Poll: Do you agree with this picture?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
musterion
Well-known member
musterion
Well-known member
glorydaz
Well-known member
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!
And you have nothing to apologize for!
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.
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
Nope, that was the only use of it.
Well then I suppose its a good thing he got Romans 10 in there!
Lol. That was funny in its' timing.
Something to ponder - if Romans 10's "with the mouth" is literal, where does that leave an Israelite mute?
musterion
Well-known member
Don't ask me, ask Clete.
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:
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.
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:
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
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
Why would you say this?
The guy's been back peddling on these issues ever since heir rightly corrected him (at least on that point) on what he said about the need to preface Rom. 10:9-10 :chuckle: