The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Gospel truth

You challenged Pilgrim:


Several days earlier you had told Pilgrim:



Leaving aside the falsehoods you have attributed to a brother in Christ--whose earlier refutations remain, scandalously, unapologized for by yourself--you are now clearly contradicting yourself vis-a-vis your challenge at the top of this post.

Your argument runs:


one who has not believed in the details of limited atonement
cannot possibly have been truly saved


Which is restated positively:


in order to be truly saved
one must believe in the details of limited atonement


Unconvinced? You also stated it this way:


I call upon you to repent of these unfounded public accusations and hinderings of the elect sheep of Christ.

Again, you don`t understand. Believing the right doctrine or teaching on who christ is and what he has done for his people, does not cause you to be saved, but it makes manifest your saved state. Pilgrim said he was saved before he understood the gospel which includes limited atonement.

Pilgrim said

This comment contradicts scripture:

rom 1: 16 which states For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

mark 16: 15, 16
15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So what kind of statement is I did not believe any gospel?

Pilgrim said

Now how can you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ without believing the Gospel message paul spoke of?

In acts 16 30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

Notice in verse 32 , they spake the word of the Lord to them. Speaking the word of the Lord ! The gospel of christ. They took time to teach out of the scriptures who christ is and what he done for his people. No doubt he used scriptures like Isiah 53 , like with the ethiopian eunech.

Thats why I made that statement, it is impossible to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ without believing the Gospel.. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />

I hope I got the quotes right, and I appreciate the help <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

pilgrim said

There is no scriptural evidence of God Loving a person save His Elect, in other words the bible no where speaks of Gods salvation Love to sinners in general, but only to His elect, or sheep, or those given by the Father ! Look in every context where the word is used and you will see. Even in the popular Jn 3:16 verse, if preached by a God called preacher, it will refer to Gods Elect

Pilgrim said


I believe Pilgrim was regenerated at this time, and God subsequently brought him to faith in the Christ . yes I do see evidence from his testimony that he came to faith after God moved him to read the scriptures. I do believe in regeneration before faith...

I must commend you for doing such a stellar and succinct job of proving Paul's, my and everyone else's point on two fronts:

1) You do in fact believe in "salvation by doctrine".
2) You are guilty of self-contradiction in your view(s)

Applying your unbiblical view to the Apostle Paul, it must be that Paul was not saved until AFTER his 3 years in the Arabian desert where he was taught by Christ and learned the "true gospel" (according to your standard) and not on the road to Damascus or at the home of Ananias. Simply amazing!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

On another note, I also adamantly reject, at least your implicit view of an elongated/delayed time frame regeneration.

I do think it is time to ask a few important questions of you:

1. Can you point to any historic Creed, Confession or Catechism which teaches your views?
2. Can you point to any particular denomination which holds to your views?
3. Can you provide a brief list of some notable men who hold to your same views?

In His grace,

You still don`t get the picture <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> One believing the correct doctrine only makes manifest his or her salvation. If you don`t acknowledge that I keep saying it (right doctrine) only makes manifest your salvation, you are not being honest pilgrim and you know it, and those who are following along with an honest , unbias heart know it.

I admit, after rereading your testimony there was the possibility of you being regenerated. Newbirth preceeds belief of the truth, jesus in jn 3 teaches that and also 2 thess 2: 13 13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

You got it twisted, I asked you that question and you never responded, I never said that paul was not saved, and you know it! Where did I say that? and why don`t you step up and answer the question I asked you first. for your information though, IMO , saul was regenerated on the road to damascus, what is your opinion ?

pilgrim says
fine you can reject it but I believe the bible teaches it or at least implies it. In acts 10 with cornilus, the bible says that he feared God. No man in nature can fear God rom 3 teaches that, so it is very feasible that he was regenerated by God so he can be ready to believe the Gospel that peter would shortly preach to him. acts 10: 2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. You know the rest of the story, if not read acts 10. Peter was commanded to preach the Gospel to him.
Another instance is with Lydia in acts 16:14
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. notice it said she worshipped God! No one in nature can worship God, so IMO she had been regenerated inorder to be receptive to the Gospel that paul was to preach to her.

You would rather have mens opinion over the unadultarated word of God? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> Everthing I have expressed to you I have showed by scripture, and you can`t handle the it.You never respond by showing me by scripture and context where I am wrong, if you can please do. And yes, there are some old predestinarian baptist who believe some of things I believe.


Can you provide a brief list of some notable men who hold to your same views?
http://www.asweetsavor.150m.com/

some of those guys hold to regeneration prior to faith, also see http://www.webbmt.org/

I too was regenerated, converted, adopted, sanctified, and sealed long before I discovered and converted to Calvinism.

I would like to believe that what Beloved57 is trying to say is that sooner or later those who are truly regenerate inevitably become Calvinists, as surely as the regenerate inevitably confess Christ as Lord openly.

But reading post after post from Beloved57, he appears to be saying that a person has neither heard nor responded to Christ at all until and unless they were presented with the Five Points of Calvinism. Anything less is, to Beloved57, a false gospel and thus anyone who is not Calvinist isn't really saved.

You can't have it both ways. But the point is that belief in Calvinism does not save anyone. The gospel is a message about Jesus, not a technical manual describing how His work is applied to the elect; in what order the various aspects of salvation occur in time; when and how the Father chose the Elect, etc. The gospel is not a message about justification by faith, but that message about Jesus. When that message is received and believed by God-given faith resulting from regeneration, a person is converted and truly eternally saved. Even if they don't understand all the technical manuals.

Ligten up, Beloved57!

Saved before Calvinism,
Robin

This stinks like a works theology.


I assume by unbiased you mean all those members who agree with your point of view. Er, well, all those you haven't alienated, accused of heresy, or whose salvation you haven't questioned. Oh, and all those who haven't already said what you're writing is self-contradictory garbage...That leaves you, I think, and whoever's lurking over your shoulder.



You know I believe I'm beginning to understand how the word for lost in the NT and the English word MORON could have the same roots.



This doesn't work on you why should we bite?



Aye, finally a decent idea. Why don't you go buy an actual bible and get some? There are many fine threads here on the Highway about selecting the proper translation.

Your master is quite fond of answering what suits him and making up the rest. I suspect he is quite pleased with you.

Robin:

Darryl is proposing some form of doctrinal regeneration. He does not believe that believing in TULIP saves you. But it is nuanced into a form of immediate knowledge upon regeneration. It is the same error as the ones who would say you must speak in tongues in order to prove you are saved. Darryl uses doctrine as a proof of ones regeneration. Now there is some truth to this method of thinking. Like I said earlier, one cannot profess to be regenerated and deny the fact that Christ came in the flesh. One cannot be regenerated while confessing Christ is not the messiah.

I wil also point out that "Calvinism" as a term defining the Sovereignty of GOD in the Salvation of His people is as old as Genesis 1:1. So the teachings were present long before John Calvin.

What Darryl would do is to have a questionnaire for people who profess to be "saved'. And if they do not confess the 5 petals, he feels he can determine them unregenerate. Not damned, but unregenerate. The phrase "manifest" your regenerancy/salvation is used as a cloak for this understanding. This error has plagued the church for history. It is nothing new. The pharises were guilty of this, the early church was guilty of this, the reformers and puritans were guilty of this. It is a subtle form of navel gazing. What has happenned is people have perverted the inspired Peter who wrote; "Make your election and calling sure" Into saying "Make everyone elses election and calling sure. It is a form of experiential salvation. The puritans did this a lot also. They would look at ones life and circumstances and determine if that person was blessed of God. A good crop meant they were in good standing. etc etc etc. Just like Job's "friends" who "knew" job was being punished for some unconfessed sin.

This behavior is totally subjective and takes a truth of scripture and tweeks it just enough to confuse people. The greatest deception the devil can pull is to give "his" interpretation of God's word which is very rarely an outright bold faced lie. Deception is always cloaked with shreds of truth.

