Sing, you are a heretic!

 Facebook reminded me of this post on May 24, 2012 - a dozen years ago.

Mr. Diaz wrote privately and called me a heretic; the RBs of Malaysia had done the same earlier in 2004 for similar reasons.

I left two comments as indicated in the screenshot above; they are as follows:

Comment 1
Perhaps, you can show us that you even understand my position.
1. There is a 'sola fide' that I reject as the lie from the pit of hell.
2. There is a 'sola fide' that I receive as the truth taught by Apostle Paul.

Now, please show us that you have read and understood my position on the above two statements. Otherwise, you are just speaking ignorantly... and that is shameful enough!

Comment 2
There is a sola fide that is a lie of the devil and comes from the pit of hell, even this popular fiction about justification before God: i.e."righteousness is imputed to a man through his believing." And this is what Nathaniel and the likes of him believe... whether they are of the reformed or Arminian camp.

That view is just plain erroneous for this nonsense:
- a man without the imputed righteousness, therefore still under condemnation, is capable of believing...
- a man without the imputed righteousness is already regenerated and capable of believing...
- If you need more, let me know!!!

A man is JUSTIFIED by the righteousness of Christ alone freely imputed to him when still dead in trespasses and sins.
- That's the LEGAL justification: the righteousness of Christ freely IMPUTED - IMPUTED - IMPUTED to him when He died on the cross.

A man is freely JUSTIFIED by the grace of God alone:
- That is VITAL justification: how the righteousness of Christ is freely APPLIED -APPLIED APPLIED to a man personally; i.e. freely by the grace of God.

A man is JUSTIFIED by faith alone:
- This is EXPERIENTIAL justification: believing in Jesus Christ is the means by which a CHILD OF GOD [ALREADY justified, regenerated, adopted, and given the Spirit of adoption...] experiences the blessedness of his justified state by God's free grace. There is NO NO NO accounting of righteousness here at all.

A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.

------

https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/3286320512340

What is the NATIVE state of a man, i.e. before regeneration?

"Sola scriptura" is just a shibboleth to many,
and calvinitis is a dreadful disease.

 Sir, what is the state of a man before regeneration???
=️========

You want the simple, glaring truth?

You may not like it. The truth shatters popular lies. 

Eph  2 KJT
1 ¶ And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved...

1. He is dead in trespasses and sins
- this deadness does not consist in inactivity. In fact, he is full of activities, but they are all activities of death! In this deadness, he is utterly incapable of any activities that bring himself to God. Instead, he is actively in enmity against God and separated from God.

2. He walks according to the course of this world
- according to the prince of the power of the air. He is under the power and influence of the spirit that works in him. (So much for the imagined 'free will' of this captive under Satan's power!)

3. He is a child of disobedience
- a rebel, in enmity against God. (so much for the fable that man in his native state can believe Christ and get eternal life!)

4. He lives in the lusts of his flesh
- fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind. That's his native state. (so much for the fiction that such a man will believe in order to have eternal life!"

5. He is, by nature, a child of wrath
- the just and righteous wrath of God upon him.

BUT... BUT... BUT... BUT... BUT... this disjunctive is one of the best in the Scriptures!

Without grace... a man will happily remain in his NATIVE states of sin and death, happily serving sin! He is completely helpless, dead in trespasses and sins, captives under the power and influence of the strong man, and in enmity and rebellion against God.

While in such helpless condition, God freely and sovereignly - i.e. by grace- quickened him who was dead in sins.

In quickening him, God VITALLY united him to Christ and gave him the eternal life that Christ has secured for His people. This is 'by grace ye are saved'! With the quickening that man is saved... yes S. A. V. E. D. - as saved as could be... i.e. perfectly and completely fit for eternal glory. Faith, his act of believing, is completely excluded; faith was an impossibility with a man dead in trespasses and sins; it is possible ONLY as an effect and consequence of having BEEN SAVED FREELY BY GRACE. (So, beware of twisting and perverting "faith" in verse 8!)

God saves, and saves by His free and sovereign grace. He quickens the dead, and this enables a man to believe. God does not give faith to a man dead in trespasses and sins, and expects him to believe, in order to be regenerated! That's a fable!

The simple and plain truth is, "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved."

Those SAVED by God's free grace are called by the ministry of the word to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling... through their obedience to the will of their FATHER.

The salvation that God freely and sovereignly bestows upon the elect, dead in trespasses and sins, and which enables them to work out their own salvation, and the salvation that God's children are summoned to work out for themselves are different and distinct salvations. The former is eternal salvation, and the latter is temporal salvation.

The biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.

---------

picture: just got this book. A friend suggested I study it and give some feedback.
I'm more interested if they are in harmony with the Scriptures. Since when did John Calvin become a standard of reference?

"Sola scriptura" is just a shibboleth to many, and calvinitis is a dreadful disease.

Sufficiency and Efficiency

#sufficiency #efficiency #intentandpurpose

A brother insisted:
"God's work of Salvation is sufficient for all, but its EFFICACY is applied only to those who will believe... this is the simple explanation of the verse without going the "MERRY go ROUND".

[The passage referred to is 1 John 2.2]

==========

What's the irrelevant woolly talk about sufficiency for all when it was NOT EVEN INTENDED for all!!! It is just silly jibberish nonsense! Likely, he is just repeating nice-sounding shibboleths without engaging his mind.

The issue of sufficiency does not arise; whether Christ stood as the substitute for just one human being or for the whole human race, He would still have to do the same, i.e. live the perfect and sinless life of obedience to the complete laws of God, and offer Himself a perfect sinless sacrifice for the atonement of sins. It's the divine intention of His redemptive works alone that matters.

God purposed to save a specific people. He gave them to Christ.

Christ lived and died to save the same specific people... i.e. AS MANY AS the Father had given to Him, not one more and not one less. The 'sufficient for all" notion contradicts the plain declaration of the Lord Jesus Christ... a repudiation of the very meaning of His name, "He shall save HIS people from their sins." Why the fiction of sufficient-for-all when it is not even intended for all, nor provided for all!!!

The Holy Spirit applies the same eternal salvation to AS MANY AS the Father has given to Christ, and whom Christ has redeemed!

The Three Persons of the Godhead work in PERFECT UNITY and HARMONY!

John 6:39 KJT "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

John 17:2 "As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him".

Matthew 1:21 KJT "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Many silly, misguided preachers do not work in harmony with the revealed truth of God!!! They preach their own notions, i.e. fables! The popular concept of sufficient-for-all is just a human concept read into the Scriptures... that Christ secured salvation for more than intended!!!

p/s picture:
The truckload of onions is more than sufficient for the whole village, but it was only INTENDED by the Benefactor for the specific villagers whose names are in His Register. I can hear someone screaming, "But that's not fair!" It would still be more than fair if the gracious and sovereign Benefactor did not send any onions to any villagers! No? (A poor illustration, no doubt.)
=========

Dans
"irrelevant woolly talk" - Amen! Well said, brother Sing.
 On this matter, I have often said, "No one is saved apart from God's purpose in saving them. It follows that the atonement of Christ is INSUFFICIENT for all for want of purpose." Simply put, an atonement that lacks God's purpose to save is insufficient to save, for no one is saved apart from God's purpose in saving them.

Tom
Maybe a "poor" illustration, but still a good point.

Why so much confusion on Romans 8:29-30?

Rightly dividing Romans 8:29-30 
is as rare as this snow leopard.

Romans 8 KJT
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.

These two verses of the Holy Scriptures are probably the most tortured and abused passages of the Bible. Even the elitist Calvinistic folks messed it up big time!

A few obvious facts about the passage:

1. The object acted upon by the divine activities are co-extensive throughout, an EXACTLY SAME number of, and EXACTLY SAME people are involved in each activity of God, not one more and not one less, that is, every action spoken of applies to EVERY elect, without any exception. That's pretty obvious... "whom he did... he also... whom he did... he also..."

2. The divine activities - foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification and glorification - are all the sole activities of God.
- All these activities are by the free and sovereign grace of God, i.e. not conditioned upon anything in, by or of the objects. Those acted upon in these divine activities are completely passive, absolutely incapable of helping or even cooperating. In fact, they, by nature, were actively in ENMITY and REBELLION against God.

3. Those acted upon in these divine activities are EQUALLY ACTED on:
- they are ALL EQUALLY foreknown, predestinated, called, justified, and glorified - no one more, and no one less. Every free grace divine action applies to ABSOLUTELY EVERY ELECT, in absolutely equal and same extent. No exception. The activities here deal with, and secure ETERNAL salvation for the elect.

4. The divine activities stated here are all that are necessary for the ETERNAL salvation of every elect, without exception; nothing else is needed.
- There is no room to place other activities into the five-link chain. The five-link chain is complete and DOES NOT NEED other activities of God; it DOES NOT PERMIT any activities of man.
- Why is there no regeneration… sanctification… conversion… repentance, etc etc?
- Ask if you wish to know.

5. This passage says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, ZILCH about all those needful activities that involve human instrumentality (means) and are needful for the TEMPORAL salvation of God's children already made fit for eternal glory. If you imagine any such activities necessary for eternal salvation, then you have prostituted the pure gospel of grace, denied true monergism, and end up with a synergistic view of salvation, which is so common even among many Calvinists!

6. One more observation: all the divine activities are expressed in the simple past tense... even glorification of all the elect!
- The explanation is quite simple. Since all these are divine activities, and God has decreed to do them, they are considered as good as have been completed. Those activities are absolutely certain and assured of their execution and accomplishment and immutable fulfillment.

When this passage is properly understood, then eternal salvation by God's free grace is adequately appreciated. I know many people have some objections.

The gospel of free grace declares Eternal Salvation, WITHOUT any human means! (You must not confuse this with saying that temporal salvation by the obedience of God's children is without means. The gospel ministry is vital for the temporal salvation of God's children. Your inability to distinguish the two is the source of your confusion!)

There is the ETERNAL salvation which God in Jesus Christ has completely and perfectly worked out for His people, and applies it to each elect by His Spirit, perfectly fitting each for eternal glory; no human instrumentality is involved the eternal salvation. God alone purposed it, Christ alone accomplished it, and the Spirit alone applies it.

- This is the true context/sphere of 'divine sovereignty' in salvation.

There is the TEMPORAL salvation which God's children (those already bestowed with eternal salvation by God's free grace) have to work out for themselves with fear and trembling for their well-being and usefulness in this present life.

The gospel ministry, administered through human instrumentality, is the divinely ordained means for this specific purpose of saints working out their own salvation: Titus 2:12 - " teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

- This is the true context/sphere of 'human responsibility' in salvation. God's children are held responsible to work out their own salvation through obedience to the Father's will.

The measure to which men cannot distinguish eternal salvation from temporal salvation is the same measure to which they are messed up in their understanding of salvation by grace alone! They give lip service to salvation by grace alone but in reality, are all work-based salvation to a different degree... EVEN the Calvinists!

‎The object acted upon by the divine activities are co-extensive throughout, an EXACTLY SAME number of, and people are involved in each activity of God, not one more and not one less, that is, every action applies to EVERY elect, withOUT any exception.

Necessary implications:

- The call is the effectual call because ONLY in the EFFECTUAL CALL is every elect called. This is God calling an elect out of his native state of sin and death to that of grace and eternal salvation.

There is absolutely no gospel call here because there are God's children (regenerated elect) that are incapable of being called by the gospel, either because of inability or not reached by the gospel call., therefore no opportunity to believe.

Gospel call has to do with the temporal salvation of God's children. And there are God's children who are not called by the gospel. The gospel call is NOT NECESSARY for the eternal salvation of God's elect. It is the eternal salvation by God's free and sovereign grace that enables a child of God to believe.

However, because the Calvinists being ignorant of the distinction between ETERNAL salvation and TEMPORAL salvation, insist that the gospel call is necessary for one's eternal salvation!

2. The justification here is the vital justification by God's free grace because this aspect of justification is true of every elect. This is God's act of justifying the condemned by applying the righteousness of Christ to him personally and forgiving him his sins... when he is utterly incapable of believing, being under the condemnation of sin and death.

- Justification of life, applying Christ’s righteousness give warrants to eternal life…

There is no justification by man's act of believing here because there are God's children who are INCAPABLE of believing... either because of their inability to hear or not called by the gospel.

However, because the Calvinists being ignorant of the distinct aspects of justification, confuse the VITAL justification by the free grace of God as the EXPERIENTIAL justification by their faith in Christ.

There is so much confusion on this most basic subject. I hope reading and thinking through this article has helped to dispel some confusion, outright lies and fables, blatant inconsistencies and fiction. 

The justification of life precedes the activities of that life

Therefore, as by the offence of one,
 judgement came upon all men to condemnation [of death];
even so, by the righteousness of one,
 the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Romans 5:18

The justification of life precedes the activities of that life.
Believing is an activity of spiritual life. 

 

John 3:3 KJT
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 2:1 KJT
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

It's common sense that life precedes the actions of that life; faith is an activity of spiritual life. except a man be born again (regenerated) with spiritual life, he is still dead in trespasses and sins, utterly incapable of exercising faith.

EVEN SO...

To say that your faith is the cause of your justification by God is to put the cart before the horse.

It's equally common sense to say that a man's justification, freely by God's grace, precedes his faith in Jesus Christ. Why? you ask.

It's common sense.
An unjustified man is a man still in his native state of condemnation and death; a man in his native state can't possibly exercise faith in order to be justified by God. Sola fide is fiction.

Have you not read these words:

Romans 3:24 KJT — Being justified FREELY by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Romans 5:18 KJT — Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Adam's sin brought the condemnation of death upon all represented by him; EVEN SO, Christ's righteousness secured the justification of life to all represented by Him. Amen.

At the justification freely by God's grace, the righteousness of Christ is freely APPLIED to an elect personally (it's already IMPUTED to all the elect during the double imputation at the cross) in his native state of condemnation and death UNTO the justification of life.

The Father's free and gracious act of applying Christ's righteousness to the redeemed gives the divine warrant to the Spirit of God to regenerate such; that is why justification is termed as justification of life. (Rom 5:18)

Your faith evidences your justified state, freely by God's grace; even so, your breath evidences the prior impartation of life; your breath is not the cause of getting you your life.

May the gracious Lord grant you to understand this blessed good news.

p/s - just in case, if any is misguided in this too:

- Faith is NOT the gift of God; eternal salvation is the gift of God, Eph 2:8. Eternal salvation is through the faith of Christ, i.e. Christ's faithfulness in discharging the redemptive work to save His people.
- Faith is ONE of the many saving graces worked in a child of God (an elect that has been justified, regenerated, adopted and bestowed with the Spirit of adoption to indwell him) by the Holy Spirit, Gal 5:22.
- A gift comes from without; it's a saving grace that is worked from within by the indwelling Spirit of God.

Fiction and fable blasted to shreds!

 

What's your understanding of your salvation?

A man illustrated, and asked, "do you agree?"

"I like the analogy I have heard credited to the Eastern Churches. A captain goes to sea to rescue shipwreck survivors. He searches back and forth for hours. He finds me, he throws me a rope, I grab it, I put the loop around my body. He pulls me in. He gets me hot food and drink, wraps me in blankets and gets me to medical care. Did I save myself because I had to do one thing. Or does the captain get all the credit? Of course he does. That is how I see my salvation. Do you agree?"

He received this reply from a Bible teacher...

No, I disagree entirely with the man-made caricature of salvation.

First, the Bible describes the man in the water as hating the Captain and will have nothing to do with his stupid rope! and would rather drown in the sea at the will of the Sea Monster Satan that rules the waters, and in fact, he is a quadriplegic who cannot do anything with the rope.

Read John 10:26; Rom 8:7; I Cor 2:14; Eph 2:1-3; etc., etc.

Second, if the sea is filled with thousands of drowning folks, and the Captain throws the rope to all of them, and only five use it as you described, did the five save themselves in comparison to the others, when the Captain tried his best to save all of them? Absolutely, they saved themselves by making the difference!

Read John 8:47; I Cor 1:29-31; Eph 5:25-27; etc., etc.

For the cause of God and truth...

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

Fiction and fable blasted to shreds!

Confounding gospel regeneration and gospel conversion!

Confounding gospel regeneration and gospel conversion!

Redemptive Purpose of the Triune God

God declared His specific purpose to save His elect and made all the necessary provisions in the covenant of redemption.

Christ came to fulfil that specific purpose of God and accomplished eternal redemption for the same people.

God effectually calls each elect out of his native state of condemnation, death, and alienation to that state of grace and salvation in Jesus Christ - justifying him, regenerating him, and adopting him, and bestowing the Spirit of adoption to dwell in the effectually called - at God's appointed and approved time WITHOUT any instrumentality.

Such are made fit for eternal glory.

But the Father cares for their spiritual well-being while still here on earth; He ordained the gospel ministry to call and gather His children into the NT churches, to make disciples of such.

Disciples can only be made out of such, and no one else. The gospel ministry comes to them that ARE SAVED.

"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 provides spiritual nourishment for the children of God, those already regenerated by the free and sovereign activity of the Spirit of Christ. Jesus said unto Peter, "Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep... Feed my sheep." Jesus said not, "Make my lamb... make my sheep..." To feed presupposes the prior existence of the lives that need feeding.

This simple and consistent understanding excludes both gospel regeneration as well as the well-meant offer.

Gospel regeneration is fiction, a fable.

Gospel CONVERSION is the truth.

Well-meant offer, seems to me, is presumptuous, foolish, redundant, a mockery, and comes too late! Offering salvation to those who ARE SAVED is presumptuous and redundant. Offering salvation to those who are perishing is not only foolish but a cruel mockery.

Well-meant offer misses the whole point of the function of the gospel ministry.

"The called of Jesus Christ... beloved of God... called to be saints" in Rome

Hey, gospel regenerationists, have you read this?

Romans 1
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you...
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

Ro 15:20 "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.
- Paul has a great urgency to preach the gospel to all that be in Rome, i.e. them that are "the called of Jesus Christ... beloved of God... called to be saints."

- YES, yes, yes, all that be in Rome that are ALREADY "the called of Jesus Christ... beloved of God... called to be saints."

- Has the gospel been preached in Rome before? If someone has, then isn't Paul misguided or being presumptuous? - If they haven't, then how are they ALREADY "the called of Jesus Christ... beloved of God... called to be saints"?

Go figure a bit! Isn't gospel regeneration a mere fiction and hallucination of many preachers?

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

GPeter
The residents of Rome already had the Gospel well preached to them and the identity and nature of the Church was known around the world by the time Paul wrote 'Romans'. Paul was certainly aware and well informed about the Church in Rome which was already established and meeting in a number of venues.

R 1:8 'your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world'
R 16:14-15- Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them. Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

Sing F Lau
Welcome GPeter.
You need to demonstrate how the verses validate your idea! Just quoting them doesn't do so... Calling a wombat a kangaroo doesn't turn a wombat into one! <LOL>

You can choose that idea, which necessarily implies that Paul was presumptuous and misguided in his sense of great urgency to get the gospel to those who have already heard and believed the gospel.

Why did he expand great effort in declaring the gospel to them in black and white in the epistle if they had already heard and known the gospel?

You would make Apostle Paul to appear a liar and a hypocrite. He said, "Ro 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation." You are accusing Paul of building on someone else foundation.

Those who won't let Paul's own testimony stand, I take them as devoid of integrity!

GPeter
My Friend Sing F Lau ...
Paul specifically says that the gospel had been preached in Rome. It is Paul who is calling the 'Kangaroo'!

Here are 5 good reasons to believe the Church was established in Rome before Paul wrote Romans over thirty years after the church in Jerusalem was born.

1. Romans 1:8 'their faith was spoken of throughout the world' the Amplified says, '[the report of] your faith is made known to all the world and is [a]commended everywhere.' That means there were reports coming out of Rome, by reliable sources, that there were Christians and Christian faith in Rome, faith that was of some renown.

2. Every Bible commentator I have read, and that's a few, says that the church was established in Rome before Paul sent the Book of Romans to them. If you read in the preamble to Romans in your Bible it probably says the same thing.

3. In Romans 16 - Paul send greetings to Christians Paul knew, or knew of, in two different locations in Rome, 'the saints which are with them, and 'the brethren which are with them': this would seem to indicate that there were at least two congregations that Paul knew of in Rome.

4. Considering that Rome was the centre of the Empire and that there were people present in Jerusalem from all over the Roman Empire at Pentecost, many presume that converts from the early days of the Church in Jerusalem would hve returned to Rome.

5. Given that most put the writing of Romans by Paul, probably while he was in Corinth around 25 years after Pentecost, it would not be hard to imagine converts returning to Rome in the first three decades of the Church.

6. Perhaps Paul learned of the Church in Rome from Priscilla and Aquila, who had been expelled from Rome over 15 years earlier.

7. Paul says that the reason he hasn't yet gone to Rome is because the Gospel had already been preached there (!!!) Rom 15:22 and he had been called to the unreached, BUT since all the regions in his locality had now heard the gospel preached in them, he now felt liberated to visit Rome on the way to other unreached regions. Paul planned to continue his call to unreached areas BUT to stop by in Rome to visit the church that was already meeting there, in the houses of the Christians that he named.

Romans 15
Thus, my ambition has been to preach the Gospel, not where Christ's name has already been known, lest I build on another man's foundation. This is the reason why I have so frequently been hindered from coming to visit you. (BECAUSE THE GOSPEL HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE KNOWN THERE)
23 But now since I have no further opportunity for work in these regions, and since I have longed for [b]enough years to come to you, 24 I hope to see you in passing ....

Sing F Lau
GPeter said, "Paul specifically says that the gospel had been preached in Rome."

Paul himself said this:
"9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

Ro 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.

So, whose testimony should I believe? Grant's or Paul?
Of course, I read in Rom 1:1
"To the church in Rome that meets in Grant's house..." <LOL>

GPeter
Why leave out Romans 1:8?
Why leave out that Paul names two congregations in Romans 15?

Paul never said the Gospel had not been preached in Rome, in fact, he said others had laboured there which is why he was reluctant to go there.

Please, believe Paul's specific references to the fact that others had laboured in Rome and that there were already Christian house churches there.

Instead, you are reinventing church history so that it will suit your doctrine. Please name one church historian who does NOT believe that the gospel had reached Rome before Paul wrote Romans. PLEASE CITE ONE

GPeter
Read the verses after Romans 15:20- why do you refuse to interpret verses in their context?

Sing F Lau
I have not even begun disposing of your idea yet, and you are already ranting and foaming away with so irrelevant comments. What for, GPeter? I am not overwhelmed by numbers. I can be convinced by reasons and common sense.

There are perfect explanations for each of the 7 points you raised.

GPeter
Romans 16-
Paul names at least 26 Christians that he knows personally in the church in Rome.
-5 Say hello to Priscilla and Aquila, who have worked hand in hand with me in serving Jesus. They once put their lives on the line for me. And I'm not the only one grateful to them. All the non-Jewish gatherings of believers also owe them plenty, to say nothing of the church that meets in their house.
Hello to my dear friend Epenetus. He was the very first follower of Jesus in the province of Asia.
6 Hello to Mary. What a worker she has turned out to be!
7 Hello to my cousins Andronicus and Junias. We once shared a jail cell. They were believers in Christ before I was. Both of them are outstanding leaders.
8 Hello to Ampliatus, my good friend in the family of God.
9 Hello to Urbanus, our companion in Christ's work, and my good friend Stachys.
10 Hello to Apelles, a tried-and-true veteran in following Christ. Hello to the family of Aristobulus.
11 Hello to my cousin Herodion. Hello to those who belong to the Lord from the family of Narcissus.
12 Hello to Tryphena and Tryphosa—such diligent women in serving the Master. Hello to Persis, a dear friend and hard worker in Christ.
13 Hello to Rufus—a good choice by the Master!—and his mother. She has also been a dear mother to me.
14 Hello to Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and also to all of their families.
15 Hello to Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas— and all the followers of Jesus who live with them.

GPeter
@ Matthew, we don't know who first preached the Gospel in Rome- we only know that the Church met in a few different locations, that it's faith was known around the world, that some had been dispersed (Acts 18 from memory) and that Paul knew many of them personally.

(Matthew made some comments, and later deleted them.)

Sing F Lau
And how does Rom 16 prove that the gospel had been preached in Rome? All that proves is that there were those whom Paul was acquainted with - most probably during his various missionary journeys - Paul knew were in Rome.

If you can't even distinguish the two, I suggest you just hold your peace! I am tired of your ranting here!

If you want to discuss and study... it should be this way... state your point... wait for it to be answered... don't just go spewing away.

GPeter
Romans 16 proves there was an active church in Rome, one would assume the gospel had to be preached there for there to be an active church- unless they just had BBQ's on Sunday with no preaching?

Sing F Lau
1. Rom 1:8 'their faith was spoken of throughout the world'
=====
How does this prove that the gospel had been preached in Rome, that these people have heard the gospel, and that there was a church in Rome???????

Cornelius' faith in God was quite well known before he heard the gospel from Peter! The Ethiopian's faith in God is well known... he travelled all the way to Jerusalem to worship God before he heard the gospel from Philip. (Of course some deluded preachers will insist that they were still unregenerated until they hear the gospel!)

GPeter
Except that Paul identified them as Christians

Sing F Lau
2. Every Bible commentator I have read, and that's a few, says that the church was established in Rome before Paul sent the Book of Romans to them. If you read in the preamble to Romans in your Bible it probably says the same thing.

=====
You can stick to Bible commentators. I will just stick to Paul's own testimony.
Yes, Apostle Paul did say, "To the church in Rome that meets in Grant's house...'
The Bible I read has no preamble of human ideas!

I suggest that too many men take Apostle Paul as a presumptuous fool for saying, "So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also" if the gospel church is already established in Rome!

GPeter
Blessings to you, my brother and friend in Christ.

Sing F Lau
3. In Romans 16 - Paul send greetings to Christians Paul knew, or knew of, in two different locations in Rome, 'the saints which are with them, and 'the brethren which are with them': this would seem to indicate that there were at least two congregations that Paul knew of in Rome.
=======

This is true... Paul sends greetings to these people whom he is acquainted with, most probably during his missionary journeys. But these are different from the main recipients of the letter that NEEDED to hear the gospel. Paul even mentions a little church that meet in the house Aquila and Priscilla.

Rom 1:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

Paul's ministry is to bring the called of Jesus Christ in Rome UNTO OBEDIENCE to the faith. This explains why Paul has that urgency to preach the gospel to those in Rome... to bring the called of Jesus Christ unto OBEDIENCE to the faith of Jesus Christ. This shows that the called of Jesus Christ (i.e already regenerated) needs to be brought unto the obedience to the faith of Jesus Christ.

Rom 16 is a wise way of telling the Romans mentioned in Rom 1 that there are already some believers in Rome...

Sing F Lau
4. Considering that Rome was the center of the Empire and that there were people present in Jerusalem from all over the Romans Empire at Pentecost, many presume that converts from the early days of the Church in Jerusalem would have returned to Rome.
=======

This is a true observation. Some converts on the day of Pentecost came from Rome. Paul came to know some of them through words of mouth... e.g. from Aquila and Priscilla.

However it doesn't prove that the gospel has been preached in Rome, and that those to whom Paul felt the great urgency and indebtedness to preach the gospel have heard it.
 Whatever one may wish to think, don't make Paul to appear as a presumptuous fool!

Sing F Lau
Points 5 and 6: answered in point 4.

Sing F Lau
7. Paul says that the reason he hasn't yet gone to Rome is because the Gospel had already been preached there (!!!) Rom 15:22 and he had been called to the unreached, BUT since all the regions in his locality had now heard the gospel preached in them, he now felt liberated to visit Rome on the way to other unreached regions. Paul planned to continue his call to unreached areas BUT to stop by in Rome to visit the church that was already meeting there- in the houses of the Christians that he named.
=======

"... because the Gospel had already been preached there"?

O, what a joke!!! There couldn't be a more mindless reason!

That's what you think. Let's listen to Paul.

Paul tells us why he hasn't come to Rome yet:

9 For God is my witness... Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

"... BUT WAS LET HITHERTO..." Do you know what that means?

How can you imagine such a reason? If the gospel had been preached there, wouldn't Paul be making himself a big presumptuous plain fool for expressing the great urgency and indebtedness of preaching the gospel to them?

If you say that I already have some kangaroos in my backyard, you would most certainly come across to me as a foolish mate if you still express great urgency and indebtedness in rushing to bring me a kangaroo by Qantas!!! <LOL>

Sing F Lau
Romans 16 proves there was an active church in Rome, one would assume the gospel had to be preached there for there to be an active church- unless they just had BBQ's on Sunday with no preaching?
=======

Yes, there is a church that meets in the house of Aquila and Priscilla. is that church in Rome itself? Even if in Rome, Apostle Paul DID NOT address the epistle to them. He addressed to those in Rome that are in urgency need of hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your reasoning is faulty: "one would assume the gospel had to be preached there for there to be an active church."

The simple fact is this: the little church gathered in Aquila's home is made up of people who have heard the gospel elsewhere and they have moved there, some of them probably even from Paul's ministry during his missionary journey!

GPeter
Paul's testimony is that the Gospel had been preached in Rome, which is why he was initially reluctant to go there. Read Chapter 15, all of it, carefully.

What kept Paul from visiting Rome was that THE GOSPEL HAD ALREADY BEEN PREACHED THERE!

NIV- It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. ... This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you ...

GNV - My ambition has always been to proclaim the Good News in places where Christ has not been heard of... And so I have been prevented many times from coming to you.

NCV I do not want to build on the work someone else has already started. ...This is the reason I was stopped many times from coming to you

KJV ... have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation... For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you.

Sing F Lau
"Paul's testimony is that the Gospel had been preached in Rome,"

======
That's just your imagination.
Paul didn't say that.
If the gospel has been preached in Rome, Paul would not be going there! Why? Otherwise he would be building on another man's foundation!
But he is going to Rome! Why? Because he is going to preach where Christ has not been named! You get the whole thing upside down!!!

GPeter
Sorry, our understanding of English must be very very different. I, along with every Bible commentator I can find, read Romans 15 as saying:

Paul was reluctant to go to Rome because the Gospel had already been preached there and he was called to where the gospel had not be preached, However, because the gospel had been preached in every district where Paul was, he would take the opportunity to visit Rome on the way to new missionary fields.

,... how I read it could be wrong but it is the generally accepted interpretation of that passage.

Sing F Lau
It is not our understanding of English... it is our understanding of the doctrine of salvation... you are gospel regeneration to the core... which makes it a necessity that the preaching of the gospel precedes salvation.

You are resorting to Bible commentators. I am also able to quote commentators who agree with my understanding. BUT that's child play! So, you follow your Bible commentators, I will simply take Paul at his word, rightly understood in context.

Sing F Lau
Paul all along expressed great desire and eagerness and urgency to go to Rome... it is your idea that he is reluctant to go to Rome. You have turned the whole account upside down.

Instead of saying that by God's providence, all the previous hindrances have been removed to enable him to go to Rome, you greatly insult Paul by saying that he went to Rome because he has no other place to labor and thus RELUCTANTLY himself to go to Rome, and in the process compromises his life-long policy and conviction of not building on another's man foundation!

O, what a despicable insult to Apostle Paul!

And the reason he was reluctant to go there, according to your fiction, is that the gospel has been preached in Rome. That assumption is contrary to everything expressed by Paul!

O, how a plain passage could be so perverted to read the direct opposite... it is a marvel!

A Reformed Baptist "Demonstrated" that Sing has depzarted from the Standard Reformed Faith

"Sing, you have departed from our
Standard Reformed Faith."

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 12:58:18 +0100
Subject: Peter, a Reformed Baptist, compiled a long email (pasted below). He painstakingly demonstrated that Sing has DEPARTED from the STANDARD REFORMED faith held by him and many Reformed Baptists.

As the leader of a group of seven churches, Peter wrote the lengthy letter below to prove that I have departed from "the Standard Reformed faith" held by him and some other Reformed Baptists associated with him. He copied his email to FOUR church members of Sungai Dua Church.

Read and enjoy. Discover what these Reformed Baptist pastors actually believe (through what they disagree with). The larger theological controversy is recorded here: https://pruning-deformed-branches.blogspot.com/

------------

From: Peter Kek <peter@xyz.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 12:58:18 +0100
To: Sing Foo Lau <singlau@xyz.com>
Cc: Paulky <paulky@xyz.com>, CKL <sonickl@xxx.com>, Woon &YL <wcsyl@abc.com>
Subject: A summary of what Sing believes

Dear Sing,
I attach a summary of your view. Kindly point out if we have misrepresented you.
Peter

-------

Dear brothers,
Below is a summary of Sing's position, quoting him directly from his email (highlighted in green) so as not to misrepresent him.

Let us begin by asking, 'Has Sing changed his doctrinal position? Is his position very different from ours (the "standard reformed faith)? Or is it merely semantics?'

ANSWER: From both our email discussions as well as personal exchanges with him during our Fraternal, I think most of us can agree that Sing has changed his position, and that his position is very different from ours.

He told us openly at our Penang Fraternal that he has changed his view. Sing has also clearly indicated that he has changed his view in his email

dated 17/2/04:
"I have no difficulties with reformed soteriology. HOWEVER, I do see its inconsistencies, and therefore its deficiency in the articulation of the doctrine of justification by faith. If you don't see the inconsistencies as I do, then you would have no difficulties with reformed soteriology. I can only say that you are blessed and have no difficulties to sort out.

I don't think materials by GI Williamson and John Murray would be any difference from the standard reformed soteriology expressed by Jim Cromarty. In that sense they would all be pretty standard like yours - and I say this without any derogatory intent.

If you must insist that, in endeavouring to be consistent with the testimony of Scriptures meant that I have moved away from THE standard reformed position, THEN YES, I admit that you are perfectly right in you insistence.

Yes, I must therefore admit that I have moved away from standard reformed position on the subject.

You give me the impression that the standard reformed position is your authority. To be honest, I gave very little thought to the standard reformed position, though I am no less acquainted with it. But I am "sola scritura" in practice." (end quote)

Is his view very different from ours (Standard Reformed faith)?

Sing said in his email dated 1/3/04:
"Chin Kaw, I must say, and you yourself do see, that you and I are 1000 worlds apart in soteriology."

Sing wrote to Tony on 23/4/04:
"You say faith is an instrument divinely appointed to receive salvation. If you are comfortable with that and think that is consistent, it is fine with me. But I don't think it is just a matter of semantics."

[An UNsaved man, i.e. still in his native state of sin and death, is able to exercise faith IN ORDER to receive salvation - that's understood as "standard reformed faith" by Peter and his gang! - sing]

In another email to Tony on 18/5/04: Sing said:

"I am certain it is more than a matter of emphasis. It is consistency and truthfulness to Scriptures. If it is only a matter of emphasis, and not glaring inconsistencies and contradictions, I would have shut up long ago and not waste my time and weary so many people. I will probably shut up soon, since many are so contentedly settled in their trenches and have no interest to study things.

The same differences exist among those who equally claim to hold to the 1689 LCoF in other parts of the world... and I fear it is often the result of the remaining baggage of the past Arminianism - natural as well religious - which explain all the inconsistencies and contradictions. Arminains proclaim 'justification by faith alone,' reformed people also claim 'justification by faith alone' - ask them what do they mean, they meant precisely the same thing!!! (end quote)

The next question is: What then is Sing's new understanding? Let us try to put them down one by one:

1. On the issue of regeneration:
Sing believes that effectual calling and regeneration has nothing to do with the preaching of God's word. To him a person could be regenerated (and thus saved), and yet remain an unrepentant unbeliever [sing: remain unconverted] for many years until he hears the gospel. Should such a person dies before he hears the gospel, he will still go to heaven.

To Sing, a person is saved through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit apart from faith and repentance."

He wrote to Tony on 13/4/04:
"Eternal life resulting from the effectual call (involving justification, regeneration, and adoption) is the beginning of the application of the eternal salvation to an elect. Once spiritual life is begotten, the chief and essential part of salvation has been bestowed. Spiritual life is eternal life; with this life, the person is capable of enjoying the many spiritual blessings which God has in store for his elect in this brief and temporary time on earth. This includes being brought to saving faith in Christ, be gathered into the community of God's people in the local church, be instructed and disciples by the ministry of the word, etc." (end quote)

This brings us to a number of other related issues:

2. The place of faith:
Does a sinner need to come to faith in order to be saved? Sing's answer is 'No'. He kept insisting that 'faith is not in order to be saved, but obviously an evidence that one is already saved. That's why he kept insisting that John 3:16 is a declarative rather than a conditional statement (see his exchanges with Dr. Richard Belcher).

Sing wrote to Lam and all on 12/4/04:
"Also 'no faith, no salvation' without necessary qualification, unashamedly CONDITIONS salvation on man's faith!  It is no longer salvation by grace alone. 'No faith, no salvation' also begs many questions: what kind of faith is necessary, how much faith is necessary, how persistence must this faith be, what happen when we become lapse and become faithless ('If we are faithless, He remains faithful...' 2Tim 2:13) etc. Salvation become TOO MAN-CENTRED! The eternal destiny of man is now entirely conditioned upon something he does." (end quote)

Sing wrote to Tony on 13/4/04:
"To say that 'faith receives salvation' is something near to moronic [sic]. It is like saying breathing receives life!!! It makes perfect sense to say that faith evidences salvation; even so, breath evidences life. 

"The idea that faith in Christ 'receives' salvation is foreign to the Bible. We have used it for so long without thinking about it. It is much like the Arminian's idea of 'accepting Jesus Christ.' It smacks of humanism, and contradicts grace."

3. The issue of faith & justification:
Justification by faith alone? I once sent this article by Jim Cormarty:
"Where does faith come in? What part does faith play in justification? Faith is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8) and is the "instrument" by which we receive the righteousness of Christ. The role of faith can be illustrated as follows. 

A girl needs a drink of water, but the tap is far away and she cannot reach it. Someone, using a cup, brings the precious water to her. The cup itself cannot quench her thirst, but without it the water cannot reach her. Faith is like that cup, a means provided by God through which the 'water¹ of Christ¹s righteousness is supplied to us, so that we may be justified. We are not justified by the act of believing, as if faith were a work of man. We do not justify ourselves by our faith, for "it is God who justifies¹

(Romans 8:33)." (the above paragraph is Peter's words)

And below is Sing's response:
"I now think this is an inadequate and BAD illustration. The illustration seems to promote a faith by proxy - 'someone using a cup' - who is using whose faith to convey the righteousness of Christ to who? Did she has the gift of faith or not? 
[Actually, the gift is NOT faith; the gift is eternal salvation, freely bestowed by grace WHEN we were DEAD in trespasses and sins. So, stop the hallucination.]

I see this as a horrible error - that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ depends on personal faith. This is to put the cart before the horse! Personal faith manifests that the righteousness of Christ ALREADY APPLIED personally to an elect.

I believe it would right to say that if she holds forth a cup desiring to drink, then THAT proves that she already has that spring of living water in her through the sovereign regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. John 4:14.
The author has just contradicting himself because of the confusion... 'We do not justify ourselves by our faith, for 'it is God who justifies¹ (Romans 8:33).  So in what sense are we justified by faith then, FOR HEAVEN SAKE????????????? HOW DOES FAITH JUSTIFY the believing one? Does it justify the same way God justifies a condemned guilty man? How does your breath justify you? That you are alive, or to bring you to life? 

However let me use the illustration to make a elementary point. That girl who thirsts for a drink, and who is capable of drinking - ALREADY has spiritual and eternal life - regenerated by the Holy Spirit UPON the basis of having the righteousness of Christ ALREADY FREELY APPLIED to her personally, by the grace of God. The Holy Spirit DOES NOT have the divine warrant to regenerate any one except those to whom the righteousness of Christ has been applied personally.

Sing wrote to me on 12/1/04:
"Faith DOES NOT justify before God - NOW you are horrified that I say so!!! But let me complete the sentence: Faith does not justify in the sense that personal faith DOES NOT puts a man right and acceptable before God."

Sing wrote to me again on 2/3/04
"I am acutely aware that "justified by faith" is understood as faith is the means, instrument, channel, whereby a person is put in right standing before God. I used to embrace that wholeheartedly but unthinkingly for many years too as a Reformed Baptist.

But inconsistencies and contradictions in such view caused me to re-study the whole subject. And I DON'T BELIEVE IT ANYMORE. I BELIEVE IT IS  A SERIOUS ERROR! See the reasons I have given before. I DO BELIEVE that personal faith in Jesus Christ EVIDENCES that a person is already FREELY justified and put in right legal standing before God through the finished work of Christ, and applied to him by the Holy Spirit. Personal faith IS NOT in order to be put in right standing before God. Personal faith is evidence of having been put in the right standing before God."

On the same subject, Sing wrote to Chiah Chee (28/2/04):
"Formerly, I thought personal faith is 'the means, instrument, channel, whereby a person is put in right standing before God.' I believe that this is wholly impossible and erroneous. Faith is the evidence of a man already in right standing before God; EVEN SO, breath is an evidence that the dead has been brought back to life. It's so elementary.

The question then, is, 'when and how was that right standing with God established?' The simple answer is: the legal justification which secured that right standing before God HAS TAKEN PLACE for all the elect at the cross.

And that legal justification is made vital or personal when the righteousness of Christ is applied personally to each individual elect at God's appointed and approved time, and the Holy Spirit regenerating the elect. I believe the Holy Spirit will regenerate ONLY those whom Christ has redeemed, and already freely justified before God. (Have you ever asked, 'does the Holy Spirit has any warrant to regenerate those whom Christ has not justified legally by His blood, and and whom God has not justified personally by His free grace?)

And personal faith in Christ through the hearing of the word by the gospel ministry is an EFFECT of regeneration. That personal faith, the effect of regeneration, is the EVIDENCE that such a person is God's elect, Christ's redeemed and FREELY justified by God based on the finished work of Christ at the cross, and the Holy Spirit regenerated. Personal faith JUSTIFIES that the believing person is INDEED of God's elect, Christ's redeemed and justified in Him, and Spirit's regenerated. (end quote)

What About Abraham? Was Abraham justified by faith alone (Rom. 4:3)? If not, then what happened to Abraham in Romans 4? (Peter shoot these rhetorical questions)

Sing published an article in the SDC Bulletin on 28/3/04 to explain this (the day I preached for him): "Paul introduces the theme of Romans 4 with a question and a reference to Gen. 15:6, "And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness". Paul's question interestingly implies that Abraham was justified by works as well as by faith. There is no hint in Paul's words that Abraham gained eternal standing with God based on his works. The theme of the passage seems far more favourable to our discipleship than to our eternal salvation...

Rom. 4 does not explain how unsaved people gain standing with God, i.e. through faith. Rather it explains how those who presently 'stand in grace' grow in their faith and discipleship. (end quote)

Then what put a man right with God? Sing insists that it is the 'faith of Christ' (faithfulness of Christ in His redemptive work for His people) (Rom. 3:24). I need not go into this as we have all read his lengthy exchanges with Lam on this.

4. The place of Preaching:
Sing has openly said at our Camerons Retreat that "gospel preaching is not for the purpose of saving souls (i.e. eternal salvation)". Why does he insist that gospel preaching is not for the purpose of saving souls?

Sing wrote to Lam:
"The preaching of the word does not gather men into heaven. Christ did that Himself... Preaching is absolutely necessary. But the question is, 'absolutely necessary for what?' Is it a means to bring people to eternal glory or is it a means to make manifest that an elect people has been completely and sovereignly prepared for glory in Jesus Christ?"

In another email to Lam, he said:
"I am glad, mighty glad, that the eternal salvation of God's elect is not dependent upon man whatsoever... "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." John 6:39.

Would Christ have this absolute confidence IF His statement is conditioned or dependent upon some contribution of good men, even good faithful preachers? (end quote)

Sing's great concern here is 'how were those elects in China or India before Carey went, going to be saved, if their salvation depended on the preaching of the gospel?'

5 Reading into the Bible:
The followings are Sing's interpretation of various texts in his email to me:
(a) Jesus said, "...unless you repent (which must include faith) you will all likewise PERISH." (Luke 13:3). Peter, what sort of hearers will repent when they hear the gospel? Is it not only those who God has chosen, Christ has redeemed and reconciled to the Father by His death on the cross and those regenerated by the Holy Spirit? I believe only such can repent and believe when they hear the gospel preached to them. So the passage is perfectly true!!! [see this exchange: https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2022/11/except-ye-repent-ye-shall-all-likewise.html

(b) Peter, Romans 3:22-24 reads like this: '
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

First, look carefully please and let it say what it does say. Does it say whether justification has already taken place - 'JUSTIFIED FREELY' - on the basis on something already accomplished, OR does it say justification is made possible on the condition of faith? Look at it again, and look at it hard. I suggest that you don't drain the passage of what it plainly says and don't read into it what is NOT there.

Second: Please note the word 'all' in verse 22 and 23, and ask, who are those BEING JUSTIFIED FREELY by God's grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus? All of God's elect have sinned, and come short of the glory OF God (I was tempted to type 'the glory IN God' <grin>)
ALL of God's elect have been JUSTIFIED LEGALLY by the finished work of Christ at the cross by his grace. When did this take place? The answer is: the redemption that is in Christ Jesus? When? At the cross. ALL them that believe evidence that justification that has ALREADY taken place by God's free grace, and applied personally by the Holy Spirit. (end quote)

(c) Consider also the way he interpreted John 3:16 & 36; Acts 16:30-31; Romans 2:14-15; 1 Peter 1:23-25.

6. Some of Sing's questions
Let me end by stating some questions that Sing wants answered:

Question one, (7/4/04)
"I have said before that gospel preaching is necessary - but the question is, 'necessary for what?' I said this to you before, but I have never receive a reply: "... what do you think is the divine purpose of preaching? I believe preachers need to sort this MOST BASIC QUESTION carefully and be fully convinced.  Have you ever asked yourself the question? Many say the purpose of preaching is to turn goats into sheep!" Others would say that preaching the gospel is necessary condition for the Holy Spirit to regenerate dead sinner. They insist that the sovereign divine Wind cannot blow unless there is human co-operation. But what do you say?  May be now, you will give me a reply. State exactly what you believe to be the divine purpose of the gospel preaching."

And a related question:
"Now, please tell me what is the purpose of the gospel preaching and the ministry of the word. Who is it intended for? I say for lost sheep! Not for dead sheep! For living sheep (made alive at regeneration) that are lost, and needed to be gathered into the NT church. Just who do you hope will receive and believe good news of salvation? Please answer. (end quote)

Question two, (3/1/04)
"Let me know your answer and I may know whether I have to wrestle with the possibility of just ONE elect who by providence have no opportunity to hear the gospel. If there is none, then the whole exercise would have been in vain. If there is, I would want to be clear how such ONE elect will get to glory as predestinated by God. Will man's failure deprive one of Christ's redeemed and Spirit regenerated (if regeneration is possible without the preached word - an impossible if for you, sorry) from eternal glory?

Question three, (12/1/04)
"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36).

Peter, in light of the passage quoted, is personal faith in the Son the evidence of eternal life, or the condition of eternal life? Is John 3:36 DECLARATIVE statement, or CONDITIONAL statement? Does one believe because he has eternal life or does one believe to obtain eternal life? Isn't unbelief the evidence of the absence of eternal life... therefore shall not see life... with the wrath of God abiding? Isn't it because God's wrath upon such a one WAS NEVER bore away by Christ at the cross that wrath of God on abides on him!!!

Question four, (3/3/04)
"For now, please read Hebrews 11:8, and I would like to put back the same question to you: Now you tell me, when was righteousness imputed to Abraham? Peter, is it conceivable to you that God would even call someone whom He has not first justified and reconciled (in Abram's case and all the elect before the cross, based prospectively upon the redemptive work of Christ at the cross)? 

Would Abram even response UNLESS he was already justified by God's grace and regenerated by the Spirit in Genesis 12:1? What sayest thou, brother Peter? And what sayest ye, my other brothers who are listening?

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

Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2004 16:58:18 +0800

Brethren of Sungai Dua Church,
The above is a useful email from Peter. He has collated some quotes from some of the emails exchanged during some of the discussions. I believe he is expressing his disagreement with my understanding of the teaching of Scriptures as summarised in the 1689 LBCoF. I believe he will follow up with a separate post spelling out his disagreement with what he has quoted. We will look forward to reading that.

Those words which are direct quote from what I have written, I own and stand by them. The rest, you need to credit it to Pastor Kek.  Some quotes can do with the broader context; otherwise, it is misleading. A text without its context is a pretext! If you have any problem with any point quoted, ask for clarification. If you need broader context, please ask Peter to forward to you the relevant emails.

I do hope you do read them, and compare them with the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 LBCoF - especially chapters 10-14, 20. I would appreciate if you could get your whole church to read them.

If you have any problem with any point quoted, ask for clarification. If you need broader context, please ask Peter to forward to you the relevant emails.

Some people don't realize that adjusting/changing of doctrinal position is NOT ALWAYS a bad thing!!! Sometimes it is very necessary, especially when consistency and accuracy is needed. Only those who HAVE ARRIVED have no need to change or adjust or move on. May the Lord richly bless such blessed people.

May the truth prevail.

Pastor Lau
Sungai Dua Church

------

post script: The summary of the doctrinal controversy is recorded here: 

https://pruning-deformed-branches.blogspot.com/2022/06/a-summary-of-seven-theological-points.html