For Whom Did Christ Die? John Owen

John Owen's Classic Question


John Owen - (1616 - 1683)
Puritan theologian committed to the congregational way of church government. Educated at Queens College, Oxford, he became sympathetic to the cause of Puritanism within the Established Church. After his ordination he saw himself first as a Presbyterian Puritan, but after careful study he adopted the congregational [independent] way and became its chief exponent for the rest of his life. He was a parish minister at Fordham and then Coggeshall in Essex from 1643 to 1651. During this period he accompanied Cromwell with the armies of Parliament first to Scotland and then to Ireland. In 1651 he was appointed dean of Christ Church, Oxford, a position which allowed him to seek to train godly and learned ministers for the Cromwellian state church, of which he was the senior architect. He added to this duty that of the vice-chancellorship of the university from 1652 to 1657. The 1650's saw Owen very influential not only at Oxford but also in matters of state in London.

His commitment to congregational church government is seen in the part he played in the writing of the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order (1658). With the change of political and religious direction in England in 1660, Owen was ejected from Christ Church and became a Nonconformist. He felt unable to minister within the national church, for not only did he reject episcopacy but he also rejected the idea of a written liturgy. For the next twenty years he was a leader of English Nonconformity and a pastor of a congregational church in London.

He is remembered today not primarily because of his important career as an educator and statesman but because of his theological writings, which were numerous and spread over forty years. He wrote on the major themes of high Calvinism (particular redemption, divine election, etc.), of traditional Catholic orthodoxy (Trinitarianism and Christology), of church polity, and of the pursuit of holiness. While he has great depth and insight as a writer, his style is heavy and his thoughts are complex.

P. TOON
Bibliography. P. Toon, God's Statesman, the Life of Dr. John 0wen and (ed.). The Correspondence of Dr. John Owen

Question: For Whom Did Christ Die?

"The Father Imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for
either:
1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men

In which case it may be said:
a. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved.
b. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
c. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

Dr. John Owen, Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and Vice Chancellor of Oxford University

Did Adam LIE when he named the woman Eve?

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;
for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
And "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

This little exchange [verbatim] below between a Sir Matthiu and his Lady Jane caught my attention...
This is an example how the plain word of truth is twisted and perverted by a sincere but misguided student of God's word! 

Here is the short exchange in full, followed by a few comments.
https://www.facebook.com/matthew.d.sturt#!/mattongbp/posts/10151463795118403]
Comments in italics within the exchange are mine...

Sir Matthiu asked:
Did Adam LIED when He call the Woman Eve in this verse??
-----------------
[Genesis 3:20] And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
-----------------
Yes and No answer. And Show another verse to justify thy answer.

Lady Jane
 No. God called them Adam, and Adam called her Eve...

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." - Genesis 5: 1-2 (KJB)

[Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

"Adam" is used both in a generic sense referring to the huMAN race, and the personal name of the man who is the representative head of the huMAN race. Adam called the being made out of him woMAN. The human race Adam consist of the MALE man and FEMALE man.

MAN first call the beautiful huMAN being made out of him a woMAN... why? "because she was taken out of Man."
Fallen Adam called his wife Eve after the fall... why? "because she was the mother of all living."]

Matthiu
"their name is Adam." NOT their name is Adam and Eve. Please read REALLY carefully.

[Here is a basic ignorance. Their name is Adam indicates that the huMAN race is made up of a MALE man and a feMALE man, both having exactly the same essence. They were created in the likeness of God... i.e. two distinct persons with exactly the same huMAN essence, even so three distinct persons with exactly the same divine essence.]

Jane
Well, I said God called them both Adam, but Adam called her Eve.

[Well said... Gen 3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." But Sir Matthiu insists that Adam calling his wife Eve is a grievous sin of lying, and quotes God as his authority, "God found Adam lying."  What is his basis for making such a charge? Did God say so? Or was Adam actually expressing faith and confidence in God's wonderful promise of the Saviour in the seed of the woman?]

Matthiu
 But also read MORE carefully and COMPARE what God said and Adam. Adam was ALREADY caught lying by God when he said called Eve. Adam at that POINT in time already had the lying spirit within him. IS Adam the father of saviour or IS God s the father of the saviour??

