John UK wrote: Amen NeedHim. If you go deeper into Spurgeon's thinking, you will also find that he believed the value of Christ's atonement was infinite, that is, limitless, sufficient to save many worlds full of sinners. It was from him that I learnt this.
Of what practical use is it to know that, if the merits of his blood are only applied, by design of the Trinity, to the elect?
ladybug wrote: "God's general love for all does not guarantee salvation for all; but one thing is for sure, all are invited to the feast, and if some refuse, they perish."
Yes the love that invites knowing full well that they will not come unless drawn by God must be very comforting for those who aren't drawn and reject the invitation.
The equal love of Christ for all, must be very comforting to the lost when it is shown that it didn't compel him to die for them.
It's crucial that the undrawn, the unelected, be personally assured that God loves them and will save them because by lying to them the elect will be drawn. Such is the perverted message of the haven't a clue gospel.
Mike wrote: Now that you have the personal attacks out of the way, would you mind being more usefully specific? What exactly did John UK say in his 5:36AM and 6:38AM posts with which you disagree biblically?
Love the selective moral outrage. Christians are not to be respecters of persons. So where was your outrage when John UK launched a personal attack on me out of the blue in his post 6/14/19 11:03 AM. When I challenged him to substantiate his allegations, he left off the conversation. Very Christ like I am sure. But I guess birds of a feather and all that.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Sister ladybug whether or not you wish to acknowledge it or not the so called doctrines of Grace are a result of the Canons of Dordt. Their language is not found specifically in Scripture. (For instance depravity is not a Scriptural term). This makes them an interpretation of Scripture. We may hold them to be accurate but we dare not take the word of man to be equivalent to the Word of God.
If true knowledge is not attainable despite God's revelation because everyone has to interpret, then the Romanist is as right as the Arminian, who is no better than the Hindu.
Shall we all just pack our bags, head home and stop discussing anything because all truth is relative according to your viewpoint?
John UK wrote: But the sinner meets Dr Tim just down the road, and Tim leads him to the Saviour, no problem.
Desperate lies from a man who professes to espouse a system of doctrine but has no faith in it. He has already acknowledged that Dr Masters has been instrumental in saving souls since the 1960s, and that he has never preached "God loves you with saving love" to sinners indiscriminately. Neither did Spurgeon or the apostles because it is not taught anywhere between the covers of the Bible.
But, let's all be ruled by the dictates and faithlessness of a man who cannot bring himself to trust his own creed and who insists that attempting to be faithful to the scriptures is being extreme. Of course the God of the Bible who will judge a single lie doesn't mind if we lie in his name to secure wood, hay and stubble for his kingdom. So much is he sold to his own lie that he would rather see an arminian convert that a Holy Ghost convert. I'm surprised that he doesn't just jack in the pretence and and declare to all sinners that Christ died for them specifically. The lie is exactly the same.
His latest posts show him for the total charlatan he is viz. professing to hold to the 1689 BCF but undermining it with his own false gospel.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Just wanted clarity as you implied that the so called doctrines of Grace are just what is found in Scriptures when they are in fact man made interpretation of them. I am not disputing them but there others here who would
All knowledge/understanding is man's interpretation (man trying to make sense of things) whether in connection with Scripture or otherwise.
On that basis shall we discount all knowledge/understanding?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Darren, just pointing out that these things are man made interpretations of whatâ€™s in Scripture and to claim otherwise is misleading. Anything to do with lapsarianism is nowhere found in Scripture but purely the speculation of man
Meaning of interpret:
- to explain, elucidate, expound, clarify - to understand, construe, make sense of etc.
Can you give me an example of anything that is not interpreted by us when reading the Word of God?
Interpretation is not the issue, we all do it. What is at issue is whether our interpretation is drawn directly from the scriptures and is consistent with the whole of God's revelation.
Also, I have already explained that the consideration of the logical order of the decrees is separate to the doctrine of reprobation. The doctrine of reprobation is accepted by all believers in the doctrines of grace. If in the purposes of God there is such a thing as election to salvation then the rest must be appointed to damnation. Whether this damnation is a positive appointment or whether the remainder are left in their damnation is the disputed point. Either way, the damnation of the non-elect is certain.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Give me where in between the covers of your Bible you have the following terms Doctrines of Grace Total depravity Unconditional election Limited atonement Irresistible grace Perseverance of the saints
Really UPS? Where are the terms Trinity, inerrancy of scripture and Hypostatic Union found in the scriptures? But do you deny that the substance of these doctrines is found in between the covers of your Bible?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: if you mean by the term reprobation the completely am made doctrine of supralspsarianism that is nowhere found any place in Scripture but is totally the speculation of fallen man
The order of the decrees, whether supra or infra has no bearing on reprobation, because both schools believe in reprobation. The only difference is that one believes in double predestination the other that there is predestination to life and a passing over of the rest. These are fine niceties that I am not dogmatic about, although I know which I believe to be more consistent with the tenor of the Scriptures.
Mike wrote: The truth of non application to the non elect is not presented to the elect and the non elect.
Says who? The doctrine of reprobation is also preached from the pulpits. Spurgeon also preached it.
Here, this may help: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons.asp?keyword=Reprobation
I sense desperation to prove something that just is not true viz. that somehow those who hold to the doctrines of grace have need to hide what the bible clearly teaches in order to gain a following. We preach the bible from cover to cover and feel no need to be ashamed of anything that God has revealed.
Mike wrote: Not quite, Darren. I said we would NOT tell the group, we would NOT reveal what you perceive as the whole truth to them, and I wondered why should it be hidden? There is no asking of non elect to determine their status. Status is irrevocable, right? The same words are spoken to the whole group. It is merely conveyance of fact to them. They can't change their election or pass by status. Why not tell them? You are willing to tell them to repent and believe, but not to reveal to them the whole truth about what election is. Why is that?
Tell me, if no one, save God alone, knows the identity of the elect and non-elect among the mass of unbelievers, how does your original post make any sense?
That salvation is achieved for and only applied to the elect is what we preach in our pulpits. So again I ask where is the avoidance? The truth of this glorious doctrine is hid from no one.
â€śHe that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Fatherâ€¦ . . If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him" (John 14:21,23)
Why say "he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father" if the Father lovesÂ everybody?
John UK wrote: Does God hold them responsible for not believing in Christ?
Why should it be a great surprise that God would hold those who are already under condemnation guilty of also rejecting the gospel?
And what does this have to do with proving that God loves every single individual with a saving love?
The man is great at tangential diversions and creating rabbit holes to jump down.
It's a very simple task that is demanded to prove his point. A single verse from the entire bible that God has saving love for those that he is determined to pass over. Now get to and stop all the extraneous posturing and immature distractions.
Mike wrote: Now if you point to where there was presumption to knowing who among the hearers falls within each category, perhaps I'll apologize for my absurd post.
Read your own words of 6/14/19 3:56PM viz.
"We also would not proclaim to a group of listeners, "Repent and believe the gospel. By the way, this only applies to the elect. If you're elect, your good to go; if not, you can't repent and believe the gospel, for your eternal condemnation was determined from before you were born."
If you're elect your good to go, if not you can't repent and believe
In other words you are asking unbelievers to know their election before they even attempt to repent and believe the gospel. This is a perversion of biblical teaching. But maybe that was the point because drawing an ugly caricature of the doctrines of grace serves your purpose?
Re: John UK
Note: he bowed out of the discussion crying victimhood! But he has not shown that his own position of telling all unbelievers that God loves them all individually with a saving love is biblical. Instead, rather devilishly, he is now posting and calling anyone who doesn't agree with his unbiblical practice heretics. What a guy!
Mike wrote: We also would not proclaim to a group of listeners, "Repent and believe the gospel. By the way, this only applies to the elect. If you're elect, your good to go; if not, you can't repent and believe the gospel, for your eternal condemnation was determined from before you were born."
Where in the Bible are there any instructions to the unconverted to determine if they are elect? Where in the Bible do believers have any instructions to determine who among the unbelieving are elect?
You demonstrate a basic misunderstanding viz. that election is something that God does and only he knows absolutely who the elect are.
To know and declare that God will only act upon the elect and pass over the non elect shouldn't lead any to presume to know who among their hearers falls within which category. This is the absurdity of your post.
"No man can be said to preach the whole gospel of God if he leaves out, knowingly and intentionally, one single truth of the blessed God. This remark of mine must be a very cutting one, and ought to strike into the consciences of many who make it almost a matter of principle to keep back certain truths from the people, because they are afraid of them. In conversation, a week or two ago, with an eminent professor, he said to me, â€śSir, we know that we ought not to preach the doctrine of election, because it is not calculated to convert sinners.â€ť â€śBut,â€ť said I to him, â€śwho is the man that dares to find fault with the truth of God? You admit, with me, that it is a truth, and yet you say it must not be preached. I dare not have said that thing. I should reckon it supreme arrogance to have ventured to say that a doctrine ought not to be preached when the all-wise God has seen fit to reveal it. Besides, is the whole gospel intended to convert sinners? There are some truths which God blesses to the conversion of sinners; but are there not other portions which were intended for the comfort of the saint? and ought not these to be a subject of gospel ministry as well as the others?"
Mike wrote: Why the avoidance of truth, if that's what it is?
No one in our camp avoids the truth. Election is preached as part of the Gospel viz. that God determined from eternity to save a ppl from every tribe, tongue and nation and that he does so by the work of His Spirit in convicting, persuading and drawing sinners to Christ by the preaching of the gospel, because all men are dead in sins and trespasses and would never turn from their sin or believe by themselves. And so we call upon and exhort all hearers of the gospel to repent and believe the gospel, because the work of the Spirit is not open to the naked eye nor do we know who the elect are. Conversely, we also warn that those who obdurately refuse to repent and believe are already under judgement and if they die in their sins, they shall spend an eternity separated from God and from all good and shall bear in their own bodies the just punishment for their sins.
As for the distinguishing love of God - we also preach that and explain that God's glory is not damaged in the least by his not determining to save every soul, because he is not obligated to save any.
What exactly has been avoided in such a presentation?
John UK wrote: It was written so that men would believe, and many have believed through reading it.
Dr Masters, as you acknowledge yourself has been the instrument of salvation to very many over the years despite his bad doctrine (the same doctrines to which I hold, and to which Spurgeon also held, who also was greatly owned by God to bless a vast multitude).
Tell me, how many converts has your doctrine produced?
Judging by the effect that your doctrine is having on you viz. your immaturity, judgmentalism and baseless accusations, your inability to justify scripturally your own position, your haughtiness etc. I would say that you are mostly an arminian trying desperately to have one leg among the believers in the doctrines of grace.
Despite mouthing it, you clearly do not believe that salvation is of the Lord. If the Lord is the one who makes the difference between men by his saving love, then the very fact that not all are saved should inform you that that saving love does not extend to all. So on what basis do you lie to those whom the Lord would pass over that the Lord nevertheless loves them with a saving love? You make God a liar and yet somehow pride yourself that you hold to good doctrine. Such utter blindness and confusion.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Just wondering, how do you make sure you only give sinners who are elect that information in sharing the gospel?
Thanks for your post. I would respectfully point out that this is not the subject matter of the dispute with John UK. No one to my knowledge denies that the gospel must be preached to all creatures. However the dispute is over whether we can give assurance to individual sinners that God loves each and every sinner with a saving love. I don't know your convictions (don't have time to check out your previous postings) but for those who espouse the doctrines of grace, where the sovereign grace of God distinguishes and saves, it should be problematic to proclaim such a lie.
Arminians who believe that Christ's death only made salvation possible and that the sinner must secure his own salvation by jumping onto this possibility by turning themselves from sin and believing that Christ died for them would have no qualms proclaiming that Christ died for all and loves all with the same love. The believer in the doctrines of grace cannot be disingenuous in proclaiming that God loves all with the same saving love because that is a blatant lie. John UK wants to make this lie the heart of his message to the lost.
John UK wrote: Okay Darren, you may now find someone else to try and convince. I tried to reach out to you in love and grace, and you come back to me all guns blazing. I will still comment on this thread, but ignore your comments, Darren, because I believe you hold false doctrine. I'm sorry, I did try to show you how I felt. But I do not want to become like you. I am filled with love of the Holy Ghost and wish all people saved, and work to that end. The result is up to the Lord. Thank you for the convo we have had. God works all things together for good, to those who love God, to those who are the called according to his purpose. Maybe I will next look at John 3:14-15.
"All guns blazing?", when you are the one who made a great many unsubstantiated accusations? It is all too easy to act like the devil and make accusations and then refuse to back them up and walk away in pretended humility and love. Maybe your true character on display?
I have not seen your post, but will look for it later and respond. I am not trying to avoid any who honestly seek to engage.