe, and that of divine freedom whereby He remains free at any time to do what He wills, there is an area of middle-knowledge which God provides for man in which man is granted freedom to do whatever he chooses without outside necessity or predetermination of any kind.” (emphasis added)
        The Catholic lie on co-operative Justification had been countered by the true Grace doctrine of Salvation by Grace through Faith, so now an evil “compromise” was offered to the world, and by deceit and subterfuge the compromise would eventually become the predominant teaching in all the churches of the world.
        Back in Geneva, Theodore Beza had a growing suspicion that his student Jacobus Arminius was not who he proposed to be. Questions were being asked about comments that Arminius was making to fellow students, and there were still questions about his financial support from the rich, aristocratic merchants of Holland. Apparently Arminius was able to lie well enough to get past Beza’s questioning, a skill that would come in handy years later when he would be looking for a teaching job in Amsterdam. Beza then asked Arminius to answer and publicly refute the teachings of Dirck Coornhert. Although Arminius completed the task, he later claimed to be convinced by Coornhert’s arguments, and he became ardently opposed to the teachings of the Reformers. Please do remember that Coornhert had developed his ideas from the writings of the Catholic humanist Erasmus and the Jesuit Luis de Molina.
        In 1586, Arminius was released from Geneva, but instead of heading back to Amsterdam where he was under contract to the City to labor in order to pay back his tuition, he headed to Rome for a “vacation”.

        Most Calvinists believe that it was during this vacation in Rome that Arminius was recruited by the Jesuits to their point of view. I believe that there is enough other evidence that Arminius was compromised long before his pilgrimage to Rome, particularly in that he had already embraced the Jesuitical writings of Dirck Coornhert. By this time, Arminius had become a private student of the writings of Luis de Molina, and in 1588, the same year in which Arminius was ordained a minister (by the strange endorsement of Theodore Beza), de Molina published his treatise on the will entitled A Reconciliation of Free Choice with the Gifts of Grace, Divine Foreknowledge, Providence, Predestination and Reprobation which is commonly referred to as the “Concordia”.
        What the Jesuits were loathe to admit, was that Molinism was nothing more than a rebirth of the ancient “Semi-Pelagianism” heresy, which contends that man cannot be saved apart from God’s grace; however, fallen man must “cooperate” and assent to God’s grace before he will be saved. The Jesuits recognized that the Protestants would never embrace the teachings of a Catholic Spanish monk, so they capitalized on the growing and open debates taking place within Protestantism. Molinism would be recast as Arminianism, and eventually, it would take over the ecclesiastical world.
        A famous quote from de Molina eerily foretells of the Jesuit lie that proceeds from the mouths of “evangelical” leaders today:
        “all human beings are endowed with equal and sufficient divine grace without distinction as to their individual merits, and that salvation depends on the sinner’s willingness to receive grace”. (Concordia, 1588)
        The Catholics say of Molinism:
        “Molinism is an influential system within Catholic theology for reconciling human free choice with God’s grace, providence, foreknowledge and predestination. Originating within the Society of Jesus (The Jesuits) in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, it encountered stiff opposition from Bañezian Thomists and from the self-styled Augustinian disciples of Michael Baius and Cornelius Jansen.” – [Alfred J. Freddoso, Catholic Professor at Notre Dame.] (emphasis added)
        It is clear from history that the Society of Jesus readily accepted Molinism as an effective and efficient tool in the war against Protestantism. That fact has never changed. – source ‘a swarm of locusts’

        more to come……

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Contd…

        The fact that Arminius derived his doctrine wholly from the Jesuits may be one of the worst kept secrets of all time, but if you asked the average pew-sitting pseudo-protestant religionist in America today from where they derived their theology, they would likely tell you,
        “Why, from the Bible, of course”.
        But we live in the age of mass media driven religion. Almost 100% of the pop-theology that pours forth from the pulpits, the television, the radio and “Christian” print media is Arminian and has its roots in the teachings of the Jesuit monk Luis de Molina.
        Augustus Toplady, the great Calvinist hymn writer who wrote ROCK OF AGES said this about the ties between Arminius and the Jesuits:
        “The Jesuits were moulded into a regular body, towards the middle of the sixteenth century: toward the close of the same century, Arminius began to infest the Protestant churches. It needs therefore no great penetration, to discern from what source he drew his poison. His journey to Rome (though Monsicur Bayle affects to make light of the inferences which were at that very time deduced from it) was not for nothing. If, however, any are disposed to believe, that Arminius imbibed his doctrines from the Socinians in Poland, with whom, it is certain, he was on terms of intimate friendship, I have no objection to splitting the difference: he might import some of his tenets from the Racovian brethren, and yet be indebted, for others, to the disciples of Loyola.” (Augustus Toplady – The Road to Rome)
        Just in case you think that tying Arminius to the Jesuits is a concoction contrived by militant Calvinists, let’s consult the Jesuits on the matter. The following quote came from a Jesuit, written in 1628 to the Jesuit Rector at Bruxels, to calm his nerves about an ensuing parliamentary call. The Jesuit writer tells the Rector that he has nothing to worry about, because the Jesuits have planted the seed “arminianisme” and it will certainly come to fruition:
        “March, 1628. Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine (sudden) and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it flourisheth and beares fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritanes, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke’s (of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke’s chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and carefull in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke:–OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISME” [Hidden works of darkness, p. 89, 90. Edit. 1645.] (emphasis added)

        All who adhere to free will are uniting with Rome- in these end times you will embrace Rome and her ‘religion’ because you already approve of her theology.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        RS, you said, [Calvinists read Rom 5:2 (among other passages) backwards so instead of “we have access by faith into this grace” they teach “we have access by grace into this faith”. ]

        Hmm. Never heard that. That doesn’t make sense because Romans 5:1-11 is talking about those who are already justified.

        1 Therefore, having been declared righteous on the principle of faith, we have peace towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 through Whom also we have obtained access into this Divine favor wherein we are standing; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

        The KJV is a bad translation in this regard. It says, “let us” have peace with God, but this passage isn’t about our walk, it’s about our standing. We have peace by the blood of His Cross. And then it says we “have access BY FAITH,” again referring to our walk, but this passage is about our standing. We have Divine favor as a result of having been justified. This is our standing. The words “by faith” are in the TR, but are not in the best manuscripts, and for good reason.

        I firmly believe the doctrines of grace, and I know you don’t, but I wanted to clarify that not all of us who do believe such have had to twist these Scriptures to make our point. Starting with a better translation helps. LOL.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        “I firmly believe the doctrines of grace, and I know you don’t” – so here is the ‘dilemma’. It cannot be both ways, it cannot be free will and total depravity. One is right, the other is wrong. Where is the truth?
        Eph 2:1  And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 
        Eph 2:2  Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 
        Eph 2:3  Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 
        Eph 2:4  But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 
        Eph 2:5  Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 

        Eph 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 
        Eph 2:9  Not of works, lest any man should boast. 

        So, is salvation by grace or by ‘free will’? The above verses tell us, it is by God’s grace.

        Rom 9:16  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 

        It is God, in His mercy, that saves sinners. How tragic that man insists on taking credit for something they are unable to do on their own – exercise their ‘free will’. IF the inner man/heart is crooked, polluted and incurably sick, like Jeremiah 17:9 states, then how is it the ‘will’ can function apart from that? How can the ‘will’ of man all of a sudden not desire darkness/sin and desire Christ, even though the bible states men love darkness? Do you wake up one day and decide you can follow Jesus with no brokenness over your sins? You just make this flippant decision kind of spur of the moment?
        The truth is the bible teaches the human heart must be plowed by God and His truth. We must be given a ‘new heart’ by God, we must be quickened first.
        Eze 36:26  A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 
        Eze 36:27  And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 

        IF you are not born again, you cannot see/understand spiritual truth. This is what the bible teaches in John 3. All who believe they have the ability to accept/reject Christ clearly do not understand God’s truth.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        B, translations aside, I agree with your take on Romans 5:1-2 nevertheless “the doctrines of grace” teach that God’s grace is only towards the elect who were chosen to be in Christ before they are actually in Christ and that Christ propitiated for their sins only and all that Christ died for will be regenerated in order to have faith or will be given faith irresistibly.
        Contrary to the “doctrines of grace” the grace of God is to all just as the condemnation was to all (see Rom 5:18 your choice of translation). Grace, whether concerning our stand or walk, is accessed through or by faith and faith is always contrasted against works. Faith is not meritorious; we never merit God’s grace, therefore it is not necessary to teach that faith is a work.

        That spiritually dead cannot respond to light is a false presupposition not supported by scripture. The spiritually dead cannot sow to the spirit, cannot do works of righteousness of eternal value, but God given revelation that demands a response.

        B, I can’t see how anybody who holds to the hermeneutic that leads to a Dispensational view can uphold the “doctrines of grace” which are derived from a purely deductive approach. For more clarity on my position I would point you to an article on this very point, search Paul Henebury -Dispensationalism and TULIP – A Verdict.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        RS,

        Romans 5
        18 So then, just as [the principle was] through one trespass unto all men to condemnation, even so also [the principle is] through one righteous [or justifying] act unto all men to justification of life. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were set down as sinners, even so, through the obedience of the One shall the many shall be set down as righteous.

        I have no problem with God establishing the fact that no one is saved apart from His one justifying act and that it is available to all. The question is, who will receive the gift? Well, only those who believe. Who can believe? Only those who have faith. Who has faith? Only those to whom it is given by God.

        I know that others who believe the doctrines of grace insist that the gift is not really available to all. I don’t believe that. That’s an extreme view, just as there are more extreme views on the “free will” side that you disagree with. And I don’t pretend to know how it all converges. I think Romans 9 helps to answer that; that is, that God chooses, but we don’t have the right to question those choices. We also don’t have the intellect to understand the fact of God’s sovereignty in convergence with the fact of man’s volition.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        B, Thank you for your answers as well your reasoned tone: Romans 5:18 from the Greek interlinear “therefore through the fall of one [judgment came] on all men to condemnation, so also through the righteous ordinance of one [the gift] comes on all men to justification of life” The gift is not faith or else ALL would have faith because the gift comes on ALL men just as ALL are condemned. The gift is justification to life and of course is only received through faith. Faith is the responsibility of the person to respond correctly to the light (revelation) from God Who controls the light. God does not respond fort us!

        All 5 points of TULIP are the “doctrines of grace”. They hold together or fall together and that is not me saying it is what is taught concerning the “doctrines of grace”. That I have in common some beliefs with certain points of the “doctrines of grace” does not mean I uphold the “doctrines of grace” anymore than being a Trinitarian makes me a Roman Catholic.

        God is sovereign the Calvinist is not. I don’t accept their “way it has to be” especially since it’s not the way scripture says it is. I may be wrong about this but I get the impression you are calling something different the “doctrines of grace” than what is taught by “doctrines of grace”.

        Like

    • Darrel says:

      “The invitation is open for all who choose to believe in Jesus.” A very bold, but incorrect statement according to Scripture: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you…” John 15:16 Also, “…And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” Acts 13:48; and “who were born, not of blood (heredity), nor of the will (one’s free-will) of the flesh, nor of the will of man (follow the given formula) but of God. Eph. 2 :1 ” And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” [Not only does a man’s “free-will” escape the curse pronounced on Adam and the entire human race, but now we are treated to the fact that God lied and man did not really die on the day he ate the forbidden fruit.] When conjuring up your wishful thinking ‘gospel’ you have two choices when it comes to the use (or lack thereof) of the Word of God: 1) leave out and /or ignore those pesky verses that totally destroy the Arminian heresy of “free-will”; 2) twist (mutilate unto meaningless oblivion) those that suit your “free-will” choice to mock God.

      There have been only three humans that possessed a truly free will, Adam, Eve, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Eve chose the lies of the serpent over the Word of God (this goes on all day, every day in ‘religious’ circles); Adam “exercised his free will” to rebel against his Creator. “Adam was not deceived…” 1 Tim. 2:14. The free will of Adam and Eve died as they ate the forbidden fruit, either that or God is proven to be a liar, if their free will did not die. Are you ready to call God a liar? The free will of the Lord Jesus Christ was ALWAYS in submission to the will of His Father. How many times did Christ say “Not My will, Thine be done?”

      There are most definitely two “gospels” being presented in this thread; one is the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the other is the “another gospel” of Gal. 1:6-9 where a man’s “free-will” is an indispensable part, the determining factor, as to whether a man is saved or not (God’s Sovereign choice notwithstanding). It is the gospel born of the heresy of Cain—I will come to God on my own terms—perpetuated through the ages by many a rebellious fool, cemented in the dogmas of the RCC, and helped along in America by Charles Finney who, by his own mouth, admitted that he and his ‘gospel’ of free-will was a dismal failure. There are a few books that would help you to see the fallacy of the Arminian heresy and the Truth of the Grace of God. Arthur Pink wrote two: “The Attributes of God” and the “Sovereignty of God” available on line and in print. John Owen wrote “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.” Owen completely dismantles all the arguments of his day that mock the Sacrifice and Resurrection of the Savior by the addition of man’s “free-will”.

      Some have said that the exercise of one’s “free-will” is not to be considered a “work” but a part of their “innate” faith that somehow survived the curse of the fall—just like their ‘free-will’ survived. But the Word says that faith is the “gift of God” (Eph. 2:8); so which is it, an innate human trait possessed by all the human race or a gift from God? This is just another Arminian lie produced to circumnavigate the Word, the same Word that places the Sovereign Lord in charge of who is saved and who is damned. The exercise of one’s “free-will” can only produce sin and cannot escape the designation as a work of the flesh, it is a WORK, or it does not exist at all. Rom. 11:5 & 6: “Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant ACCORDING TO THE ELECTION OF GRACE. And if by GRACE, then it is no longer of WORKS; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; other wise work is no longer work.” If a person can be “saved” by the action of his “free-will” he has no need of grace; and if he has no need of grace how can he be saved? May the Lord open your eyes.

      Like

    • berlorac says:

      Cheryl, you said, [To each God gives a measure of faith.] Paul said this to the Christians at Rome (Romans 12:6) in regard to exercising the gifts the Spirit had given them. Your comment leads me to infer that you believe God has given everyone a measure of faith. Nowhere does the Bible say that ALL MEN are given a measure of faith.

      Like

    • lyn says:

      All who chose to believe? Where is biblical support for this?
      The ‘Roman Road’ that so many trot out as all that is needed to be saved needs to be studied in light of other verses, like Eph. 2:1, where God states we are dead in sin and He quickens, or 2 Thess. 2:13, where God states He chooses, not the other way around. This false, shallow free will heresy is so deeply embedded in ‘Christianity’ and has led so many down the broad road, as they base their salvation on their choice.
      The command is to repent and believe, it does not say you can choose. All choose sin.
      (Joh 3:19)  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
      Here is the judgment of God, and why this judgment looms over sinners: men ‘love’ darkness. To ‘love’ here means ‘take pleasure in, long for , to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly’. This love goes down deep and has a firm grasp on every sinner. Commentary from David Guzik says it nicely, “What keeps people from belief in Jesus and salvation? It is sin, or is it unbelief? Really it is both, because people will not believe because they love their sin.” This is from Matthew Henry, “Wretched man is in love with his sickness, in love with his slavery, and will not be made free, will not be made whole. [3.] The true reason why men love darkness rather than light is because their deeds are evil. They love darkness because they think it is an excuse for their evil deeds, and they hate the light because it robs them of the good opinion they had of themselves, by showing them their sinfulness and misery.” Christ and His gospel exposes the sins of man, confronts the sinner straightforward and demands him/her to leave their sins. They must part with what it is they love the most. They are confronted by God and His Christ concerning their heinous rebellion and they will never part from this natural love of sin apart from God’s mercy and power bringing them to Himself.
      Coming to the light condemns the sinner, for their deeds are evil. They know their deeds are evil so they avoid the light, thus, they think they can avoid condemnation. The conscience testifies against them, so they silence their conscience. Creation cries out against sinners, so they deny the Creator and uphold a lie – evolution. Sinners know murder is a sin, so they slaughter the unborn for the sake of ‘women’s rights’. Sinners know homosexuality is wrong, so they call it ‘gay’. Sinners know marriage is supposed to be a man and a woman, so they re-define marriage and usurp the authority of the most High God. Sinners know idolatry is wrong, so they suppress the truth of God’s word and fashion multiple ‘gods’ to worship, including the ‘god’ of self. Sinners love their darkness – and the more they suppress God’s truth, the deeper into that darkness they go. They will never come to the light; to Christ and His gospel truth, ‘lest his deeds should be reproved’ [vs. 20] – or ‘  reprove, rebuke, discipline, expose, show to be guilty’
      Here is the Thayer Definition of ‘reproved’:
      1) to convict, refute, confute
      1a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted
      1b) by conviction to bring to the light, to expose
      2) to find fault with, correct
      2a) by word
      2a1) to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove
      2a2) to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation
      2b) by deed
      2b1) to chasten, to punish
      The sin nature does NOT want to be confronted by a thrice holy God. The doctrine of ‘free will’ refuses to acknowledge this truth. Sinners will never come to Christ because the will of man is bent on darkness and hates the light.
      This is why earlier in this chapter the Lord told Nicodemus ‘ye must be born again’. It is this new birth, being ‘born from above’ that enables the sinner to ‘see’, to comprehend, understand, discern Christ and His gospel.
      Joh 8:34  Jesus answered them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin”. How can someone who is in bondage make a spiritual decision to accept Christ? What the free will theology does is rob God the Spirit of His ministerial work – the new birth. Man can simply make his own decision, according to ‘free will’. If that were true, then why would anyone choose to reject Christ and face eternal wrath? No free willer has ever been able to tackle that question rightly.

      Like

  9. lyn says:

    Robert,

    You say “Believing in Jesus Christ’s Gospel is not a work, it is a God-given belief; a belief of which a person may accept or reject by free will.” Where does the text from Eph. 2:8-9 state that? Simple – it doesn’t. You are adding to God’s word something it does not say nor imply.

    Are you aware the phrase ‘and that’ is a neuter demonstrative pronoun – it does not match in gender or number ‘faith’ ‘salvation’ or ‘grace’. This was done purposely by the writer because he was not trying to point to any one thing – the phrase ‘and that’ refers to all that precedes it – ‘faith, grace, salvation’ are what? ‘ a gift of God’. Some inject ‘you can accept or reject this gift’ into the equation – again, the text does not say that, so why does man say it if God does not?

    Another question, have you studied Jeremiah 17:9? ” The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
    What does ‘heart’ refer to? “inner man, mind, will, heart” source – http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3820.htm
    The whole ‘inner man’ which includes the will is referenced to here, so what about the heart/will? The text said it is ‘deceitful- meaning ‘crooked, polluted’. The will/inner man is also ‘desperately wicked’ – meaning ‘incurable, sick’. Can you explain how the will, which is polluted, crooked, incurably sick with the disease of sin and in bondage to sin, can determine the need, on its own accord, to ‘accept’ Jesus? The Bible does not teach free will at all.

    As for hearing the ‘true gospel’, when you attach anything to the gospel, it’s no longer ‘true’. When you coerce sinners to ‘come forward’, like Billy Graham does, then you are using fleshly means in an attempt to ‘save’ people.

    All God calls and draws {see John 6:44} come – why? Because the Spirit of God works as the wind and re-births them {see John 3}. They are brought out of darkness into the light by the power of the true Gospel and by the Spirit of God, as well as the drawing power of God the Father.
    IF you are using the ‘invitation’ method to coerce sinners, playing music, asking heads to be bowed, then you are adding the to the Gospel something it does not state to add.

    “So, the way I see it…man is responsible for either accepting the truth that God has put in his heart or rejecting it. Accepting TRUTH is nor a “Work.” There is not a verse in all of the bible that states man has this ability to accept or reject. From 1 Cor. 2:14 – But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. The Apostle Paul clearly states those in their natural state, in bondage to sin and loving that bondage, cannot understand spiritual things. Yet, you claim those in this natural state can by simply making a ‘decision’. It is clear from this passage alone the Bible proves you wrong.

    Take note- I never even mentioned ‘Calvin’ – what I did do was rightly divide the word of God – not adding to it nor taking from it. All who preach sinners have a ‘choice’ are leading them into a false sense of salvation. I suggest you get on your knees and cry out to God for understanding, and stop shunning His truth and labeling that truth as ‘Calvinism’.

    Like

  10. Darrel says:

    There is another component that the Arminian/Free Willers (AFW) leave out of their discussions and that is repentance. What is it? Where does it come from? How do I know whether or not I have really repented? Why do the AFW’s leave this out of their “gospel” presentations? Strong’s defines repentance: “to change any or all of the elements composing one’s life; attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors concerning the demands of God for right living” found here: Matt. 3:2;Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3 & 5 and elsewhere. It is far more than a simple regret, usually the ‘regret’ exhibited is because ‘you got caught’, not because ‘you have hurt God’ by your sins. Do you want to know if the repentance you claim to have experienced is genuine? Do you hate the sin that you once took great pleasure in? Is the thought of returning to your former pleasures a repugnant thing to you, or do you seek to somehow “pull a fast one” on God and return to your old ways as if He does not see and know your every thought and action? Has repentance produced the Biblical fruit in you as found in 2 Cor. 7:10 & 11? The AFW’s leave repentance out of their ‘gospel’ because it is impossible to fake the genuine article as found in 2 Cor.; their own mouth betrays them nearly every time they speak.

    So where does repentance originate? The AFW’s would have you believe that it comes from the same well of innate faith that “got you saved” in the first place. All they can produce is more “wishful thinking theology” with no Scripture reference at all—because there is NONE. Repentance is a gift from God, just like faith to believe is a gift, and grace to receive all the blessings of salvation is a gift. Start with Acts 11:48 and dig into your concordance for more. Further, the AFW’s leave repentance out because it produces brokenness, at the time of salvation and continually throughout a believer’s life. Brokenness and humility are not compatible with arrogance necessary to maintain the “free-will” mantra. Repentance raises too many questions for which they have no answers. Is it not the Goodness of God that leads a man to repentance? Rom. 2:4. Of course it is, nothing more; nothing less. If repentance and therefore salvation can be acquired by simple seeking it why was Esau denied both? Heb. 12:16 & 17. He had the tears of sincerity, but not the GIFT from God because God CHOSE not to give it to him no matter how much he sought it which correlates to Rom. 9:10-13. Esau was not chosen for salvation. Period. Judas may have shown remorse for betraying Christ, but Jesus called him the ‘son of perdition’ and ‘devil’ (John 17:12 & 6:70) who would not, could receive the gift of repentance, but the AFW lie is that Judas could have repented if only he had chosen to do so.

    Cherish the gift of repentance just like all the other gifts we have received at His hand. It will bring grief and pain and many a tear, but there is always joy in the morning as His forgiveness is realized, fellowship is restored, brokenness and humility increased, and gratitude breaks in like a flood, and joy, oh the joy unspeakable and full of glory! Praise Him, you chosen of God!!!

    Like

    • lyn says:

      Yes Darrel, repentance is a lost doctrine. They don’t see it necessary to mention repentance, even though our Lord said He came to call sinners to repentance. How sad that so many cherry pick their bibles to fit a theology that originated from Satan and advanced by his minions like Arminius, the Jesuits and the RCC, not to mention many SBC churches as well. Only our Lord can open ears to His truth, most are dead set in their ‘belief’ and refuse to hear. They just label His truth as ‘Calvinism’ and write that truth off. How sad the Holy Spirit’s writings are accredited to a mortal man.

      Like

  11. Sheryl says:

    People diminish the sovereignty of God in His creatures (human beings) and exalt man’s “free will” ability to choose Jesus as Savior. Man is “DEAD in trespasses and sins.” Spiritually dead people cannot respond to anything. God is the One Who “calls” men to life, those the Father has chosen to give to His Son before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) , the vessels of mercy (Romans 9:23). Once you come to understand the doctrines of grace and that God chose you in Christ Jesus as a vessel of mercy to receive the gift of His salvation, God is greatly magnified as you realize that He could have passed over you as He did many others as “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction” (Romans 9:22). We’ve been fed “God loves everyone.” No, He doesn’t. He has set His love on the beloved, those chosen by Him unto salvation before we even existed. God hardens the hearts that He will (Romans 9:18). And the beloved come to Jesus at our appointed time to receive our gift of salvation because we were chosen to do so – that’s why we’re not turned away.

    We did not choose God, but God chose us (John 15:16). Because of original sin, EVERY human being is separated from a Holy God and on their way to hell with no ability nor desire to change their situation. If God did not choose some out of mankind, then there would be no human beings to populate heaven and give glory to His Son. God is glorified both by the forgiveness of “few” and the destruction of “many.”

    We all know that when someone gives another a gift, the giver of that gift decides what the gift is, who will receive it, when they will receive it and they are not obligated to give everyone else the same gift in order to be fair. And the receiver of the gift has not done anything to earn it nor asked to receive it…they simply accept it with gratitude. People can logically reason this when it comes to other humans, but they do not allow that God is fair nor capable of doing the same thing with what belongs to Him.

    I am thankful for the doctrine of grace. It magnifies God, humbles men and assures God’s elect of their salvation because Christ died to redeem them alone, and therefore everyone of them is assured to make it to heaven, resting on the completed, finished work of Christ on the cross. If you want to risk believing in your own free will to obtain salvation and then depend on your good works from now till you die and hope you’ve done enough to get yourself in right standing before God, then you will never have the peace of confidently knowing, “It is well with my soul.”

    Like

  12. SusanJ says:

    I am sure there is not one person who comes to this website who does not believe that salvation is all of God and HE alone is to receive the glory and praise and rejoicing when a sinner is saved and transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of his dear son.

    It is easy to talk in theory of what happens or should not happen but regarding the subject of the sinners prayer, I have a genuine question for those who comment here. When you have shared the gospel in church or personally with a friend, relative, neighbour etc and told them of the free offer of salvation and they ask – what do I have to do? then what was your next response in your interactions with that person who is serious about their need for salvation? And how did they respond?

    Like

    • berlorac says:

      Hi SusanJ, you said, [I am sure there is not one person who comes to this website who does not believe that salvation is all of God…..It is easy to talk in theory]. I think, in theory, that you are right, everyone who comes here believes that salvation is all of God. But in reality, it’s not true. Several times, we’ve seen people insist that one must do something to be saved in addition to believe the Gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Like water baptism, or taking the “eucharist.”

      [When you have shared the gospel…they ask – what do I have to do?] That used to be the case for me. Twenty years ago, when I was saved, I could tell people about the Lord and they were at least somewhat open to talking about it and asking questions. Now, no one wants to know. Just recently, I asked a couple if they knew the Lord Jesus Christ. The man sort of got sheepish and said, “No.” And his wife said, “And I don’t want to!” as she walked away. A lot of animosity these days.

      Yeah, if someone asks what they should do after hearing the Gospel, I say, “believe what you’ve just heard.”

      Like

      • SusanJ says:

        Thank you for your reply Berlorac. I agree it can very difficult to be sharing the gospel today and there is much animosity and it does take boldness. But we must not grow weary in it.

        I do get encouragements. I often go on the train to get grandchildren from the next city. It is only a 12-18 minute journey so I do not have long but I ask the Lord for someone to talk to or give a gospel leaflet to. And I could share some amazing stories. Recently it was a young man from another country who had got on the wrong train. I helped him and showed him how to get on the right train to his destination. Went to collect my grandson and when I arrived back 15 minutes later to get my return train, he was there still waiting. (Two trains had departed that he could have got!) He followed me on and ASKED to sit with us. He was very open and chatty, even loudly! I reached in to the bag pocket for some literature and I had a gospel of John and a booklet on atheism so gave him both. He opened up the gospel and said – “wow my name is John and you gave me something to read of the same name”. He began to read (loudly) In the beginning was the Word and the Word was….. I stopped him and said – you notice that Word is capitalised. This booklet is going to tell you about that person.

        The above story is what I call ‘seed sowing’ and have to leave the rest to God for it is very unlikely I will meet him again. It may happen but I would not expect to have enough time to clearly present the gospel. Then there are those we teach evangelistically and that often takes weeks and months of slow clear teaching, explanation, urging. Some years ago I helped my husband with a group of teens. cross-culturally, slowly from “In the beginning God…..” When we finally had covered the death burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus we urged and pleaded with them to believe what they had heard. As you said above and as the apostle Paul did. For most of them it was even – but how do we ‘believe’?. And further explanation was needed. And several of them did accept the message and take the free gift of salvation. All praise and glory to God. And they grew and did well as we continued to ‘make disciples’.

        I fear this will get too long but another example, and to God be the glory. A few weeks ago, we invited a couple of 70 who we have know for some years, to a gospel meeting. I know the wife has been saved many years but this her second husband she would say was not a believer. At the end I felt compelled to use the opportunity to challenge him about where he was spiritually. There followed an honest and open conversation and I urged him to receive this wonderful offer of salvation. Again he asked what he had to do. Again I explained there was nothing to do but to believe to accept. Do you want that? Forgiveness of sins, eternal life, peace with God etc? Yes. Do you want that NOW? And he hesitated. I was disappointed at his hesitation. (A mutual friend had nearly died just days previously and the brevity of life had come to all of us.) There was more to the conversation but he did ask me to speak again with him. He had admitted that he acts like a christian but is not. (he takes bread and wine, helps in cleaning the church etc) Two weeks later we invited them to our house for coffee. My husband took up where we had left off. The man said he had been challenged from our conversation and had thought it over and was ready to commit his life. Husband told him – at this point we are talking about you accepting what God offers us in Christ. Summary, yes he did. And we encouraged him either with us or at home to talk to God about it all. There and then he closed his eyes and told God he had sinned and was a sinner and thanked HIM for forgiveness of sins and eternal life. I cannot see or know a man’s heart. Only God knows. But we trust that at that very moment he became a child of God. PRAISE HIM.

        I suppose that was sort of a ‘sinners prayer’.

        I fail many times and do not speak up when I should but I have seen the power of the gospel at work and am not ashamed of it.

        Like

    • lyn says:

      IF they ask ‘what do I have to do?’ then it could be the Spirit is working in them. What does the Bible say? That is the guideline for ‘evangelizing’ isn’t it? What did Peter say when asked ‘what must we do to be saved’? Did he tell them to repeat a prayer, invite Jesus into their heart, or make a decision for Christ?

      Act 2:37  Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 
      Act 2:38  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
      Repent is a verb, in the aorist imperative active mood. The imperative mood is a command or instruction given to the hearer, charging the hearer to carry out or perform a certain action; it is not presented as a ‘choice’. IF the Spirit is working, as ‘pricked in their heart’ suggests, and as the question, ‘men and brethren what shall we do?’ indicates, then the sinner will in fact flee to Christ – this fleeing caused by the work of God the Spirit combined with hearing God’s truth preached – nothing added, no method, no coercing. It is the Gospel that has the power to save, nothing needs to be added to that. This is what many do not understand, they think they must prompt the sinner with suggestions, like repeating prayers, making decisions, etc.
      What caused them to be ‘pricked in their heart’?

      Can anyone provide scripture examples where a sinner was told to accept Jesus, invite Him into their heart, or make a decision for Him? Where did Christ or any of the disciples use this ‘method’ of evangelism?

      Like

      • berlorac says:

        Hi lyn,

        There are a couple of things to notice in this passage in Acts 2.

        First, the question was not, “What must we do to be saved?” It was, “What must we do?” They asked the question in response to what Peter had just told them about crucifying the Messiah. “What must we do?” The answer is that they must repent and be baptized.

        So, the second thing to notice is this baptism. Do you believe that we must be water baptized to be saved? I hope not. But how can you, on the one hand, quote this verse from Peter in Acts 2, but also say, on the other hand, that one does not have to add to faith by consenting to the work of water baptism? Hint: This is where it helps to be a dispensationalist. 🙂

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Did you notice ‘they were pricked in their heart’? Why ? what caused this? Reading Peter’s sermon helps to get the right context. They asked ‘what must we do’, they were under conviction, and cried out. What must we do references to being saved does it not? It appears you think otherwise. If it was not a reference to being saved, then why the command to repent?

        “What shall we do? – What shall we do to avoid the wrath of this crucified and exalted Messiah? They were apprehensive of his vengeance, and they wished to know how to avoid it. Never was a more important question asked than this. It is the question which all convicted sinners ask. It implies an apprehension of danger, a sense of guilt, and a readiness to “yield the will” to the claims of God. This was the same question asked by Paul Act_9:6, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” and by the jailor Act_16:30 “He …came, trembling, …and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” – Albert Barnes

        As for water baptism, where did I state I believed water baptism was a necessity to being saved? I don’t believe Peter was adding baptism as a means to be saved either. Not sure why you think being a ‘dispensationalist’ gives you a one up on the right view of baptism.
        BTW, I am not an amillenialist.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        Lyn, Peter said, “God has made Him both Lord and Messiah, this Yeshua Whom you crucified.” Yes, this statement affected the people. We may assume they were looking for deliverance from wrath for having crucified Him, but it doesn’t say that. And it doesn’t say that they were wondering how to gain eternal life. They didn’t ask, “What shall we do to be saved?” They asked, “What shall we do?” About what? Having crucified the Messiah, the One Who had come to restore the Kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6).

        It may be true that they were looking for deliverance from wrath. If this is true, as you say, then it’s important to look at Peter’s answer. “Repent and be baptized…unto the remission of your sins…” Peter says they couldn’t be forgiven of their sins unless they repented and were baptized. You don’t believe that Peter was adding baptism as a means to be saved, but this IS his answer. You believe the question was, “What must we do to be saved?” Peter’s answer was, “Repent and be baptized unto remission of sins.” He doesn’t say, “Repent unto remission of sins, and then be baptized when you get a chance,” as if baptism were optional, or as if baptism was only something you do after you’re forgiven of sins.

        Peter says, repent and be baptized (two things you must DO) unto remission, and then you will receive the Holy Spirit. Contrast this with the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:30-31. He asks Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved?” And they said to him, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved…” Paul doesn’t say, “Repent and be baptized.” Believing on the Lord IS repentance. Those who insist on baptism as a requirement for remission of sins use Acts 2:38, along with Mark 16:16.

        My point about dispensationalism is that there is no inconsistency between Acts 2:38 and Acts 16:30-31 because we recognize the difference between what God was doing among the Jews through the Twelve, and what He was doing among the Gentiles through Paul. It’s okay that Peter said one thing and Paul said another. Perhaps you don’t see a difference between those two verses and, if not, I would ask you to explain. Either you have to subtract words from one verse or add words to the other.

        And it’s good that you’re not Amill.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        lyn, let me add this. The vast majority of Jews didn’t have any concept of dying and going to Heaven. Eternal life was not explicitly taught in the OT. The Sadducees had no belief in resurrection, or a world (or age) to come. The Pharisees, on the other hand, did believe in resurrection and the earthly Kingdom in the age to come. They would have been the ones concerned about how their guilt in the crucifixion of the Messiah would affect their admission into the earthly Kingdom. Certainly, the Law condemned murderers to death if the murder was willful, or premeditated (Exodus 21:12, 14; Leviticus 24:17, 21; Numbers 35:16–21; Deuteronomy 19:11). However, accidental or unpremeditated killing garnered only banishment to a city of refuge (Exodus 21:13; Numbers 35:22-23; Deuteronomy 19:4–6).

        So, there could have been any number of thoughts that would have pricked the hearts of these men. Peter pronounces them guilty; they hadn’t previously seen themselves in that way. After all, it was the Romans who did it. But now, they realize they are complicit, but to what extent? And notice that Peter nowhere in Acts 2 says anything about eternal life in Heaven; rather, he tells them, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation (people)” (Acts 2:40). If they repented and were baptized, they were forgiven their sins.

        I’m not saying baptism saved them; what I’m saying is that obedience unto faith for the Jews at this time included baptism. Faith saved them, but without baptism, they would show that they didn’t really have faith. They had to be baptized. In the same way, prior to the Cross, the Jew couldn’t say he had faith but then neglect to participate in the Ceremonial Law (the sacrifices and offerings). Those who didn’t participate were the “sinners.” And now, post-Cross, they had to be baptized as their declaration of faith.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        berlorac,

        Not sure what your point is, are you claiming that baptism is necessary for Jews?

        I disagree with this “Believing on the Lord IS repentance. ”
        I will add this concerning repentance, three Greek words are used in the New Testament which present different phases of repentance. First, metanoeo, which means a change of mind (Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:15, etc.). Second, metanolomai which means a change of heart (Matt. 21:29, 32; Heb. 7:21, etc.). Third, metanoia, which means a change of course or life (Matt. 3:8; 9:13; Acts 20:21). The three must go together for a genuine repentance. Also, repentance is given by God as well – ‘When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.’ Acts 11:18
        Forsaking sin and turning from it is repentance.

        Now, concerning baptism, notice this verse from Mark 16:16  ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.’ It doesn’t say ‘he that believeth not and is NOT baptized’. Is this text for Gentiles only? NO.
        I don’t agree that only Jews were to be baptized in Acts 2:38.
        What do you do with this? -Act 10:45  And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
        Act 10:46  For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 
        Act 10:47  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 
        Act 10:48  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. 
        I notice this baptism was for Gentiles, and that it was after they’d received the gift of the Holy Ghost, indicating it was not necessary to save, but in addition to salvation.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        Hi lyn,

        [are you claiming that baptism is necessary for Jews?] No, not in this dispensation. What God was doing, especially between the Cross and Stephen’s martyrdom, was preparing Jews for the coming of the earthly Kingdom. Even after Stephen, God was sending the Twelve to Jews only (Galatians 2:1-9; cf. Acts 15). Peter’s meeting with Cornelius went against everything Peter believed because he thought he was still under the Law (even 10 years after the Cross) and, since Cornelius was a Gentile, Peter couldn’t set foot in the man’s house. Notice how upset the Jewish believers were back in Jerusalem that Peter “broke the Law” (Acts 11).

        Yes, you’re right, Cornelius’ house believed and received the Spirit without being baptized. They were Gentiles. This was something that Peter needed to see, an event which showed him that God was no respecter of persons and was now saving Gentiles, apart from Judaism, apart from the ordinance of baptism, and even apart from circumcision. All of this would stick in Peter’s mind, so that some 12 years later at the Jerusalem Council (of Acts 15, Galatians 2), he could recall what happened with the Gentile Cornelius and so concur that Paul was right: the Gentiles could be saved without being circumcised first or even being baptized first.

        With the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, it was clear to all the Jewish believers that God really was done with the Law, something many of them had a hard time believing. During those 40 years, beginning with Stephen’s martyrdom in AD 30, God was working through the Twelve to minister to Jews, a sort of testing not unlike what happened after the Israelites rejected the testimony of Joshua and Caleb (resulting in 40 years in the wilderness).

        God was using baptism to mark out the Remnant from the unbelieving Israel. That period is over. Whatever God was doing in those early years among the Judean Jews is something we may never fully understand. But I do know that there was a difference between what Peter said to the Jews in Acts 2:38 and what Paul said to the Gentiles in Acts 16:31.

        My point was that if I shared the Gospel with someone and they asked me what they should do, I would never say, “repent and be baptized.” I would say, “believe.” It is up to the Holy Spirit to convict, and open eyes and ears and hearts, and if someone is born again, it’s not because they were baptized, but because they believed the Gospel.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Berlorac,

        It seems we will have to disagree on this, for not speaking of repentance is not found in the bible.

        For the teachings of the prophets see Psalm 32:3-5; Proverbs 28:13; Jeremiah 4:4, Ezekiel 18:30-32, Hosea 5:15, Joel 2:12-13. John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, preached saying, “Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). This was as though he said, “Such is the nature of the Messiah’s kingdom, so holy is it, that no impenitent inner, while such, can be a member of it and share its blessings. The promised One is on the eve of making His appearance: therefore repent ye, and thus be prepared to receive Him.” Thus did John preach, and many did he turn unto the Lord their God (Luke 1:16-17).

        The Lord Jesus taught and constantly pressed the same truth. His call was, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15): the gospel cannot be savingly believed until there is genuine repentance—as the ground must be ploughed before it is capable of receiving the seed, so the heart must be melted ere it will welcome the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Therefore did He declare, “Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matt. 5:4), and announce that He had been sent “to heal the broken-hearted” (Luke 4:18). He came here to “call sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32), and insisted that “except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3, 5). He illustrated this truth at length in the parable of the prodigal son, who “came to himself,” repented, left the “far country,” returned to the Father, and so obtained His forgiveness (Luke 15:17-20) from A.W. Pink’s ‘doctrine of repentance’.

        I see now why you think dispensationalism helps to understand baptism – if this is the case, I am not a dispensationalist at all. For I do not see Acts 2:38 as God using baptism to mark out the remnant of Israel, especially when we find the command for baptism, not as a means to be saved, but after one is saved, throughout scripture – like the verses I gave from Acts 10:48. I understand the need to claim this because you do not see baptism as a means of being saved…and neither do I. But that does not mean you negate the command given from Acts 10:48, ” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. ” You cannot ignore this, nor can you white it out. We both know baptism is not necessary to save, but it is an ordinance found in the N.T.

        Now, our Lord commands sinners everywhere to repent, and you claim we should not speak of repentance if someone asks ‘what must I do’? It would seem you take away from the whole counsel and avoid an essential biblical truth.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        lyn, I don’t want to beat this to death, but I will point out that all of what Pink said regarding repentance (that you quoted above) was in reference to Israel under the Law. Israel’s Law was suited to the flesh; grace is suited to the spirit. The Israelites spurned God’s grace and instead told God that they would obey all His commands (Exodus 19). Dumb thing to say! They were confident in the flesh, confident that they could obey, and so God gave them what they asked for. The Law came to show them the true nature of the flesh, to make sin fully apparent, to show them how they would constantly fail when relying on their own strength rather than rest in God’s grace.

        Under the Law, which spelled out all that God expected of them, the Jews were required to repent when they trespassed the Law. They were to bring sacrifices and offerings. When the Messiah came, He upheld the Law and required repentance, but at the same time, He began to show them glimpses of the New Covenant in grace that would be instituted in the earthly Kingdom. Until then, though, the Jews had to continue to obey the Law, part of which was repentance and sacrifices and offerings. Even after the Cross, the Twelve were still keeping the Law, and so commanded repentance.

        Baptism was part of the ordinances of the Law (see Leviticus). Jews were to be immersed in water for cleansing from sin and had to do so to participate in Temple worship. It is no wonder, then, that Peter (being Jewish and still keeping the Law) commanded that Cornelius be water baptized. Who was Cornelius to say no? He didn’t know that the Law had ended.

        But then baptism became symbolic as Christianity spread. We now understand that we are not under the Law and so we are not fulfilling a command to be baptized. Now we understand that water baptism is a picture of what Christ has already done at the Cross, not what we must do to be cleansed.

        Like

      • Lyn says:

        Berlorac,

        I disagree with your take on Pink’s statements concerning repentance, I know he was not a dispensationalist. I also disagree with your view on repentance – your theology is strange to me because it goes against verses like God commanding sinners everywhere to repent, and commanding baptism as well – again, NOT to be saved. A lot of what you said seems to be your opinion/commentary on baptism pertaining only to the Jews. If being a ‘dispensationalist’ means I must ignore clear texts like the ones I gave concerning baptism and repentance, then I must and do reject the dispensationalist view.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        [I disagree with your take on Pink’s statements concerning repentance,] Well, all I did was look at the verses that Pink referenced and every single one of them was spoken of Jews under the Law. He only quoted from the OT Prophets to Israel and then Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the narratives which concern, primarily, Christ’s as minister of the Circumcision (Romans 15:8; Galatians 4:4-5). You can say that it’s just my opinion, but I’m keeping things in context, using Scripture.

        [verses like God commanding sinners everywhere to repent]. Yes, but repentance now is believing the Gospel. Now that Christ has come and has borne our sins in His own body, there is only one sin of which to repent and that is unbelief concerning Christ (John 16:8-9). That is the one repentance that counts for life. Once someone is born again, he can, in the light of the Spirit, further examine his life and repent as needed.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        “Yes, but repentance now is believing the Gospel.” No, it is not. Your claim that the only sin needed to be repented of is unbelief. So, the ‘gay Christian’ is going to heaven, even though they continue in their abomination because, after all, they ‘believe’ right? This is where your theology leads. The chief sin the world is guilty of is unbelief, but that is not the only sin the world is guilty of, which is why I gave the example of the homosexual who claims to be Christian because they say they believe in Jesus. You would have to tell them they are going to heaven because they have repented of ‘unbelief’ right? Yet, 1 Cor. 6:9-11 states otherwise.

        As for baptism, Christ commands this, ‘Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ ‘Nation’ – from the Greek ‘ethnos’ meaning a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): – Gentile, heathen, nation, people. This text alone dismantles your dispensational view on baptism being only for Jews.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        You can read Pink’s study on dispensationalism at pbministries. DOTorg/books/pink/Dispensationalism/index.htm

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Berlorac,

        This sounds like your belief system -gotquestionsDOTorg/ultra-dispensationalism.html

        From the above link – “According to ultra-dispensationalism, the four Gospels are for Jews only and have no bearing on the church. The book of Acts deals with a different “church” and not the body of Christ. Only the Prison Epistles of Paul are directed to the body of Christ or “mystery” church. Not even the book of Revelation addresses the church—the letters to the seven churches are written to the “Jewish” church of the tribulation. Also, most ultra-dispensationalists reject the ordinances of the church: water baptism and the Lord’s Supper were for the “Hebrew” church.

        The greatest problem with ultra-dispensationalism is not its teaching about when the church began but the many other errors that come from its approach to Scripture. For example, at the heart of most forms of ultra-dispensationalism is the belief that Paul preached a different gospel from what the other apostles taught. Other false doctrines common in some forms of ultra-dispensationalism include soul sleep and annihilationism. Still others proclaim a brand of universalism that grants salvation even to Satan himself. Without a doubt, whatever name ultra-dispensationalism goes by, it is a dangerous error that almost always leads to other, even worse errors.

        H. A. Ironside, a strong dispensationalist himself, wrote a good booklet outlining some of the dangers of ultra-dispensationalism. In it he says that he has “no hesitancy in saying that [ultra-dispensationalism’s] fruits are evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands; it has divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth” (Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, chapter 1, Loizeaux Brothers, 1938).

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        lyn,

        [Your claim that the only sin needed to be repented of is unbelief. So, the ‘gay Christian’ is going to heaven, even though they continue in their abomination because, after all, they ‘believe’ right?]

        You’ve put words in my mouth. Please re-read what I said. How can someone who is spiritually dead repent of homosexuality or idolatry or anything else BEFORE he is born again?

        To be born again, one only need believe the Gospel that Christ died for sins, was buried, and rose from the dead three days later in a flesh and bones body. Period.

        The one who is born again receives the Holy Spirit Who will convict the believer of any other sins at which time the believer will repent. No one can repent of a sin of which he is unaware.

        You seem to be adding to the Gospel. You’re saying, “believe the death, burial, and resurrection, AND repent of all sins and THEN you can be saved.” That would leave out pretty much everyone in the NT.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        No, I’m not an ultra-dispensationalist. You could’ve just asked without pasting in all that text. I have several of Ironside’s books, but not that one. He was a dispensationalist.

        Like

      • SusanJ says:

        Lyn, thank you for responding but you really did not answer what I asked. I KNOW the Bible gives us the guideline. You just repeated more of the same as already stated earlier. I would have liked to have read practically what you do and say in sharing the gospel and urging lost sinners.

        You asked me about Peter’s response to those who asked what they must do “to be saved”. But I see Berlorac has answered you while I have been away and would basically answer the same way, the context being Jews who had consented to crucifying their Messiah. As I have done for many years I continue to mull over and study the full package of “repent and believe”.

        Honestly Lyn, I am not very good with grammar but again was not looking for a grammar lesson from you or wherever you copied and pasted from. When I have to work on grammar related stuff (as I do in my ministry) I approach it practically. And also can I say – practically I have often been in active imperative mood with my children and now my grandchildren. ” Eat your dinner now.” I expect them do that, and finish it all up. Now rather than later. ” Go to sleep now”. ” Do not touch that.” “Do not go there.” “Let’s get you you your medicine”. As a loving caring responsible adult with many years of experience I know what is good and not so good and sometimes dangerous for the little ones under my care. And I do everything in my power with persuasion and urging to help them follow through. But bottom line is they have choices to make and do so. God made human beings that way.

        Like Robert, I do not want to get in to debate with you although could capably come back to you on all the same questions and verses you (and Darrel) repeat over and over. There are enough doing that and in the end it is futile. Will leave it there. 🙂

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Susan,

        Out of curiosity, you state you have a ‘ministry’. Can you elaborate on that? I assume you mean within your immediate family.

        I did answer you, you just did not like the answer I gave, and you obviously disagree.
        I disagree with berlolac’s dispensational view on Peter and Acts 2:38, but that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread – the sinner’s prayer.
        Let me add this – If a sinner were to ask me what must he/she do to be saved, I would tell them to ‘believe on the Lord Jesus’. I would not entice them or lead them in any ‘sinner’s prayer’. I would not suggest inviting Jesus into their heart, or making a ‘decision’ for Christ’, for all these man-made methods do not save. Let the word of God do its work and leave it at that.

        Like

      • SusanJ says:

        You are wrong in assuming I am just talking about my immediate family. Anything I do for and with my family I consider my duty, joy and privilege. Not sure why you want to assume anything like that Lyn 🙂

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Susan,

        You did not rightly comprehend the question, so let’s try again. You said this, “When I have to work on grammar related stuff (as I do in my ministry) I approach it practically.”

        I asked what type of ministry you have? Do you preach in your church? Are you in a position of teaching at any level in your church?

        Like

      • SusanJ says:

        Lyn there is nothing wrong with my comprehension at all. 🙂 You asked “can you elaborate on that?” My not giving details means very simply – no I cannot elaborate on that. Sorry. The internet is public and for security and contingency and many other reasons it is not wise to disclose certain personal details.

        Like

  13. lyn says:

    “. Faith is the responsibility of the person to respond correctly to the light (revelation) from God Who controls the light. God does not respond fort us!” That is the stumbling block for most. They believe they have the ability to have faith, yet the bible teaches faith is a gift – see Eph. 2:8-9. As stated on another thread, the phrase ‘and that’ is a nueter demonstrative pronoun, it does not agree in number or gender with ‘faith, grace, saved’. It Greek grammar, this was done on purpose because the writer was not pointing to any one thing, rather, it was pointing to all that precedes ‘and that’. With that said, ‘faith’ is a gift from God, not of works, lest any man boast. Salvation and grace are God’s gift as well, man adds nothing. All have a responsibility to repent and believe, but the love of darkness and sin will keep them in that darkness – that is the only ‘choice’ sinners make – to continually sin.

    Like

    • rascott247 says:

      The stumbling block for many is to shoe horn Eph 2:8-9 to teach that faith is a gift.

      From John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians—“Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. . . . Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.” John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians

      From Martin Luther, Am Pfingsmontage: Zweite Predigt —“faith holds out its hands and opens the sack to allow itself to be presented with good things. For as God the Giver by His love bestows this gift, therefore we are recipients by faith, in which faith does nothing more than receive the gift.”

      From Daniel Wallace, Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics —“For by grace you are saved through faith, and [you are saved] especially not by your own doing; it is the gift of God.”

      Again, Romans 5:15-20 shows that the gift has come to ALL men just as the condemnation was to ALL men. The gift is justification to life which is to say being made alive, saved by grace through faith. By faith we receive the gift that has come to ALL. How does a dead man as Calvinism defines him “prick up his ears” when he has none?

      Like

      • berlorac says:

        [By faith we receive the gift that has come to ALL.] I take this to be analogous to John 1:9, that Christ is the Light and this Light has shone to all men. But we know that not all men have heard the Gospel. So, we ask, “How can this verse be true?” How can He light all men? The Scripture doesn’t say; we are left to take it by faith that all men know the Truth and so all men are responsible.

        John 3:19 tells us that the Light has come to all but men love darkness and so will not come to the Light. Who does come into the Light? Only those who live by the truth. How can those who love darkness and evil deeds live by the truth?

        Either a man has innate faith that he can somehow access (even though he loves darkness and evil; even though he is a slave to sin; even though he is blinded to the truth by Satan); or God has to give him faith at some point in his life. It’s one or the other, right?

        RS, where in the Bible does it say that all men are born with faith?

        You ask, [How does a dead man as Calvinism defines him “prick up his ears” when he has none?] Dead men have ears, they just don’t have ears to hear. How can a corpse (nekros) make himself alive, unless God does it?

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        B, the gift is justification to life as Romans 5 says (eternal life according to Roman 6:23). The gift has come to ALL men as Romans 5 says. The gift is received through faith. The gift is rejected but not responding to the light. ALL will not come to faith. The Calvinist deductive conclusion is that God gives faith not only light because a dead man cannot respond to light in the system.

        John 5:25 “ Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live”.—sounds to me as if dead men hear i.e not made alive to hear!

        B again I wonder how one can have the hermeneutics of a dispensationalist and uphold the tenets of TULIP. Are you now pitting Paul against John? For further explanation please do search and read Paul Henebury’s article on this entitled Dispensationalism and TULIP a Verdict; I pretty much agree with what he has written.

        Also “where in the Bible does it say that all men are born with faith?” No where I am aware of but I didn’t say that either.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        RS, just as the Light has come to all men, so has the gift of life. The Light and the gift are the same: Life. The Light/gift is obtained by faith. Again, it is beyond understanding how all men know of this Light/gift, when we know that not all men have heard the Gospel. This is something I don’t think God has made fully known to us. I don’t dare tread where God has not spoken.

        [when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live”.—sounds to me as if dead men hear i.e not made alive to hear!]

        The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Many may hear it but only some will receive life by it. The some who receive eternal life are those who obey it. But they cannot obey it as those who are yet in BONDAGE to Satan and DEAD in sin. I’m not sure how you can read Ephesians 2:1-5 and say that you had the ability to make a decision for righteousness without God FIRST changing you. God must act; God must regenerate; we must be born from above before we can obey the Gospel.

        But here again, we speak in terms of consecutive events: First, God regenerates, then we exercise faith, then we obey, then we repent, then we’re justified. No, if anything, it is all simultaneous. Yes, the various aspects must be understood and so we like to parse it all out. That’s fine as long as we understand that God doesn’t really tell us. Near as I can figure, it’s simultaneous. We hear the Gospel, the power of God; the Spirit regenerates; at the same time, we believe, we repent, we obey (because now we can); we’re sanctified, we’re justified, we’re baptized into Christ’s death, the old man is crucified, we receive the indwelling Spirit. It all happens at once. But God acts first and throughout. We believe the Truth, but we can only do that if God sets us free first.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        RS, I asked, [where in the Bible does it say that all men are born with faith?] You answered, [No where I am aware of but I didn’t say that either.]

        But then the question remains. If you are not born with faith, then where did you get the faith to believe?

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        B, The Light was received by some and rejected by others. The same is true of the gift. Life is the gift and it is received through faith. I don’t know what you think faith but one doesn’t get faith to believe… faith is belief!

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        [I don’t know what you think faith but one doesn’t get faith to believe… faith is belief!]

        Well, not really. They are similar and are interrelated; they are nearly identical but not quite. One can believe the Gospel but have little faith.

        Faith is more like “belief in action.” One can believe that something is true, but this doesn’t necessarily elicit action. Faith is the activator of belief.

        The Gospel is preached and men hear it, but it takes faith to believe unto salvation.

        Okay, that’s a bit nit-picky but we see that they are two different concepts in verses like Romans 4:20 and Matthew 17:20 (if they are translated correctly).

        And so the question remains: If you weren’t born with faith that saves (and I think we both agree we weren’t), where did you get the faith? Where did you get the faith to apprehend the Gospel? Where did you get the faith in that state of death in which you resided, that place of Colossians 1:21 and Ephesians 2:1-5?

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        B, Faith is belief! Jesus saves by grace through faith. You are complicating the gospel by making words have two meanings where one of the meanings is theological. People are born with volition but they cannot sow to the spirit because they are spiritually dead. They must believe in the person and work of Christ to be given the free gift of life. It’s that simple yet so hard for many to believe. Spiritually dead people hear and those who believe receive the gift of life.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        [Spiritually dead people hear and those who believe receive the gift of life.]

        Yup. But why did you believe and your neighbor didn’t? Weren’t you both in the same dreadful position in Adam? Were you less affected by Adam’s sin than your neighbor was? Were you a little more spiritually alive than your neighbor was?

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        B, Obviously they were not a little more spiritually alive. That would mean that spiritual life is necessary to receive spiritual life. I can’t answer your question as to why some and not others and nobody has answered it other than God was working, revealing to both yet there are different types of soil. The question why? is philosophical. Again, the person’s faith is not a work of righteousness but it is counted as righteousness by God. The person does not save themselves God does by grace and this is through faith! I’d rather not get into philosophy questions that theologians make up answers to by creating systems.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        I don’t take ‘commentary’ as evidence faith is the work of man. As stated, the original Greek unlocks where faith comes from – God. That ‘trumps’ any commentary from any man, including ‘Calvin’.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        This is rich coming from you lyn as it is you who has copied and pasted quote after quote from Pink, Gil, Barnes and, oh ya, Bunker. But you absolutely missed the point of my comment. While Wallace is considered a Greek expert I quoted him, Calvin and Luther to show that they stumbled over the very thing you accused me of stumbling over i.e. that Eph 2:8-9 does not teach faith as the gift but rather it teaches salvation by grace through faith as the gift.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        It isn’t ‘rich’, it’s an attempt by you to use those who adhere to the doctrines of grace to prove your view.

        Yes, Eph. 2:8-9 does in fact teach that faith is given by God as a gift to those He saves.

        As for Romans, did you overlook this?
        Rom 5:15  But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.  Now, the text says ‘many’, not ‘all’.
        18- ‘Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.’
        vs 19, “or as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.’ Take note of ‘many’ used here as well.

        “At first glance it seems Paul is saying all men will be justified (made righteous) but the context of Romans and the NT clearly indicates the reference is all men who are justified by faith alone. Paul is not teaching universalism or that all men will be justified (saved). Recall that in Romans 5:17. Paul speaks of life for those who receive it. The point is that you don’t have to do anything to be condemned. Condemnation is Adam’s “gift” to you.
        All men… all men – Paul is using all men with two different meanings for the sake of parallelism, a common practice in the Hebrew Old Testament, which is similar Paul’s repetition of the phrase the many in Romans 5:15. The first all covers all humanity who are born into Adam. The second all refers to that part of the first all who by grace through faith are reborn into the Last Adam, Christ (Paul repeatedly emphasizes righteousness and faith – To reiterate – Paul is not teaching universal salvation.) source – http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_518-19

        Like

      • lyn says:

        BTW, have you read Bunker’s studies on where your free will theology comes from? You are under the influence of the Jesuits and Roman Catholicism.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        Of course Paul is not teaching universalism and neither am I. The gift of being justified by faith has come to all men. The individual has to place their faith in the work and person of Christ to receive the gift but it is for all. Paul is not double minded and using ‘all’ two different ways. You assume what you wish to prove, which is part of the problem with Calvinism. 1John 2:2 states that Christ propitiated for the whole world; to Calvinists this means elect. “World” takes on about 5 different meaning to them in 1 John alone.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        Bunker seems insane to me. Why would I need his commentary when you just said commentaries are not evidence of truth?

