 |
Life precedes the activities of that life;
e.g. the fruits evidence life. |
I asked a gospel regenerationist a simple
question:
"Was Cornelius a regenerated man before he heard the gospel from
Peter? Isn't that a simple enough question?"
I received this LAME reply: "... The
Bible does not come out and answer your question. What I mean is, nowhere is
the word "regeneration" found in Acts 10, and so we can only make
conclusions based on OTHER verses... "
How bizarre!
Sing F Lau
I said, "if you read Acts 10, and you
cannot tell us whether Cornelius is a regenerated man or a man still in his
native state of death, THEN I can only conclude you simply FEAR to face the
simple fact that gospel regeneration is plainly a LIE and DELUSION.
PERIOD."
It is like saying, "... The Bible does
not come out and answer your question. What I mean is, nowhere is the word
"Trinity" found in Mt 28:19, and so we can only make conclusions based
on OTHER verses.... "
Only a very PREJUDICED and OBTUSE man can
miss all the glaring evidence of Cornelius being a man NO LONGER in his native
state of sin and death but a man CALLED OUT into a state of grace and
salvation, i.e. regenerated. Cornelius' conduct and spirit, his deeds and
thoughts give conclusive evidence that he is a man in the state of grace and
salvation. A man in his native state of sin and dead CAN'T possibly do what
Cornelius did.
Acts 10
34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said,
Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him,
and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Apostle Peter discovered a momentous truth that
is still rejected by the gospel regerationists.
Cornelius is a CLASSIC illustration of the Gentiles spoken of in Romans
2:13-15... "a doer of the law... do by nature the things contained in the
law."
What a glorious declaration of grace... that
God is no respecter of person in eternal salvation, i.e. regeneration is by
grace alone.
No one is advantaged because he has the
ability as well as the opportunity to hear the gospel, and no one is
disadvantaged because he has no ability nor the opportunity to hear the gospel.
Otherwise, God CANNOT be said to be NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS!
Hearing the gospel is useful for CONVERTING God's children to the truth. It HAS
NO ROLE in bringing the DEAD to ETERNAL LIFE. Gospel regenerations just don't
get it!
http://www.banneroftruth.org/.../article_detail.php...
http://www.the-highway.com/eternal-justification_Berkhof...
So, I am not sure what you are speaking of in
regards to your above posts, Sing: are you saying that regeneration is from
eternity as well?
Sing F Lau
Bill, tell me what is 'eternal justification' in a few sentences. Thanks.
With all due respect I would say that the RBs should be rightly called DEFORMED
baptists when it comes to the doctrine of justification. They have departed so
far away from the old school baptists while sincerely thinking that they
believe the same. Strong words I know, no apology. Strong words needed to describe
strong DELUSION! And these said WITHOUT the slightest tinge of hostility, but
great pity and affection.
My best friends and fellow ministers were RBs... but sadly when shown that they
believe quite differently from what the old baptists summarized in the 1689
CoF. It is chronicled in the 'Pruning Seven DEFORMED Branches' book.
Actually I want to keep this thread to the
regeneration issue.
So, if you want to discuss eternal justification, start another post on
that.
RBs are typical gospel regenerationists; they,
in general, insist that the gospel is the necessary instrumental means in the
work of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. If you press them further, they begin
to become incoherent... some begin to invent the fiction of the normal way of
regeneration, and the exceptional way of regeneration...
Your question: "are you saying that
regeneration is from eternity as well?" In nearly 30 years as a student of
God's word, I have never come across the idea that regeneration is from
eternity! New things are happening all the time...
I believe the regeneration of an individual elect takes place in time, at one
point in time between his conception and physical death, and that point in time
is ACCORDING TO God's appointed and approved time... and NOT according to or
determined by any man.
Of course, the regeneration of each elect has been ordained from eternity. But
some PERVERSE people would then twist this truth and say that the regeneration
of the individual elects is from eternity. (The same happened to the truth that
justification of the elect was ordained from eternity - this biblical truth has
been perverted to mean that the individual elect are actually and personally
justified in eternity!)
[note: An Abraham Juliot posted some loooong comments
but later quietly deleted them for some unknown reasons.]
Sing F Lau
Abraham, you have given them a chunky meat...
many of them will choke!
Sing F Lau
Abraham, the gospel regenerationists have various answers to the point you
raised:
- those wanting to appear consistent would just
bite their teeth, harden their hearts and blurt, "no elect among such
people. all elect are capable of hearing and believing, and will have
opportunity to hear and believe."
- the imaginative ones say, while preaching
is necessary instrumental means in regeneration, hearing and believing are not.
So, as along as there is preaching, the Holy Spirit will regenerate! That's
creative!
- the inventive ones invent more lies to
cover old lies. So they invent an exception. If there are God's elect among
such, then regeneration WITHOUT gospel means. The NORMAL way is with gospel
means, the EXCEPTIONAL way is without gospel means!
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth,
and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and
whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
"... so is EVERY ONE that is born of the
Spirit..." Does this solemn declaration permit the lies of the normal way
and the exceptional way!
Bill Hier
Sing, you bring up things I have not heard mentioned before, and very
vehemently, at that.
Do you believe we must continue to repent and
confess sin, not as a means of being saved, but because it is commanded and we
are cleansed of the filth of the world and flesh in progressive sanctification?
Or do you believe that the saved are sanctified eternally, therefore needing no
further cleansing of their corrupted tents in this life as a means of
proclaiming the glory of God?
Your posts are so different from anything I hear from anyone else, including
those who quote the 1689 Baptist confession - you seem to have a different
understanding of such things, and your expression of that understanding, while
you have disavowed such, seems to border on, if not outright state, your
contempt for those who hold to the Reformed Baptist position - not what I would
expect in a brother seeking to correct those whom he thinks to believe wrongly,
unless that wrong belief is outright heresy.
I have and am considering the things you say, but your method of delivery lacks
the patient humility of teaching those who are in error that they are in such.
Bill Hier
Oh, you already answered what I asked in some instances - sorry, didn't see it.
Okay, the brothers I know agree that justification is not from eternity but
applied at a point in time by God, and the same with regeneration and
sanctification, though all are purposed in eternity before time began,
according to God's willed purpose within Himself.
Still, I do fail to understand some of your comments - the Reformed brothers I
know do not disagree with these things.
I believe I must be talking to a different type of "Reformed" than
you are, and number myself among them, as well as Baptist.
If your comments appear in the feed on my page, it is quite natural that I ask
questions - if you wish to limit the scope of the questions, I would appreciate
a heads up in the initial post.
By the way, I have studied the Scriptures for a time, as well, and remain a
student - one who appreciates that which those appointed as teachers by God
have to say, myself being a teacher, not by merit, but the gifting of God,
though I must say there are many who far surpass me - it is only of Him that I
am able to teach at all.
Bill Hier
Sing, it would be hard for me to tell you
what eternal justification is in a few sentences, as the first I heard the term
was from you.
On the other hand, I would state it in one sentence as that justification
Christ procured for us in time by the eternal edict of the the triune God in
election - this, however, is incomplete, as a statement, and adding to it would
take more than a consequent statement.
Bill Hier
Abraham, do you use Holy Ghost because it is
of the older translations, such as the Geneva and KJV? I've always found it
somewhat off the mark to describe the Holy Spirit as a ghost, but it meant the
same at the time, I suppose.
Of the rest of what you have posted, I have
no idea of what you are appealing to, regarding your source - there seems an
appeal to human sensibility in some of what you say, but I am thinking I MUST
be misunderstanding you.
Bill Hier
I'll just follow along for now, Abraham - sometimes being silent on things I'm
considering while they are being discussed helps - besides which, I am up far
too late as of hours ago. :) As I said, I am CERTAIN I must be misunderstanding
at some points - however, if I do have questions later, I will surely ask.
Thank you, brother. Peace and grace in our Lord Jesus Christ, and God our
Father.
Cheri Thomas
the answer is YES. :-)
Sing F Lau
Brother Bill, I tender my sincere apology for my bluntness. Let me give a
little explanation. I was a RBs for nearly TWENTY years... and RBs were my best
and dearest friends. Along the way, I learn things that show forth the glaring
differences between the RBs (a new group that arose in the 1960's) and the old
school particular baptists. This was mainly from studying through the 1689 CoF
THREE TIMES. We also went through Murray's 'Redemption Accomplished and
Applied' and noticed that vast differences between the ordo salutis put forth
by the reformed men like Murray, and the ordo salutis summarized by the old
school particular baptists in the 1689 CoF. When I brought the issues to the
notice of my fellow RB ministers... they were so hostile and charged that I
have departed from the (read 'THEIR') 'standard reformed' position. They get
their seven churches gathered together and issued official letter to my
churches bringing seven charges against me.
Sing F Lau
Bill, I will leave some answers within your post:
@"Sing, you bring up things I have not heard mentioned before, and very
vehemently, at that."
Probably because you are the 1001 RBs I am
exchanging these issues. I apologize. My fault. Too many of them are
contemptuous of anything that differ from their STANDARD REFORMED position,
whatever that is !
@"Do you believe we must continue to
repent and confess sin, not as a means of being saved, but because it is
commanded and we are cleansed of the filth... of the world and flesh in
progressive sanctification?"
A man is able to repent and confess because he is ALREADY eternally saved by
God. 'Eternally saved' by God DOES NOT God saved him in eternity! It means that
God saved him with a salvation that is ETERNAL. Repentance and confession are
fruits of eternal salvation by God's free grace.
A child of God continues to offend his
Father, and therefore must continue to repent and confess his sin in order to
maintain fellowship with the Father.
@"Or do you believe that the saved are sanctified eternally, therefore
needing no further cleansing of their corrupted tents in this life as a means
of proclaiming the glory of God?"
There is a sanctification that is eternal, once for all, good for all time unto
eternity, complete and perfect. The reformed theologians call this definitive
sanctification. God calling out His elect from their state of sin and death
to that of grace and salvation. In this sense, God's children are sanctified
eternally.
God's children must daily bear their own cross, and crucify themselves,
mortifying their old men... to live a sanctified (separated) lives as God's
children, to the glory of God.
@ “Your posts are so different from anything I hear from anyone else, including
those who quote the 1689 Baptist confession - you seem to have a different
understanding of such things, and your expression of that understanding, while
you have disavowed such, seems to border on, if not outright state, your
contempt for those who hold to the Reformed Baptist position - not what I would
expect in a brother seeking to correct those whom he thinks to believe wrongly,
unless that wrong belief is outright heresy.”
I tell you a strange story... so that you
will appreciate what you observe. Spurgeon was a great man, and he is greatly
admired by the RBs. Spurgeon owned Gill as his mentor and had great reverence
for Gill. But nearly all RBs despise Gill and slander him as hyper, cast him
contemptuously to the dunghill. But Gill was recognized by the Calvinists of
his days (of all denominations) as the epitome of the doctrine of grace.
I don't contemn the RBs; I do contemn their
claim that what they believe is what the old school particular baptists
summarized in the 1689 CoF. They insist they are children of the old school
particular Baptists; I say they are not because their beliefs differ greatly
from theirs.
@ "I have and am considering the things you
say, but your method of delivery lacks the patient humility of teaching those
who are in error that they are in such."
Sorry... but PLEASE don't let the lousy brown
paper cause you to despise the pure diamond wrapped in it.
Sing F Lau
Bill @ "Okay, the brothers I know agree that justification is not from
eternity but applied at a point in time by God, and the same with regeneration
and sanctification,... though all are purposed in eternity before time began,
according to God's willed purpose within Himself."
==========
I will ask some plain and simple questions...
and you can give your answers to them... These are no trick questions. If the
questions do not make sense, ask for clarification.
1. When is justification accomplished?
2. When is justification applied?
3. When is justification experienced?
4. Do you believe in order to be justified by
God, OR do you believe because you have been justified by God's free grace?
5. Which is LOGICALLY prior - God's act of
justification, or the Spirit's act of regeneration?
6. Why is justification known as
'justification of life'? (Rm 5:18?
7. Why is regeneration not mentioned in Rm
8:30?
Charles Page
Since reformed brothers are divided along justification beliefs is there a
division along the lines of God permitting/allowing the fall of man and
ordaining the fall of man? Two wills in God?
Sing F Lau
Charlie, it seems sister Cheri could preempt your good question... she
exclaimed, 'the answer is YES' just before you state the question!
Since you want my answer, my answer is SEY!
Saul, before the encounter on the way to
Damascus, was already a regenerated man, a man filled with the zeal OF God, for
the glory of God, but not according to knowledge.
The encounter on the road to Damascus is to
reveal Christ to him... as said in Gal 1:16, "but WHEN it pleased God ...
to reveal His Son to me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately
I conferred not with flesh and blood. "
Regeneration of an elect who is dead in sin
and trespasses, and the revelation of Christ to a child of God are two distinct
and different matters.
In Paul's days, the eyes of many of God's
children among the Jews were blinded... so that they do not perceive Christ as
the promised Messiah.
See Romans 9-11.
A remnant of God's children among the Jews
believed, the rest of the children were blinded, thus not seeing Christ as their
promised Messiah.
"For I would not, brethren, that ye
should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own
conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of
the Gentiles be come in."
The Israel is OBVIOUSLY spiritual Israel, the physical Israel is ALREADY blind enough by nature to need any sort of
further blinding.
Bill Taylor
Double Amen, Brother Sing!
Van Quick
If Cornelius was not regenerated, he would
never have heard the gospel. He had to be regenerated.
Sing F Lau
His thoughts and deeds evidenced his
regenerated state regardless of whether he hear the gospel or not.
"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said,
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."
Alan Lloyd
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said,
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto
him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it
unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Elder Keith Ellis
Cornelius displays at least 7 evidences of his regenerated state before he
ever heard the gospel. See Acts 10.
Bill Hier
Sing: I'm sorry if I have given you the understanding that I do not know the
Reformed position(s) - I do, and as the s in the parenthesis shows, there is
more than one of them. I call myself Reformed Baptist to show what I believe,
not because of others who call themselves such - it is Reformed in holding to
covenant theology, but I would differ with certain of those who hold themselves
Reformed in that they put certain doctrines ahead of fellowship which are not
cardinal - I do not name those doctrines here because they are of no matter to
me, I will let others argue over them.
However, I know of NO Reformed brethren who
hold to "decisional regeneration" - these words are contrary to the
very sense of the term.
Plain brown paper might be a manner in which
you express your frustration with those whom you have discussed with in the
past, concerning these things, but it is not an excuse - we are told to give a
reason for the hope that is in us with gentleness and respect, to be gentle to
all men, patient to teach, etc. - comments such as you've given are not
following the guidelines among those who call themselves by the name of Jesus
(whether they are or they are not is known of Him).
I have addressed a woman who holds to
Pelagian teaching as sister, for I know not if she is or not - her doctrine is
not of that which is in the Scriptures, but to her it is, do I put forth the
discussion I had with her in terms which did not seek to belittle her, though I
know much of what she holds too is contrary to Scripture.
Perhaps a post of the 1689, in all it's
points, would be beneficial to all, at this point.
Van Quick
When I spoke of hearing I was referring to spiritual ears.
Mark Thomas
Simple answers to the simple questions asked
by Brother Sing would be very helpful to the further conversation too, Bill.
Bill Hier
I would like brother Sing to provide the Scriptures to go with his simply
questions before I make an answer to any of them, brother Mark - then again, I
answered on the string here before reading all the posts today, so I am not
aware that he has not already given the Scriptures to which I am sure he refers
- there are some things he states which I would certainly take exception too,
and others which I would agree with - such as all Reformed Baptists throwing
Gill under a bus - I know of many who do no such thing - but to tell the truth,
I am not in an answering mood, at this moment, until the Scriptures have been
included with the questions.
Then again, it is Sing's thread, so he will post as he pleases in it - I know
he has had background with some of those who call themselves Reformed Baptist,
and that gives me some understanding into the words used, but not the reason -
I have, myself, called one ignorant today, for speaking out of such, which I
usually will not do - to say I was sick of dealing with those who have no
knowledge in the case spoken of gives me no excuse to say such - I could have
corrected with a better word.
Mark Thomas
Personally, I like direct language. Paul did
not hesitate to call the Galatians foolish nor the Creetians slow bellies. I
think that Brother Sing has about the best insight into the doctrine of
Justification of anyone that I have read after. Samuel Richardson, a Particular
Baptist from the 1640's would come in a close second. I am sure that Bro.
Sing's questions are simply designed to lead to profitable discussion. I have
no doubt that he would be glad to refer you to scripture for any point he
makes.
[A certain Richie Hart made come comments
which he later deleted too.]
Mark Thomas
Brother Hart, your quotation does not quite read like my KJT. I presume you are
referring to the language of Mark 13 and Matthew 10 where the Lord is sending
out the twelve. The word "all" needs careful attention wherever it is
found and context usually will provide the needed qualifications for exactly
what the word "all" embraces. I do not think the word "all"
from these passages means that the twelve would hate each other, or that literally, all men in Adam's race would hate the twelve. I am not sure that I understand
exactly what you are asking about perseverance. Please help me out and rephrase
your question if you don't mind.
Bill Hier
Richie: Are you quoting from Matthew 10:22?
If so, notice the distinction in the chapter - "all men" is in
respect to those who not only are not known of God, but who make it a practice
to reject His truth - that is the emphatic reason for the hate - it is for
Christ's sake, when we are following the leading of the Holy Spirit, not for
the sake of ourselves, that we are hated.
Taking a verse without the context is
dangerous - that has spawned more false doctrine than any other practice among
the visible church.
There is always - always - a distinction of
those who are of Christ, and the world which hates Christ, and we are not to show
hatred of those who are not of Christ, but among those who profess to be
teachers and deny the truth in His Scriptures, and do so dogmatically, teaching
myths as truth, we may cease to have discussion with them, for they hold to the
teachings of man, and man's traditions, rather than the teaching of God - at
the point a person is unable to make an intelligent response to a statement or
query put forth, where they ignore the truth of Scripture, as I stated,
dogmatically, placing the traditions and teachings of men continuously above
that of God, discourse is no longer possible in a teachable format.
I do not know that I have reason to hate you,
but I do know that I have reason to share with you the truth from Scripture.
Truth to tell, your comment caught me a bit
by surprise, since I have been active in this thread in a very limited manner -
since we are to love even our enemies, hatred is precluded, but intelligent
conversing over the truth of Scripture may lack without hate being the reason -
I have heard the Scripture redefined in so many ways by those who say they are
of Christ, then when confronted by such, they hold unintelligibly to their
preconceptions without being open to correction - in such cases, there is no
further discussion possible, but saying I hate them because they are purposely
ignorant of the truth of God is not the same as refusing to discuss that which
they will not listen too.
Jerry M. Hunt Sr.
Another mislead child that thinks a dead man
can hear something before he gets life. I wonder if he talks to the natural in
the casket and tries to persuade them to come alive. Doing so might get him put
out of the funeral home. Doing so in a church should get them put out because
both are impossible.
Sing F Lau
Bill@ "Perhaps a post of the 1689, in all it's points, would be beneficial
to all, at this point."
=====
All interested, can access to an UN-ABRIDGED
1689 CoF here:
Bill Hier
"Cemetarian" - I take it you don't think much of the scholars on the
many translation committees - including those of the KJV - that God used to
give us His Scriptures from the original autographs.
Anti-intellectualism is the response of many
in the visible church today, yet you use words like "contingent" -
why not put the mind God gave you to better use, and stop downplaying the role
of those men of God who were scholars (and are) in the transmission of His
Scriptures throughout the ages of the church (including those who translated
the KJV)?
Faith of Christ IS the faith in Christ - it
is part and parcel with the entirety of salvation, all given by God as the gift
of eternal life, all done by Him, as is persevering to the end. We who are His
will do so, but we will not claim any ability of our own in the doing.
Whether the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, or any good
translation, there is no understanding the entirety of the work of salvation,
including perseverance, is of human merit or power - that is why, in any of
these versions, you will find that the glory for our remaining steadfast is
always given to God, not ourselves.
Bill Hier
I have that copy, Sing. And a few others.
What I was suggesting was posting the
articles in it here, with the Scripture each holds too.
You did say you wanted to keep this thread on regeneration, however, so perhaps
you can start another thread for this purpose?
It is up to you, of course - and I will
answer your questions on justification, if I can get around to them, and if
they haven't disappeared in the general randomness this particular thread seems
to be holding too.
Sing F Lau
Bill @ "However, I know of NO Reformed brethren who hold to
"decisional regeneration" - these words are contrary to the very
sense of the term."
Bill, please tell me a little about "decisional regeneration."
In your understanding, is decisional
regeneration and gospel regeneration the same thing? I think most are rational
enough to reject the former... but nearly all RBs (from everywhere in the
world) I have come across embrace the latter!
I know of some RBs (they insist they are RBs)
that insist that a man must believe IN ORDER to have eternal life. Would you
call this notion 'decisional regeneration.'
When inquired further, they say this: when
the gospel is preached, regeneration takes place, which gives SPIRITUAL LIFE.
This enables the man to believe in order to get ETERNAL LIFE. When probed and
questioned and challenged, they insist the idea is the standard reformed
position. I was so tempted to tell them, "let your standard position
perish with you; I want what the Bible say!"
Bill Hier
Oh, Sing, which translation of the Scriptures do you hold to, or use?
Not that it makes a difference with me, but
it will make a difference in a search, I believe, as I seem to remember
righteous is placed in Lieu of justified/justification in some versions, though
the meaning is not lost (for me) in these places.
Bill Hier
Sing, I hold that man is regenerated at a
time of the Holy Spirit's willing, and that believe (faith) in Christ will be
the divine result of that regeneration - I don't necessarily believe that
regeneration comes about at the same time as faith is expressed, but that it is
that regeneration which then will - again, at a time of God's willing - express
itself in the faith which that one was given at the time of regeneration.
I do not see that the gospel accounts specify
the moment of regeneration as being known other than by God - that there are
some who express faith and are regenerated in close proximity, I have no doubt,
but this does not necessarily follow that the faith preceded the regeneration,
and in fact, I feel and think I am fully assured that those who express faith
must first have been regenerated - to believe faith expressed results in
regeneration seems, to me, to be putting the cart before the horse.
I admit, I may be out of line with some
regarding this, but I have not found such to be the case with those whom I have
called Reformed Baptist brethren, up to this point.
Sing F Lau
Bill @ You did say you wanted to keep this thread on regeneration, however, so
perhaps you can start another thread for this purpose?
=====
Thanks... it's done. It goes like this:
Scriptures declares:
"The just shall live by faith."
Old baptists state:
"The reason why any are justified IS NOT
because they have faith; but the reason why they have faith IS because they are
justified."
New baptists insist:
"By faith alone the condemned shall be
justified and live."
