Does it matter?

[whs1]

Whether or not one is truly regenerate is ultimately dependant upon God doing the saving through Jesus Christ. God is sovereign. The 5 essential doctrines of the gospel...

1. Total Depravity
2. Unconditional Election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irresistable Grace
5. Perseverance/Preservation

...are the truth of the gospel. When someone denies one or more of these doctrines; that means that they do not believe the truth of the true gospel. My question is: If someone is deliberately knowingly says that they believe in "grace alone", "Christ alone", "Faith Alone" and the gospel (as stated above) then turns around and says: ""A person who denies one of the 5 points even partially [example: they deny limited atonement by saying "Christ died for the elect and the reprobate in some sense."] is regenerate.""



This is an example of a "Staunch Calvinist, Reformed Orthodox" person actually denying that it is necessary for one to even profess to believe in the heart of the gospel [which Limited Atonement is]. Does the gospel matter? Are we just all unregenerate except those who take a stand and agree with the truth and say : YES! it DOES MATTER! It seems there are alot of persons who don't stop and respond and come down on one side of the fence or the other, but are fence sitting, lukewarm, forked tongued, double talking, double minded persons who love the praise of men more than the praise of God or whatever. Look, I just don't even know if I am regenerate because of Marc Carpenter's judgments...but I do know that the guy was right on. And those who agree with him are 4 from the thread: "Are TC's unregenerate". They are: jim2300, michaelcooper, Aremnant, and IvorThomas. Why is it that everyone else has disagreed and thinks that they are still saved???


michaelcooper said it best:

"""After reading most of the replies regarding this topic, Are tolerant calvinists (tc) unregenerate, I see that the vast majority here do not want to answer the question straight forward. It seems to me that the reason behind this, is in some way of JUSTIFYING one's toleration of a false gospel.


If salvation is conditioned upon the imputed righteousness and atoning blood of Christ alone, which most here give LIP SERVICE to believing, how is it possible that you can tolerate something that is opposed to these great truths or tolerate someone who tolerates these great truths?

I find that those who criticize Marc are the ones who cannot give a LOGICAL explanation for their HYPOCRISY.

What is worse is that most here profess that arminianism is a false gospel, and some say they even hate arminianism, but yet at the same time, will consider some arminians to be saved due to ignorance of the truth of the gospel. Where is the logic in that?"""


So, to me, it does matter. I do agree. Tolerant Calvinists are Unregenerate. I am not a tolerant Calvinist.

We know that Doctrinal Regeneration is false. We know that one who is a true believer in the true gosel can speak peace to : "tolerate" one who claims to believe the true gospel but turns out later to have been lying and is really a deceiver. We know that one believer who is ignorant of [Calvinism vs. Arminianism] controversy can "tolerate" or speak peace to an Arminian. So what is left??? How do you refute the truth that someone who is regenerate cannot speak peace to, tolerate {KNOWINGLY} one who believes a false gospel????


Does it matter?



Bill

[Yoder]

I find this regenerate/unregenerate argument laughable. It is not done in love and its motives are suspect.

The answer to your question is I don't know.

I am not God. I don't know where their heart is; I don't know their standing. Who knows if they have really thought it through or not? If you really think it through, how can you believe someone who believes in free will/lose his or her salvation is saved? It is the same thing as saying Muslims are saved.

That being said. I will not make blanket statements that say all TC's are not of the elect. It isn't relevant because you could never know the answer to that question. I guess that would make me tolerant of tolerant Calvinists.

How about you preach the gospel like you were commanded and not worry about if TC's are unregenerate? God knows who is his and who isn't. We are just supposed to spread the gospel and make disciples. How about we put our focus on that?


Respectively in love,

Yoder

Something I found on Bible Fellowship Site:

"I have observed that all the heresies and errors have arisen not from Scripture's own plain statements, but when that plainness of statement is ignored, and men follow the Scholastic arguments of their own brains." Martin Luther

[whs1]

Amish Dave said:



"That being said. I will not make blanket statements that say all TC's are not of the elect. It isn't relevant because you could never know the answer to that question. I guess that would make me tolerant of tolerant Calvinists."



I do not believe that anyone can know who are "of the elect".

I never said anyone could.

What I am saying is that you can know if some one is "unregenerate" [not elect].

There is the regenerate elect.
There is the unregenerate elect.
There is the unregenerate reprobate.

It is possible that one who I call "unregenerate" may be among the elect.

If it does not matter whether or not someone can be known as what they are: "Regenerate or Unregenerate" ...

Who do you preach the gospel to then, Dave???


Bill

[Yoder]

I do not believe that anyone can know who are "of the elect".



Agree

I never said anyone could.What I am saying is that you can know if some one is "unregenerate" [not elect].There is the regenerate elect. There is the unregenerate elect.There is the unregenerate reprobate.It is possible that one who I call "unregenerate" may be among the elect.



Let me take you example from an earlier post. You said:



then turns around and says: ""A person who denies one of the 5 points even partially [example: they deny limited atonement by saying "Christ died for the elect and the reprobate in some sense."] is regenerate.""



This is an example of a "Staunch Calvinist, Reformed Orthodox" person actually denying that it is necessary for one to even profess to believe in the heart of the gospel [which Limited Atonement is]. Does the gospel matter?



Now, I am going to state that knowing who Christ died and whom he did not die for is not a requirement for salvation.

It is not the "heart" of the gospel.


Put down that stone.



That makes it no less important, but someone can get this wrong and be saved. It is not as cut and clear as you make it out to be. There are no verses that come out and say, "Christ died for the elect only". You come to that conclusion by much studying and prayer and that only after the Holy Spirit has revealed it to you. But to say that someone is unregenerate because he doesn't quite understand limited atonement is an extra biblical requirement on your part.



I know you will say that we don't make God sovereign if we believe that man determiner’s where atonement applies thus we don't believe in election. I have read the arguments from your camp.



Let me give you an example through a joke that shows what you are trying to do.



There is this guy and he is out watering his lawn. He looks over and sees someone is moving into the house next to him. He sees a guy get out of his car and this guy starts telling the movers where to set stuff. So he puts down his hose and waves the new guy over to the hedge that separates their lawns. So the new guy comes over and the man says.



"Hey buddy, welcome to the neighborhood. What do you do for a living?"



The new guy says, "I am a professor for the local college. I teach deductive reasoning."



The man says, "What is that?"



The new guy says, "Well, for example, do you have a goldfish?"



The man says, "I sure do!"



The new guy replies, "Well, through deductive reasoning, I am going to say that you have kids."



"Wow, I sure do!"



"Then I am going to say that since you have kids, you have a van in your garage"



"Wow buddy, I sure do!"



"And since you have kids and a van, I am going to say through deductive reasoning that you are married and thus I conclude that you are heterosexual."



The man is amazed. "Wow, that is very neat! You got that all right!"



So the new guy says, "Well, that is what I do and how I do it. Say, listen I have to get back to moving so it you will excuse me..."



"Sure Sure" says the man.



So he goes back to watering the lawn when he sees his other neighbor waving him over. So, he puts down his hose and walks over.



"Hey, what were you talking to that new guy about?"



"Well, he is a professor at deductive reasoning at the local college."



"Well, what is that?"



"For example, do you have a goldfish?"



"No"



"Then you are a homosexual."



I always liked that joke.



But see what you are doing here? A person doesn't confess a point of Calvinism (or limited atonement if you prefer that better) thus he is unregenerate. That is folly on your part my friend and you may be destroying the faith of some who are not as mature in the faith as we are.



I guess my point would be this:



The free willers are the ones who believe in a false gospel and are thus not saved.



TC's are brothers in Christ who are in error and need to be prayed for. But let us not jump the gun and pronounce them "unregenerate" before we go through the list and see what they confess. Perhaps they have not throught it through as much as we have.



Dave

[Skeuos Eleos]

If it does not matter whether or not someone can be known as what they are: "Regenerate or Unregenerate" ...

Who do you preach the gospel to then, Dave???
Bill,
Surely the answer to your question is "everyone"? For what reason would you want to restrict the preaching of the gospel? and, incidentally, if it is really so easy to tell the difference between regenerate and unregenerate, then why were Mt 7:15; 2 Cor 11:13; Ga 2:4; 2 Pe 1:1; 1 Cor 5:11, etc written?

Martin

[Yoder]

You said:

Look, I just don't even know if I am regenerate because of Marc Carpenter's judgments

Maybe Mark has overthrown your faith as well? That is why he is in error. What is your opinion in the light of scripture? You can be sure if you are regenerate. The book of I John is great for that. Why not read that instead of Marc Carpenter's opinions?

Dave

[Ivor Thomas]

Ivor here,. whs1 or Bill i feel compelled to reach to you, i hope i can articulate this ,.You said that doctrinal regeneration is false i would agree with you,what the catch is that would you now say doctrinal unregeneration is true???..Bill you said in on of your posts you got blown out of the water i would ask you what water?? that was and to look to Jesus i know you read the bible would you read again 1.John ch 5, especially up to verse 13......Ivor Thomas,....:cool:

[whs1]

Amish Dave said:


""Now, I am going to state that knowing who Christ died and whom he did not die for is not a requirement for salvation.

It is not the "heart" of the gospel.


Put down that stone.""


You do not know the truth. Limited atonement is the gospel! You only have the workshop of your own brain for such an assertion. The Holy Scriptures are against you. Isaiah 53:5, Matthew 1:21, John 6:37, John 10:14,15,16,26-30; John 11:49-52; John 17:1-3 & Romans 5:15-19 & 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 all teach very explicitly [even with the opponents "proof texts" taken into consideration] these Scriptures are clearly teaching "A LIMITED ATONEMENT...(so the Arminian's proof texts have to be interpreted in the light of the EXPLICIT texts)...just to name a few.



Amish dave also said:
"Let me give you an example through a joke that shows what you are trying to do."

So, now you get your theology from "jokes"??? Some "Christian"! I will be sure not to listen to you. God is not a "joker" like you.


Skeuos Eleos said:

""
Quote:
Originally Posted by whs1
If it does not matter whether or not someone can be known as what they are: "Regenerate or Unregenerate" ...

Who do you preach the gospel to then, Dave???
Bill,
Surely the answer to your question is "everyone"? For what reason would you want to restrict the preaching of the gospel? and, incidentally, if it is really so easy to tell the difference between regenerate and unregenerate, then why were Mt 7:15; 2 Cor 11:13; Ga 2:4; 2 Pe 1:1; 1 Cor 5:11, etc written?

Martin

Martin: I never said we can "know" who ALL the regenerate or unregenerate are. Only God knows that. I am not omniscient. But from day to day...those I come in contact with...I can judge [Matthew 7:15 commands it along with all the other verses exhort us to DISCERN or JUDGE who are "UNREGENERATE"...do they not???

You still did not answer my question; Martin. How would you know who to preach the gospel to?



Ivor Thomas said::

"Ivor here,. whs1 or Bill i feel compelled to reach to you, i hope i can articulate this ,.You said that doctrinal regeneration is false i would agree with you,what the catch is that would you now say doctrinal unregeneration is true???

Yes.
..Bill you said in on of your posts you got blown out of the water i would ask you what water??

I don't recall saying that. But, yes...I have been blown out of the water that I thought I was in "Being saved". I have thought that I have been saved. I am deceived. At least until I have or will repent and believe the gospel.

that was and to look to Jesus i know you read the bible would you read again 1.John ch 5, especially up to verse 13......Ivor Thomas,....:cool:"


Well, I did. I have. I used to believe that I could have "assurance" according to my own judgments along with all the verses quoted by those who believed you could be an "easy believer".... But not now.... I either have believed the true gospel and am already regenerated....or....I am still lost because I think that one can be a "Tolerant Calvinist" or an "Arminian" and still be regenerate (But it has to be SECRETLY: because as far as I know...now...at least...all who speak peace to a TC or Arminian or any other false gospel believer are NOT SAVED, they are lost. So, now, I believe....1 John, the whole book. I don't live up to it in my life {my sinful flesh} hinders me from keeping God's commandments perfectly...but one commandment I am going to definately keep is 1 John 3:23 and Romans 1:16+17; and 1 Cor. 15:1-8, and 2 Corinthians 5:21,,, If the Lord wills it!


What I mean to say is...since Marc C. has told me I am unregenerate I am unsure if I am regenerated or not. Now...what he is saying is [as far as I can tell very [almost 100%] accurate according to Scripture. I want to believe the true gospel...not a false one...so...I will not rest until I know I am regenerate by God's standards...Not only Marc Carpenter's....but his are very...if not so close to the true gospel. He is right on.

(1) All who believe a false gospel are not saved.

(2) Arminianism is a false gospel.

(3) Thus, all who believe Arminianism are not saved.


(1) The gospel is God's promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone.

(2) Every regenerate person believes the gospel.

(3) It is not possible for a regenerate person to confess a false gospel.

(4) All who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception (universal atonement) are unregenerate.

(5) All who believe that universal atonement advocates are saved are unregenerate (including those who say they believed universal atonement for a time after they were regenerated).

(6) God is not gracious toward and does not desire the salvation of the reprobate.




Now, if someone dissents from the above they are LOST [[[[they don't have to believe it in order to be regenerated]]].... But every saved person will not disagree with any of this above...at least from Galatians 1:6 and Mark 16:16 you will have a difficult case saying one can disagree with the truth and still be saved.

I don't disagree with the above. I just have a problem understanding when I have repented and believed the truth of Christ alone being my righteousness by God's sovereign will; because at a certain time in the past...3 or 4 months ago I disagreed with the truth by saying that John Calvin and A. W. Pink were true believers when I knew they taught contrary to the truth of the heart of the gospel which is "Limited Atonment." I now see that I have been unregenerate at least up to that time...when I clearly saw this and before that. Now the question is: do I really believe that the gospel: which is that Christ's righteousness imputed to his people alone and his people's sin's imputed unto Christ who bore the full penalty of those sins ALONE [no one else's, not the sins of any other persons!] is the only true gospel to be believed and I must believe it ...or will I [like most others] say: I DOES NOT MATTER if I pat an Arminian or any one else on the back who does not believe the true gospel on the back and say that they are "saved" no matter what they say about the true gospel....that will inicate that God's only exclusive gospel is not really the ONLY gospel that saves.


Or can someone in here show me some SCRIPTURE that says:

""We can believe the true gospel and false gospels too, and that God really does not care what we believe; as long as we say: "I believe.""


Bill

[Yoder]

I wasn't teaching theology through a joke. I was showing you your line of reasoning through a joke. (and to lighten up the conversation a bit).

You drop Marc Carpenters name like it is going out of style. Who is your master? Who is your authority? Marc or the bible?

Limited atonement as important as a doctrine as it is, is not required to believe in the true gospel of Christ. If you are a true Christian, you will eventually get it right, no doubt about it. But it isn't a requirment of salvation. Faith is a gift from God (sorry disciple :) just as is any spiritual understanding or thing. Which God will give all in their due time.

But if there is a false gospel being preached it is through the false gospel of doctorinial regeneration.

Second but most important of all, you do not come in love. You are a resounding gong. You can be right about all things but if you have not love, you have nothing. You have not followed biblical principle and not come rebuking gently and in love. You have come as a rabid attack dog and you are in error. I humbly rebuke you for that.

Come in love my friend. Explain your postition in love so that if you have something in merit to say, we may benifit. But if you come attacking and come guns a blazing, you are just noise that must be tuned out.

Dave

[Yoder]

You said:


Isaiah 53:5, Matthew 1:21, John 6:37, John 10:14,15,16,26-30; John 11:49-52; John 17:1-3 & Romans 5:15-19 & 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 all teach very explicitly [even with the opponents "proof texts" taken into consideration] these Scriptures are clearly teaching "A LIMITED ATONEMENT

They do not CLEARLY teach limited attonement. I believe these verses support limited atonement. Limited Atonement does rise out of these verses when you put them together, no doubt about it. But none of them come right out and say "Jesus just died for the elect and you need to believe this to be saved."

You come to that conclusion only after bible study when the holy spirit reveals that to you. My point is that you MUST NOT go around calling brothers and sisters in Christ unreginerate just because they haven't matured in their faith or haven't had this revelation spoken to them by the Holy Spirit as of yet.

I struggled with Limited Atonement as a Christian for awhile. I am still struggling with parts of it, but the Holy Spirit is working in me and far be it from you to know my heart or where I am in my walk with Christ much less call anybody unregenerate.

Again, you come not in love but with spite and malice. You effortlessly overthrow the faith of the breathern and have shown no love. Instead of getting your que from scripture, you follow Marc's loveless lead.

If you are going to rebuke according to the bible, do it lovingly, gentely with patience and humility. You have done none of these things.

Dave

[disciple]

Faith is a gift from God (sorry disciple :) just as is any spiritual understanding or thing.
no need to be sorry. i believe that faith is a gift from God. i just don't believe that Eph 2:8 is a place that explicitly teaches this (the gift not being faith, though this may be included, but salvation). there are many other places we gather this very concept (that faith is graciously given/granted). carry on...

[Skeuos Eleos]

You do not know the truth. Limited atonement is the gospel! You only have the workshop of your own brain for such an assertion. The Holy Scriptures are against you. Isaiah 53:5, Matthew 1:21, John 6:37, John 10:14,15,16,26-30; John 11:49-52; John 17:1-3 & Romans 5:15-19 & 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 all teach very explicitly [even with the opponents "proof texts" taken into consideration] these Scriptures are clearly teaching "A LIMITED ATONEMENT...(so the Arminian's proof texts have to be interpreted in the light of the EXPLICIT texts)...just to name a few.You are confusing two different things. The question to be addressed is not whether these scriptures teach limited atonement but whether they teach that a new believer must immediately believe limited atonement which they do not.