        Like

      • lyn says:

        “The gift of being justified by faith has come to all men. The individual has to place their faith in the work and person of Christ to receive the gift but it is for all.” No, Christ stated for whom He died –

        I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. John 10:11
        vs. 15b And I lay down My life for the sheep.
        Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Matt. 20:28
        This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:28
        So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Hebrews 9:28

        Tell us, how does a dead in sin sinner ‘place their faith’ in Christ? How does that come about in a heart that loves darkness and will not come to the light? What do you do with John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”? Christ says no one can come apart from God drawing, yet you say the sinner has to place his/her faith in Christ. How does that work, how does the carnal man do this?

        As for Bunker, it wasn’t commentary. He laid out quotes and facts that you ignore because you cling to error.
        Just in case you think that tying Arminius to the Jesuits is a concoction contrived by militant Calvinists, let’s consult the Jesuits on the matter. The following quote came from a Jesuit, written in 1628 to the Jesuit Rector at Bruxels, to calm his nerves about an ensuing parliamentary call. The Jesuit writer tells the Rector that he has nothing to worry about, because the Jesuits have planted the seed “arminianisme” and it will certainly come to fruition:
        “March, 1628. Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine (sudden) and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it flourisheth and beares fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritanes, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke’s (of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke’s chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and carefull in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke:–OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISME” [Hidden works of darkness, p. 89, 90. Edit. 1645.]

        “The Jesuits were moulded into a regular body, towards the middle of the sixteenth century: toward the close of the same century, Arminius began to infest the Protestant churches. It needs therefore no great penetration, to discern from what source he drew his poison. His journey to Rome (though Monsicur Bayle affects to make light of the inferences which were at that very time deduced from it) was not for nothing. If, however, any are disposed to believe, that Arminius imbibed his doctrines from the Socinians in Poland, with whom, it is certain, he was on terms of intimate friendship, I have no objection to splitting the difference: he might import some of his tenets from the Racovian brethren, and yet be indebted, for others, to the disciples of Loyola.” (Augustus Toplady – The Road to Rome)

        Those quotes do not trouble you at all? Scary indeed. You will defend an RCC based teaching to your death, and for what?

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        What often happens when Calvinist cannot defend their system is they create all kinds of boogie men and tell their opponent that they are with that boogie man whether it be it Arminianism or the Jesuits. My soteriology is much farther from the RCC than yours is lyn. I want you to look at this comment from a Catholic posted on BR by a Roman Catholic under the article titled “Hillsong exposing their Chrislamic, Roman Catholic agenda”. I see no difference between the it and many of your comments lyn

        “What Catholics mean is that your works prove your faith is real”

        “If you have real faith in Christ then the fruits of the Holy Spirit should show, you will be doing works that come from these fruits. That is what the whole doctrine of “by works” means.”

        If you agree with this then you have the same soteriology as the RCC i.e. faith plus works

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Here ya go ‘rascott’ – A.W. Pink stated this, “In the year 1563 by the order of the Pope, there was a council held at Trent. And Rome then and there defined her theological position on the points that had been made by the Reformers, and one of their decrees read thus [now the decrees of the Council of Trent are their standard today on controverted points], “If anyone shall affirm that since the fall of Adam man’s free will is lost, let him be accursed”. I want to read that again, what I am reading now is Roman Catholic Doctrine according to their own standards the decrees of the Council of Trent 1563, “If anyone shall affirm that since the fall of Adam man’s free will is lost, let him be accursed”. So that those who insist on man’s free will place themselves side by side with Rome on that doctrine!”- from ‘studies in the Scriptures’ April 1926

        May God open your eyes to His truth. You have been given ample scripture to show you your error, but your pride and arrogance refuse to let you see. You cleave to error, and it may cost you dearly in the end.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        That comment is an example of the extreme silliness of TULIP. If I am dead (as you imply) the ample scripture you have given me will be of no effect and this is probably due to the fact that Christ did not die for me, is not drawing me, will not regenerate me so I can understand because I am not chosen to do so. What you call my arrogance and pride was decreed by God before creation. I have no choice but to refuse what you are saying in that case.
        Truth is it is you who has dealt double mindedly with the text of scripture

        Like

      • lyn says:

        My comment was meant as a warning to you, for Christ himself spoke of the religious and warned when He said ‘why do you call me Lord Lord’…..your sarcasm is rooted in pride. Root sins often hide deep within our hearts and go unnoticed because we refuse to acknowledge them.
        IF you cleave to a free will theology and base your salvation on your decision you may very well regret that.

        The bottom line is this, the bible teaches you MUST be born again, no exceptions. That is not possible by human works, just like salvation is not an option/choice of the dead, unregenerate sinner. You have been given ample scriptures to show you your error, and to support the Holy Spirit’s writings on the doctrines of grace – you balk at them and use sarcasm instead. You attack the doctrines of grace and all who hold to them, others within your same camp call Darrel unloving, but you get a free pass?!?!?! The depths the flesh will go to to defend man made doctrines is truly astounding. I knew when this post went up you would unleash your fury – you did not disappoint.
        I sincerely pray God will show you His truth, and the error of your theology. One must always come to the throne as a child, hungering for truth, wisdom and insight into that truth. There was a time when I believed as you do, praise God He took me deeper into His truth.

        Like

  14. Q says:

    lyn’s and the Calvinist Gospel – “Jesus may not have died for you!”

    Like

    • lyn says:

      Christ died for His elect, as the Bible says, you can call it ‘calvinism’ that is just an excuse to deny biblical truth and cling to your universal views.
      I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. John 10:11
      vs. 15b And I lay down My life for the sheep.
      Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Matt. 20:28
      This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:28
        So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.  Hebrews 9:28

      Tell me Q, who wrote those verses, John Calvin or God the Spirit?

      Like

    • Sheryl says:

      Q – Anyone who is in hell at this moment or will ever be are the “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction” for whom Jesus did not die. Jesus’ blood sacrifice and resurrection have not failed, for there can be no one in hell for whom He died to accomplish the forgiveness of their sins.

      And it is incorrect to label it after a man – Calvin – for these are God’s doctrines of grace and election laid out in scripture for those who have been granted spiritual wisdom and understanding. God is a God who chooses – a nation, kings, apostles, prophets, even “elect angels.” And He did not stop choosing when it came to who He would permit into His heaven. And those whom He will permit into His heaven are the ONLY ones who Jesus purchased with His own blood, the vessels of mercy. Jesus will lose none of whom He purchased, and all the rest remain spiritually dead.

      So I am very comfortable in saying to anyone who proves himself to be a goat by rejecting the gospel and hating the Savior, “Jesus did not die for you,” for if He did they would love their Good Shepherd as a sheep of His pasture. You can’t offend someone who wants nothing to do with Jesus anyway.

      People would rather cling to their faulty human reasoning than to accept God for the Sovereign Lord that He really is, ruler of all, doing whatsoever pleases Him with His creatures for His glory. That is the confidence that if He chose you, your salvation is secure.

      Learn the doctrines of grace and election and sovereignty and exalt God rather than men.

      Like

      • lyn says:

        Amen Sheryl, God bless you for standing firm on His truth.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        Two other boogie men the “exalted man” and “Christ death not a failure” both inaccurate descriptions of many who oppose Calvinism. First, God is exalted by offering life to all and saving those who believe on him for it. Second Christ death did not give life but took away the negative of the sin penalty and this is for ALL. Life is given by grace through faith on the basis of Christ’s death but the atonement was real. Read John 5 and Rev 20 to see who is judged and who is not and what basis the judgment is on. Hint it’s not sin but works. For the believer it is based on faith for the unbeliever the judgment is based on works i.e. are their works good enough to earn life. The works will not be good enough. Those who remain dead sow to dead works because they have never been made alive through faith. Believers are to sow to the Spirit and reap reward which is separate from the gift.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        ” “If anyone shall affirm that since the fall of Adam man’s free will is lost, let him be accursed”. I want to read that again, what I am reading now is Roman Catholic Doctrine according to their own standards the decrees of the Council of Trent 1563, “If anyone shall affirm that since the fall of Adam man’s free will is lost, let him be accursed”. So that those who insist on man’s free will place themselves side by side with Rome on that doctrine!”- that seems to be your ‘battle cry’ as well.

        “The false religion of free will, or works, is based upon several unbiblical doctrines. The most basic of these is THE UNIVERSAL AND INDISCRIMINATE REDEMPTIVE LOVE OF GOD. God is said to love all men in the same way and to the same degree. He loved Judas the same as Peter, Esau like Jacob, and the goats as much as the sheep. Since His love is universal then the greatest gift of His love, Jesus Christ His Son, must have been given to provide a universal atonement, meaning for every individual without exception, in His death. The objects of the Son’s atonement must be equal to the objects of the Father’s love, so both must include every man. If the Father loves all men equally, and the Son redeemed every man without exception, it follows that the Holy Spirit must convict every man or else the Trinity is not working together toward the same end in the task of redeeming lost men.

        It should be amply clear that this religion of works, or free will, based on a universal love and universal atonement, makes God’s whole scheme of redemption depend on man for its success. God’s love will prevail IF MAN will let it. Christ’s atonement will actually redeem only IF MAN will let it. The Holy Spirit will apply redemption’s purchased benefits IF MAN will allow Him. No wonder C. H. Spurgeon, that great soul winner, called free will “utter nonsense,” and universal atonement a “monstrous doctrine akin to blasphemy.” John Reisinger https://michaeljeshurun.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/the-two-religions-in-the-world/

        Like

  15. lyn says:

    “Second Christ death did not give life but took away the negative of the sin penalty and this is for ALL” So, if Christ took away the ‘negative of the sin penalty’, that would mean none are presently under wrath right? Yet, the bible states otherwise – “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.”

    IF Christ died for ‘all’ then that means He paid for the sin of ‘unbelief’, according to your theology. Did Christ die for some of the sins of all men, or all of the sins of some men?
    God poured out His wrath on His Son, who was the propitiation for sin. God was satisfied with Christ’s finished work, and all wrath for sin was spent on Christ. That means there remains no more wrath to be poured out — but only for those who believe. This is where the free willer starts to tap dance. 

    The Gospel goes forth to all, but only those elected unto life will believe ” as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48b

    Like

  16. lyn says:

    The Gospel, not an offer but a proclamation

    by Herman Hoeksema

    The glory of the cross is this, He shall save his people. Not, He will TRY to save them. Not: He is willing, if you are willing. Because we do not will until the power of Immanuel has touched us, but He shall save his people because He is a complete Savior; He will save them to the very end. This is a blessed gospel. Believe in that name, and you will never be put to shame.

    JESUS according to the Scriptures actually and fully saves. He is Jesus, not because He OFFERS salvation or created a chance of salvation, but because He really accomplishes our salvation. Jesus according to the Scriptures actually SAVES, not all, but His people, the elect given to Him by the Father from before the foundation of the world. This Jesus according to the Scriptures must, indeed, be preached to the ingathering of the elect and the condemnation of the powers of darkness; but He cannot be hawked (OFFERED).

    As far as the proclamation of the gospel is concerned, it can never be an offer of salvation. The gospel is the glad news God gives us of His promise. It must therefore be preached, proclaimed. It can never be offered!”

    Like

  17. Jamie in Illinois says:

    Way to open up a can of worms Amy! LOL

    Like

  18. Laura says:

    I think the really sad thing about this article is that it tells me I can not trust that I am saved because I prayed and called on the name of Jesus to save me. So now, not only am I confused about whether or not I am saved but the article doesn’t even tell me how to know that I am saved. So, I’m still lost.

    Like

    • Sheryl says:

      Laura, the Holy Spirit draws those for whom Christ died to come to the Savior for forgiveness of their sins. Those whom the Holy Spirit regenerates know that they are helpless sinners in need of the Savior. They know that they are guilty before a holy God, deserve punishment for their sins, and they are fully aware that there’s nothing they can do in themselves to save themselves. They know their righteousness cannot be obtained by any good works they do. It is not a matter of works at all, in fact. Those who believe on Jesus for their salvation rest completely upon the finished work of Christ…the perfect life that He lived in their place, never sinning and obeying God the Father perfectly; all of their sins – past, present and future – being placed upon Him upon the cross; His suffering, blood, death, burial and resurrection were the work of salvation to purchase His own. “It is finished,” Jesus said. His blood has the power to cleanse us from our sins and His righteousness is imputed to those who believe on Him, and they stand perfect and blameless before the Father. He accomplished the gift of salvation and eternal life, and those who have faith in His work and not their own are justified before God and not condemned. This is the peace and comfort that the Holy Spirit gives, for He seals us until the day of redemption, with no fear of losing our salvation no matter what happens to us, for we have been purchased by the blood of the Lamb. The Holy Spirit then draws us unto the things of God, which natural man cannot understand. Learning the truth of the word of God becomes a great desire, the interests in the things of this world fade and your heart will be set on things above. True Christians long for the return of Christ.

      If you truly belong to Jesus, do not fear. He will not let you go. He will not lose one of His own.

      This is a brief description. I hope this clarifies some of your questions.

      Like

    • Sheryl says:

      Laura, Here is a website I recommend that I believe would be helpful in answering many of your questions. I refer to it often. Just scroll down the list, and click on the topic you wish to study – Regeneration, Irresistible Grace, Sovereignty of God, Justification and many more. It is rich with wisdom.

      https://justifiedbychristalone.com/

      Like

    • SusanJ says:

      Dear Laura, I feel sad for any confusion and lostness you may have due to this article.

      If you called on Jesus for his free gift of salvation that he offers then there are many promises given in the Bible. Faith is not about feelings. It is putting your trust in the facts. If God says it and I believe it, then it is true. Simple as that. 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verses 1-4 remind us of what the good news is that we believe in.

      Will these verses help:
      John chapter 3 verses 14-18 …so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life…… so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life…….. there is no judgement against anyone who believes in him.
      Acts chapter 13 verses 38-39 words from Paul the apostle…. through this man Jesus there is forgiveness for your sins……. Everyone who believes in him is declared right with God.
      Acts chapter 10 verse 43….. everyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven through His name
      Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been made right in God’s sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us.
      Romans 8:1 Romans 6:23
      God’s free gift of eternal life is just that. Free without us earning it and eternal means forever.
      Verses like John chapter 10:28-29 and the last verses in Romans chapter 8 are very assuring.
      John 1:10-12 He came into the very world He created, but the world didn’t recognize Him. He came to His own people, and even they rejected Him. But to all who believed Him and accepted Him, He gave the right to become children of God.
      Colossians 1:13-14. I have been thinking about these verses the last few days and the wonder of it all.

      Go through these above verses for yourself and there are many more. And a book I have used to help others is The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus by John Cross. You can even get an e-book free or watch videos on line.

