Conversion, Regeneration, and Justification

Head on collision: failure to distinguish between regeneration without means and conversion through gospel means

A brother posted this quote: "We are not born again by repentance or faith or conversion: we repent and believe because we have been born again." John Murray Nips Amen. This is certainly the true doctrine of regeneration. Childers amen,amen,amen,amen! Taillefer John 3 Sing F Lau We are born again by the FREE - FREE - FREE grace of God, i.e. without us meeting any condition whatsoever. And one is born again BECAUSE he has been JUSTIFIED BY GOD, bacause justification of life has taken place by God's FREE - FREE - FREE grace while he was in the state of condemnation and death, i.e God has applied the righteousness of Christ, giving the Holy Spirit the warrant to regenerate the dead. The Holy Spirit has no warrant to regenerate any whose condemnation has not been removed by God's work of justification. John Murray did not know the distinction between legal justification APPLIED by God's free grace, and the experiential justification by believer's faith. He confused the latter with the former. The order set out in his 'Redemption: Accomplished and Applied' contradicts that of the Scriptures, and that which is summarized in his doctrinal standard WCF. God justifies the UNGODLY, those in the state of sin and death. Faith justifies the believers, certifies, demonstrates, evidences that they are in the state of righteousness and eternal life! Johnson This is a logical sequence, not a chronological one. Sing F Lau Whether logical or chronological, justification APPLIED by God's free grace is ALWAYS prior to justification EXPERIENCED by believers faith. Justification applied takes place when God effectually calls an elect out of his state of sin and death in which he is by nature, to that of righteousness and eternal life. The effectual calling out of the state of sin and death REQUIRES justification (to remove condemnation, and give righteousness), regeneration (to removed death and give life), and adoption (to remove alienation, and made member of God's family) and the bestowal of the gift of the Spirit to dwell in the child of God. All these are simultaneous in the effectual call to righteousness and life, but in that logical order, and all by the FREE - FREE - FREE grace of God. With all the above completed by free grace... faith become possible... leading to experiential justification by faith... as in Gen 15:1-6. There is imputation of Abraham's faith in Gen 15:1-6. There is NO legal imputation nor personal application of Christ's righteousness in Gen 15:16. Johnson A distinction needs to be made between a logical sequence and a chronological sequence. How many regenerated, but unbelieving folk, do you think there are walking around in this world? Regeneration is not the effect of conversion but the logical cause. However, should we suppose that one can be born again and not believe? Regeneration and faith/conversion happens as a "packet" and are not to be separated in time. When God turns the wheel, all the spokes turn at once. Taillefer They can upon regeneration look upon the cross with the eyes of faith and belief. At that moment, they receive the King whom they formerly rejected. God gives them power/ability to receive by the new birth, being born of God. Nips Amen, Trevor and Rick. The idea that God regenerates people and they do not believe and repent as an immediate fruit of that new life is simply HYPER-Calvinism and unbiblical. Johnson The John Murray quote IS technically correct, if applied logically and not temporally. But many Calvinists, in an effort to stress monergism and divine sovereignty, fall for this error. Another frequent error that some - in a zeal to promote God's sovereignty - fall into is the belief that God regenerates without the use of means. But the truth is that God uses means (i.e., the instrumentality of the Word of God): 'Ye are clean through the word I have spoken to you, John 15:3 Of his own will begot he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.—James 1:18. ........But that is a topic for another time..... Sing F Lau I am trying to get something so simple and basic across... but I am not sure if I can. Can you imagine regeneration LOGICALLY prior to justification... eternal life is given PRIOR to the imputation of righteousness leading to justification unto life? "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Sin brings the condemnation of death, and righteousness is necessary for the justification of life. The imputation of righteousness leading to justification of life is necessary for and LOGICALLY prior to regeneration. Justification by faith that follows regeneration is experiential in nature. Faith justifies a believer that heis indeed a child of God, possessing eternal life. God justifies a condemned dead sinner by forgiving him all his sins and applying to him personally the righteousness of Christ. The two aspect of justification are very different. Sing F Lau Trevor@ "Regeneration and faith/conversion happens as a "packet" and are not to be separated in time. " Does Abraham fit in? Does Cornelius fit in? Does Lydia fit in? And what about Ethiopian eunuch? And those devout God-fearing Jews who came to Jerusalem from and were CONVERTED on the day of Pentecost? Were they ALREADY regenerated, or were they still in their state of condemnation and death? Were their conversion and their regeneration separated with SOME substantial time in between? Were they regenerated through the means of the gospel ministry? Or were they regenerated long before the gospel ministry was brought to them for their CONVERSION? I am just inquiring to understand what you have said. Johnson Yes, they all fit in. There are no regenerated people walking around who are not yet converted. Sing F Lau You stated that regeneration and faith/conversion are not separated in time - therefore simultaneous. Was Cornelius regenerated before Apostle Peter came and converted him with the gospel ministry? Was the Ethiopian eunuch regenerated before Phillip was sent to convert him with the gospel ministry? Does a natural man fear God and worship Him? Sing F Lau Trevor @"Another frequent error that some - in a zeal to promote God's sovereignty - fall into is the belief that God regenerates without the use of means. But the truth is that God uses means (i.e., the instrumentality of the Word of God):' ======== Take this statement to heart and consider its implication if what you claim is true: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." First, take note of the declaration: "so is EVERY ONE that is born of born." So, there is one same way of regeneration for EVERY ONE, and the one same way is true of every one that is born of God. (If means is requires, then some elect are beyond the reach of this means. So this idea is obviously ruled out! It is just that simple!) Second, take note of the fact the when, where and how strong the wind blows IS ABSOLUTELY independent of the activities of man. It is not conditioned upon anything man is or can contribute. Every farmer knows this fundamental fact... sadly only a few preachers do. Third, man can only observe the effect and evident that the wind has blown... preachers can observe the effect of the activities of the Spirit of God through the means of the gospel ministry, but he has no role whatsoever in the regenerating activity of the sovereign Spirit of God. Preachers observe the effects and evidence of the regenerating activity of God if the gospel ministry administered by him locates faith in the midst of his hearers. The gospel ministry is the means divinely appointed for bringing to light, make manifest, draws out the faith that is worked in the child of God by the indwelling Spirit. God does use means in the CONVERSION of His children. And please, only God's children can be converted to the truth through the means of the gospel. The dead can't be converted! God DOES NOT require or uses means in the regeneration of those dead in trespasses and sins. He does this immediately, and without means. This ALONE guarantees that EVERY ELECT will be regenerated and be made fit for eternal glory! Sing F Lau Trevor@ "There are no regenerated people walking around who are not yet converted." ===== This may sound very strange to you, but mull and chew over it slowly. It is precisely that there are regenerated people walking around who are NOT yet converted that need to be converted that the gospel ministry was instituted for such purpose. There was the regenerated devout God-fearing Jews on the day of Pentecost that needed to be converted, there was the regenerated Ethiopian eunuch riding around on his chariot that needed to be converted; there was the regenerated Italian Cornelius that needed to be converted. The gospel ministry is the means divinely instituted to MAKE DISCIPLES of God's children, whom He, by His free and sovereign grace and will, has begotten (John 1:13). As I said, it may sound strange to you... but mull and chew on it... Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, whom he described as saints and beloved of God... yet the Apostle said that he has the great urgency and indebtedness to preach the gospel to them! Did you notice this simple fact? They have not heard the gospel, and they need to hear the gospel.... but they are already 'saints and beloved of God' even though they have not heard the gospel, and Apostle Paul was in great urgency to bring the gospel to them. Just mull and chew over this thought... please don't get choked over this grain of rice. Wiebe Sing, how long (time frame) do you believe it takes from being regenerated to being converted as you put it? correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that from your last comment that it could be or is an extended period of time between the two. Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God. John 3:16. does this not contradict your statement of Christians being "begotten"? I might be chewing, but I am not swallowing the explanation. Johnson Sing, you are getting election and regeneration confused. Election is from eternity past. Regeneration happens at a point in time. God ordained to regenerate the Elect from all eternity; but he did not due so until the appointed moment in time. Sing F Lau Elmer@ 'Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God. John 3:16. does this not contradict your statement of Christians being "begotten"?" ===== This will answer you adequately: 1Jo 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God in the sense described in Luke 1:35. He was the eternal Word made flesh - the ONLY begotten of God. The elect are begotten of God, born of Him in regeneration. Sing F Lau Wiebe@ Sing, how long (time frame) do you believe it takes from being regenerated to being converted as you put it? correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that from your last comment that it could be or is an extended period of time between the two. ======== We don't know how long... but it is certain from the narrative of those converted, they were regenerated before their conversion were recorded for us. Consider that of the devout god-fearing Jews "out of every nation under heaven" that were gathered at Jerusalem; the Ethiopian eunuch, the Italian Cornelius, etc, etc. How long was Cornelius a devout God-fearing man, prayed to God always" - before Apostle Peter was sent to convert him to the gospel truth? I don't know. If you need to know, do a research. I take it that ONLY a regenerated man can be a devout man, fearing God, and prays to God always. How long has Lydia gathered by the riverside to worship and pray to God before Apostle Paul was instrumental in her conversion? I don't know. I take it that Lydia must be a regenerated woman before she could worshipped and prayed to God. Sing F Lau Johnson@ "Sing, you are getting election and regeneration confused. Election is from eternity past. Regeneration happens at a point in time." What did I say that make you conclude that I confused them? Election is indeed from eternity - before the elect existed. Regeneration is indeed at God's approved and appointed time. I didn't talk about election. I talked about regeneration and conversion, both in time! It is more likely that you are confused about regeneration and conversion! Regeneration is ALWAYS logically and chronologically prior to conversion - even in the closest case possible. Just imagine the best scenario... A preacher is preaching. Preaching - reasoning, demonstrating and persuading the hearers of the gospel truth takes time, hearing takes time, understanding takes time... (and surely ONLY those who are ALREADY regenerated are able to hear and discern spiritual things... and hearing, understanding, being persuaded and turning around take time... these do not happen instantaneously, do they? ). There is a time frame between regeneration and conversion... some very long, others shorter. John@ "God ordained to regenerate the Elect from all eternity; but he did not due so until the appointed moment in time." I am talking about regeneration and conversion in time... that regeneration is always CHRONOLOGICALLY prior to regeneration. Just look at all those cases of conversion recorded in the Scriptures. Look at their lives before conversion - were they still dead in trespasses and sins, or they giae evidence of born again, and needed to be converted to the gospel truth? Wiebe @ Lau I am not disputing that regeneration takes place prior to faith, but I have been led to believe that the time factor is almost simultaneously while still keeping the order of salvation. Wiebe @ Sing in the 1 John 5:18, it is only the KJV that uses the "begotten" term. the rendering is "born of God", but we know Jesus was not born of God: He was not regenerated like us. Nipps @ Sing...In reference to John 3... Do you think that the wind blows and then days or months later the leaves or grass move??? The grass and leaves (elect) immediately are moved by the wind (spirit). Sing F Lau @Nipps... a valid rhetorical question, but quite misguided! Such a question misses the whole point of the illustration, beside taking the illustration in the wrong literal sense! The point of the illustration is that the wind blows INDEPENDENT of man's presence and activity, i.e. the Spirit's work of regeneration is FREE, SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT of human mean and activities. The wind DOES NOT wait until someone is there to observe the effects of its activities. (According to some, unless there are men standing under the tree, the wind can't and won't blow!) In spiritual term, the way appointed to discern the regenerating activity of the Spirit is to preach the gospel. If there are faith and repentance, then it is evidenced that the Holy Spirit has worked... then you are seeing 'the leaves or grass move' expect in your rhetorical question - a point which the illustration DOES NOT deal with. The effects of the Spirit's work of regeneration can ONLY BE OBSERVED or BROUGHT TO light through the gospel ministry. "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." The passage states plainly, that life and immortality - the effects of the regeneration work of the Spirit based on the finished work of Christ - are brought to light through the gospel. The gospel ministry is the means to bring to light life and immortality that ARE ALREADY there. The gospel ministry CANNOT bring to light what is NOT ALREADY there! It is not the means to bring life and immortality. That's a devil's lie! Imagine you turning the light in a dark room. Your turning on the light make manifest the furniture that are already there. Your turning on the light DID NOTHING to bring the furniture into the room! Sing F Lau Wiebe@"I am not disputing that regeneration takes place prior to faith, but I have been led to believe that the time factor is almost simultaneously..." The 'almost simultaneous' idea is due to the false idea that regeneration conditioned upon the instrumental means of gospel ministry... i.e gospel regeneration. That is a popular, and common error. Conversion of God's children (elect that are regenerated) is conditioned upon the instrumental means of gospel ministry. 'Faith comes by hearing.' I fear too many believe 'eternal life comes by hearing'! You can keep your 'simultaneous' belief. I will keep to the biblical examples that show regeneration is direct and immediate, without the gospel ministry, and the various substantial time laps between the regeneration and the conversion of an elect of God through the gospel means some time later. Sing F Lau Wiebe, I don't know what is the issue concerning 1Jn 5:18. Can you please explain? Here is 1John 5:18 "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." 'Born' and 'begotten' in the passage above have the same root word in Greek. Christ is the only begotten Son. Perhaps you draw the conclusion that, therefore there are no other begotten beside the one begotten Son. Then we have forgotten the one cardinal rule of interpretation: context. context. context. Christ is begotten in a different sense then the elect are begotten. We need to give attention to the SENSE, not SOUND.
  ===== The exchanges end abruptly here...

Who are the 'sons of God' in Gen 6?

What do you see - an old woman or a young lady?

Who are the 'sons of God' in Gen 6:2"
Some say they are godly Sethites.
Others say they are fallen angels
who trespassed into the habitation of man,
with its consequent devastating corruption, and destruction.

6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when MEN - MEN - MEN began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the SONS OF GOD - SONS OF GOD - SONS OF GOD saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
===========

Cullig posted his thought, and the following exchanges took place. Put on your thinking cap and enjoy yourself.

Cullig
My understanding of the implications of Genesis 6 is that the Sons of God went a whoring after women that had different facial and bodily features which they found attractive. Either that or all the Sons of God women were just plain ugly. Then God said, I will destroy the world in 120 years!
Welch
‎"Sons of God" is the elect. "Daughters of Men" is the reprobate. The church intermarried with the lost. This is the OT counterpart to 2 Cor 6.14, of course, IMHO.

Cart
I've seen 100 different interpretations of that verse. What does McAtee say about it?

Welch
Analogy of Faith, brother, analogy of faith.

Moes
Then there's the rather remarkable theory that the "sons of God" were angels (cf. Job 1:6)— in this case, fallen angels — who married human women and produced a super-race (Nephalim). According to this theory, these supermen (half angel, half human) were disembodied in the flood, and that the disembodied spirits are the demons often mentioned in Scripture and which seek to possess human bodies even today. (Also possibly identified as the gods of the Greek and Roman pantheon). This theory posits that this is why the demons expelled by Jesus from a possessed man insisted on their need to inhabit other creatures, and were sent into pigs. Not saying I buy this theory, but it's a curious notion, for sure.

Welch
‎"Curious" to say the least, Garry.

Isaacson
A small correction to @Garry: when the demons were disembodied at the flood, they were imprisoned. These are the ones Christ confronted in 1Pe 3:19-20. The purpose of the demons intermarrying with humans was to prevent the Christ, as promised in Gen 3:15, from entering the world and bringing salvation. If demonic blood had bred through the entire race of man, Christ would have had to die for sinners and demons. This was why God had to destroy the world with a flood.

Ward
Steven, you have the correct and only scriptural understanding of this passage. Unfortunately this is also a reoccurring theme throughout the bible. we see it in esau, in the prophet balaam, samson, solomon, ahab, and on to the nicolaitans in the revelation. the daughters of people with a pagan world view are the "easy to get" girls

Welch
I am sorry, but the entire "theory" is ridiculous, has no scriptural connection nor support. Neither demons nor angels have "sex" or gender. Further neither angels nor demons are corporeal. They might accidentally appear corporeally, but they are spirits. Spirits do not reproduce by natural generation. There is no such thing as "demon blood" unless you are referring to the blood that courses though all fallen human veins as "demonic" since the Fall scarred or marred every aspect of our being. Hence we already had "demonic" blood, so to speak. There is so much of the gospel to talk about, and believers waste their time in dunder-headed eisegesis, when they cannot even apply simple hermeneutic principles like the analogy of faith. The Bible is narrative. It's symbolism is consistent. It's message is consistent, and we never interpret simple passages in light of hard ones. It is always the other way around. We also do not interpret didactic passages in light of historical ones. It is, again, ALWAYS, the other way around. That Scripture is difficult to interpret in a few instances, I do not protest, but to argue over nonsense that has not the smallest iota of application to the gospel of God is bad stewardship of a precious resource. Moreover, God has decreed the eternal damnation of demons in eternity past. These theorists honestly believe that demons, I mean, demons, really could frustrate the plan and purpose of the Almighty? Yes, it's as irrational as saying that a human could do it too, I know, and I guess many say that all the time.

Moes
Dean: not sure that's actually a "correction." Nothing in scripture indicates exactly what form the "imprisonment" took or where they were "imprisoned." The "imprisonment" could have been any form of restriction on their activities imposed by God. There are, of course, a number of plausible interpretations of I Peter 3:19-20. R.C. Sproul cites four briefly in his notes on 3:19 in the Reformation Study Bible. The third one says "...that Christ proclaimed His victory to fallen angels,often identified with the 'sons of God' of Gen. 6:2,4 (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1), in their place of confinement."

Welch
If I might hearken back to my Baptist roots: AMEN, Lindsey. Worldly women are easy, and being a man, I know just how easy it is for "sons" to stray to them. You are also correct that it is a recurring theme. It is on almost every page. God is most concerned about adultery of all kinds, especially when it is part of religious practice. The recurring theme in the Seven Churches in Revelation is sexual immorality in the context of worship of pagan gods - hence breaking the First and Second Great Commandments or Table 1 and Table 2 of the Law. It is betrayal of the highest order. Why even the Golden Calf was a fertility idol!

Sing F Lau
Friends, you would agree that the universal flood must be a judgment against something VERY and REALLY serious.

Do you seriously believe that mixed-marriage is the cause that brought forth such severe and universal judgment upon the human from the Lord of heaven?

Is it not possible that we are just reading a MUCH MUCH later issue back into Genesis 6? When was it first divinely legislated that mix-marriage was wrong?

If mixed marriage was such the great evil that called forth that universal judgment, then it would have been very reasonable to expect at least a CLEAR and UNMISTAKABLE warning and prohibition against mixed marriage.

Jude said, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

What is Jude speaking of? Think a bit please.

Just asking, and wanting to learn.

Isaacson
‎@Garry - Fallen angels are not yet imprisoned. The Bible tells us that Hell was created for Satan and his angels. This is at the end of time - they are still at work on the earth. The angels in prison, whom Jesus testified that He had come to save man, were those who left their estate and co-mingled with men.

@Steven - of course, it is impossible for demons to frustrate God's plan. But they try. Lucifer tried - and that is how he fell. Mankind tries to rebuild the Tower of Babel in every generation and even David noted in Psalm 2 that the nations rage against God. God's plan cannot be frustrated no matter who attempts to rise up against Him.

Keep your sanitary theory. You don't have to believe like me about this to be saved. I believe the story of the Nephilim is in the Bible for a reason and I believe Peter took note that Christ announced His victory to the demons that tried to thwart God's plan for a reason. And I try to keep my Scriptural understanding Biblical - not sanitary.

Sing F Lau
What are these two verses saying?
2Pet 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;... See More

Why are the angels spoken of in verse 4 connected with the destruction of the old world spoken of in the next verse?

And how is 2Pet 2:3 related with Jude 6?

I would be pleased to hear some sober thoughts. Thanks.

Welch
Sing, please define what you mean by "mixed" marriage. Let me clarify that I am not making any statement whatsoever about race; I am, on the other hand, certainly saying that God has always forbidden his children from marrying pagans - period. The only recurring theme in Genesis 6.1-8 is intermarriage of the just with the unjust - and the consequences thereof: "...every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time" (v. 5). There is the "cause" of the Flood: the pervasive wickedness of humanity, both male and female. Time and time again the prophets and the apostles tell God's people not to intermarry with reprobates, and the injunction is to men and women. The elect children of God must never intermarry with the lost because over and over again, the results of such intermarriage is the temporal, if only temporary, triumph of paganism. The scripture is especially harsh on elect men who marry pagan women and father children to them, who then are raised by the pagan women to worship pagan gods because fathers and husbands are notorious abdicators all the way back to Adam. Again, I repeat. The only way to interpret the Bible is from the Bible, and the only way to interpret a hard passage is in light of the easy ones. There is no "reading back into anything." The Bible is an organic whole and must be read as such. Again, it is the analogy of faith.

