Effectual Calling - what is it?

Cascade Falls, Yosemite by Thomas Moran

Sing F Lau
An elect in his native state is under the condemnation and death. What is the first thing God does when He applies the redemption that Christ has secured for all His people?
September 25 at 10:57pm

===========

Romans 8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also CALLED: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

1689.10.1 "Those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,(1) by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;(2)...."
1. Ro 8:30; 11:7; Eph 1:10-11, 2Th 2:13-14. 2. Eph 2:1-6.

God is pleased at His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call....
'Effectual call' is the first divine act - freely and sovereignly by His grace alone - in the application of redemption to each elect.

But what is effectual calling? This is a very crucial question! Don't imagine your own idea!

Effectual calling is God calling an elect out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. And this calling is effectual - complete and successful in accomplishing its end and goal. And what is that?

Effectual call is God calling an elect out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. This is what the theologian termed as Definitive Sanctification: a separation from the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation, that is decisive, perfect and complete, once for all.

To call a man out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation would requires ALL THESE, in this number and LOGICAL [sic] order:
- justification of life by God's free grace (removal of the condemnation of death, and righteousness of Christ applies to an elect personally)
- regeneration (quickened with eternal life, removal of spiritual death)
- adoption of the regenerated into God's family (removal of alienation, given the rights and privileges as members of God's family).
- Bestowal of the Spirit of adoption to dwell within a child of God.
(As a result of all these free and gracious acts in the effectual call out of the state of sin and death to grace and salvation, an elect is now as fit for heaven and eternal glory as many.)

Calling an elect out of his native state of condemnation of death into the STATE OF GRACE requires ALL THOSE divine acts. And with those divide act, the effectually called ones are completely and wholly fit for eternal glory.

Nothing else is need for his ETERNAL salvation. Eternal glory is GUARANTEED - see Rom 8:30. All these are by the free grace of God without the elect meeting any condition, for he simply can't meet any.

BUT much things are needed for his well-being as a child of God here on earth. That's where the ministry of the gospel is crucial for the well-being of God's children.

With the effectual calling, THEN and ONLY THEN, a man is capable of believing the glorious gospel... because it is already true of them... the redemption in Christ Jesus declared in the gospel is already true of them... and such are called to believe the truth!

Faith cometh by hearing... And in believing, his faith justifies him as one whom God has justified freely by His grace, regenerated freely by His grace, adopted freely by His grace, and indwelt by the Spirit of God.

Sing F Lau
‎18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to CONDEMNATION [OF DEATH]; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made... sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Sin brought the condemnation of death.
Righteousness alone secures justification of life

There is a justification that is by God's free grace, PRIOR to any ability to believe. God justifies the ungodly, a condemned sinner, and such is incapable of believing.

And there is a justification by the believing act of a child of God. Believing justifies a child of God - evidentially as well experientially.

The former is forensic.
The latter is evidential/experiential.

Failing to distinguish them is the root of much confusion.

Distinction is the essence of sound theology.
May the Lord give you understanding.

But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Sing F Lau
But many Calvinists understand the effectual call as the gospel call made effectual unto the CONVERSION of a sinner, the preaching of the gospel is blessed and used to regenerate someone dead in trespasses and sin, and enable him to believe...... and in believing he is justified by God! That is another subtle PERVERSION and TWISTING of the gospel truth.

Chapin
Brother Sing, Since Calvinists claim the TULIP, don't they contradict the first letter on the pole? T = total Depravity. If one is totally depraved, doesn't that mean they have no facilities as far as spiritual things go?
Scripture says, "But the NATURAL man receiveth NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he KNOW [understand] them because they are spiritually discerned." [1 Cor. 2:14]
The NATURAL man is DEAD in trespasses and in sins. If DEAD to Spiritual things, then how are they able to respond to the gospel call to receive life???

Marrow
London Baptist Confession 1644
1644,.21 "That Jesus Christ by His death did bring forth salvation and reconciliation only for the elect, which were those which God the Father gave him; & that the Gospel which is to be preached to all men as the ground of faith, is, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the ever-blessed God, filled with the perfection of all heavenly and spiritual excellencies, and that salvation is only and alone to be had through the believing in his Name. John 15:13. Rom. 8:32, 33, 34. Rom. 5:11 & 3:25. Joh. 17:2 with 6:37. Matt. 16:16. Luke 2:26. Matth. 16:16. Luke 2:26. Joh. 6:9 & 7: 3 & 20:32. I John 5:11.

1644.22 "That Faith is the gift of God wrought in the hearts of the elect by the Spirit of God, whereby they come to see, know, and believe the truth of the Scriptures, & not only so, but the excellence of them above all other writings and things in the world, as they hold forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power of the fullest of the Spirit in its workings and operations; and thereupon are enabled to cast the weight of their souls upon this truth thus believed." Eph. 2:8. Joh. 6:29 & 4:10. Phil. 1:29. Gal. 5:22. Joh. 7:17. Heb. 4:11, 12. Joh. 6:63.

1644.24 "That faith is ordinarily begot by the preaching of the Gospel, or word of Christ, without respect to any power or capacity in the creature, but it is wholly passive, being dead in sins and trespasses, does believe, and is converted by no less power, than that which raised Christ from the dead. "

Dear brethren...I am afraid we look at something from our own perspective and forget that godly men disagree on many things. I believe the 1644 confession on these matters and the fact that they said "ordinarily" in the passage above doesn't bother me in the least. What does bother me is when men try to act like they have a corner on what the "old" Baptist taught. Love you all.

Hart
Sing, Jerry or Michael, ... although the word, 'intrinsic' isn't a Bible word, does anyone suppose that faith is exercised by unregenerate sinners?

Is this correct? A living baby yet in the womb can physically exercise prior to natural bi...rth and an unregenerate (dead) sinner can exercise faith prior to the new birth.

Thanks, brethren, for love.

Sing F Lau
Brother Marrow, I agree completely with what you have quoted from 1644.

What bother me is when "new school" baptists like you fail to distinguish what the "old" baptists did state so clearly.

The eternal salvation bestowed upon an elect by God's free grace and the salvation that is obtained by a child of God through his acts of believing are TWO fundamentally distinct and separate salvation.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND the last paragraph. If not, please ask, and I will explain. I believe this is the greatest hurdle, and if you can understand this basic truth, than lots of confusion can be avoided.

The eternal salvation by God's free grace in Jesus Christ MUST BE RIGHTLY DIVIDED from the temporal salvation by the believing acts of God's children.

Because so many "new" baptists fail to distinguish these two distinct aspects of salvation, they IGNORANTLY and IRRATIONALLY insist that believing is prerequisite for their eternal salvation. That is mixing grace and work together!

Believing is work! Read John 6:28 ¶ Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

I have always asked... and nobody cares to answer.
How does God save, and from what does He save His people from?
How does the believing act (of a child of God) save him, and save him from what?

Sing F Lau
Richy, faith is an EFFECT of salvation already bestowed; it is one of the graces worked in the heart by the indwelling Spirit of God.

That saving grace is manifested, drawn forth or BEGOTTEN through the gospel ministry. "Faith cometh by hear...ing." That faith worked in the heart by the Spirit is drawn forth through the preaching of the gospel.

All sane men will affirm that a effect of a Cause cannot possibly be at the same time the instrument to attain that same Cause!

That is just NONSENSE, rotten nonsense... but so many love such nonsense.

Might as well tell a dead man that if he breathes, he shall receive life.

Hart
Does anyone yet think the sinner's prayer precedes new birth?
IMO, the preaching of gospel regeneration makes many cents, rather than plenty sense.
Good sounding decisional regeneration sermons excerpts fill the belly, resulting in bloat & g...loat, while spiritually starving listeners.

Sing F Lau
Many do believe the sinner's prayer precedes new birth. They are just not here to rave and foam! I love the rhyme of "cents... sense" and "bloat... gloat." That's an apt observation.
It 'bloats' the self-conceit of the preachers and the converts, causing both to 'gloat' over the crucial role they played in the salvation of sinners... they assisted God to complete His work of eternal redemption... because Jesus didn't quite finished it.

So preachers believe that without their preaching, there would be no regeneration because the Holy Spirit's activity of regeneration is conditioned on the gospel preaching as the essential catalyst. The sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is made to conditioned upon man's co-operation.

These also insist that without faith, there would be no justification before God. That notion implies that an UN-justified sinner, still in the state of condemnation and death, is capable of believing IN ORDER TO be justified by God!

Marrow ‎
"But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people" Romans 10:18-21 (KJV). Was God insincere when he stretched forth his hand to this disobedient people? Why would God stretch forth his hand to those he knew would reject him?

Sing F Lau
Brother Morrow, very interesting thought. But I don't know what exactly is the difficulty. If there is any, I am not seeing it yet. May be the difficulty arises because we don't rightly divide the word of truth.

I take it as an established truth that God NEVER hold forth eternal salvation conditioned upon man's obedience or acceptance. It is contrary to His moral character, contrary to His revelation, contrary to reason and common sense, etc.

I believe what is involved is the temporal salvation... which demands and requires the obedience of God's people. It has nothing to do with their eternal salvation - being saved from the eternal condemnation due to their sins. It has to do with their deliverance from the judgment threatened against them for their unbelief and disobedient. God is dealing with His people - whom He has made His own by His free and sovereign grace - for their unbelief and disobedience.

This is confirmed because in the previous verses, Apostle Paul is also speaking of the temporal salvation that comes to those that do believe the gospel. Believing the gospel truth will save GOD'S CHILDREN, will bring them much deliverance in this life, temporal salvation.

Eternal salvation came through Christ's finished work alone, and applied by the Spirit alone... all completed by free grace alone. Temporal salvation - related to our well-being as God's children is conditioned upon our obedience to the gospel. IF YOU APPRECIATE THIS BIT, MUCH CONFUSION WOULD NOT ARISE.

After I have read enough of the Bible, the FALSITY of new school Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints in a life of faith and obedient to the end of their life become SO PLAIN! There is no such thing in the Scriptures.

God Himself said, "MY PEOPLE ARE BENT ON BACKSLIDING!"

God would be VERY insincere if He is holding forth eternal salvation to those whom He knew very well had absolutely no capability to receive, in fact positively hostile towards God in their inward man. In fact it would be cruel and injurious mocking and taunting at them.

But that is not true when God called His people to turn from their evil ways. They are able to obey, in this they were able to exercise a choice... but they disobeyed. Disobedience would face severe punishment here in the present life.

God did stretch forth His hand to His people, calling them to turn from their waywardness, sending them prophets after prophets... but they rejected God's Fatherly call to make amend.

They suffered for their disobedience all throughout their history!

Marrow
Could it be to compound the judgment on those who refused to hear and could not the preaching of Christ do the same thing to the non-elect today?

Sing F Lau
Their hatred and rejection of such good news, most certainly discloses their utter perversity and corruption, even though it was never intended for them, would most certainly greatly compound their guilt.

I Met a Raving and Ranting RB

Do avoid raving and ranting.
A least a foot in your mouth would stop you foaming!

Taylo
Faith is the result of grace given, not the cause of grace taken.

Sing F Lau
God bestows eternal salvation, by grace, i.e. without any condition.
And that salvation produces faith... the faith that is the fruit of salvation bestowed CAN'T possibly be the instrument to secure that same salvation. An effect of a cause cannot possibly be the instrument to secure the same cause.

Taylo
Not the instrument, no. Salvation is by grace alone of course. But rather, the result, the fruit, of having that grace bestowed.

Ramirez
You also believe justification precedes faith right Sing? You also believe that the Gospel need not necessarily be preached to be saved correct?

Taylo
Check this article out Fernando...John Gill believed justification precedes faith as well.
http://www.mountzionpbc.org/Index/index04.htm
I think a strong argument can be made for that, actually.

Ramirez
False premise Sing, which then you build a false dichotomy. Nice try. But were you not disfellowshipped from 7 Reformed Baptists churches for this unbiblical view? In response, you wrote a treatise " Seven Deformed Branches" attempting to defend your faulty views and trying to use the LBCF as your support.

Taylo
I would say this...faith is not the cause, not the instrument, but the result. But to say a person is saved and has no faith is to push this envelope way too far. By this logic, Richard Dawkins might be saved and he just doesn't know it. After all, this is exactly what God gives us as a result of His grace: faith.

Sing F Lau
Fernando, yes, I do because an unjustified man, therefore STILL under the condemnation of death cannot possibly believe. [God justifies the UNGODLY, those under the condemnation of death!]

But you believe man, an unjustified man, in his native state of condemnation, can and must believe in order to be justified by God. You also believe that a regenerated man (evidenced by his believing) is at the same time un-justified, i.e. under the condemnation of death. You believe your faith is the instrument to get justification before God.

Tell it loud and clear if I read you wrong.

YES, I also believe that the gospel is preached to the SAVED... those already justified freely, regenerated and adopted, and indwelt by the Spirit of God, who works faith in them, enabling them to believe... The gospel is preached because God's children need to hear the glorious truth of their salvation by God's free grace in Christ Jesus.

But you believe that those dead in trespasses and sins must believe in order to be saved. You believe that the gospel milk and meat is for the dead, to bring them to life.

The salvation by God's free grace that enables you to believe, and the salvation that comes by your believing the gospel CAN'T possibly be the same salvation.

When you can understand the above statement, come back and we will converse further. Otherwise, please hold your peace. I have wasted enough time with a great scholar like you!

Taylo
‎@Sing - Correct me if I am misunderstanding you...
In your view, is it possible for a person to never believe and have faith, yet still be saved?
Or are you simply saying that grace produces faith, making grace alone the instrument?

Ramirez
Yeah I've read up on it but I would have to disagree that it can be defended biblically. Although I like Gill, I do not always see eye to eye with him. Also, Gill's theology differs from that of Sing.
As far as justification preceding faith it would be difficult to square that with Rom. 8:30

Taylo
I don't think it would be Fernando (regarding Rom 8:30), considering justification is past tense and accomplished there...

What about this: regeneration (grace) produces justification to us in a temporal sense, as well as produces faith...

I'm thinking out loud here...haven't really dived into this issue much. :)

Sing F Lau
Hello Fernando, I will put the summary of the 7 deformed views held by the 7 reformed baptists churches in Malaysia. You pick a fight with me here, so don't blame sir.
=============
The 7 RB churches in Malaysia claimed their views as the 'Standard Reformed' views. They disfellowship me because I hold to non 'Standard Reformed' view. Let the reader judge for themselves:

Here they are, put side by side: taken from this page
http://pruning-deformed-branches.blogspot.com/
======
A Summary of the Seven Theological Points Disputed

The ‘Reformed Baptist Fraternal’ boldly designated their views as the ‘Standard Reformed’ view. The following is a comparison of the ‘Standard Reformed’ view of the RBF and the view of one non-conformist Particular Baptist on the seven doctrinal issues raised by the RBF.

ONE:
‘Standard reformed’: Effectual calling unto eternal life is by the instrumental means of gospel preaching. Gospel preaching is the necessary means for God to bestow spiritual life to His elect.
Author: Effectual calling unto eternal life is by the immediate life-giving call of the Triune God. Gospel preaching is not a necessary means for God to bestow spiritual life to His elect.

TWO:
‘Standard reformed’: Repentance and faith secure eternal life. You repent and believe IN ORDER THAT you may receive eternal life.
Author: Repentance and faith evidence eternal life. You repent and believe BECAUSE God has effectually called you to eternal life.

THREE:
‘Standard reformed’: The gospel is ‘‘if… then." If you respond, then God will do something wonderful for you. You must believe in order that you may have eternal life from God.
Author: The gospel is “because… therefore.” Because God has done this wonderful thing to you, therefore you respond. God has bestowed you with eternal life, therefore you believe.

FOUR:
‘Standard reformed’: Gospel preaching is necessary because it is the instrumental means for the regeneration of the spiritually dead elect.
Author: Gospel preaching is necessary because it is the instrumental means for the conversion of the ignorant, uninformed regenerated elect.

FIVE:
‘Standard reformed’: Faith secures your justification before God. God justifies when you believe. By faith the condemned shall be justified and live.
Author: Faith evidences your justification by God’s free grace. God justified us when we were enemies. The justified ones shall live by faith.

SIX:
‘Standard reformed’: Irresistible grace is the powerful working of the Spirit in gospel preaching to bring the spiritually dead elect to conversion.
Author: Irresistible grace is the powerful working of the triune God to bring the spiritually dead elect to eternal life.

SEVEN:
‘Standard Reformed’: All the elect will be saved eternally because they will hear and believe the gospel; and God’s power keeps them in a life of faith and holiness, and thus all persevere in a life of faith and holiness to the end and shall be eternally saved.
Author: All the elect shall be saved eternally because God effectually calls them to eternal life; and God perseveres to preserve His elect in the state of grace, and they shall remain in that state of grace and be eternally saved.

Ramirez
Andrew they are all spoken of as past tense but there is a logical order and I think that is the point. Otherwise you would have to rearrange the order given in Rom 8.

Regeneration does result in justification but through faith.

Taylo
‎"Regeneration does result in justification but through faith."
OK...we agree. I think. :)

Taylo
I think the point is that regeneration, although it precedes faith, is the instrument that brings faith, which comes the instant a person is regenerated. That's my take anyways.

Taylo
And in this way, justification can be said to be 'by His blood' (Rom 5:9) as well as 'by grace' (Rom 3:24) as well as 'by faith.' (Rom 5:1)

Sing F Lau
‎@Taylor Thank you for asking. Many pontificate to teach, I ask question learn, and am glad when ask for my view.

You asked, "In your view, is it possible for a person to never believe and have faith, yet still be saved?"

I need to inquire,... what salvation are you inquiring about: salvation that is by the grace of God, or salvation that comes by hearing the gospel?

I repeat here: The salvation by God's free grace that enables you to believe, and the salvation that comes by your believing the gospel CAN'T possibly be the same salvation. So which salvation do you have in mind in your question.

There are God's children who never has the privilege to hear the gospel, others never had the opportunity to hear the gospel... they are as saved by God as those who do have the opportunity and privileges to hear the gospel. However, the lack of the gospel ministry deprive them much blessings for their temporal well-being here.

Eternal salvation is by God's free grace... when men are utterly incapable of hearing or believing... God saved them to the uttermost with ETERNAL salvation, fit for eternal glory. The gospel ministry will bring them great temporal salvation in their lives here and now.

Ramirez
No Sing, you picked a fight with with the whole body of Christ by distorting the Word of God. Men have pleaded with you to repent on your faulty views and return to orthodox Christianity. But you sir wish to remain as you are and teach such... folly. not only that you fly under the banner of the LBCF yet you redefine it as you do the Scriptures!

I know your game Sing. You use biblical terms but you have your own definition for each. One has to get you to define every term you use. Which is quite tiresome.
Second, unless you can justify your assertions with Scripture (exegetically) then it is otherwise "Scriptureless chatter" and as Luther also said "I have better things to attend"

Taylo
I think the problem I have with Sing's view (correct me if I am wrong Sing) is that it opens the door for someone to be regenerate, yet never come to faith.

Taylo
Or be regenerate and come to faith years later.

Ramirez
We do agree Andrew.

Taylo
I think the end result of this is the Billy Graham 'wider mercy' view, where you have people who are regenerate and never know it.

Ramirez
No Sing has Justification at the very beginning.

Sing F Lau
Taylor@
"Or are you simply saying that grace produces faith, making grace alone the instrument?"

Grace speaks of the manner God bestows eternal salvation to His elect people. He justified an elect FREELY by grace, He regenerate an elect FREEL...Y by grace, He adopts an elect FREELY by grace, He give the Spirit of adoption in His adopted freely by grace. The indwelling Spirit WORKS faith and others saving graces...

To me then, grace DOES NOT produce faith, neither is it an instrument.
That is what I will say. Thank you for asking.

Taylo
So what produces faith? Agree faith is not an instrument...

Taylo
My understanding is that regeneration results in the whole package deal...justification, faith, glorification, the whole thing.

Taylo
Sanctification as well.

Ramirez
However, election and predestination precede regeneration.

Taylo
Yes, of course...

Taylo
Election does not equal regeneration...it is a guarantee that a person will be regenerated temporally during their lifetime.

Ramirez
But you see some people have Justification before all this. I don't think John Gill even went that far.

Taylo
Which means they will also be justified, have faith, and be sanctified.

Ramirez
Perfectly stated Andrew!!

Davidson
‎"Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. We all with unveiled faces, are reflecting the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory. This is from the Lord w...ho is the Spirit." Whome is also Love. Whome we could do NOTHING without. May we become the image through which Christ Jesus represents; the image of God. Jesus was, is, and always will be and we, as believers in the Message, are becoming, from glory to glory; living by faith; saved ONLY by grace. Praise God!

Ramirez
Andrew, here is a great article on justification:http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/just.htm

Ramirez
Here is another from Louis Berkhof's refutation of eternal justification:
http://www.the-highway.com/eternal-justification_Berkhof.html

Sing F Lau
Taylor@ Or be regenerate and come to faith years later.
=====
Wasn't that the case with Abraham?
Wasn't that the case with Cornelius?
Wasn't that the case with the many devout Jews who trod from many other nations to Jerusalem to worship the God promised them the Messiah, and who were converted on the day of Pentecost.

All there regeneration preceded their conversion with considerable time gap.

What are the years between God effectually calling Abraham in Ur and his conversion in Gen 15:1-6?

Sing F Lau
Taylo @So what produces faith? Agree faith is not an instrument...
=====
Faith is one of the saving graces worked in a child of God by the indwelling Spirit.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goo...dness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.


Sing F Lau
Taylo @My understanding is that regeneration results in the whole package deal...justification, faith, glorification, the whole thing.
======
I love those popular word "whole package deal"!

Any way, brother, consider this please, concerning justification. The Scriptures teach several DISTINCT aspect of justification. Understand this, and it will deliver you from much confusion.

- There is DECRETAL justification in God's purpose.

- There is LEGAL justification at the cross.

- There is VITAL/PERSONAL justification by God's free grace at effectual calling out of the state of sin and death. What is LEGAL is now applied to each individual elect, by God's free and sovereign grace, thus make the legal justification PERSONAL. This part is ENTIRELY missing in new school calvinism.

- There is EXPERIENTIAL justification when God's children is brought to faith in Christ. This is the justification spoken of in Gen 15:1-6. But new school calvinists mistake and confuse this with the VITAL/PERSONAL justification by God's free grace.

- Then there is the FINAL justification when publicly vindicated before all the goats and angels on the great judgment day.

These are five and distinct aspects of justification taught in the Scriptures. They are like the five fingers of a well formed hand.

But the deformed theology so prevalent today is like a monstrous ONE-fingered hand... the ring-finger of experiential justification by faith as the sum total doctrine of justification.

Take a look here: A One-Fingered Hand is a Monstrous Deformity: http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2009/08/one-fingered-hand-is-monstrous.html

May the Lord grant you understanding.

Sing F Lau
Ramirez @No Sing has Justification at the very beginning.
=======

Here is one elect in his native state of condemnation and death,
What is the first thing God does when He applies redemption to him personally?
Does God first remove the condemnation of death first, i.e justifying him; or does Spirit first regenerate him?
Does the Holy Spirit have any warrant to regenerate an elect still under the condemnation of death?

Or the justification of life must LOGICALLY precede the giving of life? Can there be giving of eternal life (regeneration) before the personal application of Christ's righteousness to that elect (justification)?

18 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.

Ramirez
Sing, Scripture,Scripture,Scripture! I need something to of Divine authority to interact with. You make all these assertions which are just biblically wrong! You expect me to accept your claims and go from there. No sir I reject your assertions and your logic; the burden of proof is on you to validate your claims from Scripture, since it is you that has departed from Scripture ad historic orthodox Christianity!
[sing: God justifies the UNGODLY.... but reformed folks like you that insist God justifies the believing! Faith justifies the believing, that is evidential justification before one's own conscience. Rom 3:24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus..." - but reformed folks like you insist that justification before God is by your faith! What is the use of more Scriptures if your mind is already so confused - confusing forensic justification of the condemned by God's free grace, and the evidential justification of God's children by their believing act?]

Sing F Lau
Taylor@ just one more note:

Effectual calling is God calling an elect out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. This is what the theologian termed as Definitive sanctification.

To call a man out of the ...state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation would requires these, in this number and LOGICAL [sic] order:
- justification of life by God's free grace (removal of the condemnation, righteousness applies personally)
- regeneration (eternal life bestowed, removal of spiritual death)
- adoption into God's family (removal of alienation).
- Bestowal of the Spirit of adoption to dwell within a child of God. (This elect is now as fit for heaven and eternal glory as many.)

Nothing else is need for his eternal salvation. BUT much things are needed for his well-being as a child of God here on earth. That's where the ministry of the gospel is crucial for the well-being of God's children.

All these are by the free grace of God... without the elect meeting any condition, for he simply can't meet any.

THEN and ONLY THEN, a man is capable of believing!
Faith cometh by hearing...

And in believing, his faith justifies him as one whom God has justified freely by His grace, regenerated freely by His grace, adopted freely by His grace, and indwelt by the Spirit of God.

There is a justification by God's free grace, PRIOR to any ability to believe. God justifies the ungodly, a condemned sinner.

And there is a justification by the believing act of a child of God. Believing justifies a child of God.

The former is forensic.
The latter is evidential.

Distinction is the essence of sound theology.
May the Lord give you understanding.

Sing F Lau
Taylo @And in this way, justification can be said to be 'by His blood' (Rom 5:9) as well as 'by grace' (Rom 3:24) as well as 'by faith.' (Rom 5:1)
=======
They are three DISTINCT aspect of Justification, stated very clearly by the old school... baptist. It the new school baptist who, in their pride and ignorance, lumped them all together and make a big mess of the truth.

The three aspects stated by you are these:

- There is LEGAL justification at the cross. Double imputation took place at the cross.

- There is VITAL/PERSONAL justification by God's free grace at effectual calling out of the state of sin and death. What is LEGAL is now applied to each individual elect, by God's free and sovereign grace, thus make the legal justification PERSONAL. This part is ENTIRELY missing in new school calvinism.

- There is EXPERIENTIAL justification when God's children is brought to faith in Christ. This is the justification spoken of in Gen 15:1-6. But new school calvinists mistake and confuse this with the VITAL/PERSONAL justification by God's free grace. [This is probably the only part the new school baptists still teach, but they confuse this with the forensic justification by free grace!]

May the Lord grant you understanding.

Ramirez
Sing, you quoted a verse, so what part of it are you having are hard time understanding?

[Hard time understanding? It is the reformed folks like you who make a BIG MESS of this passage... with an interpretation that Abraham before the experience in Gen 15:1-6 was not a justified man, and therefore was necessarily still a man under the condemnation of death!]

Ramirez
I read your "Pruning" book and I think that those calling for your repentance answered you brilliantly. Furthermore, there was an utter lack of exegesis, just simply citing verses out of context.
Kind of reminded me of Socinius whom was always questioning essential doctrines and attempting to use his logic to understand the Living God!
[sing: read Noel's pathetic and confused and arrogant critique here, and my response here.]

Sing & Noel - taken in June 91 in London

Sing F Lau
State what I have said that you consider is erroneous and show that it is wrong, and state the truth in its place.

Not helpful at all just rave and foam like that! We can go through one by one the 7 deformed points that I have posted above. Why don't you take them up one by one if they are indeed erroneous. Otherwise save all your raving and foaming... it does not help in the discussion.

Does God require men to believe lies?

... for if you don't do these things, you shall end up like this.

Nic posted:
"Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall." (2 Pet. 1:10) ESV

"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:" KJT

Sing F Lau
Good passage, Nic. Let's study it.
And if they don't practice those things, will they fall?
And if they fall, in what sense do they fall?
Or is apostle Peter warning of danger that cannot possibly happen to these brothers in Christ?

To exhort, 'make your calling and election sure' is to presume their divine calling and election, does it not? Is apostle Peter presumptuous to assume their effectual calling and divine election?

study by asking questions.

Ramir
Nick I already went over this passage. He just likes to troll the pages of those that hold to the doctrines of grace. He has yet to deal with the text itself! His question is like saying because God commanded us to keep the law that means we have the ability to. Isn't that what Pelagius believed?

Ramir
If all men are commanded to repent and believe, dies that mean we have the ability to?

Thoma
Fernando, that God commands all men to repent is not a contradiction to the Christian doctrine of total depravity or the sovereign election of God. This paradox is simply a reminder that we need grace for conversion. God has never changed. ...He has always commanded that men live in obedience to his commands. His commands did not change after the fall, but instead, we lost the ability to keep his commands. It does not make God unjust to command something that we have forfeited the ability to do. Gods commands have never changed. Our moral responsibility and our lack of ability to be responsible are a reminder that salvation is all of Grace! Even grace is a reminder that we make no move to initiate salvation, Ephesians 2:8-9.

Sing F Lau
Fernando, are my questions valid or not?
If yes, answer them.
If not, say why they are not.
Are you still sore with me?
Have I wronged you?
You were offended just because I don't 'Like' your comments?
I am amused!

To me, God commanded us to keep the law means that we have the DUTY to keep it. DUTY and ability are two very different words. The Scriptures is very clear that Jesus Christ alone can, and kept the law.

Andre
‎@Sing. Some key words jump out at me here. Such as:

Give diligence...Spoudazo (Gr.) to hasten, make haste to exert one's self, endeavor, give diligence, endeavor , do diligence , be diligent , give diligence , be forward , labor , study. ...
Strong's Number: 4704

Sure... Bebaios (Gr.) stable, fast, firm, sure, trusty, steadfast of force.
Strong's Number: 949

Fall... Ptaio (Gr.) to cause one to stumble or fall, to err, make a mistake, to sin, to fall into misery, become wretched, offend.
Strong's Number: 4417

But leading into this verse we have in verse 9..."For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins."

This would then add clarity to verse 10 which does not seem to infer any dis-acknowledgement of the writer to the election or calling of said persons; but rather and admonition and warning to them serving to remind them as to avoid sin BECAUSE of the very fact that they are called and elect of God.

Which brings to my own personal recollection this verse; “Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.” (Luke 3:8)

How do you see this? ;)

Ramir
Sing I already did on another post so why are you asking them again?
Paul, I agree entirely with what you said. My question is towards Sing that seems to believe that warnings indicate something is entirely possible for the believer. Example the warnings of apostasy in Hebrews is given to believers but yet it is impossible for the believer to completely fall away!

Sing F Lau
‎"If all men are commanded to repent and believe, dies that mean we have the ability to?"
========
"All men" in what sense are commanded to repent and believe?
Who are embraced by the term "all men"?

Does God actually command men whom He did not give Christ to be their Redeemer, and for whom Christ did not die to save, to repent and believe in Jesus Christ?

Does God require men to believe lies?

If not, then why preachers conduct themselves as though God does?

study by asking questions.

Andrews
Duty would seems to validate responsibility, would it not?

Ramire
Sing you ask more questions than you answer.
[I ask questions to learn. You pontificate to teach ]

Sing F Lau
Fernando @ Sing I already did on another post so why are you asking them again?
====
Hello friend, you are not the only one around, are you?... LOL!

The exchanges are archived here: http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2010/09/no-believer-can-finally-fall-away-from.html.

I put it there so that my church members may read and enjoy the exchanges. All identities of commentators have been altered.

Sing F Lau
‎"Duty would seems to validate responsibility, would it not?"

It sure does. It means obligation. But it does not necessarily imply any ABILITY.

Warnings are entirely different. The dangers warned against are always real. If the dangers warn...ed against at impossibilities, then it reflect poorly upon the person who issue the warnings. They waste their words, they wisdom is doubted!

Ramir
That's great that you do that Sing! A really good idea.
Now do you always go around looking to disagree and debate? ;-)
I've seen you do it on a lot of posts. Never edifying or in agreement but always disagreeing. Any particular reason? Do yo...u really dislike Calvinism that much? I just find it odd that you call yourself a LBCF 1689 kind of guy but yet most if not all were Calvinists!!!

Ramir
So are you saying that according to Hebrews, it is possible for a believer to lose their salvation? Kind odd how you were defending "eternal security" (the easy-believism type) on another post.
[Sing: you can't even distinguish between fall from salvation, and falling from the faith!
I defending easy-believism- you must either be joking, or dreaming!]

Ramir
Sing do you have a doctrinal statement that i can examine?

Andre
‎@Sing. Tell me, how does the warning to the elect of God from Peter translate to now become an inability to abstain from sin? Of which, those who have now been released from sin's power due to the finished work of Christ and His Holy Spi...rit now dwelling in the righteous possess.

I don't get it? This verse is dealing with the falling into sin which we can do willfully. :-|>

Sing F Lau
Fernando, there is a salvation which is entirely by God's free grace which nothing can deprive a child of God of it.

There is a salvation which a child of God must work out for himself with fear and trembling. A child of God will suffer lost... of that salvation if he is careless and negligent. God's children may make shipwreck of their faith. The Corinthian brethren and saints were in danger of it by their spirit and conduct towards Apostle, for which they were admonished to examine themselves whether they be in the faith, (NOT not where they were in the state of grace!)

I am not here to agree or disagree. I am here to learn and study the word of God with those brethren who are interested. If you are not, you have to liberty to leave my questions alone. And if you don't like them, then the liberty is also yours to do something with it - chop it, grind it, mince it...

The doctrinal statement is the 1689 LBCF.

Ramir
No sir your doctrinal statement is NOT consistent with the LBCF of 1689!
And your brief statement of faith is quite ambiguous. What do you mean "there is a salvation" how many salvations do you see in the Scriptures? You make too many disti...nctions and where there should distinctions you make none. You are rather confusing. Your view of being in the faith and in a state of grace are odd. Care to define the two?

Andre
It would be a novel approach if one could arrive at the truth of scripture and doctrinal exegesis without having to go any further than their knees, a bible and the Holy Spirit!

Sing F Lau
‎"Tell me, how does the warning to the elect of God from Peter translate to now become an inability to abstain from sin? "
=====
How did you get this from what I have written?

An inability to abstain from sin is a whole world of difference from saying that the dangers they were warned against can really happen to them under certain conditions.

"This verse is dealing with the falling into sin which we can do willfully." Exactly. Apostle Peter is NOT warning of something that cannot happen to God's children. Many sincere Calvinists insist that such things cannot happen to God's children, and that those warnings are addressed at reprobates!

Falling away from a LIFE OF FAITH AND OBEDIENCE can happen to God's children. Therefore all the warnings in the Scriptures. This deals with the temporal salvation conditioned upon the obedience of God's children, that which relates to this present and temporal life here.

Falling away from THE STATE OF GRACE cannot happen to God's children. Therefore all the statements to that effects. This deal with eternal salvation wholly by the free grace of God.

Grace brought a man into the state of grace, and he remains in it NO MATTER WHAT. The obedience of a child of God keeps him in a life of faith and obedience... and disobedience on his part will have the opposite effect.

If this distinction is appreciated, then all the needless confusion will disappear easily.

I off now. Work needs attending to.

Andre
‎@Sing. BTW, this is how I got the inference from you about inabiltiy...

You said; ""Duty would seems to validate responsibility, would it not?"

It sure does. It means obligation. But it does not necessarily imply any ABILITY.

Warnings are entirely different. The dangers warned against are always real. If the dangers warned against at impossibilities, then it reflect poorly upon the person who issue the warnings. They waste their words, they wisdom is doubted!

Which would seem to indicate that any warning given was given to persons which did not lack any ability to abstain from sin; thereby presuming that Peter would not offer any warning without ability and duty both being present. Hence, if the object of the letter was incapable or unable, the next logical point would make the directive shift even to the unsaved and unregenerate since all men are unable. Does that make any sense? Anyway, it seems I must have misunderstood...

Sing F Lau
‎@Nicholas...
Duty does mean obligation, but obligation is not conditioned upon ability. A man, as God's creature, has a duty and obligation to worship God his Creator. The covenant of creation STILL imposes that duty and obligation upon hi...m... even though he has lost all his covenant ability.

Therefore, we read this pronouncement, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

God's children, and it is so obvious that the epistle is addressed to them, are warn of the danger that shall befall them if they are not careful.

They are warned against real dangers will happen to them unless they take heed of the precaution states.

The covenant, and work of redemption applied to them have endowed them with the ability to observe that spiritual duty to SAVE THEMSELVES from those real dangers - falling away from the faith.

I just can't figure out what is the real difficulty.
Sing F Lau
Ramirez @ No sir your doctrinal statement is NOT consistent with the LBCF of 1689!
=========
There is no need for such pontificating!
It will be more helpful to prove your statement.
Pontificating is below your dignity as a RB.

Among those who hold the 1689LBCF, there are newcomers who were formerly Arminians but whose fathers were 'particular baptists' in the earlier centuries. These are the new comers, i.e. the RBs that arose in the 1960's.

And there ARE those whose churches in USA have held to the 1689 LBCF since the early 1800's till today.

Are these old baptists or the new comer RBs the true representatives of what the 1689LBCF summarizes and teaches? You can be assured that though they BOTH claim adherence to that same doctrinal statement, there are great doctrinal differences between them, just as there are between Fernando and Sing... and we won't agree much, you already know that!

I wrote to an Arminian Baptist pastor these words, who love to ran down and attack the RBs:
"Briefly, the RBs were formerly Arminian baptists like yourself... but their forefathers were particular baptists in the UK and the US. There was a big schism among them when a big section of the particular churches turned 'general' and descended into rank arminianism. In the late 1950s, some of them realized that they have departed so far away from the teachings of their forefather... they made some effort to return to the roots of their fathers, the early particular baptists who issued the 1689 CoF... But alas, they departed 100 miles away, but would only go back 40 miles, and thought they have arrived home..." [They couldn't be more deceived! And they began to label the old baptists hypercalvinists, while the truth is that they are half-baked 'calminians!']

There are churches TODAY that have held to the 1689 LBCF as their doctrinal standard for hundreds of years. I take them to be the trusted spokesmen of what the LBCF says.

But I have little respect for, and is weary of, the new comers called RBs - whose views are prejudiced and influenced by their former arminianism.

Sing F Lau
Ramirez@ Sing you ask more questions than you answer.
====
Ye, I do. I ask to teach myself to learn, and hopefully to enlist others to help me learn. Others pontificate to teach. All teachers are welcome to help me with the questions.

If I miss your questions, kindly draw my attention to it. You may not want the answer I give. And if you don't like the answer, please don't say I didn't answer.

Sing F Lau
Ramirez@ What do you mean "there is a salvation" how many salvations do you see in the Scriptures? You make too many distinctions and where there should distinctions you make none. You are rather confusing. Your view of being in the faith a......nd in a state of grace are odd. Care to define the two?
=======
I think it is best for me to leave you alone.
I don't want to confuse further a fine teacher like you.

Andre
‎@Sing. You said;
======
“Duty does mean obligation, but obligation is not conditioned upon ability. A man, as God's creature, has a duty and obligation to worship God his Creator. The covenant of creation STILL imposes that duty and obligation upon him... even though he has lost all his covenant ability.

Therefore, we read this pronouncement, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

God's children and it is so obvious that the epistle is addressed to them, are warn of the danger that shall befall them if they are not careful.
They are warned against real dangers that will happen to them unless they take heed of the precaution stated.

The covenant, and work of redemption applied to them have endowed them with the ability to observe that spiritual duty to SAVE THEMSELVES from those real dangers - falling away from the faith.

I just can't figure out what is the real difficulty.”
=========

My Answer...
To what you have commented here, I cannot find anything to refute and would be in agreement as far as I can tell. Have a good and blessed day!

Truth is that which is consistent with...

"To lead is not easy, my dear!"
Truth is that which is consistent with...

Wieb
Truth is that which is consistent with the mind, will, character, glory, and being of God. ~Melissa Moss

Sing F Lau
If this simple AXIOM is observed, it would save many sincere men from much of the lies they embrace so dearly!

Hamm
Yes it would Sing F Lau. Yes it would!

Sing F Lau
I will give a very simple illustration... a very obvious one... and but some who read this would rave and rant and fume... but that is perfectly alright with me!

Jesus said, "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will... of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

Jesus stated the Father's plain will... and stated that He came to do the Father's will, no more and no less. And the Father's will is perfectly spelled out.

Many insist that Jesus came to do THEIR WILL - to die for every one and make salvation for every one possible... and this salvation is to be offered to every one indiscriminately... including those for whom God didn't give to Christ, and for whom Christ didn't die and save, and that each man must decide for himself whether to accept that salvation of not!

As if that is not bad enough, here is worse.

God plainly declared that He justifies the UNGODLY "FREELY by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." This is God's will and action plainly stated in so many words.

Born Calvinists and Armnians INSIST that they are justified by God through faith, their act of believing - and insist that that notion is consistent with the will of God! (Of course they will also piously protest, their faith is a gift of God... as if an unjustified man, in the state of condemnation an death is able to utilize any spiritual gift... a nonsense always leads to another nonsense!)

In their BLINDNESS they don't even realized an obvious NONSENSE!

How could God's act of justifying an UNGODLY man in the state of condemnation and death be equated to the believing act of a child of God justifying him?

Justification by God's free grace of a condemned man is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT and DISTINCT from the justification by the believing act of a child of God.

Gordon
Powerful words, Amen

Chapin
It's hard [impossible without the Lord's help] to give up the fleshly desire to want to "help God." Scripture says, "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh." That's all due to our old nature. It would have sol...ved a lot of problems if the Lord would have eradicated this nature when He regenerated us. But, the Lord didn't do this...so, we have to contend with it
Unless the Lord gives the Light for them to walk in it, they will stay in their own little world [darkness] and miss the blessings and joys of living the gospel life during their earthly pilgrimage.

Does God command any dead man to repent and believe?

Let God be true but every kangaroo court judges be liars

Brother Marrow put up this quote:
‎"God does not ask anything of us that He is not willing and prepared to do through us. He is the dynamic of His own demands, the content of His own commands,the expedient of His own expectations, and the means of His own mandates. This is the grace in which we stand." James Fowler

Sing F Lau
Brother Marrow, that's a very interesting observation.
And the implication is momentous...

God NEVER asks those dead in trespasses and sins to do anything. He is no schizophrenic like many preachers - who think they can command those those dead in trespasses and sins to do something - to repent and believe - in order to have eternal life!

All those commands to do something are commands addressed to God's own children... whom God has REGENERATED and enabled by the indwelling Spirit to do those things commanded.

All glory to Him!

Marrow
Sing, I am more and more understanding some things ..but help me here. Does He command all men everywhere to repent

If He does command all men every where to repent, is he not commanding dead sinners to do what they cannot do? This is an honest question.

Sing F Lau
Brother, when man begins to ask question, he begins to learn. That's my own experience any way.

I have met too many who pontificate to teach. They seldom ask questions, nor do they answer questions that are posed to them. And that for a simple reason - answering the questions will expose the fallacy and the falsity and the error of their view!

Of the the people I have come across in the cyber space since Evangelical list many years, you stand out differently.

God's truth is one complete HARMONIOUS whole - you will agree with this basic and fundamental premise. That is why we say that the Scriptures is, and must be its own interpreter.
And if our interpretation DOES NOT conform to that basic premise, then we are PLAINLY in error, or are plainly deceived.

If our interpretation of "God commands all man everywhere to repent" is such that it does not conform to the plain truth reveal elsewhere in the Scriptures, then it is just man's imagination and fancy, it is not the teaching of Scriptures.

The Scriptures declares in no uncertain term that God elected a particular and specific people, and sent Jesus Christ to live and died for them ONLY, to secure their eternal salvation. His Spirit applied this salvation, whether prospectively or retrospectively, to each one such ONLY and NO ONE ELSE, in His appointed time. God DID NOT give His Son to save the rest. They have been by-passed.

How would you understand the statement, "God commands all man everywhere to repent" in like of those glaring truth?

Do you want 'all men' to include even the non-elect for whom God did not give His Son to be their Savior?

Do you believe in a schizophrenic God who command the non-elect to believe a lie, that Jesus Christ died to save them, to require those for whom He specifically revealed that He has bypassed and for whom He did not give His Son to be their Savior, yet to command them to believe that Jesus is their Saviour?

That is the basic reason that I believe God DOES NOT command the non-elect to repent and believe in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. To do otherwise have blasphemous implications. Just to state one: the God of truth commands man to believe a LIE!

Let God be true but every man a LIAR!

We have to choose the interpretation that is harmonious and consistent with the rest of Scriptures.

'All men everywhere' - is just that... because God's children (regenerated elect) are not just among the Jews, they are found in every nation (ethnic groups, not political nations) scattered through the world.

Marrow
Sing, I thank you for you answer on my last question..Here are a couple of more...again, I am being honest and wondering how someone who holds your theological position thinks on these things. When Paul was on trial and said to Agrippa (Acts 26: 29) that he desired that he (Agrippa) and all that heard Paul speak that... day, were like him (Paul) that is Christians, was Paul expressing a fleshly desire? Also in Romans 9, when Paul expressed a desire for his brethren (in the flesh), fleshly Israel might be saved...even (were it possible...) the sacrifice of his own soul...for their salvation..was that fleshly and wrong? Just wondering how you deal with these passages because they seem at first glance to express a desire in Paul's heart for the salvation of people who obviously were not elect people. Thanks, Your learning brother,

Sing F Lau
Brother Marrow, I will come back to your soon.
You ask real good questions. I am always being taught by good questions - drive me to study the Scriptures.

Sing F Lau
Brother Marrow, let me make sure I get your question correct.

" 27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
29 And Paul said, I would ...to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

Was Paul expressing a fleshly desire?

No, not at all, but a true and sincere HUMAN desire, a genuine expression of the great commandment: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." A child of God desires good for his fellow men generally... He desired for them the transformation that he had... once a blasphemous enemy of the gospel, but now a follower of Jesus Christ.

The desire of God is compatible with His will and decree. He WILL NOT desire nor command those for whom He did not give Christ to be their Savior to believe Christ Jesus to be their Saviour.

The desire of a child of God is compatible with God's will for him... "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" and that includes desiring the good that one has for the neighbors.

Sing F Lau ‎
Also in Romans 9, when Paul expressed a desire for his brethren (in the flesh), fleshly Israel might be saved...even (were it possible...) the sacrifice of his own soul...for their salvation..was that fleshly and wrong? Just wondering how...... you deal with these passages because they seem at first glance to express a desire in Paul's heart for the salvation of people who obviously were not elect people.
==========

The narrative does express Paul's desire for the salvation of the people under consideration... the great heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart are sincere and genuine.

There are several consideration here:

- what is the salvation that apostle desire for the people under consideration? Was it eternal salvation by God's free grace, or a salvation that is dependent upon Paul's life and ministry? Would apostle Paul be speaking of the salvation that is wholly and entirely by the free grace of God that he has so copiously asserted and demonstrated throughout the whole epistle?

I believe apostle Paul desired the temporal salvation that comes to the children of God among the Jews ONLY through believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.

- Who exactly are the people under consideration? Brethren in the flesh. Did he mean 'all the Jews indiscriminately' or God's children who are among the Jews. I believe the context demands the latter.

Apostle Paul was dealing with a very unique problem among the children of God among the Jews - even though they WERE children of God, but BECAUSE of their old covenant background, they found letting go of the old covenant very hard, and enter the kingdom of heaven by believing in Jesus Christ a great stumbling block.

When Apostle Paul stated, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" - it is obvious that his concern WAS NOT with the PHYSICAL Israel, but the spiritual Israel among the Jews. They needed to be brought to the faith. The natural Jews WILL NEVER be able to be brought to the Jews.

Sing F Lau ‎
8 So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us."
=======
What do the words "imparted... also our own souls...?"

Gill has this to say:
- but also our own souls, or "lives"; which is the highest expression and strongest proof of love that can be given; and respect is still had to the similitude of the nursing mother, who may be said to impart her blood, for such it her milk diversified, for the nourishment of her children: and such was the great concern of the apostles for the interest of Christ, the spread of the Gospel, and the good of souls, that their lives were not dear unto them, so that these ends might he answered: because ye were dear unto us; both because they were loved by God, redeemed by Christ, regenerated by the Spirit of Christ, and had the image of Christ stamped upon them; and also because that they were their spiritual children; and as children are dear to their parents, so were these to them, even to such a degree, as that, were there a necessity for it, they could freely have laid down their lives for them.

Hypercalvinism... what they imagined!

A bald-eager is not bald at all!
The beholder is color blind!
So also those who slander others as hyper!

Allyn
History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.
[sing: what is true Calvinism, and what is hyper-Calvinism? To one true Calvinism is what ever he believes. Those who differ are either Arminians or hyper-calvinists!!!]

Brown
Though I've never met a hyper-Calvinist.

Butcher
Hmmmm...Matthew, neither have I. I've met people that vehemently argue against hyper-Calvinism, but I have not actually met anyone that believed in it. [sing: can they define what is hyper-calvinism?]

Maybe we are hearing from people that take Calvin's teachings out of context to argue against them. Maybe it's the opponents of Calvin's teachings made it up to use it as an argument against Calvinism. The way Satan twisted God's Words and Eve embellished them in the Garden.

Maybe....

Sing F Lau
Spurgeon greatly admired his predecessor John Gill, a man greatly respected by his Calvinistic contemporaries of other denominations... and considered the EPITOME of 'calvinism' [old school calvinism, of course].

And yet today, men who are midgets compared to Gill slandered him as hyper-calvinist.

What has gone wrong? Midgets calling a true giant names!

========
"Charles Haddon Spurgeon is glowing in his praise of Gill. Of his ordination, Spurgeon says, ‘Little did the friends dream what sort of man they had thus chosen to be their teacher; but had they known it they would have rejoiced that a man of such vast erudition, such indefatigable industry, such sound judgement, and such sterling honesty, had come among them.’ Spurgeon loved reading Gill’s sermons and wrote, for instance in his copy of Gill’s preaching on the Song of Solomon, “This priceless work of my learned predecessor has always been helpful to me.” In his Commenting and Commentaries, he says of this work....

“Those who despise it, have never read it, or are incapable of elevated spiritual feelings.”....

This sums up much of present day second-hand criticism of Gill which is rarely based on a first hand knowledge of his works. Gill’s commentaries, which were merely his sermons in writing, were regularly and eagerly consulted by the Prince of Preachers who marked them all with three stars which was Spurgeon’s way of saying, “The very best!”. In 1886 he jotted in his copy of Ezekiel to Malachi the words, “Many sneer at Gill, but he is not to be dispensed with. In some respects, he has no superior. He is always well worth consulting.” In a letter dated February 1855, Spurgeon pays tribute to Gill’s influence on him by stating “My position, as Pastor of one of the most influential churches, enables me to make myself heard and my daily labour is to revive the old doctrines of Gill, Owen, Calvin, Augustine and Christ.” It would seem here that Spurgeon was so taken up by the testimony of Gill that he mixed up his priorities and put Gill first and Christ last."
========

Quote from the article "John Gill and His Successors" by George Ella at http://evangelica.de/articles/biographies/john-gill-and-his-successors/

Go, read the full article and be enlightened.

What has gone wrong? Midgets calling a true giant names - how indicative of this degenerated generation.

Sing F Lau
Augustus Toplady, a no mean giant himself, testified of his Old Baptist mentor, “Perhaps, no man, since the days of St. Austin, has written so largely, in defense of the system of Grace; and, certainly no man has treated that momentous subj...ect, in all its branches, more closely, judiciously, and successfully.”

Ignorant men call Gill names!

Sing F Lau
“John Gill, a Baptist puritan pastor who writes a thorough defense of Calvinistic theology.” testified Dr Robert L. Reymond – a reformed Presbyterian, Professor of Systematic Theology,
and author of “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian F...aith" published by Nelson, 1998.

A giant recognizes a Giant.

Huston
Like a lot of heresies, hyper-Calvinism exaggerates one truth to the exclusion of others. The primer article is excellent. I'm not sure about Gill as I have seen Him described both as a Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist. Either way, Gill was hugely influential and used of God.
[sing: what truths are being exaggerated, and what excluded? Please tell us.]

Sing F Lau
A man calls those shorter than him Arminian, and those taller than him Hyper-calvinist! He himself is the point of reference and standard

Sing F Lau
Dr George Ella referred to Phil Johnson's article in his "The Gospel of Deceit. " Here is an excerpt from the article:

Johnson’s Jinks
Several of these Babel forgeries have bothered the Christian Press recently under the guise of duty-faith a...nd the free offer. One is an article by Phillip R. Johnson entitled A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, published by the Sword and Trowel (March, 2002). Here, the author boasts that we must twist Scripture to disagree with him. There is no danger of this. The little he says based on Scripture would be accepted by most of those he opposes and everything he says against his opponents is unfounded, undocumented prejudice and silly name-calling. Johnson’s argument that all men are duty-bound to believe in Christ within the ‘Free Offer’ is as rationalistic as it is illogical and un-Biblical.

Read the full article here: http://evangelica.de/articles/doctrine/the-gospel-of-deceit/

Cattmule
‎"Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists will protest that it is illogical or unjust to teach that God demands what sin renders us incapable of doing." That's it in a nutshell!
[Those whom CattMule slanders as hyper-calvinists protest that it is immoral and illogical to teach that God demands those whom He did not give Jesus Christ to be their their Saviour to repent and believe Jesus Christ to be their Saviour. CattMule is incapable of representing his opponent accurately... and should hold his peace!]

Sing F Lau
Very many INSIST that the God they worship demands EVEN the non elect to believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins to save them EVEN THOUGH God has plainly revealed and declared that He did not give His Son Jesus Christ for such, but fo...r His elect ALONE.

Would the God of truth demand the non-elect believe a lie?
Let God be true but every man a liar.

God does demand His children (the elect that re already regenerated) to believe the gospel because it is already true of them. Truth must be believe... but that does not mean that it will always be believed even by those who ought to believe it!

Cattmule
‎"A hyper-Calvinist is someone who .... Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear"
This professor has no message for the wicked. Therefore, if the ungodly man were forced to spend time with a professing Christian, he would choose the Hyper as the most comfortable companion! lol

Sing F Lau
At last someone is kind enough to give a working definition of a hyper-calvinist! Thanks.
"A hyper-Calvinist is someone who... Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear"

There is a basic error and a great confusion with this statement. It stems from a misguided notion of what constitute the gospel, and what constitutes the gospel call.

The gospel is the good news of what God HAS DONE for His chosen people through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, and APPLIED by the Spirit of God to individual elect. That is the good news... and in the nature of the case, the gospel is for those in whom God has applied the work of redemption, and no one else.

The gospel call, in the nature of the case, APPLIES specifically to those in whom the gospel truth is already true, therefore calling them to believe the truth of their redemption by the free grace of God. The gospel call is a call to God's children, in whom the redemption has been applied PERSONALLY by God's free grace, to believe the gospel truth.

But alas, so many think the gospel call is offering salvation to all without distinction... therefore the offer is extended to all without distinction... i.e applies to all! Offer that sounds very generous and benevolent!

Go to the cemetery on a fine day. Bring along some delicious food... Yell on top of your voice that you have some good food to share. The offer is to all. In your sincerity, you make it very clear that the offer is extended to the dead too. Some other visitors may hear your offer and join you. But such are already living. EVEN SO your 'gospel offer' to give them eternal life has come TOO LATE!

Gospel is spiritual milk and meat... the gospel call to such milk and meat is for the living... and applies to the living among the hearers, and not the walking dead.

So, I deduce from your definition that a Calvinist is someone who insist that the gospel call is an offer, and it is offered to all, including those dead in trespasses and sins.

Even if it is an offer, let me just say that it is FOOLISH to offer it to the dead and non-elect, as well as MOCKERY in the extreme to do so!

Correct me if I am wrong. I abhor misrepresenting anyone.

Sing F Lau
‎"This professor has no message for the wicked.
Therefore, if the ungodly man were forced to spend time with a professing Christian, he would choose the Hyper as the most comfortable companion! lol"
=====

There is clearly great confusion here....

The statement assumes that one he slanders as a hypercalvinist has ability to distinguish the wicked from those who are not. Therefore he would not preach the gospel to the wicked. That is not only a confusion, but also a wicked misrepresentation. One he slanders as a 'hypercalvinist' does not have, and has never claimed that he has, that knowledge. It is a big lie.

The simple truth is, one whom you conveniently label as 'a hypercalvinist' believe in preaching the gospel to ALL HIS HEARERS, announcing to them what God has done to save His people through Jesus Christ and applied by His Spirit to individual sinners... calling them to believe the truth... ALL THE TIME CONSCIOUS that his call, in the nature of the case, APPLIES ONLY to God's people among the hearers, and NO ONE ELSE.

Of course if an ungodly man can know, he would most certainly choose to spend time with one who would tell him LIES... He would flee from one you call 'a hypercalvinist' who would offer him nothing.

Sing F Lau
Of course if an ungodly man can know the difference, he would most certainly choose to spend time with one who would tell him LIES...
- the LIE that he has been sent to offer eternal salvation to the wicked... spreading the LIE that without ...his preaching, the Holy Spirit is impotent to regenerate.
- the LIE that if the wicked would accept the offer, eternal life would be given to him... spreading the LIE that one dead in trespasses and sins is able to believe in order to get life!
- the LIE that if he believes, he will be justified by God... spreading the LIE that an un-justified man, therefore under condemnation, is capable of believing, and be justified by God.
- LIES, LIES, and more LIES.

And of course the wicked is most comfortable with those who tell him lies.

They hate one whom you label as hyper-calvinist because he would tell them the unpalatable truth of free and sovereign grace, that only God's children, elect ALREADY regenerated is able to believe the gospel, and he has been sent to call such to repentance and faith... and whoever believes DOES SO because he POSSESSES eternal life.

Apostle Paul did say:
"10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."

This is bald-headed... but it is not the majestic bald-head eagle,
and many mistake it as a bald eagle.
They are guided by SIGHT and not SENSE.
This is a vulture... a lowly creature that feeds on carcasses!

Cattmule
That was lengthy, but at least you did give one Scripture.
Apostle Paul did say:
"10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."

Amen. He also called on his audience at Mars Hill to repent.

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, SOME MOCKED: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them. HOWBEIT CERTAIN MEN CLAVE UNTO HIM, AND BELIEVED: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them."

Sing F Lau
Nice to quote Scriptures and then assumes it teaches man's imagination!

God's truth is one complete HARMONIOUS whole - you will agree with this basic and fundamental premise. That is why we say that the Scriptures is, and must be its own interpreter.
And if an interpretation DOES NOT conform to that basic premise, then it is PLAINLY in error, or the interpreter is plainly deceived.

If one's interpretation of "God commands all man everywhere to repent" is such that it does not conform to the plain truth reveal elsewhere in the Scriptures, then it is just man's imagination and fancy, it is not the teaching of Scriptures.

The Scriptures declares in no uncertain term that God elected a particular and specific people, and sent Jesus Christ to live and died for them ONLY, to secure their eternal salvation. His Spirit applied this salvation to each elect personally, whether prospectively or retrospectively, to each one such ONLY and NO ONE ELSE, in His appointed time. God DID NOT give His Son to save the rest. They have been by-passed.

How should one understand the statement, "God commands all man everywhere to repent" in light of those glaring truth?

Do you want 'all men' to include even the non-elect for whom God did not give His Son to be their Savior?

Do you believe in a schizophrenic God who command the non-elect to believe a lie, that Jesus Christ died to save them, to require those for whom He specifically revealed that He has bypassed and for whom He did not give His Son to be their Savior, yet to command them to believe the very opposite, that Jesus is their Saviour? Of course many liars would do such thing... but LET GOD BE TRUE and EVERY MAN I LIAR!

One has to choose the interpretation that is harmonious and consistent with the rest of Scriptures.

'All men everywhere' - is just that... because God's children (regenerated elect) are not just among the Jews, they are found in every nation scattered through the world. And the command to repent applies to all such... found among and in the crowd of those by-passed, which is why the preaching must be directed to all hearers... but the call APPLIES to God's children ONLY.

Cattmule
‎"the preaching must be directed to all hearers." I agree!

Weib
the references to "all" and "world" are to every tribe, tongue and nation. while it is "world" in scope, there is only a remnant from every tribe, tongue and nation, not every person who has ever lived or will live.

That's right, as many have lived and died in their sins who never heard of the Gospel or never came under the command to repent.
Paul directed his preaching to all his superstitious audience, Act17:22.....some mockedV32, but others who God had regenerated, believed. Yet the command was to all that heard.
Just like Mk 12:6 "And they went out and preached that men should repent".

Sing F Lau
Cattemull "the preaching must be directed to all hearers"
=====
How else could preaching be done publicly? It is a surprise Arminians/Calvinists would even misrepresent that those they slander as 'hyper-calvinists' as doing otherwise!

But that is very different from saying that the gospel APPLIES to every hearer!

Imagine, Commander in Chief, issued a directive in a live telecast... and the whole world may hear it... but NO ONE would think his message applies to every one who hears, or his message applies to any army of the other nations.

His message APPLIES to the US Armed Forces only, and NO ONE ELSE!

Distinction is the essence of sound theology - I was told.

Cattmule

‎"His message APPLIES to the US Armed Forces only, and NO ONE ELSE!"
Scintillating logic, but yet it falls short of being biblical.
Mk 12:6 "And they went out and preached that men should repent".
Every one who comes under the Gospel message ...is obligated to obey it, otherwise how could they be charged with disobeying it...having their everlasting destruction so clearly declared in scripture?

Sing F Lau
If God obligates a man to believe a lie, then it would be right to obligate a non-elect, for whom Christ was not given as his redeemer, to believe in Christ as Saviour, then it would be logical and moral to charge him for disobeying. Other ...wise it is lawless and nonsensical.

Mark 12:6 DOES NOT deal with the issue. Men to whom the gospel applies SHOULD repent. To the rest, the gospel is IRRELEVANT. Period.

The gospel is INTENDED for God's children (regenerated elect) only... and they alone are commanded to believe, because to them the gospel is already true of them... the salvation proclaimed in the gospel has been APPLIED TO THEM. And refusing to believe will lead to great and severe temporal judgment. Look at the parables of the kingdom of heaven!

The condemnation of disobeying is NONSENSE to those whom the things commanded to be believed are not true of them!

The condemnation of disobeying APPLIES to those in whom the things commanded to be believed are true of them.

There are God's children, who for all sort of reasons, did not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ... e.g God's children among the Jews who were fearful of being ostracized from their Jewish community happened even in Jesus's time.

Trying going to charge a non-American soldier for disobedience for holding his middle finger up to the Commander in Chief's directive!

Has there ever been a man charged and condemned for not believing and obeying a lie in the American court?

Cattmule

Just when you think you've heard it all! lol
"When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST: WHO SHA...LL BE PUNISHED WITH EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD, AND FROM THE GLORY OF HIS POWER"
So, who are those that "obey not the gospel" and will receive "everlasting destruction"in this verse? The "regenerate elect"?
Yes or no?

Sing F Lau
Don't get too excited yet! Read the whole verse sir.

There are those THAT KNOW GOD but obey not the gospel, other children of God are incapable of obeying the gospel, others have never even heard of Christ yet.

And there are those "THAT KNOW NOT GOD, and that obey not the gospel...

Read ALL that is there. Don't just read selectively. Read carefully what is actually said...

Ya, just when you think you have seen it all! How many read selectively... twist the Scriptures and come up all sort of weird ideas!

Cattmule
So, who are those that "obey not the gospel" and will receive "everlasting destruction"in this verse? The "regenerate elect"?

Sing F Lau
A proper question from the text ought to be, So, who are those "that KNOW NOT GOD, and that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL"?

The question must be honest to, and informed, by the text. Your question, being not informed by the text, smell of rottenness it is perverse to even entertain the possibility of the regenerated elect ending up in everlasting destruction, or to expect me to believe that! The question are disgraceful and insulting, expecting me to believe nonsense!

The answer to the proper question is: all the non elect. These know not God AND obeyed not the gospel.

All the elect are regenerated. They are all God's children. All of them KNOW GOD...
" 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Some children are never have the ability to hear the gospel, so obeying the gospel is a NON-issue.

Some children never have the opportunity to hear the gospel, so being charged for 'obey not the gospel' does not arise either.

Those that have the opportunity to hear the gospel, they are CONVERTED to various degrees... some obeyed the gospel to great degree, others less, and still others obeyed not the gospel.

I give you the honor to have the last words. There is no profit to further this thread.

Cattmule
Sing, you are the one who plainly said,
"The condemnation of disobeying APPLIES to those in whom the things
commanded to be believed are true of them."
You said that Sir...You!
So my question was based on your own unbiblical assertion.
...If anything "smell of rottenness" it's your unwillingness to honestly admit that the ones who "obey not the Gospel...and will be punished with everlasting destruction " ARE UNREGENERATE.
It appears that plain scriptural declarations like 2 Thess 1;8,9 assult your carnal refusal to warn unbelievers to "Repent ye and believe the Gospel"
And so now it's, "There is no profit to further this thread."?
C'mon! You can do better than that!
Bottom line is you don't know who the elect are, so you are to call on "all men everywhere to repent"!

Kind Regards.

Sing F Lau
Cattemull @ Sing, you are the one who plainly said,
"The condemnation of disobeying APPLIES to those in whom the things commanded to be believed are true of them."
You said that Sir...You!
=========

Since you are confused, you deserve a reply. Of course I did say that. But it is your OBTUSENESS in refusing to understand what I actually said.

I said God's children who disobeyed the gospel will suffer severe judgment in this life.

BUT I did not say that God's children who disobeyed the gospel will suffer the EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION. You draw that perverse conclusion!

That's wholly your imagination. If it is not, tell me where I have said that. I have always said that when one cannot represent his opponent accurately, he should cease and hold his peace.

You said, "Bottom line is you don't know who the elect are, so you are to call on "all men everywhere to repent!"

But is that the issue? Have we not agreed that in the nature of the case, the public proclamation of the gospel is directed to all the hearers? How else can the gospel be publicly proclaimed?

The issue is, you insist that the gospel APPLIES to every hearer, including the non-elect, that they too are commanded to believe something not true of them. YOU INSIST THAT God requires them to believe a lie. You are free to believe that. I just disagree with you. Is that acceptable?

Oh yes, I do warn all my hearers to turn from their sins... but I also know that the messages APPLIES to the children of God ONLY.

Is that clear now?

Cattmule
Are you saying those that"obey not the Gospel" in 2 Thess1:8,9 are God's children?
A "Yes or No" would make it clear for me.

Sing F Lau Answer: Them that KNOW NOT GOD, and that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL of our Lord Jesus Christ who shall be punished with everlasting destruction are NOT - NOT - NOT God's children

Is that a yes or a no to your question?

Ok, let me state it plainer for you: those that obey not the gospel in 2 Thess1:8,9 are NOT God's children.

Ok, the answer to your question is a loud NO. I hope it is clear to you this time

Such DISOBEYED the gospel even though the gospel was never intended for them. Their hatred and rejection of such good news without just cause most certainly discloses their utter perversity and corruption, even though it was never intended for them, would most certainly greatly compound their guilt.

The phrase "them that KNOW NOT GOD, and that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL" is a description of the people AMONG THOSE who will be punished with everlasting destruction, not necessarily the immediate or direct cause of their punishment.

Why? Because very many among those who shall be punished with everlasting destruction had never even heard the gospel, much less disobeyed the gospel.