Canon of Dort 1.4 - truth or fable?

 

Take a careful look. Is this a gospel truth?

Do you agree with this statement?

"The wrath of God abides upon those who believe not this gospel. But such as receive it and embrace Jesus the Saviour by a true and living faith are by Him delivered from the wrath of God and from destruction, and have the gift of eternal life conferred upon them."  Canon of Dort 1.4

May I inquire:
1. Those who have not been delivered from the wrath of God - are they capable of receiving and embracing Jesus the Saviour by a true and living faith? 

2. Those who have not been conferred with the gift of eternal life - are they capable of receiving and embracing Jesus the Saviour by a true and living faith? 
- Those whom God has not conferred the gift of eternal life, are they capable of exercising a true and living faith? 
- Those whom God has not conferred the gift of eternal life, are they capable of receiving and embracing Jesus the Saviour? 

"Except a man be born again... (except a man be conferred eternal life), he CANNOT... CANNOT... CANNOT... "

======

Comments

Ronny 
This statement is to dispute the 5-point claim of the Arminians.

Sing
So what exactly is the Arminian error refuted by this article 4?

Ronny
#4 is just a statement of faith

Sing 
But you said, "This statement is to dispute the 5-point claim of the Arminians."

That's why I inquired, which particular point of the 5-point claim of the Arminians is disputed by Canon 1, Article 4.

OK. If #4 is just a statement of faith, do you agree with the statement? Why or why not?

Ronny
As a statement of faith... I must say that I do agree.

Sing
Do you agree that the statement teaches that eternal life is CONFERRED UPON THEM that receive the gospel and embrace the Savior by a true and living faith, that is, the conferral of eternal life is CONDITIONED upon some activities of man?

Do you agree that the statement teaches that deliverance from the wrath of God and from destruction (I assume that eternal destruction is meant) is CONDITIONED upon man's act of receiving the gospel and embracing Jesus the Savior by a true and living faith?

Do you agree that the statement teaches, by necessary implication, that a man not yet conferred with eternal life, therefore STILL dead in trespasses and sins, is able to receive the gospel, AND embrace Jesus the Savior?

Do you agree that the statement teaches, by necessary implication, that a man not yet conferred with eternal life, therefore STILL dead in trespasses and sins, is capable of a true and living faith?

Please correct me if I have read the statement incorrectly.

Thank you.

Ronny
It is now past midnight here; I'll read the questions tomorrow and comment.

Noel
Embracing the Lordship of Christ is not mentioned.... therefore, it is not a gospel.
Correct me if i'm wrong

(DanDel has deleted his comments)

Sing
DanDel, you have a good point there! Thanks.

'... ARE DELIVERED... HAVE .... CONFERRED UPON THEM...' >> HAVE BEEN DELIVERED... HAVE BEEN CONFERRED.

Ronny
All I need to do is correct my first comment: it should read, "the entire canon of Dort is to dispute the 5 points of the Arminians". Secondly, for me, regeneration is monergistic ( God alone) and never synergistic.

Sing
Ronny, does the Holy Spirit need the preaching of the gospel to regenerate those dead in trespasses and sins?

The LORD hath a controversy with his people

"Hear ye now what the LORD saith; Arise, contend thou before the mountains, and let the hills hear thy voice. Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD’S controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel. O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me." Micah 6:1-3

Sing F Lau
We went through Micah 6 for our Wednesday evening church bible study.

What a frightening reality - God's people are capable of great evils. "My people are bent on backsliding..."

Jason Sides
Aww but greater still is his mercy to bring his children out of the cess pool of sin.

Sing F Lau
I fear very often God leaves His children to wallow in the cesspool of sins they have chosen for themselves!

I read this in the latter part of Micah 6:
13 Therefore also will I make thee sick in smiting thee, in making thee desolate because of thy sins.
14 Thou shalt eat, but not be satisfied; and thy casting down shall be in the midst of thee; and thou shalt take hold, but shalt not deliver; and that which thou deliverest will I give up to the sword.
15 Thou shalt sow, but thou shalt not reap; thou shalt tread the olives, but thou shalt not anoint thee with oil; and sweet wine, but shalt not drink wine.
16 For the statutes of Omri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab, and ye walk in their counsels; that I should make thee a desolation, and the inhabitants thereof an hissing: therefore ye shall bear the reproach of my people.

Every sin has BOTH its eternal consequences and temporal consequences.

Christ's work of redemption has saved us from sins' eternal judgment and condemnation. His work of redemption DOES NOT save us from temporal judgment and condemnation. Our own work of salvation (Phil 2:12) will save us from the temporal consequences of our sins.

God will scourge and chastise His children - they shall suffer the temporal consequences for their sins.

Sing F Lau
Many of God's children lived and died like their cousin Lot. Few live and die like their father Abraham!

Jason Sides
You should do a commentary on children of God who backslide and how to reconcile it with 1st John would be very interested in your thoughts.

Sing F Lau
Have you not read, "My people are bent on backsliding"?
What is 1st John saying to you?

Jason Sides
It is not what it says to me but everyone.

Sing F Lau
Yes, I meant what does 1John say?