      I would be glad to help you further if you sincerely need it.
      Susan

      Like

    • lyn says:

      Laura,

      If you have been born again by God, if your understanding has been opened and you see your own vileness, the preciousness of Christ and His gospel, and you have fled to Him for salvation, then you may very well belong to Christ. If you have forsaken your sinful ways and now detest what you once loved, it is evidence God the Spirit has regenerated you. That does not mean ‘sinless perfection’ for there is no such thing. Continue to seek Him through prayer and His word – and a word of advice, avoid MOST of what you read on forums like this. Confusion is not what you need. Do remember the tax collector’s simple prayer, ‘God be merciful to me, a sinner’. If you are doubting, then pray and open your bible. Christ will show you truth.

      Susan- salvation is not some ‘offer’- the bible commands sinners to repent and believe. Christ himself stated this in Mark 1:15. Repent -meaning ‘change my mind, change the inner man’- is a command and not some choice to be made- it is in the imperative mood, meaning the hearer is commanded to do the action commanded. Please stop making the Gospel as some cheap offer that sinners can either embrace or reject.
      “The glory of the cross is this, He shall save his people. Not, He will TRY to save them. Not: He is willing, if you are willing. Because we do not will until the power of Immanuel has touched us, but He shall save his people because He is a complete Savior; He will save them to the very end. This is a blessed gospel. Believe in that name, and you will never be put to shame.

      JESUS according to the Scriptures actually and fully saves. He is Jesus, not because He OFFERS salvation or created a chance of salvation, but because He really accomplishes our salvation. Jesus according to the Scriptures actually SAVES, not all, but His people, the elect given to Him by the Father from before the foundation of the world. This Jesus according to the Scriptures must, indeed, be preached to the ingathering of the elect and the condemnation of the powers of darkness; but He cannot be hawked (OFFERED).

      As far as the proclamation of the gospel is concerned, it can never be an offer of salvation. The gospel is the glad news God gives us of His promise. It must therefore be preached, proclaimed. It can never be offered!” – Herman Hoeksema

      Like

    • Robert Trohon says:

      Laura,
      Just believe that Jesus Christ is who He said He was/is (Son of God, God in Human Form, Savior) and that He resurrected from the dead and that you have a desire to be forgiven of your sins (all of which have separated you from God), and tell God that you desire to follow Jesus. Let Him know that you understand it will be by God’s Holy Spirit that will help you live the Christian life, not by any good works you personally can do nor by NOT sinning.

      We don’t have to be perfect to be saved from Hell or damnation. We just need to have a heart that DESIRES to give up our old way of life and follow Jesus Christ as our example. We will never follow Him perfectly but god knows that. The perfection comes from Jesus’ perfection and by your faith and God’s grace you are given the righteousness of Jesus, and in God’s eyes…you are perfect, as it pertains to you going to Heaven.

      Robert Trohon
      Asst Pastor
      Calvary Chapel Greeneville, TN

      Facebook: Robert Trohon

      Like

  19. Q says:

    Darrel has said some very unkind words on this blog including condemning more than a few to hell but I think it’s important to remember he was ‘PREDESTINED’ to say them. : P

    Like

  20. Q says:

    lyn, Sheryl, and Darrel’s great commission, ‘Go ye into all the world and tell them they might be one of the Elect….but probably not’.

    Like

    • lyn says:

      This is childish behavior, when you cannot defend your beliefs with scripture, you resort to insinuations and false accusations. Where did Sheryl, Darrel or I state we only preach to the ‘elect’? How would we know who the elect even are? Your behavior is disappointing to say the least. If you cannot be mature and debate using God’s word, then perhaps it would be best for you to avoid commenting at all. I find it strange that some in the free will camp reprimand Darrel for being ‘unloving’ yet you get a free pass for being childish and immature?

      May God take His elect deeper into His marvelous truths, which include a right, biblical view of the doctrine of grace. May He receive all glory due Him alone for saving vile sinners.

      Like

      • Q says:

        lyn asked “Where did Sheryl, Darrel or I state we only preach to the ‘elect’?”

        Where did I say that? lol

        Like

      • Lyn says:

        Q August 27, 2017 at 4:15 pm #
        lyn, Sheryl, and Darrel’s great commission, ‘Go ye into all the world and tell them they might be one of the Elect….but probably not’.

        That is where you said it

        Like

      • Q says:

        It says “Go ye into all the world”. Calvinist blind spot sees all the world as only the elect.

        Like

      • lyn says:

        Well I do not follow John Calvin, nor does Darrel or Sheryl. So your attempted ‘swipe’ is unfounded. Do you know who God will save? Neither do I, which is why I agree with ‘go into all the world’. You are very immature in your understanding of things, and it shows in your comments. Perhaps your time would be better spent studying God’s word and ‘boning up’ on what those who hold to the doctrine of grace actually believe. Misrepresentation only makes you look foolish. Here is what a ‘Calvinist’ says concerning your erroneous accusation –
        “Predestination in no way hinders the zeal of the evangelist; rather the contrary. For as we know that God foreknows his own (though we have no idea who they might be) we can be sure that those (and only those) will finally believe and turn to Christ. For their sake the church is willing to preach the gospel far and wide. “For many are called but few are chosen.” The call goes out to all and sundry, but the fact that many continue in unbelief is to be traced to their corruption and sinfulness. “For men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light…” …As Calvinists present Christ to a fallen world they do not do so believing that people have power within themselves to turn to Christ. They do so because they believe in the power of the Spirit to resurrect dead bones and make them live (Ezekiel.). Their faith is in the power of God, not in the goodness of men…Men are unable to believe: “How can you believe who receive honour from one another and not the honour that comes from the only God?” (free translation). “Therefore I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father” (John 6:65). “A man can receive nothing, except it be given unto him from heaven” (John 3:27; cf. 1 Corinthians 4:7)…Because of original sin and all it entails, men are unable and unwilling to believe; but God can make them willing to believe. For what is impossible for men is possible with God!” Paul Mizzi, a true ‘Calvinist’

        Hope that clears up your misconceptions about what a ‘Calvinist’ believes

        Like

      • Q says:

        You can say you guy’s don’t follow Calvin but the so called “Doctrines of Grace” are called Calvinism and all the people you quote to prove your points are Calvinists.

        Like

    • Lestie Ann Damon says:

      Exactly. Like the Pharisee who believed that he alone was worthy of salvation.

      Like

  21. Sheryl says:

    Q – Jesus was letting His disciples know that now the gospel message was to be proclaimed beyond the borders of the Jews, encompassing the Gentile world, too. The elect among the nations will be reached by the preaching of the gospel, the method which God has ordained. It serves for those whom God has predestined unto salvation to hear the message and receive the gift. The remainder will reject the message of the cross as foolishness, for the Holy Spirit will not do the work of regeneration within them.

    Predestination, chosen, elect, reprobate, sovereignty of God are all terms scripture uses to define God’s determination over salvation. Free will is not among them. God does whatsoever He pleases in heaven, on earth and with all inhabitants of the earth for His glory, whether that is saving men or punishing men eternally.

    You exalt men and defame God when you suggest that the Almighty One is desperately trying to save some weak human but just can’t make it happen because they shake their stubby little fist at Him. God is not dependent on man, no, man is dependent on God. For everything!

    The god you worship may be a weak, beggarly god waiting for some man to validate Jesus’ suffering, but that is not the God of the Bible, that’s not my God. The God of the Bible is all powerful, all knowing, sovereign over all His creation, governing His universe, restraining evil, saving men ordained to salvation, and doing as He pleases in heaven and among all the inhabitants of the earth. This explains how He foretells the end from the beginning, because He is the author of the story.

    The Bible clearly teaches that “few are chosen,” Jesus has a “little flock,” there is but a “remnant” for salvation and “many” are on the broad road to destruction.. These are God’s words, because He has predetermined who and how many He will call unto salvation, whose names were written in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world.

    This is how God reveals Himself to be through scripture. Those who belong to Him love His truth, accept His doctrines, defend the faith and worship Him for Who He is. Those who reject His truth hate the true God and create an imaginary, more tolerable one based on emotions and human reasoning.

    Like

  22. Q says:

    Sheryl,

    You misunderstand God’s sovereignty and those scriptures, believers have been elected, predestined to blessings not salvation and God has sovereignly decided to save those who believe, its that simple. Saying that God created billions of people just to send them to hell for his glory is an attack on his character making him a monster. You err greatly.

    J Vernon McGee calls your theology dangerous.

    And I’ve already shown the error in the ESV translation of “Rev. 13:8; everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

    In Rev 13:8 – Is it BEFORE or FROM?

    The Greek word ‘apo’ meaning from or since in Revelation 13:8 has been erroneously translated in the ESV as “before” the foundation of the world, instead of “from” the foundation of the world and YET correctly translated it in Revelation 17:8 as “from” the foundation of the world. Why? To fit the Calvinistic narrative. See for yourself.

    The NASB and KJV have translated it correctly –

    “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from (apo) the foundation of the world.” NASB

    “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from (apo) the foundation of the world.” KJV

    So actually this verse in the original says – “from” (meaning since) the creation of the world and not “before” the creation of the world.

    Like

  23. lyn says:

    Actually J Vernon McGee’s theology is dangerous, for he was a ‘free willer’ as well. His knowledge of the bible was rather transparent. From McGee, “I have found that I can fellowship with any person who will meet with me around the person of Christ. If he won’t insist that I accept his mode of baptism, we can enjoy some wonderful fellowship. I have marvelous fellowship with some people who believe that you ought to be put under the water three times, and I can fellowship with those who sprinkle. I got out of the Presbyterian church, but I can fellowship with them, provided we meet around the person of Christ. Separation is unto, not just from, something.

    Now, if you are separated unto Christ, you will find that you are separated from some groups. You don’t have to withdraw from them; they will withdraw from you. I have no problem here in Pasadena about this matter of separation. I find the churches and pastors that are liberal have nothing in the world to do with me, not a thing. They talk about brotherhood, but I just do not happen to be in that brotherhood. They talk about loving everybody, but they sure don’t love me. And I feel bad about that, too, because I think I am a nice fellow! They ought to love me, but they don’t. I said that facetiously. If you want to know the truth, it doesn’t bother me a bit, because if they would meet with me around the person of Christ, we could have fellowship. (p. 191-192, bold added) source – wwwDOTatruechurch.info/mcgee.html
    This is ecumenism; he would embrace anyone, including those who push a liberal Christianity, which is no Christianity at all, regardless of doctrinal differences and errors. That tells me McGee should be avoided like the plague. But hey, he upholds free will, so let’s quote him as some sort of trustworthy, reliable source of truth! No thanks.

    Rom 9:15  For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 
    Rom 9:16  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 

    These two verses alone debunk the ‘free will’ theology. And yet, they are twisted by those who insist they have the ability to either choose or reject Christ.

    Tell me, if you can choose to be saved or refuse to be saved, who would take the latter? Who would rather die and face God’s wrath?

    Like

  24. Q says:

    Sheryl, lyn and Darrel teach God hates babies before their born!

    Like

    • Lyn says:

      Q

      Are you aware it is a sin to falsely accuse? Can you give evidence for what you say? I know you can’t, you are merely spewing out bullying/playground type behavior because you have nothing else.

      I think Amy needs to reconsider allowing comments like yours, which are baseless and falsely accuses. Nowhere was this stated by myself, Sheryl or Darrel. May God grant you repentance over your lying ways.

      As I stated, if you cannot argue from scripture, it’s best to remain quiet rather than sin against God and falsely accuse.

      Like

      • Q says:

        Well let’s see, give me your interpretation of Romans 9:9-13. Did God hate a baby before he was born?

        Like

      • Lyn says:

        I won’t respond to you further, you have falsely accused myself and Darrel and Sheryl. You should apologize for your unwarranted accusations.

        I asked you a question concerning who wrote the verses I gave concerning who Christ died for, and you didn’t respond. It would appear you have no interest in debating from scripture. And now you present a question and what my ‘interpretation’? Read the text for yourself and then ask God for wisdom and understanding, stop looking for ways to attack the doctrine of grace and those who defend it.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        Lyn, I know what it is to be falsely accused. Like when you kept falsely accusing me of a double standard by juxtaposing a quote from me and a quote from somebody else. You did it over and over on that thread and never did apologize. Oh well if it ever comes to your mind to do so I forgive you.

        Like

      • Lyn says:

        Rascott,

        I did not falsely accuse, I did misquote a comment, which I admitted. I also copied and pasted a quote from you to justify my point. So, there was no ‘false accusation’ like you claim. It is sad you would side with childish behavior like that of Q, but is doesn’t surprise me. I won’t engage either of you from here on out, enough time has been wasted. Take your playground tactics elsewhere, they don’t belong on discussion threads such as this one.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        Lyn, “misquoting” me several times after it was pointed out to you that it was not a quote from me is falsely accusing me of saying something I did not say! This is what you are accusing Q of now. That you won’t own it is not a surprise to me. Copying and pasting my actual quotes proved that there was no double standard as you alleged and is not the same as an apology. Still I forgive you but the irony (double standard on your part) is rich.

        Like

      • Lyn says:

        last one to you bud, as I stated, I did correct my error. BUT, the comments I pasted from you afterwards proved my point. So, I am not guilty, as you say, only in your own mind. IF, IF I truly had done as you say, I would repent. But, since it is your distorted view, I owe no one an apology – nice try though.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        Bud? Such a Godly reply coming from God’s elect? Thank Him for not making you like us tax collectors!

        Like

      • Q says:

        rascott247

        The difference is what I’m saying is true and what lyn accused you of wasn’t.

        Like

  25. Darrel says:

    Lyn, seems as though someone forgot to lock the gate to the sand box and someone escaped.

    Ever notice how the folks that have a problem with Election never consider that their real problem is with the Lord Jesus Christ? “Behold I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.” 1 Peter 2:6. Christ was the elect of God, but they refuse to allow that God elected all those for whom Jesus died BEFORE the foundation of the world, that is before Creation. Instead, they have created a god from their wishful thinking and wicked imagination that does not choose who will be saved, nor is He allowed to pick those who are condemned to everlasting fire before they are born. Rom. 9:10-24. “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights…” Election of any sort is anathema to those who repeat the same old tired lies of “free-will”over and over again. Did Christ assume the role of Messiah of His own volition? To listen to many a free-willer the answer seems to be yes. Scriptures teach that He was the Elect, the Chosen of God, why anyone would listen to the liars who teach otherwise borders on insanity.

    Like

    • Lyn says:

      Darrel,

      I was studying this text earlier – Eph 1:4 ” According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love”

      This states who chose who – God – and when – ‘before the foundation of the world’ From Strong’s concordance concerning the preposition ‘before’ -of time: before, earlier than. This clearly shows that before the foundation of the world, before God formed the earth, He had already chosen those He would save. This is a problem for those who do not understand that God has a right to do as He pleases with His created beings, and that all are vile sinners. The fact that God would save ANY is profound.
      From my studies – before the foundation of the world. This is the only occurrence of this particular expression in the Pauline writings, but it occurs also once in John (John 17:24) and once in Peter (1 Peter 1:20). It is akin to the form ἀπὸ καταβολῆς (Matthew 13:35, omitting κόσμου with LTTrWHR marg.), ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (Luke 11:50; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 13:8); as also to these phrases: ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς (1 Thessalonians 2:13), πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (1 Corinthians 2:7), πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων (2 Timothy 1:9). It expresses most definitely the fact that the election in question is not the setting apart of certain persons at a definite period, an act in time, a historical selection, as some (e.g., Beys.) strive to prove, but an eternal choice, a determination of the Divine Mind before all time. The idea of the Divine election in the NT is not a philosophical idea expressing the ultimate explanation of the system of things or giving the rationale of the story of the human race as such, but a religious idea, a note of grace, expressing the fact that salvation is originally and wholly of God. In Pauline teaching the subjects of this Divine election are neither the Church as such (Ritschl), nor mankind as such (Beck), but Christian men and women, designated as ἡμεῖς, ὑμεῖς. It is, as is here clearly intimated, an eternal determination of the Divine Will, and it has its ground in the freedom of God, not in anything foreseen in its subjects. Of a prevision of faith as the basis or motive of the election there is no indication here. On the contrary, the character or distinguishing inward quality of the subjects of the election is presented in the next clause as the object of the election, the end it had in view. from Expositor’s Greek at biblehubDOTcom/commentaries/egt/ephesians/1.htm

      Like

      • Darrel says:

        Ephesians is so rich, rich in telling us just EXACTLY what He has done for us and why, “to the praise of the glory of His grace.” And all “according to the good pleasure of His will.” It is pitiful to watch people flounder about while holding on to the last vestige of the dying ember of their ‘free will’ while the Holy Spirit is clearly dealing with their heart and telling them ‘there ain’t no such thing.’ Pitiful in one sense, but wonderful in the end when they lay down their rebellion and praise God for opening their eyes to His everlasting Majesty. What praise it brings forth when we realize we had absolutely NOTHING to do with being saved when we finally see it was all His doing. It’s sort of like the prodigal coming to his senses and going home.

        Like

      • Q says:

        Ephesians 1:4 isn’t about when one becomes in him but what becomes of those in him. In other words God chose before the foundation of the world what would become those in him (holy and blameless in his sight).

        Ephesians 1:13 tells when we are included in him “when you believed you were marked in him”.

        Election and predestination has to do with service and other blessings not Predetermined who would be saved and who would go to hell.

        God desires “all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” 1 Tim 2:4 and
        “is…not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” 2 Pt 3:9

        Like

  26. Jamie in Illinois says:

    Foreknowledge-proginosko
    He knows the end from the beginning. He lives outside of time and knows who will come to him ahead of time.

    Election-eklegomai

    Predestination-prooizo

    Destiny

    -Foreknowledge determins election
    -Predestination brings to pass election
    -Election looks back to Foreknowledge
    -Predestination looks forward to destiny

    corporate election:

    Israel Isa. 45
    church Eph 1:4

    Individual Election:

    -according to foreknowledge of God 1Pet. 1:2
    -wholly of grace, not human merit Rom. 9:11, 11:5,6
    -whereby certain are chosen for Himself John 15:19
    -or for distinctive service Luke 6:13, Acts 9:15, 1Cor. 1:27,28

    Like

    • Robert Trohon says:

      To Jamie in Illinois:
      Thank you brother.

      Robert Trohon Asst Pastor
      Calvary Chapel Greeneville, TN

      Facebook: Robert Trohon
      Facebook: Greeneville Calvary Chapel

      Like

  27. Q says:

    lyn, Sheryl and Darrel teach before you were born and did anything good or bad God decided whether or not to save you! Some Gospel huh!

    Like

  28. Sheryl says:

    Q – lyn, Darrel nor I teach anything of our own ideas. We’ve learned from scripture that this is the way the Sovereign God of all creation reveals Himself to be and we have accepted Him for who He truly is and love Him for it. You scoff at God and His plan of salvation. You fight against the truth for you exalt man over God. You clearly despise the plain teaching of Romans 9. If you won’t accept the clear teaching of scripture, but twist and mutilate it to form a god of your own liking, then we can’t help you. If you are interested in learning the truth rather than just stirring up debates, then I suggest you ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to your mind to renew and transform your thinking to conform with scripture. If that happens, then you will be utterly amazed at how grand a plan salvation is and how it magnifies God. And you will never return to blasphemous man-made ideas.

    And it is a great gospel that assures me of my salvation because God first loved me before I was born and chose me in Christ before I was born and wrote my name in the Lamb’s Book of Life before I was born and Christ died for me before I was born; therefore, since He did it all, I cannot mess it up or give it up, and I’m secure in knowing that I’m going up. And He receives ALL the glory because He accomplished it all for me.

    Like

  29. Q says:

    You Guy’s don’t understand Romans 9. And you also attack God’s Character saying He arbitrarily saves a few and could easily save everyone but just doesn’t for His glory. That’s not the God found in scripture.

    Like

    • berlorac says:

      [And you also attack God’s Character saying He arbitrarily saves a few and could easily save everyone but just doesn’t for His glory.]

      Q, you’re not off the hook, either. If God gave man free will, knowing that men would reject Him, then you end up with the same problem — that God could have saved all, but didn’t. Instead, He let men flounder around on their own and ultimately end up in hell. What kind of God is that?

      Both sides have questions to answer, but it is beyond our understanding. God’s ways are not fully understood (Romans 11:33-36), but are nonetheless glorious and full of wisdom.

      Like

      • Q says:

        Berlorac , It’s not the same. Surely we all have ancestors of thousands of people who were stubborn and rebellious and would not come to God for forgiveness and will be in hell for eternity, but without them how would we and those who have (and will) come to God and have been forgiven in Christ and will spend eternity in bliss with him have gotten here without them? The human race came as package. Because men are stiff necked and refuse God and his grace isn’t the same thing as predestining them to hell with no chance.

        God desires “all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” 1 Tm 2:4

        and

        “is…not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” 2 Pt 3:9

        It would be frighting to say that God, who is love, created billions of people and predestined them to eternal hell without any hope or chance of being saved.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        Q, it’s just the flip side of the 45.

        You’re saying that God was just “using” all those billions of ancestors, knowing that they were going to hell. If God is loving, then why would He create all those people just so a handful would be saved? It’s the same question, Q.

        And then, in your scenario, He relies on the helpless sinner, in bondage to sin, dead in sins, in darkness, in Satan’s dominion — to somehow reach out to Him. In your scenario, God only intervenes if a man can conjure up some faith from somewhere and reach out to Him. “God helps those who help themselves.”

        Q, without God intervening, every person ever born would be going to hell because no one seeks God.

        Like

      • Q says:

        It’s not the same as predestination.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        If God does not predestine, if there is no election, then self-will is the determining factor in salvation, the self-will of those dead in sins, no less. Impossible.

        You rely on 1 Timothy 2:4 and read into it that there must be free will. Not so. The Bible is replete with examples of God willing one thing while simultaneously acting contrary to that will.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        B, God does predestine those in Christ to the adoption of sons which is the redemption of their bodies to be conformed to the image of Christ. He chooses those in Christ not those outside of Christ. One gets in Christ through faith that they exercise by the hearing of the word. My impression is that you embrace the “doctrines of grace” because you see no alternative that upholds God’s sovereignty. I too am a Sovereigntist but I see no exegetical ground for embracing TULIP as defined by even “moderate” Calvinist. The Biblical definition of election and predestination are not the same as that of Calvinist or Arminians.

        Look at Ephesians B. The “us” in Eph 1:4 is contrasted with the “you” in v13.
        The “you” is gentiles and the “us” is Jews and these two groups in Him were predestined before the foundation of the universe to be joined together in Him to make one new man Eph 2:15. In other words the Church was not plan b but was always part of God’s plan. But you have to be in Christ to be elect. There is no one outside of him that is in this election!

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        All who are saved are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. I agree. But who was foreordained (predestined)? Those whom He foreknew (Romans 8:29). You’re skipping this. You’re starting with “predestined to be conformed…” You have to start with whom He foreknew.

        Proginosko is not simply knowing what someone will do in the future — that’s the common definition, but this isn’t how it’s used in the Bible. It means “foreloved” or “having an intimate knowledge of” in the following verses (yada in Hebrew): Genesis 18:19, Exodus. 2:25, Psalm 1:6, Psalm 144:3, Amos 3:2 (cf. Deuteronomy 7:7-8, 10:15; Jeremiah 1:5; Hosea 13:5; Matt. 7:22-23; 1 Corinthians 8:3; Galatians 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 3:1).

        God foreknows people, not just decisions, in Romans 8:29. It is God who foreknew, just as it is God who foreordained, who called, who justified, who glorified. If you take foreknew as passive or as mere precognition, then you lose the force of the verse, which is God’s determining power.

        [Acts 2:22-23
        22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. (Acts 2:22-23 NASB)

        [In v23 we have the word “foreknowledge,” which translates προγνώσει the Dative, Singular, Feminine case of πρόγνωσις (prognōsis). What is Peter saying? Is Peter saying that God simply looked down through time and said, “Oh, I see, they will put my Son to death, I’ll use that in my plans for the Atonement!”? That’s silly! He is saying that God foreknew in eternity past that Christ would die on the cross because God *purposefully* sent Him to do so. God determined this through the council of His own will and *purposefully* set up boundaries in which men could act.

        [The root of both προγινώσκω and πρόγνωσις is γινώσκω (ginōskō) “to know by experience.” An example is found in Matthew 1:25 which says that Joseph “did not know” Mary before Jesus was born. Jesus used the same word in Matthew 7:23 where He speaks of those who have professed to be believers but are not: “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

        [1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
        To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. (1 Peter 1:1-2 NASB)

        [Here we have the exact same thing. While many would insist this must mean prior knowledge we would then point to v20.

        [20 προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων διʼ ὑμᾶς (1 Peter 1:20 NA28)

        [20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you (1 Peter 1:20 NASB)

        [Christ was foreknown or foreordained before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for you! This is significant because Peter used the same root Greek word in v20 as he did in v2. Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world and in vv1-2 we see that all believers are as well. Therefore, it is obvious that this does not mean that God simply foresaw that Christ would be manifested, instead, He was as we are, foreordained and foreknown by an intimate relationship before the foundation of the world.] — Mike Ratliff

        So, re-read Romans 8:29-30 and see that foreknew means it is determined by God through forelove, or an intimate relationship, not simply that God would look down through time and see the decisions people would make.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        Galatians 4:9 tells us people are not foreknown the way you are using the word. Believers come to be known.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        1 Peter 1:1-2 is actually one of the main verses of contention between Calvinists and Arminians. They both see election unto justification but the Arminians see foreknowledge as the condition and Calvinists see election as unconditional. One problem is that the passage has been translated into English with the words out of order.

        In the Greek (from an interlinear translation) the passage reads like this— (1) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect strangers of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, (2) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ Grace and Peace be multiplied to you.

        So the elect (in Him already) are dispersed according to the foreknowledge of God. But the presupposition that election and predestination is for unbelievers to become believers is why the Calvinists and Arminians are really just two sides of the same coin.

        Biblically, with a plain sense interpretation, election concerning salvation is always in Christ not elected to be in Christ. There is no passage that says “chosen TO BE in Him” but scripture says “chosen in Him”.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        First, foreknowledge refers to the elect, not the fact of dispersion. Jews had been in the dispersion for hundreds of years. Again, foreknowledge isn’t just about facts. What would be the point of Peter saying that God knew Jews would be in dispersion when these Jews knew full well that they and their ancestors had long been in dispersion? Instead, Peter is assuring them that God had elected them according to His foreknowledge, even though they are under persecution.

        Besides, the rest of verse 2 doesn’t make sense if foreknowledge refers to the fact of dispersion and not the elect of the dispersion. According to your reading of it, it would say that the fact of dispersion was not only foreknown, but was also sanctified by the Spirit to obedience…. No, that doesn’t work!

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        Galatians 4:9 was for comparison. It is to show that God knows (intimate relationship) who are His. What would be the point of saying that God knows you when we know that He knows all people and all things? Rather, Paul is telling them that God knows them in relationship.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        B
        I can see you are set in your mind. I think you start with the “doctrines of grace” and employee theological definitions of faith, foreknowledge etc. and read them into the passage. We disagree but I still love ya B and always enjoy our conversations.

        Think of the verbal gymnastics you have to use to square 1John 2:2 with limited atonement and then think that if Jesus did die for all how irresistible grace goes out the window. B you are not using the hermeneutic that lead you to dispensationalism.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        B
        One last thing about foreknowledge and Gal 4:9. Your definition is “foreloved” or “having an intimate knowledge of”. But the Galatians were not foreknown, they came to be known.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        Yes, RS, that’s because Galatians 4:9 is gignosko, not proginosko; hence, the comparison. It is indirect evidence that God knowing someone indicates personal relationship, not just knowing a fact. They were foreknown in that God knew them before they knew Him, foreloved but not yet in relationship; and now that they know Him, He has *acknowledged* them in relationship.

        I used to believe as you do, concerning salvation; that is, free will. One Sunday morning I was listening to the pastor teach on Matthew 13, parable of the soils, and he said that people have to till up their fallow heart so it can accept the seed. I had never thought about it before, but at that moment, I had a “check” in my spirit. I knew that wasn’t right. How could someone who is lost work on himself and get ready to hear the Gospel??? If God doesn’t do the work of tilling the soil, no one can be saved.

        It has been said that Calvary Chapel has done more to make “Calvinists” out of people than just about any denomination.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        1 John 2:2. Who is John writing to? Jews (Galatians 2:9). The Messiah came to Israel for the remission of sins. And now John is saying that this propitiation for Jews is the same propitiation that avails for Gentiles. There is no other way, not even for those Gnostics whom John is refuting in this epistle.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        That’s a presupposition. There is no indication that John is writing to Jews. John wrote letters to the seven Churches in Asia this is possibly written to one of those. Secondly search the entire epistle and substitute the definition you are choosing to use in place “world” and you will see it doesn’t fit. You just gave a theological tinted interpretation like so many do when they want to say that the Church is new Israel. It doesn’t hold water when taken in context. The “doctrines of grace” fall without limited atonement. That’s why it was formulated.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        “ foreloved but not yet in relationship” now that’s some gymnastics. I give it a 9.8! How does being loved not mean in a relationship? B you are doing cartwheels with language.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        Christ was foreloved foreknown to become known one must be placed in Christ. This is through faith and the life we have is that of Christ. That is how we where foreknown but not known until we believe.

        Like

      • rascott247 says:

        How about 2 Peter 2:1 that states that the Lord purchased the false teachers who bring destructive heresies? A straight forward reading either refutes limited atonement or perseverance of the saints. If the false teachers are not Christians then how did the Lord purchase them? If they are Christians they failed to persevere.

