Now hopefully John wonâ€™t get defensive and actually give what Observer said some good thought. I would love to see the old John come back on here. I think maybe John is a little defensive lately and therefore he is shutting down to what we are trying to tell him. I apologized a few posts back and that was addressed to you as well John. Hopefully you wonâ€™t harden your heart but contemplate what Bro Observer said and maybe we can avoid all this stuff in the future. Itâ€™s a shame to see people who believe in the Doctrines of Grace so divided instead of standing together in the truth of the scripture. Hopefully John can also acknowledge his own part in some of the comments and apologize as I have as well. I know he apologized to me once and that is a sign of great strength. Hopefully he may be able to do that with some others that he may of offended.
Dr. Tim wrote: Thanks, Brother Kev. Water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.
There two movies/documentaries out there about the history of the Bible called:
Tares Among the Wheat
Lamp in the Dark
I believe both you and IE (itâ€™s on Amazon prime streaming for free and Iâ€™m sure other places like youtube etc)and anyone else would enjoy the documentaries. It sure changed my mind about bible versions when I knew where the manuscripts came from etc... yâ€™all have a good day.
Dr. Tim wrote: Connor, I would like to apologize to you and to others on this forum for the harsh tone I have used in some of my previous posts. There is no excuse, and I won't try to make any. If I may offer a suggestion, perhaps you might consider being somewhat less confrontational in your approach. Please bear in mind that many, if not most, of those who use this site are quite a bit older than you (I actually have several grandchildren older than you are), and from a cultural as well as a Christian standpoint it would not be inappropriate to address them with some respect. While I disagree with your views on several issues, I do admire your zeal and courage in standing for what you hold to be the truth. God bless you, my young brother in Christ.
Since you led by example I figured I should follow suit. I apologize as well to anyone I may have been rude to etc... I try not to be but that doesnâ€™t always work out. I will take the advice you gave to Connor as well. â€” John UK thanks for clarifying Iâ€™m enjoying your posts since you have been being a little clearer.
This goes right back to what Lurker was asking about when you said the atonement was past not present now it sounds like you are saying it is present as that is what my comment showed and now your comments seem like the atonement is present to this day. Maybe your not being as clear as you might think John or something else is at play. I donâ€™t see how you could of though I was talking about the actual blood.
John UK wrote: The problem I have with that, is that the atonement is past not present, so how can it change?
This is to show you at the least you are not getting your point across clear.
John UK wrote: Lurker, Yes the RCC believes that the blood of Christ is available today, and you can drink it if you want. I say that it has gone, already sprinkled on the mercy seat for those for whom it particularly atoned and particularly redeemed.
The blood of Christ is still being sprinkled upon the elect of God through the Holy Spirit cleansing His people from all sin to this day.
1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the BLOOD OF SPRINKLING, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Dr. Tim wrote: Well, we clearly are never going to agree on this issue, and I don't know why I take the cheese every time you guys bait the trap. At any rate, it's time to get the possum in the oven, so good day to you ALL.
How in the world are they suppose to look when they have neither eyes to see nor a heart to believe.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
You guys tell me how blind men are suppose to look and Iâ€™ll agree with what you are saying. Donâ€™t you know before you were saved you were blind and naked?
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
What is looking to Christ but accepting spiritual things.
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
You cannot SEE the kingdom of God unless?
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and EYES TO SEE, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Now Christopher my comment is very clear and look at John UK calling people names again saying we want to be like God. His comment clearly makes no sense in the light that God has to give eyes to see. Now the one who says they opened their own eyes wants to be....
So you used one verse that saysâ€ťallâ€ť to come up with a belief imagine if you did that with these verses.
Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my nameâ€™s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. (100% all men hate?) Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. ("all kinds of things" - can God lie? Can He change the plan He has decreed?) Mt 21:26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. (Did 100% of "all" the people think John was a prophet?) Mr 1:37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All 3956 men seek for thee. (100%, Really?) Mr 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my nameâ€™s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. (100% of the people in the world hate? Lu 3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; (100% every human being?) Lu 4:15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all ( "all types"). (Everyone that heard him glorified him? 100%?) Lu 11:41 But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.â€¨Luke20:6,21:38,
Dr. Tim wrote: "You... but many, many texts that make it very plain that ANYONE WHO WILL COME TO JESUS IN FAITH CAN BE SAVED.
I agree with the part I left right there 100% but you must remember faith is the gift of God this is the point we are making and God has mercy on who He will have mercy giving who He will a heart to believe and ears to hear as salvation is of the Lord.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
You have a Mery Christmas too Dr.Tim. Donâ€™t eat to much of that possum pie
Dr. Tim wrote: No, Ladybug, Isaiah 45:22 doesn't mean that all will be saved. It just means that all may be saved. Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:6)
This verse says Christ gave His life a ransom for many.
45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Maybe the verse you gave means Jesus Christ gave His life a ransom for all races of man?
Maybe your not understanding how all was used in Greek.
Mt 20:28 for the Hebrew word ×›×ś, to which this answers, signifies sometimes many, a multitude, and sometimes only a part of a multitude, as Kimchi observes y: or rather it intends that Christ gave himself a ransom for all sorts of men, for men of every rank and quality, of every state and condition, of every age and sex, and for all sorts of sinners, and for some out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation, for both Jews and Gentiles; which latter may more especially be designed by all, as they are sometimes by the world, and the whole world;
John Gill knew many different languages. You have to realize the Bible was written in Ancient Greek and Hebrew.
John UK wrote: Now if you should believe in limited atonement, I would not condemn you for that; there are many preachers here on SA who would agree with you. And the doctrine can be arrived at from scriptural logic.
So sounds like you no longer believe in limited atonement or you wouldnâ€™t of said that. It would make no sense to say that if you believed in limited atonement how could you ever think of condemning someone for something you yourself believe. You know what the doctrine of limited atonement is. Atonement is literally At-one-ment. There is no sense where all are made at one with Christ. You are either declaring you no longer believe it or this is more of your language you use that causes all these kinds of arguments. You should at least be able to see this.
I sense a lot of pride in all your post SS man. We are discussing doctrine and using the Bible to back up what we say and being straight up with our questions and answers. It is strange you donâ€™t want to answer straight up questions and hide behind a whole bunch of writings of men and different denominations would you have us to stop contending for the faith that was delivered to the saints?
As I have said before many of the things people write to others needsto be read and see if they apply to the writer. It is absolutely amazing how this happens in these discussions.
Maybe you are kicking against the pricks when we present the truth of scripture to YOU.
Hey Christopher like I have said many times before many have a hatred for the God of the Bible. These things need to be brought to light in hopes of some to come to repentance and accepting the truth. We canâ€™t just create some God out of a few choice texts we take out of the Bible. Itâ€™s better to get these things exposed better now then before a Holy Rigtheous God. Hopefully John UK who AM respects helps AM out. Iâ€™ve noticed all things come to light with time. No one minds a baby Jesus in a manger but when you tell them about the King of kings who is seated at the right hand of the Father and sovereignly sets His love on who He will and cast others off declaring He never even knew them people gnash their teeth. The Doctrines of Grace are not just some thing we just say well we can just agree to disagree this cuts to the heart of manâ€™s rebellion against the Almighty who works all things after the council of His own will.
Another Michael wrote: Hey! Did someone say I ought to condemn John UK Wales, the Sola Scriptura man as being some kind of ..... Old Timey Calvinist... Why the next thing somebody is liable to post something like how Almighty God is both able and of such immeasurable worth that He actually "wins the hearts of sinners" Don't they know the God has to force Himself upon sinners or they never would love Him ; try telling a young woman the man who just raped her was only doing it because she would never be his Bride without irresistible affection. Or worse if she resisted this monster, his friends would tie up and beat up upon her until she willing submitted to his enslavement
No I was just showing how the people who bring up the opinion of Calvin you have no problem with but we who quote the Bible you call Calvinists.
That is a disgusting comment to compare the effectual calling of God to a rapist.
â€” Excellent post thanks Rodney. Looks like AM looks at a Sovereign God who draws people to Himself as a rapist â€” See John UK an utterly disgusting post from AM and you do nothing to help your brother out.
Watcher wrote: It's that subtle deception that run through their veins. These very same people, when challenged to examine themselves, will not because they KNOW FULL WELL they are right, and we are wrong. I had a friend like this once. He accused me of being off theologically and judgmental, and when asked to point out the areas, he couldn't. I asked him if he had spent time in prayer regarding my supposed errors and he got mad at me. I am finding more and more, the church is full of fakery. They wear these masks of religion yet underneath, they are full of spiritual leprosy.
You are exactly right on that Bro. I heard a pastor quote just the other day the place most in need of evangelism is the Baptist church. I think he is right on the money with that one. You guys all have a blessed day.
Ladybug wrote: I have been guilty of personal attacks, as God has mercifully made me aware. His word is true, precious, and should cause us to tremble. This sermon is a 'must hear' for all ---https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1241788451 May God have mercy on us, may He be pleased to reveal His truth as we take our proper place and bow low in His honor, desiring to be taught by His Spirit.
Ladybug wrote: Are we to get our theology from mortal, fallible men or from the word of God? God has MERCY on all, mercy does not equate love. Scriptural support has been given to show God loves a select group/people - His elect. It is only when the ear is shut and the eyes blinded that these truths are not comprehended. Bearing false witness against Bonny is a sin J.UK, you have done this in the past as well to others. IF you fear God, then bridle your tongue- "Don't speak evil against each other, brethren" (James 4:11).... 1Jn 4:10Â Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.Â Notice two things- God loved 'US', this love proven by an action - Christ being the 'propitiation' for our sins. Does it say 'all'? Christ made payment, in full, for the sins of a particular people - God's elect, whom He loves. If you choose to resort to sinful personal attacks, like stating one is 'acting like a devil', etc. it is wise to NOT comment.
Excellent posts. I wonder if AM will come on here now and proclaim that John UK confesses Calvin instead of Christ. Itâ€™s funny how the ones always talking about love are the ones calling people names whenever they are corrected.
John UK wrote: cont. "I am quite familiar with the objections commonly brought against the theory I have just propounded. I find no weight in them, and am not careful to answer them. Those who confine Godâ€™s love exclusively to the elect appear to me to take a narrow and contracted view of Godâ€™s character and attributes. They refuse to God that attribute of compassion with which even an earthly father can regard a profligate son, and can offer to him pardon, even though his compassion is despised and his offers refused. I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system." Ryle
Letâ€™s compare Ryle with the Bible. He brings up a fatherâ€™s love to his children and then says well God should at least be like that. What does God proclaim?:
6 For WHOM THE LORD LOVETH HE CHASTENETH, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But IF YE BE WITHOUT CHASTISEMENT, whereof all are partakers, then are YE ARE [email protected], and not sons.