Faiths that do not save

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again ReverendRV,
I like this one regarding Substitutionary Atonement...
Saw - by ReverendRV
An interesting article, colourful and unique in some of your illustrations. but I disagree with a number of your doctrines here, including "Substitutionary Atonement" - "Jesus took the believers place", your use of "Satan" instead of "The Serpent" in the Garden, "Satan's deathtrap" as God sentenced Adam and Eve to die and The Serpent was not trying to ensnare them into death, and "deserved to go to Hell for eternity". I question your view of "Saved by the Grace of God" together with "apart from any Work" as these expressions are sometimes wrongly used to deny the need for water baptism and support "faith only" and OSAS. We have quite a range of different teachings.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Greetings again ReverendRV,

An interesting article, colourful and unique in some of your illustrations. but I disagree with a number of your doctrines here, including "Substitutionary Atonement" - "Jesus took the believers place", your use of "Satan" instead of "The Serpent" in the Garden, "Satan's deathtrap" as God sentenced Adam and Eve to die and The Serpent was not trying to ensnare them into death, and "deserved to go to Hell for eternity". I question your view of "Saved by the Grace of God" together with "apart from any Work" as these expressions are sometimes wrongly used to deny the need for water baptism and support "faith only" and OSAS. We have quite a range of different teachings.

Kind regards
Trevor
Thanks for reading it. How about the Substitution seen in this one?

Peace Child - by ReverendRV

Ephesians 2:14 BSB
; For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility

I love to read about powerful Missionary endeavors; one of my favorites involve a Canadian Missionary named Don Richardson. His family went to the Dutch New Guinea tribe, the Sawi people; Cannibalistic Headhunters. You can imagine how different the people were and that they risked their lives on a daily basis there. The Gospel was foolishness to the Sawi and they looked at Judas as the hero and Jesus as the dupe. For the life of him, Don couldn’t figure out how to get them to understand; until one fateful night he experienced two warring tribes make Peace with a good Redemptive analogy. The two tribes exchanged some of their children with one another, and as long as the children were alive; Peace would exist. The Missionary finally had what he needed to preach to them; for God made Peace through his child…

To the Sawi this was a lightbulb moment, we’ve all had those before; are you ready for one? ~ Have you ever told a Lie? You snicker, “Yes; but that’s not much of a lightbulb moment”. What do you call people who tell Lies? “Telling Lies doesn’t make me a Liar!” Ah, you knew where I was going with this; but why are you the exception instead of the Rule? Have you ever stolen anything? What do you call people who steal? Does the cat have your tongue, or are you trying not to Lie about it? Do you believe in God? Since we can’t Omnisciently know that God doesn’t exist, you should. Atheism violates the first and second Commandments. “You shall have no other gods ‘before’ me” means that you ‘shall’ have the God of the Bible; and having no God at all means you have a false perspective of the Most High God; right? These were only four of the Ten Commandments, if God judged you by these, would you be innocent or guilty? Would you go to Heaven or Hell? Does this bother you? ~ You need a way to be at peace with God…

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life! We can’t fathom a love for Peace with an enemy which would motivate us to give away our children for it; but the Sawi show us that it’s not preposterous. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Son of Man in one person; given by the tribe of God and the tribe of Man to be made one. He alone lived a Sinless life for the purpose of being the Peace Offering we need because of our enmity with God. He shed his blood on the Cross and died; but he arose from the dead and as long as he is alive there will be Peace for those who believe. We’re Saved by the Grace of God through Faith in the risen Savior Jesus Christ, without Working for the gift of Peace. Repent of your Sins, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God and join the Mission of Christ; the Church. ~ The dividing wall of hostility between God and Man has been torn down by the GodMan, Jesus Christ. God will never ever be hostile to you again…

Isaiah 9:6 NIV; For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Greetings again Theo1689,

This reference prompted my recollection of Ephesians 4 and I would like you to consider this, and if you like possibly respond.
Ephesians 4:17–24 (KJV): 17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

Again, you have this annoying habit of taking texts directed to believers and assuming that they apply to unbelievers.

This lack of proper skill in exegeting texts explains your heretical doctrines.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
He states that the local CofE minister or Reverend sends the good and the bad to heaven at death, possibly fearing the relatives and loss of income if he sent some of them to hell.

I guess they don't teach charity in your cult.
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again ReverendRV and Theo1689 and Greetings ,
Thanks for reading it. How about the Substitution seen in this one? Peace Child - by ReverendRV Would you go to Heaven or Hell? Repent of your Sins, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God and join the Mission of Christ; the Church. ~ The dividing wall of hostility between God and Man has been torn down by the GodMan, Jesus Christ.
An interesting story except I would not like to be one of the children, separated from my parents. I have added above the teachings that I reject. I believe in the resurrection, not heaven and hell at death. Jesus is our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, not our Lord God, or the GodMan. He had only one nature, human nature Hebrews 2:14, Romans 8:3. I prefer the Ekklesia (those who are called out by the true Gospel) to the apostate Church.
Again, you have this annoying habit of taking texts directed to believers and assuming that they apply to unbelievers. This lack of proper skill in exegeting texts explains your heretical doctrines.
I know that it is speaking to the believers, but I consider it also fits into the concept of choice of the two paths of Psalm 1 and Jeremiah 17.
I guess they don't teach charity in your cult.
We do not preach heaven going at death. The general trend today in some areas is that these ministers are only used for hatches, matches and dispatchers and sometimes none of these. When I pass the local CofE at 9AM on Sunday at the end of the 8AM service, the 10-15 members are all 80 or older.
there is no 'ghost' in christianity... There is His Spirit.
I agree but some people like using "Holy Ghost", especially when speaking about the wrong doctrine of the Trinity. I use the KJV but always read "Holy Spirit" where the KJV has "Holy Ghost".

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I know that it is speaking to the believers, but I consider it also fits into the concept of choice of the two paths of Psalm 1 and Jeremiah 17.

You keep mentioning this imaginary "concept of choice", even though its not the least bit Biblical.

We do not preach heaven going at death. The general trend today in some areas is that these ministers are only used for hatches, matches and dispatchers and sometimes none of these. When I pass the local CofE at 9AM on Sunday at the end of the 8AM service, the 10-15 members are all 80 or older.

I'm not sure why that's the pastor's fault that his congregation is older.
And I'm not sure how you think that justifies your uncharitable attitude.

I agree but some people like using "Holy Ghost", especially when speaking about the wrong doctrine of the Trinity.

The Trinity is not "wrong".
If you want to attack the Trinity, take it to the Trinity forum.
This is the wrong place for that discussion.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Greetings again ReverendRV

An interesting story except I would not like to be one of the children, separated from my parents. I have added above the teachings that I reject. I believe in the resurrection, not heaven and hell at death. Jesus is our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, not our Lord God, or the GodMan. He had only one nature, human nature Hebrews 2:14, Romans 8:3. I prefer the Ekklesia (those who are called out by the true Gospel) to the apostate Church.
Do you have any comments on this one about not being able to Work for Salvation?

Reparations ~ by ReverendRV

Matthew 18:25 NLT;
He couldn’t pay, so his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt.

From time to time the question is asked whether or not Reparations should be made to this generation for the Injustices our Forefathers did; what do you think? Maybe we should; after all, Reparations are Biblical. We see in our verse that in times past, the Family also owed the father’s Debt. There used to also be a Debtor’s Prison, and as Saint Matthew said, you wouldn’t get out until everything is paid back. ~ How long would it take before the indebtedness owed to the descendants of Slaves could be paid back to their families? How much money will it take, and how many future generations will it take to pay this Debt off? As you can see, this great Debt is immeasurable. The Bible uses worldly examples of Financial Debt to teach us the Spiritual example of Sin, which is our indebtedness to the God of the Universe…

I’ll try to convey how unfathomable your Sin Debt is. ~ Have you ever Lied or Stolen? What do you call people who Lie to you and Steal from you? You object, “So I’m a Liar and Thief, I can fathom that; but I’m not so bad”. Even so, you’re not considering ‘Original Sin’, our indebtedness to God for the Sin of our Forefather Adam; remember, it’s a Family Debt. What Sins did your father commit? Has he abandoned your family? Then this is a Reparation you owe to God too. What about your grandfather? I know people who were Molested by “good ol’ grandpa”. You owe Reparations to God for how all your Ancestors have Sinned against him; even their Slavery and chiefly Adam’s Sin. You’re either for Reparations or you are against them; right? If God Judged you by his standard, would you be Guilty? God will get Reparations from you, even if he can only get it out of you by throwing you into his Hellish Debtor’s Prison forever…

But the Good News is that Reparations have already been made for an innumerable number of people, paid in full, and for every generation. ~ For God so loved the World he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting Life! Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, conceived of the Holy Ghost for the purpose of being the Sinless ‘Second Adam’, so we won’t have to make Reparations for the Genocide committed by the First Adam; who caused the World to suffer and Die. Jesus made Reparations for Sin once and for all on the Cross by bleeding to death, canceling the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; taking it away from us, he nailed it to his Cross. We’re Saved by Grace through Faith in the Resurrected Savior Jesus Christ, without our trying to make Reparations to God. Repent of your Sin, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God; learn about him at Church and in the Bible.. They say Religion and Politics don’t mix. Reparations are a part of Religion; but the Political debt is also so great that it can never fully be repaid, it can only be Forgiven…

Ephesians 1:7 KJV; In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Do you have any comments on this one about not being able to Work for Salvation?

Reparations ~ by ReverendRV

Matthew 18:25 NLT;
He couldn’t pay, so his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt.

