Saw This On Facebook -- Supposed Top 10 Christian Cliches!

Bill,  Regarding this cliche':

 "8. Ask Jesus Into Your Heart! "

You say:  

I have always believed it was the thought that counts.  So, however we say it -- THAT is the most important advise we can give to a non-believer!

Tell us, Bill, where does your Bible say anything about asking Jesus into one's heart? If that is the most important advise [sic] you can give a non-Christian, then you should be able to show that non-Christian where, in the Bible (and not in some compendium of trite evangelical buzz phrases), he or anyone else is told to ask Jesus into his heart.

There were many non-Christians present on the Day of Pentecost, A.D. 33 when the inspired apostle Peter was asked by some lost and aggrieved sinners, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"  If he had followed your "advise", he would have told them to "ask Jesus to come into your heart," but he did no such thing.  Instead he told them to "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for  the remission of sins...."

Yes, that business of asking Jesus to come into one's heart is indeed a cliche', and it is a cliche' of non-Biblical origins.  The Divine plan for salvation of lost sinners nowhere in scripture

levies that particular requirement, irrespective of how popular it might have become in the parlance of certain careless evangelicals who value the trite epigrams of their  truncated soteriology over  the plain teaching of the Word.

Well said, Contendah. This seems to be a common fallacy with the OSASs; however, the "Sinner's Prayer" is also common among some other groups. Nope--that's not Biblical either. If you can't show it to me in the Bible, please don't tell me Christ demands it.

The one I've never heard billie jiz say, "And if I'm lying may God strike me

dead."

Hi Contendah,

You are right.  I used the verb "advise" instead of the noun "advice."   Can you believe it?  The first mistake I have made this year!   How will I ever recover?  Smile, God loves us all.

My Friend, you seem to be bothered that I suggest that Christians should invite Jesus Christ into their hearts.  I could have said into their lives.  But, for me, those are the same.  If we have Jesus Christ in our hearts -- He will surely be in our lives, in our daily Christian walk.

And, I would suggest that is what Jesus Christ means when He gives His Great Commission to all believers:  "Go, Make disciples, Baptize them, TEACH THEM. . .  Be My witnesses in ALL the world"  (Matthew 28:19-20,  Acts 1:8, Mark 16:15).  He is most certainly telling us to take His Gospel to all the non-believers of the world.

Just curious.  How would YOU tell a non-believer he/she needs to have a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ?    How would YOU witness to that non-believer?   OR, would you?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill, 

I would tell him/her  the same thing that the Apostle Peter told those anguished folks on Pentecost, A.D. 33 (See Acts 2:37-39). Why would you NOT tell them that?

Your theology would have had those Pentecostians already saved and in no need to beseech the apostle as to what they needed to do.  Your theology says that lost persons are saved at the point of belief in Jesus as the Son of God.  Peter did not have to tell his hearers to   "believe" because it was what they already believed that gave them so much anguish of spirit. They believed Peter when he told them that they were responsible for crucifying the very Son of God. Thus they asked what they needed to do. If Peter shared your theology, he would have told them that they already were saved, since they believed that Jesus was the Son of God, which they obviously did. But he told them to do two more things--to repent and be baptized.   I would cite also the example of Saul on the road to Damascus (See Acts 9:1-19 and Acts 22:16).  Confronted by the Lord Himself, ("Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me>"), Saul realized that he--like those Pentecostians had made himself the enemy of the Son of God.  In similar anguish, he cried, "Lord, what shall I do." If Jesus held to the same theology as you do, Bill, he would have told Saul that since he "believed", he was now saved.  But Jesus did not say that.  Instead he sent Saul to the house of Ananias, where "you will be told what you must do." He was indeed told what he must do, by Ananias:  "And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins." You and all too many other liberalizing evangelicals, with your "just believe and you will be saved" theology have rejected the teaching of an apostle of Jesus Christ speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit and the clear teaching in the account of Saul's (Paul's) salvation event.  Time for some repentance from YOU, Bill.

Contendah, my Friend,

Yes, I know what Peter and the apostles told the people in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost 33 AD.

However, I am interested in what Contendah 2014 AD would tell folks who do not believe.

In YOUR own words, how would YOU tell a non-believer that he/she needs to have a relationship with Jesus Christ so that he/she can have eternal life in Him?   In your own words; but feel free to quote Scripture in support of YOUR own words.

You keep saying that I am wrong.  But, how can you say that I am wrong -- when YOU cannot tell us what YOU would say in that same situation?   If you cannot tell us that, you have no position to stand upon to say that I am wrong.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

___

I would do what I have done before.  I would go to the scriptures with them and "tell them the story of Jesus" and in that I would make every effort to show them that He is indeed the Son of God and that He can be their Redeemer if they will allow Him to be, for the Jesus I know never forced Himself or his teachings on anyone. I would show them what the will of Jesus is for them, including the very clear teaching of the New Testament concerning what they need to do in order to be saved in heaven eternally.  Should they come to believe in Jesus as the Son of God, I would  tell them no more and no less than the same things Peter told those anguished sinners on that first Day of Pentecost following the death of Jesus. I would show them from Acts Chapter 2, verses 36-41 and from Acts 22:10-16 what penitent believers were called upon to do in order to be saved and I would urge them to do those same things. I would read with them the clear teaching of Romans 6: 1-11 concerning baptism and at that point, I would hope that they would see clearly what they needed to do in order to "walk in newness of life" (v 4).  I would NOT tell them to pray anything like the "sinner's prayer" so often enjoined upon folks seeking salvation, because I can find no place in my Bible where Jesus, his apostles, any evangelist, teacher or any other person ever instructed a lost sinner to say a prayer of any kind as a prerequisite to salvation. I would advise him that those who do insist upon a "sinner's prayer" are teaching something not taught in scripture and that such folks might correctly be described as liberals to be avoided. Having thus advised such a person, and upon his following the clear teaching of scripture concerning God's plan of salvation, I would conclude that he had established a relationship with Christ, a relationship based on what the Bible teaches rather than upon the convenient, truncated false doctrines so prevalent in so much of the teaching of evangelical churches of today.

Contendah, my Friend,

You say, "I would show them what the will of Jesus is for them, including the very clear teaching of the New Testament concerning what they need to do in order to be saved in heaven eternally."

How would you fit Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 4:30, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 6:47, and John 10:28-29 into that discussion?   Or would you?  Keep in mind that these teachings are also part of Scripture.  And, none of these Scripture verses/passages contradict the verses/passages you suggest.  The complement and complete the teachings of those verses/passages.

You seem to offer an incomplete Scriptural picture of salvation.  And, keep in mind that we CANNOT skip over or omit ANY part of Scripture if we are to have a true Christian theology.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

_____

Bill, are you a bit addled?

Those scriptures you cite are some of the ones you use in attempted defense of your OSAS belief, but do not have anything to do with how a lost person gets into Christ to begin with--which was the subject of this discussion.  The scriptures I used in my reply to you answered your question precisely.  I told you what I would tell a non-believer and how I would counsel with him/her regarding the sonship of Christ the Savior and what he/she needed to do in order to have his/her sins remitted and enter into the relationship with Christ that is set forth in scripture.

You have not even begun to rebut the arguments I have advanced from Acts 2 and Acts 8 and Acts 22 and Romans 6.  You apparently continue to hold to the notion that only simple belief in Jesus as the Son of God is necessary for salvation.  I showed you that the sinners at Pentecost had come to belief in Jesus but were still anguished, knowing they had committed sin worthy of condemnation.  That is why they asked, "What shall we do?"  You and those like-minded with you would simply have told them to "just believe on Jesus and take Him as your Savior."  Peter gave no such instructions.  Could that be because he was speaking under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and you draw upon some other source for your authority?  Jesus told Saul on the road to Damascus to go to the city and he would be told "what thou MUST DO."  NKJV Acts 9:6).  When Saul (Paul) got to that city, God's appointed agent, Ananias, told him what he MUST DO and that was, "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." He did not tell Saul that he was already in good standing with God on the basis of his belief in Jesus.  He did not tell Paul to ask Jesus to come into his heart.  He commanded him to be baptized in order to wash away his sins.

Contendah, my Friend,

You tell me, "Those scriptures you cite are some of the ones you use in attempted defense of your OSAS belief, but do not have anything to do with how a lost person gets into Christ to begin with--which was the subject of this discussion."

