Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Calvinism


Recommended Posts

  • Members
On 12/23/2020 at 10:31 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, as a non-Calvinist I most certainly WOULD recognize that the "natural man can do nothing concerning [his] spiritual state unless and until God Himself intervenes."  However, the difference in the Calvinistic system of belief and my non-Calvinistic system of belief is the following:

1.  The Calvinistic system of belief teaches that God only intervenes for SOME, and is NOT WILLING to intervene for the rest, and thus those among "the rest" have no ability whatsoever at all ever to choose anything different than to love the darkness rather than the Light.

2.  The non-Calvinistic system of belief teaches that God has promised to and actually does intervene for ALL, by means of His drawing work upon ALL, thereby granting ALL the ability and opportunity to choose the light of Christ over their darkness of sin.

Yes, but that would be due to us seeing God has provided definite salvation for some, His elect, while you would see it as potential salvation for all depending on how they react!

On 12/23/2020 at 11:33 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, you have young children who have "no imputed sin" in their "legal" standing before God, but are dead in sin (having a sin nature) in their "literal" spiritual condition.  If this is so, then --

1.  Because they are not sinners in their "legal" standing before God, they have no need for God's saving works of forgiveness, propitiation, imputed righteousness, or justification, all through Christ.

2.  Because they are indeed sinners in their "literal" spiritual condition (having a sin nature), they are still in need for God's saving works of cleaning, redemption, regeneration, and reconciliations, all through Christ.  Thus I would ask -- How do young children that die acquire God's saving works of cleansing, redemption, regeneration, and reconciliations apart from faith in Christ?

By the way, IF Romans 7:9 is applied to young children before the time of accountability, then it stands in contradiction to your above position.  In Romans 7:9 Paul stated, "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came , sin revived, and I died."  In this verse, the apostle did not talk about the "legal" imputation of sin upon his account.  Rather, he talked about the matter of his spiritual life and death.  If he was spiritually alive before some "time of accountability," then he was not spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins," and thus did NOT possess a sin nature.  For those who possess a sin nature are "dead" by spiritual nature.  

(Note: I myself do NOT believe that Romans 7:9 contextually applies to young children before some time of accountability, but that it contextually applies to a brand new believer immediately after conversion.)

 

As an additional question, according to God's Word when exactly is the work of the law written in the heart of the human individual?  When exactly does the conscience begin to bear witness?  When exactly does it become natural for the human individual "to do BY NATURE the things contained in the law"?

 

1.  According to Romans 5:12, upon how many of mankind did death pass?
2.  According to Romans 5:12, how many among mankind have sinned?
3.  According to Romans 5:13, was sin in the world BEFORE the law of Moses?
4.  According to Romans 5:13, when is sin not imputed?
5.  So then, was sin imputed BEFORE the law of Moses?
6.  So then, if sin was indeed imputed before the law of Moses, by what law was it imputed?
7.  So then, if sin was not imputed before the law of Moses, why did death reign from Adam to Moses?
8.  So then, can death reign apart from sinfulness and/or imputed sin?
9.  So then, is death the very consequence for imputed sin? (See Romans 5:12, 15, 21)

10.  According to Romans 5:15, how were many made to "be dead," by the consequence of their own sinful offense, or by the consequence of someone else's sinful offense?
11.  According to Romans 5:17, how did death come to reign upon all men (as per Romans 5:12), by the consequence of their own sinful offense, or by the consequence of someone else's sinful offense?
12.  According to Romans 5:18, upon how many of mankind did judgment come unto condemnation (which are legal terms of accountability)?
13.  According to Romans 5:18, how did judgment unto condemnation come upon mankind, by the consequence of their own sinful offense, or by the consequence of someone else's sinful offense?
14.  According to Romans 5:19, how are we "made sinners," by the consequence of our own disobedience, or by the consequence of someone else's disobedience?

Here then is the truth -- NOT because of my own sin, BUT because of Adam's first sin, I am made (at my beginning) a sinner and made (at my beginning) to "be dead," having death reigning over me and having judgment unto condemnation upon me.  This was already true for me BEFORE my own first act of sin, and my acts of sin only add to the abundance of this spiritual problem.

God chooses to save children and infants and those unable to receive faith such as mentally disabled to become saved due to His grace and mercy, doing for them what cannot do otherwise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, Yeshuafan said:

God chooses to save children and infants and those unable to receive faith such as mentally disabled to become saved due to His grace and mercy, doing for them what cannot do otherwise!

How about some Scripture for this that you said, instead of just submitting what you believe?

Just because it appeals to what you would like to believe happens, does not make it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 12/23/2020 at 6:34 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

IF this is true (which I myself do NOT accept), then --

1.  There was a time wherein Paul/Saul was "without the law" BEFORE he was under the law. 
     This would mean --
     a.  There was a time wherein Paul/Saul was not under any obligation to the law.
     b.  There was a time wherein Paul/Saul was not under any condemnation by the law.
     c.  Thus there was a time wherein Paul/Saul was not a sinner "legally" in the sight of God the Judge.
     d.  Thus there was a time wherein Paul/Saul had no need for God's saving works of forgiveness,
           imputation, propitiation, or justification.

2.  There was a time wherein Paul/Saul was spiritually "alive" BEFORE he was spiritually dead. 
     This would mean --
     a.  There was a time wherein Paul/Saul was not spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins."
     b.  There was a time wherein Paul/Saul was not a child of darkness, disobedience, and wrath.
     c.  Thus there was a time wherein Paul/Saul was not a sinner "literally" in his spiritual condition.
     d.  There there was a time wherein Paul/Saul had no need for God's saving works of cleansing,
           regeneration, redemption, or reconciliation.

(Note: I myself am compelled to contend that holding this viewpoint is completely contrary and destructive to the Biblical doctrines of mankind's sinfulness and of God's saving grace.  I myself am not willing to do this, in order to solve the "baby problem.")

Then what else does he mean? Clearly in his own words, he says he was without the law, and that, at some point, the law came, and when that happened, he died. When was Paul/Saul, born under the law, circumcised the 8th day, brought up under the feet of Gamaliel, a Pharisee of the Pharisees, "without the law", except when he could not understand the law, and the consequence of sin? He even clarifies it, by saying that he didn't understand lust, except that the law said 'Thou shalt not covet' How could he not know THAT? Simply, and the only possible answer, is he didn't know when he was too young to understand. But when the law, or the understanding of the law, came, THEN sin revived, (it was present, but dormant, even dead), and when it revived, he died, and fell under the curse of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Yeshuafan said:

Yes, but that would be due to us seeing God has provided definite salvation for some, His elect, . . .

This a correct assessment of the Calvinistic system of belief as far as it goes; however, it does not include the point that I have been seeking to emphasize - that in the Calvinistic system of belief, while God has graciously provided "definite salvation for some," He has been completely UNWILLING to be gracious in providing any means whatsoever at all in any way for the rest to experience salvation.  Yes, "the rest" (the Calvinist's "non-elect") may choose the darkness rather than the light, but it is because God has NOT been willing to provide them with any other choice whatsoever at all.  In the Calvinistic system of belief, the All-Sovereign Lord God of heaven and earth gave "the rest" ONLY one choice, so they had/have NO OTHER OPTION, but to choose it.  Granting the ability to choose differently is God's sovereign responsibility, since no human sinner can in any way acquire this ability on his or her own; yet according to the Calvinistic system of belief, God has utterly refused to grant this ability unto the great majority of human sinners.  In the Calvinistic system of belief, God created them as sinners in Adam, and then was UNWILLING to provide them with any grace to be saved from their sinfulness.  Indeed, although the Calvinistic God is wonderfully gracious to a few, his grace is fairly small since it does not encompass the great majority of humanity.

 

1 hour ago, Yeshuafan said:

 . . . while you would see it as potential salvation for all depending on how they react!

 

Correct, if by "potential" salvation, you mean the offer of and draw unto salvation through faith in Christ.  In my system of belief, their IS a human prerequisite to the promise of eternal salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

How about some Scripture for this that you said, instead of just submitting what you believe?

Just because it appeals to what you would like to believe happens, does not make it so.

David would be going to meet his deceased son, and Jesus had the little children come unto Him, and God said that in Ninevah were many little ones who did not yet know right from wrong!

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

This a correct assessment of the Calvinistic system of belief as far as it goes; however, it does not include the point that I have been seeking to emphasize - that in the Calvinistic system of belief, while God has graciously provided "definite salvation for some," He has been completely UNWILLING to be gracious in providing any means whatsoever at all in any way for the rest to experience salvation.  Yes, "the rest" (the Calvinist's "non-elect") may choose the darkness rather than the light, but it is because God has NOT been willing to provide them with any other choice whatsoever at all.  In the Calvinistic system of belief, the All-Sovereign Lord God of heaven and earth gave "the rest" ONLY one choice, so they had/have NO OTHER OPTION, but to choose it.  Granting the ability to choose differently is God's sovereign responsibility, since no human sinner can in any way acquire this ability on his or her own; yet according to the Calvinistic system of belief, God has utterly refused to grant this ability unto the great majority of human sinners.  In the Calvinistic system of belief, God created them as sinners in Adam, and then was UNWILLING to provide them with any grace to be saved from their sinfulness.  Indeed, although the Calvinistic God is wonderfully gracious to a few, his grace is fairly small since it does not encompass the great majority of humanity.

 

Correct, if by "potential" salvation, you mean the offer of and draw unto salvation through faith in Christ.  In my system of belief, their IS a human prerequisite to the promise of eternal salvation.

Does God owe salvation to any lost sinner though?

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

This a correct assessment of the Calvinistic system of belief as far as it goes; however, it does not include the point that I have been seeking to emphasize - that in the Calvinistic system of belief, while God has graciously provided "definite salvation for some," He has been completely UNWILLING to be gracious in providing any means whatsoever at all in any way for the rest to experience salvation.  Yes, "the rest" (the Calvinist's "non-elect") may choose the darkness rather than the light, but it is because God has NOT been willing to provide them with any other choice whatsoever at all.  In the Calvinistic system of belief, the All-Sovereign Lord God of heaven and earth gave "the rest" ONLY one choice, so they had/have NO OTHER OPTION, but to choose it.  Granting the ability to choose differently is God's sovereign responsibility, since no human sinner can in any way acquire this ability on his or her own; yet according to the Calvinistic system of belief, God has utterly refused to grant this ability unto the great majority of human sinners.  In the Calvinistic system of belief, God created them as sinners in Adam, and then was UNWILLING to provide them with any grace to be saved from their sinfulness.  Indeed, although the Calvinistic God is wonderfully gracious to a few, his grace is fairly small since it does not encompass the great majority of humanity.

 

Correct, if by "potential" salvation, you mean the offer of and draw unto salvation through faith in Christ.  In my system of belief, their IS a human prerequisite to the promise of eternal salvation.

Does God owe salvation to any lost sinner though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Then what else does he mean? Clearly in his own words, he says he was without the law, and that, at some point, the law came, and when that happened, he died. When was Paul/Saul, born under the law, circumcised the 8th day, brought up under the feet of Gamaliel, a Pharisee of the Pharisees, "without the law", except when he could not understand the law, and the consequence of sin? He even clarifies it, by saying that he didn't understand lust, except that the law said 'Thou shalt not covet' How could he not know THAT? (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

So, the real question here is - What does the phrase "without the law" mean in the context of Romans 9:7?

First, let us take note that Paul did NOT say - "Without the understanding of the law."  Rather, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, he said - "Without the law."  Yet as you acknowledged above, as a Jew Paul/Saul was "born under the law."  Furthermore, let us take note that Paul did NOT say - "When the understanding of the commandment came."  Rather, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, he said - "When the commandment [itself] came." 

Second, let us consider the "without the law" type statements that the apostle Paul had previously presented in the epistle to the Romans, leading up to his Holy Spirit inspired comment in Romans 9:7:

Romans 2:12-15 -- "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.  For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.)"  In verse 14 we find the Gentiles presented as "having not the law;" however, this could not apply unto Paul/Saul in Romans 7:9, since Paul/Saul was not a Gentile, but a Jew.  Nevertheless even in the case of the Gentiles, "which have not the law," we are informed that they have "the work of the law written IN their hearts," in relation to their "conscience;" and this they appear to have "by nature" (that is -- as a part of their natural creation).  Thus the opening truth of verse 12 is substantiated.  People can, and many have, sinned "without law."  Those who have sinned "without law" still have no excuse, but SHALL "perish without law."  The direct possession and understanding of the law is not relevant to their accountability, guiltiness, judgment, and condemnation.  The reason is that hearing (possessing and understanding the law) is not what matters with God.  Rather, what matters with God is doing or breaking the law.  Furthermore, the law "written in their hearts" is sufficient for their accountability.

Romans 3:21-24 -- "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."  Herein we learn that "the righteousness of God" is manifested/imputed "without the law," that the works of law are in no way beneficial for the justification of sinners.  Furthermore, we learn that this "righteousness of God" is imputed ONLY "by faith of Jesus Christ," and that it is imputed "unto all ["legally" concerning our record in heaven] and upon all ["literally" concerning our spiritual regeneration] them that believe."  Finally, we learn the reason that "the righteousness of God" (divine justification) is "without the law," but must be "by faith of Jesus Christ" unto and upon all who believe, and thus by God's grace "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."  This reason is because there is NO difference among the individuals of humanity; for ALL among humanity "have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."  Yet in our present discussion this raises the question -- Does the word "ALL" in Romans 3:23 include the youngest of children?  Have the youngest of children also sinned and come short of God's glory?  If the answer is "yes" (which it seems to be according to the truths of Romans 3:9-12, 19, 23), then how can they be justified apart from "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;" and then how can they receive this gracious justification apart from "the faith of Jesus Christ"?

Romans 4:14-16 -- "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.  Therefore it is of faith, that is might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all."  Herein we learn that the promise to Abraham was not through the law, but was through faith, so that it could be administered by God's grace through faith.  Yet in verse 15 we learn that where no law is (in existence), "there is no [possibility for] transgression."  Indeed, if no law actually exists, then it is impossible to break a non-existent law.  However, this statement does NOT speak about no "understanding" of the law.  Rather, it ONLY speaks about no "existence" of a law.  On the other hand, the existence of law brings obligation for obedience to that law; and ANY breaking of that law brings condemnation by that law.  Thereby "the law worketh wrath."  So then, when did God's law of righteousness first begin with mankind?  When does obligation to God's law of righteousness first begin for each human individual?  When can God first classify a human individual as having sinned (as having transgressed his law of righteousness)?  When is the work of God's law of righteousness first written in the heart of a human individual?  Note that God's own Word tells us that "all are under sin," and that "there is none righteous" no, not even a single one, and that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," and that "all the world" stands "guilty before God," and that judgement has come "upon all men to condemnation," and that "the wicked are estranged from the womb," and that the wicked "go astray as soon as they be born," and that we all like sheep "have gone astray" from God.

Romans 5:12-14 -- "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come)."  In verse 13 we again encounter the truth that no sin is imputed "when there is [exists] no law."  Yet again we take notice that this does NOT speak about when there is no understanding of law.  Rather, this ONLY speaks about when there is no existence of law.  Thus the very moment that law exists, there is the possibility for sin to be imputed.  So then, when DID sin enter the world?  At the first man Adam's first sin.  And when did death, the curse of sin," enter the world?  At the first man Adam's first sin.  And how many of Adam's offspring have sinned since then?  "ALL have sinned."  So, upon how man of Adam's offspring has the curse of death passed?  "Upon ALL."  Yet the law of Moses was not revealed for a multitude of years after Adam.  So then, was there no sin in the world until that revelation of the law?  No, "sin WAS in the world" even before the revelation of Moses' law, even from the very time of Adam's first sin.  In fact, the curse of sin "reigned from Adam to Moses."  How then could sin be in the world and the curse of sin reign before the revelation of the law?  It could be because obligation to God's law of righteousness existed before the direct revelation of Moses' law.  In fact, as we have previously learned from Romans 2:14-15, the work of God's law of righteousness has been written in the hearts of humanity "by nature" from the very creation of Adam.  Thus in God's creation and from God's creation, God's law of righteousness has ALWAYS been in existence.

Romans 6:14 -- "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."  Herein we find that believers are "not under the law," but under God's grace.  For this reason there is no longer any need for sin to have dominion over our hearts and lives.  Indeed, this statement is given as a conclusion for that which has been presented throughout Romans 6:2-13.  Therein we learn that as believers our "old man [our old spiritually dead spirit] IS crucified with Christ," and that we have been spiritually raised up with Christ to "walk in newness of life."  Indeed, we learn that through this process of spiritual death and resurrection with Christ, we are "freed from sin."  Yeah, we learn that we are to reckon ourselves in Christ and through Christ "to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God."  Therefore, we are not let sin "reign in" our mortal bodies, that we should "obey it in the lusts thereof," neither yield our members "as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin;" but now we are to yield ourselves "unto God, as those that are ALIVE FROM THE DEAD," and to yield our members "as instruments of righteousness unto God."  Thus in the context of Romans 6:14, not being under the law, but under God's grace, is equivalent to being born again, wherein we are spiritually dead with Christ unto sin, and alive with Christ unto God to walk in newness of righteous life.

Romans 7:4-6 (the immediate context of Romans 7:9) -- "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.  For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.  But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."  First, let us take note that this is the immediate context for Romans 7:9, and that it employs "life" and "death" language in relation to the law just as does Romans 7:9.  Furthermore, let us take note that Romans 7 flows directly out of Romans 6, wherein the truth of the regenerate Christian life and of freedom from sin and the law are central to the context.  So then, when are we delivered from the law, and thus free from the law, and thus without the law?  When we "become dead to the law by the body of Christ," (that is - by being spiritually crucified and raised up with Him).  And what is the driving purpose for us to know that we are "dead to the law" in Christ and "delivered from the law" through Christ?  It is that "we should bring forth fruit unto God" and "should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter [law]."  In our lost flesh "the motions of sin" were much at work, and those "motions of sins" took occasion in us "by the law."  Even so, those "motions of sins" worked in our lost condition "to bring forth fruit unto death."  Yet now that we are saved, the Lord our God has set us free spiritually, so that we should walk in life and righteousness, not in sin and death.

So then, going forward in Romans 7:7 - 8:17, three great questions will be answered:

1.  Is God's law of righteousness a "bad" thing?  Answer - NO!  God's law of righteousness is NOT a "bad" thing, but is the very standard of God's own righteousness.  However, because God's law of righteousness is NOT able to empower obedience, it is only capable of revealing obligation and then of pronouncing condemnation when that obligation is broken.  Thus God's law of righteousness should NOT be our dependence for living in righteousness.

2.  If as a believer I am free from sin, why do I still commit sin?  Answer - Because as a believer, although there is no longer any sinful character whatsoever at all in my spirit, I still retain the principle of sin in my soul.  In Romans 7-8 that principle of sin in my soul is called "the flesh," and can be defined as the principle of selfishness that still exists within my soul while I live in this life on the earth.

3.  How as a believer can I walk in the freedom of sin that I have been granted?  Answer - NOT through the power of God's law of righteousness, which has NO power to help me in this regard, BUT through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who can indeed empower me to have victory over my indwelling sinful "flesh" and thereby to "fulfill the righteousness of law."

Now then, what about Romans 7:9?  Paul was a Jew, and thus was not "without the law" by means of being a Gentile; for as a Jew he was actually "made under the law."  Paul was a human from the line of Adam, and thus was not "without the law" by created nature; for he had the work of God's law written in his heart, just as any other human.  Paul was a part of this world, and thus was not without the "existence" of God's law of righteousness; for God's law of righteousness has existed in this world since the beginning.  Paul was a believer, and thus WAS "without the law" in and through Christ his Savior, delivered and freed from the law, born again in life and righteousness.  Yet shortly after his salvation Paul found another law in his members.  Indeed, even as a believer, born again in Christ, the law of sin and death ("the flesh") was still working in his soul.  Through faith in Christ he had been immediately brought to spiritual life.  But then . . . The obligation of God's law of righteousness still remained.  The power of the sinful "flesh" still remained.  The weakness of the law to empower unto righteousness still remained.  Shorty after conversion, sin revived through the influence of "the flesh;" and the process of spiritual death continued to work, not upon his spirit, but yet upon his soul and behavior.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
42 minutes ago, Yeshuafan said:

Does God owe salvation to any lost sinner though?

Does God owe salvation to any lost sinner though?

NO!  God does not owe anyone the way of salvation, for indeed any and all salvation is by the gift of God's grace.  However, God IS obligated by His own character to be faithful unto His own Word on the matter (whatever His own Word on the matter may be).

However, my questions are NOT about God's obligations, per se.  Rather, my questions are about whether the Calvinistic system of belief presents the character of God correctly.  Furthermore, my questions are about whether you yourself as a Calvinist are willing to acknowledge the truth of your own system, that is --

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, you have a God who is UNWILLING to make a way of salvation for the great majority of sinful humanity?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, you have a God who is NOT GRACIOUS to a great majority of sinful humanity?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, the great majority of sinful humanity chooses darkness rather than the light simply because your God has not granted them any other option?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, the great majority of sinful humanity were sovereignly made by God for the express purpose that He might have multitudes upon whom never to show any grace, but only ever to pour out His eternal judgment and wrath?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

NO!  God does not owe anyone the way of salvation, for indeed any and all salvation is by the gift of God's grace.  However, God IS obligated by His own character to be faithful unto His own Word on the matter (whatever His own Word on the matter may be).

However, my questions are NOT about God's obligations, per se.  Rather, my questions are about whether the Calvinistic system of belief presents the character of God correctly.  Furthermore, my questions are about whether you yourself as a Calvinist are willing to acknowledge the truth of your own system, that is --

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, you have a God who is UNWILLING to make a way of salvation for the great majority of sinful humanity?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, you have a God who is NOT GRACIOUS to a great majority of sinful humanity?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, the great majority of sinful humanity chooses darkness rather than the light simply because your God has not granted them any other option?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, the great majority of sinful humanity were sovereignly made by God for the express purpose that He might have multitudes upon whom never to show any grace, but only ever to pour out His eternal judgment and wrath?

IF the answer is yes to all of the above, does that make God out to be not fair then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 minute ago, Yeshuafan said:

IF the answer is yes to all of the above, does that make God out to be not fair then?

No. Rather, if the answer is "yes" to all four of my above questions, I would contend that it makes the CALVINIST'S God out to be in contradiction with the revelation of God's Word concerning the true God's gracious nature.  

_________________________________________

Now, I do find it most interesting that you, as a Calvinist, continue to avoid giving a direct answer to these questions.  In the questions that you have asked of me, I have given direct answers.  Why?  Because I hold to my system of belief with conviction and without shame.  On the other hand, it almost seems as if you either are ashamed concerning the ungraciousness of the God in which you believe or are ashamed concerning the realities of the system unto which you hold.  

You see, IF I am correct that the Calvinistic system of belief presents the character of God incorrectly, then the Calvinistic system of belief falls under the judgment of God for speaking contrary to His true character.  In addition, I also hold that the Calvinistic system of belief presents a gospel that is contrary to God's Word; and IF I am correct about that, then the Calvinistic system of belief falls under the curse of God for presenting a false gospel.  (Indeed, these are two of the primary reasons why I will oppose the Calvinistic system of belief with tenacity.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

No. Rather, if the answer is "yes" to all four of my above questions, I would contend that it makes the CALVINIST'S God out to be in contradiction with the revelation of God's Word concerning the true God's gracious nature.  

_________________________________________

Now, I do find it most interesting that you, as a Calvinist, continue to avoid giving a direct answer to these questions.  In the questions that you have asked of me, I have given direct answers.  Why?  Because I hold to my system of belief with conviction and without shame.  On the other hand, it almost seems as if you either are ashamed concerning the ungraciousness of the God in which you believe or are ashamed concerning the realities of the system unto which you hold.  

You see, IF I am correct that the Calvinistic system of belief presents the character of God incorrectly, then the Calvinistic system of belief falls under the judgment of God for speaking contrary to His true character.  In addition, I also hold that the Calvinistic system of belief presents a gospel that is contrary to God's Word; and IF I am correct about that, then the Calvinistic system of belief falls under the curse of God for presenting a false gospel.  (Indeed, these are two of the primary reasons why I will oppose the Calvinistic system of belief with tenacity.)

The calvinistic Gospel gives the biblical account of the Lord Jesus death being an atonement provided for a real and sure salvation for those to whom the father intended to save. The alternative is not really good news, as lost sinners have no capacity in and by their own free will to make the decision to receive Jesus as their Savior and Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 minutes ago, Yeshuafan said:

The calvinistic Gospel gives the biblical account of the Lord Jesus death being an atonement provided for a real and sure salvation for those to whom the father intended to save. The alternative is not really good news, as lost sinners have no capacity in and by their own free will to make the decision to receive Jesus as their Savior and Lord.

Indeed, the Calvinistic gospel LIMITS the purpose of Christ's sacrifice for only a FEW, and thus is contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.  Furthermore, the Calvinistic gospel places the divine work of regeneration BEFORE the decision of faith, and thus is also contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.

On the other hand, "the alternative" (the system of belief to which I hold) indicates that indeed lost sinners have "NO capacity" whatsoever at all in and by their own sinful nature "to make the decision" of faith in Jesus the Christ as their Savior, BUT ALSO presents the GOOD NEWS that by means of God the Father's drawing work, which He administers upon EVERY individual sinner, God Himself graciously and supernaturally grants the ability for sinners to willingly make the decision of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior (but ONLY at those periods of time wherein God the Father is actually engaged in the work of drawing upon that individual).

The difference between us is NOT concerning the complete depravity of sinful humanity in and of themselves.  Rather, the difference between us concerns the definition of the means whereby the Lord our God and Savior "intervenes," and the extent of humanity for which He engages that "work of intervention."

__________________________________

I also take notice that you STILL have not chosen to give direct answers to the questions that I have asked of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, the Calvinistic gospel LIMITS the purpose of Christ's sacrifice for only a FEW, and thus is contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.  Furthermore, the Calvinistic gospel places the divine work of regeneration BEFORE the decision of faith, and thus is also contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.

On the other hand, "the alternative" (the system of belief to which I hold) indicates that indeed lost sinners have "NO capacity" whatsoever at all in and by their own sinful nature "to make the decision" of faith in Jesus the Christ as their Savior, BUT ALSO presents the GOOD NEWS that by means of God the Father's drawing work, which He administers upon EVERY individual sinner, God Himself graciously and supernaturally grants the ability for sinners to willingly make the decision of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior (but ONLY at those periods of time wherein God the Father is actually engaged in the work of drawing upon that individual).

The difference between us is NOT concerning the complete depravity of sinful humanity in and of themselves.  Rather, the difference between us concerns the definition of the means whereby the Lord our God and Savior "intervenes," and the extent of humanity for which He engages that "work of intervention."

__________________________________

I also take notice that you STILL have not chosen to give direct answers to the questions that I have asked of you.

the Lord always had called out to Himself a faithful remnant in  Israel, as not all Jews were spiritual sons of Abraham, correct?

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, the Calvinistic gospel LIMITS the purpose of Christ's sacrifice for only a FEW, and thus is contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.  Furthermore, the Calvinistic gospel places the divine work of regeneration BEFORE the decision of faith, and thus is also contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.

On the other hand, "the alternative" (the system of belief to which I hold) indicates that indeed lost sinners have "NO capacity" whatsoever at all in and by their own sinful nature "to make the decision" of faith in Jesus the Christ as their Savior, BUT ALSO presents the GOOD NEWS that by means of God the Father's drawing work, which He administers upon EVERY individual sinner, God Himself graciously and supernaturally grants the ability for sinners to willingly make the decision of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior (but ONLY at those periods of time wherein God the Father is actually engaged in the work of drawing upon that individual).

The difference between us is NOT concerning the complete depravity of sinful humanity in and of themselves.  Rather, the difference between us concerns the definition of the means whereby the Lord our God and Savior "intervenes," and the extent of humanity for which He engages that "work of intervention."

__________________________________

I also take notice that you STILL have not chosen to give direct answers to the questions that I have asked of you.

what questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

4 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

the Lord always had called out to Himself a faithful remnant in  Israel, as not all Jews were spiritual sons of Abraham, correct?

Yes, there has always remained a remnant of Israel who have been faithful unto the Lord, and thus are called by Him as His true children and as the true "spiritual sons of Abraham."  What bearing does that have on whether the Lord our God has and does willingly and graciously intervene in the life of ALL sinners through His work of drawing such that ALL sinners might have an opportunity to choose faith in Christ for eternal salvation?

__________________________________

Now, to substantiate my comments:

7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, the Calvinistic gospel LIMITS the purpose of Christ's sacrifice for only a FEW, and thus is contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word. 

1 Timothy 2:3-6 -- "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time."

Hebrews 2:9 -- "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY man."

1 John 2:2 -- "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE world."

7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Furthermore, the Calvinistic gospel places the divine work of regeneration BEFORE the decision of faith, and thus is also contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.

John 3:16 -- "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 5:24 -- "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnations; but is passed from death unto life."

John 6:40 -- "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 20:31 -- "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

On the other hand, "the alternative" (the system of belief to which I hold) indicates that indeed lost sinners have "NO capacity" whatsoever at all in and by their own sinful nature "to make the decision" of faith in Jesus the Christ as their Savior . . .

John 6:44 -- "No man can [has the ability to] come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

.  . . BUT ALSO presents the GOOD NEWS that by means of God the Father's drawing work, which He administers upon EVERY individual sinner, God Himself graciously and supernaturally grants the ability for sinners to willingly make the decision of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior (but ONLY at those periods of time wherein God the Father is actually engaged in the work of drawing upon that individual).

John 6:44 -- "No man can [has the ability to] come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:45 -- "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."

John 1:9 -- "That is the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

John 12:32 -- "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth [on the cross], will draw all men unto me."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
23 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

What questions?

On 12/28/2020 at 3:42 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

However, my questions are NOT about God's obligations, per se.  Rather, my questions are about whether the Calvinistic system of belief presents the character of God correctly.  Furthermore, my questions are about whether you yourself as a Calvinist are willing to acknowledge the truth of your own system, that is --

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, you have a God who is UNWILLING to make a way of salvation for the great majority of sinful humanity?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, you have a God who is NOT GRACIOUS to a great majority of sinful humanity?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, the great majority of sinful humanity chooses darkness rather than the light simply because your God has not granted them any other option?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, the great majority of sinful humanity were sovereignly made by God for the express purpose that He might have multitudes upon whom never to show any grace, but only ever to pour out His eternal judgment and wrath?

Thus far your only answer to the above four questions has been --

On 12/28/2020 at 4:56 PM, Yeshuafan said:

IF the answer is yes to all of the above, does that make God out to be not fair then?

By using the word "if," you have presented only a hypothetical answer, but have not actually provided any direct answer.  So I ask, is your answer to all four of the above questions a "yes," or not?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

Yes, there has always remained a remnant of Israel who have been faithful unto the Lord, and thus are called by Him as His true children and as the true "spiritual sons of Abraham."  What bearing does that have on whether the Lord our God has and does willingly and graciously intervene in the life of ALL sinners through His work of drawing such that ALL sinners might have an opportunity to choose faith in Christ for eternal salvation?

__________________________________

Now, to substantiate my comments:

1 Timothy 2:3-6 -- "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time."

Hebrews 2:9 -- "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY man."

1 John 2:2 -- "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE world."

John 3:16 -- "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 5:24 -- "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnations; but is passed from death unto life."

John 6:40 -- "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 20:31 -- "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

John 6:44 -- "No man can [has the ability to] come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:44 -- "No man can [has the ability to] come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:45 -- "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."

John 1:9 -- "That is the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

John 12:32 -- "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth [on the cross], will draw all men unto me."

All and the world must be defined per the scriptures themselves, as the all would be those to whom salvation will actually come for, all in context would be his own sheep called and redeemed by the death of Christ!

16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thus far your only answer to the above four questions has been --

By using the word "if," you have presently only a hypothetical answer, but have not actually provide any direct answer.  So I ask, is your answer to all four of the above questions a "yes," or not?

God of the Bible has made provisions and assures us that His own shall be saved, as he always has saved unto Himself a faithful remnant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

All and the world must be defined per the scriptures themselves, as the all would be those to whom salvation will actually come for, all in context would be his own sheep called and redeemed by the death of Christ!

Certainly the context always matters for rightly dividing God's Word of truth; and in all three passages that I presented above, the words "all," "every," and "whole" refer to every single human individual throughout all time among humanity.  You see, using Calvinistic rhetoric is not of use unless you actually demonstrate from each context that the "universal" words within those contexts are limited in some contextual manner.  So, the challenge is now before you - You must contextually exegete 1 Timothy 2:3-6, Hebrews 2:9, and 1 John 2:2, and therein demonstrate a contextual limiter for those "universal" words . . .

2 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

God of the Bible has made provisions and assures us that His own shall be saved, as he always has saved unto Himself a faithful remnant!

And you STILL have NOT given a direct "yes" or "no" answer to my above four questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thus far your only answer to the above four questions has been --

By using the word "if," you have presented only a hypothetical answer, but have not actually provided any direct answer.  So I ask, is your answer to all four of the above questions a "yes," or not?

Your questions are assuming that we deserve grace, and also that he would not be fair to withhold it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

All and the world must be defined per the scriptures themselves, as the all would be those to whom salvation will actually come for, all in context would be his own sheep called and redeemed by the death of Christ!

This is an excellent example of how Calvinism is more human philosophy than doctrine. When the Bible says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life", it MUSM be ASSUMED that "the world" that God loved only refers to that part destined to salvation, and that 'whosoever believeth' only pertains to whosoever is predestined to salvation. Assumption based on a preconceived idea not to be found in scripture. So everywhere that the entire world is referred to, or whosoever, or any indication that salvation is sufficient for ALL, must be redefined to fit the Calvinist view. 

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:18:19

The above passage, in context of John 3:16&17, shows that those who don't believe are already condemned-but how can this be so, if those who are predestined to eternal life, but don't yet believe, are CONDEMNED ALREADY? There could not be any condemnation if God had already set them to eternal life before the foundation of the universe! yet, here ANYONE who doesn't believe, whether they will believe tomorrow or next year, and god KNOWS they will, according to his foreknowledge, yet they are condemned until they believe. Not possible, if Calvinism is true.

as well, the men love the darkeness, rather than light, that's why they reject, not because the Lord has set them for damnation.

God's grace is, be definition, not earned, it is unmerited. But it is unjust if God demands belief of those that He refuses his grace to. God will never demand anything of anyone that He has not given the ability to do it. Will God punish those who don't believe, if He demands they believe, but refuses to allow to believe? When He told the lame to get up and walk, HE gave them the ability to do so. When He told the dead to rise up, he gave them life to do so. So He calls ALL men to repentance, and gives them all the faith to do so-but they can choose not to do so. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
26 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

This is an excellent example of how Calvinism is more human philosophy than doctrine. When the Bible says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life", it MUSM be ASSUMED that "the world" that God loved only refers to that part destined to salvation, and that 'whosoever believeth' only pertains to whosoever is predestined to salvation. Assumption based on a preconceived idea not to be found in scripture. So everywhere that the entire world is referred to, or whosoever, or any indication that salvation is sufficient for ALL, must be redefined to fit the Calvinist view. 

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:18:19

The above passage, in context of John 3:16&17, shows that those who don't believe are already condemned-but how can this be so, if those who are predestined to eternal life, but don't yet believe, are CONDEMNED ALREADY? There could not be any condemnation if God had already set them to eternal life before the foundation of the universe! yet, here ANYONE who doesn't believe, whether they will believe tomorrow or next year, and god KNOWS they will, according to his foreknowledge, yet they are condemned until they believe. Not possible, if Calvinism is true.

as well, the men love the darkeness, rather than light, that's why they reject, not because the Lord has set them for damnation.

God's grace is, be definition, not earned, it is unmerited. But it is unjust if God demands belief of those that He refuses his grace to. God will never demand anything of anyone that He has not given the ability to do it. Will God punish those who don't believe, if He demands they believe, but refuses to allow to believe? When He told the lame to get up and walk, HE gave them the ability to do so. When He told the dead to rise up, he gave them life to do so. So He calls ALL men to repentance, and gives them all the faith to do so-but they can choose not to do so. 

 

God could havce cosen that none of us were to be saved, and he would have been totally within his rights to do such!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

Your questions are assuming that we deserve grace, and also that he would not be fair to withhold it!

False.  My questions are assuming no such things.  They say nothing about "deserving" grace, nor do they say anything whatsoever at all about fairness.  In fact, you have already asked me questions about God's fairness and about whether anyone "deserves" God's grace.  And I have directly answered your questions.  What I desire is for you as a Calvinist to acknowledge the doctrinal realities of your own system of belief, NOT to try to tell me what I assume in my system of belief.  If you want to ask me direct questions about my system of belief, I will answer them and will even present Scriptural support for my answers.  However, what I have found is that when I ask you direct questions about your system of belief, you avoid giving direct answers to my questions, and then respond with Calvinistic rhetoric without providing any Scriptural support for your answers.  

5 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

God could havce cosen that none of us were to be saved, and he would have been totally within his rights to do such!

Certainly this is correct, but it is NOT actual reality; for the Lord our God and Savior HAS chosen to save sinners, AND He has directly revealed His specific plan on the matter through His Holy Word.  The issue is NOT, and NEVER has been, what God COULD have done.  The issue IS what God HAS done, and what He has REVEALED about what He has done.  If a system of belief is not accurate according to God's own revealed Word, then it is false.  It is that simple.  Support your system of belief from the actual, grammatical, contextual doctrine of God's Holy Word; or you have NO authoritative ground for your system of belief.

Thus, not only do my questions remain before you, but also my challenge remains before you --

8 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Certainly the context always matters for rightly dividing God's Word of truth; and in all three passages that I presented above, the words "all," "every," and "whole" refer to every single human individual throughout all time among humanity.  You see, using Calvinistic rhetoric is not of use unless you actually demonstrate from each context that the "universal" words within those contexts are limited in some contextual manner.  So, the challenge is now before you - You must contextually exegete 1 Timothy 2:3-6, Hebrews 2:9, and 1 John 2:2, and therein demonstrate a contextual limiter for those "universal" words . . .

 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 3 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...