A new convert will believe all these scriptures, believing that Christ did indeed die for them, that they themsleves are one of His people, etc, but what these nor any other scriptures do NOT say is that such a person must also immediately think this through to the logical conclusion (or have it immediately 'revealed' to them) that, therefore, this must mean that Christ did not die for everybody. The implication is there staring them in the face and they will no doubt start to realise it soon enough but it is simply not a biblical requisite or product of someone being saved.

Solo Christo!
Martin

[disciple]

You are confusing two different things. The question to be addressed is not whether these scriptures teach limited atonement but whether they teach that a new believer must immediately believe limited atonement which they do not.

A new convert will believe all these scriptures, believing that Christ did indeed die for them, that they themsleves are one of His people, etc, but what these nor any other scriptures do NOT say is that such a person must also immediately think this through to the logical conclusion (or have it immediately 'revealed' to them) that, therefore, this must mean that Christ did not die for everybody. The implication is there staring them in the face and they will no doubt start to realise it soon enough but it is simply not a biblical requisite or product of someone being saved.

Solo Christo!
Martinbesides the fact that this seems to completely remove any hint of grace from salvation. now instead of having a salvation based on our righteousness we have a salvation based upon our intellect and ability to get everything figured out. it's just salvation by works with a different twist.

[Jason777]

besides the fact that this seems to completely remove any hint of grace from salvation. now instead of having a salvation based on our righteousness we have a salvation based upon our intellect and ability to get everything figured out. it's just salvation by works with a different twist.

Right on, disciple. I mean, what about the repentant thief on the cross? He didn't have the time or opportunity to learn about all the finer points of theology!

[Brandan Kraft]

Bill, while I agree with you that freewillers are lost, I'm stumped that you now think I'm unregenerate because I'm tolerant of tolerant calvinists. Further, you you aren't sure whether you're regenerate because Marc doesn't seem to think so. THIS IS A DOCTRINE FROM THE PIT OF HELL! Our assurance is not BASED on anything another man says or does. Our assurance is not based on our tolerance of sinful affronts to the Gospel. Our assurance is based on Christ Alone. My salvation is Christ - that includes my justification, my sanctification, and my assurance. All of it is wrapped up in him. I think Marc has a lot of good things to say, but he is not the authority on who is saved and who is not.

Brandan

[Yoder]

You know....


You reformed guys are not bad at all. *laugh*

Yoder

[Ivor Thomas]

Ivor here, Disciple it is not a matter of intellect over grace , when the Holy Spirit regenerates we are in dwelt by the Spirit of Truth,. He teaches us all we need to know,the full gospel ..the question that might be asked what time would this take and would it vary from one to another,. What i do know is that from regeneration one knows truth when he or she comes to it in the course of their regenerate life,. and could never intrisically deny any of the doctrines of truth,unless of course they may sin i believe outwardly of human ignorance ,. but in their spirit the truth is kept, they would not remain such because The Holy Spirit teaches and convinces them of truth,.:cool: Ivor Thomas....

[disciple]

Ivor here, Disciple it is not a matter of intellect over grace , when the Holy Spirit regenerates we are in dwelt by the Spirit of Truth,. He teaches us all we need to know,the full gospeli understand this, but the focus seems to be on the person (the "believer" and their intellect; therefore a child most likely could not be saved) at this point rather than on grace and Christ and the gospel. this involves the issue of whether or not salvation is so based on understanding that one cannot be saved without a full understanding of all the intricacies of all of the doctrines of the gospel (evidently dependent upon the opinion/exegesis of the person "quizzing" the candidate). the point is that the person depends on Christ for their salvation and not upon themselves. it is not a question of having all of the particulars ironed out and making sure you hold no 'logical' contradictions in your theology. if this is pressed as a prerequisite for salvation, then i believe this is just another form of works salvation plain and simple.

[Skeuos Eleos]

Martin: I never said we can "know" who ALL the regenerate or unregenerate are. Only God knows that. I am not omniscient. But from day to day...those I come in contact with...I can judge [Matthew 7:15 commands it along with all the other verses exhort us to DISCERN or JUDGE who are "UNREGENERATE"...do they not???

You still did not answer my question; Martin. How would you know who to preach the gospel to?
Yes, I agree there are verses that exhort us to discern but what I am saying is that sometimes we can get it wrong - especially if someone lies about what they believe - such people still need to hear the gospel ;

Furthermore, scripture does not require us to ascertain who amongst our hearers are regenerate and separate them out before we preach the gospel

Finally, I believe that all biblical preaching is preaching the gospel and that this includes to the regenerate since the gospel instructs them of the sole ground of their justification, sanctification and blessed assurance that they may grow in the love and knowledge of Jesus.

For the gospel of the glory of Christ!
Martin

[Ivor Thomas]

Disciple i dont know how you get to (a child most likely could not be saved).from what i have said or anyone i can think of on thread,.Regeneration first by grace alone while we were yet sinners Christ died for us,. doctrinal truth follows by indwelling Spirit you will know the truth and the truth will set you free,.if you would go back over you will find the ones you are saying about all say regeneration first,....... Ivor Thomas:)

[Skeuos Eleos]

You know....


You reformed guys are not bad at all. *laugh*

Yoder

Actually we are bad, very bad! ...

But thanks be to God who "rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. " :D

Martin

[Yoder]

Actually we are bad, very bad! ...

But thanks be to God who "rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. " :D

Martin*sigh*

*laugh*

What I meant is..... I am glad that you are not the hobgoblins that some have made you out to be.

But in all seriousness, I am overjoyed to have stumbled on this forum and to have found kindred hearts that love the Lord as much as I.

Yoder

[Yoder]

Disciple i dont know how you get to (a child most likely could not be saved).from what i have said or anyone i can think of on thread,.Regeneration first by grace alone while we were yet sinners Christ died for us,. doctrinal truth follows by indwelling Spirit you will know the truth and the truth will set you free,.if you would go back over you will find the ones you are saying about all say regeneration first,....... Ivor Thomas:)
If I may step in here... :)

The belief that you have to know doctrine to prove you are regenerate would exclude a lot of people under the age of 20 in my estimation and not just children. Anybody can be spoon fed election...limited atonement and the like but not grasp it for themselves.



Is a child/teen/young adult going to grasp these truths right away? Most likely they will not. It comes through a lot of bible study and prayer and the spirit revealing things to you. Will you put a timetable on them? (Them being people who do not grasp right away what we have been discussing) Can you be patient enough with them to help them along without calling them unregenerate?



A true Christian will not pronounce a false gospel. But I believe that some are willing to include limited atoenement (which is very important doctrine) as a part of the gospel of Christ when it is not. I am not downplaying the truth of it, I am just saying lets be careful of what we proclaim what is absolutely essential to the gospel.



I think that is what Disciple is saying here. (not that I am trying tio speak for him)

Yoder

[Robert R. Higby]

Yoder states:
I believe that some are willing to include limited atoenement (which is very important doctrine) as a part of the gospel of Christ when it is not.

Danger! There is no truth that is optional. The 'meat' of the gospel is just as essential as the 'milk'; it is just that babes in the truth cannot digest the full implications of it as yet. There is no significant truth which can be accepted or dismissed out of convenience and emotional like or dislike. When the Holy Spirit convicts the regenerate mind of the implications of God's eternal Word, there is no saying 'no'. The soul who says 'no' at that time proves himself unregenerate.

[Brandan Kraft]

Danger! There is no truth that is optional. The 'meat' of the gospel is just as essential as the 'milk'; it is just that babes in the truth cannot digest the full implications of it as yet. There is no significant truth which can be accepted or dismissed out of convenience and emotional like or dislike. When the Holy Spirit convicts the regenerate mind of the implications of God's eternal Word, there is no saying 'no'. The soul who says 'no' at that time proves himself unregenerate.Amen Bob. If someone rejects limited atonement, they are rejecting absolute satisfaction on the part of Christ. If someone rejects limited atonement, they are in essence saying that Christ's atoning death wasn't good enough to remove the sins from His people, that something "more" is needed - that something usually being a "free will" decision, a "baptism", or something other equally as ridiculous and insulting to Christ's perfect plan of salvation.

[Yoder]

We are saying the same thing here brother. I am sorry if you got from my post that I thought it was optional. Truth is truth and if you are saved, you will eventually grasp the truth. But to say that just because you do not grasp the concept of limited atonement or haven't had the spirit reveal the truth to you yet is not an indication that you are not saved.

And when I say it is not part of the gospel, I guess that I should clairify that it isn't something you have to grasp before/right when you are saved.

Peace,

Yoder

[Yoder]

Amen Bob. If someone rejects limited atonement, they are rejecting absolute satisfaction on the part of Christ. If someone rejects limited atonement, they are in essence saying that Christ's atoning death wasn't good enough to remove the sins from His people, that something "more" is needed - that something usually being a "free will" decision, a "baptism", or something other equally as ridiculous and insulting to Christ's perfect plan of salvation.

My whole point Brandon is that there are people who are tolerant calvinists because they haven't thought it through like this. At first, you think... He died for the world/ died for the elect, what is the difference? They don't really think about it all till later. These are the people I am talking about. Remember, this whole discussion is in the context of TC's.

Yoder

[Ivor Thomas]

We are saying the same thing here brother. I am sorry if you got from my post that I thought it was optional. Truth is truth and if you are saved, you will eventually grasp the truth. But to say that just because you do not grasp the concept of limited atonement or haven't had the spirit reveal the truth to you yet is not an indication that you are not saved.

And when I say it is not part of the gospel, I guess that I should clairify that it isn't something you have to grasp before/right when you are saved.

Peace,

Yoder Amish according to this optional point of limited atonement after regeneration as you suggest,i dont see no reason why you dont discount another one for instance total depravity may be the whole 5 points, you are saying you dont have to grasp one point limited atonement ,. so to me you are saying all 5 points,. so to me you are saying you could have a regenerate person indwelt by the Holy Spirit unregenerate in doctrine ,if you think this how long a time after would it be for......before they grasp it,. ,...Ivor Thomas:)

[bgamall]

"Ivor here, Disciple it is not a matter of intellect over grace , when the Holy Spirit regenerates we are in dwelt by the Spirit of Truth,. He teaches us all we need to know,the full gospel ..the question that might be asked what time would this take and would it vary from one to another,. What i do know is that from regeneration one knows truth when he or she comes to it in the course of their regenerate life,. and could never intrisically deny any of the doctrines of truth,unless of course they may sin i believe outwardly of human ignorance ,. but in their spirit the truth is kept, they would not remain such because The Holy Spirit teaches and convinces them of truth,.:cool: Ivor Thomas...."

In response to this and to the newbie, it is clear to me that grace alone means not falling into legalism or free will teaching. How can salvation be by grace alone when a person believes the opposite of "grace alone". Law and free will teaching both oppose "grace alone". To hide behind "grace alone" as a means to teach law preaching, covenant theology, dispensationalism or free will is against the gospel. People who teach these doctrines that are not according to the revealed word of God reveal their hearts by teaching these doctrines.

[Yoder]

Amish according to this optional point of limited atonement after regeneration as you suggest,i dont see no reason why you dont discount another one for instance total depravity may be the whole 5 points, you are saying you dont have to grasp one point limited atonement ,. so to me you are saying all 5 points,. so to me you are saying you could have a regenerate person indwelt by the Holy Spirit unregenerate in doctrine ,if you think this how long a time after would it be for......before they grasp it,. ,...Ivor Thomas:)
I didn't say it was optional. I am saying that to judge if one is regenerate by how much he knows is wrong and unbiblical. I certainly didn't grasp limited atonement right after I was saved. It is something I earnestly searched out in scripture and the Holy Spirit revealed it to me.

If you are of the truth, then you will eventually grasp this truth. But lets not call people out and out unreginerate, thus destroying the faith of someone who can only take the milk of the word. I abohor doctorinal regeneration as it is a false gospel and just as dangerous as romanism.

There are people who haven't thought much on the subject and are thus TC's. I wouldn't call it unregenerate in doctorine as so much undeveloped. Perhaps that helps?

Yoder

Yoder

[Yoder]

How can salvation be by grace alone when a person believes the opposite of "grace alone". Law and free will teaching both oppose "grace alone". To hide behind "grace alone" as a means to teach law preaching, covenant theology, dispensationalism or free will is against the gospel. People who teach these doctrines that are not according to the revealed word of God reveal their hearts by teaching these doctrines.

You believe in doctorinial regeneration then I take it? I am a dispie. I claim Christ alone through faith alone. That faith being a gift from God. Not of myself. It was given to me by grace. I cling to this just as you do. But since I am convicted through scripture that god is not done with the nation of Isreal, I am unregenerate? I just want to make sure I am getting you right here. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Yoder

[Ivor Thomas]

"Ivor here, Disciple it is not a matter of intellect over grace , when the Holy Spirit regenerates we are in dwelt by the Spirit of Truth,. He teaches us all we need to know,the full gospel ..the question that might be asked what time would this take and would it vary from one to another,. What i do know is that from regeneration one knows truth when he or she comes to it in the course of their regenerate life,. and could never intrisically deny any of the doctrines of truth,unless of course they may sin i believe outwardly of human ignorance ,. but in their spirit the truth is kept, they would not remain such because The Holy Spirit teaches and convinces them of truth,.:cool: Ivor Thomas...."

In response to this and to the newbie, it is clear to me that grace alone means not falling into legalism or free will teaching. How can salvation be by grace alone when a person believes the opposite of "grace alone". Law and free will teaching both oppose "grace alone". To hide behind "grace alone" as a means to teach law preaching, covenant theology, dispensationalism or free will is against the gospel. People who teach these doctrines that are not according to the revealed word of God reveal their hearts by teaching these doctrines. are you saying this about me i can not see what you mean if you are because i believe in grace alone could you explain please ... Ivor..:eek:

[bgamall]

Eventually the elect will learn "the Way". They will learn to walk in grace and reject free will and law preaching. They will hold to the power of the gospel as being the sole power of God.

[Yoder]

Eventually the elect will learn "the Way". They will learn to walk in grace and reject free will and law preaching. They will hold to the power of the gospel as being the sole power of God.
We are in complete agreement.

[Ivor Thomas]

Eventually the elect will learn "the Way". They will learn to walk in grace and reject free will and law preaching. They will hold to the power of the gospel as being the sole power of God. The Elect know the way and are kept by the power of God now not eventually they do walk in grace and do reject free will and law preaching,.you need to go back over thread i think,.also THE Holy Spirit indwells believer now not eventually you are in error,. ..Ivor :cool:

[Yoder]

Ivor.

So, the true Christian will be correct in doctrine right off the bat? There is no learning process. There is no Holy Spirit revealing things to you as you grow. We are all theologians right off the bat? I am not being smart. I just want to know if this is what you are saying.

Yoder

[bgamall]

Well I suppose Ivor, that those who are brought into a true Church learn quickly the truth. But since I don't see many true churches then I don't see folks learning the truth very quickly.

Amish Dave I am happy you agree with me. I do see that you list dispensationalism as being your persuasion in your profile. Based upon what we have said here I hope you will reconsider. If you have any questions, please email me or post here.

[Yoder]

I am a dispie only to the point that I do not believe that God is done with the nation of Israel. But to be honest, I am still searching that all out for myself. I am reading Romans as we speak looking for the answers. I may post a different topic and we can talk there.

Yoder

[Ivor Thomas]

Well I suppose Ivor, that those who are brought into a true Church learn quickly the truth. But since I don't see many true churches then I don't see folks learning the truth very quickly.

Amish Dave I am happy you agree with me. I do see that you list dispensationalism as being your persuasion in your profile. Based upon what we have said here I hope you will reconsider. If you have any questions, please email me or post here. The elect are the church something you must have to learn i suppose ,from Ivor.....:cool:

[bgamall]

The elect are the churches but if there are no true churches the elect are scattered.

Amish Dave, I am half Jewish raised as a Gentile. I believe that the elect Jews are saved as the fulness of the Gentiles takes place. That is happening NOW. There are few Gentiles saved, and in truth most Jews reject the savior. However, this is not what happened in my case. God revealed his Son in me at age 21. I am now 54 and have battled to find a true church. I have to go to the 1646 confession to believe that a true church existed after the apostles. Again, there may have been more, but that is the only one I am confident about. There were true believers fellowshipping in the 7 churches. Of course not all people were saved I am sure. There are false brethren everywhere.

But dispensationalism is wrong because there is no establishment of law after grace! There is no temple after we have the complete revelation! There is no secret rapture and only one Second Coming. Jesus has already stood on the Mount of Olives in His ministry and he brought division then. Luke 12:51 and Luke 21:37. All is fulfilled EXCEPT the final salvation of the elect not saved, and the Second Coming of Christ.

[Yoder]

I posted a new thread and posted some questions.

Yoder

[whs1]

Hey, Amish Dave, and Darth Gill... what gospel is left after the "LIMITED ATONEMENT of JESUS CHRIST" is gone??? If someone denied the doctrine of God: "The Trinity" after they were 'saved'? would that mean they need to study a little more? Then what? What if they did believe it? Then they were still saved while they denied it??? Last look in the Scripture...no one becomes saved because they do 'anything' much less study the doctrine alittle more. God either saves someone or he does not regenerate them...and when God does regenerate someone...it will be by his word which does teach the Trinity and Limited Atonement. This picking apart what is being said by putting words in my mouth [like: I say someone has to have some: "Intellectual works" first then they will be saved is false...I never said that. Ivor has it right. IF someone denies the gospel...they were never saved to start with. If someone is wrong about something...[it will be any thing EXCEPT essential gospel doctrine.] By the way...logically if one denies total depravity...they have denied all 5 points. They all are logically intertwined. They are not optional nor are they able to stand alone without each other...either the Bible is to be taken for all of the gospel or none of it. You cannot have Total Depravity and UNLIMITED ATONEMENT. God's word does not teach it..

Is truth up for vote? God says it : I believe it, that settles it???

NO! God said it, there fore it is forever settled in heaven and truth! No, God is not taking up election votes to see who will be "for God".

God is not running a democracy. Limited Atonement is true. If someone disagrees with God...who is wrong??? To say one is a "babe" in Christ and cannot handle "meat" is to say that AFTER the GOSPEL is BELIEVED...THEN there are other finer points that cannot be grasped...then that is true...but to disagree about the gospel??? COME ON NOW!
Of course, Amish, you don't see that the heart of the gospel is "The Atonement of Jesus Christ" so you are not even close to knowing what Salvation even is. But Darth; you are...you know that Limited Atonement is the very heart of the most important part of the gospel (*and without the Atonement being Limited**there is NO Atonement*). So, how can anyone in here accuse me of being "unloving" if I don't believe that they are saved when in fact I am attempting to reason with everyone to tell them that they are in very deed wrong about this issue.

I do not believe that if someone is saved that they will become sinlessly perfect!!!

What I do believe is, is that all the true believers will be in agreement with the fact that one [who claims to be a believer believing the true gospel] and who "fudges" by patting an Arminian and telling that person that "All is well" when they know full well : "ALL is NOT well" because Arminianism is a LIE,,,then that is a full blown compromiser who does this. They KNOW full well that they say: "Hey, I believe in the true gospel" but they REALLY do not...because they turn around and say that a person who claims to believe a lie REALLY (even though an Arminian and believes a lie) is O.K. because ... COMPROMISE! Double talk!!! This Tolerant Calvinist does not really believe the true gospel...they are just saying that they do...because they KNOW that Arminianism is lie from the "PIT OF HELL" [Darth] and they are saying: "Peace, Peace, when there is NO PEACE" to the "Tolerant Calvinist" or Arminian; or [like Billy Graham]...Peace, Peace to every religion on earth to keep the peace. What kind of double talking compromising is that???


Bill:confused: :confused: :confused:

[tomas1]

This is a question to those who believe that a true Christian could never confess a false gospel. Would this also apply if the Christian were under torture? What about mental illness? What about lying to gain the favor of men? What if they are confused as to what the words they are using actully mean? I’m just trying to understand your position.

[Ivor Thomas]

This is a question to those who believe that a true Christian could never confess a false gospel. Would this also apply if the Christian were under torture? What about mental illness? What about lying to gain the favor of men? What if they are confused as to what the words they are using actully mean? I’m just trying to understand your position. In reply there are many examples for us, Stephen being the first stoned to death for is stand for truth,. Book of hebrews tells of men and women being put to death for there faith, you see the thing is a christian is kept by God,.lets put it like this tomas do you believe gospel because of yourself, or is God causeing you to believe the gospel,Also The Lord is able to keep His elect in all circumstances faithfull to him :cool: Ivor......

[bgamall]

"This is a question to those who believe that a true Christian could never confess a false gospel. Would this also apply if the Christian were under torture? What about mental illness? What about lying to gain the favor of men? What if they are confused as to what the words they are using actully mean? I’m just trying to understand your position."

Peter denied Christ in the beginning. He did not do so in the end. Paul said the apostles were sacrificed for the gospel. So, it is a process.

[whs1]

Bgmall said:

"Peter denied Christ in the beginning. He did not do so in the end. Paul said the apostles were sacrificed for the gospel. So, it is a process.""

Peter was not converted when he did it. Where is this other example in Scripture....Quote???

Bill

[bgamall]

Of course Peter was converted. What do you mean? He confessed his faith prior to the denial.

[whs1]

"Of course Peter was converted. What do you mean? He confessed his faith prior to the denial."

Then, what does this mean, prior to his denial???

Luke 22:32..."But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."



Bill

[Ivor Thomas]

In reply it was the will of God for Peter to deny Jesus,. He was not given the power to stand, for it was written strike the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered,. it was for prophecy to be fullfilled at that time,. When Jesus went away he said he would send the helper The Holy Spirit, this is why Peter was able to stand after even unto death,. Stephen full of the Holy Spirit faithfull unto death,.It does not speak to me Bgamall, of some process it speaks to me of being kept now believeing the ful gospel kept faithfull by God ,,, just a thought stephen was ready i cant see where the process is,,,...Ivor :cool:

[Skeuos Eleos]

This picking apart what is being said by putting words in my mouth [like: I say someone has to have some: "Intellectual works" first then they will be saved is false...I never said that. Ivor has it right. IF someone denies the gospel...they were never saved to start with.But the problem is that there is nothing in scripture which proves that believing in a limited atonement is a mandatory core component of the beliefs of a new convert. Search the scriptures – you won’t find it. Marc Carpenter has seduced you with the application of logic rather than the application of the Word of God.

Now, before you get too concerned, notice that I highlighted the word “limited”: this is because I think the scripture does teach that a new believer will believe in an effectual atonement (although they probably wouldn’t use those words), i.e. they will believe that Jesus really did die for them personally, that they themselves really are one of His people, that Jesus really did bear the punishment which they deserve for their sins, that they really could not save themselves, that there was nothing they could contribute, that they really were purchased by His precious blood alone and therefore that Jesus Christ is their only hope, etc, etc. In short, a new believer will believe that Jesus atoned for their sins and that this atonement was effective and sufficient – it needs nothing that they can contribute to be added to it – now they may not be able to articulate it very well, but they will KNOW that they are saved and that it was Christ alone who did it! OK!?

… BUT, this is not the same as believing that the atonement is limited. At the moment of belief the truths of the gospel are applied personally by the Holy Spirit to an individual, the focus is upon what Christ has done for the individual not what He did or didn’t do for others. It will no doubt be understood by the new believer that not everybody will be saved but, assuming that they have neither read it nor been taught it prior to regeneration, there is no scripture to support the notion that either prior to or as part of regeneration they must realise the obvious logical implication of its limited scope. Like all truths, understanding that the atonement has a limited scope is something that is revealed by the Holy Spirit but not by some mystic experience that happens at the point of regeneration but by study of the Word of God from teaching and from reasoning it through. Faith comes from hearing. Yes, some truths can be determined from good and necessary inference but powers of deduction are not a ‘work’ that a sinner must contribute either. To add an understanding of the limited scope of Christ’s atonement as a necessary product of regeneration ultimately then is to add to the gospel: either as pre-requisite pre-reading, as a necessary ability to immediately think through the logical implications of a doctrine or as an extra-scriptural mystical experience where knowledge is imparted apart from the Word of God. It would be no different to saying that someone who believes in election must also believe in the doctrine of reprobation. It may be blindingly obvious yet it still requires the application of logic and the study of God’s Word. In fact, by saying that a believer must understand and believe the doctrine of limited atonement does imply that one must understand the doctrine of reprobation. Maybe that’s the next pronouncement that OTC will make!

None of the above is intended to deny that limited atonement is a fundamental glorious truth nor is contrary to what has already been said: that truth is progressively revealed and to reject outright what has been revealed (once it has been revealed) is to prove oneself unregenerate. As the implication that the scope of the atonement is limited becomes clear the regenerate will, in humility accept it. As I already said in a previous post which maybe got overlooked:

The implication is there staring them in the face and they will no doubt start to realise it soon enough but it (limited atonement) is simply not a biblical pre-requisite or product of someone being saved.

WHS1, I am concerned for you! The pronouncements of OTC do serve to undermine the faith of believers and rob them of their assurance (1 John 5:10). This assurance is not based upon knowledge of correct doctrine but upon the witness of the Holy Spirit and a faith that rests in the finished work of Christ alone, the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us! Amen!

For the glorious gospel of the blessed God!
Martin

[bgamall]

"Luke 22:32..."But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.""


Bill you spend way too much time in the King James version, which can be helpful but is not always so. The word converted means turn back.

[Ivor Thomas]

Martin jws belieive in progressively revealed truth,i find what you have said to be reliant on your intellect after regeneration,.But i will say again a believer from regeneration can not intrinsically deny the gospel,.Because the Spirit of truth indwells the believer, remember that limited atonement for the elect is already done , it is finished the gospel is good news NOW,. Ivor :cool:

[Skeuos Eleos]

Martin jws belieive in progressively revealed truth, i find what you have said to be reliant on your intellect after regenerationBut progressively revealed truth is biblical. (Col 1:10; 1 Cor 4:7) I can assure you I don't have enough intellect to rely upon it for anything :o


But i will say again a believer from regeneration can not intrinsically deny the gospel,.Because the Spirit of truth indwells the believer, remember that limited atonement for the elect is already done , it is finished the gospel is good news NOW,. Ivor :cool:But you don't seem to have understood my post: I agree that "limited atonement for the elect is already done, it is finished the gospel is good news now" - I am simply arguing that I see nothing in scripture to justify the position that a belief that the scope of the atonement is limited is a necessary product of regeneration.

Brandan has it right - the real dividing line on the true gospel vs. the false gospel of free-will is justification not limited atonement. A true believer in the gospel will believe that they are justified entirely on the finished work and merits of Christ alone - I believe this much can be supported from scripture, even though many Calvinists today disagree with that (not directly, of course, but when they say that free-willers can be regenerate).

Martin

[bgamall]

"WHS1, I am concerned for you! The pronouncements of OTC do serve to undermine the faith of believers and rob them of their assurance (1 John 5:10). This assurance is not based upon knowledge of correct doctrine but upon the witness of the Holy Spirit and a faith that rests in the finished work of Christ alone, the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us! Amen!"

This is not correct. The profession of true doctrine and true standing in grace is walking in the Spirit. It is possible to live in the Spirit and not walk in the Spirit. Paul said in Galatians that this is the result of false doctrine. It also can be the result of personal sin. I would not want to give folks assurance when they are believing in covenant theology and or dispensationalism or law preaching or eternal generation. People cannot stand while they are believing these things. If they cannot stand they cannot have faith to the end.

[Skeuos Eleos]

"WHS1, I am concerned for you! The pronouncements of OTC do serve to undermine the faith of believers and rob them of their assurance (1 John 5:10). This assurance is not based upon knowledge of correct doctrine but upon the witness of the Holy Spirit and a faith that rests in the finished work of Christ alone, the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us! Amen!"

This is not correct. The profession of true doctrine and true standing in grace is walking in the Spirit. It is possible to live in the Spirit and not walk in the Spirit. Paul said in Galatians that this is the result of false doctrine. It also can be the result of personal sin. I would not want to give folks assurance when they are believing in covenant theology and or dispensationalism or law preaching or eternal generation. People cannot stand while they are believing these things. If they cannot stand they cannot have faith to the end.I realise that this isn't quite what I intended. It was made in the context of some earlier statements by whs1 about how he was no longer sure whether he was regenerate and I was simply commenting upon my dislike of the effects of some of the OTC pronouncements.

However, your post raises some interesting questions about what assurance is that I am not sure I agree with. Perhaps we should start a new thread?

Martin

[Ivor Thomas]

"WHS1, I am concerned for you! The pronouncements of OTC do serve to undermine the faith of believers and rob them of their assurance (1 John 5:10). This assurance is not based upon knowledge of correct doctrine but upon the witness of the Holy Spirit and a faith that rests in the finished work of Christ alone, the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us! Amen!"

This is not correct. The profession of true doctrine and true standing in grace is walking in the Spirit. It is possible to live in the Spirit and not walk in the Spirit. Paul said in Galatians that this is the result of false doctrine. It also can be the result of personal sin. I would not want to give folks assurance when they are believing in covenant theology and or dispensationalism or law preaching or eternal generation. People cannot stand while they are believing these things. If they cannot stand they cannot have faith to the end. Ivor here just a quick reply, you say if they cannot stand they cannot have faith to the end ,what nonsence is this,sounds a bit work based to me,.You will not give assurance to ones who believe for example covenant theology,But you give assurance to ones who dont believe yet in all the 5 points. of t.u.l.i.p,,..You also said in this thread that one is not able to walk yet and that it is a process,.Bagmall i would ask you to contend for the faith which was once and for all delivered to the Saints,.Truth in what we have been discussing on this thread is not a process its a established fact,I will say i find what you have said here in reply very worrying, . and would like to discuss further,....Ivor....:cool:

[whs1]

I think that I am sure that my salvation does not depend upon what men say. What Scripture says: YES! My basis upon whether or not I am saved should be God speaking by the Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture, not Marc Carpenter or OTC.

""Truth in what we have been discussing on this thread is not a process its a established fact,I will say i find what you have said here in reply very worrying, . and would like to discuss further,....Ivor""

I agree with Ivor though. Either I have become regenerated because God saved me and I will never profess a false gospel from the time I was regenerated until the end or I was NEVER regenerated...

That is my stance.

bill

[Brandan Kraft]

whs1 - Do you know if you've professed a false gospel or not since you were "converted"? Do you know if you're professing any false gospel now?

I can stand here and say I'm not professing or believing any false gospel because all that I point to is Christ Alone.

Christ is my justification, my sanctification, my assurance, my inheritance, my glorification, my salvation.. Christ is my law and it is Christ whom I will always profess. I know without a doubt I'm not professing a false gospel because Christ is the absolute and singular center of all of my faith. If you can agree with me, then you too should have assurance.

[Ivor Thomas]

To Whs1 does it matter what you were before,.according to what you write now you believe the Gospel as well as anyone i know,.I dont think you could believe what you believe now and not be regenerate,.Only The Holy Spirit could reveal such teachings to you for you to believe them now,.Also Bill what you say about Peter would mean that you are regenerate now ,,.. it does matter Bill you matter Bill,. I have the wittness of the Holy Spirit who has moved me to reach out for you,......Ivor...:cool:

[whs1]

Darth Gill wrote:

""whs1 - Do you know if you've professed a false gospel or not since you were "converted"? Do you know if you're professing any false gospel now?""

Well, I thought I was "Converted" in 1991. But since then I have seen recently that I was deceived. My true conversion has happened in the past two weeks in which time I know that I have not professed any false gospel or said a Tolerent Calvinist was saved either or an Arminian was saved. The truth is: The gospel does matter and so does whether or not one believes it. It also matters what we say about others. Joining hand in hand with the wicked is condemed by God in 2 Chronicles 20:35-36

"And after this did Jehoshaphat king of Judah join himself with Ahaziah king of Israel, who did very wickedly: 36 And he joined himself with him to make ships to go to Tarshish: and they made the ships in Eziongaber.
37 Then Eliezer the son of Dodavah of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the LORD hath broken thy works. And the ships were broken, that they were not able to go to Tarshish.

Proverbs 11:25, 16:5
2 Chronicles 19:1-2.

I will ask you Darth Gill: do you think that you could say: A false gospel is O.K. (Being Tolerant [which means you count him as a brother in Christ] of a Calvinist who counts some Arminians as saved brethren in Christ) and still not be saying that the gospel is ALONE EXCLUSIVE of all other gospel.

P.S. Darth: Roman Catholics believe that they are saved by Christ, by grace, and Faith alone, [at least they "say" faith alone.] too.


Ivor said:

To Whs1 does it matter what you were before,.according to what you write now you believe the Gospel as well as anyone i know,.I dont think you could believe what you believe now and not be regenerate,.Only The Holy Spirit could reveal such teachings to you for you to believe them now,.Also Bill what you say about Peter would mean that you are regenerate now ,,.. it does matter Bill you matter Bill,. I have the wittness of the Holy Spirit who has moved me to reach out for you,......Ivor...:cool:



Praise the Lord for you Ivor. Everything you say is seeming to be that you love Christ above all and will not be saying that the gospel is all inclusive, but rather EXCLUSIVE ALONE to be believed with out other gospels.

You keep standing for the truth.

I have understood the true gospel and repented of my dead works and false religion [while I was a dead Reformed Calvinist] and count it all dung. The truth here is...that all persons who call themselves: "Reformed, or Calvinists" who say that "Arminianism" is a lie...then say: "I think that some "Arminian(s)" are still saved...that proves that that "Calvininst" is only double-talking and compromising the [[exclusivity]] of the true gospel just like Billy Graham does when Graham preaches "All religions are ways to God" ...then quotes the word of God , telling people the way of salvation.
Another thing this means is: that when they [whoever knows what Arminianism and Calvinism are [5 points of each] and then says that an "ARMINIAN" is SAVED this = saying "ARMINIANISM IS TRUE AS WELL AS CALVINISM AND IS ANOTHER TRUE GOSPEL.



That is the whole point here. Compromise =[pluralism = a theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality]. Saying that more than one way [gospel] is a valid way or gospel to get to the true God. [Syncretism = the combination of different forms of belief or practice All religions have different ways: but they all lead to the same place, RIGHT? WRONG!



To tell the truth is LOVE! To lie is hatred.




