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(?)
Thanks for your response Christopher. My views on the issue are laid out in my posts of 6/30/19 12:23 PM and 6/30/19 4:30 PM. What you say is absolutely correct.
John weighed in on your use of the Isaiah passage and then imported his sentiments to the Cornelius case by insisting that unregenerate sinners can please God and he condemned those who say otherwise as misreading Isaiah 64 as though that was the only passage that addressed the issue. Doesn't it seem strange that as the conversation went on, suddenly he claimed to be open minded? John has a habit of holding to contradictory positions because he believes that the God of the Bible is illogical and can therefore hold to opposites as being true. I averted to this in my post 6/28/19 4:45 AM. It's also a neat device to get out of trouble because he can deny one or the other position, or insist on one or the other as suits him. How can he claim to believe in total depravity and yet also believe that the sinful enemies of God can do anything to please him? Its extraordinary mental gymnastics.
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.
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 - ×˘×“×™×ť iddim. Rab. Mosheh ben Maimon interpretatur ×˘×“×™×ť 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 â€śfilthy rags!â€ť] Clarke
The source of your Arminianism no doubt.
Absurd comment. If it was an injudicious illustration for public use why would it be used by God at all? A great deal of fuss over nothing.
So when in Isaiah 64 a godly person associates themselves with the sins of the majority of unbelievers comprising the nation, can we or can we not use the verse to identify the works of righteousness done by unbelievers are being filthy rags etc?
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.
Now here's a lesson in logic: Even if somehow John UK managed to convince anyone here (contrary to the facts) that this is only spoken of the backslidden godly, then arguing from the greater to the lesser, we could say that if this can be said of the backslidden believers, how much more applicable is it to unbelievers!
Christopher000 wrote: I never realized that it was the pleas, and laments of the backslidden:
Re: Isaiah 64 - donâ€™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: ...it seems to me that he was saved under Peter's preaching.
In the OT "salvation/redemption" was still a future event, and even those who were the spiritual children of Abraham waited for it. Recall how Simeon who was a just and devout man upon whom was the Holy Spirit upon taking the baby Jesus in his arms exclaimed "Lord...mine eyes have seen thy salvation", and how Anna the prophetess "spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem". Being "saved" is something specifically spoken of those that believe in Jesus, because he is Salvation. This does not mean that Cornelius was not already a justified believer. Just that when he came to believe in Jesus according to NT usage he is said to be saved.
John UK wrote: Once you get past that crevice, you can move on to: 1 John 2:29 KJV (29)Â 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)Â 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.
Isn't this the heresy of the wider hope being presented to us? viz. that all those that seem to do good works are righteous. Works righteousness will bring many who have never heard of Jesus to heaven.
ladybug wrote: Christopher is right, all our works are as filthy rags and can never please God prior to being regenerated.
The point about Cornelius which is lost on some is that he is already a Gentile proselyte to the Jewish religion. He feared the true God, having abandoned his former Roman idols.
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?
The works of all unbelievers are as filthy rags, even though John UK doesn't believe that any more. He seems to be attracted to all false teaching like a moth to a light.
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."
If what you insist on be true then mankind has no need of any spiritual assistance to understand, repent or believe. Do you believe in prevenient grace? If so, why?
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?
Dr Tim, the verse doesn't mean what you think it does. Think who it is addressed to (see v13 for instance) and remember that the "ye" is not the people but the authorities, specifically the scribes and Pharisees who were preventing the people from coming to hear the Lord preach.
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.
More strawmen! I could equally say to all sinners that God hath made Jesus Lord and Christ without a lie, because it is true. I too can issue the command that all should repent and believe and that those who do with sincerity will be forgiven, and receive the Holy Spirit. Again this would be a true statement. Where did Peter say he died for every single Jew and Gentile, which would have been a lie because Christ only secured blessings for those who repent and believe. Add to this that he is the one that grants the repentance and the faith, which he secured by his own death, then your universal atonement is in shreds.
I wonder why you are going to such great lengths to confuse issues.
John UK wrote: .... the message is for all the house of Israel .
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent
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?
Who maketh thee to differ? Your answer, along with all of arminianism is "I do".
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"!!
Why not accept decisionism as well? Like Graham, why not tell those who "decide" for Christ that they really are saved? Better still, go the whole hog and send your converts to Roman Catholic churches, because God doesn't care for truth any more. Graham's and Robert Schuller's wider hope message is where you will end up given just a few more months of changing doctrinal winds. All that matters is 1) how much one can gush over a made up Jesus, as long as there is some tenuous link to the Jesus of the Bible and 2) a requirement to become a gushing ambassador for the new popular failure of an idol to the hell bound.
John UK wrote: ... Spurgeon said, his blood was sufficient to save 10,000 worlds full of sinners, should God have so decided.
Where is the scripture which teaches that his blood is sufficient to save 10,000 worlds full of sinners?
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?
Is the Spirit suddenly going to draw into the kingdom more than just the elect because you preached this fiction?
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.
1. None here, as far as I am aware, has denied that the gospel should be preached to every creature. This is a straw man of your creation. Silly queries? When they go to the heart of the question, "what is the gospel?", and when they are already answered in the scriptures? Let me translate that, you don't want to hear what the bible actually has to say on the matter. Understood.
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.
John UK's ability to speak from both sides of his mouth never ceases to amaze me. He believes in total depravity but he doesn't, he believes in unconditional election but he doesn't, he believes that Christ died for everyone but he doesn't, he believes that people are irresistibly drawn but he doesn't etc.
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!!!!!!!!!
Here we witness a basic failure in comprehension. The all is NOT every single individual in the world, but specifically the ALL refers to those who labour and are heavy laden. It is only such who are promised rest if they come to the Lord.
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.
All the promises of the gospel are conditioned on coming in repentance and faith. None other will ever receive any of the blessings because Christ did not secure any for them.