        Again B I really do enjoy chatting with you and I thank you for your service to the Lord.
        You get the last word I think I’m out of this thread (I think I am).

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        [How does being loved not mean in a relationship?] God knew us and loved us before we knew Him, before we were in relationship with Him. Now, God has acknowledged us, made the relationship manifest. It is helpful to know Hebraic thought, in which foreknowledge is not mere knowledge of facts but of inclination toward someone, an expression of will that seeks personal relationship. God has already done that in foreknowledge and now for those in Christ the relationship is consummated, made known.

        And you didn’t have anything to say about 1 Peter 1:2, where I pointed out, [the rest of verse 2 doesn’t make sense if foreknowledge refers to the fact of dispersion and not the elect of the dispersion. According to your reading of it, it would say that the fact of dispersion was not only foreknown, but was also sanctified by the Spirit to obedience].

        As for 1 John 2:2, you said, [There is no indication that John is writing to Jews. John wrote letters to the seven Churches in Asia this is possibly written to one of those.] Actually, he wrote one letter that was comprised of 7 messages (Revelation 1:11) and notice that every message is distinctly Jewish. Do you think that John broke his agreement to go to Jews only?

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        [How about 2 Peter 2:1] Look at the context. He’s writing to Jews. He points out the false prophets among Israel and then says that there would also be false teachers among them now. So, the context is distinctly Jewish and national (cf. 1 Peter 2:9).

        Just as God bought Israel, redeemed them out of Egypt (Exodus 15:16, Deuteronomy 32:6), so now it is no less so when Messiah has come to redeem His people, Israel (Luke 1:68-69). But not all Israel is Israel, not then, and not post-Cross. “God did not cast off His people which He foreknew…’I have left for Myself seven thousand men…’ Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

        The false teachers of 2 Peter were part of the redemption of the nation for which Messiah came, but this does not mean they were of the elect, the Remnant.

        Like

    • Robert Trohon says:

      To Q:

      Right On..Thanks brother.

      Robert Trohon
      Asst. Pastor Calvary Chapel Greeneville, TN

      Facebook: Robert Trohon
      Facebook: Calvary Chapel Greeneville

      Like

  30. Q says:

    Darrel doesn’t think he’s going to hell but he’s pretty sure Robert, James, Tim, and others are.

    Like

  31. Q says:

    The Calvinist God is kind of like the mafia – “I have an offer you cannot refuse”.

    Like

  32. The idea of limited atonement is ridiculous. The gospel has no power, nor does the ministry of Paul. We are told by Jesus himself “whosoever will/will not” is saved. This passage here, clearly shows that Jesus wanted one thing but they chose not to listen:
    “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”
    ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭23:37‬ ‭KJV‬‬

    ….And salvation isn’t simply a prayer. It is a heart turned to Jesus Christ from the wickedness of sin. It is acknowledging the desperate need for a savior from our depravity. It is much, much more than words.

    Like

    • rascott247 says:

      I agree with you Sola about limited atonement.
      In 2Cor 2:18-21 Paul speaks of the ministry of reconciliation to the world that God is not imputing sin and as ambassadors of Christ we implore on Christ behalf “be reconciled to God”. This is a message to unbelievers because believers have already been reconciled through faith in Christ. Sin is not being imputed because Christ paid for all sin even the sin of unbelief. But paying for the sin whether it be fornication or unbelief does not give life or make one believe they must come to faith through the preaching of the Gospel to receive the free gift life…the ministry of reconciliation.

      Like

    • Sheryl says:

      Limited atonement has the power to save because Christ purchased His sheep and only His sheep. An “offer” (man’s terminology) has no power to save anyone. It is not an offer – it is a gift, as scripture describes it. And God chooses those to whom will receive His gift. Here is a written message explaining the doctrine of limited atonement. Yes, Christ’s doctrines are hard, but once the Holy Spirit reveals His truth to you, they become precious and you cling to them for you realize they are marvelous and they are the assurance of your salvation. If you care to gain spiritual wisdom, then this message will help to instruct you in the ways of God.

      https://justifiedbychristalone.com/2009/12/15/a-limited-atonement/

      Like

      • rascott247 says:

        Passages that say Jesus died for some do not negate the many passages that say He died for all. That is a negative inference fallacy. To use that logic Galatians 2:20 would mean He died only for Paul because Paul is the only one mentioned.

        Like

      • Limited atonement nullifies the gospel. It kills it. As a street evangelist I have never ever run across a Calvinist evangelist. Why? Because it doesn’t matter to them. They are saved, or so they think, so why not sit back, sip a craft beer and debate meaningless theology.

        We are not robots. We a humans, given the gift of free will by the touch of God. Salvation is a feee gift that we have the power to accept or reject. Otherwise the brutal death of Jesus and the call to preach the gospel are vanities – cruel, ridiculous vanities. Fortunately, the scriptures are crystal clear. It won’t let me post a link but click on my name to read a comprehensive article tearing limited atonement to shreds.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        I’ve spent many months living in a van, sleeping in walmart parking lots, sometimes eating nothing but a can of tuna and tortilla chips for a whole day, preaching the Gospel all over America. I’m not trying to boast, but you compel me! Those who believe the doctrines of grace can and are preaching the Gospel, and have done so throughout history.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        [debate meaningless theology] Huh? No theology is meaningless. If it is, why are you commenting here with your opinions about limited atonement?

        Like

      • It’s meaningless to them B since it (the cross, the gospel, the great commission,etc) really don’t matter….since all us robots are preprogrammed for heaven or hell. Debate it at Starbucks for hours and then go catch some Z’s.
        The blood matters. Our choices matter. The cross has value. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Preaching matters. Love matters. Theology matters if and only if it, through the power of the Holy Spirit, can turn a heart from sin to Jesus.

        “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!”
        ‭‭Romans‬ 10:14-15

        Paul seems to think preaching is valuable and necessary in order for people to believe.

        It’s great to hear about anyone preaching the message of sin and repentance B. Keep it up.

        Like

      • berlorac says:

        [Paul seems to think preaching is valuable and necessary in order for people to believe.] Yes, the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. It is the means the Holy Spirit uses. Again, there have been Calvinists throughout history who were some of the greatest evangelists. I’m sorry you don’t know any now, but we’re out there. I dare say, there are many more Arminians walking the planet and yet very few who are preaching the Gospel.

        Like

      • I despise Arminianism as much as Calvinism. I just like th bible. 😀

        Like

      • Sheryl says:

        No thank you. I’m interested in the truth of Christ’s doctrines, not false man-made doctrines.

        Like

      • Robert Trohon says:

        To Sola Scriptura

        Thanks Brother…Blessings…Right ON !!

        Robert Trohon
        Asst. Pastor Calvary Chapel Greeneville, TN

        Facebook: Robert Trohon
        Facebook: Calvary Chapel Greeneville

        Like

  33. Q says:

    Does none seek God also mean None can respond?

    Just because I can’t call the POTUS on the phone does that mean I can’t choose to answer or not answer the phone if he calls me? Of coarse not.

    In the same way if God’s word comes to a person with the conviction of the Holy Spirit that person can respond one way or the other.

    Like

  34. Manny1962 says:

    Highly esteemed brethren, there are many standing on the sidelines trying to digest this worthy debate, I will venture to say many are scratching their heads trying to figure out both sides of the argument being debated, for these souls I will post what I believe might be a helpful primer on Arminius, Calvin and Molinism. And I pray the light of His truth shines on those fervently seeking answers. As for me, I don’t follow any man, none. I rely on God’s words alone and illumination and guidance by The Holy Spirit alone, not in visions or utterances, but in reliance of His promise to be a lamp unto our feet. As for my salvation, personally, I was called and I was quickened as a 12 year old to read scripture even at that age I felt a “cut in my heart” as I realized what sin was in my life, yes as a 12 year old who loved cartoons, fishing, drawing, football with friends, lazy summers ……..there was a hunger to know God, my parents weren’t religious, my family in general was not ( my mom and her two sisters became followers of Christ late in their lives) so I cannot boast of any religious upbringing, my walk with Jesus was not initiated by me, it is my personal conviction that He chose me, yes I kicked at the goads growing up, being very rebellious at times, but He was always, and I mean always there, more than anyone in my life Jesus has always been there for me, every time I would trip He would be there for me. If anyone wants a good indicator where you stand with God, answered prayer and an inner “helplessness” that constantly drives you to Him, an unregenerate person does not get prayers answered unless they’re within His plan, Proverbs 15:29. A child of God, living in the control of The Holy Spirit will see two things, answered prayers, his will aligned with His will. I believe the Arminius/Calvin dilemma is being sown by the enemy of the cross to create discord amongst the brethren. I pray we all get through this.

    “Question: “What is Molinism and is it biblical?”

    Answer: Molinism is named for the 16th-century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. Molinism is a system of thought that seeks to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. The heart of Molinism is the principle that God is completely sovereign and man is also free in a libertarian sense. Molinism partly seeks to avoid so-called “theological determinism”: the view that God decrees who will be saved or damned without any meaningful impact of their own free choice. Today’s highest-profile defenders of Molinism are William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.

    The primary distinctive of Molinism is the affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scientia media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.

    1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths: all things which “can be.” In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths. This knowledge is independent of God’s will, a point few if any theologians would dispute.

    2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge consists of what philosophers call counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. These are facts about what any creature with a free will would freely do in any circumstance in which it could be placed. This knowledge, like natural knowledge, is independent of God’s will.

    3. Creative command – this is the “moment” where God actually acts. Between His knowledge of all that is or could be, and all that actually comes to be, is God’s purposeful intervention and creation.

    4. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create: all things that “actually are.” God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is. This knowledge is completely dependent on God’s will.

    Using middle knowledge, Molinism attempts to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. In other words, man is completely free, but God is also completely sovereign—He is absolutely in control of all that happens, and yet humanity’s choices are not coerced.

    According to Molinism, God omnisciently knows what you would have been like had you lived in Africa instead of Australia, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not, in each of those varying circumstances.

    Accordingly, it is out of this (middle) knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world that corresponds to His ultimate desires. Therefore, while a person is truly free, God is truly in control of who is or is not saved. Molinists differ on how God defines His underlying desires. For example, some believe God is seeking the maximum number of people to be saved. Others believe God creates in order to maximize some other divine goal.

    Is Molinism biblical?

    Molinists point to various texts to establish that God has “middle knowledge.” For example, Matthew 11:21–24 where Jesus denounces Chorazin and Bethsaida. Here, Jesus tells those cities that “if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” This type of “if-then” is an example of divine knowledge of what would happen given a different set of circumstances. As such, Molinism sees this verse as evidence that the doctrine of middle knowledge is true.

    Strictly speaking, Molinism is a view that cannot be rebutted or defended wholly on biblical grounds. The same is true of other philosophical-theological systems such as Calvinism or Arminianism. Middle knowledge is a philosophical concept that attempts to uphold both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. At the same time, it can be evaluated on multiple levels, including biblically and philosophically.

    Molinism is often criticized by both Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists claim that holding to human free will denies God’s absolute sovereignty. Arminians claim that, if God is in control of who is or is not saved, then free will is merely an illusion. Molinists would argue that both sovereignty and free will are biblically represented and real, and that middle knowledge allows both a God who is completely in control and a humanity who is completely free.

    Not all people feel Molinism is the best way to think about God’s sovereignty and human free will. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 10:29; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11), even human decisions (Proverbs 20:24; 21:1). Although God does not stir men to sin (James 1:13), He is still working everything, from individuals to nations, to the end that He has willed (Isaiah 46:10–11). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24–26). Nor does God discover or learn (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21–22; Psalm 50:11; Proverbs 15:3). All things are decreed by God’s infinitely wise counsel (Romans 11:33–36).

    That being said, it should be noted that Molinism would agree with everything said in the above paragraph. It is not on this level where Calvinists and Molinists disagree. Where Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism disagree most is in interpreting doctrines such as total depravity and limited atonement, in light of these other ideas.”

    https://www.gotquestions.org/molinism.html

    Like

  35. Robert Trohon says:

    The sinner is not condemned for his sins— except one,…not believing on Jesus Christ, (the one unforgivable sin) All other sins were paid for by Jesus Christ, for all people everywhere..past, present, future.

    Robert Trohon
    Asst. pastor Calvary Chapel Greeneville, TN

    Face book: Robert Trohon or Calvary Chapel Greeneville

    Like

  36. SusanJ says:

    The plain reading and understanding of scripture is a joy and delight. The Gospel is simple enough that a child can believe and be saved. Or the illiterate and uneducated. I have witnessed it many times. I love the story in Ironside’s writings of the uneducated farmer who wanted to be saved but had been told he could not if he were not one of ‘the elect’ and his delight when John 3:16 became clear to him….. And yes Christ’s death is enough for all sins and all sinners. PRAISE GOD. And we must do all we can that we might save some of them. And may there be many who receive the Word with gladness………What of those who have never heard the gospel? That is another difficult question and there are millions. And yet God is true and just and loving and will do right and I have to leave it with him. God gave the command but the church and believers of all ages have failed.

    From the angel – I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people. Luke 2:10

    But to all who believed Him and accepted Him, He gave the right to become children of God. They are reborn—not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan, but a birth that comes from God. John 1:12-13

    The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29

    And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in Him will have eternal life. For God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent His Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through Him. There is no judgment against anyone who believes in Him. But anyone who does not believe in Him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. John 3:14-18

    We are here to proclaim that through this Man Jesus there is forgiveness for your sins.
    Everyone who believes in Him is declared right with God Acts 13:39

    He Himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world. I John 2:2

    ….God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth. For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus. He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone. This is the message God gave to the world at just the right time. And I have been chosen as a preacher and apostle to teach the Gentiles this message about faith and truth. 1 Tim 2:3-7

    …Since we believe that Christ died for all, we also believe that we have all died to our old life. He died for everyone so that ….. This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun! And all of this is a gift from God, who brought us back to Himself through Christ. And God has given us this task of reconciling people to Him. For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. And He gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation. So we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making His appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, “Come back to God!” For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ. 2 Cor 5

    What we do see is Jesus, who was given a position “a little lower than the angels”; and because He suffered death for us, He is now “crowned with glory and honor.” Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone. Heb 2:9

    The Lord isn’t really being slow about His promise, as some people think. No, He is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent. 2 Peter 3:9

    Then he brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household.”
    And they shared the word of the Lord with him and with all who lived in his household.
    Even at that hour of the night, the jailer cared for them and washed their wounds. Then he and everyone in his household were immediately baptized. He brought them into his house and set a meal before them, and he and his entire household rejoiced because they all believed in God.

    Simple lovely words of God.

    Like

    • Maggie says:

      These words stir me to say Praise God!

      Like

      • Amy Spreeman says:

        We are going to end the comments here. I’ve deleted hundreds since this one, because the conversation took a turn for the worse.
        Please know that there are a lot of sheep who are being wounded on these forums. Many have written to me.
        I am considering closing all comments in the future if things do not improve.

        Like

Comments are closed.