Bill

[Skeuos Eleos]

The truth here is...that all persons who call themselves: "Reformed, or Calvinists" who say that "Arminianism" is a lie...then say: "I think that some "Arminian(s)" are still saved...that proves that that "Calvininst" is only double-talking and compromising the [[exclusivity]] of the true gospel just like Billy Graham does when Graham preaches "All religions are ways to God" ...then quotes the word of God , telling people the way of salvation.
Another thing this means is: that when they [whoever knows what Arminianism and Calvinism are [5 points of each] and then says that an "ARMINIAN" is SAVED this = saying "ARMINIANISM IS TRUE AS WELL AS CALVINISM AND IS ANOTHER TRUE GOSPEL.

That is the whole point here. Compromise =[pluralism = a theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality]. Saying that more than one way [gospel] is a valid way or gospel to get to the true God. [Syncretism = the combination of different forms of belief or practice All religions have different ways: but they all lead to the same place, RIGHT? WRONG!

To tell the truth is LOVE! To lie is hatred.

BillBill, this is just another way of re-stating what you originally posted. If you were to substitute "believing that it was your own free-will choice that made the difference" in place of Arminianism then I would agree with everything you said but you have not answered the specific points I made in my post about limited atonement. Your original post made clear that you believe all 5 points of tulip to be necessary beliefs of a newly regenerate believer. I have made some fairly precise points about the scope of the atonement. The issue here is not what is the gospel but specifically must a new believer believe that the scope of the atonement is limited in its design. You need to prove that from scripture or modify your position. :D

Martin

[GraceAmbassador]

Dear WHS1:

Please, answer to Martin, Skeuos Eleos, first, then would you please answer me the following:

If I confess, as Brandan said, Christ alone as the source, reason and my Salvation itself, why would I have to add to that the "admission" of "limited atonement"? Is it not the same as "salvation by works, or by knowledge or by confession, or isn't this adding to the work of Christ, that is, that I have to "confess" limited atonement to be regenerated (saved)?

Second: If I announce that anyone who confesses Christ alone, not free will, not works, not future works or future grace is saved or regenerated, and someone sincerely and wholeheartedly believes my announcement, how can this person not be regenerated for not believing limited atonement?

Thirdly: If the person in the example above confessess Christ alone as her salvation and the Bible says that no one can confess Christ as Lord, (Lord meaning the sole owner and master of Salvation) "but by the Holy Spirit" and you know and I know that the Holy Spirit only inspires the elect to confess that Christ Alone is our Salvation, how can you say that this person is not regenerated because they do not confess that the "atonement is limited", even when Holy Spirit says that she is and even provided her with the knowledge that Christ alone saves (no free will, and nothing else)? Are you wiser than the Holy Spirit? Are you the author and finisher of our faith? Have you shed your blood on the cross? Is your name in the agreement and plan made by God in Jesus Christ

Fourthly: If you are going to make a definite and indisputable statement that the "regenerated" people will confess limited atonement, is it not fair and justified that we expect from you a scripture that states clearly:

"Yea, behold, I shall inspire those whom I will regenerate to confess that the scope of my atonement is limited; even I shall say unto thee that those who will not confess that the atonement is limited are deceived even when they say that Christ alone is their Salvation; and the Holy Spirit has to apologize for inspiring them to confess Christ alone;) ;) ;)

Please, again, respond to Martin and then, if you like reply to this one. I really want to know your position on this.

Milt

[Ivor Thomas]

Milt you have me worried over your post,.hypothetical persons dont get saved real persons confess Christ alone when they become regenerate,then the Holy Spirit authenticates scripture to them, they cannot always articulate it well but the indwelling Holy Spirit keeps them from denying the truth of the gospel, if you believe Milt the 5 points did you learn them because of your intellect or was it by illumination of the Holy Spirit, ...Ivor......:cool:

[GraceAmbassador]

Great cop out!

However... take my hypothetical person and make it into a real one. It happens every day in skid road, in bars, bath houses, centers where the devil is worshipped and others. I have seen it and experienced in my 35 years of ministry (and I a a staunch 5 pointer...). So, my hypothetical person is real one! Now, how about Martin's questions?

Let me tell you where and how I learned the 5 points (for your surprise, I do answer questions, unlike you...:rolleyes: )

God led me through many stages of maturity. Just as my sons (I have three that now are adults) were MY SONS when they were immature, I was (and am) a Son of God when I was immature and did not understand things very well. Just as my boys would say: "dad I hurt and don't think you can help" which was a statement that did not reflect my ability, scope and willingness to help them, they were my sons, I was a son of God when I could not understand fully the scope of His providence to me. Capice?

If you have kids and you do not feel that way, you are unnatural... If you do and believe God is different, you make yourself better than God to your kids than God is to His. ...if you that are evil know how do give good things to your children... Remember who said that? Are you better than God? Are you better to your kids (if you have any, if you don't I understand your problem) that God is to His?.

Today I grew and developed into a believer in the 5 points. They were in the Bible before I learned them or believed them; as God lead me to maturity, He taught me them by illumination. Just as I taught my kids many things about me as they grew older. But I was a regenerate SON OF GOD even when I did not confess them.

(Whether you agree or not, I did have the courtesy of answering your question... now, please, I ask, answer Martin's and then, if you wish, answer mine.)

Milt

[Ivor Thomas]

Great cop out!

However... take my hypothetical person and make it into a real one. It happens every day in skid road, in bars, bath houses, centers where the devil is worshipped and others. I have seen it and experienced in my 35 years of ministry (and I a a staunch 5 pointer...). So, my hypothetical person is real one! Now, how about Martin's questions?

Let me tell you where and how I learned the 5 points (for your surprise, I do answer questions, unlike you...:rolleyes: )

God led me through many stages of maturity. Just as my sons (I have three that now are adults) were MY SONS when they were immature, I was (and am) a Son of God when I was immature and did not understand things very well. Just as my boys would say: "dad I hurt and don't think you can help" which was a statement that did not reflect my ability, scope and willingness to help them, they were my sons, I was a son of God when I could not understand fully the scope of His providence to me. Capice?

If you have kids and you do not feel that way, you are unnatural... If you do and believe God is different, you make yourself better than God to your kids than God is to His. ...if you that are evil know how do give good things to your children... Remember who said that? Are you better than God? Are you better to your kids (if you have any, if you don't I understand your problem) that God is to His?.

Today I grew and developed into a believer in the 5 points. They were in the Bible before I learned them or believed them; as God lead me to maturity, He taught me them by illumination. Just as I taught my kids many things about me as they grew older. But I was a regenerate SON OF GOD even when I did not confess them.

(Whether you agree or not, I did have the courtesy of answering your question... now, please, I ask, answer Martin's and then, if you wish, answer mine.)

Milt you have got me mixed up with some body else, but i have 3 sons ages 32..34 and 36, and a daughter 37,. i have 5 grandsons i did have 6 but he saddly died ,......Ivor Thomas..

[GraceAmbassador]

you have got me mixed up with some body else, but i have 3 sons ages 32..34 and 36, and a daughter 37,. i have 5 grandsons i did have 6 but he saddly died ,......Ivor Thomas..
Oooops, I thought you had written this:


Milt you have me worried over your post,.hypothetical persons dont get saved real persons confess Christ alone when they become regenerate,then the Holy Spirit authenticates scripture to them, they cannot always articulate it well but the indwelling Holy Spirit keeps them from denying the truth of the gospel, if you believe Milt the 5 points did you learn them because of your intellect or was it by illumination of the Holy Spirit, ...Ivor......:cool:
Then I thought you'd written in response to the question I asked WHS.

Anyway, it is a pleasure to meet you!

[whs1]

Martin wrote:

"but you have not answered the specific points I made in my post about limited atonement. Your original post made clear that you believe all 5 points of tulip to be necessary beliefs of a newly regenerate believer. I have made some fairly precise points about the scope of the atonement. The issue here is not what is the gospel but specifically must a new believer believe that the scope of the atonement is limited in its design. You need to prove that from scripture or modify your position."


Bill says...

Well, I don't know how else to do this but list everywhere in Scripture that the Atonement of Christ is taught as definitely "limited". From Scripture the Bible definitely teaches "Definite, Particular, or Limited Atonement."

From the Old Testament and New Testament:

A question has to be asked first. What is the end of the death of Christ? Meaning: what did the Father, Son and Holy Spirit intend... what did God intend to be effectually accomplished by Christ's death?

If we answer from Scripture [not every Scripture that speaks of Christ's death] but only selected Scriptures for time's sake:

Isaiah 53:1-8

""1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken."


We see that Jesus Christ's death was not intended for every single human...we see that the "end" of Christ's death was only for a specific number of persons: "my people", "us", "we".

Matthew 1:21
"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."


John Owen wrote a book that once and for ever closes the argument on whether the death of Christ was designed only for the elect and "limited."
[The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ]
I am now reading it and half way through it. Blessed be God who does all the saving.

John Owen said:

"The whole of this buisiness may be thus summed up:

"God, out of his infinite love to his elect, sent his dear Son in the fulness of time, whom he had promised in the beginning of the world, and made effectual by that promise, to die, pay a ransom of infinite value and dignity, for the purchasing of eternal redemption, and bringing unto himself all and every one of those whom he had before ordained to eternal life, for the praise of his own glory."


To answer your QUESTION, Martin:

Scripture does so teach that it [Limited Atonement is part of the gospel that"we" are to believe [the elect only will]...

1 Corinthians 15:1-8 "

""1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.""


God is right here saying "OUR" sins. NOT THE WORLD'S sins! A gospel that preaches "The whole world's sins" is no gospel and false and is to be exposed...along with those who hold to that false gospel.

Consequently, those who believe the Gospel believe "the atonement is LIMITED to those whom the Father gave unto the Son...

John 17:1-3
" 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


Bill

[Yoder]

Whslr...

We are not disputing limited atonement, we are asking you to provide scripture that one must believe it to be regenerate. If you are of the truth, you will eventually believe in it. But show us from scripture where it says that you must confess limited atonement to be saved.

I cannot find it.

Dave

[whs1]

Scripture does so teach that it [Limited Atonement] is part of the gospel that"we" are to CONFESS...


1 Corinthians 15:1-8

""1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [LIMITED ATONEMENT]
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.""


Now if the above is "the gospel" then the truth is that without Believing, and Confessing this gospel...

No salvation...Mark 16:15-16....15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned..

and if one does not believe this gospel...


Galatians 1:1- 3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."


God says they are accursed. Does that mean that another gospel is O.K. or that those who believe Unlimited Atonement [ANOTHER GOSPEL] are CONFESSING THE TRUE GOSPEL...???

[Yoder]

Of course you must believe that Christ died for you. But you must also believe that he died for a specific amount of people? The verses you provided do not support that.

Yoder

[whs1]

Grace Ambassador wrote:



"then would you please answer me the following:

If I confess, as Brandan said, Christ alone as the source, reason and my Salvation itself, why would I have to add to that the "admission" of "limited atonement"? Is it not the same as "salvation by works, or by knowledge or by confession, or isn't this adding to the work of Christ, that is, that I have to "confess" limited atonement to be regenerated (saved)?


No, it is not the same as "adding to the work of Christ" nor is it "salvation by works" nor "salvation by knowledge" nor "Salvation by confession. It is not "adding to the work of Christ" either! The reason why it is none of what you have listed here is because that if you present "Christ Alone" as your "salvation message"...then you would have other statements about Christ after one believed your message that you would tell them. If you don't preach "limited atonement" you don't preach the gospel. So, "Christ Alone" did what for sinners, Milt, besides "be Christ alone"...Christ alone for what? Alone as opposed to being helped by someone else??? For what? Saving. Saving from what, How? Salvation includes more knowledge than just "Christ Alone". Besides that phrase is not in the Bible just like the word : "Trinity" or the words : "limited atonement". So, what gospel one preaches consists of a bigger message than "JUST JESUS" "Alone". When a sinner is hearing or comprehending the gospel: they must know more [like the thief on the cross] knew more than "JUST CHRIST ALONE". He knew about "Total Depravity" [Luke 23:40-42], and how Jesus Christ was the only sinless, substitute to take away the sins of only those who believed in him. [Limited Atonement]....That thief could not and would not cry out to Jesus : "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Unless...he believed for sure that Jesus could and would certainly take him there by saving him from his sins [his sins specifically, not that Jesus was a big "OFFER" for everyone to come take... and that he had to do...something. Now, you will say: "Yea, but he did not confess: "Limited Atonement". I know. But he was not baptized either. NO WORKS required. That thief on the cross knew that the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ Alone made the difference between salvation and damnation [which is what Limited Atonement teaches]. This is more proof. Look, No one has to "Confess" anything [IN ORDER TO BE SAVED]. They may be mute. But if one can confess something AFTER they are regenerated...it will be "LIMITED ATONEMENT"...because if they confess "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" they are NOT REGENERATED; because "Unlimited Atonement makes salvation hinge on what the sinner MUST DO. You all should be seeing that this thing you are trying to accuse me of is just not so. It is the other way around. You should be pointing your finger at the ones who believe in Unlimited Atonement; and asking them: isn't it a "work" to believe that God sent Jesus Christ to save every human being....but the final difference that makes a person a believer in Christ [the difference between saved and lost] is their "DECISION" of free-will for Jesus Christ.

Second: If I announce that anyone who confesses Christ alone, not free will, not works, not future works or future grace is saved or regenerated, and someone sincerely and wholeheartedly believes my announcement, how can this person not be regenerated for not believing limited atonement?

Because there is something more to the gospel message than : "Christ Alone".


Anyone can run around professing the truth, but be a wolf....so don't listen to me, unless God says it in Scripture. The test is: does the Scripture as a whole teach that the gospel that is to be preached and taught and believed then confessed [last] is "Total Depravity", "Unconditional Election", "Limited Atonement", "Irresistable Grace", "Perseverance of The Saints"???

If it is, then why are you attacking me, if not, prove it. You have to prove to me, that all 5 of these doctrines are not:
1. The Gospel
2. Essential to be professed AFTER ONE IS SAVED as PROOF one is saved.


Thirdly: If the person in the example above confessess Christ alone as her salvation and the Bible says that no one can confess Christ as Lord, (Lord meaning the sole owner and master of Salvation) "but by the Holy Spirit" and you know and I know that the Holy Spirit only inspires the elect to confess that Christ Alone is our Salvation, how can you say that this person is not regenerated because they do not confess that the "atonement is limited", even when Holy Spirit says that she is and even provided her with the knowledge that Christ alone saves (no free will, and nothing else)? Are you wiser than the Holy Spirit? Are you the author and finisher of our faith? Have you shed your blood on the cross? Is your name in the agreement and plan made by God in Jesus Christ [No, that is ridiculous, I will not even answer this drivel.]


NO, 1 Cor. 12:3 "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

Does this mean that every human being who says: "Jesus is Lord", is automatically saying this by the Holy Spirit???

NO. That is not what this passage is teaching.


"how can you say that this person is not regenerated because they do not confess that the "atonement is limited", even when Holy Spirit says that she is"

Because the Holy Spirit says this: " Matthew 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."


Fourthly: If you are going to make a definite and indisputable statement that the "regenerated" people will confess limited atonement, is it not fair and justified that we expect from you a scripture that states clearly:

[i]"Yea, behold, I shall inspire those whom I will regenerate to confess that the scope of my atonement is limited; even I shall say unto thee that those who will not confess that the atonement is limited are deceived even when they say that Christ alone is their Salvation; and the Holy Spirit has to apologize for inspiring them to confess Christ alone

NO, it is not fair to expect an extra-biblical statement from the Word of God...which is not the word of God. I answered this before in previous 2 posts I posted, Milt.

Love,
Bill

[Yoder]

Again, just like the free willers, you go by logic. You do not teach what scripture teaches.

Limited atonement is truth but it isn't a part of the saving gospel. It is not a requirement of the saving gospel. It doesn't make it any less true, it just isn't something you have to grasp right away. Although you are in error if you don't. But it doesn't mean you are not saved.

Dave

[Skeuos Eleos]

Whs1:

You are still missing the point at which you are applying logic rather than scripture.

You are automatically assuming that not believing limited atonement must mean believing unlimited atonement. Not true. All your scriptures prove at best is what I already stated: that a newly regenerate believer will believe that Christ's death did effectually atone for their sins - it simply does not follow either logically or scripturally that they must therefore believe either that Christ atoned for the sins of the Elect or of all people. There is nothing in scripture that proves that. There is also nothing in scripture that teaches that a proclammation of the gospel must include an explanation of limited atonement or election and reprobation. Neither is there anything that teaches that these doctrines must be believed immediately upon regeneration and there is nothing in scripture that teaches that these doctrines will be believed immediately by direct revelation apart from the hearing the Word of God.

In the Acts 2 example many believed without any explanation of a limited atonement or that the promise was only to certain people and to respond that there doesn't need to be such an explanation because it is revealed by the Holy Spirit is to effectively deny Romans 10:14-17. This is no different to the story of the thief on the cross. Your response to Milt on this is pure eisogesis - you are reading your doctrine into the story. However, I'll let Milt respond to that. :cool:

You are indeed adding to the gospel because you are in effect saying that either
1. the gospel proclamation must include more information than the examples given in scripture and/or
2. the new believer will 'receive' some truths that were not part of the proclamation of the gospel which is not only to deny Romans 10:14-17 that faith comes by hearing but contradicts the need for preaching the gospel.


