Justification by faith = justification by work

Believing is work! Christ Himself said so!

Why do so many shamelessly contradict Him?

The act of believing in Jesus Christ is MOST CERTAINLY a work.

Jesus Christ HIMSELF told the 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... WE MIGHT WORK."

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 works God requires of them. Christ said, 'First things first... believe on Him whom God has sent.'

Please don't contradict Christ and speak blasphemous words that believing in Christ is not a work!

The Lord God said, "This is my beloved Son: hear him.' 

So, the popular slogan 'justification by faith alone through grace alone' - as 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 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 noon day 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 has ears to hear, let him hear!

1John 3:23
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.

Believing in the name of Jesus Christ is obedience to God's commandment; it is a work God commands His children to do. 

Man DOES NOT HAVE a soul; Man is - is - is a living soul.

 

Man DOES NOT HAVE a soul.

Man is - is - is a living soul.

When his body and spirit are in union, man is a living soul.

When his body and spirit separate, man is a dead corpse, not a living soul.

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Ec 11:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

While alive, the Lord preserves our whole soul. While dead, the Lord preserves BOTH our whole body and spirit... that they may be united again into a glorified living soul. Blessed be our Lord God. 
========

Alan Lloyd
Well explained pastor, Pastor; that clears up a lot of confusion, thanks.

Charles Page
Amazing how people cling to the Greek concept of the body being a vessel and containing a soul/spirit

Sing F Lau
Brother Matthew, do you think the usage of soul and spirit synonymous in 1Th 5:23 ALSO?

It is true that, in some contexts, the two words are synonymous because the context clearly indicates parallelism.

Many people do use 1Th 5:23 to prove that man is tripartite.

(Matthew Ong has deleted all his comments!)

Sing F Lau
Matthew, so man is tripartite: one part is void and needs to be filled?

We are talking about the essential constitution of man: is he body and spirit, or is he body, spirit, and soul?

A bipartite man filled with the Holy Spirit is still bipartite.

Sing F Lau
Matthew, did you read this?
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Is this a Greek fable?
What is the Greek fable? Please tell us what it is.

Sing F Lau
Ge 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Matthew @ "That same breath that gave the first Adam his life back in Genesis seems to be the same breath that contains spirit and soul for Adam."

Are you saying the same thing as Gen 2:7? The Scriptures say: because of the breath of life, man became a living soul.

You say: the breath of life contains spirit and soul for Adam.

Are you saying what the Scriptures say?

Sing F Lau
Matthew @ "But then the later statement is contradicting this verse, and I have to disagree."
=======

Which statement is contradicting Ecc 11:7? Please elaborate.

Thanks.

Sing F Lau
Matthew @ While dead, the Lord preserves our whole body and spirit... that they may be united again into a glorified living soul. <<< I disagree with part of this statement, the body is not preserved. It is shown clearly as corrupting continue unto the dusk.
=======

So, you don't believe in the resurrection of the body that has turned into dust? If the Lord does not preserve the body unto resurrection, would there be dust left for the resurrection?

Sing F Lau
No one is saying that the mortal body is preserved in the sense that it will not rot and decompose and return to the dust!

Nevertheless the Scriptures plainly declares that the Lord preserves the body... in that SENSE that the SAME BODY that has decomposed and returned unto dust shall be resurrected and glorified!

Of course the glorified body is entirely different in the sense of its quality, immortal instead of mortal, spiritual instead of natural, but it is still the same body that shall be resurrected!

Sing F Lau
The Scriptures say, "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

You say, "... and the spirit and soul leaves this mortal body and return to the Lord for the elected saints."

God's word says, 'the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.'

You say, 'the spirit and soul return to the Lord for the elect saints.'

So, who am I to believe? You, or God's word? Please help me.

Sing F Lau
 Matthew @ "We should alway believe scripture and NOT man's concept of creation. '

========

Here it is, what the Scripture says. Do you believe it?

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Do you need a clearer statement?

And here is another:

Ec 11:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Do you need a plainer statement? Where is the mention of your soul?

Sing F Lau
The confusion is here:
If you want to know the constitution of man, go to those passages that tell us that. Don't go to those passages that speak of the life of men.

Don't be carried away by SOUND-byte; get the SENSE.

How does Isa 26:9 speak of the constitution of man? Just because the phrases 'my soul' and 'my spirit' appear in the passage, you conclude that man is tri-partite?

If that's your conclusion, then what do you want to do with the clear declaration of Ge 2:7, 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'

Let me give an illustration. Table salt is sodium chloride - made up of the element sodium and chloride. Some insist that table salt is made up of three elements: sodium, chloride and sodium chloride. That would be a salty fable! <LOL>

Sing F Lau
Matthew, then you have missed the whole point of the discussion! The whole subject is about the essential constitution of man!

That is why I say... you must know what the subject of discussion is about, and stick to the subject... otherwise we are just loitering around the subject.

What is the problem with the term?

Do you also have a problem with a term like 'trinity'?

Sing F Lau
The term 'trinity' and the meaning of the term are two different thing.

Don't be so fixated on the RC... the subject has nothing to do with them!!! <LOL>

Do you have a problem with the term 'trinity'? You seem to have a problem with terms like 'bi-partite' and 'tri-partite.' Or do you prefer terms like 'bichotomy' or 'trichotomy'?

Terms are necessary shorthand in discussion.

No, no, no. The Scriptures are clearly BI-partite concerning the essential constitution of man.

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Sing F Lau
There may be much confusion, and it seems that we are HARDLY communicating!

1. Man IS IS IS a living soul... because his body and the spirit of life is in union. That's what Gen 2:7 is saying.

This MEANS that the spirit and the living soul are different and distinct entities.

Isa 26:9 is not speaking of the CONSTITUTION of man. It speaks of the life-activities of man, where it can be spoken of in terms of the spirit or the soul, as defined in Gen 2:7.

2. Man, whether dead in sin, or regenerated, is ALWAYS the same in his essential constitution. So, man dead in sin, and man quickened unto righteousness are STILL bipartite in their essential constitution.

3. The Spirit that the regenerated man has DOES NOT become part of his essential constitution! A man INDWELT by the Holy Spirit is still a bi-partite man - his essential constitution has not changed.

I have been saying all these things from the beginning...

Probably you didn't read them.

I hope things are clearer now...

Sing F Lau
Matthew, it is ok as long as you are CLEAR about what I have said.

What you choose to believe, you need to square it with the Scriptures.

Joh 10:30 - "I and my Father are one - can you tell us 'are one' in what sense? 'I and my Father' make TWO. So tell us in what sense are the two one. Otherwise, I would know what you want to imply by that passage!

Sing F Lau
Which part of Point #1 do you disagree with?

Point #2: Quickening is always accompanied by adoption, and the adoption is always accompanied by the giving of the Spirit of adoption!!!!!!! That is basic, brother Matthew!

Point #3: How come even when the person is indwelt with Holy Spirit, it is still bi-partite? Did the Holy Ghost replace the spirit of that man? If not, is there now a tripartite?

1) Holy Ghost 2)Mortal body 3)the spirit of the person?

The Spirit that fills a child of God does not become an essential part of that man... the man remains BI-partite.

A Spirit-filled man is still a living soul of spirit and body in union. What do you mean, the Holy Spirit replaces the spirit of the man!!! If the Spirit of God replaces the spirit of man, then where does the replaced spirit go?

Sing F Lau
Matthew @ 'We need to maintain every aspect of man to be the same as it indirectly reflects how we would imply with holy scripture.'
=====

Elaborate this a bit Matthew. I don't understand what you are saying!

Sing F Lau
Matthew, Matthew...

Your words, 'I am trying to explain that Jesus Christ, unlike natural man, has 3-partite (like the term you use).

1) The Father who is God
2) The Word who is God|
3) The flesh body this part is fully man.'
=======

I really hope this is ORIGINAL with you, and no one else believes this fable at all.

Sing F Lau
And just how those two passages prove Jesus being tri-partite as you defined like this:

'I am trying to explain that Jesus Christ, unlike natural man, has 3-partite (like the term you use).
1) The Father who is God
2) The Word who is God
3) The flesh body, this part is fully man.'

 

'EVEN SO' - Two little words with momentous Implications

 

#EVEN_SO

Two little words with momentous implications.

Sola fideism is like a deformed one-fingered-hand monstrosity!

Romans 5
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 ¶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.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The legal condemnation for all represented by Adam took place at the fall, EVEN SO the legal justification for all represented by Christ took place at the cross.

The legal condemnation is applied to each individual of Adam's race at his conception of life, EVEN SO the legal justification is applied personally to each individual of Christ's race at his effectual call to grace and salvation. [The effectual call out of the native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation REQUIRES justification, regeneration, and adoption.]

The legal condemnation that has been applied is experienced, and evidenced in actual acts of sin, EVEN SO, the legal justification  that has been applied is experienced, and evidenced in the actual acts of righteousness such as faith and works.

The biblical doctrine of Justification is like a well-formed five-fingered hand:

- The grand thumb - Justification purposed in eternity for all the elect:
- The index finger - Justification accomplished for all elect at the cross;
- The middle finger - Justification applied to each elect personally at effectual calling;
- The ring finger - Justification experienced & evidenced in those called by the gospel;
- The last finger - Justification glorified/vindicated for all the elect.

Can you imagine if the ring finger is the only finger on your hand?

That's really what sola fideism amounts to - a deformed monstrosity!

The God-formed five-fingered hand stands as a perpetual witness against the horrid lie of sola fideism.

Thou art without excuse, O sola fideist! Thine own hand condemneth thee!
======

Sing F Lau
Brett Null, deal with what I have written. Which point do you not agree, and state why. Thanks. Otherwise, don't be a nuisance here.
(Brett Null has deleted all his comments)

Ante Zivkovic
Sola fide. Conditional salvation conditioned on faith. Arminians require it for regeneration, while Calvinists require it for justification. Arminians think the dead can believe, while the Calvinists think the unrighteus can believe.

Sing F Lau
Brett @ "Those who reject sola fide reject the only Gospel that can save them and by necessity embrace a false gospel."
=============

There is a perverse logic, and a serious error, in the statement above...

Sola fide - a teaching that an unjustified man, still under the condemnation of sin and death, is required to believe in order to be justified - has no gospel at all! It is in fact a false gospel.

Some idiots perceive that their sincere offer of a magical life-giving concoction to the dead for them to accept the offer and drink the concoction will get life, is good news! Such an act is pure stupidity, though very sincere.

So, how can it be said that those who reject the fable of sola fide reject the only gospel? It is to reject a grievous and deceptive lie of the devil!

In addition, the gospel DOES NOT save any one. The gospel is the good news of what God Himself has done to save His people through the finished work of Jesus Christ, and applied to each individual by the Spirit of God.

Sing F Lau
Let me just say the blind like braat numbskull don't read nor believe what the Scriptures also state plainly... they are only good with mouthing religious shibboleth!!!

- Act 13:39 "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

"And by HIM... by HIM... BY HIM... " So "by faith alone" is just a fiction and fable!!!

- Rom 3:24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus..."

"justified FREELY..." HOW? FREELY - thus all conditions excluded, including faith, man's act of believing. It is FREELY by His grace. On what GROUND? The ground being the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. So "by faith alone" is just a fiction and fable!!!

The GROUND of justifying a condemned man is the redemption by Christ. The MANNER a condemned man is justified is FREELY by God's grace.

- Rom 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law"

Deluded folks like brat null would start raving and say that this passage proves their fiction of "sola fidei"!!!

This passage speaks of the faithfulness of Christ in rendering perfect obedience to the law. For that is the context... the righteousness necessary for justification before God is either by a man's OWN faithfulness to the law, or by Christ's faithfulness to the law.

Rom 2:21-22

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 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."

The righteousness needed for a condemned man's justification before God is "by faith OF OF OF OF OF OF OF Jesus Christ."

The brat null and his kind would read that as "by faith IN IN IN IN IN IN IN Jesus Christ."

But brat null will read what is presented above... and will go on raving and foaming his "sola fidie" fable.

Sing F Lau
Brett @ Jas 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
============

First, see brat numbskull's "by faith alone" versus the Scriptures, "not by faith only".

Second: a man's works of righteousness justify him in the same manner his faith (a work of believing) justifies him. They are both evidences of his justified state... both declare, demonstrate, vindicate, justify the man as FREELY justified by God. Only a justified man is capable of believing and doing the works of righteousness.

Third, but brat numbskull DOES NOT see "how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

God's own children can become like the worldlings

#not_only_sad_but_tragic

At least Surgeon's words acknowledge a harsh biblical fact:
God's very own children can become like the worldlings.

Far too many Calvinists vehemently deny even the remote possibility of God's children becoming indistinguishable from the worldlings. The reason! They have twisted and perverted the biblical doctrine of the perseverance of the saints; they sincerely believe God's children do continue in a life of faith and holiness to the end; therefore, any who don't are even God's children to begin with, they pontificate. They will retort, "Mr Spurgeon, your fear is quite unfounded and unnecessary."

Also, many of God's children will end up in hell in the intermediate state EVEN THOUGH none of them shall end up in the eternal like of fire.

Hebrews 10:31 KJV
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

This is addressed to God's children. 

=======

Reggie Lee
You wrote,

“And also, many of God’s children will end up in hell in the intermediate state EVEN THOUGH none of them shall end up in the eternal lake of fire.”

That was a bold statement, bro. And yet, I cannot refute this scripturally.

So many times, my thoughts told me this when reading, even though man’s doctrine said differently. But if I were to say this here in the south, it would ruffle feathers for sure😳😬

Sing F Lau
Speaking to the disciples, Jesus said,

8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Take drastic measures against your sins to save yourselves from hell.

The Lord Jesus not only ruffled the feathers of the establishment of His days, He plucked their feathers!

Imputation of Righteousness is Distinct from Pardon of Sins

Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Consider the answer above carefully.
Justification (imputation of righteousness) and Pardon (forgiveness of sins)
are distinct theological concepts.
A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology. 

Demonstrate how the answer plainly REPUDIATES  the popular fable of justification by faith alone.

Ask some questions, and/or draw out some statements from the answer.

Enjoy learning the gospel truths.

Martin Luther famously stated that the doctrine of justification is the "article upon which the church stands or falls" (in Latin, articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae).

On this idea of Luther, how many churches are standing?

Are you in one that STANDS?

===========

Reggie Lee
Ba da bing ba da boom! Perfect!

Justification comes by the imputation of Jesus’ Works to us.

Justification does not come by being forgiven of your sins.

If we were forgiven only, we still would not have good works. Good works must also be a part of our redemption.

At the cross, Jesus not only took our sin, He also imputed unto us, His Righteous Acts.

Every sabbath He kept, every Law He kept, every good deed He performed was placed on our account.

This act of imputation is what actually justified us in The Sight of God.

Sing F Lau
Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which He accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone."

In the revised answer above, I removed these words: "...he pardoneth all their sins..."

Is this a better answer to the question?

The perfect obedience of Christ in His life secured the required righteousness necessary for the justification of His people;

The full satisfaction of Christ in His death secured the full forgiveness of His people.

To accept and account a condemned sinner as righteous requires not only the application of Christ's perfect obedience but also His full satisfaction of the penalty of sins of His people.

"For the Father seeketh such to worship him.

On Nov 8, 2011, at 4:07 PM, SK inquired:

Dear brother,
A friend asked this: "What is spirit and what is the truth? Please tell me what it means to worship the Father in spirit and in the truth."

Can you please share your thoughts? I am sure you have some materials on the above.

