The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Apprehended]

Foreknowledge is what God knew from the foundation of the world.

Predestination is based on that which God knew.

Simply put: Predestination is limited to foreknowledge from the foundation of the earth. The predestination will not go beyond what foreknowledge already knew. Predestination limited in scope to that of foreknowledge will never set aside the will of man.

It is true that GRACE elects. But election is limited to candidacy. Except a willing man chooses to become a candidate to the operation of grace, there is no election.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Foreknowledge is what God knew from the foundation of the world.

Predestination is based on that which God knew.

Simply put: Predestination is limited to foreknowledge from the foundation of the earth. The predestination will not go beyond what foreknowledge already knew. Predestination limited in scope to that of foreknowledge will never set aside the will of man.

It is true that GRACE elects. But election is limited to candidacy. Except a willing man chooses to become a candidate to the operation of grace, there is no election.

So what comes first, the electing or the willing?

I'll let you think back to other characters in the story: Abram, Noah, David, Moses, Saul.... Peter, Paul... yourself. Go ahead... let's hear it

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

So are you saying that God forces us to believe in Christ whether we want to or not and once God makes us take his gift of salvation there is absolutely not way to give the gift back?

All those verses that tell us to do this or that (pray, keep, walk, live, crucify, deny...etc) are given for what reason if we don't have to keep those commands?

Reformed theology is wacky!

I'll answer... while I'm not a Calvinist, or technically a New Calvinist to the letter, I do find something irresistible about grace. Once the Story is heard, the Spirit draws, I'll at least say it's extremely difficult for one to refuse.

I've always learned from my Reformed brothers -- that the salvation of Jesus isn't something fragile, fading away and completely dependent on my perfect performance. Those exhortations toward disciplines are not meant to be hard burdens, they are actually ways to keep the load light, and to keep life full.

We confuse soteriology with sanctification far too often, Mizpeh.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

A question for the "cross alone" crowd:

Who then can be saved?

In the 1970s, a sister to then President Jimmy Carter, witnessed to the publisher of one of the most vile magazines ever published filled with the raunchiest pornography that ever sold. If I remember correctly, his name was Larry Flynn or Larry Flint or something like that.

This publishing tycoon of the worlds worst filth accepted the witness of this lady. She prayed the sinner's prayer with him. Both she and Larry testified that he had been born again, accepting the atonement provided on the cross. I remember reading these statements very clearly.

Throughout the remainder of his life, he claimed to be saved and born again. I fully expected his to give up his most wicked life-style. I expected that there would be no further editions of Hustler magazine. I further expected that there would be a change in his life as I recognize that there are people who turn to God in repentance even without receiving the Holy Ghost.

Not one edition failed. He continued on with his evil, debauchery, and wickedness as though he had never confessed Christ or made him Lord. He never gave up his corrupting the lives and minds of his readers. His statements in the newspapers at the time reflected the same old man as full of sin as always. There was no change in his life at all.

Would it not be reasonable to expect that someone who claimed to be saved to give up sin? Is it not reasonable to conclude that if someone had truly mixed their faith with the preached message of the (gospel) cross that they would repent from sin and live a new life being made a new creature in Christ? Is that rationale too far out to think possible?

The truth is:

1. A constructed cross of wood is not enough.

2. Jesus dying on it as a sin sacrifice paying the ransom is not enough.

3. The dead body of Jesus laid in the tomb is not enough.

4. Jesus resurrecting from the dead to overcome death and hell, is not enough.

5. Preaching the gospel is not enough.

6. All of the above, mixed with faith and obedience is sufficient. Anything less is not enough.

Had Larry Flynn believed the correct doctrine of the Apostolic Church founded on the day of Pentecost, carrying forward the message of Jesus after his resurrection that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name beginning at Jerusalem," to the heralding Apostles whose message never wavered, it is possible for Larry Flint to have been saved.

There is no wonder that Jesus said the gate is strait and the way is narrow and few there be that find it. The enemy of our souls wishes to convolute the doctrine of Christ to favor our foolish imaginations to our own peril.

The message to the Jews (who sought for signs) preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost is the same message to the Greeks (who sought wisdom) preached by Paul. There was no difference at all...both to the Jew and the Greek.

Larry Flynn might would have fully repented of his sin had he been preached the full message of the cross without alloy. Who can say for sure? If today he is dead, he could have been with Murrell Ewing, J.T. Pugh, Cleve Becton, Tom Barnes, Nathan and Jean Urshan and with Jesus too. But, he is not. The enemy came in and sowed tares, polluting the gospel and corrupting the message of the cross to Larry Flynn's eternal loss.

I fully believe, according to the words of Jesus, that they are both where the soul is bannished from the presence of God forever.

If the scriptures say that the Holy Ghost is given to them that Obey him...and it does. Then, I need to obey. Why? Because the same bible says that without the Holy Ghost (the Spirit of Christ) we are none of his. It is not hard to put two and two together. The same message that Peter preached to the Jews and Paul preached to the gentiles is the same message that rings loudly, clearly, forcefully today without any room for doubt.

Let us be wary of the message that would dilute, pollute or divert the gospels' clarion call to faith, repentance and obedience. If you call this adding to the cross, I would disagree, for without the whole operation of the cross of Jesus, all else lost to confusion and unstable minds.

That's a clear a teaching as I've ever read or heard in all the years since being baptized in the HG and His Name.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Socialite

So what comes first, the electing or the willing?

I'll let you think back to other characters in the story: Abram, Noah, David, Moses, Saul.... Peter, Paul... yourself. Go ahead... let's hear it

Neither the electing or the willing comes first.

The call must come first.

Remember the scripture that says, "Many are called but few are chosen?" (Matt 22:14) The word for "called" is klētos. The word for "chosen" is eklektos It is the same word for "elect."

The two words have a close relationship. First comes the kletos, the call. Many are called. Millions are called. It is God grace that calls with his love and divine, heavenly attraction. the "call" is to submit to the message preached, for it is the power of God unto salvation. That call is faithful, striving always to turn men from sin to righteousness. This is graciousness...divine graciousness.

One submits himself to answer the call by submitting to the drawing power of God in the message preached. Jesus said, "No man can come to me except my father draw him." God, who is love tenderly calls us to Jesus, his Son, the Word of God.

When we submit to the call, we then become the chosen, the "eklektos" (chosen) which is the same word used for the "elect."

First the call. Next is the answer to the call and finally the chosen of God. However, it is one thing to be called (klētos), yet another to be the elect (eklektos), still quite another to be faithful.

At last, those that will be with Jesus in the end will not be just the called only. Neither will it be the elect only. But rather, it will be those who have heard the call, became a candidate to election, then elected or chosen, and finally remained faithful to the end. These are the saved ones.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by sandie

That's a clear a teaching as I've ever read or heard in all the years since being baptized in the HG and His Name.

Sandie, I could give you a tight hug. You just made my day and night too.

Thank you.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

At last, those that will be with Jesus in the end will not be just the called only. Neither will it be the elect only. But rather, it will be those who have heard the call, became a candidate to election, then elected or chosen, and finally remained faithful to the end. These are the saved ones.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful.

After looking over this last statement, I felt like I needed to make some clarification lest it be misinterpreted. I should have said:

It is not necessarily the called who will be saved since millions have been called but have refused. Neither is it necessarily the elect that will be with Jesus in the final end for it is possible for them to be deceived to end up as the pruned vine branch gathered away by the workmen to the fire. Thus, in the end...not all who are called, neither all who are elected, but rather, all who have been called, chosen (elected) and who remain faithful to the end will be with Jesus in the final count.

Lest there be some misunderstanding, please allow me to quote the last of this verse once again. Maybe we should read it real, real slowly...

Rev 17:14 ...and they that are him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful.[/QUOTE]

Kind of calls to mind the statement by Jesus concerning "...he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."

[DAII]

Pelagianism lives.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

After looking over this last statement, I felt like I needed to make some clarification lest it be misinterpreted. I should have said:

It is not necessarily the called who will be saved since millions have been called but have refused. Neither is it necessarily the elect that will be with Jesus in the final end for it is possible for them to be deceived to end up as the pruned vine branch gathered away by the workmen to the fire. Thus, in the end...not all who are called, neither all who are elected, but rather, all who have been called, chosen (elected) and who remain faithful to the end will be with Jesus in the final count.

Lest there be some misunderstanding, please allow me to quote the last of this verse once again. Maybe we should read it real, real slowly...

Rev 17:14 ...and they that are him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful.

Kind of calls to mind the statement by Jesus concerning "...he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."[/QUOTE]

I'm going to copy and paste the last two posts and put them to save on my computer.
I can see the very experience of salvation I've had in these two posts.
As a Jew who never dreamed it possible I could have a loving (never knew it would be salvational too) relationsip with Jesus I see how God does His salvational drawing and work to His creation. You have described my personal experience. It was a lovely look into what our Lord was doing with me all along.

I hope your day was made, I'm glad it was made...it is Jesus Who has made each of our days and my New Year prayer is now to be "faithful".
Thank you for these two posts, they mean much to me.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by DAII

Pelagianism lives.

Dear ol' Pelagius was a dear old soul. At least his mama thought so. But he was wrong about the doctrine of original sin although he was right about the freedom of the will of man. God has left every man in freedom as to his will. Otherwise, he would be the most heinous of all entities, worse than the devil himself.

Give Pelagius a D-