Martin

[Ivor Thomas]

Martin i think you are missing the point, and the point for me is when a person is regenerate it is not that they know everything,.but from then on the Holy Spirit illumines and authenticates scripture to them,.So from regeneration they cannot deny truth of gospel as they recieve it,.For instance when i became regenerate, i knew for example, Heaven and Hell , sheep and goats,and scriptures for instance like acts 13 v48,, .They where authenticated to me the word was put in my heart, Martin i used to believe Jesus was raised a spirit and materialised a body, and that he was Michael ,,. when i was regenerate i instantly knew this was false as i came to it, It is not a case of confessing t.u.l.i.p ,to be saved, it is a case of not denying it because you are saved,. .....:) Ivor Thomas...

[GraceAmbassador]

WHS:

Thank you for responding and also thank you for not accusing us of "slandering" you because we disagree with you as we recently had it done to us in this Forum about the same subject.

Let me, just for this last time post my objections to your frame of thought:


So, "Christ Alone" did what for sinners, Milt, besides "be Christ alone"...Christ alone for what?
The context of our discussion indicates the answer to your question. We are discussing Salvation here and nothing else. The nature of your question is even more evidence of a "cop out".


Because there is something more to the gospel message than : "Christ Alone".
Then, dear brother, the burden of proof is on your camp to tell us what is that "something more" and if that "something more" is essential for Salvation and scripture proof of such. A B.C.V. (Book, chapter and verse) would help us greatly in elucidating such an issue.

Also, the statement quoted above causes me concern. Why is it different from the Seventh Day Adventist saying that is Christ alone, plus, keeping the Sabbath and following strict dietary rules? Where do you draw the line? I beseech brother, as a servant of God to tell us what "that something more is" or drop it completely. This sounds as "addition" if I ever saw an addition. You are really treading dangerous grounds. Is it not the same as to say: "Calvinism (or any "ism") saves when added to the work of Christ? If not, how is it not?


Anyone can run around professing the truth, but be a wolf....so don't listen to me, unless God says it in Scripture. The test is: does the Scripture as a whole teach that the gospel that is to be preached and taught and believed then confessed [last] is "Total Depravity", "Unconditional Election", "Limited Atonement", "Irresistable Grace", "Perseverance of The Saints"???

If it is, then why are you attacking me, if not, prove it. You have to prove to me, that all 5 of these doctrines are not:
1. The Gospel
2. Essential to be professed AFTER ONE IS SAVED as PROOF one is saved.

I fully agree, preach, teach, debate, defend, fight for and have suffered real significant personal and financial harm for believing the 5 points. Therefore this is not the issue here as far as I am concerned.

You are also correct that there are wolves... I see them every day, every Sunday seated right in front of me. Some I see their faces, when I am in the pulpit and some I see the "back of their necks" when I am in the auditorium.
But I hope you do not deny that the wolves have learned "Cavinistianese" and can speak such a language with "no accent" and can confess the 5 points until they're blue in the face and yet not be saved. So, your standard of confession is inadequate.

I am not attacking you. If you feel that way, you lost the beauty and purpose of this discussion


2. Essential to be professed AFTER ONE IS SAVED as PROOF one is saved.
This is almost as good as to say: "It is useless". If one is already saved, why then confess it? As a proof? Are you saying that the pure confession, plus a little "acting" equals "salvation" or "evidence of salvation". That's pure religiosity dear brother. How different is that than some branches of the Pentecostal that say: "You are saved, but as a "proof" you need to do certain things. Some of these things are biblical and some not so biblical. I believe you are placing an importance of external evidence that is tantamount to glorifying the symbol more than the thing it intends to symbolize. Why do I need the proof?

One biblical reference that has never been fully responded satisfactorily to me by those who think as you do is Romans 14. These people had a very strange view of "being saved" and were called by Paul weak brethren. Note, they were weak and they were brothers. Paul even told the Romans not to exclude those whom Christ had died for. I think we can agree that those whom Christ died for are the elect, and the request not to "exclude" or "disallow them as brethren" indicates that they were not only elect but also saved


Because the Holy Spirit says this: " Matthew 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."

I know and understand that you don't want to respond to my extra biblical and intentional reduction to absurdity, but you just justified it for me:

Are you saying that Jesus in Mat. 7:21 is contradicting the Holy Spirit. Please, read the way I framed my question again and you will see that my absurdity is quite justified. My question to you:

"how can you say that this person is not regenerated because they do not confess that the "atonement is limited", even when Holy Spirit says that she is"

Your answer:

Because the Holy Spirit says this: " Matthew 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 is right? Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

Of course not all who say things such as "Jesus is Lord" are saved. But that, I remind you again, is NOT THE POINT of our discussion. Using your argument, I would like to say to you that no one who confesses Limited Atonement, and all the 5 points, for that matter, is saved either! I am talking about those whom in fact the Holy Spirit does inspire to declare that Jesus is Lord

Did Jesus not say that we should allow the wheat to grow with the tares?
Can you point above and beyond any shadow of doubt which is which by their confession.

As to my example about parenthood, I guarantee you: Once you are a father, a natural father, even an unbelieving father, if you are natural, you would understand "sonship" and what links a child to the father. The parable of the prodigal son is prodigal in teaching us that. He who messes up badly, squanders his inheritance, dishonor the father with words and deeds may in fact be a son even when away from the father. Who are you to say that they are not? Capice?

People who cannot confess things as biblically as we believe they should are supposed to be taught and disciplined and received with no disputes about difficult questions when the degree of difficulty is related to their "age". Your theology practices "shunning" of babies, spiritual babies, only because the stench of their diapers is too unbearable for you. Clean them up!

As to your "eisogeses" I will refrain from posting. I think our discussion will not get anywhere. I believe you are stuck in your beliefs that people should be placed into a certain standard for you to fellowship with them. You also place so much importance in such a standard but cannot bring us a B.C.V. and even think is unfair to request one. That is akin to cults: establish strict rules with no accountability for where they get them. So, as the Borg would say: Resistance is futile!

You're welcome to respond as fiercely or as gently as you can. In either case, I believe I should not interrupt Martin anymore since he is doing a much better job than I am, whose patience elasticity can strech much farther than mine;) Since I read the OTC web and debated Marc Carpenter myself, I can predict word by word what will be your response.. Please, spare me! Let's have fun in another area of agreement, sing Com by ya, or not if you wish...

You're blessed.

Milt

[whs1]

"""Then, dear brother, the burden of proof is on your camp to tell us what is that "something more" and if that "something more" is essential for Salvation and scripture proof of such. A B.C.V. (Book, chapter and verse) would help us greatly in elucidating such an issue."""




Hey, Milt, here is SCRIPTURE, or did you miss it the first time???


Scripture does so teach that it [Limited Atonement] is part of the gospel that"we" are to CONFESS...


1 Corinthians 15:1-8

""1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [LIMITED ATONEMENT]
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.""


Now if the above is "the gospel" then the truth is that without Believing, and Confessing this gospel...

No salvation...Mark 16:15-16....15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned..

[Skeuos Eleos]

Martin i think you are missing the point, and the point for me is when a person is regenerate it is not that they know everything,.but from then on the Holy Spirit illumines and authenticates scripture to them,.So from regeneration they cannot deny truth of gospel as they recieve it,.For instance when i became regenerate, i knew for example, Heaven and Hell , sheep and goats,and scriptures for instance like acts 13 v48,, .They where authenticated to me the word was put in my heart, Martin i used to believe Jesus was raised a spirit and materialised a body, and that he was Michael ,,. when i was regenerate i instantly knew this was false as i came to it, It is not a case of confessing t.u.l.i.p ,to be saved, it is a case of not denying it because you are saved,. .....:) Ivor Thomas...Then I think we're saying the same thing - aren't we? :) :confused: :)
when a person is regenerate it is not that they know everything, but from then on the Holy Spirit illumines and authenticates scripture to themI agree. I never said anything to the contrary did I? This is what I have been trying to say all along!!! Ok, I wasn't really talking about what happens subsequent to regeneration as you are here but then that was never the area of apparent disagreement was it? :D
So from regeneration they cannot deny truth of gospel as they recieve itAgain, I agree! I never said anything to the contrary. You seem to be making my points for me now - and much better than I did! :D
It is not a case of confessing t.u.l.i.p ,to be saved, it is a case of not denying it because you are savedAnd this is pretty much what I have been trying to say! Thankyou for expressing it more clearly than I did. :)

So, just to make sure I am understanding you Ivor, do you agree with the following statement:

prior to or at the moment of regeneration, it is not necessary to have understood that the scope of the atonement is limited, BUT when taught or presented with scriptures that teach limited atonement (or when they simply figure it out for themselves since they will know that not everyone will be saved) they will recognise and affirm it as the truth. It may take a short while to understand and search out the scriptures for themselves like a good Berean but they will not deny it.
I sense progress at last! Ain't the English language great! :D - although I'm not sure that whs1 will agree with this :(

Martin

[Skeuos Eleos]

Hey, Milt, here is SCRIPTURE, or did you miss it the first time???
On the contrary, I think you appear to be missing some questions and responses that have been made to you, for example:

Of course you must believe that Christ died for you. But you must also believe that he died for a specific amount of people? The verses you provided do not support that.


You are still missing the point at which you are applying logic rather than scripture.

You are automatically assuming that not believing limited atonement must mean believing unlimited atonement. Not true. All your scriptures prove at best is what I already stated: that a newly regenerate believer will believe that Christ's death did effectually atone for their sins - it simply does not follow either logically or scripturally that they must therefore believe either that Christ atoned for the sins of the Elect or of all people. There is nothing in scripture that proves that. You haven't responded to these posts yet.

Martin

[Ivor Thomas]

Martin yes to what as just been said ,I think Bill might agree with alot of this?,...The Lord is good to us amen.. Ivor Thomas...........:cool:

[Skeuos Eleos]

Martin yes to what as just been said ,I think Bill might agree with alot of this?,...The Lord is good to us amen.. Ivor Thomas...........:cool:Ah ha! But this means that you will also have to agree that if a newly regenerate believer started attending an "Arminian" church, not yet knowing any better, given that a typical Arminian church doesn't so much teach against these things as not mention them at all, then it could be some time before they come to understand that the scope of the atonement is limited? Yes?

Of course, in the meantime, without speaking to them, someone might incorrectly assume that such a person was "Arminian" simply by the 'church' they attend, which could explain why some TCs think that some who attend Arminian churches could be regenerate? :D

Martin

[whs1]

Ivor said:

"Martin yes to what as just been said ,I think Bill might agree with alot of this?,...The Lord is good to us amen.. Ivor Thomas..........."


Martin said:

""Ah ha! But this means that you will also have to agree that if a newly regenerate believer started attending an "Arminian" church, not yet knowing any better, given that a typical Arminian church doesn't so much teach against these things as not mention them at all, then it could be some time before they come to understand that the scope of the atonement is limited? Yes?

Of course, in the meantime, without speaking to them, someone might incorrectly assume that such a person was "Arminian" simply by the 'church' they attend, which could explain why some TCs think that some who attend Arminian churches could be regenerate?""



Bill says:

If someone is regenerated by God they will NOT be deceived by a false gospel. If they are in an Arminian Church...they will not be there once they know what the true gospel is. Considering they were actually saved truly, then they knew what the true gospel is. The newly regenerated believer will [after regeneration] never confess Unlimited Atonement, Free-will, Conditional Election, Resistable Grace, Falling Away. The newly regenerated believer [when they hear the truth of the 5 true doctrines which are the gospel: Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace, Perseverance; they will agree and wholeheartedly embrace them. But there is no such animal that is regenerated by God immediately and then for the next 10 - 15 years does not "hear" nor know what T.U.L.I.P. is. That does not exist. All Arminians are unregenerate.

No one has to "learn", "study", or have some "process" of learning the 5 points of Calvinism before they can be regenerated. No prerequisites. But the doctrines preached should be the 5 points...because that is the gospel. This is never going to be up for debate. God teaches all the true children of God by his Spirit the same gospel. No one is in the dark. If someone claims to have some other experience...they should be tested by Scripture.

I do not have to answer the questions that I have already answered from Scripture. God is sovereign...but he uses means. I have seen that I was lost only because God opened my eyes using other servants of God. The gospel never allows the credit to be given unto man. If someone says that a gospel is true; then they are enticing men to say: "Come, let us worship other gods." There is plenty of it going on in the name of the "true gospel" "T.U.L.I.P." in this compromising world where Satan is doing his work that God is giving him in deluding those whom God is using Satan to blind...True Christians must:

2 Tim. 2:24 "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

Arminians are those who believe and profess to say that the work of Christ on the cross by imputing his righteousness unto his people and taking his people's sins unto himself as their substitute....is not all the righteousness of God; but man has something left that he must do to make God's work effectual. [Decisions, Baptism, "freewill" _________ ect, ect.]

Unlimited Atonement is Satan's master piece. For, while even some 4.5 point "Calvinists" say they believe that the atonement was only for the elect [they say also that that is only in a certain sense] They also say that the atonement was for the reprobate also in some : """certain sense."""

I hate to do this, but If anyone wants to learn the truth that limited Atonment is the very heart of the gospel...You definitely need to read John Owen's: The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ.
I am half way through the book...



I believe it is here: (on the net)

http://www.graciouscall.org/books/owen/death/toc.html (http://www.graciouscall.org/books/owen/death/toc.html)

I believe and agree with this, does anyone else???


""What benefit did ever come to this church by attempting to prove that the chief part in the several degrees of our salvation is to be ascribed unto ourselves, rather than God? — which is the head and sum of all the controversies between them and us. And must not the introducing and fomenting of a doctrine so opposite to that truth our church hath quietly enjoyed ever since the first Reformation necessarily bring along with it schisms and dissensions, so long as any remain who love the truth, or esteem the gospel above preferment? Neither let any deceive your wisdoms, by affirming that they are differences of an inferior nature that are at this day agitated between the Arminians and the orthodox divines of the reformed church. Be pleased but to cast an eye on the following instances, and you will find them hewing at the very root of Christianity. Consider seriously their denying of that fundamental article of original sin. Is this but a small escape in theology? — why, what need of the gospel, what need of Christ himself, if our nature be not guilty, depraved, corrupted? Neither are many of the rest of less importance. Surely these are not things "in quibus possimus dissentire salvâ pace ac charitate," as Austin speaks, — "about which we may differ without loss of peace or charity." One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a taste, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit, — "mors in olla, mors in olla;" their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a wavering hesitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church communion. [u]The sacred bond of peace compasseth only the unity of that Spirit; which leadeth into all truth. We must not offer the right hand of fellowship, but rather proclaim iJero<n po>lemon, f4 "a holy war," to such enemies of God’s providence, Christ’s merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters. f5 We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~, — "the depths and crafts of Satan;" we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men. With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but yet, for the most part, — like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all, — give but the least admission, and the whole poison must be swallowed. What was the intention of the maintainers of these strange assertions amongst us I know not, — whether the efficacy of error prevailed really with them or no, or whether it were the better to comply with Popery, and thereby to draw us back again unto Egypt; — but this I have heard, that it was affirmed on knowledge, in a former parliament, that the introduction of Arminianism amongst us was the issue of a Spanish consultation. It is a strange story that learned Zanchius f6 tells us, how, upon the death of the Cardinal of Lorraine there was found in his study a note of the names of divers German doctors and ministers, being Lutherans, to whom was paid an annual pension, by the assignment of the cardinal, that they might take pains to oppose the Calvinists; and so, by cherishing dissension, reduce the people again to Popery.""



John Owen: Display of Arminianism:



To which I say : AMEN and AMEN!!! Praise the Lord for such a God gifted brother in Christ as this.



Bill:D

[Robert R. Higby]

1. The doctrine of predestination as restricted by a Dutch acronym can NEVER adequately explain the whole gospel. TULIP is not the whole gospel, it is only a part of it. A person might confess the facts of TULIP and miss the gospel ENTIRELY, since the testimony of the WHOLE of scripture might still be rejected while giving lip service to only a part. Only those given UNDERSTANDING, as illustrated by the productive soil in Christ's parable, have any saving knowledge based on the true gospel.

2. TULIP does not distinguish election from the unbiblical doctrine of selection, so it is inadequate to explain the whole gospel.

3. TULIP does not explain justification by God's free and sovereign grace in Christ alone through faith alone. Augustine's doctrine of justification by character is still potentially embraced in TULIP.

4. TULIP says nothing about the assurance of the believer in knowing that God's grace in Christ has been appropriated through faith.

5. There are many other gospel doctrines not specified in TULIP. If complete and adequate confession of the WHOLE gospel in word is essential to salvation, one who confesses Limited Atonement is by no means is saved by that confession.

6. Those who promote the notion that regeneration of necessity results in immediate confession of TULIP--these persons have a whole agenda of other doctrine required to prove regeneration that is not being discussed here. This is patently dishonest.

[Ivor Thomas]

Ah ha! But this means that you will also have to agree that if a newly regenerate believer started attending an "Arminian" church, not yet knowing any better, given that a typical Arminian church doesn't so much teach against these things as not mention them at all, then it could be some time before they come to understand that the scope of the atonement is limited? Yes? No Martin it does not mean i would also have to agree,how about if they attended a kingdom hall of jws, or mormon temple or seventhday or R.C.They would not stay there and could not stay,. what sharing as Christ with Belial,..................:cool:
Of course, in the meantime, without speaking to them, someone might incorrectly assume that such a person was "Arminian" simply by the 'church' they attend, which could explain why some TCs think that some who attend Arminian churches could be regenerate? :D

Martin For instance do you think some who attend jws are regenerate,. I mean with out speaking to them ,some one might incorrectly assume that such a person was a JW simply by the kingdom hall they attend :rolleyes: ,. I will say again You will know the truth and the truth will set you free, not eventually instantly so that you cannot deny it on recieveing it,. I am believeing for the whole gospel T.U.L.I.P. part of it but vital and essential and cannot be seperated from it ,.:cool: Ivor Thomas..........