 My  Friend, let's take a look at those Scripture verses which YOU say have NOTHING to do with salvation:

Ephesians 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the Gospel of your salvation -- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."

That verse tells me that the person who hears the Gospel, and through hearing that Gospel -- believes in the finished work of Jesus Christ -- is saved, indwelled, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.  Sound like salvation to me.

Ephesians 4:30, "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."

This verse tells us that when that person who heard the Gospel and believed was saved -- that person was indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption -- the day that believer dies in this mortal body or is raptured from this mortal body.

Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

This Scripture passage tells us that, by the grace of God this believer has been saved through faith in Jesus Christ -- plus NOTHING else, for it is a gift from God and not a result of any work that believer could do or may have done.

John 6:47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."

Then, Jesus affirms those Ephesians passages when He tells us that the person who has believed in Him HAS eternal life.

John 10:28-29, "And I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.  My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."

Then, Jesus puts a cork in the bottle when He tells us that NO ONE, not even the believer himself/herself -- can snatch that believer out of God's hands.   That, my Friend, is most certainly salvation.  And, that is most certainly eternally secure salvation.

So, yes, these Scripture passages do complement and complete those you suggested in bringing the message of salvation to the lost of the world.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

___

You  begin, Bill Gray, by craftily distorting what I said in the post to which you offer your lame reply.

You claim that I define certain scriptures as having  "NOTHING to do with salvation:"

What I actually referred to was certain scriptures that  "do not have anything to do with "how a lost person gets into Christ to begin with."

There is a difference between the two and I shall exemplify that difference by citing you to an example from scripture, namely Hebrews 3:1 and 3:12-15.

The chapter begins (v.3) with an address to "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling." Thus there is absolutely no question about whether saved persons (“Christian believers,” to employ your preferred frame of reference) are being addressed here.

Does Paul consider these "holy brethren" to be saved unequivocally, unconditionally, without any concern that such "holy brethren" could lapse into a condition that could separate them from their first love and cause them to depart from the God to whom they committed their lives and souls when they first became Christian believers?  Verses 12-14 powerfully suggest otherwise.  Thus I reproduce them below in whole from the KJV:  Note that this warning is addressed to “brethren” (v. 12), there being absolutely no doubt that the persons addressed are the same as those “holy brethren” of v.3.

12. Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.

13. But exhort one another daily,. While it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

14. For we have become partakers of Christifwe hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end....”

Is Paul wasting ink and paper describing something that could not possibly happen?  There is no credible way to deny that those “holy brethren,” those Christian believers, were saved persons.  In no way would the inspired apostle describe unsaved persons as “holy brethren.” Yet he clearly contemplates the possibility of their acquiring “an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.”  Those “believers” could become unbelievers, thereby “departing from the living God.” 

If it were indeed impossible for those “holy brethren” to lapse into unbelief, what would be the sense of Paul’s warning? 

Why would the apostle caution them to exhort one another “lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” if it was impossible for them to be so deceived?

The “holy brethren” were ”partakers of Christ”, but that ethereal status was conditional.  That  “if” in verse 14 expresses something that is conditional.  That is what “if” is always about, Bill.  A thing that is absolutely certain is not qualified by “if,” but Paul here uses the conditional if as he defines what is involved in continuing to be “partakers of Christ.”

In the remainder of his discourse, in the later part of chapter 3 and continuing into chapter 4, Paul crafts an analogy between those Israelites who failed to enter into the promised land because of their disobedience (4:6) and those of his “holy brethren” whom he warns thusly (4:11):  “Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall after that example of disobedience.” “[T]hat rest” to which the apostle refers is obviously the rest he describes in 4:9: “There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.”  That ‘rest” can be nothing but the ultimate salvation of those to whom God gives eternal salvation.   But Paul clearly admits of the possibility that some of those “holy brethren” could “fall after that example of disobedience.” Again, is the apostle contemplating something that can not possibly occur?  Is he describing something that is impossible of happening, but that nevertheless the “holy brethren” to whom he writes need to be so very diligent about avoiding?

Bill, you and others of the OSAS persuasion are fond of citing Ephesians 1:13 as a proof text for your Calvinistic perseverance belief.  You wrote above:

“Ephesians 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the Gospel of your salvation -- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."