How much correct doctrine did Paul know at his conversion (Acts 9) and how much was he taught afterwards (Gal. 1:11-24)? How much correct doctrine did Peter know at conversion and what was he taught afterwards (Gal. 2:11-20)? Balaam’s Ass knew some correct doctrine, did this make manifest his salvation as it does yours?

When did the God of the universe die and leave you to judge the quick and the dead? You who perverts and twists the very Scripture you think to know. Who are you to question another man’s salvation? You don’t even know Pilgrim, how can you make such a judgment? His fruit is manifest, it is yours that is questionable (Matt 3:7; 5:20; 23:13-33 )!!! You don’t need to be concerned about limited atonement but limited brains and no heart. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

It is possible to repent of such an attitude. I was once very much like you. Praise God for His mercy.

First, your opinion is not Scripture. Second, just stating something does not make it a fact—you have yet to prove anything. Does the Bible imply this or are you implying this? Third, let us look at your examples:

Cornelius—Honestly I am very surprised you selected this passage. Here is Cornelius, a Gentile, who is acquainted with Judaism in that era (Lydia’s case is similar. She had become a believer in Israel’s God and, as a Gentile, was classified as a God-fearer as well (Acts 10:2; 13:16, 26, 50)). He knows a lot about Israel and how to worship Jehovah. The Holy Spirit did not need to “work” on Cornelius for many years so then he would be willing to be regenerated. Regeneration is the act of God alone (John 3)! It is akin to God breathing into us the breath of life (Gen. 2:7). Your view is synergistic not monergistic.

In the NT you find that people were saved all at once without any process (compare in the OT where people were called from the womb), without any period of mourning, or preparation etc. Zacchaeus, up a tree, trusted Jesus and received Him joyfully (Luke 19:6-9). When Peter told Cornelius and his assembled household that they could be saved by believing, what happened? "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message," (Acts 10:44-48—the text says WHEN they HEARD the MESSAGE (i.e. death, burial, resurrection—36-41), not because they were programmed and prepared through many years by the Holy Spirit). The thief on the cross, who a few minutes before had been railing at Jesus, was saved immediately when he inquired of Jesus (Luke 23:42-43). In the first chapter of John, verses 35-49, we see where Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip and Nathanael were all converted, one by one, immediately by faith in Christ.

Regeneration is instantaneous act of the Holy Spirit alone.

Joe,

I think you are at least partially correct in assessing "beloved57's" view, i.e., the profession of right doctrine "manifests" or testifies to regeneration. But what you didn't seem to want to mention, so I will, is that he insists that one embrace and believe "the gospel [as defined by him]" in order to be saved in contradistinction to the necessity of embracing and believing upon the Lord Jesus Christ. He has repeated this several times.... "believing the [true] gospel saves" while chiding me for rejecting his error and insisting that salvation comes only by grace through faith in the person of Jesus Christ. So, I think that his error is far more than simply that profession of "Calvinism" or more accurately, the "Five Points" manifests the possession of regeneration.

Secondly, I would have to reject your description/judgment concerning the Reformers and Puritans in the matter of discerning another's salvation. There were extremists among them to be sure, no less than there are here on this Board. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But their number was typically few compared the whole and to characterize them all by those few is really unfair and inaccurate. We cannot know infallibly about one's regeneration in every case. But we can make valid judgments as to one's temporal spiritual state. The Scriptures enjoin us to be the proverbial "Fruit Inspectors" and upon that inspection we are to act accordingly with both ourselves and others who profess the faith. Avoiding vain talkers, false prophets, false teachers, etc., can only be done if one makes a judgment of another. The Church's responsibility to render discipline even to the point of excommunicating someone, which is essentially pronouncing that the individual has no part in the body of Christ, aka: unbeliever, is based upon being able to discern one's profession and behaviour and then render a judgment based upon that observation. That men and churches have misused that which they are responsible to do in this regard is a sad truth; beloved57 is simply one example. But it would be also unfortunate to cast a blanket over centuries of men as a group as being guilty of such extremism and error.

