A former hyper-Calvinist's thoughts on hyper-Calvinism

 

https://web.facebook.com/notes/10217728006727397/
March 29, 2013

A former hyper-calvinist's thoughts on hyper-Calvinism...

In a study/discussion with a Brother, he said that he was once a hyper-Calvinist, and put down 12 points on what he thinks the  'hyper-calvinists' believe, and how they are wrong in his present understanding. I have no idea who are the hyper-Calvinists he has in mind - whether real or fictional or just a straw man! I think much of his statements actually reveal his own deficiency in the truth of the gospel of our salvation.

I said:
"What happened to you is NOTHING new! Hordes of old-school Calvinists (mistaken by new-school Calvinists as hyper-Calvinists) degenerated into the new-school Calvinism. It is very easy to slide down from old-school Calvinism to new-school Calvinism, and then all the way down to full-blown Arminianism! It takes much grace to move upward from the valley of Arminianism all the way up to the peak of the old school 'Calvinism'.  Your Calvinism is a halfway stop between Arminianism and old-school Calvinism, thus full of inconsistencies. Many of your 12 points below levelled against what you called hyper-Calvinism is actually the truth summarized in your own WCF... what a tragedy!!!  When I have time... I  will demonstrate them to you one by one. Here, I'm leaving some brief comments on each of his 12 points below.

======

 So  I am picking up the task here. I'm no hyper-Calvinist. I'm an old-school Baptist, and I have no sympathy for the deficiencies and contradictions and logical fallacies inherent in the new-school Calvinism that parades itself as the biblical truth. I would leave some comments (##in italics) in each of his 12 points below.

The dear brother (Rocky) wrote this and the 12 points following [with my brief comments ##]

Rocky
I  must admit I was once a Hyper-Calvinist of the Hardshell type, but through the grace of our Lord was brought back again to believe once more in the Bible by correct and scientific exegesis, especially in rightly dividing the Word of truth. While actually answering you by and bye, I  would like to show Hardshell Hyper-Calvinism is characterized by the  following common presuppositions:

1. That God’s decree of election or and reprobation or divine foreordination is not distinguished from Divine Providence; in other words, there is not distinction in the mind of Hyper-Calvinists between potentiality and actual.

## I believe in election and preterition. I  reject reprobation. All the eternal decrees of God are executed in time through His works of creation, providence and redemption (in this number and order).

## In redemption, what God had purposed/decreed in eternity was executed in time and accomplished by His only begotten Son the Lord  Jesus Christ. Based on the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, the Holy  Spirit applies that redemption to each elect personally, without any means or instrumentality, bringing them into the state of grace and salvation, perfectly fitting each one for eternal glory. In God's purpose of redemption, potentiality is CO-EXTENSIVE with the ACTUAL.  What is purposed and accomplished, is applied to the same people, not one more and not one less, and all by free and sovereign saving activities of the Triune God.

Rocky
2. Hyper-Calvinists understand passages such as Rom. 8: 29 as purely decretive rather than providential.

##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. 30 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.

The foreknowing and predestinating happened in eternity, i.e. before time;  calling and justification happen in time, and glorification will happen at the end of time. But all the DIVINE activities are stated in the past tense because in the mind and purpose of God, these saving activities are so assured and certain that they are as good as have happened. If by providential, the brother meant in the application in time of what was decreed, then this passage has BOTH the decretive element and the providential element. Even in the application of what was decreed - Christ accomplishing and securing the eternal redemption for His people, and the Holy Spirit applying the same redemption to each individual elect; it is all done by the free and sovereign grace of God; man plays NO ROLE whatsoever. Why? Eternal salvation is applied to each elect when they were spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. 

Rocky
3. Since Divine  Providence is confused with God’s decree, evangelical graces necessary to salvation such as the preaching of the Gospel, faith and repentance are mooted, and, therefore, unnecessary.

## Your statement shows how confused you are concerning Divine Sovereignty in purposing, accomplishing, and applying eternal redemption freely to each elect, and the Divine Providence that involved the practical experience of that redemption through the gospel ministry.

## Consider the distinct aspect of eternal redemption:
- Redemption is Purposed (by God's decree) and
- Redemption is Accomplished (by Christ at the cross) and
- Redemption is  Applied (by the Spirit) - all these by the immediate and direct activities of  the Triune God must be distinguished from the
 -Redemption is Experienced through the ministry of the gospel and obedience to the gospel of their salvation. (Divine Providence operates in this context)
- Redemption is Glorified/Consummated at Christ's return.

 New-school Calvinists fail to make the distinction between the ETERNAL  salvation purpose, secured and applied, freely and sovereign by God, to the elect in their native state of sin and death, effectually calling them to grace and salvation, and the TEMPORAL salvation ministered to God's children through the gospel ministry.

Nothing of/in man is necessary for eternal salvation... because man in his native state of sin and death has ZILCH evangelical graces.  Evangelical graces are fruit and evidence of God's eternal salvation already freely and sovereignly bestowed. Believing evidences the eternal salvation already bestowed by God's free and sovereign grace.

Preaching the gospel of their salvation is necessary for their temporal salvation... promoting their spiritual well-being while on their pilgrimage to their eternal home. Evangelical graces are needful for the well-being of God's children, most certainly not for their BEINGS as  God's children.

Rocky
4. Hyper-Calvinism is making an absurd and unscriptural hypothesis, to wit, that since man is incapable of believing the Gospel on his own due to total depravity and spiritual death, God cannot demand him faith; and the preaching of the  Gospel with an earnest pleading with sinners to believe on the risen  Christ is necessarily Arminianistic. This logical fallacy is often, if not always, shared by Arminians, hence God commands him to believe on the ground of his ability to believe on his own.

## New school Calvinists are very confused as to the purpose and function of the gospel ministry.... believing that the gospel ministry is for calling the dead to believe the gospel.

The truth is this. God had purposed to save a specific people. Jesus came to save them only. The Holy Spirit applies the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ to specific individuals whom God had purposed to save and whom Christ redeemed. Because of these saving activities of the Triune God, there is a gospel of salvation to be preached and heralded to such people.

The gospel is the good news of what the three persons of the Triune God have done to save His people, and such are called to believe the gospel of their salvation. The gospel is for those who ARE SAVED. The gospel is intended for them alone. The gospel ministry to call out and gather  God's children - those that ARE SAVED - into NT churches...

God demands His children to believe the gospel of their salvation...  because that is the truth of what God has done for them. God does not require any man to believe a lie.... to command those who are still dead in trespasses and sin to believe the gospel of salvation. God does not do foolish things... many preachers do. They go around offering spiritual food to the dead with the hope that they may be brought alive. Food is for the nourishment of living. Jesus told Peter, "Feed... feed... feed."  Feeding has to do with the living, and not to bring the dead to life!  New-school Calvinists think the latter!

Thus  Arminians and their superior cousins new-school Calvinists are like-minded - the gospel ministry is the means by which God save those who believe.
[Those not saved by God are capable of believing in order to be saved by God. This is your salvation by grace alone!!!]

Rocky
5. Since regeneration is independent of the written Word and of the preaching of the Gospel, it must be an inner and interior operation of the Holy Spirit and always  APART from the ordinary ministry of the Word. While true Calvinists believe that regeneration is not dependent on the ordinary ministry of the Word but may take place, on and with it, and in some cases before and without it, simultaneously in the moment of faith, Hyper-Calvinists make an unnecessary deduction that to believe that regeneration can take place simultaneously in the moment of faith, it makes the Word preached to be the cause of regeneration.

 ## The new-school Calvinists believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates with the means of the gospel ministry in normal circumstances, and without the means of the gospel ministry in exceptional circumstances.

This popular idea is repudiated by the words of Christ in 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."

Sorry, the Lord Jesus does not permit such fiction. "So is everyone born of the Spirit - in that immediate and sovereign way. So the new-school Calvinists have to choose one way or the other - either ALL with the instrument of the gospel ministry or all without the gospel ministry.

 [no number 6]

Rocky
7.  Hyper-Calvinists do not usually respect the ordo salutis or order of salvation and fail to put distinctions between them, namely, foreknowledge,  predestination, regeneration (effectual call), justification,  sanctification and glorification. They make a false assumption that since a person is foreknown and predestinated to salvation, that person must be already justified and glorified. There is no such thing as  Saving Faith and evangelical repentance in time. To affirm the necessity of these graces to salvation is to deny God’s decree in eternity.

## All these reveal a pitiful deficiency in your understanding of the truth of the Scriptures.

It is the new-school Calvinists who have a very confused and messed up order of salvation. The root cause is the abject failure to distinguish eternal salvation by divine grace alone and temporal salvation involving activities of those already saved by grace.

Take a look here: http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2011/05/order-of-salvation.html

Rocky
8.  Most Hyper-Calvinists are Supralapsarians. They put the priority of the decree of election of the elect before the decree of the fall; but assuming their logic is correct, the decree of the fall makes God’s election changeable and absurd.

## What a straw man you have set up... that God's decrees of election and the fall are not harmonious but contradictory!!!  I'm a sublapsarian, anyway. 
[How does the supralapsarian's view of the decree of the fall make God's election changeable and absurd? ]

Rocky
9.  Hyper-Calvinism in separating justification from the ordinary ministry of the Word, has given way to the unbiblical assumption that a man can be justified without hearing the Gospel preached in a pagan country while believing and practising the best light of his pagan religion as long as he is one of God’s elect.

## This shows a great deficiency in your understanding of the distinct aspects of the doctrine of justification.

There is a justification decreed by God in eternity;
There is justification by the blood of Christ - legal justification, justification accomplished.
There is justification by the free grace of God - vital justification, justification applied.
There is justification by the faith of God's children - practical justification, justification manifested. You are aware of this aspect of justification and deny the other aspects plainly taught in the Scriptures!

 You are obviously ignorant of the first three aspects of the justification taught in the Scriptures. You are fixated on the practical justification through your faith in Jesus Christ. 

Faith in Jesus Christ justifies/evidences/vindicates that his justified state by God's free grace. It is those already justified by God's free grace that are able to believe. You are ignorant of this basic truth of free grace!

Rocky
10.  Hyper-Calvinism, in separating justification from the ordinary ministry of the Word, usually neglects the duty to preach the  Gospel of Christ to everyone.

## See comment under  9. Justification by God's free grace is apart from the ministry of the word. Justification by faith is through the means of the ministry of the word. You are all confused. Faith cometh by hearing; faith is a saving grace worked in the heart by the indwelling Spirit of adoption; faith is called forth by the gospel ministry.  When there is no preaching of the gospel, there will be no manifestation of the faith already worked in the heart by the indwelling Spirit of God.

Rocky
11.  Hyper-Calvinists fail to make a distinction between the inner and irresistible call of the Spirit in regeneration and the outward call of the Gospel. Every Gospel call or divine summon is always an inner activity which cannot be resisted.

 ## It is the new-school Calvinists who can't distinguish the two because they believe that the irresistible call of the Spirit in regeneration is conditioned upon outward gospel call!

I believe that the effectual call out of the native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation is logically and chronologically prior to the gospel call to faith in Jesus Christ, and it is the former that enables an elect to answer to the latter. The effectual call to grace and salvation enables a child of God to answer the gospel call unto conversion.

Rocky
12.  Calvinists believe that all are commanded to repent, and this is ordinarily carried out by the ordinary ministry of the Word in obedience to the Great Commission; this can be often resisted and will always be resisted by the reprobates. But there is also an inner call and irresistible and interior in the soul of the elect which shall unfailingly take place in due time, and the effecting of the same cannot be done by the preaching of the Word but by the powerful operation of the Spirit. This inner call is distinguished from, but not separate from,  the preaching of the Word. In cases where the ordinary ministry of the  Word is not possible, like those elect who, by the pleasure of God,  should be regenerated in infancy and the like, the Spirit of God, in His unquestionable sovereignty, is at liberty to regenerate and justify without the ordinary ministry of the Word.

## New-school Calvinists believe in an inconsistent and irrational God!

God declared plainly that He had chosen a people unto eternal salvation,  and gave them to Christ to secure their eternal redemption.

Christ did exactly that for those whom God the Father had given Him.... and not one more and not one less.

The Spirit of Christ, in God's appointed and approved time, applies that redemption to each individual elect personally.

Only such are called and commanded to believe what God HAS DONE... i.e. to believe the truth of their salvation by God's free grace. A man's duty is determined by the terms of the covenant to which he is a party. Only those embraced in the covenant of redemption are obliged to believe their Redeemer. 

Why would God demand those whom He declared He had not given Jesus to be their Saviour to believe in His Son Jesus Christ as their Saviour? Does God require anyone to believe a lie? 

Conclusion: 
All your 11 points actually reflect your own deficiency in the understanding of God's truth of salvation... regardless of whether what you said of the hyper-Calvinists is true or fictional. 

Read the articles discussing the 11 points above in detail here:
http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/10/who-are-damnable-heretics-denouncers-or.html

http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/10/damnable-heresy-1-considered.html

http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/10/damnable-heresy-2-considered.html

http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/10/damnable-heresy-3-considered.html

http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/10/damnable-heresy-4-considered.html

http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/10/damnable-heresy-5-considered.html

The function of the gospel ministry

March 28, 2012

1Cor 1:18 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

The gospel ministry comes to two distinct groups of people.

One group is designated as 'them that perish' (present participle, i.e. the perishing ones, a verbal noun).  To this group, the glorious gospel - the good news that declares God's power in saving condemned sinners - is perceived as foolishness.

The other is described as 'us which are saved' (present participle, i.e. the saved ones, a verbal noun). To this group, the glorious gospel - the good news that declares God's power in saving condemned sinners - is perceived as what it is, the message declaring the power of God is saving them!

God HAS SAVED them (applied eternal salvation to them, i.e. effectually called them out of their native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation) independent of, and apart from the gospel ministry.

This passage repudiates the common fable of gospel regeneration, i.e. that the gospel ministry comes to those who are perishing, and through the preaching, and hearing of the gospel, the Holy Spirit regenerates those who are still dead in trespasses and sins, to enable them to believe the gospel in order to be saved.

The gospel comes to those that ARE SAVED, the SAVED ONES. Can anything be plainer? Only those who ARE SAVED are able to perceive the gospel for what it is, a message declaring the power of God in having saved His chosen ones.

The gospel is NOT the power of God; the gospel is the message declaring the power of God in saving His people. So many can't even distinguish the two!!!

The river was there first... and the bridge is built over it later! Can anything be plainer?

Jesus is the power of God in salvation. The gospel is the good news which declares that power.

1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Ro 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. -- that's the condition of a man by nature, if they are not saved by God's free and sovereign grace first!!!

==========
comments

Bryan Choo
Does this mean we are picked by God to be Christians much as the Jews were a favoured race? And if that is true, is free will completely out of the picture?

PJ Walters
1 Corinthians 1:20 "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

Sing 
Bryan Choo, welcome here. I pray the Lord will help you to see the good green grass to nourish your inquisitive mind. I like your good questions already.

Q. Does this mean we are picked by God to be Christians much as the Jews were a favoured race?

Along the way, you will learn that precision, or rightly dividing the word of truth, is the essence of sound theology.

The Scriptures declare plainly that He elected and predestinated, before the foundation of the world, certain particular and specific people out of the fallen race of Adam to salvation and eternal glory. The rest He left them to their just destiny.

Those whom God elected and predestinated unto eternal glory, He effectually called them, individually, out of their native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation, thus making them perfectly and completely fit for eternal glory. That effectual call by God's free and sovereign grace, WITHOUT any human aid or cooperation, turns a condemned dead rebel into a justified living son.

A son and a Christian are quite distinct terms. A son is the result of the divine work of regeneration. A Christian is a son of God (an elect who is regenerated already) who has been brought to faith in Jesus Christ.

The former is wholly monergistic, i.e. completely by God's free and sovereign grace. Man is completely passive.

The latter requires human instrumentality of preaching the gospel, and the human activity of hearing, understanding, believing the truth of the gospel, and resting in Christ... making a son of God a Christian.

All Christians are necessarily God's children because only God's children have the eternal life to perform those spiritual activities. But not all God's children are Christians.

That's just a partial answer to your first question.

The election of individuals to eternal glory, and the election of the Jewish race for the outworking of His redemptive purpose are quite distinct.

Sing F Lau
Q2. And if that is true, is free will completely out of the picture?
======
This is an interesting subject. I will tell you what I do believe on the subject.

God created man in His image, a moral and rational creature that is capable of relating to his Creator.

Free will is part and parcel of the very constitution of man. A creature without free will ceases to be a man. The man before the fall has free will and a man after the fall also has free will. All his acts are never coerced by a force outside him, and he is wholly responsible for his actions. A man without free will cannot be held accountable for his actions; that is, God's moral government over man collapses. Man's free will is the foundation and basis of God's moral government over man.

Man's free will is determined by his nature. Before the fall, a man's free will is free to choose to obey God or disobey God. BUT ALAS, he chose to disobey God and chose to believe the lie of Satan. Even in the fall, man's free will can only freely choose sin and death... because that is all his fallen nature is capable of choosing.

For example, a fish has free will. His 'fishly' will freely choose to live in any part of the watery world. That's all his 'fishly' will is capable of choosing. His fully free 'fishly' will is utterly incapable of choosing to live outside of water. Such is contrary to the nature and essence of his 'fishly' will.

Sinners have free will.... they freely choose to rebel against God; they freely will in enmity against God... their free will will never bring them to God... because their free will is hostile and in enmity against God. His free will freely chooses to remain in and love sins. No man is ever coerced by some external force to sin against his conscience... He sins freely. Man's free will freely and voluntarily keeps him in his condemned state.

In God's effectual calling unto grace and salvation, regeneration brings a new nature to a child of God. He is commanded to choose to do that which is pleasing to God. His new nature has the capability of choosing that which is good... and God holds children responsible. So, free will still operates in God's children; their free will is now directed by their new nature of grace.

Free will is part and parcel of man's very constitution as man!

When so many say that man has no free will, they actually mean that man in his native state of sin and death has no capability to choose God. Of course, incapability to choose God is not the same as having no free will. Incapability to choose God is having a free will that is incapable of choosing God... even though they will choose to sin and rebel against God very freely.

I hope I have scratched your question a bit.

Robert
Brother Lau a faithful explanation to Bryan Choo Hsien Yang very careful and complete, not overwhelming 

Requirements for a Scriptural Baptism

Is this baptism properly administered?

Requirements for a Scriptural Baptism

Proper Administrator
The Scriptures require that the man who baptizes be an ordained teacher in the church. This point is easily confirmed by reviewing the record of the early church in the book of Acts. It was only the apostles or other ordained teachers who baptized in the New Testament.

Proper Subject
The Scriptures teach that an individual to be baptized must first repent and believe the gospel. This requires the subject to be of sufficient age to comprehend the essential elements of the gospel and agree with them. The Scriptures know nothing of baptizing infants. The subject of baptism must have an active conscience in order to give answer.

Proper Doctrine
The essential elements of the gospel that must be believed prior to baptism centre around the Lord Jesus Christ and His role as the Son of God and the only Saviour from sin. The Person of Jesus Christ is the basis of true doctrine.

Proper Mode
Baptism is an immersion of the subject completely underwater. This is done to represent (show a likeness or figure of) the burial and resurrection of Christ, which put away our sins. As everyone knows, a thing is neither buried nor planted with only a sprinkling. Baptism must provide a figure of the resurrection of Christ, which is only done by immersion.

Proper Design
Baptism does not put away sin. It is only a figure of how our sins were put away by Christ's death and resurrection. Baptism is simply an answer and testimony to God for what He did by Himself. It is the answer toward God of a conscience made good by the blood of Christ.

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/baptism/requirements.php

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

Michael Lim
Oh my! That's diving! No burying at all.
(diving below the surface!) 

Jorge
Proper authority

Sing
PB authority! <LOL> - to JQ, that is!
I sure hope you have absolute certainty that yours can be traced through an unbroken link of authority all the way back to Christ!

It ain't wise to be righteous over much, and shoot oneself in the foot!

Ecc 7:16 "Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?"

Julio
Mark 11:33 And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Jorge
There was a man sent from God,whose name was John

Sing
Jorge, then, I sure hope you have absolute certainty that yours can be traced through an unbroken link of authority all the way back to John the Baptizer.

In addition, I hope there were no churches along that unbroken line that were no worse than the churches you so arrogantly dismiss as no NT church!

Jorge
Arrogantly dismiss?
And all the people that heard Him, and the Publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

But the Pharisees and lawyers ( ? ? ?)rejected the counsel of God againts themselves, being not baptized of him. Luke 7:29,30

Sing
Jorge, you don't get the point.
Supposing some churches along your so-called unbroken line were no better than Arminian churches which you contemptuously dismiss as no churches at all, then what happened?

OK, you may insist that there is NO such possibility, and you are indeed confident that all the churches in your so-called unbroken line of authority were like the doctrinally sound PB churches that you belong to today, I say, "God bless you for your confidence."

Jorge
They will remain as a PARA Church

Sing
If PARA churches were found along your so-called unbroken line from which you derive your authority as a church, then by your own mouth, yours is no better than a PARA church - just thinking out loud for you.

Jorge
I know you believe in truth perpetuity?

Sing
Jorge, you know what I admire about you?
You are more PB than many PBs I am acquainted with.
You are a good PB convert. I admire you for that.

Jorge
So as well in Church perpetuity who holds the truth.
If we are not new, we belong to the old, because old is better. God bless you, Sir

Sing
Thanks for your PB benediction. Thank you very much, Jorge.
I prefer the new over the old - I love reading Hebrews <LOOOOOL>

Jorge
First century was older than 1689 LOL! nyt

Sing
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL - so many PBs (old school may be) adopted that accursed (by the new school PBs???) 1689 as their own Confession of Faith - as the Fulton Confession of Faith 1900.

You aren't wise MOCKING your PB forefathers.

Jorge
Oh! you are certified PB, find your forefathers' remnants and embrace them

Jorge
You cannot deny that your doctrine is PB's doctrine

Sing
I got it from the Bible. The 1689 helped me much.

Ro 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Jorge
The Bible helps me much.

Sing
Then why do you call it PB doctrine?
I got my doctrine from the Bible. The 1689 helped me much what the Baptist fathers had believed.

Jorge
PB doctrine is Bible doctrine

Koh Han Seow
If baptism is only a figure and does not guarantee salvation, why the mode is so important?

Sing
Good question.
Baptism is a figure of the salvation ALREADY, and FREELY, and SOVEREIGNLY bestowed. And baptism by immersion CORRECTLY represents that glorious truth that the baptismal candidate has DIED, and RISEN with Christ, to newness of life.

That is the simple reason why ONLY believers are to be baptized. Infant baptism is like conferring a degree to a babe!!!

Obeying what the Bible says is important enough to me.

A figure that does not correctly represent the reality it claims to represent is, at best, misleading, at worst, it is a sham.

Craig
Is there a minimum age to baptize a believer by immersion? Are there scriptural guidelines here?

Sing
Not that I'm aware of! A believer's baptism makes that a moot point. If one is old enough to profess faith, then IMMERSION wouldn't be a problem. Having said that, even immersing a baby is not a problem either. A child is completely immersed in the amniotic fluid before birth.

Craig
What is the age of the youngest person you have baptised Sing?

Sing
16-17, I think.

Question: Was Solomon Saved?

 

What do you think of the first sentence below?
It's the opening paragraph of the answer to the question, "Was Solomon saved?"
https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Solomon-saved.html

Was Solomon saved?
ANSWER
Of course, Solomon lived in the Old Testament dispensation and thus did not experience being “born again” or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, for that was not possible before the Christ’s ascension and the birth of the church (see John 16:7). The terms born again and saved (in the sense of eternal salvation) are New Testament terms. That kind of language is not used of Old Testament saints. So, when we speak of Solomon’s being “saved,” we are simply referring to his justification before God and his presence in heaven today."

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

Ray 
2 Samuel 12:24 KJV — And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him.

Romans 8:38-39 KJV — For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Joseph
How could he be justified before God and in heaven in soul and spirit if said soul and spirit haven't been cleansed and glorified? It seems to me that the only means that God's word gives by which the soul/ spirit substance is cleansed is by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Folks who deny the new birth occurring to OT saints have the burden of answering this vital question.

Danny
SFL: What do you think of the first sentence below?
DS: I hate it.

SFL: It's the opening paragraph of the answer to the question, "Was Solomon saved?"
DS: In my experience gotquestions.org is better at capturing questions than it is at providing answers. That’s not to say they’re always wrong. There are many good answers on that site, but there are also some pretty sour notes that are inconsistent with the bible’s teaching of salvation by sovereign grace. Let’s look a little more closely at that first sentence you mention:

GOT QUESTIONS: Of course, Solomon lived in the Old Testament dispensation
DS: True.

GOT QUESTIONS: and thus did not experience being “born again” or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
DS: False.

GOT QUESTIONS: for that was not possible before the Christ’s ascension and the birth of the church (see John 16:7).
DS: False. While the teaching that “no one was born again until the New Testament era” is very common, it is also demonstrably false. In brief, a few observations are helpful in dispelling this myth:

1. Faith is a fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God (Galatians 5:22). It follows that apart from regeneration, man does not have faith (II Thessalonians 3:2). The OT saints had faith and obtained a good report by the exercise thereof (Hebrews 11). It follows that the OT saints were born again.

2. The OT explicitly affirms the indwelling Holy Spirit. “And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;” (Numbers 27:18)

3. The Apostle Peter explicitly tells us that the events of Pentecost were the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32, not the advent of regeneration.

DS: For more of my thinking on this matter, you might find this sermon helpful

Joel’s Prophecy and Acts 2
https://www.sermonaudio.com/.../harm.../sermons/37171333242/

Danny
I was so appalled by the suggestion of "no regeneration in the OT" that I completely forgot to address Solomon's salvation. I wrote a brief article on that years ago:

Was Solomon a child of God?
https://theearstohear.blogspot.com/.../was-solomon-child...

The simple answer is yes, indisputably so. The suggestion by a Lordship Salvation Calvinist minister at the church I previously attended that "We can't be certain that Solomon was a child of God" as an ersatz "answer" to why Solomon did not exhibit the "inevitable" progressive sanctification and total commitment was instrumental in my conversion to becoming a PB.

Sing
Danny, I was so APPALLED too!

Micah
Sing, I know an elder who debated someone over the subject once. Trying to remember if I have any information that he presented. If I remember right it was a pb who was denying it too.

Griff
He was saved exactly the same way every other saved person was and is saved. Joh 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.
It was blowing in the Old Testament as in the New

Sing
Griff, Why would some believe there was no regeneration in the OT??? Could there be salvation without regeneration?

Kelvin
Sing, God’s elect children have always been regenerated the same way, through the in dwelling of Holy Spirit. It was manifest in the person of Christ when He came in the flesh, but it has always been the same. Christ is God just as the Father is God just as Holy Spirit is God.

John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

Danny
Sing- As to why some would believe that none were regenerated in the OT, in my experience it arises from a misinterpretation of Acts 2 and John 14:16, a misunderstanding about the nature and purpose of gospel ministry, and the false belief that all men have faith.

Obert
Danny, Failure to patiently, prayfully, rightly divide the word of God. All of us want to master things as fast as possible; this leads to following men we perceive to be respected by others and by association we feel superior! Ask me how I know!

Danny
Obert - Me too, brother. So true.

Shine
Griff, Nicodemus was expected to know this as an OT Pharisee.

Danny
Shine - That is another brilliant observation. If the concept of being "born again" was not taught in the OT, then Jesus Christ was wrong to upbraid Nicodemus as a "master of Israel" for not knowing it (John 3:10). The fact that Jesus takes Nicodemus to task on this matter is proof positive that regeneration not only took place during the OT dispensation but was also taught in the OT scriptures.

Shine
Danny, I see the new birth in Ezekiel 16

Danny
Shine - That’s certainly one place to go.

Troy
First thought: Job knew that his redeemer was alive! Enoch walked with God! By faith Abel...Abraham...etc...as recorded in Hebrews 11 believed. The love of God was shed abroad in the hearts of the faithful saints in the days before the cross by the same Holy Spirit that brings faith to the modern day saints. I see faith as the gift from God to saints in all ages.

Sing
Troy Thanks.
What is the relationship between the gift of faith and regeneration? Is there regeneration in the Old Testament?

Troy
Sing, Yes. God regenerated people in old testament times. Faith is given by regeneration.

Micah
Sing, the gift of faith is equivalent to regeneration. 1corinthians 2:14 “the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit”

Hebrews 11:6 “without faith it’s impossible to please God”

The evidence of regenerate men screams so strongly from Old Testament saints one would need an agenda to deny it.

Sing
I believe regeneration is PRIOR and DISTINCT from faith; faith is a grace worked in a regenerated by the indwelling Spirit of adoption; faith is a fruit of the Spirit.

Danny
Sing- This is precisely why I employ the distinction between the CAPACITY of faith and the EXERCISE of faith. I am comfortable saying that man has the CAPACITY of faith at the instance of regeneration. It is a vital sign, an attribute of the spiritual life imparted. But man's active EXERCISE of that given capacity with respect to some gospel truth he encounters in life is ALWAYS distinct from and subsequent to regeneration.

Obert
Danny just as we have as regenerate men the capacity for patience do we all manifest the same measure of patience?

Danny
Obert - Precisely. That patience observation is powerful provided we give it due consideration.

Question: Who are the dead to whom the gospel was preached? 1Pet 4:6

Please help with this passage.
I was asked this passage, and need help.
Thanks.

1Peter 4 KJT
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
- by whom was the gospel preached?
- when was the gospel preached?
- to whom was the gospel preached
- who are the dead to whom the gospel was preached?
- those to whom the gospel was preached, were they dead when it was preached to them?
- in what sense are they dead?
--------------
Comments

Danny
It might help to take in a little bit of the context…
“Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” (I Peter 4:1-6)

The preceding verses speak of Christ’s sinless example that we are to follow as opposed to following the carnal inclinations that we have previously indulged. If you leave that sinful practice behind your friends will wonder why you’ve changed and will revile you for it. “Oh, well aren’t you Mr. Holier-than-thou!” Yet God will judge the quick and the dead – those currently alive and those who have passed. The purpose of gospel preaching was so that God’s people might live according to God in the spirit. So as it pertains to the six questions:

1. By whom was the gospel preached?
A. Those who went before whether NT gospel ministers such as Peter and others who preached during the Lord’s ministry, or in the types and shadows of the OT by the prophets who taught the precepts of righteous living and the need for Messianic redemption in the future.

2. When was the gospel preached?
A. As above, by the apostles and elders in the NT era and the prophets of the OT era.

3. To whom was the gospel preached?
A. To God’s people. The term “dead” does not design the “dead in trespasses and sins” (as Gill insists) but those who have passed from this life already.

4. Who are the dead to whom the gospel was preached?
A. God’s people who have passed from this life. We know this because the end of this preaching is twofold: judgment and righteous living. The gospel, whether in OT types and shadows or its explicit NT form, judges man in that it declares him a sinner who stands in need of redemption. Those so convicted are exhorted to take up the reasonable service of righteous living in thanksgiving toward and worship of the God who saved them by his grace. We know this is God’s people, since they “live according to God in the spirit” which only regenerate men can do.

5. Those to whom the gospel was preached, were they dead when it was preached to them?
A. No. They were alive but are now dead, as opposed to the “quick” who are now living.

6. In what sense are they dead?
A. They are naturally dead – passed from this life.

All that said, this passage has bred a great deal of controversy and strife among brethren over the years. I would ask that we cast a mantle of charity over all who endeavour to rightly divide it. I do not buy Gill's take on the "dead" being the dead in trespasses and sins, because this seems to imply gospel regeneration, which I regard as an occasional tendency to err on Gill's part. 

Danny
This passage requires some special handling and I have not found the time to address it directly. I hope to in the coming days as time permits, but until then I would simply state that MANY unstable notions have been preached on the basis of this seemingly enigmatic statement and we should proceed with caution when interpreting it, taking special care not to violate precepts that are clearly stated elsewhere in scripture.

Raggy
If you hold to the latter, then you have a problem with 1800 years of church history. Since from the beginning of creeds, the church, for the most part, has always held to Jesus preaching to the dead when He descended into hell.

Sing
Raggy What's the need to preach to those already dead?

Raggy
Sing brother. I do not know.

Raggy
I've heard both,
1. Jesus preached to them when He died and went to hell.
2. Noah preached to them while they were alive and that they are referred to as the dead because they are dead to the audience at hand.

Sing
Raggy; I read that Jesus went to paradise after death, and to heaven only after resurrection.

Raggy
Sing I agree.. but paradise and hell were at one time, Side by side in the centre of the earth. After the resurrection, paradise was taken to heaven... along with all the others who were waiting for Jesus to rise from the dead.
Sing, no one except Enoch went to heaven until Jesus rose from the grave.

Sing
Raggy, Where did you learn these things from?
I believe Enoch was transformed and was taken to heaven.

Raggy
Sing the Bible.
Sing I do too.

Sing
Raggy, Which part of the Bible? Thanks.

Raggy
Sing ok... Samuel came up out of the ground and met Saul.
Abraham spoke with The Rich Man across a great gulf.
Jesus said "today you will be with me in Paradise." And He also said after rising to Mary, "do not touch me, for I have not ascended to the Father yet."

These truths point to paradise being in the center of the earth. Hell is also there.

In Matt. Ch.27 verse 52 there was recorded a resurrection after Jesus rose. These people came out of Paradise. [This is the first resurrection; they came out of their graves. sing]

Jesus also said, "No man hath ascended into heaven save the Son of Man who came drown from Heaven."

This means, no one after death went to heaven when they died. They either went to Hell or Paradise before the Resurrection.

Later, Paul speaks of a Vision, seeing Paradise.

“I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 KJV

So, we have biblical records in several places giving us the previous place, the transition and the final place of Paradise. Paradise is in Heaven now. Now, when people die, they go to Paradise in Heaven.

Sing
Raggy. Thank you for the Scriptures on the subject. Now I need to connect the dots.

Mt 2751And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

That's the first resurrection.

Revelation 20 - KJT —
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Obert
Raggy "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." I think the word ascend means under own power, also Elijah was taken UP in a whirlwind. So the theology that says no man went to heaven before the Ressurection is flawed.

Obert
Raggy, as to the words spoken to Mary was concerning touching his body which was in the tomb while his spirit was committed to the Father in Heaven. As to Paradise notice the phrase "caught UP", not taken down. There is no verse that says the position of Paradise changed. Difficult verses should be approached carefully and humbly before God and after often many years of personal study these things may be revealed or not at all in this time life. Just words of caution brother.

Obert
If God himself preached before the Gospel unto Abraham as well as Job was given hope by knowledge before there was the written word. Then we after they are dead judge them to be faithful based upon precepts we have learned through the Gospel thus the dead are judged according to men in the flesh, that they lived by the Spirit. This text in Peter is a regeneration text by the voice of the Son of God. IMHO

Raggy
Obert, The Apostle's Creed that's accepted widely by all the other major creeds were written by early church fathers who read Greek, Latin, Aramaic and even some Hebrew. They concluded that Jesus went into the lower parts of the earth by way of the Greek text.

I personally came to this conclusion before I knew of the Apostles' Creed. So my interpretation lines up with those who never had an English Bible. This testifies to the validity and accuracy of the Greek text being translated into English.

Raggy
Obert, I've heard that interpretation. It's a rare position held. But my elders at Mars Hill pretty much taught the same thing you are referring to now. But I personally stay with the Apostles' Creed.

Obert
Raggy, I never heard anyone preach on this text nor have I read any creeds, I just stay with study and prayer and precepts learned by verifying preaching on any topics I heard by the word and prayer. I trust no man's writing. May the Lord bless your study.