From time to time the question is asked whether or not Reparations should be made to this generation for the Injustices our Forefathers did; what do you think? Maybe we should; after all, Reparations are Biblical. We see in our verse that in times past, the Family also owed the father’s Debt. There used to also be a Debtor’s Prison, and as Saint Matthew said, you wouldn’t get out until everything is paid back. ~ How long would it take before the indebtedness owed to the descendants of Slaves could be paid back to their families? How much money will it take, and how many future generations will it take to pay this Debt off? As you can see, this great Debt is immeasurable. The Bible uses worldly examples of Financial Debt to teach us the Spiritual example of Sin, which is our indebtedness to the God of the Universe…

I’ll try to convey how unfathomable your Sin Debt is. ~ Have you ever Lied or Stolen? What do you call people who Lie to you and Steal from you? You object, “So I’m a Liar and Thief, I can fathom that; but I’m not so bad”. Even so, you’re not considering ‘Original Sin’, our indebtedness to God for the Sin of our Forefather Adam; remember, it’s a Family Debt. What Sins did your father commit? Has he abandoned your family? Then this is a Reparation you owe to God too. What about your grandfather? I know people who were Molested by “good ol’ grandpa”. You owe Reparations to God for how all your Ancestors have Sinned against him; even their Slavery and chiefly Adam’s Sin. You’re either for Reparations or you are against them; right? If God Judged you by his standard, would you be Guilty? God will get Reparations from you, even if he can only get it out of you by throwing you into his Hellish Debtor’s Prison forever…

But the Good News is that Reparations have already been made for an innumerable number of people, paid in full, and for every generation. ~ For God so loved the World he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting Life! Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, conceived of the Holy Ghost for the purpose of being the Sinless ‘Second Adam’, so we won’t have to make Reparations for the Genocide committed by the First Adam; who caused the World to suffer and Die. Jesus made Reparations for Sin once and for all on the Cross by bleeding to death, canceling the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; taking it away from us, he nailed it to his Cross. We’re Saved by Grace through Faith in the Resurrected Savior Jesus Christ, without our trying to make Reparations to God. Repent of your Sin, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God; learn about him at Church and in the Bible.. They say Religion and Politics don’t mix. Reparations are a part of Religion; but the Political debt is also so great that it can never fully be repaid, it can only be Forgiven…

Ephesians 1:7 KJV; In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

according to the law ... seven years. (or the year of Jubilee)

People try to overly spiritualize it as ..... seven years is not really , seven years.

But YHWH told the Jew's, and I'm paraphrasing here.

Remember that you were once held in bondage, ......ie let them go and do send them away empty handed.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
according to the law ... seven years. (or the year of Jubilee)

People try to overly spiritualize it as ..... seven years is not really , seven years.

But YHWH told the Jew's, and I'm paraphrasing here.

Remember that you were once held in bondage, ......ie let them go and do send them away empty handed.

edited to add .....

ie let them go and do NOT send them away empty handed.

As a matter of course that does not mean the "slaves" have to accept.
 
Last edited:

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again ReverendRV and Theo1689,
Do you have any comments on this one about not being able to Work for Salvation? Reparations ~ by ReverendRV
The article seems to have the concept of original sin, also a debt that is paid by substitution, Holy Ghost, but at least at the end you speak of forgiveness. You should abandon preaching false doctrine and embrace the truth of the true Gospel.
You keep mentioning this imaginary "concept of choice", even though its not the least bit Biblical.
Yes, I very much endorse choice and free will, both before conversion and after. I like the parables of the hid treasure and the pearl of great price. My ex-Baptist Pentecostal mate claimed that he was guided by the Holy Spirit, and occasionally he would take a deep breath and then after a while say something preposterous, and I imagine that he thought that what he breathed out was the Holy Spirit's response.
I'm not sure why that's the pastor's fault that his congregation is older. And I'm not sure how you think that justifies your uncharitable attitude.
Some churches have better support by young people if they have rock and roll type music. My ex-Baptist now part time Pentecostal minister stated that they had to update their security so that the locals would not steal their expensive electronic music equipment, and as far as numbers go, he stated that an Armourgaurd vehicle has to take their collection of tithes and prosperity doctrine collections after the meeting. As far as being uncharitable, I am very comfortable in preaching the resurrection to everlasting life of the true believers. I reject heaven and hell at death. The wages of sin is death, and ministers perpetuate an error by not preaching death and the return to the dust.
The Trinity is not "wrong". If you want to attack the Trinity, take it to the Trinity forum. This is the wrong place for that discussion.
ReverendRV mentioned some of the terms in his Tracts. I do not want to discuss the erroneous doctrine of the Trinity. I am willing to discuss the Bible teaching of "The Yahweh Name" in my thread with that title on a cult sub-forum.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes, I very much endorse choice and free will, both before conversion and after.

This forum is not for discussing what you "endorse", especially when what you "endorse" is unBiblical.

My ex-Baptist Pentecostal mate claimed that he was guided by the Holy Spirit, and occasionally he would take a deep breath and then say something preposterous, and I imagine that he thought that what he breathed out was the Holy Spirit's response.

I'm not sure why you chose to contribute something so random, meaningless, and uncharitable.