In His grace,

Pilgrim says
Pilgrim you are flat out lying on me and any honest heart can see that, I have stated at least 3 times that believing the truths about the Gospel makes manifest your salvation !If your a man of integrity, show me where I said believing right doctrine makes you become save? If you are honest , you know I have stated that it only makes manifest <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

From being around old Balaam, she seems to have had a good grasp of Total Depravity, but--having had a donkey--I bet that after things calmed down she went and ate the other 4 petals.

That was good. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Perhaps Pilprim perhaps. Conveying thoughts on here is not easy for me at times. I am not for one instance giving credence to darryls presentation. Like I said, all heresey as a shred of truth in it. Belief does manifest regeneration, just not what he considers must be believed.


I agree Pilgrim. my point was just to say this thinking of Darryls has been around forever. There is nothing new under the sun as the inspired solomon said. Not one era is not been blackened by experiantial theology. Or fruit inspectors as you call them. This was a common thinking in New England puritanism. I know the thought was good, but it always has a tendancy to lead to pure subjective thinking. AS soon as I see a questionairre, i will run. As soon as I have to give acount of my conversion experience to prove my regenerancy I will run. I know this can digress into something other than this thread, but I believe we must not shy away from stating that "proving" regenerancy started from the beginning. And has been around ever since. Look at the Cambridge Platform:

a personal and public confession and declaring of God’s manner of working upon the soul is both lawful, expedient, and useful’, and citing I Pet. 3:15 insisted that, ‘We must be able and ready upon any occasion to declare and show our repentance for sin, faith unfeigned, and effectual calling’.10 In this way the signs of grace which the earlier English Puritans had treated as means to personal assurance of salvation became the necessary evidence for convincing one’s fellow-Christians and persuading them to admit one to the church covenant.

This is exactly what Darryl would like to employ.

Then what would ensue is another form of the "half-covenant"

Here is a segment from an article actually on this site:

This theology was Reformed in that it wished to stress at every point the divine initiative in man’s salvation, but it was also primarily an experiential theology and excessively introspective. When the churches required a narrative of spiritual experience they were requiring that the convert describe the work of God in his life in such a way that it might be recognized as unmistakably the work of God. That in itself may not be wrong. But certainly where New England piety did become imbalanced was in forgetting that the divine initiative will be found primarily in the facts and proclamation of the Gospel and only secondarily in the individual’s experience. Given the faithful proclamation of the Gospel the miracle of human response might perhaps have been left to the Spirit in a rather less carefully defined sense than the New Englanders allowed. In New England the divine initiative could not be real unless it were sought out and located in the depths of the individual conscience in a process of intense introspection. The lesson it is difficult not to draw from the Preparationists’ attempts to map out this process is surely that the earliest workings of the Spirit in the regenerate heart will normally be elusive. There must be something at fault in an experiential theology which depends upon tracking them down.


http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html

This is exactly what I speak of when i mention excessive puritan introspection. Which alligns itself with Darryls thought process

I am nto throwing out the baby with the water here, just certain that this error in new england has been around and will always be around

You've hit the nail on the head! The Gospel is about the person and the finished work of Jesus Christ. God sent His Son... that is good news indeed!

Thanks for sharing your pilgrimage. I too was saved by grace alone through faith alone, brought under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, repented and believed in Jesus Christ as my Savior before I came to understand Calvinism. It appears that Beloved 57 would insist that we weren't saved until we came to understand limited atonement.

Before I came to understand and embrace Calvinism I used to have a very difficult time reading books like A.W. Pink's "The Sovereignty of God." It was simply too heavy for me and hard to understand. But now (by God's grace) I find great comfort in knowing that God is sovereign in the affairs of men and that not a single hair can fall from my head without His knowledge. Like the Psalmist I have to admit "such knowldege is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it (Psalm 139:6).

I love the TULIP because it helps me have a Biblical world view. But I love the person of Jesus Christ for nailing my sins to the cross and clothing me in His righteousness.


Wes

beloved57,

In your now expected rancorous style, you accuse me of lying and then challenge me to show you where you have stated that one is not saved unless they believe [your] right doctrine. Well, I am indebted to Paul on this one because he certainly exposed your errors and adamant denial of them here: Rubbish and various falsehoods refuted.

In His grace,