A Very Dangerous Book

Thread starter #41
I think most Christians agree they are suppose to obedient to God. I Don't see many Christians as trying to deny that. I don't think that, as individuals, we/they are not showing obedience on purpose.

They may be being mislead by Church leaders. They may just really don't know. I think maybe it's not so easy to see exactly what scripture tells us concerning obedience to God.
I think maybe it's not so easy to see exactly what scripture tells us concerning obedience to God
Like a lead balloon.
 

Israel

Senior Member
With reference to the book and the red letters: "What it DOES do it bring a laser focus onto what Christ said and a full understanding of the implications of his words."

Evangelicals have not focused on what Jesus said? Since Luther was haunted on his salvation he was not focused on what Jesus said? Since the many dissenter refugee groups of Europe colonized North America with bible and interpretation-doctrine in hand and heart they have not focused on what Jesus said? Since Tomas Jefferson collected what Jesus said into a personal scrapbook and all the citizens of the Republic were made to know it? And what Jesus says today, no, what God says today, a book focus with "full understanding" is a shake up for the evangelical? If this is strength, what is weakness?



The experience of God supposedly in our hearts, in our mind, in our sufferings, in joys and in our limbs would the halter and a bridle be cut loose of this ever seeking of knowledge to "full understanding" of what God says and meant and disregarded rather to graze in the full view and shepherded daily? No. Let us form and re-form on red letters. Let us right and fight to run our race. And so it goes... to the beginning again.


https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-53/the-lordship-controversy

Quote:"What is there to say about the gospel according to Jesus? I mean He died on the cross and rose again, and you believe in Him, and you receive eternal life.

But there is a tremendous amount of confusion* about this subject. And people are polarizing on different views. And I think that it’s time to make a clear statement about what Jesus taught about the gospel and go back to the beginning." un quote

"Quote: "So, apparently a person who claims to know the Lord, but who has a pattern of life of working iniquity, will not be admitted to heaven. And we’ve got to be consistent about taking what Jesus said and building our theology of the gospel on that. " un quote

(Do evangelicals suffer and benefit for the spirits of confusion and competition? I wonder why if so?)
The experience of God supposedly in our hearts, in our mind, in our sufferings, in joys and in our limbs would the halter and a bridle be cut loose of this ever seeking of knowledge to "full understanding" of what God says and meant and disregarded rather to graze in the full view and shepherded daily? No. Let us form and re-form on red letters. Let us right and fight to run our race. And so it goes... to the beginning again.

LOL. Not at you, but with you, if I am allowed.
"I am debtor..." Paul wrote, not vainly, not in duplicity, but surely until I made my steps of approach...as words in darkness to me. How often did Paul rise from rest to labor in some matter, pressed as it were by the same love that had delivered to him such rest?
Questions about this, questions about that...almost as though prodded...observations made or coming to his eye or ear somewhat askew in their forming...that demanded from him response. Things to him plain (perhaps) that made him, forced him, provoked him to look again at the path (that was seemingly plain to him) and ask...at what point, at what place was a juncture seen that has led these little ones down such a path now needing reproval? How could they hear what was presented and come to a place as:

"Well, I am of Paul"

...what got inserted, what was (if anything) insufficiently presented that would allow this? Did "I" fail...in what I once thought was the "whole council of God...to them?" Do we hear this?

And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

I make no claim to "correctly" conclude anything about these things. But, do we at least see them...? And here I cannot at all (LOL...for my own skill at "communicating" is made amply clear to me daily...and most clearly by those to whom I am most indebted) make any claim to a more right seeing.

But...what do...we see?

"His letters are weighty...but..."
2 Cor 10:10

Yes. But "why don't we see his presence...as such?"

LOLOL. Who hasn't...in some way, at some time touched this thing:
"If someone like Paul we had here, now...such confusion would be banished?"

If only "I" or we could summon Paul for personal conversation and explanation...O! how much better might I/we...see?"

and not dis similarly

"If only Jesus would appear to us and speak to us as he did amongst John, Peter, James...and show us such things!" Then...ahhh, then!

But I do not hear this from you. The "Holy Spirit" you are very careful to not deny.

There are visits, revisits, more revisits...and revisits...again.

The question becomes for any (and perhaps all)...are we not also debtors for their necessity? And debtors to those who cause us to seek? To not only speak...but truly be established, beyond a way once assumed...to further establishment?

Yes, I revisit (of necessity) the red words. But that is just my necessity...I cannot despise what is given in the grace of God as allowance...even if it be I must admit plainly "yes, I am the most dense of all". I need...such allowance...for such as myself cannot be saved without it! The one who continually must be shown "you do not yet know as you aught". OK! Hallelujah!...keep on Lord! Keep on!

Yet, here we all occupy a very much stranger place than Paul in relationship. None of us has been begotten...even if we use Paul's words as ( so called father) amongst one another...nevertheless we might all find a consistency if we agree, at all, to any worthy lessons he may teach. None of us has been given right to "slide into his slippers" and start, with deeper voice affected...to pretend as though we are "a daddy". But, we can as children remind one another..."weren't we told not to jump on the couch?"

This guy...this guy Paul!

"Henceforth let no man trouble me for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ"
Aha!

When I have fed the great grands, made every provision (I can think of) for their feeding, diversion and entertainment and whatever else I may think sufficient to their "occupation"...there's something they seem to find irresistible to provoking me off the couch. Oh, how many times I have had answer less than kind, full of reproof and shouted directions that their attentions be focused on what has already been made in provision of their "right occupation". I "set them up with all they need". (Or so I have thought)

But, now I see a bit differently. They are asking, in a way they hardly know of themselves, and I am convinced is never of conscious plan..."Is there anything about us, of that which we are in our necessity....of more value to you...than your rest?"
Will you "rise"...just for us...and because of who we are? Will you "come to us"?

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.

Remind, remind, remind, remind. (Eventually learning to whom all benefit of reminding...is given!)



Do I believe Jesus ever needed reproval? Ahhh,...can I revisit these red words?

And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.

He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.

No. Jesus did not need reproval. But he did walk in a way confessed by Him:

"For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

I marvel...at the patience the Son saw. It is what saves the likes of me.

Lest I fall behind in neglect, may I add this?

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

I have preached this among those glad to be reminded, among those who would show more gladness in (at the time) putting me in a dumpster. I have needed both...and no less than I have needed the very Lord himself!

For it is then, in that mix of what appears only to onlookers as what might constitute joy or sorrow...I hear again an opportunity given (of necessity) to response by "Do you believe this?"

I need the speaker of the red letters...to revisit me again, and again and again in such gracious opportunity to allow an answer be given. He knows, surely, who He is. I benefit in all, from needing to be reminded, and such grace as provides for it. I need to be probed again and again by the Lord...not so he will know "what's in there"...but that I might be as convinced, and know the joy of it...as He is. He allows me to "stick my hand in" to a surety...as the very densest of all. Can I deny him His right to poke around?

Dare I lie if vinegar, and not sweet wine I taste in the flow be found?

But there find such poking is not done for His sake...as it is for mine.

Yes. Abide in the light. Just don't be shocked when it seems to lead to what may appear "dark places". Be ...convinced. By any and all means necessary.
 
Last edited:

Israel

Senior Member
PS Gordon...you may decide whether your appraisal of certain "American" heritage is unreceived. Yes, I think we love to view ourselves in a certain light as victorious rebels. I took a light hearted romp in the political section and was not shocked to find what seems a continuing (and residual) battle from 1776. I so rarely know anymore when tears or laughter are better called for. LOL...sometimes I wonder how and if, what may be so given to "love it or leave it"...such would respond to an angel preaching Jesus Christ to utter perfection could bear hearing the same. I can't condemn the Maccabees, but only wonder if I see what I see as plainly as I claim...as "the better way".

http://forum.gon.com/threads/dear-president-trump.936801/#post-11582376
 
Thread starter #44
PS Gordon...you may decide whether your appraisal of certain "American" heritage is unreceived. Yes, I think we love to view ourselves in a certain light as victorious rebels. I took a light hearted romp in the political section and was not shocked to find what seems a continuing (and residual) battle from 1776. I so rarely know anymore when tears or laughter are better called for. LOL...sometimes I wonder how and if, what may be so given to "love it or leave it"...such would respond to an angel preaching Jesus Christ to utter perfection could bear hearing the same. I can't condemn the Maccabees, but only wonder if I see what I see as plainly as I claim...as "the better way".

http://forum.gon.com/threads/dear-president-trump.936801/#post-11582376
You stirred up a hornets nest over there. They don’t seem to like you very much. Better stay indoors for s few days. BTW. Bravo! Well played.
 
There is a firmer footing in "religion" than "politics" for me. The white of the eye is far more plain in a person's religion and the fire here friendly is generally these days with no loss of life.

So Isreal, due your adventures, I am reminded for some reason(s) of one Thomas Paine, who rallied the ranks to liberty, equality and the pursuits of happiness when morale could have wasted the efforts to independence. Have you ever considered what rallied Thomas Paine to his convictions? ( He was a Brit. after all and his influences were European.)

I myself, for better or for worse, found a vein perhaps out of the mine that spit him out. You might like this fellow ( a man of the cloth) and (he is another Brit. of the time 1700s) and also those who took to him and the religious-political issues surrounding him. They are essential to Paine's inspiration and motivation in my view.

My friend we do not see into the hearts of men, but we do see what and how they do with what hearts they have, as if the white of their eyes shift to the greatness in their friends--especially the religious ones. Even the non-believing pick up though the motives all their own...

Have a look at the non-conformist-dissenter minister Richard Price. He may well be THE originator of the american people, if indeed Thomas Pain's contribution was essential. And so it is for me that politics is sand and that religion is crusted clay and a bit more solid as to motivations and movements and ideas...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richa...--7yDfr5K0TrRSCqOq2aLo2ycO8Rvur7zeS32i7PDHS6o
 
Last edited:
I perceive that Joel Osteen knows more about the kingdom than John MacArthur. --Welderguy
-------------------

I also spy with my little eye. : )

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-53/the-lordship-controversy

"I’m not saying that everyone, at the point of salvation, fully understands all the implications of Christ’s lordship." John MacArther

Your perception pre-perceived.
 
Thread starter #49
I perceive that Joel Osteen knows more about the kingdom than John MacArthur. --Welderguy
-------------------

I also spy with my little eye. : )

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-53/the-lordship-controversy

"I’m not saying that everyone, at the point of salvation, fully understands all the implications of Christ’s lordship." John MacArther

Your perception pre-perceived.
You know. If you read the book you would understand that ....................ahhh never mind. It's not worth trying to explain to a mind already made up.
 
Yes mine is a mind already made up. ( I can't get my hands on a copy just yet, but there are reviews... And to J.M. I was not born yesterday. ( Nor to Osteen whom J.M. is said to label a near pagan.)
 
John MacArthur quotes:

quote "So, apparently a person who claims to know the Lord, but who has a pattern of life of working iniquity, will not be admitted to heaven."quote

He thinks it's all about entering into heaven. He missed it, like so many do.
It's about entering into the kingdom.
 
Only hope I stocked plenty of beer if these clubs show up at my next BBQ

pagans.jpg

righteous.jpg
 
Thread starter #54
Yes mine is a mind already made up. ( I can't get my hands on a copy just yet, but there are reviews... And to J.M. I was not born yesterday. ( Nor to Osteen whom J.M. is said to label a near pagan.)
Joel Osteen is worse than any pagan. True pagans are ignorant to the gospel. Joel Osteen isn’t. He denies the very spirit of it. Anyone who believes Osteen hasn’t and doesn’t read their Bible, because it’s inconceivable that one can read the Gospels, Acts, and Romans’ and not be diametrically opposed to what Osteen spews
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #55
John MacArthur quotes:

quote "So, apparently a person who claims to know the Lord, but who has a pattern of life of working iniquity, will not be admitted to heaven."quote

He thinks it's all about entering into heaven. He missed it, like so many do.
It's about entering into the kingdom.
So let me get this straight. You think a person can be saved and continue to lead a life of inequity?

As far as differentiating between the Kingdom and Heaven. They are synomous. Kingdom of ________? Heaven.

Welder. It’s obvious you haven’t read the book. If you had, I honesty don’t think you would be making such statements, because
It’s obvious you have McArrhur wrong. Instead of me trying to correct you, why don’t you read the book. If you will pm me your address I will buy you a copy and have it mailed to you. At the very least, you will have concrete evidence on which to disagree, but as it stands now you are denigrating another on falacies. I don’t care what your beliefs on doctrine are, as a Christian, that should trouble you.
 
Thread starter #56
Thief on the cross="pattern of life of working inquity"
...but
"This day thou shalt be with me in paradise"
Luke 23:39

Excellent example. I can think of no better one that illustrates the point McArthur makes in his book.



39 And one of the evil-doers who were hanged, was speaking evil of him, saying, `If thou be the Christ, save thyself and us.'

40 And the other answering, was rebuking him, saying, `Dost thou not even fear God, that thou art in the same judgment?

41 and we indeed righteously, for things worthy of what we did we receive back, but this one did nothing out of place;'

42 and he said to Jesus, `Remember me, lord, when thou mayest come in thy reign;'

43 and Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.'
The repentant thief recognized his sin, Christ’s innocence, and Christ’s sovern Lordship and that is the entire thesis of McArthur’s book; that you can’t obtain salvation from sin without recognizing Christ as Lord, and that “recognition of Christ’s Lordship” has consequences and repercussions on one’s life. If it doesn’t, you aren’t saved
 
So let me get this straight. You think a person can be saved and continue to lead a life of inequity?

As far as differentiating between the Kingdom and Heaven. They are synomous. Kingdom of ________? Heaven.

Welder. It’s obvious you haven’t read the book. If you had, I honesty don’t think you would be making such statements, because
It’s obvious you have McArrhur wrong. Instead of me trying to correct you, why don’t you read the book. If you will pm me your address I will buy you a copy and have it mailed to you. At the very least, you will have concrete evidence on which to disagree, but as it stands now you are denigrating another on falacies. I don’t care what your beliefs on doctrine are, as a Christian, that should trouble you.
Let me just present this for your consideration.
David was an adulterer and a murderer in his later life, yet he was obviously a saved man(regenerated). And I think we can agree that David surely went to heaven.
But, read this.

Gal.5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies.
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

So, if it's like you say, "the Kingdom and heaven are synonymous", why doesn't David's case jive with Galatians 5?
I say it's because they are not completely synonymous. They each have distinct definitions.
 
Thread starter #58
Let me just present this for your consideration.
David was an adulterer and a murderer in his later life, yet he was obviously a saved man(regenerated). And I think we can agree that David surely went to heaven.
But, read this.

Gal.5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies.
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

So, if it's like you say, "the Kingdom and heaven are synonymous", why doesn't David's case jive with Galatians 5?
I say it's because they are not completely synonymous. They each have distinct definitions.
I agree with your points on David. I would only add that although he sinned, he also sought forgiveness, and he never forsook the Lord’s actual lordship.

This is going off the rails and headed towards a once saved/always saved debate, at least it appears that way to me. I do believe in OSAS. That’s not the point McArthur raises. He never gets past the once saved. The point of the book is IF one is saved, there should be evidence.
Surely you don’t disagree with that.

One point, in which I strongly agree with him is that, evangelism has become so watered down that people think all they have to do is say “I accept Christ.” to be saved, taking care of the eternal aspect, and freeing them up to go right back sinning without worry of consequences. And the preachers are quick to accept even a nod of the head as an admission of faith, giving no heed to the seriousness and gravity of the matter. They just want that admission, and never counsel on the cost of discipleship. Salvation IS free, but it’s cost is the death of the sin seeking, natural man. Even the truely reborn man will sin, and sometimes sin grievously on occasion, (as in davids case), yet he will always confess and turn back to his Lord. If he doesn’t, he was never saved to begin with, just an imposter. Judas wasn’t identified by the others up until Christ was arrested.
 
I agree with your points on David. I would only add that although he sinned, he also sought forgiveness, and he never forsook the Lord’s actual lordship.

This is going off the rails and headed towards a once saved/always saved debate, at least it appears that way to me. I do believe in OSAS. That’s not the point McArthur raises. He never gets past the once saved. The point of the book is IF one is saved, there should be evidence.
Surely you don’t disagree with that.

One point, in which I strongly agree with him is that, evangelism has become so watered down that people think all they have to do is say “I accept Christ.” to be saved, taking care of the eternal aspect, and freeing them up to go right back sinning without worry of consequences. And the preachers are quick to accept even a nod of the head as an admission of faith, giving no heed to the seriousness and gravity of the matter. They just want that admission, and never counsel on the cost of discipleship. Salvation IS free, but it’s cost is the death of the sin seeking, natural man. Even the truely reborn man will sin, and sometimes sin grievously on occasion, (as in davids case), yet he will always confess and turn back to his Lord. If he doesn’t, he was never saved to begin with, just an imposter. Judas wasn’t identified by the others up until Christ was arrested.
Do you agree that the kingdom is within?
If so, how could it be heaven, as you are referring to it as?
 
Top