Effectual Call and Gospel Call

 

#effectualcall #gospelcall

1689.10.3
"Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who works when, and where, and how He pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word."

"... so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word," THAT IS, there are elect souls who do not have the gospel sent to call them from darkness to light... EVEN THOUGH they are effectually called out of their native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation.

The effectual call and the gospel call are distinct:
- The former is independent, both logically and chronologically, before the latter

- The former is monergistic; the latter is synergistic.

- The former is the free and sovereign application of the eternal salvation to each elect personally, the latter brings experiential knowledge of the former.

- The former makes the latter possible only.

- The former is absolutely certain and immutable; the latter involves human factors, thus involving variables.

 - an elect who is effectually called but without the gospel call and an elect who has both the effectual call and the gospel call - both are equally saved in the eternal sense; the gospel call brings a child of God varying degrees of practical/temporal salvation.

Thomas Paul Simmons' statement implies that every elect soul, without exception. shall have the gospel call out of darkness to light; that's a fable of many modern neo-Calvinistic Baptists. They believe that the gospel call and effectual call is a "package deal" - like McD's combo deal.

p/s
Yes, it is "elect infants" and not just "infants"; chapter 10 is on the effectual calling of the ELECT, therefore, the context demands "elect infants." Revisionists insist infants, even all the aborted and those infanticided. 

--------

Reggie Lee
Well said!

Mark Thomas
Powerful truth stated. Thank you, Bro. Sing.

Bill Taylor
Many have greatly erred from this truth by ignoring or denying the last statement in your response. "Revisionists insist infants." You are spot on that only elect infants are considered.

========

Some Gouty Fables of Mr Spurgeon

 

#gouty_fables

If that be so, then every elect of God shall be EQUALLY regenerated (which, fortunately, is true), EQUALLY converted, EQUALLY sanctified, and EQUALLY faithful (the latter three are only gouty fables).

The mighty, efficacious, and irresistible grace of God alone shall most certainly accomplish the exact saving effect on each and every elect.

Regeneration is monergistic; the other three are synergistic; the extent of them is conditioned upon the responses of those already regenerated.
---------

Patrica
I do not agree with Spurgeon

Roger Campbell
AMEN !!!!! Sharing. 👍💖🙏

Robert Cook Sr.
If this meme is biblically true, then why don't all "Christians" believe the same doctrine? Is God the author of this confusion????

Reggie Lee
Yeah... I get that. He did overstate a truth, causing error to proceed from his lips... but these Calvinists are safe. They are not far at all from the truth... and they are much closer to how we believe than any other group of Christians.

Harrison Paul Violet
Amen

Daniel Samons

Spurgeon on Grace

STATEMENT
“We believe that the work of regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and faith, is not an act of man’s free will and power, but of the mighty, efficacious, and irresistible grace of God.” (Charles Spurgeon, gleaned from a social media post)

----------

RESPONSE
This Spurgeon quote is a sloppy representation of sovereign grace theology. While it is true that our eternal salvation is a work of God alone, the items that Spurgeon lumps together are a combination of works that God alone does (i.e., monergistic works associated with our eternal salvation) and works that men do in cooperation with the Spirit’s enablement (i.e., synergistic works of God and man associated with our temporal salvation). Consider:

1. Regeneration is an immediate and direct work of God alone (John 5:25) Man has no active, participatory involvement in this work. He is merely the passive beneficiary thereof. Once quickened he is in possession of eternal life in a vital sense. He has been given everlasting life and shall never perish (John 10:28).

2. Conversion is synergistic in that it involves the Spirit's enablement as well as man's willing and active participation (Acts 3:19). God does not “repent for you” neither does he “force a regenerate man to repent” or “to be converted by truth.” This too is evident from the many instances where God’s people oppose the truth, even the gospel (Matthew 16:21-23, Mark 16:14). While it is true that a man must be regenerate to be converted to the truth, the assertion that the exercise of faith is a monergistic work of God is false. Man’s will is involved in the exercise of the faith that God has given him in regeneration.

3. Sanctification is of two sorts. The first is legal/positional sanctification which is an act of God alone and is required for his eternal salvation (Hebrews 10:10). The second is ethical/practical sanctification which is a synergistic act of God and man that involves man's willing participation and is required for his temporal salvation (I Thessalonians 4:3), his salvation “from this untoward generation.” (Acts 2:40).

4. Faith is a spiritual capacity, a vital sign that is given in regeneration (Galatians 5:22). The exercise of this capacity, however, is a willing act of man under the enablement of the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is the proper motion of the new creature in Christ under gospel instruction. The fact of remaining sin proves beyond any dispute that God does not force us to exercise faith during our natural lives (I John 1:8).

Spurgeon's quote does not hold up under biblical scrutiny, regardless of the numerous affirmations it received on social media. While Spurgeon said a lot of good things, folks should be aware that his language is often more impressive than his logic. Spurgeon's soundbites are often more rhetorically forceful than theologically compelling. When encountering Christian ideas on the internet, we do well to take a deep breath and ask, “Is that true?” lest we dive headlong into the pool of shallow assertions.

Roy Armada Fidelis
But actually CH Spurgeon is inconsistent in this matter, he said in one of his writings MAN HAS A DUTY TO RESPOND TO THE GOSPEL CALL! How come he said that IT IS NOT AN ACT OF MAN'S FREE WILL!

What are the foundation and the end of the world in Heb 9:26?

The foundation of the "theocratic Israel" world
at the foot of Mount Sinai.

The foundation, and the end of the world

Heb 9
23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Verse 26 speaks of "the foundation of the world" as well as "the end of the world."

Please tell, what is the world spoken of in both cases... the foundation of WHAT/WHICH world, and the end of what WHAT/WHICH world?

Thank you most kindly in advance for your help.

Your student.

The end of the "theocratic Israel" world.

========

Comments

PJ Walters
Would this be from the beginning of the dispensation of the Law to its abrogation?

Sing F Lau
Kindly elaborate, please. Thanks!

PJ Walters
He was not to be offered repeatedly as were those sacrifices in the Old Testament dispensation, for then it must needs be that He be offered in such manner since its institution; but He came and was offered once unto God (therein signifying that He Himself is anti-typical of those sacrifices) in the abrogation of the Old Testament, or end of the world.

Julius Stewart
The foundation of the world here has to be since the institution of tabernacle blood sacrifices according to the law. The end of the world has to deal with the sacrifice and offering of Jesus upon the cross. From that moment on, the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem grew closer and would be finally the last phase in that world's end.

Sing F Lau
Samuel, my question is quite specific:
Please tell, what is the world spoken of in both cases... the foundation of WHAT/WHICH world, and the end of what WHAT/WHICH world?

If you can stick to the questions, comment on.

[Samuel deleted his comments!]                 

Julius Stewart
The word world refers here to the law world. Here, it refers to an age. Contextually, it refers to the time of tabernacle or temple worship under the law. Unless you have a more specific thought than this. If you do bring it to our attention Sing.

Sing F Lau
I posed the same question on a forum, and got this good reply from Elder Chase Harrison, and got his permission to paste it here for our learning.

=========

Hello Brother Sing,
Hope you are doing well!

I have typically viewed the two "worlds" in verse 26 as referring to the old covenant age, i.e. that Old Testament way of worship. As I'm sure you already know, the word "world" can have many different meanings and usages in the new testament. One meaning of the word "world" is an "age or era". I believe this is the meaning here in verse 26, especially since the book of Hebrews is one big compare and contrast of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, i.e. the Old Testament to the New Testament.

In my understanding, in verse 26 he is contrasting the MANY insufficient sacrifices of the old testament to the ONE sufficient sacrifice of Christ in the new testament.

When it says, "the end of the world", I take that to mean the end of the old testament/old covenant "age" and way of worship. Christ's ONE sacrifice for the sins of His people on the cross was the ultimate fulfillment of what all the old testament animal sacrifices pointed to and typified. In Matthew 27:51, right after Jesus gave up the ghost on the cross, it is said that the earth quaked and the rocks rent and the veil of the temple was rent in twain, I believe symbolizing the total fulfillment and abolishment of the old testament way of worship that was according to Levitical law and animal sacrifices. Furthermore, consider the last verse of Hebrews 8:

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

When it says, "the foundation of the world", I believe this could mean one of two things, and I wouldn't have a problem with a person believing either one:

1) the foundation of the old covenant world (age) and way of worship. I lean towards this one because of the overall context of Hebrews, comparing and contrasting the two covenants. Plus, the phrase "foundation of the world" is directly related and contrasted to the repetition of the animal sacrifices by the old testament high priests (verse 25). The contrasting point in verses 25 and 26 is that Christ did not have to offer Himself OFTEN like the high priests in the old testament did when they went into the holy place every year with the blood of others (animals), but rather Christ offered Himself ONE time (not often) at the end of the world, or old covenant age. So, I lean towards the view that both "worlds" and phrases should be similar and stay in context, but I'm not dogmatic on this part. Like I said, I lean. 🙂

OR,

2) the foundation of the created world (the creation). In Revelation, it speaks of "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). So, I could see where one could easily interpret it this way and I would be perfectly fine with it.

I think either one finds reasonable Biblical basis, and neither one does any harm to any foundational doctrinal principle, so I wouldn't debate anyone too hard over it, even though I prefer #1 over #2 personally. 🙂

When it comes to the context of Hebrews 9, I would say that I am firm on my interpretation of what the first phrase that I addressed means (the end of the world), and slightly less firm on what the second phrase that I addressed means (the foundation of the world).

These are my thoughts on the passage and on your question. Hope this has made some sense and been of some help.

God bless you,
Chase Harrison

Sing F Lau
Hi Brother Chase,
I want to thank you for your excellent reply... excellent because you answered the questions directly, and not because your answers are agreeable my understanding. Thank you VERY MUCH. You are a sharp-shooter like Elder Martin Smith (the one with aeronautics).

I left the same question on Facebook.

I would humbly request your permission to paste the reply below as a comment there.

Or please leave the comment there yourself. Thanks...

It is a good example of rightly dividing the word of truth!

already blessed through you,

sing

=====

Brother Sing,
Yes, if you would like to post my answer in Facebook, then that is fine with me... 

So, feel free to post my thoughts on Facebook if you desire.
Thanks and God bless,
Chase Harrison.

 

What are the Inseparable Fruits, Effects, and Consequences of Election?

 

How I wish Owen's statement is true!

Don't you, Parents, Elders, Reverends, Doctors of Divinity, etc.?

How if I say, "Health, wealth, and happiness are the inseparable fruits, effects and consequences of conception"? Well, I concede that an exceptional few - the insane billionaires, will say, "of course!"

The rest will politely inquire, "Which planet did you come from?" 🙂 😮

When the greatest minds fail to distinguish the eternal salvation by God's free and sovereign grace from the temporal salvation through the working (with fear and trembling) of His children, they INEVITABLY end up making false and erroneous statements.

"Justification, regeneration, adoption, and glorification are the inseparable fruits, effects, and consequences of election" is the truth.

Romans 8
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.

(Nevertheless, Dr John Owen was probably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Puritan theologians.)

Believing is a Work God Requires of His Children

Believing is a Work God Requires of His Children

Are you saved by grace through faith in Christ?
If so, then you are saved through works!!!

Believing is work! Christ Himself said so!

Why do so many carelessly contradict Him?

The act of believing in Jesus Christ is MOST CERTAINLY a work. Jesus Christ HIMSELF told men to do this work!

John 6
¶ 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

The men inquired: ''what shall WE DO, THAT WE MIGHT WORK the works of God?" Christ replied: The work that God wanted them to do is: 'that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.' They were interested in WORKING the WORKS (PLURAL) of God, i.e. the WORKS that God requires of His children. [His children are those elect whom God has effectually called out of their native state of sin and condemnation to grace and salvation)

Christ points them to the FIRST and CHIEF work God requires of them. Christ said, 'First things first... believe on Him whom God has sent.'  Please don't contradict Christ and speak blasphemy that believing in Christ is not work! Christ said it is a work God requires His children to work!

The Lord God said, "This is my beloved Son: hear him" - it is a command to DO something, i.e. to believe Him! And ONLY God's children, i.e. regenerated elect, are able to do that work!

Even so, the popular slogan 'justification by faith alone through grace alone' - commonly understood is an oxymoron. Justification is not by faith, i.e. man's work of believing in Christ Jesus. Justification is by the faith of Christ, i.e. Christ's faithfulness in discharging His work of redemption.

Apostle John said,
"And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." 1John 3:23.

"Believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ" is a divine command; rendering obedience to a divine command is work.

Apostle Paul states it so plainly in Romans: the righteousness needed for the justification of a condemned criminal is the righteousness provided by God Himself through His Son Jesus Christ. It is stated as plain as noonday sun here:

Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
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:

He who ears to hear, let him hear!

Justification is FREELY by God's grace, NOT by your faith;

Justification is THROUGH the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; BY the faithfulness of Christ in His redemptive work.

Justification is not through your faith;

BUT justification is evidenced by your faith in Jesus Christ; even so, breath evidences life.

Your faith in Jesus Christ DEMONSTRATES that you have been FREELY justified by God's grace (the MANNER of your justification) based on the redemption that is in Jesus Christ (the GROUND of your justification).

You are saved by grace through the faith of Christ! (i.e. Christ's faithfulness in securing the redemption of His people. 

You are not saved by grace through your faith in Christ!

The former is the gospel; the latter is a lie of the devil!

The Order of Salvation

The Order of salvation and 
Its Multifaceted Nature

 

#Order_of_salvation

Please tell us something about each one.

Thanks.
======

Reggie
Salvation purposed is the mind of God before Creation. Salvation accomplished is also before the world was created. Salvation applied is at the cross because I believe in A definite atonement. Salvation experience is during the time of each believer throughout time after they have been born again. Salvation consummated the resurrection!

Sing F Lau
Reggie: How is the salvation accomplished before the world was created?

Reggie
Sing F Lau 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8 KJV)

Reggie 
I’m guessing this may be my misunderstanding of how the preposition (from the foundation) may be? What u think?

Reggie
The preposition from the foundation of the world either refers to the book written or it refers to the lamb slain

Sing F Lau
The Lamb was NOT slain from the foundation of the world, the names were written from the foundation of the world.

The Lamb slain qualifies the book of life... whose book of life? The book of life of the Lamb slain.

Reggie
Sing F Lau. Ok.. sounds legit to me. So I must change my mind concerning when Salvation was accomplished.

Reggie
Cool.

Sing F Lau
Take a look here: 
The Order of Salvation - Ordo Salutis
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-order-of-salvation-ordo-salutis.html

And here:
Orderly Messed Up Order!
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2018/03/orderly-messed-up-order.html

Reggie
Sing F Lau like the part where is speaks of the faith (in) Christ verses the faith (of) Christ...

Sing F Lau
Where do you put those two?

Reggie
Sing F Lau the faith of Christ, I find in the Epistle written to the churches in Galatia. Along with the phrase faith in Christ. So in this book written to the churches in Galatia, we see a difference in the faith of Christ versus faith in Christ.

Now we all know what faith in Christ is and how that accomplishes justification in our mind. It is the faith of Christ that would seem to be in my mind in question. Is the faith of Christ Jesus his actual faith or is the faith of Christ speaking of the general term of all believers placing your faith in Christ?

Sing F Lau
Reggie, the faith of Christ speaks of His faithfulness in the work of redeeming His people.

Saulo
Sing F Lau "faith of Christ" refers to the act of Christ in His redemptive work. He is faithfully fulfilling it.

"Faith in Christ" refers to the faith in the Christ and of His finished redemptive work. This is in the conversion of the regenerate.

Sing F Lau
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4102/kjv/tr/0-1/

pistis:
fidelity, faithfulness
- the character of one who can be relied on

Saulo
Salvation purposed, decreed
Salvation accomplished by the substitutionary atonement of Christ
Salvation applied by the holy spirit in the effectual calling
Salvation experienced in conversion
Salvation consummated when Christ will come to receive us into Himself.

Sing F Lau
Saulo, Thank you, dear Brother.

Revelation was written before AD70

 

Sir, you believe the book of Revelation was written before AD 70. Do you have any verses that support this?
-------

Here is one

Rev 17:6-13 “...... And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.....”

"... five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space."

Who were the seven kings? Which five had fallen? Which one was reigning at the time Revelation was being written? Who was the other to come?

Were these the kings spoken of?

"... five are fallen..."
1. Julius Caesar (49/44bc)
2 Augustus (31bc/14ad)
3. Tiberius (14-37ad)
4. Gaius,/Caligula (37-41ad)
5. Claudius (41-54ad)

 "... and one is..." ("is" the reigning king when Apostle John wrote Revelation in AD 60s

6. Nero (54-68ad)

[Galba (68-69ad);    Otho (69ad);    Vitellius (69ad)  - these three in parentheses since their combined reign was so short, and there was hardly any reign at all.  These DID NOT CONTINUE... they were cut off as speedily as they became king.]

"... and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.....”

7. Vespasian (69-79ad)  "... the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.....”

I hope the above helps.

-----------

Allan Turda

Amen.

Bradley Hilton
No way, there’s a better interpretation. Nero is not and cannot be the beast.

Sing F Lau

Bradley Hilton You go and chase after your beast. I'm on the seven kings.

Bradley Hilton
Sing F Lau WHO IS THE BEAST Of rev 13 1-8? Instead of evading my rebuttal how about defending Mr Gentry's - which is essentially what you are saying.

Sing F Lau
Bradley Hilton Ask your question on your page. Surely you will get some interesting replies.

Evading your rebuttal? Have you even offered a rebuttal of what I said about the seven kings?

You can ride your hobbybeast; I'm dealing with the seven kings.

Bradley Hilton
Sing F Lau do you believe Nero is the subject of Rev 13 1-8?

Sing F Lau
Bradley Hilton Line up the seven kings first. Then tell us about your beast.

Bradley Hilton
If Nero is not the six King, then neither are any of the other Caesars "kings" including the three you dismissed. Vespasian does not fit the text neither.

Sing F Lau
Bradley Hilton Line up the seven kings first. Then tell us about your beast.
That should be simple enough for a smart man like you. 

Sir, what was accomplished at the cross?

What was accomplished at the cross?

Sir, what was accomplished at the cross?

=====

Great question. Let me express some thoughts for your consideration.

1. One thing is most certain: ALL the sins of ALL the elect of God were IMPUTED to Christ, YES, even including all the sins of all the elect that were not even conceived yet.

2. Just as certain, Christ Jesus - the redeemer of all those that were given to Him by the Father - suffered and endured the divine curse of all those sins in the place of His people, and made complete satisfaction of the wages of sins owed by ALL of His elect.

3. Equally certain, there are misguided Christians who believe that their sins were imputed to Christ ONLY when they believed in Jesus Christ. They don't realise that any sin imputed to Christ AFTER the cross-death-and-resurrection event would be too late!

4. If a man's sins are not INCLUDED (by legal imputation to Christ) in the one-offering of Christ of Himself for sin, there is NO MORE atonement for those sins. He MISSED the one Sin-Ship; the Ship has left the harbour, never to return to ship away more sins! The one Train that carried away sin has left the Station!

There is no more a second, or a third, or a fourth offering of Christ for sins at the WHIM and FANCY of some stupid (i.e. lacking common sense - not a derogatory term in any way, but an objective adjective!) people.

Silly, misguided children of God believe fables that are so injurious to themselves! They think Christ is at their beckoning! Not surprising at all because they, the mighty ones, ACCEPTED a lowly Jesus who begged at their doors for their ACCEPTANCE of Him! They have been sold a poor and pathetic Jesus! So they end up with this fable that it is they who decide when to surrender their sins to be imputed to Christ, i.e. when they believe in Christ!

4. Just as certain, double imputations took place at the cross, i.e.
- The sins of all His elect were IMPUTED to Christ, and Christ rendered full and perfect satisfaction for all of them. That is why not one iota of sin was able to hold Him in the grave!
- The righteousness of Christ, from His life of perfect and sinless obedience to God, was IMPUTED to all the elect given to Him by the Father.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

What is IMPUTED legally (a legal transaction) at the cross is APPLIED vitally at the effectual call to grace and salvation (a personal transaction); the former doesn't need your personal existence, the latter requires it.

What is applied freely by God's grace, i.e. when a man is dead in sins and trespasses, is EXPERIENCED through faith in Christ Jesus, whose righteousness is the sole basis and alone ground of God freely justifying the condemned, dead, alienated sinners.

==========

Lahry
Excellent. I tell others frequently, I was born in 1943, but I died about 33 AD. 🙂

Reggie
Excellent Read, bro. Sing F Lau. 100% agreement with every single word of this.

Dan
The proper, biblical answer to “What did Jesus Christ ACCOMPLISH?” eliminates 10,000 false doctrines in Christendom.

Bill Taylor
Amen!

Robert 
Great words, "What is IMPUTED legally (a legal transaction) is APPLIED vitally (a personal transaction); the former doesn't need your personal existence, the latter requires it. "

Patricia
Thanks

Cindy
Amen. Thank You Jesus. ❤✝❤

Buddy
Amen Bro.

Áthlios 
Amen!

One is the CAUSE, the other is the EFFECT.

Justified freely by the grace of God is the CAUSE;
Justified by your faith in Jesus Christ is an EFFECT.
These are two distinct justifications: 

I wonder why it is so hard for a student of God's word to accept that only someone whom God HAS JUSTIFIED FREELY is able to believe in order to be justified by his faith? Someone whom God has not justified by His grace is still in the state of condemnation and death, thus absolutely incapable of believing. An UNGODLY man justified by God's free grace is NOT THE SAME as a believer being justified by his faith...

They are distinct and separate acts.

One is the CAUSE, the other is the EFFECT.
Justified freely by the grace of God is the CAUSE;
Justified by faith in Jesus Christ is an EFFECT. 

Justification freely by God's grace is NOT the justification by our faith.

In the justification by God's free grace, there is the imputation of Christ's righteousness to your account (as in Rom 3:24, 8:30)

In the justification by your faith, there is the imputation of your faith to your account (like Gen 15:1-6 account)

The two are very distinct and different acts.

Why do so many confuse the EXPERIENTIAL justification by their faith as their LEGAL justification by God's grace through their faith?

Why the confusion? Is it because many cannot differentiate between SOUND and SENSE anymore?

But many, at least those who brand themselves after a Genevan, have enough sense to admit that they must have life first in order to believe, i.e. regeneration precedes faith.

However, stranger still, there are those calvinists (the Reformed Baptists) here in malaysia who insist that regeneration precedes faith, BUT ALSO that one must believe in order to have eternal life (all stated in black and white in a official theological paper issued in the names of 7 churches!) They say that regeneration gives the ability! It gets more bizarre, implying that there can be ability WITHOUT life.

How can't they see the same truth that the removal of condemnation of death and bestowal of righteousness of life in justification by God's free grace MUST PRECEDE the activity of believing?

At least the Old Baptists declared this: "The reason why any are justified IS NOT because they have faith; but the reason why they have faith IS because they are justified" - Circular Letter of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, dated October 4, 1785.

But a whole new generation has arisen that believes the EXACT opposite - all the modern calvinists and the reformed baptists, the whole world over!

It looks like the time spoken of by Apostle Paul is here:
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

'Fables' are FICTIONS. The condemned (unjustified by God) believes in order to be justified is a FICTION, and a deceiving lie.

Tom Sellier
What came first, the chicken or the egg? We know the chicken came first because God created the chicken with the ability to have baby chickens with the roosters help, of course, through the absolutely astounding process of a fertilized egg. Of all things. Nature has no such imagination. Keith you are right but I have a slightly different take on it. The reason is today's Christian has become a reader of christian books written by men instead of students of the Bible. I say put down the books and write your own.

Tom Sellier
And you know, Sing if you look at who Jesus said He came for, most of us can't articulate the mechanics of our salvation, but we KNOW we are saved. I just pray for the weaker that no one be able to talk them out of their salvation because that is the goal of the devil and his minions these last days.

Sing F Lau
Absolutely no one is able to talk them out of their ETERNAL salvation... not even Satan himself. Each one is as safe in the hand of Christ as ever.

But so many are already deprived of their TEMPORAL salvation... having been deceived that their justification before God is conditioned upon their faith! Where is assurance and comfort from such a belief, if a man is honest before God?

A justification by faith must necessarily be maintained by that same faith! And that is precarious at best!

A justification secured by faith shall logically, and justly, be forfeited by faithlessness. There would be unending uncertainty to maintain that state of justification. Is it faith of the right kind, is there enough faith, etc.. Where is assurance with such uncertainty!

But if justification, by God's free grace based on the solid foundation of Christ finished and perfect righteousness ALONE, is evidenced by faith, then the weakest faith in the Savior evidences that secured and completed and perfected state of justification by God's free grace based on the equally secure, complete and perfect righteousness of Christ.

Jason Sides
Sing while you and I am sure agree with many of the writings of John Gill, I would like to ask you whether you evangelize as many do not believe John Gill promoted it; in fact have labelled him a hyper calvinist.

Sing F Lau
Brother Jason, some of the greatest LIARS ever lived on earth would have to be those that accuse John Gill of not evangelizing. He most certainly did evangelize, maybe not their frivolous and men-centred 'finneyite' idea of evangelism.

Read these articles by George Ella to convince yourself that it was not for evangelism that they charged Gill with hyper-Calvinism.

http://evangelica.de/articles/biographies/john-gill-and-the-charge-of-hyper-calvinism/

http://evangelica.de/articles/biographies/john-gill-and-his-successors/

Take a look. Ella is a rare and objective theological historian!

And get hold of this book and read for yourself and find out the FACTS about John Gill.

I wrote this satire:
'It is like a Genevan who believes that milk and baby clothes are necessary for the conception of a child, calling a Chinese brother a ‘hyper-calvinist’ just because he believes that milk and baby clothes are necessary only for the growth and development of the child already delivered. How bizarre can the world get! It gets even more bizarre when a Genevan misrepresents the Chinese brother as saying, “milk and baby clothes are not needed at all for newborn babes.”

A smart aleck ‘standard reformed’ brother boldly retorted, ‘If justification is before faith, then there is no need of faith at all; then what need is there for preaching!’ It is like a man saying to his wife, ‘darling wifey, you said milk and baby clothes are not needed for the conception and the delivery of a child, then what need is there to shop for these things for our baby?’ The wifey rolled her eyes and said, ‘Get me the rolling pin, quick!
[pg 64 of 'A Pruning of Seven Deformed Branches']

Sing F Lau
Amen, Brother Keith. The principle of 'first thing first' will save many from deception and delusion... I went through it all. It took quite a long while to wean myself from ingrained errors. I went back to Scriptures, and unlearned lots of man-centred (i.e. deluded Arminianism, and twisted Calvinism) errors. I am only beginning to learn the Scriptures.

[Keith has deleted his comments!]

Jason Sides
Sing, can you send the above article/hyperlink as a message to me, as I would like to share it with some others.

Feeding has to do with the living.

Feeding has to do with the living.
Only the superstitious think they feed the dead. 

Only the superstitious believe it has to do with the dead too. 
(Many Chinese offer roast pigs to the dead on various occasions.)
Many preachers are no more enlightened than them! 😪

The Lord restored His Disciples to feed His sheep!

John 21...
O, the tender mercies of our Lord Jesus Christ in dealing with His disciples!
- The scattered apostles had returned to their secular work... it was a complete failure, "they caught nothing."
- The Lord came seeking for them... shook them with a stunning miracle... fed them with a big and wholesome breakfast...
- Then He restored them in an extraordinary way! Peter the ringleader, who had denied the Lord 3 times, was picked for the purpose... they were tenderly restored and recommissioned.

What was their commission? It is stated so plainly that even a child can understand. It is "FEED... FEED ... FEED" Christ's lambs and sheep. But so many preachers and their misguided followers are convinced that the commission is to help Christ make sheep through their preaching ministry; some even believe that it is helping Christ to turn goats into sheep through their preaching. But the commission is clear.

"FEEEEEEEEEEEED my sheep." Christ has sheep that need feeding. He has sought and saved those sheep himself; He has saved those whom the Father has given to Him through His OWN redemptive work, and the Holy Spirit has, FREELY and sovereignly, applied that salvation to each individual elect, without any man's assistance.

These sheep need to be FED; they need to be given the spiritual food - the good news of the mighty things that the Triune God has accomplished for them, and the glory awaiting them in Jesus Christ, and how they ought to live righteously, godly in their brief and fleeting life in the present world.

Whoever believes that FEEDING has to do with the dead is stupid, i.e. lacking common sense! There are many such preachers. The superstitious Chinese do offer roast pork to the dead; the misguided preachers do offer salvation to the dead in trespasses and sins.

Sonship is multifaceted in nature

 

#your_sonship_is_multifaceted

Sonship was decreed by God in eternity,

Sonship was secured legally by Christ's atoning death on the cross,

Sonship was made actual/vital by the Holy Spirit in regeneration,

Sonship is experienced/demonstrated/attested by faith in Jesus Christ, and

Sonship shall be gloriously consummated at the resurrection to eternal glory.

Even so, your justification.

#your_justification_is_multifaceted

2Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Blessed are you if you know the multifaceted truth.

 A workman that knows not needs to be ashamed.

A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.

Midgets calling a Giant names... how impudent!

 

#DrJohnGill

Midgets calling a Giant names... how impudent!  

Charles H. Spurgeon greatly admired his predecessor John Gill, a man highly respected by his Calvinistic contemporaries of other denominations... and considered the EPITOME of 'calvinism' [old school calvinism, of course].  And yet today, men who are theological midgets compared to Gill would slandered him as "hyper-calvinist."  What has gone wrong?

Midgets calling a true giant names! 

========

"Charles Haddon Spurgeon is glowing in his praise of Gill. Of his ordination, Spurgeon says, ‘Little did the friends dream what sort of man they had thus chosen to be their teacher; but had they known it, they would have rejoiced that a man of such vast erudition, such indefatigable industry, such sound judgement, and such sterling honesty, had come among them.’   Spurgeon loved reading Gill’s sermons and wrote, for instance, in his copy of Gill’s preaching on the Song of Solomon, “This priceless work of my learned predecessor has always been helpful to me.”   In his Commenting and Commentaries, he says of this work...

“Those who despise it, have never read it, or are incapable of elevated spiritual feelings.”.... 

"This sums up much of present-day second-hand criticism of Gill, which is rarely based on a first-hand knowledge of his works. Gill’s commentaries, which were merely his sermons in writing, were regularly and eagerly consulted by the Prince of Preachers, who marked them all with three stars, which was Spurgeon’s way of saying, “The very best!”.

In 1886, he jotted in his copy of Ezekiel to Malachi the words, “Many sneer at Gill, but he is not to be dispensed with. In some respects, he has no superior. He is always well worth consulting.”   In a letter dated February 1855, Spurgeon pays tribute to Gill’s influence on him by stating “My position, as Pastor of one of the most influential churches, enables me to make myself heard and my daily labour is to revive the old doctrines of Gill, Owen, Calvin, Augustine and Christ.”

It would seem here that Spurgeon was so taken up by the testimony of Gill that he mixed up his priorities and put Gill first and Christ last.

======== 

The above is quoted from the article "John Gill and His Successors" by George Ella at http://evangelica.de/articles/biographies/john-gill-and-his-successors/
Go, read the full article and be enlightened. 

What has gone wrong? Are you among those midgets calling a true giant names, an evil so reflective of this degenerated generation?

========

Sam Vigue
“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church.” - John Calvin

For the personal safety of my family, I am careful to avoid anyone connected with John Calvin since their churches may promote putting people to death that they deem are heretics, etc.

Sing F Lau
Sam Vigue, I have nothing to do with the Genevan. 😂.

Steve Woods
He is not here to defend himself…

Sing F Lau,
Steve Woods If he (Gill) is alive, few would pick a fight with him.😂😂😂.

Let them be, they are different!

 

Let them be, they are different!

For all you Rick Warren fans out there:

Pastor Rick Warren Says Allah and Jehovah God Are One and the Same!

Chrislamity - a new religion promoted by Sick Barren of Donkeyass Stable

Central to Christianity are:

- The Trinity of the Godhead.

- Christ, the only begotten Son of God, the eternal Word made flesh

- Christ is the only substitute and Saviour for His people

- Imputation of Christ's righteousness

Islam rejects and anathematises all the above, i.e. Trinity in Unity, Incarnation, Substitution, and Imputation.

Let's just acknowledge that Islam and Christianity are distinct, with an unbridgeable gulf between them. The two are fundamentally different. Let them be. There is no need to pretend and lie. To do so is devilish deception.

Ac 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."

http://godfatherpolitics.com/.../pastor-rick-warren.../...

-----------

 John Feroze

Pastor Rick needs to teach more about the real Doctrine of Grace. thanks for informing us

Sing F Lau
I do understand that before Islam came into being, the Arab believers refer to Jehovah as Allah.

That doesn't make the Allah of Islam the same as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, the Father of the man Jesus - the eternal Word made flesh.

Sing F Lau
'The god of the muslims was the same god of abraham... that's history.'
======

No, that's just her-story! <LOL>
Fable!

Equivocation is a dreaded disease, a plague to flee from!

Sing F Lau
In your fascination with technicality, you end up with obvious irrationality!

First, you said, "Jehovah is or the Judeo-Christian God is in fact also Allah...... the god of the muslims was the same god of Abraham"

Then, "now is it the same God?? obviously not." (I assume the pronoun 'it' refers to 'god of the muslims'.

If technically he didn't stop being the same God, then did he in some ways did stop being the same God?

So, the muslims do worship the same God of the Bible, only that they didn't worship him in spirit and truth?

Sing F Lau
@ If you are going to make that claim then you must also make the claim that the Jewish God Jehovah also is not the same God as the christian God....simply because the Jewish people have failed to believe in Christ.
======

Why must I also make the claim that the Jewish God Jehovah also is not the same God as the Christ God? Your answer: simply because the Jewish people have failed to believe in Christ.

But how does the Jews' failure to believe Christ necessarily make me claim that the Jewish God Jehovah also is not the same God as the Christian God???

You are equating the Jews who believe in the Jehovah God and His promised Messiah with the Muslims who worship their Allah without any hope of any Messiah!

Sing F Lau
@ Since the Jews and arabs consider themselves to worship the same God..
+++++++

Now you are equating arabs as muslims.

Do they worship the same God because they are enabled by the same Spirit?

And if they they do, why is Jesus the Son of God accursed to them?

No, you are hung up on a 1433 year technicality!

Sing F Lau
It is quite amusing, actually. I live in an increasing militant muslim country.
Arab defines ethnicity, and muslim religion!
In Malaysia, ethnicity and religion are EQUATED... by law!

For example, if a Chinese converts to Islam and become a Muslim, he must also become a Malay. He must take a Malay name, he must dress like a Malay, and he must speak Malay, etc. And if one is born a Malay, he is a Muslim by law... and if he ever converts out of Islam to whatever religion he chooses, he is subject to the law of apostasy!

Similarly, the Muslims EQUATE westerners (so-called 'white' people) as Christians!

Sing F Lau
So many westerners are so suckered by the Saudis and the like ... the turks have infiltrated their universities and even their black house, and they have Sick Barren (Rick Warren!) goading them on... ya Christians will soon be required to worship Allah... no problem at all... after all already conditioned that they are worshiping the same God! Allah bless America!

Sing F Lau
What you considered facts are:
- "Jehovah is or the Judeo Christian God is in fact also Allah... - "the god of the muslims was the same god of abraham...thats history."
- "They may be a cursed nation for changing the truth of God....but they didn't change Gods at any point in history."

Some superficial resemblances are equated as being the same! Man has two legs, chicken has two legs; therefore man is chicken and chicken is man <LOL>

No, they didn't change god at any point in history. But they did start worshiping Allah, distinct from the Jehovah God, at a certain point in history! He was not known nor worshiped prior to that.

Whoever said they are cursed people? How can a people who don't even have the truth be charged for changing the truth? OT Israel was most certainly cursed and destroyed for good - it possessed the truth of God but perverted it. USA is more likely going to be a cursed nation... for changing the truth of God!!!

Sing F Lau
Many insist that the Jehovah God revealed in the Bible is the same as the Allah of the Koran. He revealed Himself very differently in the Bible and the Koran.... or that His followers perceive the same God very differently! And by extension all men worship the same God, all religions are just different route to the same God... all roads lead to Rome! <LOL>

Sing F Lau
(Some folks have quietly deleted all their comments... so the exchanges above appear like a monologue. But why would people delete comments that express their beliefs???)
Shame on them.

Buddy TP
Amen bro Lau. Islam is not Christianity. God's covenant was confirmed in Isaac (Rebecca though a Syrian). Arabian Islam with Keturah and Egyptian Islam with Hagar (Ismael).-Gen.25

Peter Petersen
The fact that this al Ilah does not have a Son is enough for me, thank you very much.