I also noticed that in some places, the Spirit is capitalised. Is the one in capital letters solely used to refer to the Holy Spirit?

What is the difference between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the LORD?

Looking forward to some input from you.

Thank you.

======

Dear brother SK,

Good questions!

That well-known phrase is found in John 4:24, where the Lord Jesus Christ said to the Samaritan woman, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

The Lord Jesus spoke those words in response to the statement made by the Samaritan woman in verse 20: 'Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.'

The woman's statement betrays a serious error, which the statement by Jesus was intended to correct.

The Lord Jesus corrected her:
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

The Samaritan stated something true to a large extent in the Old Testament, and even right up to the time of Jesus Christ. So much of the worship under the Old Covenant is outward and external worship: performing the various ceremonial rituals and sacrifices under the laws given through Moses, and those ceremonies must be performed at the designated place, i.e. Jerusalem. Of course, the Samaritans (half-Jews of the northern kingdom) had their alternative centre of worship at Mt Gerizim, the mountain mentioned by the woman.

Compared with the Jews, the Samaritans were much worse off - which is why Christ said, "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." Though the Jews were worshipping correctly under the old covenant, their worship consisted mainly of the performance of external and outward ceremonial rituals. That must change.

With the coming of Jesus Christ, those outward and ceremonial manners of worship have been abolished. 'The hour cometh, and now is...' indicates the abolition of the old covenant way of worship.

Instead of the external and ceremonial, the new covenant worship is going to be in spirit and in truth.

'In spirit' contrasts with external rituals and ceremonies performed by hands; it comes from within the mind and heart, informed and moved by the Spirit of the Lord, with the inner man engaged in worship. It is the Holy Spirit indwelling in His children that enables them to worship the Lord in spirit.

'In truth' in contrast to performing those outward ceremonies and rituals without understanding what those were pointing to, even the promised Messiah. Much of the old covenant worship was performed in ignorance. It was devoid of truth; it was mostly outward motions. The book of Hebrews demonstrates the deficiencies. Not so in the new covenant; it is Christ-centred, for He is the truth. All worship of God is through Him and His finished work.

Whenever the word 'spirit' has an uppercase 'S', it is always a reference to the third person of the triune God. The word with lowercase 's' has a different meaning, depending on the context. It could refer to the spirit of man, in contrast to his body; or a disposition, like 'the spirit of fear.

'Spirit of the LORD' is always used specifically in the context of God dealing with His people as their covenant God... indicated by the uppercase' LORD.' 'Spirit of God' is used in a more general sense, as in Gen 1:2 in the context of creation. Both terms refer to the same divine Person, but each term has its own emphasis.

I hope the above helps. Please ask further if anything is not clear.

======

Please help with verse 35 of the following.
32* And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33* They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34* Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35* And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36* If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Can you please explain verse 35?

Thank you.

=======

I am SO SORRY. It just occurred to me that you did ask about something.

Jesus was addressing the Jews who boasted that they were children of Abraham... that they belong to the family of Abraham, and are members of his house. But yet, these same people are unbelieving in Jesus Christ, and that is sin. Instead of acting as true children of Abraham, they are behaving as servants of sin. As such, though they claim to be members of the house of Abraham, they shall not abide in the house forever; the time will come soon when they shall be sacked and removed from it. The house refers to the outward Jewish nation that descended from Abraham... those servants of sin shall be destroyed and the house they boast in will also perish, and it did in 70AD. But those in the Son will abide forever because Christ abides forever.

I hope the above helps.

My sincere apology for overlooking your question.

sing 

The effectual call ENABLES a man to answer the gospel call

3/4/11, 5:33 PM - Markus

Brother Sing, I hope you are improving and can soon return to your normal routines.  I am praying that the Lord will grant you a full recovery of health.  Many are praying.  We love and miss you greatly.

3/26/11, 2:32 PM – Markus
Who and what is Obert Badsham? 
Do you know him on FB?

sing
THANK YOU, and to all others, most kindly for the prayers.
I don't know who he is. He commented on Charles Page’s post.
He said he is an RB in Wyoming.

Markus
He befriended me.  Just trying to get a grasp on where he is coming from.  Please befriend him and help me out!  I need all the help I can get with reformers.

PB's I know.  Reformer's I do not know.  Feel at a loss with some of them.  Don't understand their foundation.

Markus
This did not sound good at all:  Obert Badsham said,
“The effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. (Westminster Confession, X. II)

 sing
Brother Markus, you are veteran enough to handle and deal with all sorts... Just speak and give them rope enough... and see what happens! He may be drawn to the truth... or he may hang himself high and dry. I pray for the former.
You are well acquainted with the only foundation that matters!

Markus
He seems close on some posts and far away on others.  I am not GeneDad.  His understanding of the Reformed is far deeper than mine from a lifetime of study.  I will try.  But I lack the tact and diplomacy of a real statesman.  It did not come through in the "gene pool".

3/26/11, 3:11 PM –  sing
I made a mistake... it was another man who said that he was a RB in Wyoming.

His quote from WCF 10:2 has a TYPICAL misunderstanding... basically this: the way they understand it is this: as though effectual call enables a man to answer to effectual call... therefore effectual call requires man to answer to it.

However, it is obvious that "he is thereby enabled to answer this call" has to refer to the gospel call.

Para 1 spells out what effectual call is: God's work of bringing a man out of his native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation... man being completely passive in that contributes NOTHING... in fact he was very actively in enmity against God when God effectually called him.

Para 2 spells out the fact of those effectually called who do have the GOSPEL CALL... and states the relationship between the effectual call and the gospel call, THAT IS... the effectual call ENABLES a man to answer the gospel call. That DOES NOT imply that every effectually called man will respond positively to the gospel call. The fact stated is ENABLING... nothing more.

Para 3 spells out those effectually called who do not have the gospel called... and this paragraph EMBRACES a far wider group than the Reformed folks would want to admit: they limit it to ONLY those who died in infancy and mentally challenged adults. But the phrase, "SO ALSO all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word" most certainly includes God's sentient children (effectually called to grace and salvation) in remote places... they are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.

However, the gospel regenerationists must reject and deny this simple fact.

Para 4 tells us that WITHOUT the effectual call of God... no amount of outward religion can save anyone, 'save' in the same sense the effectual calling saves.

Maybe I will go to his page and stir up a bit!
Always a troublemaker!

Markus
Stir him up, Brother; I will be there to help and learn!

He does seem closer than some.  But gospel regeneration seems to be the bane of so many.  It is good to be able to speak with you in this way.  I rejoice.

3/26/11, 3:44 PM – Markus
"Effectual call requires man to answer to it."  I would think this is the key issue with some.  Predestined or suffered?  Would you say this is a key issue with some reformed?  I would say it is with this fellow.

Markus
I see your post to Badsham.  Excellent questions!  Appreciate your help!

3/26/11, 4:14 PM –  sing
"effectual call requires man to answer to it" - that idea has already been completely repudiated in para 1.

A man in the state of sin and death is simply completely passive in his effectual call to grace and salvation.

The effectual call is already COMPLETED when he is enabled to answer... therefore that which he is enabled to answer cannot possibly be the effectual call.

Effectual call needs no man's answer to make it effectual!
It is gospel call needs man's answer/response to make it (i.e. the gospel call) effectual for the purpose it was ordained.

It is in the gospel call that the framers say "grace is offered and conveyed" - this is obviously different from the grace and salvation bestowed freely (in contrast to 'offered') in the effectual call!

But their addiction to and obsession with gospel regeneration blind them to this simple truth.

Markus
Very fine logic and doctrine.  The profound simplicity of Scripture.

3/26/11, 4:33 PM -  sing
Truth be told, Gene-dad taught me so much in asking questions... which was so useful for my own education, and learning from others, and ascertaining what others actually believe. I am so thankful for your fellowship.

Markus
I was raised on questions!  Daily diet.  He says: Socratic method of learning.  I say, "makes me dig, dig, dig for answers!"  You are my special Brother.  I rejoice that God blesses us to know each other and share in common Biblical faith.  Your fellowship is a special gift from the other side of the world.  No words.

3/26/11, 4:56 PM - Markus
I usually see the doctrinal points, but the logical points are often lost on me until they're stuck in my face and made obvious.  I just have next to no experience in oppositional points of view.  This is my weakness.

3/26/11, 8:55 PM -  sing
Thou art a thoroughbred... and that's your great blessing.
I was picked up from the dung hill... and the Lord blessed the PBs folks to detox me!

5/20/11, 12:47 AM - Markus
I added you to Bro. Dan's "Be Ready Always" group.  It is a very unusual group.  Some Philippine PB's, some Philippine PB's in Qatar, some charismatics and pentecostals, some rank arminians, some calvinistic reformed types.  Brother Dan seeks to reach out to these and form a fellowship group in Qatar and for those in the Philippines to send them toward PB churches and fellowships.  He expects us to be kind instead of harsh, to speak the truth in love, but to confront error with scripture.  If this is of interest to you, please lend a hand as you have time.  If not, the "leave group" door will free you from all connections to the group.  Love you, Brother!

4/6/12, 12:49 AM - Markus
Unlike most of my PB brethren, I have never believed the 'lake of fire' in Rev. is eternal hell.  If pushed to define it, I would think it is a symbol of what Jerusalem became at the time of its destruction.  I do not wish to discuss this openly on Facebook, but would not mind having a private discussion about it.

5/1/12, 10:00 AM -  sing
Hello Brother Markus!
It is Tuesday, 10 a.m. here in Penang.

I hope all are well with you and Annie-Mama.
I wish to inquire about a matter, and I thought you might be the best person to ask.

From my observation, it seems that Brother Trucker has been shunned by many among the regular PBs. What is the real reason? I would be pleased to hear from you.

Is it doctrinal, or some other personal issues among the PBs

Markus
Hi Brother Sing!  My main problem with Br. Trucker is that he continues to support, fellowship and evangelize with folks like L. Badley, Guesses, and Batfield.  Their doctrinal errors have been exposed time and again.  I would call it doctrinal, but I am sure there are those that would say my stand against them is strictly personal.

Last post I saw of Trucker's - he was in Asia somewhere passing out handouts by Piper.

 sing
Ya, I've noted that worrying trend too. He is drifting away from PB authors!
Quoting from them quite freely!
What common doctrinal errors do the Badley, Guesses and Batfield have?

Markus
It was disturbing to me to read that.  I would not throw out a person for not using PB authors, but it is troublesome, and that, coupled with his associates, is enough for me to leave him alone.

Badley teaches that time salvation is the equivalent of regeneration.  He makes no other distinction between eternal and time salvation anymore.  Guesses does the same.  Batfield believes that all the elect will hear the true gospel and is a decided Absoluter.

You experienced Batfield for yourself on Pound's list.  You most likely saw the exchanges between Guesses and myself on FGFGF.  I will leave it with you as to whether I am just against them personally or if I have a legitimate doctrinal complaint.

Guesses made the statement that 'your time salvation is just your eternal salvation here and now'.  I ain't swallowing that, and won't.
They are distinct.  Not equivalent.

 sing
Sorry, I was summoned by wifey to turn a lump of dough into spaghetti for her... expecting someone coming to talk DOCTRINE... so she feeds the stomach while I the mind.

Markus
Hope it is a good, productive visit.

 sing
Yes, I am acquainted, and remember all those things now that jolt my memory.

Markus
Many sound brethren simply will not use them or visit among them.  Some tolerate them.  Some of us confront them and try to show the errors.  I am in hopes that someday a written document will come out that speaks simply to doctrinal errors that all sound PB's will rally behind.

By the way, is there anything that I can do in regard to MatOng?  I doubt there is, but willing to help if I can.

 sing
I am raising this issue because of a practical matter. I was inquiring about KJ pew Bibles for a new work taking shape in Indonesia... and he offered used, good-condition KJ pew bibles. I have accepted them... I don't know if that's right or not. I don't want to give the impression that I approve his ways and errors.

Markus
I think it is fine to accept them.
Best labour they will have made in recent memory in my little opinion.
May the Lord bless your labour in Indonesia!

9/15/23, 12:55 PM - Markus
Your post, which begins with Romans 8, is an exceptionally good one!  It makes my heart rejoice. I hesitate to say more, but it is so good I feel I should. In a few places it would benefit from a bit of English language polish: Verb tense choices; subject verb agreement; word choices. These are difficult for me, and I have no doubt they would be difficult for those for whom English is not their native language. I have great respect for your careful study of English, and I admire how well you do with it, but this writing of yours is so excellent in logic, theology and Biblical truth that it should be as accurate in English as it is in your own language. I suggest this:  seek out the help of a mutual friend to review the writing and suggest grammar changes. Send it to Sister Julie Snyder and ask her to help polish the language. If it helps to know, Gene sought out her help several times and he was an English major in college. I’m convinced that this writing is as powerful as I have ever read on the subject you have addressed. I simply desire to see it have the most impact possible for those who read it in English. I remain, a little brother, Markus

9/15/23, 1:21 PM – sing
Dear Brother Markus,
I truly appreciate your kind words, and excellent suggestions. I will do so. Gene Dad has been a tower of strength to me when I was wrestling with the RBs...

GeneDad proofread the Pruning book.

Markus
I’m thankful for your insights and your ability to make them so plain and clear. The Lord bless your labours is my prayer.

Sister Snyder is a professional editor. She is as good a help as one could hope for among mortals dealing with English. 🙂

Sister Snyder and your Wifey - are very special people. When I first got to know the Primitive Baptists, soon after I received a gift from them - a massive Strong's Concordance and Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language. They have endeared themselves to my heart as precious Sisters - they knew what a little brother needed to be a student of God's word.

Markus
I’m of course quite biased in my opinions, but I find our PB  Sisters to be exceptionally kind and wise. And in Wifey’s case, exceptionally direct in communicating her feelings (right or wrong ). 😉

I find the directness refreshing so we communicate well. It may put others off, but it works well for us 

Do your job; tell the truth

"If two people come and say — one says it’s raining outside and the other says it’s dry, you don’t bring the quotes of both sides. You just G-- d--n open the window and look whether it’s raining or not... Do your job and tell the truth."  ~~ N. Bennett

Well said, well said. Someone is shown to be an idiot!

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

If two preachers come to you:
— one says his gospel preaching is necessary for the REGENERATION of the hearers who are dead in trespasses and sins and
— the other says his gospel preaching is needed for the CONVERSION of those whom God Himself has already regenerated,

You don’t quote as though both are truthful; this makes you look like an idiot! You open the Scriptures and rightly divide the word of truth.

It is ONE or the OTHER; it cannot be both. There is no such fable as the ordinary way of regeneration through the preaching of the gospel, and the exceptional way of regeneration without the preaching of the gospel!

I'd like to tell you why, and let these words of Christ Himself sink down into your ears.

John 3:8 - KJT
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

"So is every one that is born of the Spirit" - this is not difficult English or complicated concept, is it?

1Cor 14:38
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A wilfully ignorant man cannot be helped; leave him in his wilful ignorance.

But you, "do your job and tell the truth."

An opportunist's scheming lie backfired spectacularly

Proverbs 6:2
Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth.

An opportunist's scheming lie backfired spectacularly.

1Samuel 31
14 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
15 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
16 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.

2Samuel 1
6 And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.
7 And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I.
8 And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.
9 He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.
10 So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

The opportunistic Amalekite thought David would be impressed by his deed (which is just a blatant lie) and reward him handsomely.

 2Samuel 1
13 And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence art thou? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite.
14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD'S anointed?
15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD'S anointed.

May the same fate fall upon all such opportunistic beasts, especially the opportunistic, self-serving politicians.