Religion v. Relationship Replaced of the Cross and the Resurrection- Have Evangelicals Forgotten the Gospel?
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Not at all, I'm preaching the truth and using the standard of 2 Timothy 2:15. This makes it too easy to readily dismantle everything you offer. Why is this possible? By God's grace. How? That I know not only my LORD and His Gospel, but I'v read my Scriptures through many, many times with the eyes of my heart opened to the truth it contains; Ephesians 1:15ff.
But of course you have to imply lostness in the above.
Sorry, but no, I'm not clueless. But I am about to readily dismantle more of your errors above.
Stephens prayer had NOTHING to do with salvation, and you're not only using it to prove this, you're misusing it.
Bottom line? Apples and oranges.
Day by day you take Scripture out of context and preach Finney's false gospel of decisional regeneration.
But of course you have to imply lostness in the above.
Sorry, but no, I'm not clueless. But I am about to readily dismantle more of your errors above.
Stephens prayer had NOTHING to do with salvation, and you're not only using it to prove this, you're misusing it.
Bottom line? Apples and oranges.
Day by day you take Scripture out of context and preach Finney's false gospel of decisional regeneration.
I believe you are wrong about that brother. If memory serves, Dr. Pink wrote more than one book on the subject of Hell/eternal punishment, and he taught extensively on the subject as well (as both a theologian and as a pastor). IOW, this is not a subject that he made any effort to avoid.
His emphasis in the quote above was on a problem that he saw in his day (which had to do with evangelists delivering a sugarcoated Gospel message about Jesus as Savior from Hell (in the eternity to come), but not, at the same time, as both Savior and Lord of a Christian's life on this side of the grave. This is a problem that is still quite commonplace today, yes?
Finally, it's sometimes hard to know what someone means if all you chose to go on is a quote w/o context. Here, in fact, is a perfect example of what I mean.
~Deut
p.s. - I will place the quote in question in this post too, for reference sake.
His emphasis in the quote above was on a problem that he saw in his day (which had to do with evangelists delivering a sugarcoated Gospel message about Jesus as Savior from Hell (in the eternity to come), but not, at the same time, as both Savior and Lord of a Christian's life on this side of the grave. This is a problem that is still quite commonplace today, yes?
Finally, it's sometimes hard to know what someone means if all you chose to go on is a quote w/o context. Here, in fact, is a perfect example of what I mean.
Luke 14
26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."
~Deut
p.s. - I will place the quote in question in this post too, for reference sake.
Praise God for that!
False accusation.
You're showing that you cannot grasp the intent of his statement, that and you've totally misrepresented what Pink said. He stated that evangelicals "announce(s) a Savior from Hell rather than a Savior from sin." He never said what you attempted to make him say, he didn't choose to avoid hell, he stated what evangelicals do. You've attempted to make it appear Pink denied that conversion is also salvation from hell.
He never said nor implied that.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously when you not only take people out of context after attempting to belittle them with ridicule. i.e. "he's a dyed in the wool Calvinist" (showing your disdain for fellow believers, go read 1 John for the indictment on this) but that you do the same with Scripture.
False accusation.
You're showing that you cannot grasp the intent of his statement, that and you've totally misrepresented what Pink said. He stated that evangelicals "announce(s) a Savior from Hell rather than a Savior from sin." He never said what you attempted to make him say, he didn't choose to avoid hell, he stated what evangelicals do. You've attempted to make it appear Pink denied that conversion is also salvation from hell.
He never said nor implied that.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously when you not only take people out of context after attempting to belittle them with ridicule. i.e. "he's a dyed in the wool Calvinist" (showing your disdain for fellow believers, go read 1 John for the indictment on this) but that you do the same with Scripture.
The Bible says God gives grace to the humble. I don't know you, but you respond to me off the bat with a condescending, snarky post. It comes off as arrogant. Considering the content, it comes off as wilfully ignorant.
Jesus telling a church that He stands at the door and knocks, and if any man will, let him open the door and He will come in and eat with him is not the same as an unbeliever praying to ask Jesus into His heart.
Let's look at the differences between the practice and the verse.
Is there a 'heart in the passage? not mentioned.
Is the passage about an unbeliever coming to faith? No, it is directed toward a church that Jesus corrected.
Is the passage about praying to ask Jesus into one's heart? No.
Using a belligerant, censorious posting style will not change those facts.
I would encourage you to change your allegiances from defending church practices that you may feel must be right because whatever group you are with practices them, and seek to 'earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints' instead. You no allegiance to extrabiblical or unbiblical aspects of American evangelical church culture which, apart from the gospel, is unable to save your soul.
Jesus telling a church that He stands at the door and knocks, and if any man will, let him open the door and He will come in and eat with him is not the same as an unbeliever praying to ask Jesus into His heart.
Let's look at the differences between the practice and the verse.
Is there a 'heart in the passage? not mentioned.
Is the passage about an unbeliever coming to faith? No, it is directed toward a church that Jesus corrected.
Is the passage about praying to ask Jesus into one's heart? No.
Using a belligerant, censorious posting style will not change those facts.
I would encourage you to change your allegiances from defending church practices that you may feel must be right because whatever group you are with practices them, and seek to 'earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints' instead. You no allegiance to extrabiblical or unbiblical aspects of American evangelical church culture which, apart from the gospel, is unable to save your soul.
When a person is born again with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the new birth they are just like any newborn and start out as babes in Christ surviving on the milk of the gospel and are not able to digest the meat of the gospel, which is the doctrine of Jesus. Isaiah 28:9-10, Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breast. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, and there a little. Those in Romans 10:1-2-3, were babes in Christ in need of being taught the meat of the word.
Well, John 1,12 is an vers which comes very close to ask Jesus to come into my life. I did so and I know from this time on I knew that Jesus lives in me.
It is not the prayer which made me to an beliver, and also not certain words to use. But when the Lord calls us, then this prayer is an answer to his call. And he is the One who changes us and gives us the life.
It is not the prayer which made me to an beliver, and also not certain words to use. But when the Lord calls us, then this prayer is an answer to his call. And he is the One who changes us and gives us the life.
Stephen was a Christian before he prayed that. He also prayed for Jesus to receive His spirit. It does not say he 'prayed to receive Christ.'
Christ dwells in our hearts through faith. The Bible does not say that this happens by praying a prayer that Jesus come into our heart. There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone praying such a prayer. Teaching that saying such a prayer is required for salvation is very unbiblical, since it adds a requirement for salvation which is not found in scripture. It would implicitly damn the apostles and the first generation of Christians. Were all Christians damned before Billy Graham started doing the sinner's prayer thing? The generation before him used decision cards, praying through, or shaking the preachers hand to signify a decision. We are talking about recent American methodologies here. Since it is just a little over a generation old, that's old enough for some people not to know its new.
Paul said, "....confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus." Once could do so in the form of a prayer, but if one makes a confession of his faith without it being in a prayer, it is still a confession. The Ethiopian eunuch (according to some manuscripts) said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." If that were a bad confession because he did not say, "God, I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God", why would it have been included?
You can say a confession of faith has to be done in the form of a prayer to be valid. I could say you have to make a confession of faith while tap dancing and balancing 50 plates on your head. Both would be adding doctrine not taught in scripture.
What about the new believers in Acts 2? Peter told them to repent and be baptized. They responded. Peter calls the salvation that occurs through baptism 'the answer of a good conscience toward God.' Were they not saved because they did not repeat a prayer? We have no reason to think that Peter or Paul told the crowds of converts that they preached to 'Repeat this prayer after me.' If such a prayer is required to be saved, why isn't there even an example of it in the Bible? And why do you have to use verses, like the ones above, that don't mention confessing faith in the form of a prayer to be saved.
This is one of the things that bothers me about some of the trends in modern evangelicalism. Your posts exemplify the problem. Preachers develop methods that are supposed to be in line with the Bible. But there are individuals who treat the methods as saving while losing sight of the actual Biblical doctrine.
It helps to actually read the whole chapter, or at least the verses under discussion.
Revelation 3
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Who were these words directed to? Look at verse 14 'the church of the Laodicians'. That is the context in which he says verse 20.
But if you argue that 'any man' means anyone-- or only unbelievers excluding the actual church he is addressing-- then the verse does not say that the way you do so is that you must pray a prayer to ask Jesus into your heart. Why wouldn't it be by believing the Gospel, confessing Christ as Lord, being baptized-- the stuff actually found in the Bible.
One can confess Jesus as Lord in a prayer, but one can do so outside of a prayer. The prayer part is superfluous to the Biblical teaching on confessing Jesus as Lord, though Christians should pray of course.
And now there are armies of preachers going around having people pray things along the lines of asking Jesus into their hearts, into their lives, etc. without telling the audience Who Jesus is or that He rose from the dead. Some leave out the crucifixion and declare people saved for repeating the prayer, as if repeating a prayer saved them.
It's exalting pragmatic methodologies above Biblical doctrine and the actual gospel.
Christ dwells in our hearts through faith. The Bible does not say that this happens by praying a prayer that Jesus come into our heart. There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone praying such a prayer. Teaching that saying such a prayer is required for salvation is very unbiblical, since it adds a requirement for salvation which is not found in scripture. It would implicitly damn the apostles and the first generation of Christians. Were all Christians damned before Billy Graham started doing the sinner's prayer thing? The generation before him used decision cards, praying through, or shaking the preachers hand to signify a decision. We are talking about recent American methodologies here. Since it is just a little over a generation old, that's old enough for some people not to know its new.
Paul said, "....confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus." Once could do so in the form of a prayer, but if one makes a confession of his faith without it being in a prayer, it is still a confession. The Ethiopian eunuch (according to some manuscripts) said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." If that were a bad confession because he did not say, "God, I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God", why would it have been included?
You can say a confession of faith has to be done in the form of a prayer to be valid. I could say you have to make a confession of faith while tap dancing and balancing 50 plates on your head. Both would be adding doctrine not taught in scripture.
What about the new believers in Acts 2? Peter told them to repent and be baptized. They responded. Peter calls the salvation that occurs through baptism 'the answer of a good conscience toward God.' Were they not saved because they did not repeat a prayer? We have no reason to think that Peter or Paul told the crowds of converts that they preached to 'Repeat this prayer after me.' If such a prayer is required to be saved, why isn't there even an example of it in the Bible? And why do you have to use verses, like the ones above, that don't mention confessing faith in the form of a prayer to be saved.
This is one of the things that bothers me about some of the trends in modern evangelicalism. Your posts exemplify the problem. Preachers develop methods that are supposed to be in line with the Bible. But there are individuals who treat the methods as saving while losing sight of the actual Biblical doctrine.
It helps to actually read the whole chapter, or at least the verses under discussion.
Revelation 3
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Who were these words directed to? Look at verse 14 'the church of the Laodicians'. That is the context in which he says verse 20.
But if you argue that 'any man' means anyone-- or only unbelievers excluding the actual church he is addressing-- then the verse does not say that the way you do so is that you must pray a prayer to ask Jesus into your heart. Why wouldn't it be by believing the Gospel, confessing Christ as Lord, being baptized-- the stuff actually found in the Bible.
One can confess Jesus as Lord in a prayer, but one can do so outside of a prayer. The prayer part is superfluous to the Biblical teaching on confessing Jesus as Lord, though Christians should pray of course.
And now there are armies of preachers going around having people pray things along the lines of asking Jesus into their hearts, into their lives, etc. without telling the audience Who Jesus is or that He rose from the dead. Some leave out the crucifixion and declare people saved for repeating the prayer, as if repeating a prayer saved them.
It's exalting pragmatic methodologies above Biblical doctrine and the actual gospel.
-
1
- Show all
Hello again @Nehemiah6, I have one last thought for you to consider about this (about Pink's statement in the quote above .. posts #4 & 23).
If a person repents and comes to saving faith in Christ (such that they are made His workmanship as wholly new creatures in Christ), and with their new God-given heart and spirit, as well the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, die in the faith, can they still be saved if they were never taught about Hell
On the flip-side, if a person is ~only~ interested in receiving a, "Get Out Of Hell For Free", pass from God, and they are not interested in repentance and being saved from their sins on this side of the grave ... which certainly includes being saved from their ~desire~ to continue in sin/from their "old man/old self/old nature" (Ephesians 4:22-24) ... can such a person (though they were taught about Hell) EVER be saved from Hell
Thanks!
~Deut
p.s. - for what it's worth, here's another quote from Dr. Pink that I believe addresses a different but important point about this topic.
If a person repents and comes to saving faith in Christ (such that they are made His workmanship as wholly new creatures in Christ), and with their new God-given heart and spirit, as well the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, die in the faith, can they still be saved if they were never taught about Hell
On the flip-side, if a person is ~only~ interested in receiving a, "Get Out Of Hell For Free", pass from God, and they are not interested in repentance and being saved from their sins on this side of the grave ... which certainly includes being saved from their ~desire~ to continue in sin/from their "old man/old self/old nature" (Ephesians 4:22-24) ... can such a person (though they were taught about Hell) EVER be saved from Hell
Thanks!
~Deut
p.s. - for what it's worth, here's another quote from Dr. Pink that I believe addresses a different but important point about this topic.
That's not the direction I was going with my OP. Peter said, "Repent, therefore, and be converted...." Doesn't that imply that the hearers might be able to repent and be converted?
Yet we also know that God's grace is at work in men having faith in Christ. We don't need to argue about false dichotomies.
Yet we also know that God's grace is at work in men having faith in Christ. We don't need to argue about false dichotomies.
Pink - present day evangelism
it touches on quite a lot relevant to this thread
-
1
- Show all
Not at all, it implies no such thing.
It is impossible for men to repent.
No, it doesn't imply ability, John 6 and many other passages deny mans ability.
Salvation is not received or granted for doing anything as you're implying via your question. People are not saved because they did something commanded any more than they could fulfill the Law and be saved.
You're the only one bringing up a phantom false dichotomy, something that doesn't exist in our dialog.
It is impossible for men to repent.
No, it doesn't imply ability, John 6 and many other passages deny mans ability.
Salvation is not received or granted for doing anything as you're implying via your question. People are not saved because they did something commanded any more than they could fulfill the Law and be saved.
You're the only one bringing up a phantom false dichotomy, something that doesn't exist in our dialog.
In this scriptural reference Jesus was not speaking to a church. Perhaps this piece of scripture is in error.
Matthew 7:7-11
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you".
Matthew 7:7-11
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you".
-
1
- Show all