[Matthiu can't stay on the subject... did Adam lie in calling the woman Eve. He just conveniently drifted off to another subject to avoid the subject! Where in the Scriptures does it say that "Adam already caught lying by God when he called the woman Eve? Matthiu is taking the name of God in vain! And he is bearing false witness against God too - the 3rd and the 9th commandments are transgressed!!!

Jane
According to the bible, you're right. Adam is lying.

[No, according to the Holy Scriptures, Sir Matthiu is wrong, and LIED... even though he may be a sincere man! he is not only lying, he takes the name of God in vain, and ALSO bear false witness!]

Matthiu
Which is why when Eve gave birth to Cain (natural man) FIRST son of Adam, Cain, he was a murderer (had the spirituality within) and slew the second Spiritual son Abel (whom God called).

SUBTLE lies (doctrine that justify they as EVE) from the harlots and their mothers exposed CLEARLY and very carefully here in Genesis. Their preachers claims to have the ability to spiritually give birth to THEIR spiritual children.

[Your hatred and enmity against the RCC have perverted and twisted your ability to rightly divide the word of truth. Fallen Adam calling his wife Eve BECAUSE he believed the glorious promise of God that redemption shall come through the seed of the WOMAN!!! The name Eve reflects and signifies that truth! But you, in your blind zeal, have twisted something beautiful into something evil!]

Jane
Matthiu it's sad to know that this isn't exposed in many churches.

[Jane, it is sadder to witness that you are so easily taken in by the follies of Sir Matthiu!!!]

Matthiu
Do not be, their "churches" IS meant to be a cage. Those withOUT the cage IS justified and called out by Christ JESUS in Revelation 18:4.

=== exchange ends here ===

So, Brother Matthiu begins with an evil presupposition that Adam's calling the woman Eve constituted a lie, and that Adam was caught lying by God calling the woman Eve!

Let's see whether the Scriptures support that, or they are just wild and evil imagination forced upon the Scriptures.

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living" Gen 3:20.
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them" Gen 3:21.

Why did Adam call the woman [a generic name for a female man] Eve?
- He called the woman Eve because he believed in the glorious promise of God... "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
- There shall be deliverance through the seed of the woman. There is no more hope in the fallen Adam. Adam believed it, and as an expression of his faith, he called the woman Eve... because he believed she was the mother of all living.
- But Matthiu sees hints of RCC harlot here! He fights against RCC in a very wrong place. RCC loves to have misguided enemies like Matthiu!!!

Did Adam lie when he called his wife Eve?
- Most certainly not. Why? There isn't a shred of evidence. It is Sir Matthiu evil and corrupt imagination, influenced by his zealous hatred against anything remotely connected with the harlot RCC.
- We read that God clothed Adam with the garment of skin!  20 ¶ And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. 21 ¶ Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." Verse 21 follows right after verse 20. There is the slightest hint that Adam was lying, neither is their the slightest hint that God found Adam lying!

What is the significance of fallen Adam calling the woman Eve.
John Gill has some wise words here:
"because she was the mother of all living: ... was prophetic of what she would be...  and the ground of this faith and persuasion of his, that he and his wife should not die immediately for the offence they had committed, but should live and propagate their species, as well as be partakers of spiritual and eternal life, was the hint that had been just given, that there would be a seed spring from them; not only a numerous offspring, but a particular eminent person that should be the ruin of the devil and his kingdom, and the Saviour of them; and so Eve would be not, only the mother of all men living in succeeding generations, but particularly, or however one descending from her, would be the mother of him that should bring life and immortality to light, or be the author of all life, natural, spiritual, and eternal; and who is called zwh, "the life," which is the same word by which the Greek version renders Eve in the preceding clause. It was with pleasure, no doubt, that Adam gave her this name; and it appears that this affair of her being seduced by the serpent, and of drawing him into the transgression, did not alienate his affection from her; and the rather he must needs cleave unto her, and not forsake her, since her seed was to break the serpent's head, and procure life and salvation for them..."

Conclusion
Adam did not lie. Matthiu did. Worse still, he accused God of things He did not do, and he bore false witness against Adam. But Matthiu being a stiff neck and incorrigible man - I know him personally for quite a while - he will unlikely own his sin and admit his errors.

This is the sole reason I wrote the above:
James 5:
 19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
 20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

"Lucifer comes disguised as a moderate Calvinst" - Charles Page

Not baked beans on toasts!
But worms!

Page

I am seeking to push the envelope just a little futher seeking the perimeters without bursting a pipe! Beware Arminians and John MacArthur type moderates! This could get nasty! I love the atonement of Christ too much to just be silent while these wooly bullies trample the precious blood of our Savior.

Lucifer comes disguised as a moderate Calvinst buying air time on the media to spoil the gospel. Moderate Calvinism has the fingerprints of Satan all over it! I hope that don't burst any pipes!
[It may burst some blood arteries in some brains!!!]

Snow

I am neither calvinistic nor arminian - please have at it.

Sing F Lau

They don't deserve the adjective 'moderate' nor the noun 'calvinist.' Just call them high Arminians! That's calling 'spade' a 'spade'!

Lloyd

Sing, explain why they are not calvinistic please.

Page
Robert does that mean you don't hold to a view of election?

Sing F Lau

Lloyd@ "Sing, explain why they are not calvinistic please."

1. They have departed from the beliefs of the old school calvinists. They have ceased to be calvinistic... Instead of owning that simple truth, they slander the old school calvinists... has 'hyper'. HOW CONVENIENT and DECEITFUL!

2. They have ABSOLUTELY messed up the old school distinction between forensic justification by God's free grace and experiential justification through man's faith! They confuse them and teach that forensic justification is through or conditioned on man's faith.

3. They have messed up the doctrine of perseverance into work based salvation. The old school doctrine speaks of saints remaining in the STATE of grace into which God freely and sovereign called them. The new school calvinists PERVERTED into saints persevering in a life of faith and holiness till the end of life.

4. The old school calvinists believed in direct and immediate regeneration WITHOUT and APART from gospel instrumentality. The new school calvinists believe their preaching activity is the necessary instrument in regeneration. New school calvinists are FULLERITES.
Old school calvinites ate GILLITES.

5. The old school calvinists believed the distinction between eternal salvation by free grace, and temporal salvation through the obedience responses of God's children. Because the new school calvinists are incapable of distinguishing the two, they end up with eternal salvation THROUGFH faith, instead of eternal salvation EVIDENCED by faith.

That's enough... others like 'free offer', 'common grace' are all related and manifestation of Arminian theology!

Sing F Lau

Charles@ "...These wooly bullies trample the precious blood of our Savior."

Very apt description. Soft-headed people will be offended by these words.

Snow

Charles, you could say that - I reject all 5 points of calvinism, and only half-way accept 1point of arminianism - I essentially reject both calvinism and arminianism, and am neither.

Lloyd

well Sing that's ok then. the paedo baptists say that the new school RBs ARE Calvinist either. However as far as I can see the only significant difference is that they believe in preaching a gospel of repentance to the lost and praying for them. Now obviously you think that's pointless because there dead in sin and trespasses. that their lost but weren't you in that state once. Didn't the Spirit of God breathe upon your life and open your eyes to the gospel that you were a sinner in need of a saviour that you needed to repent? are you telling me you were always alive.

Sing F Lau

Lloyd, when will you ever understand simple things??? I have explained these things so many times, you just don't seem to get it. You still don't see the vital issue involved.

I would try again.
You asked: "are you telling me you were always alive."
No, Every man is conceived in sin, born in sin, a child of wrath, in enmity against God, dead in trespasses and sin. Understand this simple statement?

And UNLESS God effectually calls a man out of that state of SIN and DEATH - without man's help or aid in any way - he will remain in that state and perish and end up in hell.

The issue is not whether it is necessary to preach the gospel. If you think that is the issue, you are still OBLIVIOUS to what is at stake! Gird up the loin of your mind!

The preaching of the gospel is necessary - the question is, necessary for what, for what purpose?

The Scriptures declares, and the old school baptists believed that it is necessary for the CONVERSION of God's CHILDREN, those elect that God has regenerated WITHOUT the preaching of the gospel. God's children need to be brought to know the gospel truth, to save them from ignorance and lies and superstitions, etc...

The new school calvinists - both sprinklers and immersionists - insist their preaching is the necessary instrument to the REGENERATION of God's elect who are dead in trespasses and sins, to save them from eternal hell!

Is the gospel ministry necessary instrument for the CONVERSION of God's children, God's elect who are already regenerated? Is 'no gospel ministry, no conversion to Christ' a truth or a lie?

OR, OR, OR

Is the gospel ministry necessary instrument for the
REGENERATION of God's elect who are dead in trespasses and sin? Is 'no gospel ministry, no regeneration' a truth or a lie?

I hope you understand what is the issue at state?
If you do, we will continue.
Otherwise, I have have said more than enough, and you are not perceiving!

Have your spiritual sight check, so that you will see the glaring differences between the old school and new school baptists!

Lloyd

God's elect who are already regenerated?
Nope don't understand, when are you saying regeneration takes place?
Isn't election like a legal agreement made in heaven with the Tri-une Godhead, but ratified on earth through Christs death and resurection and then applied by the Holy Spirit as regeneration?
Now don't get cross with me remember I'm just a dairy farmer trying to get it, out in the country with no fellowship.

Sing F Lau

Alan@ "when are you saying regeneration takes place?"

O Alan you have been posting things from the 1689 LBCoF, and you ask this basic question! I thought you understood the things you posted. Apparently you haven't!

10.1. reads "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..."

Note the time: at God's appointed and accepted time... you may retort, but that's effectual calling!

It is true, but effectual calling is that divine calling " out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ..."

And that REQUIRES:
- justification,
- regeneration,
- adoption, and the Spirit of adoption given to dwell in the regenerated.

11.1 reads, "Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth,.."

Do you see the logical connection between effectual call and justification now???????????

12.1 reads, "1. All those that are justified, God vouchsafed, in and for the sake of His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption,(1) by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of children of God,("

Do you see the LOGICAL connection between justification and adoption now?

Then you may ask, but where is the regeneration? Regeneration is presupposed with justification. You may say, 'what nonsense!' But that because you don't realize that justification is the application of the righteousness of life to an elect personally... thus giving the Spirit divine warrant to regenerate the justified.

In Rom 5:18, we read: "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."

Did you notice the phrase "UNTO THE JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE?"
Regeneration unto life the the LOGICAL outcome of the application of Christ's righteousness to an elect personally.

13.1 read this: "1. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated,..."

Ah....... do you see the mention of regeneration now... and its LOGICAL connection with effectual calling!

Put all of them together, and you get this:
Effectual Call to grace and salvation:
----- justification
----- regeneration
----- adoption + gift of the Spirit to dwell in the regenerated!

Only an elect effectually called by God to grace and salvation is ABLE to respond and answer to the gospel call... when by God's providence is brought to him.

So back to your question: "when are you saying regeneration takes place?"

The answer is: at God's appointed and accepted time... independent of the will or desire or effort of man; independent of the gospel ministry.

"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Please indicate whether you have understood!

I now realize that men can quote this and quote that, BUT OFTEN they DON'T know or understand what they have quoted!

Sing F Lau

Lloyd, I will never get cross with you. I am a farmer myself... I am a miner of God's word, and a tiller of God's earth! I will come to join you and do some farm work sometimes!

Lloyd@ "Isn't election like a legal agreement made in heaven with the Tri-une Godhead, but ratified on earth through Christs death and resurrection and then applied by the Holy Spirit as regeneration?

That's correct to a great degree.
Rather than saying 'election is like a legal agreement made in heaven...' it would be more appropriate to say that 'the covenant of redemption is like a legal agreement made in heaven...'

Look at salvation like this: the are FIVE aspects... like the five fingers of a human hand:

- Redemption Purposed for all the elect in eternity

- Redemption Accomplished for all the elect at the cross

- Redemption Applied to each elect personally at effectual calling... WITHOUT instrumentality. And effectual call out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation requires justification by God's free grace, immediate and direct regeneration by the Spirit, and adoption by the Father into the family of God... now an elect is capable of believing, for the indwelling Spirit works the grace of faith in him!!!!!!!

- Redemption Experienced by each elect through faith in Jesus Christ... WITH gospel instrumentality.

- Redemption Consummated at Christ's return.

God bless you brother. I am off... to get ready for the Lord's day.

Lloyd

yes I see what you are saying, and I agree, I'm just getting stuck with what is the point of or is there any point then to evangelism and missions. Do I understand your saying that men are saved without means of any kind? But if that is the ...case man is without any responsibility? and if he is without responsibility how can you condemn him? I understand completely the confession and what your saying, but to me if what you say is correct then all that evangelistic effort from the likes of the apostles through to whitefeild etc were merely vain.

Sing F Lau

Alan @ "God's elect who are already regenerated?"
=====
These are God's elect who WERE already regenerated BEFORE they ever hear the gospel...
- the many devout Jews who came to Jerusalem to worship God on the day of Pentecost...
- the Ethiopian eunuch who came to Jerusalem to worship the God of Israel...
- the Italian centurion was regenerated long before Peter was sent to preach the gospel to him.
- the business woman Lydia worships, and prays to God before Paul preached the gospel to her.
- Abraham was regenerated long before he believed, in Gen 15:1-6!

Sing F Lau

Lloyd@ "yes I see what you are saying, and I agree, I'm just getting stuck with what is the point of or is there any point then to evangelism and missions. I understand your saying that men are saved without means of any kind? But if that ...is the ...case man is without any responsibility? and if he is without responsibility how can you condemn him? I understand completely the confession and what your saying, but to me if what you say is correct then all that evangelistic effort from the likes of the apostles through to whitefeild etc were merely vain."
==============

I am glad that you are now confronted with this MASSIVE dilemma! This dilemma will lead you to the next VITAL BIBLICAL truth you want to learn. It takes a length answer... but let me give you a few lines to think about:

1. There is a salvation which is entirely by the FREE and SOVEREIGN grace of God. And this salvation is ABSOLUTELY without means. Christ said, it is finished... and it is solely applied to each elect personally WITHOUT man's aid whatsoever... see the effectual call to grace and salvation stated above.

2. There is a distinct and separate salvation that is CONDITIONED upon man's responsibility. And that is where the gospel ministry has its proper place. This is the salvation that God's children (the elect that are already effectually called) MUST (therefore responsible) work out for themselves.

The salvation that God worked out for His elect is ETERNAL salvation... delivering them from the eternal condemnation due to their sins.

The salvation that God's children must work out for themselves is TEMPORAL salvation... delivering them from the temporal consequences of sins and disobedience, from lies and falsehood, from superstitions, through the truth of the gospel of their salvation by God's free grace... in this life here and now.

The gospel ministry is vitally necessary to accomplish the latter for God's children. It is the means divinely appointed for the WELL-BEING of God's children here in this life.

Brother, if you can understand the distinction between these two distinct salvation, then your dilemma is resolved completely.

Feel free to ask any further question... or raise any objections..

Stupid |ˈst(y)oōpid| - lacking intelligence or common sense

'Call out louder, louder please! A bit louder still, and the dead will hear you! He will reach out and accept your great offer!

 

 

1Ki 18:27 "And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked." 

Elijah is calling the prophets of Baal 'stupid' in a very nice polite way!

Conversation with a pastor friend... who is so lacking in common sense, i.e. stupid!

Many people are offended by the word 'stupid.'
The adjective stupid |ˈst(y)oōpid| simply mean lacking intelligence or common sense. It is not a derogatory adjective. It is a factual and objective description of lacking common sense... such as when a man insists that a dead man can, and must eat in order to get life! Such a man lacks common sense!

Lorry
Sing, I have dealt with you with the Word of God and you call me of the devil. It is you who neglect what the Word says.
It should be wiser on your part to point out what quotation i was wrong with but you don't. Your AD HOMINEM postures show your inability to fairly engage and study the Word.

Sing F Lau
Oh LORRY, you are really as stupid as I thought!!!

It is NOT your quotation of Scriptures, and that is a world of difference from dealing with the word of God!!! You have not dealt with the word of God... you have merely quoted the word of God, like Satan did. Even in your quotation of Scriptures, you are NO smarter than Satan.

What is worse, is your twisting of those Scriptures you have quoted... just like Satan HAD DONE before.

You don't understand UNTIL now. It is not just quoting Scriptures and imagine they say what you want them to say. Sorry, I was away in another city doing some church planting work.

Let me give you THE simple but obvious example... again.

Satan, you and I can both quote Scriptures like, Joh 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

Satan and you will understand this Scriptures as Jesus offering everlasting life to one (dead in trespasses and sins, WITHOUT everlasting life) on the condition that he believes in Jesus.

Satan and you believe that Jesus is making an offer of everlasting life to the spiritually dead man. If he believes in Jesus Christ, then everlasting salvation is given to him.

I read this as Jesus declaring and making a FACTUAL statement about the believing man - i.e. the man who believes does so BECAUSE HE POSSESSES everlasting life!

It is like, "whosoever eats has life."

Satan and you take this as an offer to the dead, one who has no life... that if the dead man will only eat, then he will be given life. Little children in my congregation understand the utter stupidity of such nonsense. But that's what you and Satan would want people to believe.

But that is a statement of truth, and not a statement of offer. It declares a certain and specific truth concerning te man who believes.

Sir, when you CAN'T even distinguish a statement of FACT from a statement of OFFER, how can you rightly divide the word of TRUTH???????????????????

Lorry
DON'T CALL ME STUPID.
ARE YOU A SON OF THE DEVIL.
YOUR MOUTH IS FILTHY.
You just bark and bark and have not pointed out the Scriptures i gave and what they say.
Never call a brother FOOL OR STUPID.

Mt 5:22    "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

'Call out louder, louder please! A bit louder still, and the dead will hear you! He will reach out and accept your great offer!

 

Sing F Lau
I fear you don't EVEN know the different between 'stupid' and 'fool'!!!
stupid |ˈst(y)oōpid|
adjective ( -pider, -pidest)
lacking intelligence or common sense :
Someone very intelligent may be a fool too!

Lorry
How did you know I lack intelligence or common sense?
We are talking of the doctrines of the bible and you CAN NOT EVEN give me the verses to support your beliefs.
You just responded calling me STUPID.
You are in darkness.
Never call a brother stupid.
You can not engage with grace of speech.
ARE YOU SON OF THE DEVIL?

Sing F Lau
I know that you lack intelligence or common sense because you are so stupid as to believe that a man without eternal life can perform some spiritual activities to get eternal life.

It is like believing a dead man can and must do something to become alive. I say you must be VERY STUPID to believe such obvious nonsense!

When a man is without common sense, he need to be told he is without common sense. That's being honest with him. You don't call a stupid man something else!!!

Lorry
Sing its not human intelligence that is used here. The wisdom of the world is FOOLISHNESS before God.

The bible says the gospel is the power of God to save those who believes. Paul said faith comes from hearing the word. Jesus said His words are life and spirit. God ENABLES the sinner to understand the gospel and from the heart accept and believe Christ. THIS YOU DONT ACCEPT BECAUSE OF YOUR HUMAN LOGICAL TEACHINGS.

Sing F Lau
I don't accept your LIES and STUPIDITY because Christ said so...
The Lord Jesus said, 'Except a man be born again, i.e. be given eternal life, he CANNOT... CANNOT..." John 3:3,6

You don't agree. You insist that a man who is not born again of God CAN... CAN... CAN... can hear spiritual things, can believe... can accept Christ.... IN ORDER TO OBTAIN eternal life.

Instead, you INSIST that a man who is not born again, who is still dead in trespasses and sins, can perform some activities in order to get eternal life.

You are SO STUPID.
You said, "Paul said faith comes from hearing the word."
But only those whom God has given eternal life have faith... only those whom God has given eternal life can hear spiritual things...

Begone, my STUPID brother!!!
I have no pleasure wasting time with you.

Lorry
Continue to Jn 3:15-18 Jesus preached the good news and faith in Him to be born again.
Your a pity and can not control your tongue.|
Your the one who appears to be a FOOL in our conversation because you REJECT OTHER SCRIPTURES.

Sing F Lau
Larry, you are not only very obtuse, but also very STUPID.
I deliberately call you STUPID hoping to wake you up from your self-conceit.

And what's the use of continuing to John 3;15-18? Do you think Jesus Christ will say something to CONTRADICT what He has said earlier in the chapter?

You don't even seem to know your problem!!!

You interpretation of Scriptures CONTRADICT other part of Scriptures. That means you have not rightly divided the word of truth. If you rightly divide the word of truth, there will be no contradiction.

I don't reject any Scriptures. I can explain each one of them so that they DO NOT CONTRADICT each other.

The way you interpret Scriptures, there are so many CONTRADICTIONS. And your Filipino brethren are so kind as to point the contradictions out to you.... BUT you are TOO STUPID and BLIND and self-conceits to see those contradictions.

So, begone, my STUPID brother!!!

I have no pleasure wasting time with you.

Lorry
Jesus did not contradicted. Thats only in ur thoughts.
The apostles confirmed His teaching in Jn 3:15-18 that the gospel is preached and He is accepted.
Here :
Jn 1:12-13 He is received first then God causes new birth.
1Pet 1:23-25 and Js 1:18 We are gven new birth thru the gospel.
DO NOT BE A FOOL by neglecting the WORD. :)

Sing F Lau
That is why I said, you are SO STUPID... because when you make Christ words to contradict, you are not even aware of it.

Jesus Christ so PLAINLY, SIMPLY, CLEARLY, WITHOUT ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT declares that NEW BIRTH MUST precede, without which a man dead in trespasses and sin, CANNOT do the activities of see or entering.... John 3:3,5-6.

then you stupidly make John 1:12-13 to say the opposite: a man dead in trespasses and sins must receive Jesus Christ first, and then he is born again.

You have just made Jesus to contradict Himself.
You have committed the sin of bearing false witness, and taking the name of Christ in vain... no small matter, Brother Larry. Don't behave with such STUPIDITY.

After this I'll block you. May our Lord Himself teach you.
Thanks.

Lorry
WHERE IS THE VERSE? DON'T BE A LIAR.
Jesus Christ so PLAINLY, SIMPLY, CLEARLY, WITHOUT ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT declares that NEW BIRTH MUST precede, without which a man dead in trespasses and sin, CANNOT do the activities of see or entering....
Don't become a fool and a liar. Ok

Sing F Lau
O Larry, your question "where is the verse..." betrays your complete obtuseness, that you don't ever read or listen to our conversation.
Never mind, sir. I'll take my leave of you now.
May our Lord Himself teach you.
Thanks.

Heb 4:12 - The Word of God

Pisang Susu!

Heb 4:12 - The Word of God

Dear Friends,
Most of us have encountered a rather unusual view of Hebrews 4:12 in discussion with our Arminian—and sometimes our Reformed—friends.

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Our friends almost universally interpret the “word of God” in this verse as either the gospel or the Bible. Even though the next two verses specifically address God’s “word” with personal pronouns, “his,” “him,” and further identifies the “word of God” as our high priest, they persist in this strained and non-contextual interpretation of the verse.

“Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.”

Notice the following in these verses.

1. “Neither” is a connective word that associates the information in this verse with the prior verse.

2. The “he” of the thirteenth verse sees the deepest recesses of the human heart; there is nothing “…that is not manifest in his sight.” This is a further clarification of the power of the “word of God” to divide soul from spirit and to discern the thoughts and intents of human hearts.

3. His “eyes” miss nothing; “…all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.”

4. Such an infinite and all seeing, all knowing One is in fact our high priest; “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens….”

5. Finally the inspired writer identifies “Him” as “Jesus the Son of God” who has passed victoriously into the heavens.

Thus the inspired writer clearly associates Jesus, God’s living Word and our high priest with the “Word” of John 1:1-3. Given the contextual weight of the thirteenth and fourteenth verses, one wonders why—and how—a serious Bible student could possibly miss this context and view it as either Scripture or the gospel. My cliché regarding sound Biblical hermeneutics applies here. The first three and most important rules of Biblical hermeneutics are 1) context, 2) context, and finally 3) context!

My question to all of you this morning; what are the theological implications of this interpretation? Advocates of this view seem inclined to impute to either Scripture or the gospel powers that Scripture reserves for God Himself. Why? What are the theological issues involved in such a tendency? Brother S... , given your regular interaction with some of your neighbors, I’ll especially look forward to your thoughts.

Your thoughts?
Jay
=======

Brother Jay,
I believe that interpreting the “word of God” as the gospel or the Bible, leads to a degraded view of eternal salvation and a degraded view of the sovereignty of God. It allows man to share in the glory that exclusively belongs to God. It opens the way for gospel regeneration which inevitably leads to decisional regeneration or even the campbellite error of baptismal regeneration. This doctrine seems to be the primary interpretation in the main stream churches of today and is by far the predominate understanding that is taught to the 16+ million strong Southern Baptist churches. While there are some exceptions, they are few and far between. It is clearly seen in the “ask Jesus into your heart” doctrine that seems to be popular today.

Blessings,
-DooS
=======

Dear Brother Jay and ... brethren,

Brother Jay, I agree 100% with your interpretation of Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

To borrow one of Elder SP cliches, "Someone is going to have to have help misunderstanding that text. Anyone with enough sense to lick a postage stamp ought to be able to understand that text."

Brother Jay, if  I may, I would like to add a couple of points to your most excellent post:

First, the Bible is not quick (alive) and secondly, it is not a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Although the "word of God" (as part of the Christian armour) is referred to as the "sword of the Spirit", it is not the Spirit. In this reference (Ephesians 6:17), "the word of God" is speaking of the Bible (God's inspired word), which could be referred to as a "two-edged sword" (Old and New Testaments), but pay attention to the language of Hebrews 4:12, the "word of God" here is alive and powerful and sharper than any twoedged sword and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Now I will endeavor to answer you questions. The same people that interpret Hebrews 4:12 as the written word (the Bible) or the preached word (the gospel) are the same ones that deny a "time salvation" and require "faith and belief" as prerequisites for "eternal salvation". Why?...because they do not truly believe in the "total depravity" of the natural man. They believe that ALL men have within them the "free will" to accept or reject the "word of God" and by making Hebrews 4:12 either the written word or preached word reinforces this interpretation.

The theological issues involved in such a tendency, is to make God a liar. It brings Him down to human level and makes His salvation a "partnership affair" between the dead sinner and the most Holy God. Some will even say, "God has done all He can do to save you, now it is up to you to "let him" come into your heart." This interpretation of Hebrews 4:12 also puts the preached gospel equal to the Holy Spirit (able to quicken ...give life to the dead). This interpretation robs God of His glory and gives it to the preacher and dead sinner.

I Praise God for His sovereign Grace and mercy that He has bestowed upon bankrupt hell deserving sinners.

In love to all,
Allindale
=======

Brother DS,

Brother, where have you been? I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and your postings. At least from my personal experience and dialogue, your assessment of the theological "baggage" related to this non-contextual view of the passage holds true. The spectrum of theological preconceptions from folks holding this view ranges from full Arminian to some degree of gospel instrumentality, but the continuum distinctly covers some element of synergistic salvation, a view that man and God cooperate in the new birth process.

On only one occasion many years ago have I ever heard a man who holds to consistent sovereign grace theology posit the view in question, and in that case, when reminded of the context, the brother immediately retracted his view and agreed with the contextual view that the "word" of God in this passage referred to Jesus, the Word of God. The presence or absence of upper case should not alter our perception of the passage. For example, based on Acts 2:16-17 the Joel prophecy specifically refers to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost; however in the KJV text of Joel 2:28-- in every KJV Bible I've checked the word "spirit" appears in lower case. The word itself and the contextual idea, not the presence or absence of upper or lower case, should govern our interpretation.

Appreciate your thoughts,
Jay
=======

Brother Jay

Thanks for the wonderful exposition.

"And He was clothed with the vesture dipped in blood:and his name is called the Word of God."

Failure to rightly divide the word of truth concerning the eternal 'Word of God' in the effectual calling of an elect from the state of sin and death to grace and salvation, and the preached word of God in converting a child of God has been a cause of much confusion and inconsistencies and contradiction in the minds of many. The eternal 'Word of God' in the context of creation is very different from the preached 'word of God' in the context of conversion and sanctification.

A common example of this confusion is how they read the 1689.10 on effectual calling.
"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) enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;(3) taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh:(4) renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;(5) yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.(6)"

The enemies of the gospel (though they be our friends, for we are friendly!) almost universally understand 'His Word' as the word PREACHED BY THEM - as though God needs the word preached by them for the enlightening of minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, for the giving of a heart of flesh, for the renewing of wills... for determining sinner dead in trespasses and sin to that which is good... for effectually drawing them to Jesus... made willing BY THEIR PREACHED WORD as well as by GOD'S GRACE ALONE.

They choose to remain with their blessed inconsistencies. They sure make themselves indispensable in the eternal salvation of God's elect. Doing so, they turn true religion of God's free grace into a multi-billion $$ business... and such folks have a large stake in it.

Someone said, 'Biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.'

learning to divide sparkling sand from diamond,
sing
----