That verse tells me that the person who hears the Gospel, and through hearing that Gospel -- believes in the finished work of Jesus Christ -- is saved, indwelled, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.  Sound [sic] like salvation to me.

I would encourage you to continue reading through verse 14 to get the full sense of what the apostle is teaching here.  The apostle writes this:

 1:14.    Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased    possession, to the praise of his glory.””

The “earnest” to which Paul refers is the Greek ”arrabon”, a word that Thayer (1963 printing, page 75) defines as “money which in purchases is given as a pledge that the full amount will subsequently be paid.”  The pledge here is God’s promise of salvation, but that pledge is an inherent element of a covenant, the New Covenant in Christ.  God’s covenant includes promises upon which God will deliver, but those promises are not unconditional.    A covenant, by definition, involves at least two parties, each of which has obligations defined in the terms of the covenant.  God will keep his part of the covenant that he makes with Christian believers, but it remains possible, as we have seen above from Hebrews 3 and 4, for man to violate his part of the covenant, thus invalidating the covenant, as in “departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12).

Paul once more in the book of Hebrews confirms the possibility of apostasy.  Hebrews 6:4-6, without question (other than the desperate, circumlocutory contrivances perpetrated upon it by Calvinists) describes the sad fate of those who “fall away”:

1. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
2. And have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come,
3. If they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.

With conscienceless shabbiness and patently dishonest hermeneutics, the OSAS crowd will try to torque these verses as describing those who “were never saved in the first place,” notwithstanding that such persons were at some time “partakers of the Holy Ghost,” that same Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) that is “the earnest of our inheritance.”

Go figure.

Billie just got owned by Contendah!

Contendah, my Friend,

You tell me:

The chapter begins (v.3) with an address to "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling." Thus there is absolutely no question about whether saved persons (“Christian believers,” to employ your preferred frame of reference) are being addressed here.

Does Paul consider these "holy brethren" to be saved unequivocally, unconditionally, without any concern that such "holy brethren" could lapse into a condition that could separate them from their first love and cause them to depart from the God to whom they committed their lives and souls when they first became Christian believers?  Verses 12-14 powerfully suggest otherwise.  Thus I reproduce them below in whole from the KJV:  Note that this warning is addressed to “brethren” (v. 12), there being absolutely no doubt that the persons addressed are the same as those “holy brethren” of v.3.

Have you ever addressed a church group, i.e., a local fellowship?   Did you begin with, "Brothers and sisters (i.e., brethren)"?   Would you declare upon your soul that ALL the people in the audience were truly believers?  Or could some of them have been attending that church -- and still not yet be believers?

How many pastors and speakers have you heard begin a message in a church fellowship, "Brothers and sisters. . . "   Was everyone in that congregation a true believer -- or could some have been only social believers?

The same thing with Paul.  He addressed a group which he believed to be all believers.  But, was everyone a believer?   Keep in mind that shortly after Paul left, often false teachers jumped right in and started preaching false doctrines.

So, when we read of Paul:

12. Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.

13. But exhort one another daily,. While it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

14. For we have become partakers of Christifwe hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end....”

Could he have had that same thought in mind -- that although he addressed the group as brethren -- that some in that group might not yet really be believers -- and those could be led astray and have a hardened heart?   Something to consider.

My Friend, you are so intent upon proving Bill Gray wrong -- that I believe you lose sight of the big picture.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

How very widely you again miss the mark, Bill. And if anyone is refusing to see the "big picture", it is Bill Gray.

The POINT is that Paul’s remarks were addressed to "holy brethren" to exhort them against "departing from the living God."   Is it likely that Paul considered himself to be addressing those who had never come to a saving relationship with God?  Can one depart from that which one never embraced?  Even if I should accept your assumption that both "holy brethren" and unsaved persons were included in those to whom he wrote (which I do not), I can not logically escape the fact that those "holy brethren" among Paul's readers, however many or few, had not, in Paul's understanding, departed from the Living God; that they were subjects of God's grace, but that it was nevertheless appropriate to warn them, for he. admonished them to, "Take heed, brethren ,lest there be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.  

Your presumptuous characterization of Paul's audience as a divided configuration--some saved and some unsaved--thus fails to deal honestly with the undeniable FACT that his warning was inclusive of all to whom he addressed it--and that "all" includes the "holy brethren", the "Christian believers.", whether or not it included any unsaved.