[Brandan Kraft]

This discussion is getting old - it's one repeated argument after the next.


The Gospel is more than TULIP... To reject TULIP is to reject a part of the Gospel. However, one doesn't have to express a belief in the L of TULIP in order to be saved - even Marc Carpenter would agree with that. However if one rejects Limited Atonement, he's evidencing himself to be unregenerate. There is a difference that I think we're all failing to see. :D

[Brandan Kraft]

Four types of men.

1. Believes in Limited Atonement - possibly regenerate
2. Rejects Limited Atonement - unregenerate
3. Accepts Universal Atonement - unregenerate
4. Doesn't know about the extent of the atonement - never thought it out - just thinks he's saved by Christ Alone- possibly regenerate

I don't know why we're having this discussion again. One's adherence to Limited Atonement is not my main test. I know a lot of "calvinistic" works mongers that reject the Gospel of Justification by Faith Alone.

[Yoder]

Brandon,

Not to start an arguement....

Where would you stick TC's at? Number 4?

I agree with you btw.

Dave

[Brandan Kraft]

I don't like the term tolerant calvinist, but if I had to say if they are lost or not, I'd break them down into two categories.

1. Some that call Arminianism a false gospel - but won't say all Arminians are lost because they think that there are some arminians that believe the true gospel with their heart. They may or may not embrace some Arminians as brethren. These people would say that some Arminians are really Calvinists at heart. I've heard this time and time again, and it drives me crazy, but I cannot call these people unregenerate. I would say they are ignorant that Scripture does not teach a head/heart dichotomy.

2. Some that openly embrace some or all Arminians as brethren because they see the doctrines of grace as just special insight into the Scripture but not essential. They see Arminianism as just another form of the Gospel. These people I seriously question. Anyone that calls freewillism a valid form of the Gospel is definitely lost in my opinion.

This is just my opinion, and think the real issue as I've repeated time and time again is justification.

[bgamall]

I don't think many people including most Calvininsts are saved. So many Calvinists have no clue about new covenant revelation. They ignore Acts Ch 2 and peddle law conviction. They don't understand that Christ is equal to the father. In all these matters Spurgeon failed. And he is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Robert R. Higby]

bgamall states:
I don't think many people including most Calvininsts are saved.

Be careful of labels! Who and what is a 'Calvinist' anyway? It is wrong to throw around these terms without exactly describing what the person using them means by them.

So many Calvinists have no clue about new covenant revelation. They ignore Acts Ch 2 and peddle law conviction.

Be careful of absolutes in your sweeping estimation of fact! It is entirely possible that a 'Calvinist' may understand a lot of the New Covenant--but not follow it through to the WHOLE of the implications of apostolic doctrine. In fact, most New Covenant theologians do not follow the true gospel through to the WHOLE of the implications of apostolic doctrine! So guilt is common in this regard.

They don't understand that Christ is equal to the father. In all these matters Spurgeon failed. And he is just the tip of the iceberg.

Caution once again! A true understanding of the Trinity is simple yet so complex. I realize that you are referring to the doctrine of eternal generation, yet most men who have confessed this in the past have thought (however erroneously) that they were honoring a FORM of equality within the godhead.

The issue for us today is not to complain about past inadequacies in the confession of all of these doctrines, but rather to promote a new (RENEWED apostolic) and radical transformation of the inadequate explanations of past teachers. Our task is immense and sobering in the light of Christ's revelation!

[whs1]

Brandan said:


"1. Some that call Arminianism a false gospel - but won't say all Arminians are lost because they think that there are some arminians that believe the true gospel with their heart. They may or may not embrace some Arminians as brethren. These people would say that some Arminians are really Calvinists at heart. I've heard this time and time again, and it drives me crazy, but I cannot call these people unregenerate. I would say they are ignorant that Scripture does not teach a head/heart dichotomy.


Brandan, how can you say: "'-if someone who calls arminianism a false gospel and then will not say all arminians are lost because they think there are some arminians that believe the true gospel with their heart....and how can something "drive you Crazy" and even though they are ignorant that Scripture does not teach a head/heart dichotomy???


These things do not make sense and you seem to know that.


Bill

[bgamall]

"Be careful of labels! Who and what is a 'Calvinist' anyway? It is wrong to throw around these terms without exactly describing what the person using them means by them"

I will clarify. I believe that most people who believe in predestination are lost. I believe that people who claim to be New Covenant but who still teach law preaching are lost.

Acts 2 and personal divine revelation prove that law preaching the very worst. It is the worst denial of Christ that there is. If you deny how the gospel works you deny Christ at the root of His revelation.

People who try to enter the sheepfold by free will or by law preaching are lost. They have not properly entered. They are not His. I am careful to teach what my God has taught me, Bill. I must be very careful to teach these things.

Furthermore, those who have been saved by the gospel know that law and free will have NO PART IN THIS MATTER. Paul was clear on the matter. If you preach any other gospel you are accursed.

This is very serious business Bill, and not for the faint of heart.

[Brandan Kraft]

I do not believe in "law" preaching - only gospel preaching. In fact, you'll never see me use the law to put people under conviction before preaching the gospel. Not believing the Gospel should be conviction enough. However, I do believe it is beneficial to CONTRAST the Gospel with the Law in order to MAGNIFY the Gospel even more. This is part of teaching and something we should do regularly. We can't be certain everyone who is listening is already regenerate so am I now guilty of "law" preaching and therefore unregenerate?

[bgamall]

"However, I do believe it is beneficial to CONTRAST the Gospel with the Law in order to MAGNIFY the Gospel even more. This is part of teaching and something we should do regularly. We can't be certain everyone who is listening is already regenerate so am I now guilty of "law" preaching and therefore unregenerate?"

Hi Brandon. It is great to do this contrast with believers. But Paul and Peter did not do this with unbelievers. What I mean by law preaching is the use of natural conscience to move people with feelings of guilt into the fold. That use of law is absolutely opposed to the gospel as much as is free will. That use of the law unfortunately is the historic position of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Menno, Spurgeon, Whitfield, Flavel, and Graham.

Any other use of the law is ok, like saying that the gospel is hidden in the law, say if you were speaking to Jews. I have no problem with that.

But the specific use of law causing natural guilt to place any one in the way of grace is a false gospel. That is why these leaders of Papal and Protestant religions were not walking according to the truth, even if they believed in Predestination, as most of them did.

[Ivor Thomas]

bgamall,. Could you claryfy to me and maybe to others, what you mean by most people who believe predestination are lost who are these most people and why are they lost,in earlier post you said most calvanists, are lost,. you have certainly lost me on what you have said,.Could you be confused as you dont seem concerned in earlier posts as to the weightier matters such as atonement, which brings our jusitfication,.Ivor Thomas...:cool:

[bgamall]

What I am saying in simplified form is that most Calvinists, most predestinarians, are legalists in one crucial way or another. This includes many who supposedly believe in New Covenant theology. The latter group, John Reisinger and others, believes in salvation through application of law in order to make a person ready to receive the gospel.

This of course is Augustinian in essence, and is the position of all major Protestants including Luther and Calvin. It is also the anabaptist position of Menno.

But it is not the position of the apostle Paul. It is not the position of the apostle Peter. It is not the position of the 1646 revised first London Confession, and it is not my position.

And salvation rests either with the gospel that I am putting forward, or the "gospel" that the Catholics and Protestants have been putting forward while they have murdered and pillaged in the name of Christ.

Predestination is scripturally correct, and I view "free will" as a false gospel no less than the law preaching of the historical Catholics and Protestants.

[harald]

Just joined and want to say a few things. My mindedness is quite in line with bgamail in that I believe most who have believed in predestination have been lost persons. As to "Calvinists" and "Arminians" I believe more and more that this twofold distinction of professors is not wise in light of Scripture. Paul did not make such distinction, but spoke of "those of law" and "those of faith". It is to me clear that such who maintain the Arminian scheme are "of law". I guess most Calvinists so-called would agree. But what more, the vast majority of "Calvinists" are likewise "of law". Meaning they are legalistic in their mindsets, which evidences unbelief, lostness.
Also the self labeling on the part of calvinists, i.e. their calling themselves after the man Calvin, and glorying in Calvinism or "the Reformed faith", is to me evidence of gross carnality. It speaks to me either of unconvertedness, which I believe is the case on the part of most, or that the Spirit of Christ has been quenched in some measure.

As for me I do not subscribe to the statement of some who say that "Calvinism is the Gospel". If by "Calvinism" is meant the TULIP system made famous by the Dort synod then I say it is not the Gospel, because in this system is no room, at least on the part of modern adherents of it, for the Scriptural and Pauline doctrine of justification of God's covenant people in and by Christ alone. I have found that the vast majority of 5 point calvinists stand in an unbiblical gospel, believing the heresy of Luther and others, that subjective faith in Christ justifies before God, or secures justification before Him.
Also, the vast majority of calvinists believe the falsehood that God somehow utilizes the preached (or read) word or gospel when He regenerates dead sinners. The TULIP system has no room in it for the Scriptural doctrine of sovereign Holy Spirit quickening apart from means.

There are also other Scriptural teachings which are either denied or downplayed by calvinists, but these were two which came to mind.

Most of the bashing of free willers on the part of calvinists and "reformed" is nothing but the providing a cloak for their own sin, shame and nakedness before God and the household of faith.



Harald

[GraceAmbassador]

Article 25
XXV.

The preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ crucified, dead and buried, and risen again; who is made a prince and a Savior for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him.

The 1646 Confession, article XXV.

[Robert R. Higby]

Responses to bgamall:

This is very serious business Bill, and not for the faint of heart. Yes, I can see that your heart is not faint! It is also serious business if you have misjudged the regeneration of Luther, Calvin, Gill, Spurgeon, or anyone else. Do you remember the OT law of the malicious witness? Certainly it says something to us in this area and era! If one falsely accuses a brother, the accuser suffers the fate that the accused would have suffered had the accuser been correct. That principle is all through scripture, so I am not engaging in law-preaching! This is what John means when he says that we know we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He who loves not his brethren and calls them apostate has not the love of God in him. So if you have misjudged the regeneration of these men, you are failing to regard them with the grace that has been given in the gospel. "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will I forgive your trespasses" (Christ).

And salvation rests either with the gospel that I am putting forward, or the "gospel" that the Catholics and Protestants have been putting forward while they have murdered and pillaged in the name of Christ . . . Predestination is scripturally correct, and I view "free will" as a false gospel no less than the law preaching of the historical Catholics and Protestants.

Some 'Reformed' brothers taught 'law evangelism,' hopefully out of ignorance of all the various implications of that teaching in its degradation of the gospel. But one who does not love his brother in Christ has already 'murdered' in his heart. So that is a scriptural warning, not a judgment on the state of your soul.

If I used the same standard that you are using, I would have to interpret Christ's saying "as in the days of Noah" literally. That is, will even eight souls be saved out of this generation? There is a whole system and range of gospel-denying interpretation; that in my estimation (after a lifetime of study) is as serious or even more than the 'law-evangelism' that you point out. I also pray that men teach these things out of ignorance, not knowing how much they degrade the gospel by this dogma:

1. Low-grace doctrine (infralapsarianism), making God's decree of election dependent on first contemplating the fall of Adam--in order that God will subject himself to the same 'eternal law' that governs both his actions and those of all his creatures. Eternal law philosophy is more damnable than temporal law philosophy, for it would make God himself subject to the law in his extension of grace! He can't sovereignly extend grace in his eternal purposes without subjecting this grace to a prior universal decree of guilt in Adam.

2. Hell evangelism, which is mainly an alternate component of what is preached in law-evangelism. Note that I did not say the doctrine of future punishment, but a view of it that results in preaching the awfulness of the 'flames' to prepare men for the gospel or false-gospel (just as occurs in law-evangelism). Hell-evangelism is Roman, Protestant, and Muslim in its origin and continuity.

3. High-grace doctrine that makes the judgment of the wicked a 'ransom' for the happiness of the saints. In other words, God invented the tortures of hell and predestined the majority to it--in order to exalt the happiness of those who equally deserved it--but are rescued from it in the election of grace! Most who call themselves 'supralapsarian' also hold to this horrid form and expression of the doctrine: God sends redeemable people to hell. This view depreciates grace; because it would deny that the decree of election and plan of salvation in Christ results in perfect glory to God just for what it is--the happiness of the saints in Christ is complete and perfect apart from any decree of reprobation. If all biological humans were included in the decree of election, God is glorified equally in grace as he is in electing only a portion. The glory that God receives in reprobation is of a different nature entirely. I won't elaborate on it right now.

4. The notion of the 'fall' of Lucifer, the fable of John Milton and all of his predecessors dating back to inter-testamental literature. Extreme holiness begets eternal sin! Such an interpretation paves the way for the confusion of all other biblical revelation. Paradox theology ultimately destroys the gospel, as has been proven time and time again in the history of dogma.

I could add many more to the list--but virtually all who call themselves 'Calvinist' hold to one or more of the above 4. To me, all 4 deny the true gospel and sin a very great sin. So by your standard, I would have to believe that almost no one is saved!

[bgamall]

Thanks for the quote Graceambassador. Bill let me answer your following statement:

"If I used the same standard that you are using, I would have to interpret Christ's saying "as in the days of Noah" literally. That is, will even eight souls be saved out of this generation? There is a whole system and range of gospel-denying interpretation; that in my estimation (after a lifetime of study) is as serious or even more than the 'law-evangelism' that you point out. I also pray that men teach these things out of ignorance, not knowing how much they degrade the gospel by this dogma"

Well, Bill, Jesus asked if there would be faith on the earth at his return. This would not play if all the Protestants are saved! There are plenty of Protestants!

As for the degradations you mention we should mention them. If God contemplates everything all at once I am not sure that the debate of infra vs supra is valid. I mean, God from the beginning chose the elect. God from the beginning knew man would fall. So I have always wondered about this debate. We can discuss it here if you would like, Bill.

Hell evangelism could produce false converts. It a fear producing and it was not what Peter or Paul did. There is a passage that says save a soul with fear. I think that refers to regenerate folks who are straying but this is also open to discussion.

Number 3 is really off the wall. We agree.

Number 4 needs explanation. No doubt some angels did not keep their first estate. I don't read Milton. Open for discussion.

All in all few are saved because if you can't understand how the gospel worked in your own soul and compare that to written revelation, ie Acts 2, etc, then that seems to be inconsistent with Paul's emphasis on the power of the gospel. If you do a word study on "gospel" and "power" in the NT you cannot come away with the view that law has any part in this, except as to the fact that the gospel was hidden in the law in the OT.

[GraceAmbassador]

If you do a word study on "gospel" and "power" in the NT you cannot come away with the view that law has any part in this, except as to the fact that the gospel was hidden in the law in the OT.
I could speak for Bill Twisse, but I won't. He is much better than I am...

However, let me speak for myself.

I totally agree with the premise of the "power of the Gospel". Both Bill and I have a passionate aversion for the degradation of such power and often we are regarded as off the wall nonconformists because we DO believe in the writings of Paul as the CROWN of all revelations, meaning that all the others revelations have to be put under the light of what Paul received. Thus we have problems with the singularization, of some scriptures of Peter and James to define doctrine without properly balancing them with Paul. As such, for us, as for you although the Law helped us as a "tutor" (Paul to Galatians), the terrors of the law have no value in preparing a sinner for Salvation.

What I (we) do not agree with is the format of your "blank statements" about who is saved and who is not. There are Protestants who can cite the institutes by heart as well as the confessions of the reformation by heart, and could be teachers thereof if needed. However, there is not one single outward fruit of salvation in their lives. Doubting? Come and spend a day with me in this area where I live: Holland, Michigan.

Both statements are wrong: That those who confess not the teachings of the reformation are lost and those that do confess are always showing evidence of salvation. The former may not know Calvin nor Luther, or their teachings, but may know Christ. Or not. The latter, may know Calvin and Luther but may not know Christ. Or yes.

1 Corinthians 8:3, since you like Paul so much as I do, brings us a glorious revelation: It is not who you know, but whom you known by! God knows those who love Him. Compare it with Matthew 7:23. "I never knew you".

Some will love God and will be "known" by Him. Some will follow religious procedures to the letter and will even believe that this is what is expected of them as believers, and God has rejected them from eternity and declares "I never knew you".

My point is simple: We cannot say that one is saved or not by the fact that he misses one or two points of the overall revelation. Yes, the Holy Spirit will not reveal a faulty, false and feeble Gospel to anyone. But, brother, the expectation that one's declaration should or must be equal, identical, without fail, to that which has been revealed by the Holy Spirit is not something that I see as a requirement to Salvation nor to consider one saved. The expectation that one's declaration is identical to one's received revelation would be [b]heaven. Unless I missed something we are not there yet! Furthermore, who can in mente sana declare that he is able to confess ipsis literis what God has done to us? We can only Praise Him for it and only in eternity we will know as we are known!

By now, as biblically savy as you are, you are probably seeking some verses to prove to me that those who have received the full revelation (is there any other) of the Gospel by the witness of the Holy Spirit will at least understand it to the measure that they agree with our rendering of the Scripture. I propose to you that this standard is dangerous because it goes beyond the standard that God imposes on us for Him to call us saved. Lest we fall into the danger of creating a new sectarian and pharisaic sect, let's call those who cannot recite verbatim what is in scripture, once they have shown witness of regeneration and salvation in all the other aspects, "misinformed Christians", "immature Christians" and "the weak brother" which is more akin to the way Paul calls the very same kind of people. I refrain and call everyone to refrain from labeling a child of God who in no other way than having a faltering confession, shows the fruit of their salvation, an unregenerate only because of such faltering confession.

My humble opinion only!

Milt

[tomas1]

bgamall
I think you keep missing the point. It’s not that there is not a ton of false doctrine out there. We all have our lists. I happen to agree with yours for the most part and BillTwisse’s. I would even add a few more false teachings that I think distort the Gospel. Like preaching that say’s that God cannot destroy a soul after it has been created so he is forced to send the reprobate to hell whether he wants to or not.
The point is we should be very careful when we go from condemning false doctrine to condemning individual people. That is the Job of the Holy Sprit. The Apostles did so only very rarely.
It’s easy to search every thing someone has ever said or written looking for heresy. I know you would find it in my life if you looked very hard. I think there is something shameful in attacking people who are dead or otherwise can’t defend themselves. Why not let God be the judge and you and I focus on spreading the true Gospel?

[Ivor Thomas]

To Tomas, some of these people who you think it shamefull to speak about, because they cant defend themselves,. Are looked up to even idolized by sometimes thousands,. you are quite wrong we should expose them for there false teachings,.we should not compromise the gospel at all,.to sweep under the carpet like your saying helps no one, . Ivor Thomas...:cool:

[Robert R. Higby]

As for me, I have no problem exposing the false teaching of dead professed Christians. By the Lord's grace, I attempt to do this all the time! But I make no statements about the final state of their souls. That is up to our sovereign God alone. Also, none can tell what work the Lord performed in their minds at any point of their lives. However, those whom he used specially to reform the true gospel, such as Luther and Calvin, I personally do not believe they were unregenerate. But I have no problem condemning their gross errors.

Brother Milt, I couldn't have expressed my own thoughts better than what you have presented! Thanks so much in the Lord, from the bottom of my heart!

[bgamall]

"although the Law helped us as a "tutor" (Paul to Galatians), the terrors of the law have no value in preparing a sinner for Salvation."

Tutor means the law as it applied to those raised in the law. It was a tutor in that it taught types and shadows and contained the end of the law, Christ. That is what "tutor" means. The protestant's interpretate "tutor" as being offering the law as a terror and as a means to exact a natural guilt and natural conscience in the current age. That is a MISUSE of this scripture.

Bill, please feel free to comment on those 6 points that I requested we discuss.

"The point is we should be very careful when we go from condemning false doctrine to condemning individual people. That is the Job of the Holy Sprit. The Apostles did so only very rarely.
It’s easy to search every thing someone has ever said or written looking for heresy. I know you would find it in my life if you looked very hard. I think there is something shameful in attacking people who are dead or otherwise can’t defend themselves. Why not let God be the judge and you and I focus on spreading the true Gospel?"

The sacralists and their supporters are an exception. They are the equivalent of the pharisees that Jesus battled. We must to retain the gospel, battle the neo pharisees. We must contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

"By now, as biblically savy as you are, you are probably seeking some verses to prove to me that those who have received the full revelation (is there any other) of the Gospel by the witness of the Holy Spirit will at least understand it to the measure that they agree with our rendering of the Scripture"

I am not saying Christians cannot start out as being carnal. I am saying that the process moves forward. In fact James speaks to this. In James 2:10: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it." This refers not to the law of Moses but to the "law of Liberty". In verse 12 we see that we are to "speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives FREEDOM." Ie, the law of christ.

Therefore, the barrier is high. Fulfill the law of Christ. This is not sinless perfection, but it is to at least make oneself aware of the battles that have gone before, to at least make oneself directed in the right way and in avoidance of the Papal and Protestant ways. How can we have continuing faith if we do not add to our faith "knowledge", as Peter says?

How can we contend for the faith once delivered to the saints if we don't even know who the false teachers are? You guys sound like a bunch of politicians. Even John, in teaching about love says, "they were not of us or they would have not gone out from us".

So tell me everyone, what about judgement? The pharisees, then the circumcision, then the Cretins, then the agnostics. These were pointed out as being those walking in UNBELIEF. The Papal doctrines and the Protestant doctrines are not minor tweeking of the gospel. They are diametrically opposed to gospel revelation. It would be amusing, except for the fact of what is at stake, how Charles Spurgeon, and John Reisinger, and all those who are not sacralists, have defended these sacralists and smoothed their atrocities and their legalism all because they have the doctrines of grace in common. Augustine believed in predestination. So what? He also was the apologist of Constantinianism. Did predestination save him? NO, NO, NO.

If any of you believe what I believe, and your church fellowship refuses to allow you to state these truths, then you must leave that fellowship, and you must have the discernment to realize that your own spiritual blessing and freedom in Christ is at stake.

Remember this, who can keep the law of Christ if they think it is not important, as dispensationalists who want it replaced, or covenant theologians who don't even know of such a law!

[bgamall]

Sorry, I meant "gnostics", not "agnostics".:)

[Robert R. Higby]

bgamall:
I will get back to interacting with your points as soon as time permits. I do have one observation in response to this comment:

If any of you believe what I believe, and your church fellowship refuses to allow you to state these truths, then you must leave that fellowship, and you must have the discernment to realize that your own spiritual blessing and freedom in Christ is at stake.

Many of us have been in the same state for years. I have no church affiliation in which I am permitted to exercise my spiritual gifts and have not for 17 years! One thing I agree with you on is this: if you stand for the truth without compromise--on gospel matters challenging historic churchmen--you won't be accepted as a teacher in any church.

My happiness depends on fellowship with the Christ of the gospel alone, not in the friendship and acceptance of men. If our happiness depends on the acceptance of any other human being who would have us compromise gospel conviction, we are doomed to lack the joy of the gospel and the approval of God. This, of course, means that we may indeed be called often to stand alone!

Before his mysterious death in Federal prison, James McDougal was asked if he considered President Bill Clinton to be a friend. I no longer have the reference but I will never forget his response:

There is no friendship in politics, only mutually advantageous alliances. Anyone who thinks any politician is his friend is deceived beyond the wildest imagination.

There is no friendship in churchianity, only mutually advantageous alliances. Anyone who thinks any historic churchman is his friend is deceived beyond the wildest imagination. Churches want bodies to fill the pews, open wallets, and fellow laborers to promote sectarianism. Anything more requires a type of compromise that those who love the gospel should never be making.

[Skeuos Eleos]

3. High-grace doctrine that makes the judgment of the wicked a 'ransom' for the happiness of the saints. In other words, God invented the tortures of hell and predestined the majority to it--in order to exalt the happiness of those who equally deserved it--but are rescued from it in the election of grace! Most who call themselves 'supralapsarian' also hold to this horrid form and expression of the doctrine: God sends redeemable people to hell. This view depreciates grace; because it would deny that the decree of election and plan of salvation in Christ results in perfect glory to God just for what it is--the happiness of the saints in Christ is complete and perfect apart from any decree of reprobation. If all biological humans were included in the decree of election, God is glorified equally in grace as he is in electing only a portion. The glory that God receives in reprobation is of a different nature entirely. I won't elaborate on it right now.
Bill, I know you have many other matters to attend to but I would be grateful if, at some convenient point, you could provide this elaboration. I agree with much of what you say but do wonder is there not a sense in which the believer appreciates even more what God has done for Him in Christ Jesus because he can see the alternative, an alternative that, by his actions, he would have deserved?

Martin

[bgamall]

"There is no friendship in churchianity, only mutually advantageous alliances. Anyone who thinks any historic churchman is his friend is deceived beyond the wildest imagination. Churches want bodies to fill the pews, open wallets, and fellow laborers to promote sectarianism. Anything more requires a type of compromise that those who love the gospel should never be making."

This is a very true statement, Bill.

Money is the key. Paul said he did not sell the gospel for profit. This is proof he was approved of God. That certainly makes the treasure chests of the Catholic and Protestant churches a total opposition to the truth as revealed in scripture.

[harald]

I believe money is the key (or one of the more important keys) also for others, not only for Catholics and Protestants. Baptists, generally speaking, are no better herein. Christ did ask whether He would find the faith on earth when returning. I fear He won't. Most professors would say He will find Christianity in full bloom all over the earth. They don't know what they are talking about. The apostasy from the apostolic faith has likely never been deeper nor greater than now. It is solemn and awful indeed.


Harald

[GraceAmbassador]

Dear Harald:


Paul did not make such distinction, but spoke of "those of law" and "those of faith".
This statement above is how I refer to "Arminians and Calvinists" respectivally and I am bound to agree with your position.

Let me tell you however what I think is desagreable:

Your statements that some of our ancestors, who brought great insight into the Gospel of Paul, and how these statements describe them in a "not so elevating way".

If we are to believe the Sovereignty of God, there is a reason as to why now with the event of the Internet se are increasingly having:


An unprecedented exposure of the Grace, Sovereign Grace Message.
Calvin's teachings are being debated as never before whereas the errors of Arminianism are being exposed
Because of number "2" the stigma of "meanness" that weighed heavily on "calvinists" only in the past few years is slowly but steadly being lifted
More importantly: God has reserved for these days, for me and you and a few others to challenge the reformation and reform what is left. We, all of us who believe in the message of Pauline Grace, are to be the ones who will finish (if it is ever to be finish) the work of the reformation.
We have to give credit to those who came before us and became a pioneers of a way that is wll paved for us to thread steadily into correcting their mistakes. Bashing is not a way to blaze that trail. I praise God that someone committed their entire lives so today it woud be easy for me to think what I think and believe what I believe. God now is providing the means for me to go on teaching it and improving as the Holy Spirit inspires.

Again, thank you for expressing your thoughts, so close to mine, but allow me to disagree on the bashing of so many people whom God used in the past.

Just a thought...

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

I believe money is the key (or one of the more important keys) also for others, not only for Catholics and Protestants. Baptists, generally speaking, are no better herein. Christ did ask whether He would find the faith on earth when returning. I fear He won't. Most professors would say He will find Christianity in full bloom all over the earth. They don't know what they are talking about. The apostasy from the apostolic faith has likely never been deeper nor greater than now. It is solemn and awful indeed.

HaraldI don't know - I tend to think that we've been in Deep Apostasy since the time of the Apostles. There are very few believers in my opinion.

[bgamall]

"We have to give credit to those who came before us and became a pioneers of a way that is wll paved for us to thread steadily into correcting their mistakes. Bashing is not a way to blaze that trail. I praise God that someone committed their entire lives so today it woud be easy for me to think what I think and believe what I believe. God now is providing the means for me to go on teaching it and improving as the Holy Spirit inspires.
Again, thank you for expressing your thoughts, so close to mine, but allow me to disagree on the bashing of so many people whom God used in the past."

Milt, I would agree with Darth, and with Harold, that if you really read the post apostolic fathers and Augustine and Calvin, you will see an apostacy from the original gospel. I include most of the Baptists in this as well. Most particular baptists adhere to the 1689 confession, which is a confession that is Protestant in nature. I don't see much support from the 1644/46 confession among particular baptists.

The 1646 people did not view the Protestants as brethren. They viewed the doctrines that ended up in the 1689 confession with contempt. Their confession is as close to biblically accurate as any I have seen. And they were persecuted for their beliefs. I believe that there were others that we have little or no history on that may have held to these 1646 views. However I have always viewed them as being small in number for the most part.

Even in the mainland anabaptist movement, the leaders supported the Protestants in many ways, like Menno who supported the idea that the law could cause repentance. Luther had argued that the law only caused humility. Both are so wrong, and so far from the revealed scripture regarding the power of the gospel alone.

[harald]

Dear Milt. I believe we differ a bit nevertheless. Let me explain. To me it is clear that such who stand in the scheme called Arminianism are "of law". But it is also clear to me that very very many, if not most, who refer to themselves as "calvinist" are likewise "of law". It just is made manifest in other ways than how it is made manifest by free willers. I must not be a respecter of persons, therefore I must prove (1John 4:1) both arminians as well as calvinists. Even if I am myself closer in my theological persuasions to calvinists it does not mean they are exempt from my proving of the spirits. I am even proving those that are very close to what myself believes. And the standard of judgment is first and foremost the holy word of God.

Then you talk about ancestors. I take it you mean Calvin and Luther who I named. As for me I do not count them my ancestors. I see no obligation from the word of God to reverence these men. I am able to lift my hat off to them, and give them due respect in areas where they taught aright. But that is as far as I can go. You may be hurt in your feelings by my statements about them, but right now I do not see that I stated anything inappropriate as to them.

As to the internet I have more and more come to see that there are many around who would be teachers, but very very few who in reality know "the truth as it is in Jesus". There was a time when I was excited about the net and all seemingly great articles contained on professedly sovereign grace sites. Now I see more and more that the internet is not God's method, but what He already long ago said, "the foolishness of preaching". I am thankful to God for every profitable writing I have found and read so far, this I must acknowledge. But nevertheless I am waxing inceasingly disappointed with the professed Christianity displayed on the net. It just is not what it claims to be, I am sorry to say, but that is my mindedness.

As to reformation then. I have my own thoughts as to the Protestant Reformation, and I guess they are not too popular with the majority. As to reformation in general I cannot say I am against reformation, if it is a reformation which God Almighty is behind.

Before I close I shall say that it was a positive thing that I stumbled across this Forum. In some ways it is different from others I have visited. It appears to allow more free speech than others. I discerned this when I read some thread where Marc Carpenter was involved. In my opinion this is not necessarily a negative trait of this forum, but rather positive.

Harald

[harald]

Brandan. I think I am in agreement with you. I only think that never before has the apostasy been as deep as now. I have also had the thought that there are very few believers on earth this day and hour. I would think that people would be surprised if it were revealed to them from on high how very few there actually are. There are multitudes who call themselves or think themselves to be believers, but very very few who know anything of "the faith of the operation of God" by personal experience.

Then I must take the opportunity to say thank you for giving me the privilege to post on this forum. I hope to be able to post something worthwhile. And to be able to avoid getting into inappropriate quarrels. Rather I would withdraw in quietness than people remember me as a person who loves to quarrel. But I cannot promise that I will not post thought-provoking and polemical things. Doctrinal polemicizing is one of the things I enjoy engaging in, provided it is done in an orderly manner.

Harald

[Skeuos Eleos]

Brandan. I think I am in agreement with you. I only think that never before has the apostasy been as deep as now. I have also had the thought that there are very few believers on earth this day and hour. I would think that people would be surprised if it were revealed to them from on high how very few there actually are. There are multitudes who call themselves or think themselves to be believers, but very very few who know anything of "the faith of the operation of God" by personal experience. Unfortunately we move into the realm of the subjective and unproveable when we speak of "personal experience" and this can work both ways. I would imagine that many of these that you refer to who "think themselves to be believers" would argue primarily that it is because of their "personal experience" that they think that they are believers. I have no doubt whatsoever that many, many people are deceived into believing a lie and that in some cases the "powerful delusion" that they have believed instead of the truth may actually involve some form of subjective "personal experience".

At the same time, however, none of us can claim perfect doctrinal understanding, we all err in some way, and I think we can inadvertantly use our own degree of conviction of the truth which may have come some time after our conversion, as we progressed from the milk to the solid food, as the standard by which we judge others regenerate. I agree that many will be suprised when Jesus returns "to be marvelled at by those who believe" when we discover who really believed but I also think that the surprise will work the other way with some included that we might not expect. :cool:



Then I must take the opportunity to say thank you for giving me the privilege to post on this forum. I hope to be able to post something worthwhile. And to be able to avoid getting into inappropriate quarrels. Rather I would withdraw in quietness than people remember me as a person who loves to quarrel. But I cannot promise that I will not post thought-provoking and polemical things. Doctrinal polemicizing is one of the things I enjoy engaging in, provided it is done in an orderly manner.

HaraldHopefully, this should be the attitude of us all. I hope that you do indeed post thought-provoking things! That's why we're all here - to "build one another up in our Holy faith", to proclaim the truth and "contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints" and "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." (Pr. 27:17). Welcome Harald!


Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
Martin

[Robert R. Higby]

Brethren, my time is short until perhaps later in the week, but I will respond to a couple of things.

bgamall: The 1646 people did not view the Protestants as brethren.

'Protestants' is a generalized label and specific quotes are needed to establish what is meant by this claim. I have not seen evidence to date that the First Confession Baptists viewed all Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Congregationalists as destined for the lake of fire.

Unless one accepts the 'trail of blood' teaching, which cannot possibly stand up to historical scrutiny, the Baptists of the 1st London Confession were as dependent as anyone else on the Reformed advances in soteriology. All published evidence points to the fact that the mainstream of pre-1517 Nonconformity was more legalistic than the state-church Reformers on the doctrine of salvation. Believe me, I have spent a lot of time trying to prove this awful fact to be wrong--because I did not want to accept it for years. There is NOTHING out there. If such evidence could be found, it would prove Luther a plagiarist. But there is no such evidence. Zwingli and Calvin got it from him. Others in the distant past may have taught a form of gospel doctrine--but this was not where Luther got his ideas.

Martin:
Bill, I know you have many other matters to attend to but I would be grateful if, at some convenient point, you could provide this elaboration. I agree with much of what you say but do wonder is there not a sense in which the believer appreciates even more what God has done for Him in Christ Jesus because he can see the alternative, an alternative that, by his actions, he would have deserved?

