Calvinistic Primitive Baptists

 

https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/10204027329419027
April 7, 2015

A FB friend wrote to inform me:
Apparently, Froyd Moller [actual name altered a wee bit] has blocked you and he posted this on my feed and I thought it only fair to relay it to you. You can't read his feed on my page. Froyd Moller posted: "... Sing has been visited by Elders who are sound and he is not to be trusted. The sooner you put him off of your feeds the quicker you can have rest. This is not against him as a person, but as his doctrine is not sound, his words are not to be trusted."

==========

Some while ago this Froyd Moller befriended me on FB. I accepted his request. We exchanged some; he raved and ranted some, and was unhappy with me telling him what I believe, and in the process pointing out his typical Calvinistic errors! He defriended me - this was perfectly fine with me, finer than his free act of befriending me.

His accusation above amuses me.

He spoke of Elders who had visited me. He can only be referring to Primitive Baptist Elders [Zack Guess with three other men] who had visited me about 10 years ago. They were in the region, in India on the way to the Philippines; they invited themselves to visit us, intensely eager to make us PB!). I won't question whether those Elders were sound or not. Now, let us just assume that those Elders were sound, and my doctrine is not sound, and my words are not to be trusted.

My question is simply: why then were those sound Elders so very desirous of a man with unsound doctrine to become a Primitive Baptist? Either they were similarly unsound, or someone is bearing false witness.  Fair conclusion?

One other PB elder was so eager and zealous to have me baptized into a PB; he offered to fly all the way to do just that. I graciously offered that he does this: he could stand in the western shore of USA, and I in the eastern shore of the South China Sea, and he would call me on my cell phone, and perform the baptism remotely. This way he could save the airfare as well as the arduous journey, and channel the savings to some good use. He didn't pursue the idea.

18 Comments

Peter Petersen
I also realised some Reformer Facebook friends deleted me recently. Not sure why, and not that I care much, but hope i didnt display any carnality under my Facebook profile or cause other believers to stumble in some way. I don't know.

Bill Taylor
Apparently, Calvin's model of killing those who don't agree with you is still in full operation.

Nelda Bryant
Did Calvin burn a man alive at the stake?

PJ Walters
Maybe a third alternative is that you were sound when those elders visited you, but now you are not.

Michael D. Green Jr.
Yes, he consented to the death of Michael Servetus due to theological differences.

Sing F Lau
We would be better off talking about the polar bear than the Genevan. <LOL> No disrespect is intended in any way.

Bill Taylor
I have found that there are points of biblical interpretation that many brethren will not allow that their "corporate" view may not be the only feasible one. Fundamental doctrines of grace are not under consideration for leeway; but other points should be. I don't happen to agree with Bro. Sing on some of his biblical perspectives; but I will not call him unsound just because he believes those things differently from me. Brethren, if you will think a man an heretic because he has a different view of Lazarus and the rich man (was he in a literal hell or not), then you will mark me as an heretic as well. (Please don't start a dialogue on why it HAD to be literal hell). I don't agree with Bro. Sing's understanding of hell and the lake of fire (from the standpoint of who is in hell at any given time), but I will not throw him away because I don't agree with him. Go read his understanding of justification and see if you can develop arguments against it. NONE of us has ever had, nor ever will have, perfect understanding in this life.

J.E. Griffis
Well said, Brother Bill.

Charles Page
Who is brother Bill? Shame that all comments can't be read!

Mack Floyd
Sing F Lau, if a primitive baptist offered to baptise you remotely more than likely he was not a PB. We believe in submerging. But there are several different p.b.

Charles Page
Sing, were you visited by old school PBs or neo-absoluter PBs?
[I found out later that they were Calvinistic PBs. sing]

Mack Floyd
Charles Page, old school baptists don't visit not to try and convert them. Now there is a verse about if someone errs PB will visit but I think that's a member

Charles Page
Mack, I think you are right about that!!! Sing was visited by neo-absoluters!!!

 Mack Floyd
I heard of neonazi but not neo-absoluters but they believe everything was predestinated right, Charles Page?

Charles Page
Correct...PB absoluters are an abbreviated form of Calvinist.

Sing F Lau
Sing F Lau, if a primitive baptist offered to baptise you remotely more than likely he was not a PB. We believe in submerging. But there are several different PBs.
=========

No, no PB offered to baptize me remotely. I consented to be baptized like that to save them the enormous cost involved in flying here from the US.

Submersion is not a hindrance for baptism to be done remotely <lol>. I carry a waterproof cellphone... you on the other side of the globe say the appropriate words to me, and the moment I hear you say, "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," I will SUBMERGE myself below the water, handphone and all, stay submerged for 7x3 seconds, and come up

Please show no disrespect towards the PBs. They are good people.

Though there are "several different p.b.", I have only known the regular and good ones! My exposure is quite limited.

Charles Page
Amen, they are the nicest people even the neo-absoluters are nice people, cordial and courteous!

Baptists and the Protestants

Baptists are freemen in Christ but they are no gypsies!

https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/4777835439281
April 24, 2013

Cantoro Joe wrote:
My analysis of the Baptists... they are like gipsies... a peculiar community.

I inquired:
Cantoro, if Baptists are like gipsies, what are the baby sprinklers like? <LOOOOOOL>

Cantoro replied:
<Cantoro, if Baptists are like gipsies, what are the baby sprinklers like?

The Baptists were communities never part of Rome and never joined any protestant groups... Independent from giant Christian bodies, and even the government...

Rather than rigidly observing the Sabbath, looks like the Baptists tried to have fellowship with each other through activities on a more regular basis...

Luther believed a Supreme Bishop should have rule over a district... Calvin believed in order for a country to prosper, the government and church had to work together...
----------

OK, FB friends... your opportunity to instruct this young lad on what the Bible say on the matter. Thanks.

Cantoro Joe
Somehow, looks like you all are like a distinct subculture within a big culture...

Sing F Lau
If you have done your ANALYSIS, you shouldn't be saying things like "Somehow,", "looks like," etc!!!

You speak like an ignorant but puffy young man!
What kind of analysis you have done!!!
No need to use such awe-inspiring words like "my ANALYSIS" when you are just plucking statements out of thin air!!!

And just what is the "big culture" you have in mind?
And what is the "distinct subculture"?
Is the big culture the one exemplified by the Singaporeans?
Or is it exemplified by the beeee peeeeeee churches?
Or one exemplified by your personal culture?
What's the standard of reference!!!

Please tell us! I would love to hear your ANALYSIS!!!

Sing F Lau
Cantoro @ "The Baptists were communities never part of Rome, and never joined any protestant groups... Independent from giant Christian bodies, and even the government..."
========

The Baptists were indeed never part of the Harlot church. They were indeed OUTSIDE of the Roman Catholic Churches and were severely persecuted by the Harlot. The true bride of Christ is the object of hatred and persecuted by the Harlot! Two women - one is the Bride of Christ, and the other is the Harlot and pretends to be the Bride.

Baptists were never part of the RCC... they were of the free churches outside the RCC. So, they were never protestants like the daughters of Harlot are. The daughters of RCC did rise up to protest against their Mother church! Baptists are not protestants!

However, as you assert, the baby sprinklers are daughters of Mother Harlot!!!

Yes, the Baptists are indeed independent of the giant Christian bodies... but Baptists are completely dependent upon the Lord Jesus Christ, the only true Head of His Church! Baptists recognize NO other ecclesiastical authority except that of Jesus Christ.

Baptists understand that they are to be loyal citizens of the countries they reside in, but that the kingdom of Christ is DISTINCT from the civil government, and is not of this world!

I'm speaking of the Baptists I'm acquainted with; not for ALL Baptists; I don't know ALL Baptists. 

Dallas Eaton II
Yep. The church is neither universal (catholic) nor invisible.

Robert Cook Sr.
Excellent answer Sing!!

 

 

Everlasting, and Eternity

https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/10205847281836700
February 22, 2016  ·

Everlasting, and Eternity

I saw this meme /mi:m/ and left this comment:

Just thinking, trying to make sense of the Scriptures.

Eternity does not end because it is not in the realm of time, but everlasting does. That which is everlasting lasts only as long as time lasts. And time does not last forever. It shall end at a particular point in the future, just as it began at a particular point in the past! When time ceases we enter eternity.

The very concept of "lasting" necessarily presupposes time. When there is NO time, "everlasting" is a nonsensical concept.

So there is a distinction between eternity/eternal and everlasting.

Hell is everlasting... it lasts until the end of time. After that, there will be no more hell.

Rev 20
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Hell shall be EMPTIED of its captives at the end of time, and discarded and disposed of as a USED item. ONLY those whose names were written in the Book of life were delivered from the lake of fire.

No such thing was said about them concerning hell. Now you will recall the numerous solemn warnings of hell addressed to the disciples by the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

The lake of fire is eternal, in the realm of eternity.
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

All those whose names were written in the Book of Life have no part in the second death. The necessary implication is that they do not all escape the first death. That explains Christ's solemn warnings on hell. Death and hell must SURRENDER all of them that belonged to Christ, to be readied for their glorious eternity with Christ.

In time, death and hell do harass EVEN those whose names were written in the Book of life. In eternity, when time has ended, all of them shall be safely gathered into eternal glory.

Just thinking.

(One TETH left some comments but has deleted them.)

Sing F Lau
If the word of God leads me that way, I will believe it. At the moment I'm not quite sure yet.
What is the hell that the Lord Jesus Christ solemnly warned His disciples of?

Sing F Lau
Thanks for your interest in this subject. I thank you. Few are interested to STUDY the Scriptures.... minds are all made up.

TETH: If a man's sins have been paid for by Christ at Calvary, on what basis is he sent to hell after he dies? Is there any more justification in sending him to hell for one day than there is for eternity?

That's a fair question.

Your reasoning assumes one thing: Christ's payment of a man's sins covered BOTH temporal punishment and eternal punishment. I believe that the time in hell is TEMPORAL. Eternity DOES NOT begin until the resurrection to eternal glory.

Christ's work of redemption saved His people from their eternity in the lake of fire. "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Whosoever's name is in the Book of life is redeemed by Christ from the lake of fire, didn't say from hell. If from hell, why would Christ waste time warning His disciples from the reality of hell, and warn them to AVOID it at all cost? Christ is no jester, like so many.

TETH: The Lord's comments design the notion that sin is worthy of death, that saying to your brother "Raca" is deserving of such, and that one's salvation is utterly dependent upon the sovereign mercy of God almighty (Matthew 5:22). It is a reminder that such behaviour is deserving of eternal damnation, apart from the grace of God, and thus it is a behaviour from which one should depart. It most certainly is NOT saying, "You can be one of God's children and still end up in hell after you die - if only for a season." Because nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:31-39) and to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (II Corinthians 5:8).

If such a behaviour is deserving of ETERNAL DAMNATION, then the non-such behaviour would save them ETERNAL DAMNATION, Christ exhorts them to behave in such a way as to avoid it. Be careful.... lest I mistake you for saying eternal salvation is by works, 🙂

Hell DOES NOT and HAS NOT separate any of God's children from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, for at resurrection they shall each one enter into their eternal inheritance. At the appointed time, even hell MUST deliver up Christ's redeemed. For the love of God in Jesus Christ SAVED His children from the lake of fire - that's what I read. What do you read?

And I read that hell is NOT eternal. It shall be emptied at the appointed time. I'm just reading the Holy Scriptures and taking what it says seriously. I have no use for tradition, no matter how ancient and revered they are!

2Cor 5:8 is a great comfort to those who lived and died like the apostle Paul. Amen and amen.

Sing F Lau
TETH @ "So to die in the Lord is to be in hell - for some. I see. And you regard your position as "not quite sure." Sounds like you're pretty well decided on it to me."
-----
That's only because I play the contrarian to get folks like you to rant a bit, and see where it goes. 😉.

Will respond to the rest later. Will leave this wifi-ed place.

Sing F Lau
SFL: Your reasoning assumes one thing: Christ's payment of a man's sins covered BOTH temporal punishment and eternal punishment.
TETH: My reasoning does not assume this.
=====================

Most certainly it does, since the temporal punishment of hell is completely taken care of by the redemptive work of Christ.

Sing F Lau
SFL: Eternity DOES NOT begin until the resurrection to eternal glory.
TETH: Eternity encompasses time.
============
True, but eternal salvation, when the redeemed is properly and fully glorified DOES NOT begin until the resurrection unto glory. Until such time eternity in its fullest sense has not begun. The radical changes that will take place at the resurrection to glory mark the beginning of the CHANGELESSNESS of eternity.

Sing F Lau
TETH: "The warning takes the form of "Don't forget that sin makes a man worthy of hell, and that your salvation from such is utterly by grace. It follows that you should not be a practitioner of damnable things."
================

Read the relevant passages again.
In the sermon on the mount, the Lord Jesus Christ was addressing the DISCIPLES... Mt 5:29,30.
In Christ's words to the disciples, hell is a real danger to them, and they must do all they can to avoid it. There is a real danger they can end up in hell, and there is ALSO something they can and must do to avoid that.

With the lake of fire, it is completely different. Christ does not waste time warning them of the lake of fire; there is absolutely no possibility, whatsoever, of His redeemed ending up in the lake of fire.

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." This statement is quite definitive and self-explanatory. Prejudiced minds are not ready to draw out the plain and necessary implications of the statement.

Christ's work of redemption saved His redeemed from that eternity in the lake of fire. He came to redeem those whose names were written in the Book of life; those written in the Book of life were spared from the lake of fire.

Maybe I'm a little naive and simple to draw such a conclusion. Tell me, what do you conclude from that statement.

Sing F Lau
SFL: At the appointed time, even hell MUST deliver up Christ's redeemed ones. For the love of God in Jesus Christ SAVED His children from the lake of fire - that's what I read. What do you read?
TETH: What I read is that hell goes into the lake of fire. The occupants of hell become the occupants of the lake.
=============

Here are the Scriptures:
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

It is stated that hell delivered up its prisoners, and the EMPTIED hell is cast into the lake of fire, of which the redeemed have no part whatsoever.

What's the point of hell delivering up its captives if the occupants of hell become the occupants of the lake of snow! I hear you say, to stand for judgment!

The statement "and death and hell were cast into the lake of fire" is one of the greatest comforts to God's children, and Christ's redeemed who foolishly got themselves ended in hell. Death and hell shall be NO MORE; they are NOT eternal - what comfort and relief for such.

Rev 20:14 speaks of the SECOND death. What do you think is the FIRST death in the same context! May be better to start a separate thread on this topic.

Sing F Lau
SFL: And I read that hell is NOT eternal.
TETH: Where? It says it is cast into the lake of fire. The devil is cast into the lake of fire as well where he shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:10) Does the devil cease to exist when thrown into the lake of fire? By your logic one could say, "'ever" implies time, thus the eternity of the lake of fire is not eternal but temporal as well.
=================

I read plain words stating that hell delivered up those in it, and the empty hell is cast into the lake of fire. That's the end of hell as far as its prisoners are concerned; none will be in it beyond the point in time when it delivered up its prisoners. I just assume that there is no one left in hell when hell was cast into the lake of fire.

But if you wish to twist what I plainly meant, that's fine. 😉

Sing F Lau
SFL: It shall be emptied at the appointed time.
TETH: Read more closely, Hell is thrown into the Lake, not emptied with some of its occupants going to heaven and others to the lake.
=================

[At the general resurrection, hell shall deliver up the SPIRITS of the dead held captives in it; these spirits shall then be united with their bodies; Christ's redeemed ones among them shall be glorified and enter into their eternal inheritance; the rest shall be cast into the lake of fire. After the resurrection, all of Christ's redeemed shall enter heaven, their eternal inheritance.] 

When I use the word "emptied", my point was to show that hell CEASED in its relevance at the end of time; none will be found in it.

Inspired Scriptures uses the word "delivered." A study of this word may shed some interesting light.

The significance of death and hell being cast into the lake of fire is SIMPLY THIS: they are forever removed from God's redeemed. They shall never ever harass the redeemed. There is no need to drain the good news of that statement.

Sing F Lau
SFL: 2Cor 5:8 is a great comfort to those who lived and died like the apostle Paul. Amen and amen.
TETH: No such qualification exists in Paul's comments. You are suggesting that what Paul meant was, "For folks like me, we'll go to be with the Lord, but you loser-Christians, you'll be in hell for a while." Consider this, if Paul considered himself the chief of sinners (I Timothy 1:15), how could anyone be found to be a greater sinner than he such that he could be sent to God's Loving Hell?
====================

I'm suggesting nothing. I take it for granted that the distinction between the first-person plural "we" (referring to Apostle Paul and his companions" and the second-person plural "you" (referring to the Corinthians believers) is plain enough, from the very beginning of the epistles. If that distinction is not respected, then so much of the epistles become meaningless.

Read it and see.

That's probably all from your long post.

If I have missed out on anything, please alert me.

Sing F Lau
TETH: Brother Sing, you should leave your fanciful doctrine of "God's Loving Hell" on the pile of addled thinking where it belongs, IMO.
===========

I will just leave this patronizing dig alone 😉 😉 😉
What is God's Loving Hell doctrine? I would appreciate it if you explain it.
[some white men can be very patronizing!]

Sing F Lau
You have written a whole lot... much of it just repeating and spinning the same thing - speaking objectively.

You attribute to me these things:
1. God loves the elect.
2. God’s love for them is immutable.
3. They cannot be separated from God’s love for them.
4. God sends some of the elect to hell after they die.
5. God, therefore, loves them while they are enduring the torment of hell.

Misrepresenting my view does not advance your opinion, it just downgrades your credibility, 😉

These are what I believe, just going along with your form of words.

God loves the elect. God’s love for them is immutable, which is why even though their foolishness landed them in hell, God will deliver them from it, and glorify them.

- God gave His Son Jesus Christ to save them from their eternal damnation in the lake of fire.

Christ came to save them from the lake of fire, not hell. Christ came to save those whose names were written in the Lamb's Book of life, thus from the lake of fire. The Scriptures says, "And whosoever was not found written in the Book of life was cast into the lake of fire," and NOT "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into hell." The latter is a fiction repudiated by Christ, by His solemn warning to the elect of the reality of hell, and the real danger of them landing up in hell. Christ was not jesting, nor wasting time warning against the fictional danger of hell for the elect.

Christ DIDN'T save them from hell. He DID save them from their eternity in the lake of fire. Plain statement in Rev 20:15. Twist and roll and gyrate all one can, it doesn't change those plain words.

There must be a reason why there isn't a single warning to the elect of them ending up in the lake of fire, and many warnings to them against the real danger of them ending up in hell, unless you take Christ as jesting about hell to the elect.

You misrepresented me by saying that God sends some of the elect to hell after they die. They were warned solemnly of going there by their own disobedience. Misrepresentation does not advance the cause of truth - you think otherwise.

God's love for His elect did not cease when His elect landed themselves in hell. At the appointed time, hell shall deliver them up, to be glorified, as God had purposed from eternity. Nothing shall separate the elect from the love of God in Christ, not even death, nor hell. Indeed.

You are not as objective as I had thought. ;-(

Sing F Lau
TETH, you may wish to prove that the elect who ended up in hell, i.e. they were cast into hell because they ignored the solemn warnings, and were eventually delivered up at the appointed time for the resurrection unto eternal glory, has been separated from the love of God in Jesus Christ.
---------

The love of God in Jesus Christ saved the elect from the lake of fire.

Show that any of the elect is left in the lake of fire, and you will have proven that an elect has been separated from the love of God in Christ. It is just that easy.

No, neither death nor hell can separate them from the love of God. Hell delivered them up, and they were glorified. The complete opposite of what you WILL to view it. That's your problem.

I have just proven the falsity of one of your points. That should suffice.

The rest is a rehashing of the things I have commented on.

Good night, Brother.

Robert Cook Sr.
Sing F Lau, we had this discussion a couple of years ago! and it will end the same way; you in your corner and TETH in his. The issue to me is very simple, God is Holy and will consume sinners in His eternal wrath (Rev20:15), God loves His elect and has perfected them forever (Hebrews 10:14). Get it perfected! When they die there is no further need of Chastisement (Duet 32:50) since we will be changed in an instant in the twinkling of an eye (1Corinthians15:17) and this vile body that has be decaying in the ground will be made glorious like unto His own body (1Thessalonians4:14). Your error seems to rest on the need for further correction before entering glory to finish work Christ did not! (Hebrews12:23), Just men are made perfect. 🙂 And I love brother Sing F Lau, very much he has been a great help to me.

Sing F Lau
We can either make sense of all the solemn warnings against hell addressed to the disciples, or dismiss them as irrelevant to them.

I don't see it as a FURTHER need for correction; the correction was not imposed before.
Christ's work delivered His redeemed ones from the lake of fire. So, the idea that further correction is needed to FINISH the work of Christ is just fiction.

Robert Cook Sr.
Sing if not further correction or Chastisement of children for the purpose of correction the only option left is payment for sin because is Holy, as I see it!

Robert Cook Sr.
"But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." The construction of the context and the verse itself is teaching that the God who cares for you is greater than any man whom you may be fearful of. Hence the middle portion does not say "Cast ye into hell" but has the power over all men to cast the most arrogant fierce angry man into hell, hence fear your God and not what man can do unto you! that is how I see it Sing F Lau whether you want to or not this is how our Lord intended it to be understood.

Sing F Lau
The distinction between temporal judgment and eternal judgment is helpful here.
Christ's redemptive work secured eternal salvation, and deliverance from eternal fire. That explains the corollary of the plain statement, those whose names were written in the Book of life were delivered from the lake of fire.

The way you explain away the reality of hell for the disciples is subtle. If there is no possibility of the disciples ending up in hell, that warning is entirely nonsensical.

"Fear such a one, lest you be cast into hell." The way you explain it, it might as well be, "For I comfort you, you need not fear him who has the power to cast you into hell, because such a thing can never happen to you. I'm just jesting with you."

There isn't a single warning to the disciples against the danger of the lake of fire for the SIMPLE reason that such is an impossibility with them. But hell, yes, often, and solemnly.

Robert Cook Sr.
Sing F Lau You put this in "Fear such a one, lest you be cast into hell." can you tell me where this is found?

Robert Cook Sr.
It is simply a teaching that the greater power (GOD) has much more power than those that would be your enemy hence the admonition " Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." the fearing is not of the place but of the person, by comparison.

Sing F Lau
This is the text:

"But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

This is your understanding:
"The construction of the context and the verse itself is teaching that the God who cares for you is greater than any man whom you may be fearful of. Hence the middle portion does not say "Cast ye into hell" but has the power over all men to cast the most arrogant fierce angry man into hell, hence fear your God and not what man can do unto you! that is how I see it Sing F Lau whether you want to or not this is how our Lord intended it to be understood."
========================

This is my understanding:

Mt 10
27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Who to fear - Men or God?
1. If you fear man, and thus disobey God, this will happen:
- you will suffer the displeasure of him who is able to destroy both your soul and body in hell.
2. If you fear God, and thus disobey man, this happens:
- you will suffer the displeasure of men who is only able to kill the body.

(You would say, "No need to fear men because God can destroy both their body and soul in hell! That's a smart twist, indeed!)

Choose this day who you will fear, and live with the just consequences.

Too simplistic and naive for you, and many others.

Sing F Lau
You put this in " Fear such a one, lest you be cast into hell." can you tell me where this is found?
==========

Thanks for pointing this out. Not quoting from anywhere...

Robert Cook Sr.
Why did you mention it then? The NIV gets close to this kind of translation, re you using the NIV? I would be shocked! I can see why the Catholics would need this kind of language using the Westcott and Hort texts.

Robert Cook Sr.
Young's puts it this way, "but I will show to you, whom ye may fear; Fear him who, after the killing, is having authority to cast to the gehenna; yes, I say to you, Fear ye Him." The comparison in not between places but between the greater power.

Sing F Lau
Thanks, TETH for your very lengthy reply.

I stand by my words that you have misrepresented (perhaps twisting would be a proper term) what I stated. Probably that's the point you are defending yourself so vigorously.

It started here, I believe.
===================
SFL: What is God's Loving Hell doctrine? I would appreciate if you explain it.
TETH: It’s nothing less than the doctrine you teach.
1. God loves the elect.
2. God’s love for them is immutable.
3. They cannot be separated from God’s love for them.
4. God sends some of the elect to hell after they die.
5. God therefore loves them while they are enduring the torment of hell.

TETH: It follows that what you believe is “The Doctrine of God’s Loving Hell for the Elect.” That may be hard to look at, but you gotta own it, cause if that’s what you believe then it is without controversy an accurate moniker for your doctrine.

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

The nice monkey you invented is a calculated perversion of what I said.
You have conceded that the elect ending in hell does not constitute being separated from the love of God in Christ, Rom 8:31-39.

You quoted Mt 10:28.
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

It seems very strange to me that one can quote this Scripture and yet dismiss the possibility that God's children are being destroyed both body and soul in hell prior to their eternal glorification. Turn this solemn warning, and all others, addressed to the disciples, into an irrelevant shibboleth.

The way 4. is worded implies God's arbitrariness. Their own actions send them to hell, having been solemnly and amply warned against it, and they suffer the temporal judgment there.

Keep your comment short.

Sing F Lau
TETH, it is quite strange that you should accuse me of denying saying that some elect will end up in hell because of their wickedness. I have stated this at the very beginning of the thread. That's the whole intention of the commentary on the few verses of Rev 20:11-15.

It is the spin and twist you put to it that I objected to. So, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Sing F Lau
TETH, you make me chuckle again at your moniker.
If you believe the moniker is accurate, then I will let it be. Just insist on it long enough, and it shall be.

However, for the record, I don't believe in God's Loving Hell, or anything convey by those words.

I do believe that the wicked children of God do end up in hell.

There are ample warnings. Christ's redemption saved the elect from the lake of fire, not hell. This explains why, on the one hand, there is ample warning against hell; and on the other, there is no warning against the lake of fire at all, for no elect will go there.

I do find it incredibly strange that warnings of hell are believed to be directed at those who will INEVITABLY go there; or at those who have NO POSSIBILITY of going there. In both cases, those solemn warnings have been equally wasted.

You can go and spin what you want from these.

Thank you for your invigorating exchange.

John 12:25 - Loving Losing, Hating Keeping

"He that loveth his life shall lose it;
and he that hateth his life in this world
shall keep it unto life eternal."
John 12:25. (KJT)

Let us consider a passage from the Scriptures.

1. Two men contrasted
Please observe that two men are being contrasted in the passage.
a. In their different manner of life:
- One man loves his life in this world.
- The other man hates his life in this world.
- Common sense requires that the two men belong to the same category; both are God's children.

b. In the outcome of their different manner of life
i. The man who loves his life in this world shall LOSE his life, i.e. he shall NOT KEEP his life unto life eternal. Many understand this as failure to obtain eternal life, i.e. this person shall perish eternally in the lake of fire. They believe that eternal life is obtained by the way a man lives his life, i,e by man's effort. They don't believe that eternal life is a free gift of God, bestowed to a man when he was spiritually dead in sins and trespasses.

ii. The man who hates his life in this world shall SAVE his life, i.e. he shall KEEP his life unto life eternal. Very many understand this as gaining eternal life because the man lived well enough, he gained eternal life.

2. Two worlds are spoken of
a. Please note that two worlds are spoken of before we proceed further.
- The present one here is 'in this world.'
- The next one is indicated by 'UNTO life eternal' after this world.

b. There is an obvious contrast between IN THIS WORLD and that which follows, i.e the NEXT WORLD indicated by the term 'life eternal.'
- 'unto life eternal' speaks of the world that follows after this present world at death. The man who loves his life in this world shall not keep his life unto the world indicated by 'life eternal.'.
- But the man who hates his life in this present world shall keep his life unto the world to come, i.e unto life eternal. It is inaccurate to translate 'eis zōēn aiōnion' as 'for eternal life' as in NKJV and NIV. The KJ translators knew better.
- It conveys the false impression that loving or hating one's life in this world is the way a man gains or loses one's eternal life.

c. 'Life eternal' in this passage cannot possibly be the same as the eternal life that a man regenerated by the Spirit of God already possesses. 
- Eternal life is bestowed upon an elect of God in THIS WORLD as the result of the sovereign and immediate divine act of the Spirit of God in regenerating him when he was dead in trespasses and sin.
- Eternal life is a present possession of God's children in this world. "Whosoever believeth... HAVE eternal life." Temporal life is lived out in the life temporal, i.e. present world. Eternal life shall be lived out in the life eternal, i.e. the world to come, after death and before resurrection to glory.
- "Unto life eternal" speaks of paradise in the intermediate state. The other side of the intermediate state is hell (this is distinct from the lake of fire). 

Here is an example of the two sides in the intermediate state: "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Mat 25:46

3. The life that is loved or hated in this world
a. Next, please take careful note that the life that is loved or hated in this world is NOT eternal life.
- It is the present life that Christ has redeemed from sins. Apostle Paul said, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
- The life that a child of God now lives in the body in this world is the present temporal life which has been redeemed by Christ. This is the life spoken of.
- Similarly, please take note that the life that is lost or kept unto life eternal is not the eternal life that was freely begotten at regeneration.

b. It is a popular notion that eternal life is spoken of in the passage. But it is so plain and obvious that it is not the eternal life that is loved or hated; it is not the eternal life that shall be lost or shall be kept. Please read the text again SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY: what shall be lost and what shall be kept?
- Is it the present LIFE here on earth that has been redeemed by Christ, or the ETERNAL LIFE that was given at regeneration?

The passage is so often misunderstood as teaching men how to obtain and keep eternal life. Such is quite ignorant of the free grace of God in the eternal salvation of sinners who are dead in trespasses and sins.

The life spoken of cannot possibly be eternal life for one simple reason - 'eternal life' is most assuredly a free and sovereign GIFT of God to an elect who is dead in trespasses and sins. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Eternal life can never be gained by what a man does. It is by God's free grace - a man without it, being dead in trespasses and sin, could hardly do anything in order to gain eternal life. It is by God's free grace - a man to whom it has been freely given will never lose it by what he shall do or fail to do. His eternal life is kept and preserved in him and for him by the infinite, eternal and unchangeable power of God alone, 1Pet 1:3-5; John 6:39. "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" Ro 11:29. God does not take back His free gift either.

Wouldn't it be so terribly frightening if the keeping or losing of your eternal life depends on your own effort of hating your life in this world? Would you ever hate your life in this world well enough and consistently enough to qualify to keep the eternal life that was freely given to you? Yet, so many Christians' have been deceived to believe such a fable - even the popular "perseverance of the saints", a life of faith and holiness to the end of life

IV. Working out your own salvation
From the text, it is quite clear that BOTH men are set on their way to life eternal. They are both on their way to life eternal by the SAME free grace of God; they were effectually called to grace and eternal salvation when they were in the SAME state of sin and death. They are both justified, regenerated, adopted and given the Spirit of God to dwell in them by the SAME free grace of God. They are both called and exhorted by their SAME Lord to biblical discipleship as they walk through this world to their eternal home. The text is giving instruction to God's children on how they should walk in this world, and are plainly warned of the consequences of the way one chooses to walk in this world. It is not a passage teaching men how to obtain eternal life and how to keep it.

'Salvation by God's free grace alone' has its necessary implications. However 'salvation by God's free grace alone' is just an empty shibboleth in many people's mouths - because in essence they still believe that eternal salvation is by some acts of man - represented as 'loving his life' or 'hating his life' in this world. They still believe that the eternal destiny of a man is determined by his own actions. The Scriptures declare in no uncertain terms that eternal salvation is entirely according to the divine and sovereign purpose of election.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” EVERYTHING HERE IS MONERGISTIC - SOLELY AND COMPLETELY by free and sovereign divine grace - of pure and unadulterated divine grace in our eternal salvation. Also, all the divine actions here embrace and apply to every single elect in Christ.

V. There is a precious life to be kept...
The present life that Christ has redeemed from sin and death may be saved or lost depending on how one lives his redeemed life in this world - whether he loves his life in this world, or he hates his life in this world. To hate his life in this world is to live the redeemed life by faith in Christ and in obedience to God; it is to daily enter the strait gate and walk the narrow way (Mt 7:13-14); it is to live soberly, godly and righteously (Tit 2:12). To love his life in this world is to live his redeemed life for self; it is to daily enter the wide gate and walk the broad road; it is not denying ungodliness and worldly lusts. A redeemed life that is lived for self - however successful and glamorous in the present world - is a lost life, it is a life that shall not be kept unto life eternal. It is a redeemed life wasted and squandered in this world - such will not enter unto life eternal in the intermediate state. 

What is lost is not eternal life, but a redeemed life that is wasted and squandered away. And what a wasted life so many believers are living - they love their life in this world... just like those who are perishing do theirs. They give their life to pursue the same things that the worldlings pursue and enjoy. They reside in Sodom and partake of the good things and pleasures that Sodom provides. Lot's was a wasted-and-squandered life. He loved his life in this world and pampers it with what the world offers. He failed to keep his life unto life eternal. He lost it! For the love of his life in this world, he suffered much destruction in this world... to be mocked by the sons-in-law, with a wife that turned into a pillar of salt, having perverse daughters that deliberately commit incest with him - these were no small destructions he suffered in this world. By God's free grace alone, Lot will be found in heaven after his resurrection to glory. 
- His eternal salvation was by God's free grace. He did nothing to receive it. His foolish messing up his life did not forfeit his eternal salvation. But oh, he lost his redeemed life, he did not keep it unto life eternal. And what a big loss that was! He was saved as through fire - His life's work was burned, he suffered loss: but he himself was saved; yet so as by fire. His life was a life of laying treasure on earth; "lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal." He did not save his life to life eternal.

Eternal salvation is by God's free and sovereign grace alone. By His grace working in them, God's children must work out their own salvation in this life... by hating their life in this world, separating it from ungodliness and worldliness... by seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, by laying up treasures in heaven, by daily entering the strait gate and walking the narrow way. This way he shall keep his life unto life eternal. Though eternal salvation may be by God's free grace, a child of God who loves his life in this world - shall be attended with many just and evil consequences of sins in this life and after death in the intermediate state - represented by nothing less than 'shall lose his life,' i.e. shall not keep it unto life eternal. This should deter any child of God from loving his life in this world and wasting it away.

There is a better and wiser and honourable way to enter the intermediate state - the period between death and the general resurrection. "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith."

May God help each one of us to hate our redeemed life in this world in these perilous times so that we may save it unto life eternal. For a child of God to live his life loving this world is to receive the grace of God in vain. To receive the grace of God in vain is a fearful reality among children of God, 2Cor 6:1.

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it" - i.e. he who loves his redeemed life in this world shall lose it, and he who hates his redeemed life in this world for Christ's sake shall keep in unto life eternal - paradise during the intermediate state! Amen.

The Westminster CoF versus The 1689 CoF

 A mark of clarity and depth by a significant and necessary distinction:

There is a CRUCIAL DISTINCTION between the two confessions (i.e. Westminster and the 1689 CoF) on this point. The Baptists were thorough and consistent students. They were no ignorant copycats - just as many are so ready to charge them.

Just consider this 'obscure' example found in Chapter 10, section 4.

Westminster reads thus: (Chapter 10.4)
"Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men not professing the Christian religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they ever so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess, and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested."

East... (1689) reads thus,
"Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess."

The subject under consideration in both is 'others not elected.'

However, Westminster is much less consistent than the 1689 CoF in what they say in the rest of the paragraph.

The Westminster does not have "yet not being effectually drawn by the Father." And this is the crucial point that makes all the difference.

It could be said, where Westminster says, "yet they never truly come to Christ," the 1689 CoF has "yet not being effectually drawn by the Father."

To the Westminster folks, "they never truly come to Christ" is the CAUSE of their non-salvation.

To the 1689 folks, "they never truly come to Christ" is the effect of them "not effectually drawn by the Father."

To the 1689 folks, "not being effectually drawn by the Father" is the reason for their inability to come to Christ and for their non-salvation.

Where Westminster says, "they never truly come to Christ" - suggesting that they can come, but never truly come; East says, "they NEITHER will nor can truly come to Christ" - it excludes the power or ability to come. It affirms the spiritual deadness of those not elected.

Westminster attributes the non-salvation of the others not elected to human's failure to truly come to Christ.

The 1689 CoF attributes the non-salvation of the others not elected to God's sovereign will to by-pass them, not effectually drawing them to Christ.

It seems to me, the 1689 CoF makes the clear distinction between the ETERNAL salvation that comes from the effectual drawing of the Father, and the TEMPORAL salvation that comes by the gospel ministry of the word.

The above difference between the two confessions indicates the depth and clarity of the  Baptist authors of the 1689 CoF. 

How is a man justified by God?

 https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/10215622159002520
February 4, 2020

#How_is_a_man_justified_by_God?

Ron asked the author, Thomas:
"So where do you stand? How is a man justified?"

Sing commented:
"That's an excellent question!"

[I assumed that Ron is inquiring how a guilty sinner, in his native state of sin and condemnation of death is justified by God. Only such a man needs justification before God the Judge.]

Thomas responded:
"... (2) On justi[fi]cation. Martin Luther said that he would provide The Diet of Worms with a simple answer. Well, here is my simple answer to your question: justification, like salvation and eternal life, is obtained through faith in Jesus Christ."

Sing commented:
Thomas @ "... here is my simple answer to your question: justification, like salvation and eternal life, is obtained through faith in Jesus Christ."
--------
Whether Luther the monk gave that simple answer or not, I know not but one thing I'm pretty certain of is that your statement in answer to Ron's question is irrational and nonsensical.

Faith in Jesus Christ is the effect of the eternal life already FREELY GIVEN at regeneration; "except a man be born again, he cannot..." [It is common sense that life precedes the activities of that life; faith in Jesus Christ is the activity of the eternal life already begotten at the regeneration of the spiritually dead. But sadly, few understand this plain biblical truth solemnly declared by Christ Jesus Himself.

Faith in Jesus Christ is NOT the condition or instrument to obtain eternal life; it is evidence of the eternal life ALREADY  freely bestowed. [Breath is evidence of the dead man having been brought back to life. Some stupid [i.e. lacking common sense] folks so sincerely believe that the breathing of the dead man [ 😮 😮 horror of horror] is the instrument/means for his quickening from the dead.

The same goes for justification and eternal salvation.

Only a man whom God has freely bestowed eternal salvation is capable of believing.

Only a condemned man whom God has FREELY justified by His grace alone is capable of believing; his believing gives evidence of his justification by the free grace of God.

Faith - believing, that is, receiving and resting in Jesus Christ for salvation - justifies, certifies, demonstrates, evidences, vindicates that the believing one HAS BEEN FREELY justified by God, FREELY bestowed eternal life, and eternal salvation, delivered from the eternal condemnation of sin.

I hope this helps. It may not since it is so contrary to popular notions in Christendom.

May the good Lord grant you understanding. Amen.

--------

With that, Mr Thomas resorted to name-calling... saying that I'm Reformed Baptist of some sort... that I'm a Calvinist... blah, blah, blah.

I do wish that the RBs and the Calvinists, and I, be theologically agreed on this point, but ALAS!

[Photo: a suspension bridge at Tamparuli, KK, Sabah, courtesy of Joe Chin.
The bridge is there first, then you can be seen standing on it. You didn't suspend yourself in the air and then the bridge is formed under your feet! Putting the cart before the horse is lacking common sense (i.e. plain stupid); it's a rare virtue today.

Sing F Lau
Thomas, I'm glad you are posting them here. You can be assured that none of your comments will be deleted.

You will be safe here; your comments won't go missing in cyberspace.

[Alas, Mr Thomas has deleted all his comments below!]

Sing F Lau
What then is "free grace" in your understanding? Tell us.
Your simple answer - ".... justification, like salvation eternal life, is obtained through faith in Jesus Christ" is no free grace - that's what the Reformed Baptists and the Calvinists believe toooooooooo.

Sing F Lau
Poor Thomas, you invited me to take a look at your post, and I made a comment that your simple answer to Ron's question is riddled with inconsistencies and are nonsensical, and you feel humiliated! O, I'm so sorry.

Dhong Ejnar Rue
For the longest time, I sense that there is really something wrong with Calvinism and Arminianism, and when I encountered writings from Primitive Baptists it occurred to me what is the main issue.

Sing F Lau
Tell us, what's the main issue. It may help some readers!

Dhong Ejnar Rue
Sing F Lau, It's all about how a sinner obtains eternal salvation.
It has been made clear to me and thanks to God for the old Baptists. Their writings about Justification, Regeneration and Adoption are very clear that the people of God got to possess eternal salvation all by the direct and sovereign work of God.

Sing F Lau
Thanks. Like many, I parroted grace among the RBs for 20+ years without understanding it, until the Lord taught me the distinction between unconditional eternal salvation by the free and sovereign activities of the Triune God and temporal salvation through the obedience of those whom God has already freely bestowed eternal salvation.

It is the former that enables and makes possible the latter; the former is by grace, the latter through the obedience of those that are already SAVED; the former is the cause, the latter is the effect and manifestation.

That makes everything beautifully consistent; the nightmares of the inconsistencies I was acutely aware of were resolved... what blessed peace the Lord granted a disturbed mind.

Sing F Lau
Thomas, you have written long comments, going in so many different directions.

I didn't know you at all. But out of the blue, you private message me and directed me to one of your Facebook posts.

I commented on your simple answer to Ron's question, "how is man justified?"
If you can keep to that particular matter we can continue.

Sing F Lau
Thomas deleted all his comments.