Christopher000 wrote:
Like the Saints of Old, he had faith in the one who would come, and because of that, was basically already saved, so his deeds could be considered righteous by God(?)

Forgive the intrusion, but from what I've witnessed so far, it seems to me that John UK is a practiced hand at deception and so to assist on the point of whether anything that an unregenerate person does is ever pleasing to God, please look at the well known Psalm 14:

1 ......They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Now bear in mind that Paul uses these verses in Roman 3. 10ff to prove what? Look at verse 9 and you will note that he sees these verses as proof that all unconverted Jews and Gentiles are sinners and that none seek after God, none understand, none do good, all are filthy and corrupt.

Wasn't this precisely the lament of the Isaiah passage?

It is incontrovertible that nothing that unconverted sinners do is ever spiritually good or pleasing to God. Don't let John UK beguile you into believing otherwise.

Mike wrote:
3. Command is meaningless if provision to obey isn't there.

Romans 7
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

John UK wrote:
That's okay bro. In the meantime, my friend Adam Clarke has something to say about the oh-so-common use of Isaiah 64:6.
[As filthy rags - עדים iddim. Rab. Mosheh ben Maimon interpretatur עדים iddim, vestes quibus mulier se abstergit post congressum cum marito suo. Alii pannus menstruatus. Alii panni mulieris parientis. - And we ben made as unclene alle we: and as the cloth of the woman rooten blode flowing, all our rigtwisnesses. - Old MS. Bible. If preachers knew properly the meaning of this word, would they make such a liberal use of it in their public ministry? And why should any use a word, the meaning of which he does not understand? How many in the congregation blush for the incautious man and his “filthy rags!”] Clarke

Yes, of course we can. Evangelicals have not been mistaken in using the verse as they have done, and there is no reason for anyone to feel guilty or apologize if they have done so. It is quite proper for the verse to be used in that way.

Christopher000 wrote:
I never realized that it was the pleas, and laments of the backslidden:

Re: Isaiah 64 - don’t forget that the majority in Israel were always unbelievers but because of the national covenant the godly would nevertheless lament when the nation as a whole left off obeying God. Who is it that felt the national judgements of God most keenly? It was always the godly and they lamented when the ungodly did not. The ungodly only did so when the judgements were calamitous.

So for instance v7 none calleth upon they name would be an absurdity if it meant literally no one because the person lamenting is doing exactly that. So it doesn't mean literally no one, just by comparison they were so few.

As Paul points out in Romans 9, there was always a spiritual Israel within the national Israel, to whom all the promises of God were made good, but they were always a remnant.

Here we have a godly believer lamenting and including himself and all the other godly people with the ungodly in saying that all their righteousnesses are as filthy rags. This is by way of association because of the national covenant. He speaks as a representative.

John UK wrote:
But this is totally taking the text out of its context and making it say something it is not saying. It isn't even referring to the ungodly, but to God's own children.

6......For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

John UK wrote:
...it seems to me that he was saved under Peter's preaching.

John UK wrote:
Once you get past that crevice, you can move on to:
1 John 2:29 KJV
(29)  If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
1 John 3:7 KJV
(7)  Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
And plenty of other texts.
I hope you are finding this helpful, despite the interruptions from hypercalviniums.

ladybug wrote:
Christopher is right, all our works are as filthy rags and can never please God prior to being regenerated.

He was in other words an OT gentile believer. So what was the point of Peter being sent to him with the Gospel? Exactly so that the Lord could demonstrate to Peter and the early church that the gospel is meant for the gentiles too: something that the early Jewish believers found very difficult to accept. And also to bring Cornelius into NT light; specifically to know of the life and death of the Savior and to receive the Holy Spirit. This is a case specific to the transition from the OT to the NT.

Given that he already believed in the true God why should his works, which were done in faith, not please God?

Mike wrote:
If a good General issues a command, he does so with the understanding that it can be carried out by those under his command. If some fail in carrying out the command, it shows no weakness on his part. The weakness is in those who fail to carry out the command. This assumes the tools and weapons are given those expected to obey. If they are not provided, the command is emptied of the meaning and intent of "command."

Also, if the determination of the matter lies with the sinner, what exactly do you pray that God will do for sinners? As far as you are concerned he has done all that is necessary and sits back now until someone responds. What can he possibly do to help any unconverted sinner?

John UK wrote:
"...let all the house of Israel know assuredly...."
If there was such a thing as telling untruths to the non elect, here Peter was doing it, if The Christ is only for the benefit of the remnant.

John UK wrote:
.... the message is for all the house of Israel .

No one here has denied that the command goes out to all creatures. But of course you know that that is not the issue. Part of holding on to a false gospel is that you have to confuse issues and raise up straw men to knock down so that it makes you look very clever.

The issue is whether Christ died for everyone, and if he did then he redeemed every single soul he died for, in which case the command is meaningless because he secured the salvation of all that he died for. If you deny that he secured the salvation of anyone in particular, then he only made salvation possible and one has to redeem oneself by trusting in his death. If this is the case then the difference is in what you did as opposed to those who rejected it, which makes you very clever. Only the dumb ones end up in hell. How is this any different to arminianism?

Even in your post you restrict the blessings to those who repent and believe. Why, if he died for everyone? Is unbelief the only sin not atoned for?

John UK wrote:
..he can't do that in case that sinner is reprobate and he doesn't want to give a hellbound sinner a false hope, especially in the matter of God's love, which he cannot tell him about in a personal way, in case God doesn't love him

Gospel according to John UK - "God only blesses lying evangelists"!!

John UK wrote:
...nor demanding that others "hold the same as myself or I will call them unregenerate"

John UK wrote:
... Spurgeon said, his blood was sufficient to save 10,000 worlds full of sinners, should God have so decided.

Also, if the infinite preciousness of the blood was the crucial factor, just one drop would have sufficed.

"Should God decide"?! - Ah, a caveat. Did he so decide? If not, what's the point of believing this nonsense which isn't even scriptural?

I could equally say that his blood could have saved all the fallen angels should God have so decided. How does that affect the salvation of the fallen angels? Does my saying so, ever so vehemently, create a gospel for fallen angels?

Is hope created by fiction better than that created by truth?

B. McCausland wrote:
1. These men focussed in the free offer of the gospel ...avoid ...contention.
2. Please it is never safe to interact with an individual mis...creating new straw men out of assumptions.

2. Convenient way of back tracking on your previous claims. You don't believe that Christ died for any specific people, despite what the scriptures teach, and are now making out that this is somehow me creating a straw man and making assumptions. Yes, please refrain from further dialogue because I have no sense that honesty matters to you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Tim wrote:
Come unto me, ALL ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
All all all all all ALL!!!!!!!!!

This means that there are at least 3 categories in view here:

1. Those who are not labouring or heavy laden
2. Those who labour and are heavy laden but will not come, and
3. Those who labour and are heavy laden and will come.

But yeah, all means ALL. How silly! This is a foolish sacrifice of the ordinary rules of language to support their false gospel of an impotent "christ" who fails to save those that he died for. Notice too how little they account for the plainest verses which I posted up in 3 separate posts. The level of unbelief and idol making to support their fictitious gospel is mind blowing.

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one

Children of the wicked one?

Romans 9

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Fitted to destruction? Afore prepared unto glory?

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: