A good short video.
The scriptures listed by category from the video description:
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Psalm 51:5, 58:3; Isaiah 53:6, 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9; John 3:3, 8:44; Romans 3:10-12, 5:12; Ephesians 2:2-3; I Corinthians 2:14
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Deuteronomy 7:6-7; Isaiah 55:11; John 6:44, 15:16; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:28; 9:11-13; II Timothy 1:9
LIMITED ATONEMENT
Matthew 1:21, 20:28; John 10:14-18, 17:9; Acts 20:28; Romans 5:8-9; Titus 2:14; Revelation 5:9
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Ezekiel 11:19-20; John 6:37; Romans 8:30; Colossians 2:13; James 1:18; Titus 3:5
PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS
Isaiah 43:1-3; Jeremiah 32:40; Romans 8:35-39; Ephesians 1:13-14; I Thessalonians 5:23-24; Jude 24-25
Related post: Salvation by Grace Through Faith is Not a Work of Yourself, it is the Gift of God.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice
[powered by WordPress.]
30 queries. 0.447 seconds
February 5th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I thank God for revealing these truths to me through His most holy word. The doctrines of grace puts God at the highest level there is, and man on the lowest. It shows that we are utterly dependent on God for salvation beginning to end. Scripture tells us that we are to be “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith…”(Heb 12:2) Of course in today’s feel good, free will church, these are very unpopular doctrines because they reveal man’s sinfulness. (John 3:20) I remember when I first heard about these doctrines in the early 90s I thought that I was hearing something new, when it wasn’t new at all. This is what the christian church has taught for the last 2000 years. Praise God for His amazing grace!
February 5th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I agree entirely with our friend 1517………this is the historic doctrine of the church, not the Arminian perversion we see today.Those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat historic errors.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Soli Deo Gloria!!! GaryV [aka wannabe history thief lol) and Oct31st1517, I fully agree with you that we have truly been blessed by the Doctrines of Grace!!!
February 5th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Would anyone agree that if we deny Total Depravity are we not also denying Original sin? (Psalm 51:5) Is this nothing more than the ancient pelagian heresy? We are not good nor evil but nuetral? What are your thoughts on this my brothers in Christ?
IndependentConservative reply on February 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm :
oct31st1517, I agree and every salvation via works cult on earth denies the total depravity of man.
I can’t believe we were walking some supermarket of theology and just happened to pick salvation in Christ of ourselves out of some stroke of personal logic. Although once upon a time I felt I was the agent of my salvation.
There have been people who picked to walk with Christ out of “free will”, but that didn’t last very long, John 6:63-66.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
IC:
Great post brother. My brother in law and father in law are dispensationalists….They both come from the Plymouth Brethren tradition. They will not admit that the Bible clearly states that some are elected. They get all mad and start ranting and raving if anyone disagrees with their theological interpretation.
I never understood why they get so mad. I grew up in a Reformed Theology home but I spent most of my educational years 1st through 12th in Independent Baptist schools. I have seen and heard both arguments but the Bible clearly rejects the Dispensationalist view.
Any thoughts?
IndependentConservative reply on February 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm :
All I can say is for myself and as I read more scripture I could no longer embrace the “Free Will” doctrine. I had to accept Predestination is fully real. I can’t make anyone who does not understand it make sense of it. I just pray saints study the scriptures for themselves and let the Holy Spirit lead.
I don’t like calling proponents of “Free Will” doctrine “Dispensationalist”, because it really seems applying the “Free will” doctrine to that title strays from the definition of Dispensationalism.
And I do feel as Romans 11 notes, that a remnant of Hebrew blood will come to know Christ in truth. In no way does it say every person of Hebrew blood has salvation if they reject Christ, but a final remnant will accept Christ and be saved. Just as they entered the promised land, while bodies of the old were buried in the desert. To me the parallels are made too obvious by God to mistake.
I consider myself a Dispensationalist, but I guess it’s like how I feel I’m Catholic, but not Roman Catholic.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
IC, That was very interesting when you said “I can’t make anyone who does not understand it make sense of it.” It reminds of the scripture that says “And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”(John 1:5)These truths of Gods sovereign grace come to us by His enlightening through the study of His word.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
IC: I guess I used dispensationalist as reference by the following link.
http://www.inchristalone.org/WhatDispensation.htm
The definition you gave is much like what my brother and father in law believe. I get the Berean call written by Dave Hunt and I have read some of his books. He gets pretty nasty when discussing predestination, election, Calvinism and “replacement theology”. To be clear, I don’t know where I stand on some of these except predestination and election. I lean towards Calvinism because I grew up that way. However, I understand the dispensationalist view since I went to a few different Independent Baptist Schools.
I guess where I totally differ with most dispensationalists and Armenians is on unlimited atonement (Even though Calvin seemed to lean toward unlimited atonement himself). This is what my father and brother in law believe (Dave Hunt is a Plymouth Brethren as well).
I know I should pray that the Holy Spirit directs and guides them to the Truth. By what I don’t get is they get some mad if you do not agree with them and Hunts view of pretribulation and unlimited atonement.
IndependentConservative reply on February 5th, 2008 at 3:21 pm :
The really funny thing is that the “Free Will” view was once seen as a form of heresy, but now given the shift in what is widely embraced, they want to act like we’re doing something outside of what scripture has made clear to us.
I don’t feel someone of the “Free Will” view is unsaved. And I don’t well tolerate people who accept predestination, but want to claim someone of the “Free Will” view is not the Lord’s.
These are things Paul really never got into detail with when speaking with the saints in Corinth, because they were not at a point to discuss it, 1 Corinthians 2. While to the saints at Ephesus, it was a top subject, Ephesians 1.
Dave Hunt really does not know when to bridle his tongue.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
IC: I agree that many “Free Willers” as are many “limited atonement folks” truly saved. If I made it sound otherwise, I apologize.
I just don’t understand (I guess because of sin nature) they go crazy if one does not believe their view on atonement and/or the “rapture”.
I just pray that God will open all our hearts and minds to see the truth that is in His Word.
oct31st1517 reply on February 5th, 2008 at 6:03 pm :
On one of my videos on my blog on youtube I made the comment “You don’t have to be a calvinist to be a christian. However if your going to be theologically consistant, you will be a calvinist.”(Theologically speaking of course) Would anyone agree with me on this point?
IndependentConservative reply on February 5th, 2008 at 7:27 pm :
SteelGator, I did not think you were trying to say that, but I know post like this often draw people who do. So I’m warning them in advance. Some things I say are for lurkers.
Oct31st1517, I think to be theologically consistent you have to come to understand the doctrines of Grace. As you’ve said many times, I don’t find using Calvin’s name is good, given 1 Corinthians 3. I NEVER call myself a Calvinist and honestly, there are some things about Calvin’s personal doctrine that I don’t agree with. Such as he’s views on infant baptism saving babies.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
IC, I 99.9% agree with you. LOL! I don’t like the term calvinist as well. That is why I always put in parentheses(Theologically speaking.) I do believe infants can be baptised. But to say that baptism saves anyone, including children, is not biblical. Calvin was in error on that point. Hope I haven’t tarnished your view of me now that you know I’m a pedo! LOL!
IndependentConservative reply on February 5th, 2008 at 9:02 pm :
I’ve seen you mention in one of your videos, that you’re OK with infant baptism, although you know it does not save.
But I’ve wanted to ask you, what is the point of baptizing an infant when you know all it does is make for a wet baby?
February 5th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
We hold to covenant baptism and that the child is now a covenant child. However, this in NO WAY means salvation, Just as when an adult is baptised it does not necceserily that they are saved as well. I don’t like debating this topic much because I really don’t think it is an essential. If I were to move into a city where the only reformed church was a baptist church. That is where I would be worshipping.
SteelGator reply on February 6th, 2008 at 1:12 pm :
Oct31st: So you are a post-trib nut like me (that is what my brother in law says)….lol. For 1800-1900 years we were all the rage (Darby and the Irvinites really changed that), but now it seems we are evangelicals from the outside looking in.
As for infant Baptisms, I have moved away from this. I just don’t see how infant baptism is Biblical. Baptism is for a saved believer and it is just a sign to the world and God that you are a true believer. No infants I know of in the Bible were ever baptized.
In this light, at age 32 (even though I had been baptized as an infant) I took the plunge(no pun intended) and decided to be baptized by immersion. My parents likewise (baptized as infants) got immersed at the ripe old age of 68, respectively.
Anyone that thinks baptism saves has missed the boat all together (Calvin as well).
I just never could and still can not see why Calvin thought it was beneficial to baptize babies. Maybe, that baby is not one of the elect. Just because their parents are one of the elect does not mean the child automatically will be.
On a side note, I have heard of dispensationalist Closed Plymouth Brethren that do house baptism instead of immersion. Strange seeing their dispensationalist views.
IndependentConservative reply on February 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm :
What is “house baptism”?
I also see nothing but post-trib in scripture. I’ve talked with several pre-trib folks, reviewed pre-trib teachings too and never been able to come to their point of view. And I really tried to given I thought perhaps I didn’t see something that was in scripture. But honestly, all I see is post trib.
Here’s a good teaching series for anyone interested.
The Truth About Baptism
Honestly, there is a lot of good stuff in there no matter how you feel about the topic. Getting more insight on the background of it all will help anyone’s understanding.
Regarding children, it is my opinion that given the following:
1 Corinthians 7:14 (New American Standard Bible)
Of course it does not say an unbelieving spouse is saved by their believing spouse, but they are shown what truth is and might come to know it. However, it is noted that the children are “holy” and the Greek term hagios that is translated “holy” means nothing but saintly! So it’s obvious Paul was saying children are covered by their saved parent’s election unless they grow older and reject the truth. This is a mirror of old covenant election, but the difference is that Paul did not say it goes by the father’s blood line, but either parent who is of the elect.
Paul says otherwise the children are unclean. So the raw truth appears to me to be that children of the elect are covered unless they reject Christ later and children of the unsaved join their parent’s fate. All the more reason for unsaved people to find Christ, if the Lord wills them repentance.
Yea, I obviously disagree with John MacArthur on that one. Let’s keep in mind a view on that is non-essential.
Oct31st1517 has a video offering his thoughts on the baby matter.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
IC: I believe house baptism is when one stands in an old wash basin or wash tub and water is sprinkled or poured over the head. The person is not immersed.
IndependentConservative reply on February 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pm :
That’s not baptism, just a thing given the label that is not.
Baptiz? is the Greek term for baptize and it does not mean anything but a full dip.
The only time something other than a full dip is performed is when the person is medically unable to take the dip.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Oct311517:
Great video and message on “if babies go to heaven”. I believe it is our sin nature that leads us to believe a “comfort theology” when it comes to babies. (The same goes for Free Will). What person would want a child to go to hell? So, we pick and choose the verses that backup our “comfortable view” that ALL babies go to heaven. I think I will bring this up at our next family gathering. The Southern Baptists and Plymouth Brethren in the room will either fall out or kick me out of their house. Oh well, maybe, I will have it at my house so I don’t have to go anywhere.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
just back from GCM blog, and boy, they have a good take on Michael Piazza with the gay church Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, TX (I’m moving to Texas next week and it’s frightening all the “BAD” churches there, pray that the Holy Spirit leads my family to a BIBLICAL SOUND church)any way, he was talking about a book called “Holy Homosexuals”…more twisted mess from the homosexual community trying to force their “unholy” agenda on society and the church that’s against it. I guess now all you have to do it put “holy” in front of something and it should be accepted as “justified”…as I posted on GCM…”give me a “holy” break!”
February 6th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Yes, I am a post tribulationist. I’m not very dogmatic on my eschatological position but scripture does seem to indicate that our Lord will return after the tribulation. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”(Matt 24:29-30) In fact I believe the church will go through the great tribulation and that the beginning of birth pangs has commenced.(Matt 24:8) I don’t believe in a 1 world antichrist leader who will be marking people with 666 on their foreheads or right hands. I believe the antichrist is Satan himself. But I am willing to hear other lines of thought.
IndependentConservative reply on February 6th, 2008 at 9:36 pm :
I agree that it very much appears we are at the point of the beginning of birth pangs.
I do believe our Lord could return at any moment. Of course if He comes tonight we’ll all be figuring out we were well beyond birth pangs now, but I figure he who remains ready at all times is doing best, Matthew 24:36-51.
SteelGator reply on February 7th, 2008 at 11:23 am :
I also believe the “birth pangs” have started. However, I am not so sure on your take of the anti Christ. Do you think the literal anti-Christ and mark of the beast are just used my many in the church to scare people into salvation? Also, what made you come to this conclusion? Revelation is tough for the almost all super intelligent theologians to figure out, so I totally understand why I struggle to understand it. Maybe, God wants it to be a mystery that he will reveal to us in heaven?
February 7th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
IC said: ….I agree that it very much appears we are at the point of the beginning of birth pangs.
I do believe our Lord could return at any moment……
Jesus will not return at any moment, He cited a specific progression of events before His return.
First the “abomination of desolation” must stand in the Holy Place; sit in the temple of God, (so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God), which means that a temple has to be built.
Matthew 24:15-27
Mark 13:14-23
2Thessalonians 2:3-12
@steelgator
…..Do you think the literal anti-Christ and mark of the beast are just used by many in the church to scare people into salvation?…..
I am assuming that by ”anti-christ” you are eluding to the “Beast/man of sin/son of perdition”. If this is a correct assumption: the beast is the feet of clay and iron spoken of by the prophet Daniel, which represents the European Union, which will be the final resurrection of the Roman Empire, the fourth and last installment of the Gentile Dynasties – Babylonians (Gold); Medo-Persians (Silver); Greeks (Brass); Romans (Iron); European Union (Iron and Clay).
The Bible portrays him as very literal.
Peace
IndependentConservative reply on February 7th, 2008 at 4:49 pm :
KingsKid - What you have been taught is not good. Throughout scripture the Apostles of the Lord Jesus and those with them held that Jesus would possibly come at any moment and we are not to conduct ourselves in any different manner.
In all your scripture citing you missed some of the following:
Matthew 24:36-51
1 Thessalonians 5
Acts 1:6-7 (New American Standard Bible)
Luke 12:35-48
James 5:8 (New American Standard Bible)
Revelation 22:20 (New American Standard Bible)
2 Peter 3:10
You’ve cited scripture of coming apostasy, when we have plenty all around us. As I’ve said, I personally feel we are at the point of the beginning of birth pangs, but you should always be ready for the day YOU DO NOT KNOW.
You speak as if you think you know about when the Lord will return, but guess what, if you read what I’ve cited above you will have to accept the following:
Matthew 24:44 (New American Standard Bible)
Why did Jesus tell THEM to be ready? Why didn’t He tell them thousands of years after they are physically dead? Even Jesus said He did not know the date himself, Matthew 24:36. Jesus told them to be ready. In saying anything less than soon to return you create an impression that runs counter to what Jesus prepared everyone for. A date we don’t know and should always be ready for, because He is coming when we do not expect it, Hebrews 10:37.
Romans 16:20 (New American Standard Bible)
Matthew 25:1-13, Jesus tells even them to be alert because they do not know the day of His return.
KingsKid our Lord commanded we BE ON ALERT FOR HIS COMING AT ALL TIMES.
Mark 13:32-37 (New American Standard Bible)
You should not take overly assured comfort in your own or someone else’s interpretation of the signs of the times. You don’t know the hour and you could find your interpretation, we could all find our interpretation of the Lord’s coming to be a bit off. So be ready at all times, you do not know the day or the hour and you might feel, we might feel some events are still to come, but the Lord might tell you tonight they already came in a manner you did not expect.
godlysoldier reply on February 8th, 2008 at 6:33 pm :
You know, I’ve always wondered/questioned how things in the bible were interperted to mean other things, such as Kings Kid stated for example:
Greeks = brass, Romans = iron, etc. Is this part of what is known as “replacement theology?”
The Pastor at my former WOF church I left always gave a meaning for something in the bible and I would always wonder, “how did he come to that conclusion…I guess he must really spend time with God to get such “deep” revelations” Deep in my spirit I always questioned it, but while I was still under the “delusion” I just thought he was “deeper” than me and as I prayed and seriously studied the word, God would reveal the “secret meanings” to such things as well. I hope I’m not babbling, but I would love to hear or be directed to another link that could explain in further detail “BIBLICALLY”
February 10th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
IC said: “What you have been taught is not good. Throughout scripture the Apostles of the Lord Jesus and those with them held that Jesus would possibly come at any moment and we are not to conduct ourselves in any different manner.”
If as you say “they held that Jesus could come at any time” then time bears witness to the fact that they are wrong. Jesus truly did say that NO one knows the day or the hour, however, He gave his disciples (us) a series of events to watch out for as the prelude of the return of the King of kings and Lord of lords. This I have shown in the scripture references that I previously commented on.
In Matthew 24:15 Jesus gives a specific set of events to watch for and a warning “(whoso readeth, let him understand:)”, then, :21 tribulation, then, :29 sun and moon darkened, stars fall from heaven and the powers of the heavens shaken. Then and only then, :30 shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn.
Here are the scripture references if you are interested:
Matthew 24:15-16
Matthew 24:21-28
2Thessalonians 2:1-12
Matthew 24:29-30
Isaiah 34:1-4, 8
Revelation 6:12-17.
You quoted:
Acts 1: 6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
Correct, the Bible says wasn’t for them to know, but it is for someone to know because it is all in there (the Bible).
Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Peace
IndependentConservative reply on February 10th, 2008 at 3:32 pm :
KingsKid,
They did not know the time and never claimed to. They remained ready at all times. As Jesus said and I’ve already shared with you.
Mark 13:35-37 (New American Standard Bible)
The Apostles spoke of coming events, while knowing He’d come soon, in a little while. And far more has taken place than during the times of the apostles. Which leaves a much wider door for something to have occurred as we might not have expected.
Now, “in case he should come suddenly and find you asleep” it is always best to “Be on the alert!”
Are you saying that because you’ve been taught a view of prophesy, that you just have to be right? You can have that view if you desire, I won’t take such a stance.
And you feel you have perfect interpretation of the prophesy noted in scripture? I say we have an opinion of the prophesy and He will show that He has it all correct. We are to be alert and on watch, because we don’t know when He is coming. Even John said he was a partaker in tribulation, Revelation 1:9. I know we’d like to say we have end times calculations all correct, but while I look at that I remain ever on alert, because yes, the Lord could return at any moment. I leave the door open to my interpretation of a prophesy being off. So best to remain on alert as He commanded us to do.
KingsKid, I’m going to be perfectly frank with you here. I’ve seen my entire Christian walk, people conning saints on the end times calculations. Like you’re repeating from what you’ve been instructed, they teach you certain prophecies mean certain specific nations and events. Then 20 years or 100 years later as political winds change, they adjust their calculations. They do it over and over and have done so for probably thousands of years now. It is possible, that much of what you feel applies to prophesy in modern times may not be what actually occurs, or has even already occurred? It is possible you are incorrect? Even before the nation of Israel was around, there were people who had calculations that looked really good then and don’t today. For all we know, the Roadmap to Peace could have been the prophetic agreement. Israel has had red heifers for some time now. (By the way, the word is that they already have another, although they are keeping more hush about it after an embarrassing spot developed on the previous one noted in that report, which disqualified it.) I’m not going to act as if I know what they are doing with them and act as if I know they never creeped into their old rebuilt temple. So rather than wholly trust you or your teachers I’d prefer to do as the Lord commanded and remain on alert, in case He should return suddenly. Not that I don’t keep an eye on events, I do. Not that I don’t sound an alarm as certain events occur, I do. I’ve already noted where I feel we are in the context of Matthew 24. Others have said how they feel, each being careful to note it is THEIR OPINION. However, to dogmatically claim you know He just can’t come now is a mistake and assumption you’ve got it all figured out.
You tell me KingsKid, what is the issue with following Christ’s command to “Be on the alert”? What is the issue with accepting that He said “in case he should come suddenly”?
I’m not suggesting anything foolish, such as not paying debts or running around homeless. That fails to meet the teachings of being a good steward and always providing for your family. However, to act like the Lord’s return is so far in the future rather than could come suddenly at any moment could cause one of your brothers or sisters to be caught asleep when He does return.
We do agree that it appears certain events have not yet occurred, HOWEVER I remain open to the possibility that we have been mistaken and He might appear suddenly. And I keep that open reservation, because He suggested we remain on alert at all times, like the one at the door who does not know when His Master will return.
I think it is possible, even if our views of events to come are near correct, that even what we see still remaining to take place could occur in timing that is faster than we expect. I see it best to follow the Lord’s command to remain on alert!
Matthew 25:13 (New American Standard Bible)
I didn’t say it, He did.
Revelation 22:20 (New American Standard Bible)
I pray He come quickly, not that He delay.
I think to a degree we do agree, but I don’t see my stance as dogmatically regarding my calculations as you seem to do with calculations you have been given.
Now, although we discuss this, at least we are not trying to assert preterism. Honestly, that is something I don’t even allow here at all. To me it really is another gospel, speaking against the coming of the Lord as we both agree is coming, not a past event. I do see preterism as a great heresy, and agree with the Hyper Preterism Renounced stance some other brothers and sisters in Christ have already taken.
That is something Melvin Jones allowed to be debated on his blog for a moment at The Preterists’ (Who Visit This Site) Best Shot. And he’s avoided it since. Honestly, nobody embracing preterism should even attempt to comment here. I’m not even go as far as to allow such comments, given how obviously wrong they are while assuming they are so right. Some things are simply not worth a debate.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Yes IC,
We agree:
Mark 13:35-37 (New American Standard Bible)
35 “Therefore, be on the alert–for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning–
36 in case he should come suddenly and find you asleep.
37 “What I say to you I say to all, ‘Be on the alert!’”
February 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
IC and Kingskid:
I have been watching your debate/discussion and both of you make some very valid points. Please look at the following link. It is a John Piper sermon from back in 1987. It addresses just what you guys were discussing.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/BySeries/45/604_What_Must_Happen_Before_the_Day_of_the_Lord/
Like Kingskid said, some things DO have to occur before the Lord returns.
However, like IC said, we need to be on watch and be ready for his return any minute. In this large world, the things (man of lawlessness and the apostasy) could be happening and we do not know it. We might have interpreted things incorrectly so we should always be on watch for the Day of the Lord.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Thanks for the link, Brah. Got some time, and I thought it was very informative (but then again, Piper’s usually on point with things). Ditto also on your thoughts as to both sides of the debate, as I was thinking the same thing..
Peace….