Let God be true but every man a liar.
=========
Hey Friends,
We will keep the gospel regeneration issue
here.
For the justification issue, please post it
at the right place.
Thanks.
Bill Hier
Well, I gave my understanding of regeneration from the passages of John
1:12-13, and 3:3-8, to start off with. As for the other matter, I will have to
study those Scriptures (I know that there are more that pertain to both, but
the two I used for regeneration are cardinal, to me). I have not studied all
the Scriptures on the latter systematically and exegetically except as I come
upon them when teaching through a book, and it has been a while - another
Scripture that comes to mind is the Pharisee and the tax-gatherer - there is
mention of justification, but I think it bears on regeneration, though proving
something from silence is generally not the best case for Scriptural doctrine;
however, that the tax-gatherer is declared justified by Jesus does imply a new
nature imparted, as with Abraham having faith (and the two passages in Romans 4
that come to mind are "he staggered not...but was strong in faith;"
"and being fully persuaded" which are both in the passive voice, if I
remember - God was the One who made Abraham strong in faith and fully
persuaded.
But I digress...sorry, brother Sing.
Sing F Lau
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
=======
Brother Bill,
"Distinction is the essence of sound
theology."
In the passage above, there are TWO distinct
aspect of truth on sonship.
1. Begotten a child of God when we were dead
in trespasses and sin. This enables a child of God (a regenerated elect) to
believe - the indwelling Spirit works the grace of faith within the child of
God. That grace of faith, when exercised by the child of God, manifests itself in
the acts of believing...
BUT until a child of God believes in Jesus
Christ through the gospel ministry, he will never experience the power (right
and authority) of being a son of God.
2. The right and authority to claim oneself as a son of God is CONDITIONED upon
believing in Christ Jesus.
To be BEGOTTEN is unconditional.
To experience one's sonship with God is conditioned upon believing in Christ. The
former is the vital aspect of sonship (at regeneration); the latter is the
experiential aspect of sonship (at initial conversion).
Of course, the LEGAL aspect of sonship took place at the cross.
I hope I make sense to you.
Bill Hier
"Distinction is the essence of sound theology."
I like this quote, Sing - where does it come
from?
Unfortunately, it can be used by those who
distinguish the humanistic element as being primary in the gospel, which I know
you do not do.
I find nothing wrong with your exegesis of
verses in John 1 - one must first be of God before they can receive Him, at
which point they are given the privilege/right/power to declare themselves His
children, to His glory.
Sing F Lau
I heard it the first time from Stuart Oloytt
some 20+ years ago. He said it while making the observation that many have
faith in their faith instead of having faith in Jesus Christ.
That maxim is basically the expression of the
same truth stated by Apostle Paul to Timothy: "Study to shew thyself
approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth."
And that is all I want to do as a minister of God's word. And I am thankful to some good brethren who caused me to be
ashamed by pointing out my errors in sloppy work of not rightly dividing the
work of truth.
A good example is this: so many CANNOT make the distinction between 'the faith
OF Christ' from "their faith IN Christ.' In fact the term 'faith OF
Christ' has been eradicated from many translations of the Bible! So many
ignorantly and FOOLISHLY equate the two and haven't the slightest clue that they
have attacked one fundamental of the gospel. That's just an illustration.
People who cannot distinguish the two are in
a big mess and confusion; sadly, such is incapable of feeling ashamed of their
not dividing the word of truth.
Bill Hier
See my comments on "ek" and
"en" in another post - there simply is not faith apart from Christ,
and the faith given is of God, because of the work of Christ, not of our own
effort or will in any way, though we are to use this gift of God, as all He
gifts us with, wisely, as those who will have to give a return for that which
has been entrusted to them, which belongs always to the Master, not the one the
Master has entrusted with such.
Sing F Lau
Thanks. All standard ideas that miss the truth stated so simply. Will carry on
this topic on a new thread later.