Isaacson
‎@Steven - you sound like you have been to Bible school or seminary. Not that these are necessarily bad. But I would challenge you to dig into the Scripture without your preconceived theories. We all want the Bible to be explainable, sanitary and acceptable. Faith tells us we have to believe what God said and what He wrote regardless how far fetched and unacceptable it sounds.

@Sing - you raise good questions. I rest my case upon them.

Isaacson
Also would like to say, not all things can be fully explained. We do not know why God has designed or allowed history as it is - we only know He has designed it all for His glory and that glory will be revealed in the end.

Sing F Lau
Steven @ "Further neither angels nor demons are corporeal. They might accidentally appear corporeally, but they are spirits."
====
Read Gen 19, the angels that visited Lot, and dined with his family, and of whom the men of Sodom lusted after. Those angel did become REAL men. Lot saw them as men, and treated them as men.

It is true, the first and native estate of the angels, whether elect or fallen, is in the spirit realm. But there were angels who kept not their first estate, but left their OWN habitation. They transgressed and trespassed into a habitation not their own... that of the human habitation... and that happened in Gen 6.

And concerning those angels, Jude spoke thus, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." This does not applies to all the fallen angels... but only those that were involved in Gen 6.

I am ready and genuinely opened for a better interpretation, if there is one.

Welch
Dean, there is absolutely nothing sanitary about the Bible. There is also nothing sanitary about an interpretation that does not rely on hard to interpret passages and rests solely on a "purpose" component that is fabricated in the theorists mind and imposed upon the text in the first place. Every word of scripture is the subject of verbal and plenary inspiration. I did not say that Peter referred to the flood without purpose. I simply am reading the text plainly and by analogy to other didactic scripture and not in light of another more difficult historical passage. Both Peter and Jude's points were primarily ethical and soteriological and had far more to do with the Triumph of Christ on the Cross, a theme that is repeated over and over again in scripture in less controversial passages. There is undoubtedly spiritual warfare going on in the world, and I do not protest the existence and activity of Satan and his cohorts, but admonitions in reference to their activity are at their core, ethical, as is the lion's share of scripture. The pivotal passage in Peter's epistles is "Be Holy as I am Holy." His entire message was an ethical one. I thank God, nonetheless, that you are right about none of these passages, nor their interpretation, being necessary for salvation, even if your "sanitary" pot shot was offensive.

Sing F Lau
Steven T. Welch @ Sing, please define what you mean by "mixed" marriage.
======
In context, what else but the godly marry the ungodly??????

Isaacson
‎@Steven - Sorry if you thought sanitary was a pot shot. But it is what you appear to be doing, which is consistent with a reliance upon formal educational theories and preset filters when interpreting Scripture.

Sing F Lau
Think about this:
When the angelic beings took on humanity and became 'sons of God' in Gen 6, they brought destruction.

A damning counterfeit brought a universal corruption and condemnation!

When the eternal Word took on humanity, the only begotten 'Son of God' brought redemption of His people.

If God had not intervened, Satan would have triumphed.

Moes
Angels and demons aside, Steven's commentary about the evils of marriage between believers and unbelievers is critically important and should be heeded without exception. I would extend that to "dating" as well, since "dating" involves relationship and is designed to lead to marriage. And even if marriage is not being contemplated by the "daters," the temptations that usually accompany dating too easily put unequally yoked companions into a forbidden place.

Sing F Lau
The common and popular 'mixed-marriage' view fails to grapple with a simple fact: can mixed-marriage possibly produced such universal corruption stated in Gen 6?

Look around now - NOT even ALL the marriages among ALL the ungodly heathens down through ALL the ages has produced any effect close to that described in Gen 6.

Hello, BIG problem needs a REAL and credible explanation! Mix-marriage was not a problem then! It is just imagined and read into the text. The Bible plainly say something else, not mixed marriage between the godly and the ungodly.

(Don't make the same error that Obama made - he thinks USA's humongous deficit is caused by China's yuan!)

Sing F Lau
Gary @'the evils of marriage between believers and unbelievers is critically important and should be heeded without exception."
=========
Three hearty amens.
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?

good nite.

Welch
‎@Dean: Standing on the shoulders of over 2000 years of interpretation by others far more godly and far more knowledgeable about these things than I is not sanitary nor the consequence of a pre-set filter. It is a healthy appreciation for my own shortcomings. Thanks for adding insult to injury. Again, I will repeat: the analogy of faith is all that is required in the context.

@Sing: I am rather confused about where you get your definition of "sons of God." Are you able to point to any other place in scripture where "sons of God" carries the meaning you ascribe to it in this passage? I think not. "Sons of God" consistently and throughout scripture refers to God's people, whoever makes up that class. Nowhere does it refer to fallen angels or any other class of beings. Furthermore, there is no NT authority for an analogy between supposed fallen angels and Christ's work of redemption in the connection that you are proposing. Christ was not the second fallen angel. He was, however, the Second Adam, the first having been the one who brought destruction upon humanity.

Gentlemen, if we are to continue this discussion, it must be off Kerry's post. G'day, mates.

Isaacson
‎@Sing - true. In fact, Paul addresses mixed marriage in 1Co 7. He tells the believing spouse not to leave the unbelieving spouse if they do not want to part. If it was such a terrible sin, why did not Paul tell them to get out of that marriage as soon as possible?

@Garry - It is important for believers not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. However, failing that, as Sing said, it does not produce such universal corruption as stated in Gen 6.

Thus, it is not likely that God destroyed the world by flood because the "believers" were marrying "unbelievers." It had to be something greater than that - something unsanitary and hard to accept. But it may also be hard to accept that God designed all this for a reason. It was God who designed the fall of Lucifer; it was God who designed the creation of man; it was God who designed that His Son, Christ, would die for man and that He designed this before the creation of the world. But this we know, God will triumph - even if the whole world disbelieves - and He alone will be glorified in the end!!! Amen.

Isaacson
‎@Steven - this view you hold is not 2000 years old. It is more recent than that. It is obvious Peter and Jude held to the belief that fallen angels had corrupted the world and early church father attest to this view. You stand on the shoulders of a weak doctrine that relies upon sanitizing the Scripture to be acceptable. Sorry - this is not meant to belittle.

Ward
sing,mixed marriage between sons of God and daughters of men does cause the break down of societal order. Back in the pre flood time there was no established civil order like we see after the flood.the pre flood world was destroyed because of the thoughts of man's heart was continually on evil. you can see the break down of the family because of this in the lives of esau, and samson.
first the son of God is seduced by the daughter of men his personal morality and holiness is undermined.
second parental authority and dignity is forgotten.
third the children have their affections torn between one parent or the other leading to a descent into skepticism,and relativism
fourth after a few generations of this society is not worth attempting to save it.
fifth This is why god after the flood gave the death penalty,as well as the means to carry it out it would now by done by men's hands.
sixth the implementation of state governments after the tower incident

Ward
dean are you asserting that fallen angels had physical contact with men and women and that of a sexual nature ,and that offspring were the result?

Miller
Steven's interpretation of Genesis 6 has always resonated with me. To proscribe interracial marriage from this passage seems like a stretch.

That said, is God's declaration that the creation bring forth after its own kind a statement of fact or a moral imperative? Is our Maker claiming His proper glory for the institution of family generally, or is He dictating the precise makeup of the families we are to cultivate with His image? The hubris that precipitated the building of Babel, during a time in which all the world was "one," would seem to champion the perpetuation of our separate physical and tribal traits as the more conservative tack.

Scriptural debates aside, the night-and-day differences in cultural output and civilization between northerners and equatorials should be enough to dissuade the former from miscegenating with the latter. We benefit not only our children, but the broader community by seeking to improve the intelligence and temperament of its members.

SeppiF
Whenever the people of God choose marriage based on appearance over godliness there is judgment. It happens in Genesis and when the Children of Israel were going into Canaan. Throughout Israel's history people came into the covenant and became Jews, even into the line of Christ. "Foreign women" were outside the covenant and would lead their husbands after foreign gods. ~Regina

Cullig
I liked this in addition Regina:

"Genesis makes it clear that in marriage the wife is to be the helpmate of the husband, to "mirror" him. So when we have Paul in 2 Corinthians 6 speaks of not being unequally yoked, this not only absolutely precludes a Believer from marrying an Unbeliever is also goes deeper than that. Being unequally yoked would also preclude the vast majority of marriages that involve unequal ages (17 year old to a 90 year old), unequal languages or cultures (a Russian peasant women to an English Prince), unequal races/ethnic groups (African to Chinese), or major differences in worldviews (high Anglican to Pentecostal) as any of these differences would prevent the two fully becoming one, preventing them from being helpmates, and cause great strife and thus defeat the purpose of marriage.

Ever since God divided Mankind into Nationalities in Genesis 11, He has wanted mankind remain within the Ethnic boundaries He has created (Acts 17:26).

In Genesis 24 Abraham sent for a wife for Isaac from among his blood kin even though she was not a Believer.

In Deuteronomy 23 the offspring of those Israelites who intermarried with foreigners were forbidden to partake in the national life of Israel.

In Ezra 10 God commands the Israel to divorce their foreign wives and sent them and their children by them away, quite serious considering how God hates divorce.

Additionally in Tobit 3:12-13 (a book of the Apocrypha, less authoritative but still important) it calls not marrying within your own People hatred of them.

""Be on your guard, son, against every form of immorality, and above all, marry a woman of the lineage of your forefathers. Do not marry a stranger who is not of your father's tribe, because we are sons of the prophets. My boy, keep in mind Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers from of old: all of them took wives from among their own kinsmen and were blessed in their children. Remember that their posterity shall inherit the land.

Therefore, my son, love your kinsmen. Do not be so proudhearted toward your kinsmen, the sons and daughters of your people, as to refuse to take a wife for yourself from among them. For in such arrogance there is ruin and great disorder."~ Nathaniel Strickland

Cullig
‎"So it would appear that the covenantal Sethites ultimately disobeyed God Who had separated the godless Cainites from them -- so that the Sethites could serve the Lord.31 The Sethites disobeyed and displeased God by terminating their separation, by allowing themselves to be seduced by the good looks of the godless Cainite women -- by biologically integrating with them in acts of sexual intercourse between the two breeds of men. The result of such activity, was a morally degenerate and hybrid breed of men who filled the Earth with violence, until God exterminated then in the death sentence of the Great Noachic Flood."~ Rev. Prof. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf

Sing F Lau
Ward@sing,mixed marriage between sons of God and daughters of men does cause the break down of societal order.
=====
The six effects you mentioned are true... but if you equate them to what you read in Gen 6, you fail to appreciate the MAGNITUDE of the issue in Gen 6. You read this? "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." And you think the mixed-marriage is adequate to explain what happened?

If it was just godly men marrying heathen women that was involved, why hadn't the marriage between heathen men and heathen women produced that long before that?

And don't forget this simple declaration: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

I would think the mixed marriage would actually have some POSITIVE retraining effect.

And why take 'sons of God' in such a way that (i.e. as godly men of the godly line) and then laid upon their shoulder some ungodly evil (if mixed-marriage was an evil then) that brought untold destruction upon the whole earth? Why accept such massive contradiction and inconsistencies in order to keep some tradition?.

No one seems to be dealing honestly those Scriptures already mentioned. Please tell, what did Jude refer to in these words, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Thanks

Ward
jude, is telling us that gods judgement on sin is universal over all his creation both heaven and earth. I hope you do not think that i minimized the impact recorded in Genesis 6
besides every thing produces after its own kind and angels or devils do not reproduce sexually or other wise.

see the first verse of Genesis 6 men were multiplying on the earth lots of both men and women. women of ill repute are easier to have than godly women . they are dificult to hold as hosea found out

as for 1 cor the marriage bed is not an evangelistic tool,but the pattern is true of all scripture those who bless gods people will be blessed themselves

Sing F Lau
Ward, may be I can assist you in telling us what Jude 6 says.

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Please answer these questions for me... deal with Scriptures please. Don't just read private opinions into God's word. These are simple enough questions.

What is the first estate of the angels mentioned?

When did those angels that kept not their first estate left their own habitation?

What happened when they left their own habitation? Where did their go having left their own habitation?

Where, in the Scriptures, is this departure from their first estate recorded, if is it indeed recorded at all?

Where did Jude get his information about those angels that kept not their first estate but left their own habitation?

Were all fallen angels involved in departure?

Were all fallen angels reserved by God in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day?

Simple questions demand plain answers.

Now, please tell us what Jude 6 says. And tell us what 2Pet 2:4.

Please deal with Scriptures. Personal opinions are irrelevant. Thanks.

Sing F Lau
Ward @ 'besides every thing produces after its own kind and angels or devils do not reproduce sexually or other wise'
=====

That is ONLY true when each keep to their first estate, the estate of God's appointment. It is no longer true when a c...reated entity leave its own habitation, against their divinely appointed habitation, and trespassed into another.

Read Jude 6 again without glasses. Why were those angels reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day'?

Sing F Lau
Gen 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,"
=====
This is a general description of the human race multiplying themselves, in faithful obedience to the divine command ...to be fruitful and multiply. Sons and daughters were born to them read the constant refrain of 'and begat sons and daughters' throughout Gen 5.

The noun 'men' most certainly embraced all men, i.e. of both the so called godly line and the ungodly line. It would be very silly to take Gen 6:1 as saying that only the WICKED were multiplying on the surface of the earth, and they produced only daugthers, and the godly sethites men lusted after those heathen women.

The noun 'sons of God' is most certainly used in distinction from 'men'. There is clear biblical precedent in early revelation that the term 'sons of God' referrs to angelic being.

'And daughters were born to them' - 'them' refers back to 'men', BOTH men of the sethite line and non-sethite line. Daughters were born to both lines.

Only 'daughters' are mentioned. This is NOT because SONS were not born to them. This is because ONLY daughters are relevant to what follows.

Daughters of the sethites and of the heathens were all involved with the 'sons of God'.

The issue involved in Gen 6 involved something FAR SERIOUS than mixed-marriage! Read it and let the passage says what it says.

Sing F Lau
Ward@ 'as for 1 cor the marriage bed is not an evangelistic tool,but the pattern is true of all scripture those who bless gods people will be blessed themselves'
======
Who say anything about 1Cor being an evangelistic tool? You have gone off... the subject.

1Cor 7:14 debunks the common idea that mixed-marriage is what caused the situation in Gen 6. That's the point.

Pointing out 1Cor 7:14 is NOT the same as approving mixed-marriage. Heaven forbids! But to explain Gen 6 and say mixed marriage brought about that exceedingly evil situation is just glaringly inadequate - have ZIL biblical support.

Ward
sing@you have not understood my answers.your hypothesis denies the creator/creature distinction.You assume that beings can change themselves ontologically when you claim that angels can become sexual creatures , and then you suggest that they can reproduce with mankind which is a totally different type of being.this is as absurd is thinking that a man can impregnate a tree.

When did those angels that kept not their first estate left their own habitation?
bible does not say when this happened,but most believe it was some time prior to the temptation in the garden for we know that the devil had rebelled.however it is slightly possible that the temptation of eve was his first act of rebellion and that all the fallen angels rebelled shortly there after.the bible does not say when it just says it did.

What happened when they left their own habitation? Where did their go having left their own habitation?
it is obvious that some are here on earth but they are not physical so this is not really answerable with out an anthropomorphism

Where, in the Scriptures, is this departure from their first estate recorded, if is it indeed recorded at all? jude 6?

Where did Jude get his information about those angels that kept not their first estate but left their own habitation?

all scripture is given by inspiration of God

Were all fallen angels involved in departure? all fallen angels departed.

whether this happened all at once or one by one it does not say.the assumption is that it was a massive rebellion.

Were all fallen angels reserved by God in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day?

yes they are,God knows exactly where they all are and they are all condemned and they know there is an appointed time .they may even know when this time is as the legion in the gadreiean demoniac said to Jesus have you come to torment us before the time.that raises lots of questions

Simple questions demand plain answers. the questions you are asking are hardly simple,but they are answerable

Now, please tell us what Jude 6 says. And tell us what 2Pet 2:4.
you know what it says the question is what does it mean is different for the answer you need to consider the context vs 6 is not a stand alone verse in this respect as in context it is dealing with the judgement of God on unbelief and sexual immorality and the two are very closely related see the context in which the statement is made.look at the word lewdness etc

Jud 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Jud 1:4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God [fn] and our Lord Jesus Christ.
grace is perverted and changed to lewdness denying God

Jud 1:5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

unbelief brings damnation

Jud 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

angels not exempt from the demands of faith and faithfulness

Jud 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

the destruction of Sodom an example of the wrath to come

Jud 1:8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.

Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.

Jud 1:11 Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah

Please deal with Scriptures. Personal opinions are irrelevant. Thanks

not going to exegete the whole thing for you it is pretty self explanatory. it is a severe warning about severe consequences that those who rebel against god will suffer

Ward as for 1cor 7 I don't think you have a good understanding of what it is like to be in one of these relationships and the instability that is inherent there in .the children growing up like this are always forced to choose sides it messes them up

Isaacson
‎@Sing - true arguments. Steven (above) warned against using Scripture to prove a point rather than arriving at the true meaning. But these people have used Gen 6 to support their stand against interracial marriage and are not willing to let it go.

When comparing Scripture with Scripture, it is clear in Gen 6 a great evil had occurred which penetrated deep into the spiritual and God had to purge this evil to make way for His promised salvation.

Keep the faith, Sing.

Isaacson
‎@Lindsey - your argument re 1Co 7: we should abandon all disfunctional marriages using your premise.

Ward
dean, I may have been taken off guard by this I thought i was dealing with some one who believed that angels could copulate with humans

Isaacson ‎
@Lindsey - in the normal realm, or estate, angels cannot copulate with human. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage is what Christ told us. However, the Bible is clear that something happened in Gen 6 that is beyond our understanding.

Ward
no dean my premise as well as the bibles premise is that disfunctional marraiges are not to be entered into

Ward
no dean genesis 6 is pretty streight forward and easy to read.angels cannot of their own volition change their own nature,a leapord cannot change its spots and a tree cant become a fish.and a man cant be born again by an act of his own will either

Sing F Lau
Ward, I asked about Jude 6, "Where, in the Scriptures, is this departure from their first estate recorded, if is it indeed recorded at all?"

You answered, jude 6? You probably meant Gen 6, but are too ashamed to just admit it!

Sing F Lau
Ward@ your hypothesis denies the creator/creature distinction.You assume that beings can change themselves ontologically when you claim that angels can become sexual creatures.
===========
Read your Bible some, please. And let it say to what it does say.

Read Gen 19, the angels that visited Lot, and dined with his family, and of whom the men of Sodom lusted after.... Those holy angel did become REAL men, though temporally. Lot saw them as men, and treated them as men.

That incidence and many others proves beyond any shadow of doubt that angelic beings can take on humanity. There is no point denying such reality. And what happened in Gen 6 was no difference only that the sons of God, fallen angelic beings, transgressed their habitation by trespassing into the human estate!

I didn't assume anything... it is there in Gen 6.

Ward
it was not really meant to be funny but to point out the Jude is part of the revelation God has given us concerning Himself,and that the mention of the devil or fallen angels is only used in scripture to reveal something about the nature and character of God and in this case it reveales that God in his holiness will not tolerate sin any where or from any one.
Jude wanted to talk about the good things we have in christ that accompany our salvation,but the Spirit prompted him to warn us of the dangers of allowing false teaching in the church in this particular case those who are practicing lewdness and calling it grace.

if you want you can draw a common parallel with the modern homosexual movement that is happening in the church today. Jude's warning is certainly applicable to them now

Sing F Lau
Ward, I inquired: When did those angels that kept not their first estate left their own habitation?

You answered: bible does not say when this happened, but most believe it was some time prior to the temptation in the garden for we know that the devil had rebelled. however it is slightly possible that the temptation of eve was his first act of rebellion and that all the fallen angels rebelled shortly there after.the bible does not say when it just says it did.
===============
If Jude 6 is speaking of that the rebellion among the angels,

THEN it follows that ALL - ALL - ALL the angels involved in that rebellion would now be where Jude 6 says - " reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." If that be the case, there would be no fallen angelic being doing their evil deeds, there would be no temptation in the garden of Eden. An interpretation that leads to such conclusion can't possibly be right!

Jude 6 declares that all those angels involved in leaving their own habitation were " reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Let the text says what it says. And pay careful attention to what it actually says.

Ward
you do assume that the term sons of God in genesis 6 are fallen angels.it is a fallacy to make the leap that while angels can appear as men,and even enjoy our hospitality that fallen angels can have sex,and procreate with women. the whole of genesis 18,and 19 may not just be what is called an angelophany,but might be a theophay.In heaven when john bowing down at the feet of the angel he was rebuked for it. that is not what happened in genesis

there is no need for you to exhort me to read my bible you might want to avoid any hint of an ad hominem argument.

Ward
again you are reading into the text more than is there.let me ask you how do you bind a spirit with a chain.that is like saying you can handcuff water.it is a fallacy to think that this is a literal chain. I will refer you to the revelation where satan is bound for 1000 years if you read the text he is bound from deceiving the nations.Jesus has now bound the strong man and is now plundering his goods.

I think it is you who should pay a little closer attention to the text,and not pull it out of context.
now answer me what does it mean that everything produces after its own kind?

Sing F Lau
Ward@you do assume that the term sons of God in genesis 6 are fallen angels.
=======
No assumption. Here's the text:
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

There were the men of the human race in general. They were marrying, and sons and daughters were born to them.

Then the focus were upon the daughters of men.

There were the 'sons of God' ALSO join in in this procreating process. They took the daughters of men... and the consequent complete corruption of human race.

Men and sons of God are used is CLEAR distinction to each other.

You would distinguish them as heathen men, and godly Sethites.

I would distinguish them as humans, and fallen angels that have taken up human forms

Sing F Lau
Ward@"now answer me what does it mean that everything produces after its own kind?"
====
Precisely sir... if Gen 6 was just mixed marriage between godly Sethites and the heathens women, the union WOULD NOT BE ABLE to produce the MONSTERS we see recorded in Gen 6. Even the union of the heathens with heathen did not produce anything near what is stated.

4 ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

I suggest that, in context, they were giants and men of renown for their perversity, evil and wickedness.

Go figure out. I seriously doubt you have even began to appreciate the enormity of the problem STATED in so many words in Gen 6.

I will now hold my breath. Thanks for the exchanges.

Cut down the barren fig tree!

Huge fig tree - see any fruit?

Luke 13 "
6 ¶ He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.
======

Sing F Lau
Does Christ seek fruit from those who are not His?
Does he expect fruit from those dead in trespasses and sins?

Just asking!

He most certainly seek fruit from His people.
And it seems there are among His people who bear no fruit, and suffer just consequences.

Rich
Pruning live branches often results in a greater fruit.
Deadwood bears no fruit.

Abuliot
The unregenerate are duty bound only to the law of works and the duties commanded to them from that law. ie. love God and your neighbor as yourself.

No God did not expect the flesh to do good (as it is carnal and sold under sin)... but, he does command the them to do what they ought.

All of God's children bear fruit in differing degrees. There is no such thing as a regenerate child of God that has become utterly estranged from fruit bearing.

Rich
Abu, How much 'fruit' must you observe to believe that God is sovereign in his choices?

Sing F Lau
Abu, is the parable dealing with fig trees or people? If people, what kind of people? What kind of fruit is Jesus expecting from what kind of people?

In the parable, is there a real possibility that the fig tree remain barren? What does it mean to be cut down in the parable?

If the fig tree in the parable is cut down, has it become totally estranged from fruit bearing?

What do you mean by 'become totally estranged from fruit bearing? Did Lot become become totally estranged from fruit bearing? Did they that made a shipwreck of their faith become totally estranged from fruit bearing?

I am just inquiring to understand your position better.

Abuliot
‎@Abu, How much 'fruit' must you observe to believe that God is sovereign in his choices?

>>I'm not sure I understand the question? I don't believe you have to bear fruit to believe that god is sovereign in choices. One can be an unregenerate heathen and believe that God is sovereign in choices.

Rich
Believeth is a spiritual state of being. Man is put into this spiritual state by the power of Christ, plus nothing. What a child of God believes is foften determined by books vs. Bible.

Eternity doesn't begin by man's determinate will to start believing something, nor is man obligated to bearing fruit as a condition of eternal relationship with God.

Fellowship & relationship are distinctly different.

Conversion & regeneration are distinctly different.

A daily dosage of seminary books so often confuses the hearts and minds of the simple.

Thanks


Abuliot
It's dealing with the entire national people of Israel (not regenerate children). Jesus is seeking or looking for fruit among them... specifically the fruit of owning him as the true messiah and destroying their idolatrous traditions of men (taught in the nation). These were in their power to perform in the outward sense... and upon their rejection of him, and their increasing practices of idolatry... destruction came upon them.

Read Peter's account of Lot. His soul was righteous (though vexed)... That is experiential righteousness, not merely imputed righteousness. The account of his entire life is lacking. One can only assume to know the degree of fruit he bore.

I understand shipwreck to be referring to a shipwreck of the profession of faith which is common among false converts. God is the author and finisher of true faith and what He began he will finish. I'm not a freewill-sovereignty of man-synergist when it comes to the believers growth in grace. Such a doctrine destroys all my confidence and hope in my present walk and puts me under the legal conditionalism of the law again. "Do this and you be blessed, don't do this and I'll destroy you, cast you into a hell on earth, curse you with a timely destruction.. etc." That's all legal religion and it has nothing to do with the covenant of grace.

Abuliot
I don't read seminary books Richard. Nor, am I seminary trained. Much of the authors I read are rejected and mocked by the modern puritan and reformed movements. If it's wrong to read from the thoughts of other men, then how is it right for me to ever read your thoughts. Certainly, there is a place fro reading books and being edified by gifted ministers. My convictions are based on the authority of scripture. I've rejected many paragraphs from some of my favorite authors when the differ from scripture. I'm not a seminary student. thanks

Abuliot
‎"A daily dosage of seminary books so often confuses the hearts and minds of the simple."

But, A daily dosage of reading Richard and Sing is ever so healthy for the hearts and minds of the simple. Right? That's what I'm getting here.

I love you guys, but I disagree with the conditional (freewill-sovereignty of man) time-salvation view.

Rich
Abraham, I enjoy reading your posts!
Why do you identify yourself with 'REFORM' theologies?
Must your parentage be derived from Rome?

I'm not opposed to automotive repairs.
I wonder why anyone would hope to fix (reform) the Roman church.
Although you don't quote the Pope, you often quote men descended from Romish reforms.

Jude 3,4 is an appropriate model for our true and spiritual worship.

Thanks

Abuliot
Why do you identify yourself with 'REFORM' theologies?

I don't.

Abuliot
If your trying to be funny and slick, it comes across as ignorance. You know I don't follow Rome.

Rich
Abraham, I rest. I tell you what I believe and we exercise choices in this time world. Peter's counsel to save yourselves from this untoward generation is one such time salvation. He was addressing those already heaven bound.

Rich
No, I'm not joking. Reform is repair work intended to bring the the mother harlot into peace with God. Leave it, my friend!

Rich
Timely salvations are biblical. Believers are not robots!
Choices are made in this time world, for better or for worse.

Sing F Lau
Abu, there is a salvation which is of the Lord, and Him alone. In this salvation, which is wholly and completely and solely by the free and sovereign grace of God, each and every elect are absolutely EQUALLY SAVED in absolutely every aspect. Get it?

There is ALSO a salvation which is CONDITIONED upon your working out for yourself as God's children. In this salvation, which is conditioned upon the obedient response of God's children to the grace of God working in them, each attains his own salvation to a vastly different degree... like Lot and Abraham, and like Paul and those who make shipwreck of their faith. Get the point?

Both are taught, and PLAINLY taught in the Holy Scriptures. If you can't accept that basic premise, then no further profitable exchanges is possible... we are reading different Bible, or reading the same but perceiving it VERY differently!

Abuliot
I'm not following reformers. Brine, Gill, Hakwer, Huntington and others were accused of being Hyper Calvinist by the reformed strict Calvinists like Fuller. Primitives descended out of the Particular Baptists. Everyone has their roots. Your arguments go right back at yourself.

Abuliot
Sing I understand your view... as it leaves Sovereignty out of the picture when it comes to the believers growth in grace. Paul was who he was, and did what he did because of Sovereign grace.... not because of sovereign Paul.

Rich
Perseverance by man vs. Preservation by God

Sing F Lau
Abu@ "I understand shipwreck to be referring to a shipwreck of the profession of faith which is common among false converts."
=====
Such interpretation is making apostle Paul warning Timothy AGAINST something which CAN NEVER happen to Timothy, a spiritual son of Paul. Or Paul might be concerned about the possibility that Timothy might be a false convert, and needed such a warning! Pick your choice!

What a waste of words, and Paul's hypocritical concern for Timothy, his spiritual son!

Why exhort and warn Timothy of something that can happen only to false converts?

Many preachers and their followers may be that STEW-PIG and ILLOGICAL, not so with Apostle Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ!

Abuliot
‎@Perseverance by man vs. Preservation by God

>>preservation by God in an experiential life of hope in Christ vs. preservation by God in a life of utter backsliding shame from the hope of Christ. Let's keep things clear here.

Abuliot
A brother once wrote (and I agree), "Either God is sovereign over all things or there is no God. Either ALL who trust Christ will persevere or NONE will."

Have a good day gentleman.

Sing F Lau
Abu, you are so capable of misrepresenting.

You said, "Paul was who he was, and did what he did because of Sovereign grace.... not because of sovereign Paul."

You have not only misrepresented Paul, you have also misrepresented me.

A man who responds to God's grace working in him is NOT sovereign. (Your twisted logic led you to conclude that he is!) He is NEVERTHELESS accountable.

His responses to God's grace working in him determines the degrees and extents of his sanctification.

The human responsibility in sanctification explain why there is such a vast difference between Abe and many Arminians!

It is MOST CERTAINLY NOT God's sovereignty that left many of His children as misguided Arminians. It is their disobedience and unbelief to the word of God.
Each is commanded to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sing F Lau
‎1Co 15:10 "But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."

God's grace that was bestowed upon Paul was NOT IN VAIN.

Why? He responded obediently to the grace working in him... thus he - he - he laboured more abundantly than the rest.

Yet, it was God's grace working in him.

The same grace works in every child of God... each turn out vastly different in their discipleship... because each responds to the SAME grace working in them in different measure.

It seems to me that you have jettisoned the human responsibility in sanctification, the only proper place for human responsibility.

Divine sovereign deals with our eternal salvation.

Human responsibility is restricted to the context of timely salvation. And God holds each of His children responsible for their won salvation that they must work out for themselves with fear and trembling.

And don't attribute to God's sovereignty when some one mess up his life, like Lot!

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the things of God.

Even as a hen gathereth her chickens

Did the puppy prevent the hen from gathering her chicks to herself?

“O Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, how often would I have gathered thy children together, EVEN AS a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” (Mt. 23:37)."

=====

Sing F Lau
The hen had laid and hatched her eggs, and brought forth her chicks.
The chicks are prior to the hen's act of gathering.

Hen gathers her chicks but Christ is prevented from gathering His people? But prevented in what sense? If Christ be as the other hen, who are his chicks?

The children of Jerusalem referred to by Christ ARE His people, even as chicks are the hen's, those that have been regenerated and given eternal life. They are His, He has effectually called them unto eternal life. No one can hinder the effectual calling of an elect unto eternal life. But many of God's children are hindered, by all sorts of obstacles, from being gathered into the NT church, professing Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

BUT they are prevented from coming to Him outwardly ONLY, i.e. professing Him as their Lord and Saviour publicly.

The religious leaders threatened them with all sorts of things from openly professing Christ. And it was a weighty matter to those children of God to be expelled and ostracized from their Jewish community. It was a burden many cannot bear.

Joh 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue."

The elitist calvinists will WRITE OFF such children of God as unregenerated cowards! They proclaim that there can be no such among God's children.

In every generation, many of God's children are not converted through the gospel ministry for a host of reasons!

=====

Abe Jul
He says, "thy children..." not "my children." This is a commentary from an old strict/particular baptist manual of faith...

So, conversion is conditioned on freewill and the sovereignty of man now. This presents God as a frustrated beggar that cannot accomplish His own works of grace. This is what the Pelagians teach. It is synergism divorced from sovereign grace.

Joh 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue."

Read the last 2 verses of John 2. Not all "believers" were true converts and regenerate children.

I can't find your view among the old school baptists. Only the conditional time-salvation Primitives. Even this view is not among all Primitives. But, its easy to spot out when one denies God's absolute sovereignty over all things and starts teaching a freewill and synergism time-salvation.

John Foreman
http://againstdutyfaith.blogspot.com/search/label/BK40%20-%20Matthew%2023%3A37

John Gill
http://againstdutyfaith.blogspot.com/2010/05/matthew-2337-john-gill.html


Sing F Lau
Abe, be careful NOT to impute to me thing I have not said. I suggest that you refrain. I do rejected your "So..." It may be your sincere conclusion, but that is not my belief.

Joh 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue."

The passage say "among the chief rulers also MANY believed on Christ." I take for granted that as many as believed on Jesus Christ DID SO because of the eternal life wrought in them.

Were the chief rulers' public profession of Christ hindered because of the fear of men? Yes, or no?

Was God's sovereignty frustrated here at all? It most certainly was IF - IF - IF divine sovereignty INDEED guarantees and ensures that each and every one of His children (sentient ones only, it sounds stupid to even qualify, as though the gospel ministry is intended for the non-sentient among God's children) is converted, make public profession of faith through the gospel ministry!

Is it to deny God's sovereignty to note the PLAIN FACT recorded here in John 12:42 - that some who believe in Jesus Christ DID NOT make public profession of faith in Christ, i.e. they were not converted?

Does God's sovereignty guarantee the conversion of every regenerated elect? Yes, or no?

Also, does God's sovereignty guarantee that each regenerate elect become a reformed calvinist too? Are believers of Jesus Christ among the Arminians God's children then? Or did God's sovereignty fail among such? And what about believers like me, who are neither reformed nor arminians?

I remind you that the divine sovereignty is a double-edged sword. Be careful with it - it cuts both ways. Wield it with great care!

Just what exactly do you want to make divine sovereignty to guarantee?

John 2:24-25 DO NOT say that Jesus did not commit himself to them BECAUSE "Not all believers were true converts and regenerate children." That is what you say! You assume that are the reasons!

Abe Jul
Brother Sing, many of your questions and statements are irrelevant to the scripture and have no place in discerning doctrine from error.

Sing F Lau
That's a neat way of answering questions that expose the irrationality and inconsistencies of one's interpretation.