Okay, YOU find something he said, "preposterous".
So what?
Who died and made you King of Truth?
Atheists consider the resurrection of Christ, "preposterous".
Atheists consider the mere existence of God, "preposterous".
So who cares what YOU think is "preposterous"?

Some churches have better support by young people if they have rock and roll type music.

And that is how churches fail.
If you bring them in for the music, that means they're not there for the gospel.

My ex-Baptist now part time Pentecostal minister stated that they had to update their security so that the locals would not steal their expensive electronic music equipment, and as far as numbers go, he stated that an Armourgaurd vehicle has to take their collection of tithes

Yes, there are sinners in society.
And that includes thieves.
So once again, how is that the pastor's fault?

and prosperity doctrine collections after the meeting.

"Prosperity doctrine collections"?
Is that their term, or is it your insulting uncharitable label?

As far s being uncharitable, I am very comfortable in preaching the resurrection to everlasting life of the true believers. I reject heaven and hell at death. The wages of sin is death, and ministers perpetuate an error by not preaching death and the return to the dust.

This forum is not here for you to spew your false teachings.
You admitted you have your own cult subforum.
Take your message there.
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again Theo1689,
This forum is not for discussing what you "endorse", especially when what you "endorse" is unBiblical.
There is a range of opinion as to what is "Biblical" and you most probably only represent a small faction. Possibly those that claim that they are the special Calvinistic elect have to sound authoritative, and this could be so that they continue to convince themselves despite the many doubts and contradictions. I noticed that you did not mention the parables of the hid treasure and the pearl of great price. I am ready to withdraw into my shell, and as I stated I only accidentally ended up on this sub-forum. It appears that you may be dominant on this sub-forum.
I'm not sure why you chose to contribute something so random, meaningless, and uncharitable. Okay, YOU find something he said, "preposterous". So what? Who died and made you King of Truth? Atheists consider the resurrection of Christ, "preposterous". Atheists consider the mere existence of God, "preposterous". So who cares what YOU think is "preposterous"?
I was giving him as an example of large numbers in contrast to the local CofE. There may be a few churches in the district that are in between these two extremes. Actually I was on good terms with him and attended a lunchtime group Bible discussion at work with him and two other Pentecostals and one Baptist. He gave me a copy of his "graduation" paper, and guess what. it was on the Trinity. Perhaps I should not comment on the quality of his paper and whether it is "Biblical".
And that is how churches fail. If you bring them in for the music, that means they're not there for the gospel.
I am not sure what you classify as "fail", and if numbers and activity is a measure, then they are succeeding. The Sydney Hillsong accommodate possibly 3000, and they may need to have more than one session. They have many branches now in Australia and overseas.
Yes, there are sinners in society. And that includes thieves. So once again, how is that the pastor's fault?
I mentioned security to highlight the emphasis on music. Someone stole our computer projector from our hall, but they did not back up a truck and steal our piano or organ. Nothing much more that they could steal and pawn, as not many people are interested in our books and literature.
"Prosperity doctrine collections"? Is that their term, or is it your insulting uncharitable label?
No, he raised the subject in discussion and stated that he endorsed the concept.
This forum is not here for you to spew your false teachings. You admitted you have your own cult subforum. Take your message there.
Thank you for your patience up until now, but it seems to be wearing a bit thin now. It may be another 17 years before I drop into this sub-forum, or at least respond to you.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
There is a range of opinion as to what is "Biblical" and you most probably only represent a small faction.

Nope.
What is "Biblical" is determined by the text of the Bible, not by the opinions of men.

And the fact that you deny the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and heaven after death makes YOU the "small faction".

Possibly those that claim that they are the special Calvinistic elect have to sound authoritative, and this could be so that they continue to convince themselves despite the many doubts and contradictions.

Thank you for the further insults and personal attacks.
Once again, you demonstrate that you lack charity when dealing with your fellow man. We cannot change what Scripture teaches, it teaches what it teaches.

As for "many doubts and contradictions", I have none, so you are clearly projecting your OWN "doubts and contradictions". And your doubts and contradictions are not my problem. But I would respectfully suggest that since YOU have "doubts and contradictions", for you to attack the theology of others is not the most appropriate action. IMO.

I noticed that you did not mention the parables of the hid treasure and the pearl of great price.

It's irrelevant and off-topic to this discussion forum.
And frankly, I'm not all that interested in theological discussion with you in the first place.

I was giving him as an example of large numbers in contrast to the local CofE. There may be a few churches in the district that are in between these two extremes. Actually I was on good terms with him and attended a lunchtime group Bible discussion at work with him and two other Pentecostals and one Baptist.

I'm sorry, I don't recall asking for your life story.

He gave me a copy of his "graduation" paper, and guess what. it was on the Trinity. Perhaps I should not comment on the quality of his paper and whether it is "Biblical".

Since this is not the "Trinity" forum, you have chosen correctly.
If you want to attack the Trinity, go there.

