Poll: Do you agree with this picture?

Poll: Do you agree with this picture?


  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
BINGO!

Welcome to my ever growing ignore list!

:wave2:

859832446d9ad195ed5bb8ffb6bb4796.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
We're packing up for a move and I came across the tract used by the pastor I had when I was saved in college. He made it himself. Just for curiosity I'll post the meat. Easier if I post a series of a few images. Would be curious for input on it.

I think the things to do are off base. Course, I'm not much on any tracts and don't think they can answer a person's individual needs and questions. Even the words repent and baptized are subject to misinterpretation...depending on what a person has heard in the past.

Perhaps I'm just getting argumentative in my old age. If so, I apologize Musty. I don't mean to be.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Just curious what sound believers think of it. I've got my own issues with it, but he did write this just before he got really sucked into the church growth movement (the numbers game that was new and big at the time) and MacArthurism and even more L.S. As is, I would not use it with an unbelever. No way. So it's just an artifact now.

And you have nothing to apologize for!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Just curious what sound believers think of it.

It seems completely in keeping with what just about every church in the world teaches. Grace with a peppering of works in the mix because of a failure to rightly divide. It isn't so wrong that people couldn't get saved by reading it. The gospel message is in there and if someone read that and believed and as a result, called upon the name of the Lord, he would be saved.

I notice that a quote from Romans 10 is the only mention in the tract of the resurrection. You didn't post the whole thing though so maybe it was mentioned elsewhere.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I believe that the scriptures are the only Authority for Doctrine:

2 Tim. 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.


So when you asked:




That's why I quoted those scriptures: Job 23:13-14; Prov. 16:4; Is. 46:9-10: God does whatever He Pleases with His Creation. They express exactly what I do believe without compromise. Every person's own words must come under the scrutiny of God's Words Mat. 4:4. So in obedience to God, we must come to Truth comparing scripture with scriptures 1 Cor. 2:13


Further, I believe the scriptures show that the ones God had Chosen in Christ Eph. 1:4; Deut. 7:7 are the only portion of humanity which He Loved, for there is no indication in scripture to prove otherwise. So His choosing some and reprobating all others is a demonstration of His Sovereign distinguishing Love for those He predestinated to be His Adopted Children, and all to the Praise and Glory of His Grace Eph. 1:6!

~~~~~



Let me try again....



You have answered the question "What does God do?"

"Whatever He pleases." is your answer.

Once again, wrong QUESTION!


I want to know WHY!

The fact that, according to your doctrine, it pleased God to pick one person for good and another for evil is obvious. Otherwise, something else would have happened. In other words, you've answered with an uninformative tautology.

What happens is what pleases God and what pleases God is what happens. Its the same thing!

The question I'm asking you is, what was it that pleased Him about one person and not the other? What tipped the scale in favor of one and against another? WHY does God love the elect and hate the reprobate?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

musterion

Well-known member
It seems completely in keeping with what just about every church in the world teaches. Grace with a peppering of works in the mix because of a failure to rightly divide. It isn't so wrong that people couldn't get saved by reading it. The gospel message is in there and if someone read that and believed and as a result, called upon the name of the Lord, he would be saved.

I notice that a quote from Romans 10 is the only mention in the tract of the resurrection. You didn't post the whole thing though so maybe it was mentioned elsewhere.

Nope, that was the only use of it.
 

musterion

Well-known member
If someone does not believe a lost person, particularly a mute, can be saved by simply believing that Christ's DBR will save and justify him, then I suppose its inclusion would be seen as necessary.
 

Danoh

New member
If someone does not believe a lost person, particularly a mute, can be saved by simply believing that Christ's DBR will save and justify him, then I suppose its inclusion would be seen as necessary.

Something to ponder - if Romans 10's "with the mouth" is literal, where does that leave an Israelite mute?
 

musterion

Well-known member
On second thought, I will say this much.

Paul's whole point in ch. 10 is that Israel had heard and seen more than enough about Christ to have been saved if only they'd repented. But as we all know, they didn't.

Did they have any excuse? Not one. The Word of Christ was indeed very near to them -- they heard it. They did see the miracles verifying the Word sent to them. Had they repented, they would have confessed Him (meaning, agreed with God on everything He'd said about the Son He'd sent to them, tying into Matthew 10:32 and Hebrews 13:15).

But their refusal looks to me to be the reason that Paul, in 10:9-10, harks back to Deut 30:14:
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Word of Christ was close enough to be in the Jews' mouths but they did not let it get into their hearts. Paul acknowledges that as the root problem. In fact, the very Law they clung to so stubbornly wasn't in their hearts either (Rom 9:31-32)!

10:9-10, then, is Paul's reference to the very Law the Jews falsely laid claim to (Rom 10:3-4). He brings it up to illustrate their continued, inexcusable, willful blindness. 10:9-10 is just one more link in Paul's sorrowful but watertight indictment against his own faithless people. And that's all it is. That is why I do not believe 10:9-10 was intended to be part of an evangelistic formula during this dispensation of Grace. That's not the context.

So does 10:9-10 need to be shared with the lost? In my opinion, no.

Can it be shared with the lost? Sure, just as John 3:16, Isaiah 64:6 and Joel 2:32 can be. That's the principle of transdispensational truth.

But if they're shared, they MUST all aim at what Paul said is the precise focal point of saving faith today: the saving Good News found in 1 Cor 15:1-4.
 
Last edited:

Nanja

Well-known member
Let me try again....



You have answered the question "What does God do?"

"Whatever He pleases." is your answer.

Once again, wrong QUESTION!


I want to know WHY!

The fact that, according to your doctrine, it pleased God to pick one person for good and another for evil is obvious. Otherwise, something else would have happened. In other words, you've answered with an uninformative tautology.

What happens is what pleases God and what pleases God is what happens. Its the same thing!

The question I'm asking you is, what was it that pleased Him about one person and not the other? What tipped the scale in favor of one and against another? WHY does God love the elect and hate the reprobate?

Resting in Him,
Clete



Post #98. It applies to you!

~~~~~
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Post #98. It applies to you!

~~~~~
I wasn't asking for my benefit! I already know the answer. I want to know whether you know and whether you've got the guts to state it plainly.

You see, it's my theory that Clavinist, for the most part, don't actually believe what they say they believe. Either that or they are ignorant of what their doctrine teaches. Those that are ignorant cannot answer the question I've asked you, those that know the answer are embarrassed by it and couldn't be water boarded into stating it plainly, which indicates to me that they don't really believe it in the first place but cannot reject it outright because they can see intuitively that it is a necessary condition of the rest of their doctrine.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Top