Election and the plan of redemption is perfect and complete in and of itself. There is no question that God is immensely glorified in two other acts of election:

1. The election and creation of the righteous angels who never sinned.
2. The election and creation of a mass of wicked souls unto reprobation.

There is no question that in contrast to both of these groups, the elect unto salvation praise God for who they are in Christ. But when we speak of the 'alternative' to salvation, that alternative for the elect was Christ as ransom, not reprobates as ransom. Christ bore the wrath of God on behalf of and in place of the elect. He did not bear the wrath of God for beings conceived in eternal iniquity, since this would not be possible. Endless punishment is the result of endless sinning of creatures who cannot possibly be redeemed. No atonement can be made for eternal sin. But the redeemed of God never experienced eternal sin, only temporal sin.

I hope that gives you some insights into my thinking. Basically, I would part with Anselm and company on the theory of the 'honor of God' being bound to executing the just sanctions of a philosophical 'eternal law.' In other words, one sin violating the infinite law of an infinite God deserves infinite punishment. There is no scripture supporting such a proposition. All sin deserves the wrath of God according to his own word, however, God alone in his sovereignty determines the extent and circumstances of that wrath. For all elect believers, we see that wrath executed upon Christ, not in the eternal punishment of the wicked. Reprobation brings glory to God for reasons entirely unrelated to the election of grace.

[wildboar]

All doctrinal error is the result of an improper center. Anytime we put something in the center of the wheel of theology which often belongs in the spokes or sometimes is not a part of the wheel at all, we end up with a lopsided wheel which does not function properly. An astronomer can spend his entire life studying the stars and the planets but if the whole time believes that the planet on which he is standing is the center of the universe, all his calculations will be wrong.

Theology must always be God-centered. If it is centered around anything else whether it is true or false it will always be lopsided. If I center my theology around the limited atonement it leads to the teachings of the Carpentarites and it turns into a man-centered gospel as I spend all time trying to decipher which man is truly regenerate and which are not. The same is happening here only something different has been chosen which shouldn't even be found on the wheel in the first place.

While it is certainly true that most of what calls itself Christianity preaches a false gospel, I rejoice when I find those who preach the true Gospel and the true doctrines contained therein and hold to the wonderful truths of Scripture. A few years ago, I was frightened that this might not be possible. I was unable to find a true church. But I sought one out. They are still out there.

There seem to be some who take delight in the idea that only they and at the most a handful of others are the only ones who have the truth. This is pure gnosticism. The gospel is conquering and though only a remnant will be saved from all which from the beginning of time has been called the church, it will be a multitude which no man can number.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[bgamall]

"There seem to be some who take delight in the idea that only they and at the most a handful of others are the only ones who have the truth. This is pure gnosticism. The gospel is conquering and though only a remnant will be saved from all which from the beginning of time has been called the church, it will be a multitude which no man can number."

Over time and this includes a large early apostolic church and the men of Nineva and the OT saved elect and the elect from the past 2000 years, there is a large group that no man can number. However, Jesus is clear that there would be little faith in the last of the last days, and I believe that is the case now. It is not gnosticism to state that truth.

Bill I am quite certain that the 1646 folks viewed the other congregations that were known as Protestant as being false. They rebaptised because they viewed it necessary to continue the Christian life. Infant baptism was not even biblical. Furthermore, they understood how the gospel works. No one can say the legalists did so. The 1646 people had to know that the legalists were preaching a false gospel. They had to know those who were teaching eternal generation were teaching a false Christ. They were in a period of persecution and the magistrate was Protestant, so they attempted to issue confessions that showed their allegence to the government of England.

So, I have no problem believing that their view was opposed to the Protestants at the very core.

Of course we know that Samuel Richardson may have fallen away with his denial of hell, but he spoke of the issues held true by the 7 churches of the London Confession in "Considerations on Doctor Featley's Book, Entitled The Dipper Dipt." Richardson clearly views the Protestants as false teachers. This is in keeping with the view of those 7 churches. They of course later repudiated Richardson's view of eternal sleep with an appendix to the 1646 confession by Cox. But THEY NEVER REPUDIATED THESE WORDS AGAINST FEATLEY.

So Bill, there were people who believed just like me, that the Catholics and the Protestants are unbelievers. I don't care if these folks benefited from some things Luther and others said. It doesn't matter. It matters more who Luther and others PERSECUTED. You cannot play politics with God's word!

[bgamall]

Richardson posts: "Doctor Featley holds these errors, viz., that Archbishops, &c. are not Antichristian,P 32, and that the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not Idolatrous nor Antichristian, P.32,"

So you have it. These churches believed that the Church of England, and indeed all Protestant state churches were antichrist. They believed that the archbiships were antichrist. Indeed, they believe that the head of Rome is antichrist.

So you cannot say, Bill, that these people were same old thing. They were different. If you cannot find any others who believe like them don't despair, I believe just like them. I see them as the shining light in an otherwise vast plain of DARKNESS from the post apostolic fathers onward.

You say, Bill that you cannot find others who came before who were not legalists. I believe that may or may not be true. I believe that Menno for example was a legalist. But whether all known as anabaptists were legalists is not a certainty.

But the main point is that we have people who stood up to the Protestants and viewed them as the Papal children and antichrist. I am doing the same here and there are few who can hear this. I am encouraged by some of the posts in this thread however.

[harald]

Thank you, Martin, for the welcome. As to personal experience it must not be condemned right away just because there is this thing called charismatism and similar emotionalism. Paul the apostle was not anti experience. There is true spiritual experience and false spiritual experience. True spiritual experience is character building and spiritually edifying. False on the other hand does a soul no real good. As one who is interested in Bible translation and translations I know that one of the reasons why some versions mistranslate certain passages is because they have no personal and experimental knowledge of the things spoken of in the Scripture passage they try to translate. A mere head and letter knowledge imparted at some unscriptural theological seminary by some professional scholars is quite worthless when it comes to translating passages which are "hard to be understood". They would be teachers of the law but know not (experimentally) the things whereof they would affirm.
In connection with this I come to think of the "carpenterites", who have been referred to already somewhere. They, it seems to me, rather know about Christ than know Christ. Knowing Christ and knowing about Him is not the same. There are many many today who know about Christ, being filled with head knowledge about Him which only puffs up, (and I am not only having carpenterites in mind, which are quite few in number so far). But I fear there are very very few today who know Him in truth by personal experience as He has revealed Himself to them. O to be in that blessed little flock.

Harald

[wildboar]

Richardson posts: "Doctor Featley holds these errors, viz., that Archbishops, &c. are not Antichristian,P 32, and that the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not Idolatrous nor Antichristian, P.32,"

So you have it. These churches believed that the Church of England, and indeed all Protestant state churches were antichrist. They believed that the archbiships were antichrist. Indeed, they believe that the head of Rome is antichrist.

But it doesn't say that. The condemnation is directed specifically to the those serving in the church of England, no condemnation is made of presbyterian government or any other Protestant body. Also, to say that something is Antichristian is something different than saying it is antichrist.


True spiritual experience is character building and spiritually edifying.
But if we make personal experience the grounds for our salvation and are honest with ourselves we will have no assurance. The truth will certainly impact our emotions, but impacting emotions for emotions sake is foolishness.


As one who is interested in Bible translation and translations I know that one of the reasons why some versions mistranslate certain passages is because they have no personal and experimental knowledge of the things spoken of in the Scripture passage they try to translate.
Since by your definition every translation currently in print has been produced by the antichrist, how can you trust any of them?

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Skeuos Eleos]

As to personal experience it must not be condemned right away just because there is this thing called charismatism and similar emotionalism. Paul the apostle was not anti experience. There is true spiritual experience and false spiritual experience. True spiritual experience is character building and spiritually edifying. False on the other hand does a soul no real good. I agree. I was merely commenting that I believe that, amongst those who claim to believe, there are those who base their claim on false experience. I accept it could be over-reaction on my part as it was only 18 months ago that the Lord graciously saved me out of the lies of the Charismatic movement. I do agree that there is genuine Christian experience. I claim to know something of this!


As one who is interested in Bible translation and translations I know that one of the reasons why some versions mistranslate certain passages is because they have no personal and experimental knowledge of the things spoken of in the Scripture passage they try to translate. A mere head and letter knowledge imparted at some unscriptural theological seminary by some professional scholars is quite worthless when it comes to translating passages which are "hard to be understood". They would be teachers of the law but know not (experimentally) the things whereof they would affirm.
In connection with this I come to think of the "carpenterites", who have been referred to already somewhere. They, it seems to me, rather know about Christ than know Christ. Knowing Christ and knowing about Him is not the same. There are many many today who know about Christ, being filled with head knowledge about Him which only puffs up, (and I am not only having carpenterites in mind, which are quite few in number so far). But I fear there are very very few today who know Him in truth by personal experience as He has revealed Himself to them. O to be in that blessed little flock.Again, I agree wholeheartedly. :)
My only slight difference is that I think there may be some who we will be surprised to see amongst the redeemed because their lives/words had given us a different impression.

Martin

[Robert R. Higby]

First of all, I wholeheartedly agree with WB that the 1st London Confession Baptists were not saying at all what bgamall claims that they were (i.e., that Protestants were lost).

Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree with bgamall that Protestantism poured contempt on the apostolic gospel in its exaltation of the 3rd use of Moses' Law and sacramentalism. Law and sacrament ended the Reformation, therefore, we are still in the 'slough of despond' of the pagan servitude of the church.

Thirdly, I am checking out of this thread. Only because it was started on a false premise. I have no further interest in debating the issue of whether those who deny Limited Atonement are lost. I have stated before what I believe are the essential doctrines that a saved person of the 'least knowledge' will confess:

1. Some basic and genuine affirmation of the Trinity.
2. Some basic and genuine affirmation of the Deity of Christ.
3. Some basic and genuine affirmation of justification by grace through faith alone, in the person and work of Christ alone.
4. Some basic and genuine affirmation of the authority of the Old and New Testaments of scripture.
5. Some basic and genuine affirmation that God alone saves and he alone is glorified in the salvation process.
6. Some basic and genuine affirmation that the Holy Spirit renews the mind unto both faith in the gospel and good works honoring that gospel.
7. Some basic and genuine affirmation of the historical plan of salvation (i.e., a basic confession of God as creator and that Christ as Lord of all will ultimately come again and renew all things--to the glory and honor of God the Father).

I could list others--but at least these 7 state the 'milk.'

I will not participate further in any thread committed to heretical (schismatic) topics. No one has heard from my pen such accusations as "if you think or say that you are lost" --unless it is an outright denial of Christ; who he is and what he has done. Nor do I have the slightest interest in such debate. One of the strongest evidences that caused me to leave the sect I was once pastor in is this: the NT apostles NEVER expressed the judgmental and condemnatory attitude of the sect's 'prophetess.'

I am interested in discussing and debating the true issues of our time: simply because our day is extremely significant and fateful in the course of history.

I also strongly disagree with WB if he is implying that a true doctrine needs a certain number of proponents in order to be genuine. It doesn't. We must be prepared to stand alone as did Luther in the beginning. Although we don't propose that those who presently disagree with us are lost, we do believe that all truth revealed in scripture is eternally important. We neglect any of it to the detriment of our souls.

Good bye to this thread and I hope to engage much in others!

[bgamall]

"But it doesn't say that. The condemnation is directed specifically to the those serving in the church of England, no condemnation is made of presbyterian government or any other Protestant body. Also, to say that something is Antichristian is something different than saying it is antichrist"

This is doubletalk Wildboar. Antichrist is what is meant. The church of England was a Protestant church. It aligned itself with the sacralist movement.

Bill, you have acquited yourself consistently as a defender of the salvation of Protestants. Don't count on it. Protestant leaders were murderers in the name of Christ. That you can defend their salvation is disturbing. I see you are leaving this thread Bill. Sorry you are doing so.

[bgamall]

BTW Bill. I am not sectarian. I have nothing to do with the Protestant sect and religion. I repudiate it completely. I am not part of their sect at all. They are sectarian, and they separated from the apostolic church in the tradition of the Papists who separated from the apostolic church.

[harald]

Wildboar. I nowhere spoke about "the ground of salvation" in connection with spiritual experience. Therefore I will not even comment to begin with.

Furthermore. Please show me a quote of mine where I state something like that "every translation in print has been produced by the antichrist".


Harald

[harald]

Martin. I guessed you had charismatism type emotionalism and experience in mind. I am pleased that you clarified. Myself also has some past experience in the charismatic movement. It took some time to get over it all, and to unlearn what bad things I had imbibed. Today I am firmly opposed to pentecostalism and charismatism and the religionism pertaining thereto.

Harald

[wildboar]

But it doesn't say that. The condemnation is directed specifically to the those serving in the church of England, no condemnation is made of presbyterian government or any other Protestant body. Also, to say that something is Antichristian is something different than saying it is antichrist"

This is doubletalk Wildboar. Antichrist is what is meant. The church of England was a Protestant church. It aligned itself with the sacralist movement.

Yes the church of England was a Protestant church but that does not mean that every Protestant church is a part of the church of England. A dog is an animal and all dogs have four legs but it does not follow from that that all animals have four legs anymore than "the church of england is antichristian" means that all Protestant churches are antichristian.


Furthermore. Please show me a quote of mine where I state something like that "every translation in print has been produced by the antichrist".

Your claim is that all Protestant churches are antichrist. Every major translation has been done by people from Protestant churches.

[thepaulinator]

The apostasy from the apostolic faith has likely never been deeper nor greater than now. It is solemn and awful indeed.


I don't know - I tend to think that we've been in Deep Apostasy since the time of the Apostles. There are very few believers in my opinion.

Out of curiosity, does this have any affect on your assurance of salvation?

[whs1]

I guess this Thread has derailed big time into a totally different subject.

But then, again, who listens to a "troll"?:eek:

[bgamall]

This thread established by you whs1 was based upon your idea that the essential doctrines of the bible were those relating to predestination. My contention is not to disagree, but to add New Covenant revelation as being essential to living the Christian life and understanding the mystery of revelation. The problem is that not only is free will a doctrine of death but the misuse of law is a doctrine of death.

Indeed, the misuse of law has had the same effect as the doctrine of free will. You have puritans teaching that men could put themselves in the way of grace. You have puritans teaching that a person should do all they can to be counted elect. You have Spurgeon teaching that outward reformation makes election possible. All the Protestants, all of them, taught that the law had the power to bring people closer to grace.

So, you have the Protestants talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they give lip service to the doctrine of predestination. You have on the other hand a salvation by law fully realizing that every person has a conscience, every person feels condemned for their deeds now and then, and that every person is then potentially deceived into thinking they are saved by the natural guilt and wrong use of the law.

The result of all this is a real repudiation of election altogether. The will becomes a vehicle of law. THE WILL CHANGED BY THE LAW IS NO MORE CHANGED THAN THE WILL CHANGED BY FREE WILL.

So, it is certain that this thread is absolutely consistent in its content.

[wildboar]

bgamall:

The Puritans and Spurgeon are not "all Protestants." You are taking the teachings of a certain group within Protestantism and then applying those to all of Protestantism. Within my own denomination much ink has been used condemning the various errors within Puritanism. For an example visit: http://www.prca.org/standard_bearer/volume80/2004feb15.html#Editorial

[bgamall]

"The Puritans and Spurgeon are not "all Protestants." You are taking the teachings of a certain group within Protestantism and then applying those to all of Protestantism. Within my own denomination much ink has been used condemning the various errors within Puritanism. For an example visit"

Again Wildboar, there are variations here and their. But the essential consistencies regarding most crucial doctrines remain the same. Like law preaching and eternal generation. Pretty universal among Protestants. A cockroach is a cockroach regardless of variety of subtypes.

[wildboar]

Again Wildboar, there are variations here and their. But the essential consistencies regarding most crucial doctrines remain the same. Like law preaching and eternal generation. Pretty universal among Protestants. A cockroach is a cockroach regardless of variety of subtypes
Very well then. I will treat you the same. You are an Anabaptist and therefore a Unitarian, free-will, anarchist and not worth continuing this conversation with.

[bgamall]

I don't believe in free will. Where could you possibly believe that I do. Don't misrepresent me, Wildboar. However, I do believe that infant baptism and covenant theology are a repudiation of the superiority of the New Covenant where all in that covenant will know Him, from the least to the greatest. The doctrine of one covenant different administrations is from hell. Not only that it is the reason for infant baptism, in order to justify a "new covenant" form of circumcision. The reason this was done was to promote the sacralist system.

You can support the murderers and their infant baptism. But it is not wise to do so, Wildboar.

[whs1]

I can see that me CALLING MYSELF A "PROTESTANT" IS not good. I don't know what to call myself except a believer in Christ.

Christian. But if you will notice...the first appearance of that word in the Bible in Acts is used by other persons who were not Christians to describe followers of Christ.


It does matter what one believes. Doctrine matters! God says so everywhere in his word. My wife and I were discussing an interesting point. It is this:

"Would God ever reveal everything REVEALED {Deuteronomy 29:29} in the Holy Scriptures [KJV for me] to any one of His elect, ever." If so "WHY?":D

[bgamall]

Whs1:) It is my personal position that Protestantism has doctrines what play down New Covenant revelation. It is not the opinion of most on the board, but it is my opinion. I view Protestantism as being the child of Papal antichrist. The reason I believe this way is because in many crucial doctrines, the Protestants hung on to papal bulwarks, to Augustinian bulwarks.

I hope that I can convince many on thise board that what I am saying is the truth, but many have not seen this to be the truth, even with apostolic revelation and scripture and the 1646 London Confession to back me up!