The Great Commission: to whom given, is it fulfilled?

Did the Apostles fulfill their commission accompanied with great promises? 

On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:02 PM,
Michael wrote:
Hi guys,
To whom was the great commission given? Thanks for your thots...
mighty mouthy
-----------

On Dec 14, 2007, at 10:32 PM,
sing wrote:
Midget Mighty, Mickey Mouthy, whatever MM,
Glad you are around.

If we consider that the ‘great commission’ was given to the apostles WITH specific great promises - apostolic signs and wonders UNIQUE to them only, then we need to conclude that the commission was given specifically to the apostles ONLY, and the Apostles fulfilled it. The apostles accomplished and fulfilled the great commission given to them - they were able to do so because of Christ's specific promise to be with them THROUGH the apostolic signs and wonders.

What about the popular rhetorical question
'Has the Gospel been preached in all the world'?
This question needs to be answered by the words of the apostles themselves, and the Lord's Himself.

Ac 2:5 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."

Ro 10:18 "But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went [past tense] into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world."

Ro 16:26 "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known [past tense at the point of Apostle Paul writing the epistle to the Romans] to all nations for the obedience of faith."

Col 1:5-6 "For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

Col 1:23 "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister."

1Tim 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

The Lord Himself prophesied that the gospel would be preached to all nations before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. 15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains.

'The end' here refers to the end of national Israel. It has served its purpose. The kingdom of heaven has come. The old earthy kingdom of Israel is abolished forever.

That abomination of desolation refers to the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem before its destruction in AD 70.

Luke 21:20 “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter there into.”

What is the basis of the NT ministers preaching the gospel?

The basis is certainly not the great commission from the Lord Jesus Christ! No NT minister of the gospel receive the commission directly from the Lord, with the promises of signs and miracles following their ministry. The apostles alone received such a great commission.

There is always this funny rebuttal... if the great commission were given to, and fulfilled by the apostles then there would be no further need of preaching! Such idea forgets about all the specific apostolic commands to the pastors and teachers of the NT churches.

The basis for the NT ministers' ministry of preaching and teaching are Apostolic commands, not the ‘great commission.' The ‘great commission’ was given to the apostles, and apostles alone, along with the promises of the signs and miracles. They established the churches, and gave commands to the churches concerning the ministry of the word.

- 2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
- 2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The apostles COMPLETED the 'great commission.' They DID plant, establish, and teach the NT churches to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded them. They did deliver to the saints the most holy faith… through their ministry and their epistles. They did teach ALL NATIONS - by the apostles' and the Lord's definition. The Lord was with them - with miraculous signs and wonders accompanying their unique ministry - to the end of the world, i.e. Jewish world, in AD 70.

(Please note, the most holy faith was delivered to the SAINTS... those whom God have separated from the state of sin and death. Only saints can receive the most holy faith. They must be saints before that body of gospel truth can be delivered and received and embraced by them.)
I believe all the NT was completed before AD 70, i.e. Revelation was written before AD 70.

just a different note from the south seas,
sing
------

Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:17 am
Michael wrote:
Actually Sing...on this one...I think I might agree with you...Paul said in Col 1:23 that the gospel had been preached to every creature under heaven! And that was past tense in his day. The commission to preach the gospel was not given to the NT church as a body...but to the Apostles...who committed the same to godly men... who would be able to teach others...and so it has come down to us. To make the Great commission applicable to all the church...women, children, young people, etc is to put a burden on them that comes from tradition and a desire to swell the army of..."soul winners" and thus build big churches. Christ had a band of women who ministered unto him, including his mother, He also suffered the little children to come to him and he blessed them.

But when it came to the preaching of the gospel he committed that to his apostles who in turn committed it to others...so in our churches today the ones who are RESPONSIBLE for the spread of the gospel are God called and God sent men. That does not preclude a woman from being a witness to Christ or being a testimony of his grace (The Samaritan woman is an example) but it does relieve the false guilt trip many are on because the gospel has not been committed to them as it has to others who are specifically called and sent to spread it.

God bless all... Help me where I am wrong...I will receive it gladly.
Yours in Him,
MM
------

Dec 15, 2007 9:35 am,
Brainy wrote:
Howdy again Mike,
I see that you and Sing agree... and there I was giving Sing a hard time over one note -- I now see he has at least two. :-)

I hope that after this post I am still a Baptist in good standing, but here goes.
It is true that each body of believers that have covenanted together as a local congregation is a church. While almost every local church has unregenerate folk within it's ranks, it is not by design like the Presbys. In that sense, I don't like the idea of the "visible" and "invisible" church. But I do understand that there is a church universal that includes all the members of the New Covenant. I wonder if you see the great commission given only to the local church with the end always being the new convert coming into that local church. And with new converts being mainly the result of the local church's organized evangelism.

The light that I currently have leads to a somewhat different conclusion. Most new converts to the Body of Christ are drawn in through more private instruments. Friendships, coworkers and family -- or any other group in which believers are insiders, are more fruitful ground than organized evangelism by the local church. Observed differences, sacrifices, and humility seen over time are good tools for the preparation of the soil into which the gospel seed falls. Better, IMHO, than a Church service filled with religious people that are strangers to someone whose mind is being turned to eternal things.

But isn't it "the foolishness of preaching" that is the ordained method of evangelism? Indeed Paul says just that. But is the communicating of the Gospel and those truths that frame it just valid from behind a pulpit? In the 16th chapter of Acts and the group of women, which included Lydia, it reads to me like an informal discussion between Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke and that group -- taking place in small groups. ("We sat down and spoke to the women who met there" v.13) Now it is clear that Lydia was listening to Paul, but I don't think he was the only speaker.

A forgiven sinner,
Brainy

A bit more precision would help the cause of truth!

High precision is so essential in so many instruments we use in daily life.
Yet when it come to stating the gospel truth, it is hardly the case.
Woolliness and equivocation to appear to be common!

I was searching for a church in a city in North America, and was visiting various church web sites for information. I was drawn to one which is most promising among the lot. I read the brief statement of beliefs, and one little portion piqued my interest. So I wrote to inquire. The brief exchanges are found below.  (The exchange is just to highlight an important point, with absolutely no intention of offense or disrespect to any brother or any church, or church group. So please don't take any. The only reason is that this may advance the cause of the gospel of Christ. )

Dear Pastor Bart,

I read this statement below from the article of faith section from your church web site.
We believe that in order to be saved a sinner must be born again through personal faith in Jesus Christ; that the new birth is a new creation; that it is instantaneous and not a process; that in the new birth the one dead in trespasses and in sins is made a partaker of the divine nature and receives eternal life as the gift of God; that such is kept by the power of God through faith unto eternal salvation and shall never perish; that the new birth is brought about in a miraculous manner above man’s comprehension wholly and solely by the grace of God through the power of the Holy Spirit in connection with divine truth; that its proper evidence appears in the fruits of repentance, faith, and newness of life.  [The statement above is exactly the same as Article VIII of the Statement of Faith of the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches Pacific. Fellowship , http://www.bcfellowship.ca/purpose-vision-values/what-we-believe/  The church, it seems, is a member church of the Fellowship]


I'm a little puzzle by just one point in this statement. It stirs up several questions in my mind...

"In order to be saved a sinner must be born again through personal faith in Jesus Christ."
- Is the statement saying that the new birth of a man in conditioned upon (i.e. through) his personal faith in Jesus Christ?
- If it is, doesn't the statement presuppose that a sinner who is not yet born again, and therefore still dead in trespasses and sins, is capable of personal faith in Jesus Christ, in order to be born again, i.e regenerated and made partaker of the divine nature and receives eternal life?
- The Lord Jesus Christ is most emphatic that the new birth must precede any spiritual activity that a man can perform. John 3.
- If the new birth of a man is conditioned upon or through his personal faith in Jesus Chris, then how can it AT THE SAME TIME be said that "the new birth is brought about in a miraculous manner above man’s comprehension wholly and solely by the grace of God"?
- If the new birth of a man is conditioned upon his personal faith in Jesus Chris, then how can faith be seen as an evidence of the new birth? Faith as an evidence of the new birth cannot possible be at the same time be the instrument to bring about the new birth.
- An effect [faith] of a cause [new birth] can't possibly be the instrument to bring about the cause.

I'm sorry for asking. I just want to understand. 
I agree with the other points of belief.

sing
=============

On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:13 AM
Sing - thanks for contacting us at xxBC and for your specific question re: our article of faith statement.  It is encouraging to see people actually reading, as well as interacting with this statement, as it does help frame the way we operate theologically as a church.  Your question that was forwarded to my desk.

It's a great question and i'm happy to help flesh out what is meant there. 
When it states, "We believe that in order to be saved a sinner must be born again through personal faith in Jesus Christ." this is not referring to the ordo salutis (order of salvation) but simply stating that one is not saved by someone else's faith, i.e. that one is not saved by the faith of their parents or by attending church, etc.  The helpful phrase often used is that, "God has many children but He doesn't have any grandchildren."  One must personally respond to the gospel themselves (Rom. 10:9-12).

Alongside that, we would affirm - along with what you've said in your response - that the natural man is dead in his sins and trespasses (Eph. 2:1-3) and is unable to respond to the gospel (Rom. 8:7,8) and that the faith to believe is God's gift to the elect (Eph. 2:8,9) that then enables their personal confession of faith/response to the gospel.  This is why it is stated later, "the new birth is brought about in a miraculous manner above man’s comprehension wholly and solely by the grace of God through the power of the Holy Spirit in connection with divine truth."

Hope that helps in clarifying what is meant.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.  I look forward to meeting your son at some future date and I am glad you have considered xxBC in supporting his spiritual life while here in Vancouver.

God's peace
Westerly
===========

July 3, 2013 10:03:16 AM GMT+08:00
Brother Westerly,
Thank you for your reply. Your explanation is helpful.  I do see your point. I love the statement, "God has many children but He doesn't have any grandchildren." I use that with John 1:13 sometimes.

If the intent of the clause is simply stating that one is not saved by someone else's faith, then it is still misleading, and inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph. Also the phrase "... simply stating that one is not saved by someone else's faith" explicitly implies, "... simply stating that one is saved by his own faith!"

The rest of the statement correctly pointed out that faith is a fruit of salvation, freely and sovereignly bestowed to a sinner dead in trespasses and sins... "that its proper evidence appears in the fruits of repentance, faith, and newness of life."

A simple rephrasing of the statement would not only avoid it being misleading, it makes the statement consistent with the rest of the paragraph.

For example, "We believe that personal faith in Jesus Christ is an evidence of a sinner having been born again; that the new birth is a new creation..." (the manner of which is wholly and solely by the grace of God through the power of the Holy Spirit... as correctly stated later in the paragraph) will remove the misleading nature of the statement, as well as making it consistent and harmonious with the rest of the paragraph. 

I believe it is important to state the gospel truthfully and consistently whether we are dealing with the ordo salutis or not.

Thank you, and may the Lord bless you richly.

a fellow student of God's word,
sing
===========

On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:23 AM:
Brother Sing, 
thanks again for your interaction - glad I could clear up the question for you.  Would love it if I could meet you someday as well - do you think you'll ever make it over while your kin is in school? God's peace -

Westerly
============

Date: July 3, 2013 11:38:06 AM GMT+08:00
Brother Westerly,
Thank you for entertaining my inquiry.
I would love to, but it is very unlikely. It is a luxury I can ill afford.
I labour under very tight financial constraints!
I serve a little church.  I teach English to supplement what the church is able to provide.
You may instead like to visit the far east to escape the winter there!

God's grace,
sing
===

On Jul 6, 2013, at 12:58 AM
Dear Sing,
It is very good to hear from you, especially as you are a fellow pastor!  My apologies for the delay in responding.  I am actually on sabbatical and out of the country for the next two months. 

Regarding your theological question, we do believe in a monergistic understanding of salvation.  Thus we believe that a man must be born again before he can believe.  Faith is the evidence of the Spirit's gift of new birth and is itself a gift from God.  I hope that is helpful.

Your brother,
Bart
============

On July 8, 2013 6:17:03 PM
Dear brother Bart,

Thank you for your reply.
May our Lord bless you with a refreshing and invigorating sabbatical.
Perhaps one day the Lord will direct your path to the far east!

--- (snipped: personal non-theological matter)

Thank you for responding to my theological question, and for affirming the monergistic view of salvation.  I think that statement in the Article of Faith needs to be rephrased to reflect the monergistic view correctly, as I indicated to Brother Westerly who kindly responded to my question too.

your brother,
sing

Those who fear God and work righteousness but are not yet converted...

Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness,
is accepted with him.

In every nation he that fears God, and works righteousness, in whatever background he is found, IS ACCEPTED with God. God has already effectually called him out of his native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation, and perfectly and completely fitted him for eternal glory. 

Such a man is ALREADY a child of God, regenerated, for only a regenerated man is able to fear God, and works righteousness. He needs to be converted to Christ - that's the URGENT and NECESSARY work of the gospel ministry!

 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Rom 10

Nilo
Sing, you wrote this on your BLOG
"I DO BELIEVE that any man who fears God and works righteousness, whatever religion he is categorized and lumped up with, whether a muslim or whatever, COULD not only be a part of God's elect but also a true child of God by God's free and sovereign grace, and may die, and never having been CONVERTED to Christianity by the gospel ministry, and be found in glory with Jason Sides." [JS insisted that all those in heaven must have heard and believed the gospel of Jesus Christ; no hearing and believing, no heaven!]

Are you saying that men can be in heaven without knowing Christ?
[May I ask, 'are you saying that your place in heaven is conditioned upon you knowing Christ?'
Are you saved by free grace in order to know Christ, or do you know Christ IN ORDER to be saved? --- sing]

Dallas
likes this.

LG
Correct me if i'm wrong pastor , if i'm not mistaken and in my own opinion this is the belief of hyper calvinism which is absurd cause The only way to the father is thru the son according to john , Jesus is THE WAY,, and the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, people will not be save without the preaching and faith cometh by hearing the word of God. Therefore there is no other way or name under heaven that man can be save except the name of our Lord Jesus Christ

Sing F Lau
Very good question Nilo. Since you ask, I will give you my answer.

I take that the 'knowing Christ' in your question is something that is intimately bound up with the gospel ministry... for  "14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" Rom 10.

If you are inquiring about some other form of "knowing Christ', you need to clarify yourself.

There are God's children who never had the CAPABILITY to hear and/or the OPPORTUNITY to hear the gospel, therefore never brought to a knowledge of Jesus Christ. These enter heaven - just as glorified as others.

So, an affirmative yes to your question. Men go to heaven because of the divine work of grace has made them fit for eternal glory. Of these, those that have ability and opportunity to hear the gospel, some are brought to a saving knowledge of Christ. Others are not converted and will not enjoy much of the blessings for God's children in this present life.

I assume that you, together with many others, would insist that every child of God will and must hear the gospel, and brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ - therefore every single one in heaven go there because they have heard and believe the gospel, AND know Christ. In that popular view, a man's entrance to heaven is DEPENDENT upon the actions of many men... the preachers' work to bring the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ to them, their own works of carefully hearing and correctly believing the true Christ, etc, etc.

The choice is yours, dear Brother Nilo.

Sing F Lau
God's children are converted out of every religion in which they were born into and grow up with, and effectually called out of their native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation at God's appointed and approved time... whether out of practical atheism, buddhism, confucianism, donkeyism, earthism, monkeyism, etc... God's children (regenerated elect) are found among all such man made religions!!! They need to be converted  to Christ through the gospel ministry.

Sing F Lau
The Lord of Glenn, if what I believe is hyper-calvinism to you, I'm quite happy with it!
If you think the eternal salvation of men depends on the preachers' work of preaching THE GOSPEL, and men's effort of hearing and believing the gospel, I wish you well, Lord Glenn! I wish you well!

Nilo
I think I can agree with the statements of BCOF 1689 regarding this"
"From all eternity God decreed to justify all the elect, and Christ, in the fullness of time, died for their sins, and rose again for their justification. Nevertheless, they are not personally justified until the Holy Spirit, in due time, actually applies Christ to them.

"Faith which receives Christ's righteousness and depends on Him is the sole instrument of justification, yet this faith is not alone in the person justified, but is always accompanied by all the other saving graces. And it is not a dead faith, but works by love."

LG Robianes
Well for me pastor if you are elect you will be reach through the gospel.

Sing F Lau
"From all eternity God decreed to justify all the elect, and Christ, in the fullness of time, died for their sins, and rose again for their justification. Nevertheless, they are not personally justified until the Holy Spirit, in due time, actually applies Christ to them." 1689.11.4

From all eternity God decreed to justify all the elect, and Christ, in the fullness of time, died for their sins, and rose again for their justification. Nevertheless, they are not personally justified until the Holy Spirit, in due time, actually applies Christ to them." 1689.11.3
===========
Nilo, explain what the Framers meant to you? Surely you must have an idea of what they are saying before you can agree with them!!!
Don't assume they are saying what you think!!!

Nilo 
our conversation revolves around the TIME of justification according to this document, in DUE TIME, the HOLY SPIRIT actually applies CHRIST to them who are personally justified, but you declared in your blog that there are MUSLIMS who do not have CHRIST, and thus the HOLY SPIRIT has not applied CHRIST to them, and yet they are in heaven when they die.

Sing F Lau
I have written something on that part of the 1689... read here if you are interested...

http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-doctrine-of-justification-as.html
Study it... if you disagree with any part... let's discuss!

Nilo
I will do that later, thankks

Sing F Lau
"our conversation revolves around the TIME of justification"
===========
The TIME and the SPECIFIC ASPECT of justification: (excerpt from the above article)
May our Lord bless you with understanding!!!

There is much more then meet the eyes. We need to go beyond sound-byte!

Para 4. The Multi-faceted Jewel of Justification

God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, (11) and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification;(12) nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.(13) 11. Gal 3:8; 1Pe 1:2; 1Ti 2:6. 12. Ro 4:25. 13. Col 1:21-22; Tit 3:4-7.

a. Justification decreed
- by God for all the elect
- from all eternity

b. Justification secured/accomplished legally
- by Christ for all the elect
- at the cross

c. Justification applied personally (stated in para 1)
- by the Holy Spirit to each individual elect personally.
- at effectual calling to grace and salvation.

d. Justification experienced /evidenced subjectively (stated in para 2)
- by the faith of the individual elect (those who do hear and believe the gospel)
- at initial conversion and throughout life.

e. Justification vindicated finally
- by God before the judgment throne
- on the great judgment day
- Conclusion: Justification decreed, accomplished, applied, experienced, and finally vindicated.

Some questions for discussion
Q. Why it is so necessary to distinguish the various facets of justification?
Q. How does ignorance in this injure God’s glory and honor?
Q. How does due recognition of the different facets of justification comfort God’s children?
Q. How does ignorance in this detrimental to God’s children?

Sing F Lau
Nilo said "but you declared in your blog that there are MUSLIMS who do not have CHRIST, and thus the HOLY SPIRIT has not applied CHRIST to them, and yet they are in heaven when they die"
=========
Ah, that's what you think I'm saying! I'm saying no such thing.
You have to demonstrate that I say such things as you thought!
Try it, Nilo... and see whether what I actually said is what you thought I say!

This is what I said, and you quoted verbatim...
"I DO BELIEVE that any man who fears God and works righteousness, whatever religion he is categorized and lumped up with, whether a muslim or whatever, COULD not only be a part of God's elect but also a true child of God by God's free and sovereign grace, and die, and never having been CONVERTED to Christianity by the gospel ministry, and be found in glory with Jason Sides."
========

A man who fears God and works righteousness is a man to whom the Holy Spirit HAS APPLIED Christ personally, OTHERWISE the reverence of God and works of righteousness is IMPOSSIBLE.

A man who fears God and works righteousness is already ACCEPTED with God... God has effectually called him for eternal glory, Christ has been applied to him personally.

A man who fears God and works righteousness is already perfectly fitted for eternal glory... He is made capable of being called out by the gospel. WHETHER he hears the gospel or not, his place in heaven is assured by the FINISHED WORK of Christ already APPLIED to him personally.

Hearing the gospel and converted to Christ is very important... not that he may have a place in heaven... for that is already perfectly settled by the finished work of Jesus Christ applied to him personally... it is necessary and important for saving a child of God from lies and falsehood and superstition and ungodliness... it is to save him to the truth of his salvation by God's free grace!!!

Preston
Roman 3:3,4
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Sing F Lau
Preston, what does the faith of God mean in the passage above?
I'm always puzzled why the KJ translators did not use the word 'faithfulness' in the NT, not a single instant! It is used 22 times in the OT. Thanks.

Preston
Galatians 2:16
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Sing F Lau
Preston, tell us what you understand by that Scriptures!

Preston
I'm no theologian but I will offer my understanding as best I can. The faith of Christ is Christ being faithful to himself in keeping his promise to those whom he loves.
On a personal note, I would rather know he is faithful because , as a man, I fail to be 100% faithful. My faith in Christ is a work of righteousness on my part and since I am apt to waver in my faith and he will not fail in his, I will put my trust in him.

Nilo
I think this is a statement that when examined further, it will be indefensible
SING WROTE:
"I DO BELIEVE that any man who fears God and works righteousness, whatever religion he is categorized and lumped up with, whether a muslim or whatever, COULD not only be a part of God's elect but also a true child of God by God's free and sovereign grace, and die, and never having been CONVERTED to Christianity by the gospel ministry, and be found in glory with Jason Sides."

I SAY
It is impossible for a man to fear GOD and still DENY Christ.
To not be converted from ISLAM to any kind of open confession of Christ, is to DENY Christ.

It is impossible for any man to work the works of righteousness acceptable to GOD and still embrace until his dying day, any of the religions of this world. If the HOLY SPIRIT dwells inside a man, it is inevitable but that he will wake up to the error of his ways, and dead works, and come to the true and living God. And how can any come to GOD and not come thru His Son?

Preston
Peter denied Christ, yet he was chosen. The still born infant never chooses and is not choosing him denial of him ?

With all respect to Mr Nilo, I agree with bro sing. Grace covers all and ones denial or acceptance of him is human works and nothing can separate us from the love of God.......

Sing F Lau
"It is impossible for a man to fear GOD and still DENY Christ.
To not be converted from ISLAM to any kind of open confession of Christ, is to DENY Christ."
==========
Nilo, you make one, just one FATAL error in your notion!

How can such a muslim, one who fears God and works righteousness, DENY Christ when he has not even heard of Christ! In your understanding, can you charge a man for DENYING Christ of whom he has not even heard of? How to be converted from ISLAM to any open confession of Christ when such a man has not even heard of the gospel?

Rom 10
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Just who do you thing Apostle Paul has in mind - God's children destined for eternal glory, or those still dead in trespasses and sins?

Nilo
And you make one fatal error SING. ALL MUSLIMS have from childhood heard of CHRIST, but in the wrong way

Sing F Lau
"If the HOLY SPIRIT dwells inside a man, it is inevitable but that he will wake up to the error of his ways, and dead works, and come to the true and living God. And how can any come to GOD and not come thru His Son?"
================
May I inquire by asking you a few simple questions. I hope to hear some answers.
- Does a man who fears God and works righteousness have the Holy Spirit dwelling in him?
- Has a man who fears God and works righteousness come to the true and living God? Before Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius, had he come to the true and living God?
- Is a man who fears God and works righteousness still doing dead works?
- Did the Arminians who die in their Arminianism wake up to the errors of their way?

You asked a question, so I will answer it.
"How can any come to GOD and not come thru His Son?"

A man come to God when God effectually calls him to grace and salvation based solely upon and through the finished work of Christ... That effectual call out of the state of sin and death to the state of grace and salvation is entirely a sovereign divine work, it is WITHOUT human aid, the preaching of the gospel. The gospel ministry is to enlighten God's children of their eternal salvation by God's free grace!

Open confession of Christ by such requires the gospel ministry through human instrumentality. Not all God's children are blessed with the gospel ministry. You will believe otherwise... you likely believe that EVERY CHILD of God will have the gospel ministry brought to him... i.e. every child of God will hear the gospel, and believe Jesus Christ and make OPEN CONFESSION of Christ.

Sing F Lau
"ALL MUSLIMS have from childhood heard of CHRIST, but in the wrong way"
========
An assertion does not constitute a truth! You heard that before, haven't you?
If they have heard of Christ but in the wrong way, then have they heard of Christ?
If they heard of Jesus who is just a man, have they heard of Jesus of the Bible?

Nilo
Ah, and so I am able to pierce thru your insinuation Sing.
You allege that the MUSLIM have never even heard of Christ.
but when faced with the facts that they have indeed heard of Christ, and call him Massiyah, and born of the virgin Mary, and went up to heaven, and is coming back again then you double back and say, yes they have heard of him wrongly and that is the same as not having heard of him at all.

[Nilo, I'm concerned with muslims who have never even heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God. Of course there must be muslims who have read, and/or  heard of the Jesus Christ of the Bible. But you insist that ALL MUSLIMS have from childhood heard of CHRIST from the Quran]

Sing F Lau
Nilo, what does "KNOWING Christ in the righteous way that we [you and whoever] understand it"?
Kindly elaborate.

Nilo
But before I let you escape with what I think is your mistake, let us first define terms about

HAVE NEVER HEARD OF CHRIST
which you allege as the case of A righteous muslim who you think will go to heaven even if he does not convert

Sing F Lau 
Ah, and so I am able to pierce thru your insinuation Sing.
You allege that the MUSLIM have never even heard of Christ.
================
When you make such statement, I have to assume that to you, Christ may be known apart from the Holy Scriptures and/or preachers sent forth to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ out of that Scriptures.

I assume that you believe that the Quran is capable of giving a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Do I conclude correctly?

Nilo
NO. I just want you to define your own words. You said, the MUSLIM have never heard of Christ.
Do you mean, "have never heard of Christ correctly and biblically?"  Or do you mean "have never heard of Christ, like the pagans in the mountains have never heard of Christ"
[You say no to my question, and at the same time you insist that the Muslim already know Christ from their Quran! Isn't that double talk??? - sing]

Sing F Lau
Nilo, don't get tooooo excited. I'm here all the time. I'm no coward, and I don't need to escape.

Remember the subject under discussion, and which you take exception:
A muslim, or a man under whatever religious affiliation, under consideration is a man who works righteousness and fears God.

Nilo
And can you expand your meaning when you said, "
he has not even heard of Christ! In your understanding, can you charge a man for DENYING Christ of whom he has not even heard of?

In your statements here:
Nilo, you make one, just one FATAL error in your notion!
How can such a muslim, one who fears God and works righteousness, DENY Christ when he has not even heard of Christ! In your understanding, can you charge a man for DENYING Christ of whom he has not even heard of? How to be converted from ISLAM to any open confession of Christ when such a man has not even heard of the gospel?

Sing F Lau
Nilo, you need to slow down. I will be here a long while. Let's go back to your words...

You said these:
It is impossible for a man to fear GOD and still DENY Christ.
To not be converted from ISLAM to any kind of open confession of Christ, is to DENY Christ.

And I reminded you a general principle...
A man who have not heard of Christ CANNOT be charged of denying Christ... I believe that is quite simple. If you do charge him, he would rebut and say, how do you know I will deny Christ? have you even told me about him? How do you know I will not believe when you preach him to me? And just how would you answer???

But you turn around and insisted that "ALL MUSLIMS have from childhood heard of CHRIST, but in the wrong way."

If you insist such, then I can only conclude that the Quran is capable of giving a knowledge of Jesus Christ revealed in the Scriptures alone!

Now, before you go further, can you just please affirm whether apart from the Holy Scriptures, there is a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Answer this, and I will answer your request for me to define - "I just want you to define your own words. You said, the MUSLIM have never heard of Christ."

Thanks.

Nilo
"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God so much that man is left without any excuse, they are not sufficient to provide that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary for salvation." BCOF

When I wrote:
It is impossible for a man to fear GOD and still DENY Christ.
To not be converted from ISLAM to any kind of open confession of Christ, is to DENY Christ.

I meant:
The Muslim has heard of Christ from the Koran, just like the Catholics have heard of Christ from the Bible. Just like the FILIPINOS have heard of Christ from traditions.

All of them do not have the saving knowledge of Christ, whether from the Koran or from the Bible. All of them Deny Christ. Just like the IGLESIA NI MANALO who deny Christ, who is ANTI CHRIST because they deny the Father and the Son.

But you said, the MUSLIMS have never heard of Christ, which I understand to be ignorance on your part of their beliefs, equating them with the pagans in the mountains who have never heard of Christ.

I just want to ask you therefore for clarification.
You know for a fact that MUSLIMS know Christ historically and from the Koran RIGHT?
You know for a fact that they deny that Christ is the Son of God, right?
So they have heard of Christ, but deny the truth about Christ.

do we agree in this part at least?

Sing F Lau
Thanks Nilo... @ "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience."
===========

If that's the case, do you still insist that ""ALL MUSLIMS have from childhood heard of CHRIST, but in the wrong way"?

From where do ALL MUSLIMS in your assertion hear of Christ? From their Quran? Or from Holy Scriptures or from some preachers who preach Christ from the Scriptures?

Ok ok, you qualified, "but in the wrong way"? Is hearing Christ in the wrong good or bad? Isn't hearing Christ in the wrong way FAR WORSE than not hearing any falsehood at all, than have their minds poisoned by falsehood?

Nilo
I'm with you Sing.
Muslims and Catholics, and Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Protestants, and even Pentecostals, have all heard of Christ, and have believed the wrong way.

So listening from the KORAN or from the BIBLE doesn't make a person RIGHTLY believe Christ. Even some Baptists know of Christ the wrong way.

So all of them have heard of Christ, and God will CHARGE them of believing Christ wrongly. MATT 7:21

Sing F Lau
"Muslims and Catholics, and Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Protestants, and even Pentecostals, have all heard of Christ, and have believed the wrong way."
========
That's a nice assertion! May be you may wish to demonstrate its truthfulness.
Judging from your assertion, you would have to conclude that men are cast into the lake of fire because of they believe Christ wrongly?
Do you believe that God requires the non elect to believe Jesus Christ as their Saviour also, those whom He did not give Christ to be their Saviour?

Sing F Lau
Nilo, I will be back tomorrow.
Enjoy yourself. Keep to the subject... i.e.
"... any man who fears God and works righteousness, whatever religion he is categorized and lumped up with, whether a muslim or whatever, COULD not only be a part of God's elect but also a true child of God by God's free and sovereign grace, and die, and never having been CONVERTED to Christianity by the gospel ministry, and be found in eternal glory."

Nilo
I think the verse I gave says it all. Matt. 7:21

Sing F Lau
Nilo, does a man who fears God and works righteousness fit your idea of Matt 7:21?

Nilo
that is why it is grace, no human effort or understanding can believe CHRIST correctly.

Catholics believe Christ, Baptists who attend our meetings believe Christ, but if GOD does not regenerate them, and bring them to the right knowledge of Christ, they go to the lake of fire. It is evidence that they were never chosen from before the foundation of the world
such as JUDAS who have known Christ, touched him, heard of him, but went to his place.

Sing F Lau
A man must be saved first by God's free grace... that's eternal salvation. A man who fears God and works righteousness EVIDENCES, DEMONSTRATES he is already regenerated. Such a man needs to be brought to the knowledge of his salvation by God's free grace. But whether he is brought to that knowledge of His salvation by God's free grace, he is already made fit for eternal glory...

Hearing and believing the truth of his salvation by God's free grace will do much good to him... but this does not make him any more saved than he is ALREADY SAVED by God's free grace.

A man's place in heaven is not dependent upon a right knowledge of Christ... it is solely dependent upon the finished work of Christ APPLIED to him personally by the Spirit of God, making him perfectly fir for heaven! That's salvation by grace - purposed by God, accomplished by Christ, and applied to him personally when he was still dead in trespasses and sins.... perfectly fitting him for eternal glory. The gospel is SPECIFICALLY INTENDED for such ONLY... the gospel is true of them alone.

Nilo, one last word! I hope you have "the right knowledge of Christ..." I really hope you have the right knowledge of Christ.... else like you say above... there is a lake of fire for those who do not have the right knowledge of Christ! Without the right knowledge of Christ is, according to your standard, evidence that such were never chosen from before the foundation of the world!

Tremble, sir! I wish you well!

Nilo
I hope you have that too SING

I agree with what you said above. The basis of salvation is NOT the right knowledge of Christ but the work of Christ alone.

Where we differ is your belief that people who have denied Christ or are ignorant of Christ even though they have a chance to believe in Christ, would still be taken to be with Christ.

I believe those who are given the chance to live their lives with norman minds, in whatever country they may be in, whatever religion they maybe born into, who were chosen to be with Christ forever, would in their lifetime, experience regeneration, effectual calling, right belief,

Sing F Lau
"Where we differ is your belief that people who have denied Christ or are ignorant of Christ even though they have a chance to believe in Christ, would still be taken to be with Christ. "
================
That's your imagination, Nilo.
I suggest you ascertain exactly what I do believe first, then and only then you start disagreeing, otherwise you may appear foolish.

I often remind my children, when you can't even represent the position of another yet properly, you have not earned your right to dispute! That's my advice for you too!

Your fable:
"I believe those who are given the chance to live their lives with norman [normal?] minds, in whatever country they may be in, whatever religion they maybe born into, who were chosen to be with Christ forever, would in their lifetime, experience regeneration, effectual calling, right belief..."

Apostle Paul proves that your fable is wrong!
Many of God's children among the Jews in his days DID NOT believe Jesus is the Christ. Go, read Romans 9-11. Thanks.

Did all those who died as Arminians have the "right belief"?

Nilo
Why do you play games with words Sing,
YOu said, A MUSLIM .... (may) die, and never having been CONVERTED to Christianity by the gospel ministry, and be found in glory

I interpret it that you believe that people who have denied Christ or are ignorant of Christ even though they have a chance to believe in Christ, would still be taken to be with Christ.

You said, the MUSLIM has never heard of CHRIST, and so I go with the plain meaning of words as you suggest. Never hearing of Christ means ignorance of Christ.

Sing F Lau
Nilo, if you read words into what I said, why do you say that I play games with words?
You read words into what I say, and then say I believe what you imagine, and then say I play games with words!
What kind of man are you? And when I tell you that your interpretation of what I said is WRONG, you won't accept it, but say I play games with words? Why won't you accept what my words mean?

You see, you INSIST that ALL MUSLIMS have heard of Christ.
Upon that fiction, you then charge that ALL MUSLIMS have rejected Christ.

And now you sheepishly amend a little by saying "never hearing of Christ means ignorance of Christ!
May I ask then, is ignorance of Christ the same as rejection and denial of Christ???
May I ask you, if you have never heard of something, can I accuse of denying and rejecting that thing?

And you assume that my words must be understood in light of your FICTION and FABLE!!!
You are just incorrigible!!!

In fact you INSISTS that ALL MEN without exception, have heard of Christ.
And therefore all who don't believe are guilty of denying and rejecting Christ!

The simple fact is, there are multitude of people, muslims included, who lived and died, without ever having the opportunity of hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Without hearing of Jesus Christ - there can be no knowledge of Christ; without knowledge of Christ, how can be there be rejection of Christ? You don't seem to see the perversity of your notions!

Very many in hell have never heard of Christ. They are there because of their sins, not because they have heard and rejected Jesus Christ. Of course there are others that have heard of Christ preached, rightly or wrongly, to them, and rejected Christ!

Many in heaven are there NOT because they have heard and believed Christ. They are there because God purposed to save them, Christ actually saved them, and the Holy Spirit applied that salvation to them when they were dead in trespasses and sins. Others have heard and believed the gospel. There are EVEN rejectors of Christ who are ALSO found in heaven... just ask Apostle Paul about some of the Jews whom he had to deal with in his days!!! Have you read Romans 9-11 yet? Do they fit your theology???

I fear you DON'T quite understand salvation by God's free grace yet!!!
Yours is still salvation through believism, and worst still believism of the right believing of Christ!
Based upon your theory, all the Arminians, because of their wrong beliefs of Christ, will be found in the lake of fire...

You can have that... and I hope you believe Christ right and accurate enough to get you a place in heaven!

Nilo
Sorry Sing, I understand that our definitions can't meet each other. WE are both talking past each other's meanings although we are both speaking english

You said I misrepresent you and I say you misrepresent my position, you just did in your last post
So we can't go on like this, because it will just be vain jangling. Thanks anyway

Sing F Lau
O yes, according to your definition, ALL MUSLIMS, and in fact ALL MEN without exception have heard and known Jesus Christ - even if they never have access to Scriptures, or preaching from Scriptures! And so, every one in hell are there because they have denied and rejected Christ. Do I represent you correctly???

Here are your statements to the effects:
1. "ALL MUSLIMS have from childhood heard of CHRIST, but in the wrong way... "

2. And this is because you believe Quran gives ALL MUSLIMS that knowledge of Christ... as though outside of the revealed Scriptures a man can have the knowledge of Christ!

3. In fact you insisted that ALL MEN, regardless of their religions, have ALSO heard of Christ. You said this all encompassing statement - "Muslims and Catholics, and Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Protestants, and even Pentecostals, have all heard of Christ, and have believed the wrong way." [you might have deleted this highly erroneous comment where this quote is taken from.] You probably [sic] fear that if they have heard and denied and rejected Christ, there is no ground to condemned them!!!

Sing F Lau
My position is very simple:
A man who fears God and works righteousness, no matter what religion he was born in and grew up with and remains in until his conversion to Christ through the gospel ministry, is a man already accepted with God and will enter eternal glory whether he is ever converted or not, whether he ever gets to hear the gospel or not. Hearing the gospel and believing in Christ will bring lots of blessings to him here on earth! Without it, he is not one jot less fit for eternal glory.

That's pretty simple, isn't it? If you don't understand, ask. No need to misrepresent; no need to interpret my statement with your own definition.

Sing F Lau
Let me leave a few questions for your thought on the subject.

1. Are there God's children among the great multitudes of Muslims (or whatever religious affiliation)?
- If yes, how did they, who were dead in trespasses and sins even as others, become God's children?

2. Are all of these God's children among the Muslim (or whatever religious affiliation) reached with the gospel and brought to believe the glorious truth of their salvation by the free and sovereign grace of God?

3. What will happen to those children of God among the Muslims (or whatever religious affiliation) that are NOT reached with the gospel and brought to believe the glorious truth of their salvation by the free and sovereign grace of God?
- Your answer may be , "No such nonsense. Every child of God will be reached with the gospel, believe in Jesus Christ, and be converted."

Pj Walters
Trying to be as objective as possible, I believe that Bro. Sing is correct both in his understanding of Scripture here, and in representing Nilo's position.

Pj Walters
But those Jews did have an advantage:
Romans 3:1 "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

Johnny Davis
I'd agree to that, and I was "raving" a bit. Thanks for your fellowship. The covenant deal, in the aggregate forever, in as much spiritual thought as a human can muster, is what I was speaking about. Yet, I do not consider the need to clarify that. This much we can agree on, is that Jesus indeed, was the Messiah, for the whole world, for every human that ever lived, God is no respector of persons, he is loving, he hates sinners because of the imperfection, and his love/hate feelings, or individual sinners, was reconciled by HIM suffering in the form of Jesus, as both deity and personhood (otherwise, what is the big deal - everyone dies, some more horribly, than Christ), and to top it off, the New Testament plainly states that the Messiah was REJECTED by the Jews, his own. So, there was CERTAINLY no advantage to being a Jew, just like it said. Jesus did not turn to the Gentiles, because of rejection. He was a man of sorrows. EVERYTONE rejected him, even his cloeset on earth (Mary and Joesph, there might b e an exception, but let's not "speculate"). Anyway, good to talk with ya. Look forward to another day. ,

Sing F Lau
Never mind... I never get what Johnny want to say... so I don't read much...
I can't even get beyond this sentence... really!!! Too much profound gibberish!
"The covenant deal, in the aggregate forever, in as much spiritual thought as a human can muster."
What covenant deal? What is the aggregate, and why forever?

Robert Cook
I was enjoying the discourse! This is a point I wish to learn more about. My problem with Calvinism or the sister Arminism is what gospel preached is the right one since you have variants everywhere depending on which seminary was attended. I know Sing is right, but I am searching to resolve issues like the Apostle Paul was a chosen vessel to God and was ordained by God to both hear and believe to preach the Gospel to the gentiles, also Jesus chose his apostles and not one refused except Judas who was known from the beginning. I believe that Jesus has preserved his visible church. As to the degree of control I am lost right now. I do not believe that God sends Calvinists or Arminians to preach the truth I think only the Old school Baptists are preaching the truth and are the true church. I will hope to see more on this discourse.

END OF EXCHANGE.

A specious argument on submerge and immerse

The Lord Jesus Christ bless these soldiers!!!
One of the silly objections raised against biblical water immersion - "how to do so in the dry desert?"
These soldiers show that where there is a will to obey the Lord's command, there is always a way.
Also, wherever there are human lives, there is always be enough water for immersion.

I put up the above on Facebook, and the incredibly specious argument ensued! 

Brian 
Not a scrap if immersion teaching in scripture. The contrary is true. No Baptist even practices immersion contrary to what they would have us believe.

Mark
needs a history lesson.

Brian
I would like some Baptist show me an example of immersion as the sign baptism. I have yet to see even one. It is pure fabrication.
Needs scripture.
Where do you guys get immersion from? Certainly not the bible.

Sing F Lau
It is like a blind man demanding to be shown the beautiful scenery right before me !
Brian, sorry to get you so worked up!!!
If you can get sprinkling from the Bible, remain happy with it!!! The Lord bless you!!!

Brian
No I am not worked up and am not blind either Baptists tell me the Greek word for bsptism means to immerse but they do not practice immersion, they practice submersion. The wirds are different as are the practices.

One would indeed be blind or unwilling to see the number of references to pouring or sprinkling in scripture with regard to baptism.
What does immersion picture in scripture? The drowning of Pharaohs army, The drowning of the wicked in the flood and the final immersion in the lake of fire. All pictures of damnation not salvation.

Sing F Lau
Brian, I said you are worked up, because since our last argument many moons ago on the doctrine of salvation, you have kept so quite... and this baptism issue get you all excited!!!

Perhaps, you can show us your linguistic expertise by giving us your definitions of submersion, and immersion. Thanks!

I think it is pretty twisted and perverse to equate immersion as drowning and picture of damnation. Are the baby sprinklers SO DESPERATE as to come up with such horrid ideas???

It would be very easy for you to give us Scriptures that the NT water baptism is by sprinkling. I'm not asking you to give me Scriptures of sprinkling in the OT.

Brian
Submersion means to be put under water, immersion means to be put into water. Very simple. Baptists always prefix their word immersion with the word total. I don't even remember what topic we discussed in the past. Certainly nothing to do with this in my mind.

In the OT you just need to read the book of Hebrews which refers back to many sprinklings. There is one however which refers to baptism in the NT and is in the OT.

Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

There is nothing perverse in scripture. what I said is exactly what scripture teaches. In the account of the flood and the crossing of the Red sea, baptism took place but those submersed were not baptised and those baptised were not immersed. Is that so difficult to understand?

Sing F Lau
Brian, let me put it honestly with you... you have an axe to grind indeed!!!
I'm no Greek scholar.... but this is what I find from here about the NT word baptizo (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G907&t=KJV).

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

Now, even COMMON SENSE... this is what Chinese calls it...

According to your very own words:
"submersion - to be put under water..."
"immersion - to be put into water..."

You will probably insist that you CAN put something INTO water without actually submersing it UNDER water!!!

I say you must be pretty desperate to say that to put something INTO water does not require it to go UNDER water!!!

If you say that immersion mean to be put ON the water, then you have something worth raving... but the distinction you try to make of the two words is just pure desperation, grasping at a straw!!!

Let me comfort you... hold on to your sprinkling... no one will disturb your peace... but don't make a fool of yourself trying to make a distinction of the two words...

Brian
I am no Greek scholar either and will not argue my point on that basis. There are all kinds of views to be found in lexicons. My interest is in truth and have no interest in talking about me or how you perceive me. I do not at all like immersionism and believe it to be a lie. If I have an axe to grind there it is. Christ Himself refuted the notion that complete ablution of the body is necessary in washing ritual.

Sing F Lau
Hold fast to your sprinkling... I won't disturb you!!!

And now you are equating NT water baptism as an exercise of OT ablution, a washing ritual!!!

I didn't say there is anything perverse in Scriptures. I did say twisting immersion into drowning and a picture of damnation is just PERVERSE!!!

Steve
@ Brian
"Submersion means to be put under water, immersion means to be put into water"
-------------------------------------
Brian ... I thought immersion is the same as submersion ... then I read your explanation above!! If something is in the water, isn't that under the water, and vice versa? Unless "under water" means a few drops of water to you?? And you gave the examples of Pharoah's army and the flood, and tie those to immersion ... based on your definition of immersion, how can those two be counted as immersion? Were they put into the water?

But let's get back to the main point here ... baptism itself ... are there examples in the NT of people getting baptized? If yes, can you tell how they were baptized?
-------------------------------
"Where do you guys get immersion from? Certainly not the bible."

Have you ever read the Bible??

Brian
We do not submerge flowers in a vase, we immerse them that is, we put them into water. We do not put them under water. If we put the flowers under water we would indeed be submersing them. If the two words meant the same thing, why do baptists insist that the Greek word used for baptism does not mean submersion but rather total immersion? The word total is being added, why is this?

[Do any one actually IMMERSE the flowers in water??? WEIRD and MAD! To place the stalks of the flowers in some water is not the same as immersing the flowers in water! Please stop the nonsense! To immerse YOUR FEET in a basin of water is NOT THE SAME AS immerse YOU in water! If you insist they are the same, no profitable discourse is possible!  --- sing.]

Send me your evidence of baptism by immersion, or show how baptism is pictured by immersion?

Pharaoh's army was submersed not immersed. I used the word immersed above as that was from a baptistic perspective and usage.

My reply, "If the children of Israel had been submersed, they would have perished with Pharaoh and his army. Pharaoh and his army were submersed but they were not baptized; the children of Israel were baptized but not submersed. In fact, their baptism depended upon their not being submersed. Therefore, baptism and submersion are two different things."

I will make it simple for you, show me in the NT where someone was baptized 'IN' water instead of 'WITH' water.
[This is getting sillier every minute. Now he is confusing the MODE (in water) and the MEDIUM (with water) !!!]

Steve
@Brian, thanks for trying to make it simple for me ... but do remember that one will not profit if one is confused or muddled up or deluded and is not aware that he or she is so.

Anyway, back to what you asked for, please check out Mat 3:16 and Acts 8:38.

I suppose it is not necessary to define "baptize" or "baptism" as it has already been defined earlier.

Brian
We need to define baptism but not just yet. First the scriptures.
Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Brian
Was Christ Immersed? by Brian Crossett

Baptists often argue that if we want to know the proper mode of baptism, what better example could we follow than that of Christ himself? And surely He was immersed and not poured or sprinkled with water …

Rather than follow a merely surface reading of a text (and read into it baptist presuppositions), we shall examine the Scriptures, making several points.

1) Jesus went to John the Baptist for baptism when he was aged about 30 (Luke 3:21-23).

2) John forbade Him saying that he needed to be baptized of Jesus (Matt. 3:14). After all, what use was a baptism for the forgiveness of sins, a baptism “with water unto repentance” (Matt. 3:11), to Jesus who had no sin? Jesus answered John, “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15) Christ came to fulfil all righteousness (Deut. 6:25), and fulfilling righteousness means keeping the law perfectly. But Christ said that He must be baptized for “it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,” that is not only Himself but also John the Baptist. Thus Christ’s baptism by John was a matter of keeping the law, but the question is, What law?

3) After Jesus cleansed the temple, the chief priests and the elders came to Him and asked him, as He was teaching, “By what authority doest thou these things?” (Matt. 21:23). Jesus did not evade the question nor did he change the subject. He answered with a question which addressed head-on the issue of His authority: “I … will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men?” (Matt. 21:24-25). Jesus equated the baptism of John with His receiving authority to do the work of a priest, namely cleansing the temple and teaching in the temple. Ordination alone gives a man the authority to do the work of a priest. Could this be what Jesus was referring to?

4) Hebrews 5:4 teaches that a man must be ordained in order to do the work of a priest: “no man taketh this honour unto himself, but him that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.” Clearly, Christ was ordained as was Aaron.

So let us see what took place at Aaron's ordination. First, in Numbers 4:47, we read, “From 30 years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that came to do the service of the ministry, and the service of the burden in the tabernacle of the congregation." It looks like we are on the right track (that Jesus’ baptism was His ordination) for Jesus was about 30 (Luke 3:23). Second, how were priests or Levites ordained? Numbers 8:6-7 declares, "Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them …”

So what is our conclusion? Christ was ordained as was Aaron.

Both Aaron and Christ were called of God.

Both Aaron and Christ were ordained when aged 30 or more.

Both Aaron and Christ were ordained by one already ordained (Moses and John the Baptist, respectively).

How were they ordained? Aaron was ordained by sprinkling. Are we to think that Christ was ordained by immersion? Or by sprinkling?

Brian
Was the Ethiopian Eunuch Immersed? by Brian Crossett

A baptist was eager to speak with me on the subject of baptism by immersion. Totally convinced of the watertight case he was to present, and considering me to be a genuine Christian, he proceeded to outline his case.

"Do you read of pouring or sprinkling in the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip?" he asked.

I answered, "Is this example the way you conduct baptism in your church?" He explained that leaving out the irrelevant details, such as the location and the fact that no witnesses were present, it was.

I asked if it were not unusual that his pastor be baptized every time he had to baptize someone? Somewhat puzzled, he stated that his pastor was not baptized every time at all; only the adult Christian was baptized. I responded, "But is not immersion baptism." "Yes," he agreed, "but the pastor does not undergo immersion at each baptism, only the one to whom he administers the rite."

So I asked, "Why did Philip go under water with the eunuch if it was not necessary?" With some hesitation, he said that Philip did not go under water, only the eunuch.

I quoted Acts 8:38: "... they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch; and he baptized him."

Note the error of the notion that going down into the water is interpreted as immersion since it involves dual immersion. The proper interpretation is that the baptism took place not as part of the going down but immediately after they went down. This is indicated by the conjunctive "and:" "... they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch; and he baptized him."

Sing F Lau
Oh Brian, you are still at it!!!

You are probably terrified at the thought that you have never been baptized with the NT water baptism!!!

Tell us, if NT water baptism is by sprinkling a few drops water, why did the eunuch waited until there was a body of water for his baptism? Surely there was more than a few drops of water in the water bottle in the chariot!

Tell us, if NT water baptism is by sprinkling a few drops water, why did John bother to perform baptism in a place where there is much water?

Joh 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Of course, you may want to imagine that sprinkling is better done when Phillip and the eunuch stood in the water!

The Lord bless you, Brian!!!

Brian
Your questions are fine. Firstly Aenon means springs. There is no body of water in this area that would lend itself to submersion. These were little springs coming from the ground. Many springs.

I was baptised as an adult as was Christ by sprinkling. No terror there my friend. You are wrongly supposing again.

Acts 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. This took place in the house of Ananias, no river there.

Do you believe that the washing of a partial part of the body is insufficient to cleanse us completely? Is this why you demean a few drops of water?

Brian
4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

Steve
*LOL* .... Brian, "was Christ immersed?" + "was the Ethiopian eunuch immersed?" ... *LOL* ... no offence, Brian ... but I easily saw that coming!
And why do you keep referring to the Baptists?? Sounds like you've some serious bone to pick with them! :-)

"Read into it Baptist presuppositions"?? I do not know how to do that. I do perceive that you're deeply entrenched in your sprinkling and hence, try to twist and turn and wiggle and whatever not in order to get round Scriptures and hang on to sprinkling.

"... straightway out of the water", "...went down both into the water" + the meaning of "baptize or baptism" --- be honest, be honest ... is it sprinkling or immersing?

Brian
I refer to Baptists because that is their teaching. Why do you people keep trying to read personal things into posts rather than keeping to the subject under discussion? Forget about me and concentrate on the topic in hand.

I have shown clearly that the Baptism of Jesus was His keeping the law of ordination and that was by sprinkling of clean water. i read what is there. And sprinkling is there.

Did Philip go under water with the Eunuch? No that would be ridiculous.

Nothing in scripture to point to immersion and certainly nothing of submersion.
How were the children of Israel immersed when they crossed the Red Sea? After all they were baptised there.

How was Noah and his family who were baptized, immersed? No immersion there either.

Sing F Lau
Brian, you are SERIOUSLY wrong if you think Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist has to do with some observation of the old covenant law of ordination!

The baptism administered by John the Baptist is an ordinance instituted for the new covenant!!!

You are stuck in the old covenant... so typical of the baby sprinklers!!!

Hello sir, move on! The new covenant has come!!!

Brian
The covenant has always been for it is the same covenant that existed eternally within the Trinity, a covenant of grace. The scripture is ONE, OT and NT.

Have to go to church now talk later.

Sing F Lau
The covenant of redemption dealing with eternal salvation of God's elect is indeed one and eternal, therefore the same throughout the whole redemptive history... even predating that of the old covenant instituted through Moses. That had become geriatric and were abolished.

Christ instituted the new covenant... and water baptism is a ordinance of the new covenant!

Brian
There is but one covenant as God is one. That is God's covenant of grace OT and NT. The administration in the OT was different from that in the NT but the same covenant with the elect in Christ Jesus. This one covenant is made with all of the elect. Israel of the OT is the church and the church of the NT is Israel. One covenant, one people of God. One promise to Abraham that extends to us today. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee in their generations, even for a thousand generations. If we be Christ's then are we Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

Sing F Lau
Brian, don't be so obtuse. The book of Hebrews tells us of the old covenant and the new covenant, and the better covenant. So, don't pretend to be obtuse! You are still hanging onto the old geriatric covenant that had been done away to defend your fable of NT baptism by sprinkling!

Brian
The covenant of God is infinite eternal and unchangeable. The administration is different and in this sense is it better. The elect are the one covenant people OT and NT. There are not two separate elects. They are all one in Christ. I am not holding to OT administration. I. am holdingcon to the promises made to Abraham and hiscseed. Which promises you reject and ignore. Again your charge against me is false. I am a son of Abraham in Christ. The promise is to me and my seed as such.

 I see you have ignored Ezekiel 36:25. Should this surprise me?

You also ignored my question, what does immersion picture?

 You did not answer my question why Philip and the Eunuch were both submersed?

You have not answered my question as to why you practice submersion.

Sing F Lau
"The covenant of God is infinite eternal and unchangeable. The administration is different and in this sense is it better. The elect are the one covenant people OT and NT. There are not two separate elects. They are all one in Christ. I am not holding to OT administration. I. am holdingcon to the promises made to Abraham and hiscseed. Which promises you reject and ignore. Again your charge against me is false. I am a son of Abraham in Christ. The promise is to me and my seed as such."
===============
Brian, it would help if you could keep to the subject.

You have just agreed with what I said... the covenant of redemption is one and eternal... its administration in the old covenant was shadowy and inferior and was made obsolete by the better and new covenant inaugurated by Christ!

Of course you are holding on to the old covenant... and the proof... you keep appealing to the elements of the old covenant administration that been nullified by the new!

I embrace the promises of God in Christ. The promises were made to Abraham and his Seed, even Christ....

That's not the same as saying the promise is to you AND your seed. That just pure presumption unless you want to claim that all your seed are among the elect in Christ. Otherwise, it is just sheer presumption.

Sing F Lau
I'm not here to entertain your specious questions! I have long ago moved on from such basic subject!

Joey
John 3v23, KJT "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was MUCH WATER there: and they came, and were baptized.

Pj
Sprinkling is a new way to administer the outdated circumcision ordinance of the OT, but baptism is an ordinance of the NT.

Johnny
This soldier is showing to the world, his confession of Jesus, as the Son of God, as his brother. THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT, even "physically." I have no problem with the term "ordinance." I have no problem with the term "immersion." I have no prob...See More

Sing F Lau
Johnny, how is NT water baptism to be observed: by immersing the candidate in water or by sprinkling a few drops of water on the candidate?

Answer this question if you still have the urge to say more. We will leave other topic for other time!

Keep focus please. We are not interest in what you have problem with and what you don't have problem with or what do you care and what you don't care!

Johnny
Examples in the NT, and the word itself, is immersion. OF COURSE. Why do you ask? Don't you know the answer, Sing?
Let me ask you, since you asked me? Churches, that baptize, in order to be members, what about that? Full, under the water, hold your breath, every hair, all the body IMMERSED, all the body RISEN. Does the "MEANING" of baptism of any significance to you, or is simply be baptized. I know your asnwer, as you knew mine/ So, please, answer. Thanks.

Sing F Lau
You often talk more than is necessary!!!

END OF EXCHANGES!

Итак, братия мои возлюбленные!

1COR 15:58 Итак, братия мои возлюбленные, 

будьте тверды, непоколебимы, 

всегда преуспевайте в деле Господнем, зная, 

что труд ваш не тщетен пред Господом.

God's children among the Russians are visiting the blog!
May our Lord bless them richly to know the gospel of grace... 

even the pure and unadulterated grace!

"Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life)" - a fowler's gospel

Charles shared a link:

Sing, here is one for you to read and tell us what you think!

 John 3:16 and Man's Ability to Choose God

www.ligonier.org

Sing F Lau
Part of the 2nd paragraph of the article reads as follows:
What the text teaches is that everyone who believes in Christ will be saved. Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life). The text says nothing, absolutely nothing, about who will ever believe. It says nothing about the fallen man’s natural moral ability. Reformed people and non-Reformed people both heartily agree that all who believe will be saved. They heartily disagree about who has the ability to believe.
===========

Since John 3:16 declares thus: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," then both the haughty Reformed people and the despised non-Reformed people are deceived and deluded!!!

What the text teaches is that everyone who believes HAS / POSSESSES eternal life, i.e HAS BEEN SAVED, HAS BEEN BESTOWED ETERNAL LIFE/SALVATION!

Everyone who will believe in Christ SHALL HAVE eternal life, and everyone who believes in Christ HAS eternal life are two ENTIRELY different gospels!!!

The text makes a grand and glorious declaration about every one/whosoever believes: all the believing ones HAVE, NOT will have, eternal life!

It says NOTHING about what one must do to be saved!!!

It makes a grand and glorious DECLARATION about the believing ones - they have ETERNAL/EVERLASTING LIFE, an evidence of having been SO LOVED of God.

It is like this simple and plain statement about the eating ones:
He who eats has life. This is a statement about those who eat. 
It says nothing about the dead eating in order to have life.

Beware, Sprouler the fowler is on the prowl for some to devour!

Charles 
Sproul just tweeted (perhaps from my remarks)
We are not loving people when we're telling them that God accepts them as they are w/out repentance, b/c we're lying to them. —RC Sproul

Sing F Lau  

We are most loving to people to tell them the truth God accepted His people in Christ Jesus when still dead in trespasses and sins, regenerated them with eternal life, made them fit for eternal glory... therefore repent and believe the truth! Whoever believes HAS everlasting life.

Any thing else would be telling them lies!
And telling them lies is not loving at all!
Tell the sprowler that!

Sing F Lau  

"Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life)..

This a perversion of what the text says!!
The text declares:

Whoever does A (believes) HAS / POSSESSES B (everlasting life).

Doing A is evidence of possessing B!

Tell the sprowler that! 

Charles

His very last sentence caught my attention!

Sing F Lau
His last sentence;
"It is so great that only the effectual grace of God working in his heart can bring him to faith."

What about it?
There is something rotten about it...
I'll let you have the honor to throw it out!

Charles
I tweeted back to sprowler: "we are deceiving them when we make repentance a condition for being born again.The Holy Spirit regenerates from their state of sin.

Tweeting is a good exercise in communications, you only have 140 characters to tweet

Charles
@Ligonier it is not about our love for them it is God's love we declare to the regenerated/already born again. II Cor 5:14-21

=========================================

A closely related thread:

"Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life)" --- R C Sproul

This is the gospel of the Reformed people, that is, receiving B is conditioned on doing A!
This is most definitely a perversion of what John 3:16 says!!

The text declares:
Whoever does A (believes) HAS / POSSESSES B (everlasting life).
Doing A evidences the possession of B.

The former is no gospel... for one without everlasting life is incapable to do the thing needed to receive everlasting life!!! It is a cruel mockery and wicked taunting against the dead in trespasses and sins!

Doing A is evidence of possessing B!
Doing A is the evidence of having been SO LOVED by God and bestowed everlasting life by His free grace.

That is the gospel - the good news of what God HAS ALREADY DONE... bestowed eternal life.
Whosoever believes HAS everlasting life.
That's good news!

Sing F Lau 
Take a look here - a short article on John 3:16 "How did God so love?"http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-316-how-did-god-so-love.html

Things New and Old: John 3:16 - How did God so love?

Sing F Lau
Here is another article on John 3:16 "But how did God so love?"http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2010/01/but-how-did-god-so-love-john-316.html

Things New and Old: But how did God so love? John 3:16

Canto

Bro Sing.... u don't agree with the Reformed view??

Sing F Lau  

Bro Cantoro, you don't agree with the Holy Bible?????

Canto

One of the reasons why we use KJV is because it is the Bible of the Protestant Reformation right?

Sing F Lau  

Cantoro, don't let your great mind wander so easily!  Stay focused lah!!! What do you want to talk about - John 3:16 or KJV or Protestant Reformation?

Which do you believe
"Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life)"  or
"Whoever does A (believes) HAS / POSSESSES B (everlasting life)"?

Canto

I'm for TULIP!

Sing F Lau

You have not even dealt with John 3:16, you are already jumping to KJV, and Protestant Reformation, and now TULIP! You should be thrown into jail... because ORCHID is the national flower of Singapore, and not the dutchy tulip!!!

Good night! Please go to bed. Have a good rest... then come back and say something useful on John 3:16.

Canto

The context is that the Jews rejected Jesus Christ and saw Him as only a mere carpenter, not as the Son of God.

For us, we can only know the Living Word through the written word of God. So if we are convinced that Jesus is the Son of God, receiving Him as Lord and Saviour will give us everlasting life.

Sing F Lau  

Yes, you are INDEED a Reformed person!!!
You and RC Sproul think and believe alike:

Sproul: "Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life)"
Cantoro: "receiving Him as Lord and Saviour will give us everlasting life."

I hear you loud and clear.

So, you are saying that a man WITHOUT everlasting life, i.e. STILL dead in trespasses and sin, is capable of receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour in order that his act of receiving will give him the everlasting life which he did not have? That's a very simple question for a Reformed man like you. So kindly answer it. Thank you.

Canto

My BP teachers have taught me:
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Romans 8:29 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.

I'd add that:

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

So to the elect, the gospel is effective in making them alive and bear good fruit from being dead in trespasses and sins. 

Canto
The Spirit of God chooses whoever He wants to give everlasting life. Everlasting life is being born of the Spirit, begins at the moment of conversion.

By the irresistible, instantaneous act of conversion by the Spirit of God, the elect dead in trespasses and sins will receive Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

Sing F Lau  

Canto, you may be the THIRD person I'm saying this: the Devil can quote Scriptures better than you do!!!

OK now please explain John 6:37. Thank you.

John 6:37 "All that the Father GIVETH me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

John 6: 39 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.

John 6:37 has "Father GIVETH" - present tense.
John 6:39 has "he HATH GIVEN" - perfect tense.

Now, please explain John 6:37.

The Devil can quote Scriptures better than you do!!!

Canto
From the perspective of Jesus as a human being, it was the present tense. But from the perspective of God from beginning to end, God the Father has decided who to give the faith to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

I'd like to add also:

Romans 10:14-15 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Makes sense offering the gospel to many willing to hear!

1 Peter 3:18-20 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

So the gospel is to save and condemn!

Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Sing F Lau  

Cantoro, Thanks for all your comments.
You are a perfect example of a deformed Arminian - having a reformed label but believe just like an Arminian!!!
Sorry, you are too smart alecky to learn the truth. You have been indoctrinated beyond cure. So I need to think if I should waste more time responding to your comments. Thanks.  

Dell
Hello Brother Sing can I borrow your post?
I believe it reinforces 1 John 5:1
King James Version (KJV)
5 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Sing F Lau  

It is God's truth, our common heritage! Use it freely, Brother!

Dell
 :) O:)

Canto
Then give me a chance to comment abt VPP-KJV? ;)

Sing F Lau  

Don't ride your hobby horse here.
Ride it freely on your own turf!

You had better stay put of this BASIC issue of salvation first before drifting off to other subjects!!!
 
Angel

Excuse me Elders I think the subject of God's love is the elect people. Jn.3:16 are supported by Jn.17:5-24. please read, 4 kinds of world: #1cosmos world, #2world of all mankind, #3world of non-elect, #4world of the elect people.in matt.1:21 the mission of Jesus is to save all his people only and not all human being.

Canto

Angel P, I'm not an Elder =) haha, let me go to some farms which have sheep first... If I can look after them well for a few years, then maybe God may put the conviction in my heart to be an Elder... (Experiment w animals first!) Arrgh! Those animals... why don't just hire a shepherd dog??

Good to point out how cosmos is used. like Cesar commanded that the world be taxed.

It looks to me quite clearly there are sheep and goats predetermined. The Son of man came to seek them that are lost. Why lost? They once belonged to God. Now they are found! Rather than we found God, God found us!

Sheep that are lost were dead in trespasses and sins till they were found. In the parable of the prodigal son for eg, the thrust of the parable is about repentance. Christ came for His sheep - those the Father had given Him. Because those sheep were lost, needing a shepherd.

Sing F Lau 

Canto wrote:
The Spirit of God chooses whoever He wants to give everlasting life. Everlasting life is being born of the Spirit, begins at the moment of conversion.

By the irresistible, instantaneous act of conversion by the Spirit of God, the elect dead in trespasses and sins will receive Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
========

Canto, if you will pay some attention, I will expand some time teaching you some gospel truth, and wean you from some loooooose talk.

1. The Spirit of God DOES NOT choose whoever He wants to give eternal life! The Spirit of God works in perfect harmony with God the Father and God the Son.
- The Spirit of God gives eternal life to those ONLY and no one else whom God the father has chosen and predestined to glory, and whom the Son has redeemed for the same end.
- ONLY those whom Christ has redeemed are eligible recipient of eternal life... not whoever the Spirit of God wants!!!

2. Everlasting life is being born of the Spirit, begins at the moment of REGENERATION!
- You are quite confused and messed up about regeneration and conversion.
- Regeneration is always distinct and PRIOR to conversion. Learn this BASIC truth well, and it will save you from many errors.

3. The Spirit of God gives eternal life to the elect - chosen of God and redeemed of Christ - who are still dead in trespasses and sin.
- He gives eternal life NOT TO THOSE who believe.
- Those who believe ALREADY HAVE eternal life!

 
Sing F Lau
Angel said --- "#1cosmos world #2world of all mankind #3world of non-elect #4world of the elect people.

I suggest the world spoken of in John 3:16 is the world in its ethical sense... a world that lies in death and wickedness and rebellion and enmity against God. Such is the world that God loved... which is why it is said He SO LOVED... He loved that which on every consideration are unlovable, but should be justly and righteously damned eternally.

That's the intent of the term "world" in John 3:16 - I believe.
To say the world refers to the world of the elect is too specious, and invite the wrath of the universalists for no good reason!!!