I am not sure what you classify as "fail", and if numbers and activity is a measure, then they are succeeding.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about Christianity. "Numbers and activity" is NOT a "measure". True Christianity is not like a rock concert, it is for gathering people together with the gospel, worshipping God, and serving those who need it.

Perhaps you should read the gospels, where Jesus preached to about 5000, and most of them abandoned Him. His response was not, "Wait! Come back! I'll try to figure out a new trick to amuse you!"

The Sydney Hillsong accommodate possibly 3000, and they may need to have more than one session. They have many branches now in Australia and overseas.

Again, you are spewing irrelevant factoids here.
I don't recall asking.

I mentioned security to highlight the emphasis on music. Someone stole our computer projector from our hall, but they did not back up a truck and steal our piano or organ. Nothing much more that they could steal and pawn, as not many people are interested in our books and literature.

Thieves weigh the pros and cons as well, and smaller items (eg. projectors) are easier to carry than pianos. But again, why is it the pastor's fault of the church's fault that thieves exist?

Thank you for your patience up until now, but it seems to be wearing a bit thin now. It may be another 17 years before I drop into this sub-forum, or at least respond to you.

Good-bye, then...
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Greetings again ReverendRV and Theo1689,

The article seems to have the concept of original sin, also a debt that is paid by substitution, Holy Ghost, but at least at the end you speak of forgiveness. You should abandon preaching false doctrine and embrace the truth of the true Gospel.

Kind regards
Trevor
Is this one significant to Christadelphians?

Who are you LORD?? ~ by ReverendRV


Acts 9:5 ESV
; And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

This question comes from the Apostle Paul. He’s one of the most famous people in the Bible and is a hero of the Faith; but often we forget the Bible records that for a time Paul was a villain. During the days of his villainy his name was Saul. He would describe himself as, “a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in the city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you Pharisees are today. I persecuted Christians to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the Saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities”. ~ Saul was on his way to Damascus for the purpose of persecuting Christians and this is when he met the LORD Jesus Christ. Saul was blinded by Gods light and heard a voice saying, “'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” Saul’s response to the voice of the LORD must have been one of the greatest shames in his life; he asked, “Who are you Lord?”…

This question is one of the most telling statements that a person Like Saul could have ever asked. In saying this, Saul intuitively admitted that he did not know the God whom he expressed to worship all his life! Imagine being one of the most devout religious leaders of his sect, the Pharisees. He was a Jew of the Jews and was an expert in the Laws of his religion; he was confident that he knew the one true God of all creation. If anyone should have known God when he saw him face to face; it should have been Saul. But to his shame, his first words upon meeting the God whom his fathers worshipped was to quickly admit that he did not know God. Saul thought that he knew God; but he only knew the idol he had made in his Mind to suit himself. ~ If one day you found yourself on your way to serve your God; what if the ‘Eternally Existent One’ stopped you in your tracks and asked you what in the world were you doing?? Might it be possible that the first words that spill out of your mouth would be, ‘Who are you Lord?’. How many of us think that we know God but actually we are deceiving ourselves because we would rather have a God that suits ourselves? This is the essence of Idolatry; one of the Ten Commandments which God has given to all people. The Ten Commandments were given to show us that we are Sinners. Have you ever stolen anything? God has said ‘thou shalt not steal’. All have Sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and we need Gods mercy to keep from being sentenced to his prison; which is an everlasting fiery Hell…

Saul would go on to find out who this God really is. This was Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh, who went on a rescue mission because he so loved the world. Jesus lived a Holy, Righteous life and accrued a good record; which he gladly trades to people for their bad records when they believe that he is the Lord. Read the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and ask yourself if you would be guilty if God judged you by this standard. Being guilty, you would then understand that you would go to Hell. But you don’t have to end up there! Jesus gave his life on the Cross for the penalty of Sin so that you wouldn’t have to pay your penalty in Hell. Trust in the risen Jesus Christ as your Savior; Repent of your Sins and Confess him as your Lord God. Find a New Testament Church and learn how to answer God when you meet him; acknowledging “You are the Lord Jesus Christ!”…

Job 42:5 KJV; I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again ReverendRV,
Saul would go on to find out who this God really is.
You seem to have confused between "LORD" and "Lord", refer Psalm 110:1 and the many quotations and expositions of this in the NT, and also refer to Philippians 2:11.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Greetings again ReverendRV,

You seem to have confused between "LORD" and "Lord",

I'm really getting tired of your uncharitable attitude that anyone who disagrees with your errors is someone ignorant or "confused".

refer Psalm 110:1 and the many quotations and expositions of this in the NT, and also refer to Philippians 2:11.

We probably know those passages FAR better than you do.
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again Theo1689,
We probably know those passages FAR better than you do.
ReverendRV used "LORD" for Jesus, but Psalm 110:1 distinguishes between the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and David's Lord.
Good-bye, then...
I appreciate your responses as I thought you could ignore my post and simply bid Good-bye or even something worse. I had a look for the first time at the first 5 or so pages of this sub-forum and noticed that you have a number of threads with distinctive titles, appearing to cover different aspects of the subject, and I did not read them, but assume that they cover aspects of Calvinism. I decided to post here the article that I mentioned in two posts, and this is more as a librarian, rather than stating that I endorse or agree with everything he states. The article is by HA Twelves in the magazine "The Christadelphian" 1946. There are other articles in this magazine, one in the 1890s "Election versus Calvinism" by Robert Roberts and the two articles by LG Sargent "The Potter and the Clay" and "Christ and Freewill".

Calvinism and the Bible Doctrine of Predestination HA Twelves

The Christadelphian Volume 83 1946 Page 162

THE first major protagonists in the predestination controversy, which has raged for centuries, were Augustine and Pelagius. It was Augustine’s point of view that Calvin later adopted, as did also, in their turn, Thomas Aquinas, the Dominicans and the Jansenists in the Catholic Church, Luther with slight modifications, and, among the Methodists, Whitefield. Calvin was opposed by Arminius, whose views correspond more closely with what we believe to be the Bible doctrine than those of the original Pelagius. Others on the Pelagian side were the Jesuits and Wesley.

The Augustinian and Calvinist position stresses man’s utter inability to will or do any good, and insists that God alone can save. He saves by means of grace, which is “effectual” (it does all that is necessary), and “irresistible” (if God chooses to make you the recipient of grace, you have no say in the matter). This irresistibility of grace for the elect entailed predestination: from eternity God had chosen some to receive it and gain life, and had passed over all others. In this God was not unjust, as death was the desert of all. It follows logically that, if Mr. Smith is of the elect, no sin that Mr. Smith commits, however heinous or deliberate, can prevent his gaining eternal life. It was here that Luther diverged from Calvin, maintaining that the grace could be resisted with resulting condemnation. Of course, Calvin would say that, in fact, the elect would not resist it. Calvinism, then, emphasizes basically the absolute, inscrutable and sovereign will of God. Its particular brand of predestination derives from that.

On the other hand, Pelagius emphasized man’s free will, grace coming in as a help, of which man’s striving made him worthy. Arminius insists that repentance and faith are the divinely decreed conditions of life and predestination is merely God’s determination to give eternal life to those whom He foresaw as fulfilling those conditions. (This doubtless is the correct interpretation of Rom. 8; 29–30.) He would, I think, have agreed with this saying of Luther: “—God, foreseeing who will and who will not resist the grace offered, predestinates to life those who are foreseen as believers”.

So much for a brief statement of the rival positions. To attempt in a few minutes even to suggest the Biblical doctrine and where it differs from Calvinism is a rather presumptuous venture. We must at all costs avoid an over-simplification of the problem for our own greater convenience in discussion. We will only try to clarify the issue, and to point a way to the right attitude towards the subject, not even listing the many passages relevant to the various points.

First let us state very briefly what seems to be the two major considerations to be borne in mind:
(1) The Calvinistic doctrine of absolute election, with its implication that many from eternity are passed over and therefore predestined to death, is untenable for Bible believers. We are told unequivocally that God “is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3 : 9). He “will have all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2 : 4). “Whosoever will” is invited to take of the “water of life freely” (Rev. 22: 17). Whatever our final interpretation may be, it must leave room for a God who does not will the death of thousands, but the life of all.
(2) Calvinism insists on pushing its argument to a logical conclusion with results that shock our moral sense and nullify all moral exhortation. The Bible gives the data and does not offer a logical solution. Where it comes nearest to doing so, in Romans 8 and 9, it comes near to Calvinism. Its general teaching, as also the particular teaching of Romans finally, is just the presentation of the data, without a neatly parcelled and pigeon-holed explanation of what the divine wisdom knows is basically an unsolvable problem for finite minds.

The data are chiefly three:
1. God’s Foreknowledge. This is limitless. Limit it, and your definition of God needs alteration.
2. God’s Omnipotence. Its exercise might be restrained, but only by God’s will, by His “longsuffering”.
3. Man’s Free Will. It is not question-begging to include this as a datum. To deny free will is to play fast and loose with our own daily experience; to put the blame for Adam’s fall not on serpent, Eve or Adam, but on God Himself; to make Moses a play actor when he appeals to Israel to choose life rather than death; to tear page after page from the prophets as so much beating of the air; to tell the Lord Jesus Christ he was wasting his time in his appeals to come unto him; to erase from Apostolic writings everything that suggests the need for moral exhortations or offers it; and finally—though the sentence could be almost indefinitely prolonged—to cancel out entirely the first condition of life and all the clarion calls to it from Matthew to Revelation, namely, repentance.

Of these three data, in strict logic, (1) and (2) make (3) a mere human illusion. If God has absolute power fully exercised, then what He foresees He also causes or allows, and my freedom in things small or great is only a fancy of mine, and God’s punishment of sin becomes a mockery of justice by merely human standards. It is the objection of strict logic that is anticipated in Rom. 9: 19. Note that Paul’s answer does not deny the logic. All he says is: “You must accept it”. But here he comes nearest to the Calvinist position, emphasizing God’s sovereign will (Rom. 9 : 14–24).

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Last edited:

TrevorL

Active member

Calvinism and the Bible Doctrine of Predestination HA Twelves (cont'd)

There is one other thing we can do with our data. We can say that God has limited His omnipotence to the extent of allowing man free will; in other words that datum 3 is only possible on the assumption of datum 2 having been limited. This leaves us with a slightly easier problem, still finally unsolvable by our finite minds, yet more easily imaginable. It is just possible to imagine that God may from eternity have foreseen all the free choices of free human wills without in any way interfering with their freedom. This will not do in logic, of course: a foreseen free choice must be made, therefore its freedom is illusory. But the whole plan of redemption, with the ideas of law, probation, sin, repentance, prophetic warning and appeal, God’s repenting of evil proposed, His longsuffering, the whole history of man’s declension and rebellion and the prospect of God’s final vindication, do necessitate something, which, for want of better terms, we may call a voluntary, temporary restraint of God’s power.

Here then is our choice: either deny free will and be logical (but also foolish, inasmuch as our choosing to deny free will cannot be free either—we just couldn’t help it) or accept both God’s foreknowledge and our own free will without demanding their logical reconciliation, but retaining for our help towards right choices the whole of God’s Word. This latter is the Bible’s own position. the passages where most emphasis is laid upon God’s sovereign will are followed in the same letter by hosts of passages which demand our belief in free will (Rom. 10: 12, 17; 11 : 14 , 18–19, 22, 25; 12 :1–3, etc.).

The Bible position then is this:
(i) It insists upon God’s foreknowledge. He knows which of us will be in the Kingdom, because He has foreseen which of us will be believers and trust in His mercy.
(ii) It insists—nay, its very existence demands—man’s free will, to receive or reject God’s grace, and after claiming to have received it, either to grow in it or to do despite to it and to fall from it.
(iii) It admits that, if you demand logic, even your reception of grace is of God’s sovereign mercy.
(iv) It sets as an aim before the Christian absolute identity of will with the Father, but relates the experience of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 7) and even of Christ himself in the garden, to give the sober reminder that for us that aim is not fully attained. There is always with us conflict.
(v) It also sets before us as an ideal, confidence in our final salvation by God’s grace, to which Paul sometimes attained (2 Tim. 4 : 8) so that salvation can be spoken of as already accomplished (Rom. 8: 30). If that confidence eludes us, because of a sense of our unworthiness, we may be encouraged by remembering that “Ifs” abound even in the most confident parts of Paul’s letters, and that the confidence sometimes eluded him. But we should also remember that it is not a question of our being “good enough” (none of us is that) but of the measure of our trust and hope in His mercy.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I decided to post here the article that I mentioned in two posts, and this is more as a librarian, rather than stating that I endorse or agree with everything he states.

I read through it, and it didn't supply anything other than the same falsehoods I've heard ten million times already.

The article is by HA Twelves in the magazine "The Christadelphian" 1946.

Yeah, you know what?
If I wanted to read false teachings from "The Christadelphian", I'd get my own subscription.
But maybe they should update their content rather than making false claims from 3/4 of a century ago.

There are other articles in this magazine, one in the 1890s "Election versus Calvinism" by Robert Roberts and the two articles by LG Sargent "The otter and the Clay" and "Christ and Freewill".

So you can't make your own theological arguments, and have to rely on other sources to tell you what to believe? Why am I not surprised?

THE first major protagonists in the predestination controversy, which has raged for centuries, were Augustine and Pelagius. It was Augustine’s point of view that Calvin later adopted, as did also, in their turn, Thomas Aquinas, the Dominicans and the Jansenists in the Catholic Church, Luther with slight modifications, and, among the Methodists, Whitefield. Calvin was opposed by Arminius, whose views correspond more closely with what we believe to be the Bible doctrine than those of the original Pelagius. Others on the Pelagian side were the Jesuits and Wesley.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never read anything by Augustine, Calvin, Luther, or Whitefield.
Not to mention Gill, Warfield, Spurgeon, and countless other respected theologians.

The Augustinian and Calvinist position stresses man’s utter inability to will or do any good, and insists that God alone can save. He saves by means of grace, which is “effectual” (it does all that is necessary), and “irresistible” (if God chooses to make you the recipient of grace, you have no say in the matter). This irresistibility of grace for the elect entailed predestination: from eternity God had chosen some to receive it and gain life, and had passed over all others. In this God was not unjust, as death was the desert of all.

The article was fairly accurate up to this point.

It follows logically that, if Mr. Smith is of the elect, no sin that Mr. Smith commits, however heinous or deliberate, can prevent his gaining eternal life.

This biased and unsubstantiated claim comes from the ASSUMPTION that someone who is elect, and has been regenerated, would WANT to commit "heinous" sins. Regeneration is a change God makes to man's heart to make him HATE sin.

It was here that Luther diverged from Calvin, maintaining that the grace could be resisted with resulting condemnation. Of course, Calvin would say that, in fact, the elect would not resist it.

The inability to resist it is found in John 6:44, John 10:28-29, Luke 15:4-7, and countless other passages.

Of course, this is a dishonest tactic of those who write articles against Calvinism. They make it sound very heinous, but NEVER cite the Biblical passages supporting it.

Calvinism, then, emphasizes basically the absolute, inscrutable and sovereign will of God. Its particular brand of predestination derives from that.

Yes, God's sovereignty and Holiness are reduced to nothing more than lip-service (if even that) in other Christian groups.

So much for a brief statement of the rival positions. To attempt in a few minutes even to suggest the Biblical doctrine and where it differs from Calvinism is a rather presumptuous venture.

Considering Calvinism NEVER differs from Biblical doctrine, I would agree that it is INCREDIBLY "presumptuous" to try to assert such a thing.

We must at all costs avoid an over-simplification of the problem for our own greater convenience in discussion. We will only try to clarify the issue, and to point a way to the right attitude towards the subject, not even listing the many passages relevant to the various points.

Actually, this treatment of it is INCREDIBLY "over-simplified".

We are told unequivocally that God “is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3 : 9).

You've never read that passage in context, have you?
Because if you had, you would never have ripped it out of context:

2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This is referring to a PARTICULAR group, "us-ward", who are identified as "beloved", and when you trace them back through 2 Pet. 3:1 to 1 Pet. 1:1-2, we find that this group is "the elect".

So God is not willing for any of the BELOVED/ELECT/US-WARD to perish.

He “will have all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2 : 4).

"All men" doesn't mean "all INDIVIDUALS".
If you think it does, you would need to actually present an ARGUMENT to defend such a view. You would do well to compare it to the following:

Rev. 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

It is the GROUPS of people ("kindreds", "tongues", "peoples", "nations") who are all-inclusive. The individuals who are redeemed are drawn "out of" all those people groups.

“Whosoever will” is invited to take of the “water of life freely” (Rev. 22: 17).

Yes, and that necessarily EXCLUDES "whosoever WON'T".
I guess you didn't think that one through, did you?
But this then opens up the issue of "the will", and how limited or free it is, which is a discussion in itself. This is yet another example of your article "oversimplifying" a discussion it explicitly noted COULDN'T be "oversimplified".

The data are chiefly three:
1. God’s Foreknowledge. This is limitless. Limit it, and your definition of God needs alteration.

Again, your article is oversimplifying.
BDAG, the most current and comprehensive Greek lexicon avaible, defines "προγινωσκω" ("foreknow"), when the object of the foreknowing is a person, as "choose in advance", not merely passively "know" in advance. Further, you make the common error of conflating the verb "foreknow" (which is an action God DOES), with the noun, "foreknowlege". Let's stick to what the Scripture actually SAYS, shall we?

2. God’s Omnipotence. Its exercise might be restrained, but only by God’s will, by His “longsuffering”.

Guess what?
This argument works against you as well.
If God TRULY wanted "every single individual" to be saved, and NONE to perish, then His omnipotence would ENSURE everyone would be saved.

The fact that there are some who are not saved, means one of two alternatives:
1) God is not omnipotent, and was unable to save everyone; or
2) God allowed some to perish, and therefore was perfectly WILLING for them to perish.

3. Man’s Free Will. It is not question-begging to include this as a datum. To deny free will is to play fast and loose with our own daily experience;

The Bible NOWHERE teaches "man's free will", and in may places explicitly contradicts it (eg. John 6:44, Rom. 8:7-8, 1 Cor. 2:14, John 3:3, Eph. 2:1, Col. 2:13, John 8:34, Rom. 6:16-22, etc. etc. etc.)

But by all means, let's throw out the Bible and instead invent our own false doctrines, like "free will".

to put the blame for Adam’s fall not on serpent, Eve or Adam, but on God Himself;

Another false claim.
Calvinism doesn't put the blame on God.

"You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good." (Gen. 50:20)

Of these three data, in strict logic, (1) and (2) make (3) a mere human illusion. If God has absolute power fully exercised, then what He foresees He also causes or allows,

So now you've CHANGED Scripture to read "foresees", rather than "foreknows"?
Well, if we're allowed to change Scripture on a whim, and play fast and loose with it, I guess we can make it say anything we want.

I'll stick to what Scripture ACTUALLY teaches.
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again Theo1689,
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never read anything by Augustine, Calvin, Luther, or Whitefield.
Not to mention Gill, Warfield, Spurgeon, and countless other respected theologians.
You are correct here, as I am very much in my environment as far as reading and listening. The article by HA Twelves and your quick and thorough response is beyond my depth of reasoning and understanding at this present stage of my development, but I will keep a copy of your response together with my article for reference, for my contemplation and possibly for anyone else in our meeting who is interested in this subject.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Top