Jason Sides
1st John 2:18-27 Warning and assurance 3:6-10.
My question is your commentary on how to reconcile the text listed above with the children of God who backslide.

Sing F Lau
I think there may be some serious misunderstanding!
1Jn 2:18-27 DOES NOT SPEAK of backsliding!
It speaks of the denying and rejecting of Christ - "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."

Those who are backslidden, they still profess Christ, they are still practising Christians, like so many claim in America, and around the world.

Your theology would probably have no place for such people among God's children and would conveniently pronounce them as counterfeit and false believers! That's one possible explanation.

To say that God's children SHOULD be fruitful (which is biblical)...

Is very different from saying that each and every child of God WOULD be fruitful (just man's wishful and legalistic idea)...

And to conclude that those who are not fruitful can't possibly be God's children at all (this is VERY injurious and presumptuous, and ignorant).

Everywhere in the Scriptures, God deals with His people and children in their sins! - ALL over the Scriptures.

I have preached through 1John twice in my nearly 20 years in the ministry. I do know something about the teaching of 1John, if I am not deceived.

Hold fast!

#holdfast

to hold fast - to keep secure, keep firm possession of.

Are you holding fast to these things?

Job 27:6
My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.

1Th 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

2Ti 1:13
Hold fast, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Heb 3:6
But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Heb 4:14
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

 Heb 10:23
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

Rev 2:25
But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

Rev 3:3
Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

What do you see - grasshoppers or giants?

What do you see, grasshoppers or giants?

 

What do you see, grasshoppers or giants?

Twelve men were sent to scout out the land promised repeatedly to the nation of Israel. They saw exactly the same land, but came to vastly different conclusions! (Num 13:26 - 14:10)

Majority report:
- Surely it flows with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.
- BUT the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great.
- We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.
- The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eats up the inhabitants.
- They saw the inhabitants as giants, and themselves as grasshoppers.

The Majority view betrays unbelief and rebellion against their LORD!

They would rather return to Egypt or remain where they are, instead of moving forward into the blessing the Lord intended for them!

Minority report:
a. Caleb: Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.
b. Joshua:
- If the LORD delight in us, then He will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey.
- Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us.
- Their defence is departed from them, and the LORD is with us: fear them not.

Minority view reflects faith in, and submission to the LORD's will for them!

Joshua's perspective is LORD-centred, not man-centred:
- "if the LORD delight in us..." that's all that counts, and matters!
- "only rebel not ye against the LORD..." that's what it amounts to! Unbelief is rebellion!
- "and the LORD is with us..." thus we are those giants that shall eat up the grasshoppers! (they shall be bread for us!)

What a man perceives is to a great extent determined by his faith in the LORD, and His word, or lack of it.

He who has eyes to see, let him see rightly.

======

 

Sing F Lau
Unbelief speaks from both sides of the same mouth:
- "Surely it flows with milk and honey" from right side, and "the land... is a land that eats up the inhabitants."

Unbelief speaks from both sides of the same mouth:
- "BUT the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great"... how could such be found in "a land that eats up the inhabitants"?

Dellis Worsham Sr.
Faith is not a confirmation of what we already see, it is believing in, what we have not yet seen.

Jerry Chapin
One of my favourite passages of Scriptures...there is so much here that are lessons for us today...Thanks for posting, Bro. Sing...

Sing F Lau
Spying has to do with the things that are seen... they saw a land flowing with milk and honey... a land the LORD has promised to give them. What they saw confirmed the LORD's word about the land.
It is their unbelief that imagined up the worst: a land that eats up the inhabitants, people as fearsome giants!

Sing F Lau
Faith is taking the LORD at His word!

Jerry Chapin
Amen!!!

Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated - popularly misunderstood

"Two nations are in thy womb,
and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels;
and the one people shall be stronger than the other people;
and the elder shall serve the younger."

 

#loved_n_hated
#jacob_n_esau

Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated

Romans 9
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Here is the historical event referred to in Genesis 25;
21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Q1. When did the election spoken of take place?

Q2. What was the election about, i.e. election unto what?

Q3. What did God do to Esau in that He "hated" Esau?

Q4. What did God do to Jacob in that He "loved" Jacob?

Note a few things stated in Romans 9:

i. "children not yet born":
- BUT ALREADY conceived in the womb when the said election took place... the preeminence of the younger over the elder!

ii. "... the purpose of God according to election might stand," even the election of Jacob over the firstborn Esau in the outworking of His redemptive purpose.
- divine purpose superseding the purpose of man, where the 1st born has the preeminence.
- This election has nothing to do with eternal salvation.

iii. "... the elder shall serve the younger"
- The end of that election is specifically stated: "the elder shall serve the younger"
- It is NOT that the elder was reprobated or bypassed in eternal salvation and the younger elected unto eternal salvation; the former is a popular fiction imagined by many.
- Those bypassed in the election unto eternal salvation were not hated in any sense.

iv. "Is there unrighteousness with God?"
- There is no unrighteousness with God in electing the younger to have preeminence over the firstborn!!!
- The purpose of God, according to election, might stand in spite of all the human scheming.