I note that you elected not to deal with my second issue, namely that in the sixth chapter of Hebrews, there are those described as having been “partakers of the Holy Ghost”, but who are said to become incapable of repentance should they “fall away.”  Thus, even though they. as with every Christian believer, had received the Holy Ghost as the “earnest of [their] inheritance” (Ephesians 1::14),  by their subsequent actions, they had “crucifi[ed] to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”  Your OSAS theology would find nothing in that rejection of the Savior that would place their souls in jeopardy, so ensnared are you in your embrace of the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance.  Think about it, Bill.  The scriptures confirm, without question, that a person who at one time received the Holy Ghost can indeed subsequently come to so self-willed an alienation of him/self from love and loyalty to Jesus Christ as to behave such that he “crucifi[ies] the Son of God afresh, and  put[s] him to an open shame.” To deny that,. Blll, in the face of the clear teaching of the inspired word, is not only quirky, twisted theology; it smacks of blasphemy, characterizing God’s soteriological relationship with man as something that it decidedly is not!

Contendah, my Friend,

If you walked into a church, any church in any city, to address them, I imagine you would begin be greeting them, "Brothers and sisters. . . "    Most folks would.

Do YOU honestly believe that every church is 100% true believers?   Are you that naive?   Well, neither was Paul.  Yet, he wanted to give them a Christian greeting, so he began by addressing them as "Brethren."

Yet, Paul shows that he was not as naive as you, for this is what we read:

12. Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.

13. But exhort one another daily,. While it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

14. For we have become partakers of Christif we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end....”

Seems that old Paul knew there were some sitting there who were just social seat-warmers.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

____

Bill,  It is transparently obvious that you have not at all addressed the issues I raised concerning your OSAS perspectives on the several verses I referenced.  I showed you why it mattered not at all whether the recipients of the Hebrews letter included some who were not saved.  The fact is that it most certainly included saved persons ("holy brethren") and that his advice was intended for them.  You utterly bypass the fact that one can not  depart "from the living God" unless one is first a child of that same living God. And you very obviously do not wish to deal with the argument I submitted to you relative to Hebrews 6, where certain  "partakers of the Holy Ghost" (and thus indisputable "Christian believers") are clearly contemplated by the writer as impossible of being renewed to repentance if they "fall away." Why would the inspired writer have described that kind of apostasy if it could not possibly happen?

Paul was not at all naive and neither am I.  It is your naivete', Bill, coupled with your your preconceived Calvinistic notion of perseverance, that impels you to dodge and weave and put up such shabby indefensible and failed "justification" for that OSAS nonsense.

Contendah, my Friend,

Must be because it is Monday that your thinking is so muddled.  First, you bring up the issue of Paul addressing folks as "brethren" when he addresses the local church fellowship.

When I address that issue, you switch gears, or whatever, and begin to sob, "Bill,  It is transparently obvious that you have not at all addressed the issues I raised concerning your OSAS perspectives"

My Friend, make up your mind which issue you want to address -- and we will discuss that issue.  But, I am sorry, I cannot see through your Herbert W. Armstrong muddled mind to know that when you write about Paul and "brethren" -- somewhere back in your mind you were really thinking about the issue of "eternal security."

So, when you clear your thinking so that we know which page you are on -- we can continue.

Bless your heart!

Bill

Bill, 

You are some kind  of drooling fool if you actually think that your silly "responses", above, in any way contribute meaningfully to the discussion.  You have inartfully, but transparently, dodged the very damaging points I made against your OSAS Calvinistic heresy.  Those following this thread can readily see that if you can not.  The obvious conclusion is that you are running away from any substantive discussion, having been whipped like a borrowed mule.

I am through with you on this one-way street of a discussion

Contendah, my Friend,

If you wanted to discuss "eternal security" -- you should have been more clear.  When you bring up the issue of Paul and "brethren" -- I have to assume that is what you want to discuss.

My Friend, it seems like you are pointing to the left -- and saying, "Turn right."

However, if you are truly interested in discussing "eternal security" -- why have you been ignoring the discussion I began on that subject three days ago?

Does the man speak with forked tongue -- or with muddled thinking?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill