Bible Talk > Sound doctrine

Is there another way?

<< < (5/8) > >>

Moss:

--- Quote from: Jack Koons on June 25, 2013, 03:38:04 pm ---Hello Moss,

You need to read Ez 33 before speaking in ignorance.

Ez. 33:
2 Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:
3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.

--- End quote ---

I was responding to your statement and I quote:

--- Quote ---The reason their blood would have been on my hands is because their souls are precious to God the Father.

Their blood, however, is not on my hands. These two young Marines will stand before God and have no reason to give God for refusing Him. Fifteen minutes before they entered eternity those two Marines were warned of the danger ahead. I do not want to make it sound like I don't care about those Marines, I most definitely did, That is why we were there witnessing on the streets. The point is, I have them the gospel, showing them their need to be saved. But in the final analysts, they CHOOSE not to accept Christ as Saviour; and that is why they are condemned, with their blood on their own hands.
--- End quote ---


I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself. Your chosen verse is not contradict Christ words and I'll repost them here in case you forgot.


--- Quote ---The truth is if you truly believe in free will than the blood of these two Marines is on your hands. For you failed to convince them of their need for immediate salvation. For if these two young lads were free to make that choice then there is no reason to assume that you could not have influenced their decision.

You can't have it both ways, either they had free will or they were not part of the elect.

A Calvinist on the other hand gives the message of the gospel and answers any questions or gives any assistance to those being ministered to. Calvinist does not know if the person he is talking to is a member of the elect are not. He knows that Christ's sheep shall hear his voice and follow him.


John 10:14 CSB
"I am the good shepherd. I know My own sheep, and they know Me,

John 10:26 CSB
But you don't believe because you are not My sheep.

John 10:27 CSB
My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me.

This is cut and dry, those that are not His sheep can not believe, your Marines did not believe. WHY?

--- End quote ---

Can you answer my question, can you answer anyones questions? Can you respond to Fat's repeated post for John 6?

Jack Koons:
"The truth is if you truly believe in free will than the blood of these two Marines is on your hands. For you failed to convince them of their need for immediate salvation. For if these two young lads were free to make that choice then there is no reason to assume that you could not have influenced their decision."

Let's look at the above:

"The truth is if you truly believe in free will than the blood of these two Marines is on your hands."

If I get up late for work because I choose (in my free will) to ignore my alarm and sleep in; my alarm clock is not responsible. The alarm went off, like it was supposed to. I (me, Jack) CHOOSE to ignore it. I knew the consequences, and thought to myself, "Phooey", I'm not getting up, so there"! THE ALARM CLOCK IS NOT RESPONSIBLE; IT DID IT'S JOB!

"For you failed to convince them of their need for immediate salvation."

Ezekiel 33 states the only responsibility of the watchman is to "blow the trumpet, and warn the people". Notice verse 5: "he heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning". It says nothing about the watchman having any other responsibility.

"For if these two young lads were free to make that choice then there is no reason to assume that you could not have influenced their decision."

Let me make sure I understand you correctly: you are saying, if a person is 'free to make a choice', there is "no reason to assume that you could not have influenced their decision".

For other people that may be reading this, I will say it in a less confusing way.

"If a person is "free to make a choice", there is reason to assume that you could have influenced their decision". Well, duh!

Have you considered that was the ENTIRE  REASON FOR THE WATCHMAN?

I want you to understand when I witnessed to those two Marines, it was my intention to influence them as much as possible. BUT THEY MADE THEIR OWN DECISION.

Jack

Fat:

--- Quote from: Jack ---I want you to understand when I witnessed to those two Marines, it was my intention to influence them as much as possible. BUT THEY MADE THEIR OWN DECISION.

--- End quote ---

So you failed to influence them, and if you would not have failed they may be alive today. If only you could have said the right words. That's so sad, how can you sleep at night.

Jack Koons:
Fat,

You said:

"So you failed to influence them, and if you would not have failed they may be alive today. If only you could have said the right words. That's so sad, how can you sleep at night."

Have you ever read Jeremiah, or Lamentations?

Psalm 126
5 They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.
6 He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaveswith him.

To tell you the truth Fat, that bothered my a long time. The thought of it still bothers me today. When I hear people say things like, "This is cut and dry, those that are not His sheep can not believe, your Marines did not believe. WHY?" I see no compassion. Jesus was moved with compassion.

Matthew 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

Matthew 14:
14 And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.

Matthew 15:32 Then Jesus called his disciplesunto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.

Matthew 20:34 So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.

Please notice Jesus had compassion on the multitude. They obviously weren't all the "chosen" or "elect"; but He still had compassion on them. So my question is, If they weren't part of the elect; did Jesus have more compassion for their fleshly bodies, than He did for their souls?

Do I need to give you more scripture?

Yes, I'm guilty of having compassion on two Marines. I was doing what God told me to do.

Luke 14: 23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

Fat, when was the last time you had compassion for someone's soul, and tried to compel them to accept Christ as Saviour?

Can you show me a verse that exempts you from having compassion, and compelling them to be saved?

Preaching and teaching the gospel is not simply the passing of information to another; it's a command of God (Who is full of compassion).

Jack

Fat:
Jack if they, your jar-heads, had free will then your compassion has nothing to do with the fact that you failed to influence their will (free choice). Your choice of Scripture about compassion do not address your failure.

If a horse breaks a leg you have compassion and shoot it.

I do believe that the Holy Ghost could have brought them to Christ if He chose to do so.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page