Head on collision: failure to distinguish between
regeneration without means
and conversion through gospel means
===== The exchanges end abruptly here...
Things New and Old
Ancient truths revealed in the Scriptures are often forgotten, disbelieved or distorted, and therefore lost in the passage of time. Such ancient truths when rediscovered and relearned are 'new' additions to the treasury of ancient truths.
Christ showed many new things to the disciples, things prophesied by the prophets of old but hijacked and perverted by the elders and their traditions, but which Christ reclaimed and returned to His people.
Many things taught by the Apostles of Christ have been perverted or substituted over the centuries. Such fundamental doctrines like salvation by grace and justification have been hijacked and perverted and repudiated by sincere Christians. These doctrines need to be reclaimed and restored to God's people.
There are things both new and old here. "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things" 2Ti 2:7.
Christ showed many new things to the disciples, things prophesied by the prophets of old but hijacked and perverted by the elders and their traditions, but which Christ reclaimed and returned to His people.
Many things taught by the Apostles of Christ have been perverted or substituted over the centuries. Such fundamental doctrines like salvation by grace and justification have been hijacked and perverted and repudiated by sincere Christians. These doctrines need to be reclaimed and restored to God's people.
There are things both new and old here. "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things" 2Ti 2:7.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Conversion, Regeneration, and Justification
Head on collision: failure to distinguish between
regeneration without means
and conversion through gospel means
===== The exchanges end abruptly here...
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Who are the 'sons of God' in Gen 6?
What do you see - an old woman or a young lady?
Who are the 'sons of God' in Gen 6:2"
Some say they are godly Sethites.
Others say they are fallen angels
who trespassed into the habitation of man,
with its consequent devastating corruption, and destruction.
6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when MEN - MEN - MEN began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the SONS OF GOD - SONS OF GOD - SONS OF GOD saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
===========
Cullig posted his thought, and the following exchanges took place. Put on your thinking cap and enjoy yourself.
Cullig
My understanding of the implications of Genesis 6 is that the Sons of God went a whoring after women that had different facial and bodily features which they found attractive. Either that or all the Sons of God women were just plain ugly. Then God said, I will destroy the world in 120 years!
Welch
"Sons of God" is the elect. "Daughters of Men" is the reprobate. The church intermarried with the lost. This is the OT counterpart to 2 Cor 6.14, of course, IMHO.
Cart
I've seen 100 different interpretations of that verse. What does McAtee say about it?
Welch
Analogy of Faith, brother, analogy of faith.
Moes
Then there's the rather remarkable theory that the "sons of God" were angels (cf. Job 1:6)— in this case, fallen angels — who married human women and produced a super-race (Nephalim). According to this theory, these supermen (half angel, half human) were disembodied in the flood, and that the disembodied spirits are the demons often mentioned in Scripture and which seek to possess human bodies even today. (Also possibly identified as the gods of the Greek and Roman pantheon). This theory posits that this is why the demons expelled by Jesus from a possessed man insisted on their need to inhabit other creatures, and were sent into pigs. Not saying I buy this theory, but it's a curious notion, for sure.
Welch
"Curious" to say the least, Garry.
Isaacson
A small correction to @Garry: when the demons were disembodied at the flood, they were imprisoned. These are the ones Christ confronted in 1Pe 3:19-20. The purpose of the demons intermarrying with humans was to prevent the Christ, as promised in Gen 3:15, from entering the world and bringing salvation. If demonic blood had bred through the entire race of man, Christ would have had to die for sinners and demons. This was why God had to destroy the world with a flood.
Ward
Steven, you have the correct and only scriptural understanding of this passage. Unfortunately this is also a reoccurring theme throughout the bible. we see it in esau, in the prophet balaam, samson, solomon, ahab, and on to the nicolaitans in the revelation. the daughters of people with a pagan world view are the "easy to get" girls
Welch
I am sorry, but the entire "theory" is ridiculous, has no scriptural connection nor support. Neither demons nor angels have "sex" or gender. Further neither angels nor demons are corporeal. They might accidentally appear corporeally, but they are spirits. Spirits do not reproduce by natural generation. There is no such thing as "demon blood" unless you are referring to the blood that courses though all fallen human veins as "demonic" since the Fall scarred or marred every aspect of our being. Hence we already had "demonic" blood, so to speak. There is so much of the gospel to talk about, and believers waste their time in dunder-headed eisegesis, when they cannot even apply simple hermeneutic principles like the analogy of faith. The Bible is narrative. It's symbolism is consistent. It's message is consistent, and we never interpret simple passages in light of hard ones. It is always the other way around. We also do not interpret didactic passages in light of historical ones. It is, again, ALWAYS, the other way around. That Scripture is difficult to interpret in a few instances, I do not protest, but to argue over nonsense that has not the smallest iota of application to the gospel of God is bad stewardship of a precious resource. Moreover, God has decreed the eternal damnation of demons in eternity past. These theorists honestly believe that demons, I mean, demons, really could frustrate the plan and purpose of the Almighty? Yes, it's as irrational as saying that a human could do it too, I know, and I guess many say that all the time.
Moes
Dean: not sure that's actually a "correction." Nothing in scripture indicates exactly what form the "imprisonment" took or where they were "imprisoned." The "imprisonment" could have been any form of restriction on their activities imposed by God. There are, of course, a number of plausible interpretations of I Peter 3:19-20. R.C. Sproul cites four briefly in his notes on 3:19 in the Reformation Study Bible. The third one says "...that Christ proclaimed His victory to fallen angels,often identified with the 'sons of God' of Gen. 6:2,4 (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1), in their place of confinement."
Welch
If I might hearken back to my Baptist roots: AMEN, Lindsey. Worldly women are easy, and being a man, I know just how easy it is for "sons" to stray to them. You are also correct that it is a recurring theme. It is on almost every page. God is most concerned about adultery of all kinds, especially when it is part of religious practice. The recurring theme in the Seven Churches in Revelation is sexual immorality in the context of worship of pagan gods - hence breaking the First and Second Great Commandments or Table 1 and Table 2 of the Law. It is betrayal of the highest order. Why even the Golden Calf was a fertility idol!
Sing F Lau
Friends, you would agree that the universal flood must be a judgment against something VERY and REALLY serious.
Do you seriously believe that mixed-marriage is the cause that brought forth such severe and universal judgment upon the human from the Lord of heaven?
Is it not possible that we are just reading a MUCH MUCH later issue back into Genesis 6? When was it first divinely legislated that mix-marriage was wrong?
If mixed marriage was such the great evil that called forth that universal judgment, then it would have been very reasonable to expect at least a CLEAR and UNMISTAKABLE warning and prohibition against mixed marriage.
Jude said, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
What is Jude speaking of? Think a bit please.
Just asking, and wanting to learn.
Isaacson
@Garry - Fallen angels are not yet imprisoned. The Bible tells us that Hell was created for Satan and his angels. This is at the end of time - they are still at work on the earth. The angels in prison, whom Jesus testified that He had come to save man, were those who left their estate and co-mingled with men.
@Steven - of course, it is impossible for demons to frustrate God's plan. But they try. Lucifer tried - and that is how he fell. Mankind tries to rebuild the Tower of Babel in every generation and even David noted in Psalm 2 that the nations rage against God. God's plan cannot be frustrated no matter who attempts to rise up against Him.
Keep your sanitary theory. You don't have to believe like me about this to be saved. I believe the story of the Nephilim is in the Bible for a reason and I believe Peter took note that Christ announced His victory to the demons that tried to thwart God's plan for a reason. And I try to keep my Scriptural understanding Biblical - not sanitary.
Sing F Lau
What are these two verses saying?
2Pet 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;... See More
Why are the angels spoken of in verse 4 connected with the destruction of the old world spoken of in the next verse?
And how is 2Pet 2:3 related with Jude 6?
I would be pleased to hear some sober thoughts. Thanks.
Welch
Sing, please define what you mean by "mixed" marriage. Let me clarify that I am not making any statement whatsoever about race; I am, on the other hand, certainly saying that God has always forbidden his children from marrying pagans - period. The only recurring theme in Genesis 6.1-8 is intermarriage of the just with the unjust - and the consequences thereof: "...every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time" (v. 5). There is the "cause" of the Flood: the pervasive wickedness of humanity, both male and female. Time and time again the prophets and the apostles tell God's people not to intermarry with reprobates, and the injunction is to men and women. The elect children of God must never intermarry with the lost because over and over again, the results of such intermarriage is the temporal, if only temporary, triumph of paganism. The scripture is especially harsh on elect men who marry pagan women and father children to them, who then are raised by the pagan women to worship pagan gods because fathers and husbands are notorious abdicators all the way back to Adam. Again, I repeat. The only way to interpret the Bible is from the Bible, and the only way to interpret a hard passage is in light of the easy ones. There is no "reading back into anything." The Bible is an organic whole and must be read as such. Again, it is the analogy of faith.
Isaacson
@Steven - you sound like you have been to Bible school or seminary. Not that these are necessarily bad. But I would challenge you to dig into the Scripture without your preconceived theories. We all want the Bible to be explainable, sanitary and acceptable. Faith tells us we have to believe what God said and what He wrote regardless how far fetched and unacceptable it sounds.
@Sing - you raise good questions. I rest my case upon them.
Isaacson
Also would like to say, not all things can be fully explained. We do not know why God has designed or allowed history as it is - we only know He has designed it all for His glory and that glory will be revealed in the end.
Sing F Lau
Steven @ "Further neither angels nor demons are corporeal. They might accidentally appear corporeally, but they are spirits."
====
Read Gen 19, the angels that visited Lot, and dined with his family, and of whom the men of Sodom lusted after. Those angel did become REAL men. Lot saw them as men, and treated them as men.
It is true, the first and native estate of the angels, whether elect or fallen, is in the spirit realm. But there were angels who kept not their first estate, but left their OWN habitation. They transgressed and trespassed into a habitation not their own... that of the human habitation... and that happened in Gen 6.
And concerning those angels, Jude spoke thus, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." This does not applies to all the fallen angels... but only those that were involved in Gen 6.
I am ready and genuinely opened for a better interpretation, if there is one.
Welch
Dean, there is absolutely nothing sanitary about the Bible. There is also nothing sanitary about an interpretation that does not rely on hard to interpret passages and rests solely on a "purpose" component that is fabricated in the theorists mind and imposed upon the text in the first place. Every word of scripture is the subject of verbal and plenary inspiration. I did not say that Peter referred to the flood without purpose. I simply am reading the text plainly and by analogy to other didactic scripture and not in light of another more difficult historical passage. Both Peter and Jude's points were primarily ethical and soteriological and had far more to do with the Triumph of Christ on the Cross, a theme that is repeated over and over again in scripture in less controversial passages. There is undoubtedly spiritual warfare going on in the world, and I do not protest the existence and activity of Satan and his cohorts, but admonitions in reference to their activity are at their core, ethical, as is the lion's share of scripture. The pivotal passage in Peter's epistles is "Be Holy as I am Holy." His entire message was an ethical one. I thank God, nonetheless, that you are right about none of these passages, nor their interpretation, being necessary for salvation, even if your "sanitary" pot shot was offensive.
Sing F Lau
Steven T. Welch @ Sing, please define what you mean by "mixed" marriage.
======
In context, what else but the godly marry the ungodly??????
Isaacson
@Steven - Sorry if you thought sanitary was a pot shot. But it is what you appear to be doing, which is consistent with a reliance upon formal educational theories and preset filters when interpreting Scripture.
Sing F Lau
Think about this:
When the angelic beings took on humanity and became 'sons of God' in Gen 6, they brought destruction.
A damning counterfeit brought a universal corruption and condemnation!
When the eternal Word took on humanity, the only begotten 'Son of God' brought redemption of His people.
If God had not intervened, Satan would have triumphed.
Moes
Angels and demons aside, Steven's commentary about the evils of marriage between believers and unbelievers is critically important and should be heeded without exception. I would extend that to "dating" as well, since "dating" involves relationship and is designed to lead to marriage. And even if marriage is not being contemplated by the "daters," the temptations that usually accompany dating too easily put unequally yoked companions into a forbidden place.
Sing F Lau
The common and popular 'mixed-marriage' view fails to grapple with a simple fact: can mixed-marriage possibly produced such universal corruption stated in Gen 6?
Look around now - NOT even ALL the marriages among ALL the ungodly heathens down through ALL the ages has produced any effect close to that described in Gen 6.
Hello, BIG problem needs a REAL and credible explanation! Mix-marriage was not a problem then! It is just imagined and read into the text. The Bible plainly say something else, not mixed marriage between the godly and the ungodly.
(Don't make the same error that Obama made - he thinks USA's humongous deficit is caused by China's yuan!)
Sing F Lau
Gary @'the evils of marriage between believers and unbelievers is critically important and should be heeded without exception."
=========
Three hearty amens.
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?
good nite.
Welch
@Dean: Standing on the shoulders of over 2000 years of interpretation by others far more godly and far more knowledgeable about these things than I is not sanitary nor the consequence of a pre-set filter. It is a healthy appreciation for my own shortcomings. Thanks for adding insult to injury. Again, I will repeat: the analogy of faith is all that is required in the context.
@Sing: I am rather confused about where you get your definition of "sons of God." Are you able to point to any other place in scripture where "sons of God" carries the meaning you ascribe to it in this passage? I think not. "Sons of God" consistently and throughout scripture refers to God's people, whoever makes up that class. Nowhere does it refer to fallen angels or any other class of beings. Furthermore, there is no NT authority for an analogy between supposed fallen angels and Christ's work of redemption in the connection that you are proposing. Christ was not the second fallen angel. He was, however, the Second Adam, the first having been the one who brought destruction upon humanity.
Gentlemen, if we are to continue this discussion, it must be off Kerry's post. G'day, mates.
Isaacson
@Sing - true. In fact, Paul addresses mixed marriage in 1Co 7. He tells the believing spouse not to leave the unbelieving spouse if they do not want to part. If it was such a terrible sin, why did not Paul tell them to get out of that marriage as soon as possible?
@Garry - It is important for believers not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. However, failing that, as Sing said, it does not produce such universal corruption as stated in Gen 6.
Thus, it is not likely that God destroyed the world by flood because the "believers" were marrying "unbelievers." It had to be something greater than that - something unsanitary and hard to accept. But it may also be hard to accept that God designed all this for a reason. It was God who designed the fall of Lucifer; it was God who designed the creation of man; it was God who designed that His Son, Christ, would die for man and that He designed this before the creation of the world. But this we know, God will triumph - even if the whole world disbelieves - and He alone will be glorified in the end!!! Amen.
Isaacson
@Steven - this view you hold is not 2000 years old. It is more recent than that. It is obvious Peter and Jude held to the belief that fallen angels had corrupted the world and early church father attest to this view. You stand on the shoulders of a weak doctrine that relies upon sanitizing the Scripture to be acceptable. Sorry - this is not meant to belittle.
Ward
sing,mixed marriage between sons of God and daughters of men does cause the break down of societal order. Back in the pre flood time there was no established civil order like we see after the flood.the pre flood world was destroyed because of the thoughts of man's heart was continually on evil. you can see the break down of the family because of this in the lives of esau, and samson.
first the son of God is seduced by the daughter of men his personal morality and holiness is undermined.
second parental authority and dignity is forgotten.
third the children have their affections torn between one parent or the other leading to a descent into skepticism,and relativism
fourth after a few generations of this society is not worth attempting to save it.
fifth This is why god after the flood gave the death penalty,as well as the means to carry it out it would now by done by men's hands.
sixth the implementation of state governments after the tower incident
Ward
dean are you asserting that fallen angels had physical contact with men and women and that of a sexual nature ,and that offspring were the result?
Miller
Steven's interpretation of Genesis 6 has always resonated with me. To proscribe interracial marriage from this passage seems like a stretch.
That said, is God's declaration that the creation bring forth after its own kind a statement of fact or a moral imperative? Is our Maker claiming His proper glory for the institution of family generally, or is He dictating the precise makeup of the families we are to cultivate with His image? The hubris that precipitated the building of Babel, during a time in which all the world was "one," would seem to champion the perpetuation of our separate physical and tribal traits as the more conservative tack.
Scriptural debates aside, the night-and-day differences in cultural output and civilization between northerners and equatorials should be enough to dissuade the former from miscegenating with the latter. We benefit not only our children, but the broader community by seeking to improve the intelligence and temperament of its members.
SeppiF
Whenever the people of God choose marriage based on appearance over godliness there is judgment. It happens in Genesis and when the Children of Israel were going into Canaan. Throughout Israel's history people came into the covenant and became Jews, even into the line of Christ. "Foreign women" were outside the covenant and would lead their husbands after foreign gods. ~Regina
Cullig
I liked this in addition Regina:
"Genesis makes it clear that in marriage the wife is to be the helpmate of the husband, to "mirror" him. So when we have Paul in 2 Corinthians 6 speaks of not being unequally yoked, this not only absolutely precludes a Believer from marrying an Unbeliever is also goes deeper than that. Being unequally yoked would also preclude the vast majority of marriages that involve unequal ages (17 year old to a 90 year old), unequal languages or cultures (a Russian peasant women to an English Prince), unequal races/ethnic groups (African to Chinese), or major differences in worldviews (high Anglican to Pentecostal) as any of these differences would prevent the two fully becoming one, preventing them from being helpmates, and cause great strife and thus defeat the purpose of marriage.
Ever since God divided Mankind into Nationalities in Genesis 11, He has wanted mankind remain within the Ethnic boundaries He has created (Acts 17:26).
In Genesis 24 Abraham sent for a wife for Isaac from among his blood kin even though she was not a Believer.
In Deuteronomy 23 the offspring of those Israelites who intermarried with foreigners were forbidden to partake in the national life of Israel.
In Ezra 10 God commands the Israel to divorce their foreign wives and sent them and their children by them away, quite serious considering how God hates divorce.
Additionally in Tobit 3:12-13 (a book of the Apocrypha, less authoritative but still important) it calls not marrying within your own People hatred of them.
""Be on your guard, son, against every form of immorality, and above all, marry a woman of the lineage of your forefathers. Do not marry a stranger who is not of your father's tribe, because we are sons of the prophets. My boy, keep in mind Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers from of old: all of them took wives from among their own kinsmen and were blessed in their children. Remember that their posterity shall inherit the land.
Therefore, my son, love your kinsmen. Do not be so proudhearted toward your kinsmen, the sons and daughters of your people, as to refuse to take a wife for yourself from among them. For in such arrogance there is ruin and great disorder."~ Nathaniel Strickland
Cullig
"So it would appear that the covenantal Sethites ultimately disobeyed God Who had separated the godless Cainites from them -- so that the Sethites could serve the Lord.31 The Sethites disobeyed and displeased God by terminating their separation, by allowing themselves to be seduced by the good looks of the godless Cainite women -- by biologically integrating with them in acts of sexual intercourse between the two breeds of men. The result of such activity, was a morally degenerate and hybrid breed of men who filled the Earth with violence, until God exterminated then in the death sentence of the Great Noachic Flood."~ Rev. Prof. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf
Sing F Lau
Ward@sing,mixed marriage between sons of God and daughters of men does cause the break down of societal order.
=====
The six effects you mentioned are true... but if you equate them to what you read in Gen 6, you fail to appreciate the MAGNITUDE of the issue in Gen 6. You read this? "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." And you think the mixed-marriage is adequate to explain what happened?
If it was just godly men marrying heathen women that was involved, why hadn't the marriage between heathen men and heathen women produced that long before that?
And don't forget this simple declaration: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."
I would think the mixed marriage would actually have some POSITIVE retraining effect.
And why take 'sons of God' in such a way that (i.e. as godly men of the godly line) and then laid upon their shoulder some ungodly evil (if mixed-marriage was an evil then) that brought untold destruction upon the whole earth? Why accept such massive contradiction and inconsistencies in order to keep some tradition?.
No one seems to be dealing honestly those Scriptures already mentioned. Please tell, what did Jude refer to in these words, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
Thanks
Ward
jude, is telling us that gods judgement on sin is universal over all his creation both heaven and earth. I hope you do not think that i minimized the impact recorded in Genesis 6
besides every thing produces after its own kind and angels or devils do not reproduce sexually or other wise.
see the first verse of Genesis 6 men were multiplying on the earth lots of both men and women. women of ill repute are easier to have than godly women . they are dificult to hold as hosea found out
as for 1 cor the marriage bed is not an evangelistic tool,but the pattern is true of all scripture those who bless gods people will be blessed themselves
Sing F Lau
Ward, may be I can assist you in telling us what Jude 6 says.
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
Please answer these questions for me... deal with Scriptures please. Don't just read private opinions into God's word. These are simple enough questions.
What is the first estate of the angels mentioned?
When did those angels that kept not their first estate left their own habitation?
What happened when they left their own habitation? Where did their go having left their own habitation?
Where, in the Scriptures, is this departure from their first estate recorded, if is it indeed recorded at all?
Where did Jude get his information about those angels that kept not their first estate but left their own habitation?
Were all fallen angels involved in departure?
Were all fallen angels reserved by God in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day?
Simple questions demand plain answers.
Now, please tell us what Jude 6 says. And tell us what 2Pet 2:4.
Please deal with Scriptures. Personal opinions are irrelevant. Thanks.
Sing F Lau
Ward @ 'besides every thing produces after its own kind and angels or devils do not reproduce sexually or other wise'
=====
That is ONLY true when each keep to their first estate, the estate of God's appointment. It is no longer true when a c...reated entity leave its own habitation, against their divinely appointed habitation, and trespassed into another.
Read Jude 6 again without glasses. Why were those angels reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day'?
Sing F Lau
Gen 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,"
=====
This is a general description of the human race multiplying themselves, in faithful obedience to the divine command ...to be fruitful and multiply. Sons and daughters were born to them read the constant refrain of 'and begat sons and daughters' throughout Gen 5.
The noun 'men' most certainly embraced all men, i.e. of both the so called godly line and the ungodly line. It would be very silly to take Gen 6:1 as saying that only the WICKED were multiplying on the surface of the earth, and they produced only daugthers, and the godly sethites men lusted after those heathen women.
The noun 'sons of God' is most certainly used in distinction from 'men'. There is clear biblical precedent in early revelation that the term 'sons of God' referrs to angelic being.
'And daughters were born to them' - 'them' refers back to 'men', BOTH men of the sethite line and non-sethite line. Daughters were born to both lines.
Only 'daughters' are mentioned. This is NOT because SONS were not born to them. This is because ONLY daughters are relevant to what follows.
Daughters of the sethites and of the heathens were all involved with the 'sons of God'.
The issue involved in Gen 6 involved something FAR SERIOUS than mixed-marriage! Read it and let the passage says what it says.
Sing F Lau
Ward@ 'as for 1 cor the marriage bed is not an evangelistic tool,but the pattern is true of all scripture those who bless gods people will be blessed themselves'
======
Who say anything about 1Cor being an evangelistic tool? You have gone off... the subject.
1Cor 7:14 debunks the common idea that mixed-marriage is what caused the situation in Gen 6. That's the point.
Pointing out 1Cor 7:14 is NOT the same as approving mixed-marriage. Heaven forbids! But to explain Gen 6 and say mixed marriage brought about that exceedingly evil situation is just glaringly inadequate - have ZIL biblical support.
Ward
sing@you have not understood my answers.your hypothesis denies the creator/creature distinction.You assume that beings can change themselves ontologically when you claim that angels can become sexual creatures , and then you suggest that they can reproduce with mankind which is a totally different type of being.this is as absurd is thinking that a man can impregnate a tree.
When did those angels that kept not their first estate left their own habitation?
bible does not say when this happened,but most believe it was some time prior to the temptation in the garden for we know that the devil had rebelled.however it is slightly possible that the temptation of eve was his first act of rebellion and that all the fallen angels rebelled shortly there after.the bible does not say when it just says it did.
What happened when they left their own habitation? Where did their go having left their own habitation?
it is obvious that some are here on earth but they are not physical so this is not really answerable with out an anthropomorphism
Where, in the Scriptures, is this departure from their first estate recorded, if is it indeed recorded at all? jude 6?
Where did Jude get his information about those angels that kept not their first estate but left their own habitation?
all scripture is given by inspiration of God
Were all fallen angels involved in departure? all fallen angels departed.
whether this happened all at once or one by one it does not say.the assumption is that it was a massive rebellion.
Were all fallen angels reserved by God in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day?
yes they are,God knows exactly where they all are and they are all condemned and they know there is an appointed time .they may even know when this time is as the legion in the gadreiean demoniac said to Jesus have you come to torment us before the time.that raises lots of questions
Simple questions demand plain answers. the questions you are asking are hardly simple,but they are answerable
Now, please tell us what Jude 6 says. And tell us what 2Pet 2:4.
you know what it says the question is what does it mean is different for the answer you need to consider the context vs 6 is not a stand alone verse in this respect as in context it is dealing with the judgement of God on unbelief and sexual immorality and the two are very closely related see the context in which the statement is made.look at the word lewdness etc
Jud 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
Jud 1:4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God [fn] and our Lord Jesus Christ.
grace is perverted and changed to lewdness denying God
Jud 1:5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
unbelief brings damnation
Jud 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
angels not exempt from the demands of faith and faithfulness
Jud 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
the destruction of Sodom an example of the wrath to come
Jud 1:8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.
Jud 1:11 Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah
Please deal with Scriptures. Personal opinions are irrelevant. Thanks
not going to exegete the whole thing for you it is pretty self explanatory. it is a severe warning about severe consequences that those who rebel against god will suffer
Ward as for 1cor 7 I don't think you have a good understanding of what it is like to be in one of these relationships and the instability that is inherent there in .the children growing up like this are always forced to choose sides it messes them up
Isaacson
@Sing - true arguments. Steven (above) warned against using Scripture to prove a point rather than arriving at the true meaning. But these people have used Gen 6 to support their stand against interracial marriage and are not willing to let it go.
When comparing Scripture with Scripture, it is clear in Gen 6 a great evil had occurred which penetrated deep into the spiritual and God had to purge this evil to make way for His promised salvation.
Keep the faith, Sing.
Isaacson
@Lindsey - your argument re 1Co 7: we should abandon all disfunctional marriages using your premise.
Ward
dean, I may have been taken off guard by this I thought i was dealing with some one who believed that angels could copulate with humans
Isaacson
@Lindsey - in the normal realm, or estate, angels cannot copulate with human. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage is what Christ told us. However, the Bible is clear that something happened in Gen 6 that is beyond our understanding.
Ward
no dean my premise as well as the bibles premise is that disfunctional marraiges are not to be entered into
Ward
no dean genesis 6 is pretty streight forward and easy to read.angels cannot of their own volition change their own nature,a leapord cannot change its spots and a tree cant become a fish.and a man cant be born again by an act of his own will either
Sing F Lau
Ward, I asked about Jude 6, "Where, in the Scriptures, is this departure from their first estate recorded, if is it indeed recorded at all?"
You answered, jude 6? You probably meant Gen 6, but are too ashamed to just admit it!
Sing F Lau
Ward@ your hypothesis denies the creator/creature distinction.You assume that beings can change themselves ontologically when you claim that angels can become sexual creatures.
===========
Read your Bible some, please. And let it say to what it does say.
Read Gen 19, the angels that visited Lot, and dined with his family, and of whom the men of Sodom lusted after.... Those holy angel did become REAL men, though temporally. Lot saw them as men, and treated them as men.
That incidence and many others proves beyond any shadow of doubt that angelic beings can take on humanity. There is no point denying such reality. And what happened in Gen 6 was no difference only that the sons of God, fallen angelic beings, transgressed their habitation by trespassing into the human estate!
I didn't assume anything... it is there in Gen 6.
Ward
it was not really meant to be funny but to point out the Jude is part of the revelation God has given us concerning Himself,and that the mention of the devil or fallen angels is only used in scripture to reveal something about the nature and character of God and in this case it reveales that God in his holiness will not tolerate sin any where or from any one.
Jude wanted to talk about the good things we have in christ that accompany our salvation,but the Spirit prompted him to warn us of the dangers of allowing false teaching in the church in this particular case those who are practicing lewdness and calling it grace.
if you want you can draw a common parallel with the modern homosexual movement that is happening in the church today. Jude's warning is certainly applicable to them now
Sing F Lau
Ward, I inquired: When did those angels that kept not their first estate left their own habitation?
You answered: bible does not say when this happened, but most believe it was some time prior to the temptation in the garden for we know that the devil had rebelled. however it is slightly possible that the temptation of eve was his first act of rebellion and that all the fallen angels rebelled shortly there after.the bible does not say when it just says it did.
===============
If Jude 6 is speaking of that the rebellion among the angels,
THEN it follows that ALL - ALL - ALL the angels involved in that rebellion would now be where Jude 6 says - " reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." If that be the case, there would be no fallen angelic being doing their evil deeds, there would be no temptation in the garden of Eden. An interpretation that leads to such conclusion can't possibly be right!
Jude 6 declares that all those angels involved in leaving their own habitation were " reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
Let the text says what it says. And pay careful attention to what it actually says.
Ward
you do assume that the term sons of God in genesis 6 are fallen angels.it is a fallacy to make the leap that while angels can appear as men,and even enjoy our hospitality that fallen angels can have sex,and procreate with women. the whole of genesis 18,and 19 may not just be what is called an angelophany,but might be a theophay.In heaven when john bowing down at the feet of the angel he was rebuked for it. that is not what happened in genesis
there is no need for you to exhort me to read my bible you might want to avoid any hint of an ad hominem argument.
Ward
again you are reading into the text more than is there.let me ask you how do you bind a spirit with a chain.that is like saying you can handcuff water.it is a fallacy to think that this is a literal chain. I will refer you to the revelation where satan is bound for 1000 years if you read the text he is bound from deceiving the nations.Jesus has now bound the strong man and is now plundering his goods.
I think it is you who should pay a little closer attention to the text,and not pull it out of context.
now answer me what does it mean that everything produces after its own kind?
Sing F Lau
Ward@you do assume that the term sons of God in genesis 6 are fallen angels.
=======
No assumption. Here's the text:
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
There were the men of the human race in general. They were marrying, and sons and daughters were born to them.
Then the focus were upon the daughters of men.
There were the 'sons of God' ALSO join in in this procreating process. They took the daughters of men... and the consequent complete corruption of human race.
Men and sons of God are used is CLEAR distinction to each other.
You would distinguish them as heathen men, and godly Sethites.
I would distinguish them as humans, and fallen angels that have taken up human forms
Sing F Lau
Ward@"now answer me what does it mean that everything produces after its own kind?"
====
Precisely sir... if Gen 6 was just mixed marriage between godly Sethites and the heathens women, the union WOULD NOT BE ABLE to produce the MONSTERS we see recorded in Gen 6. Even the union of the heathens with heathen did not produce anything near what is stated.
4 ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
I suggest that, in context, they were giants and men of renown for their perversity, evil and wickedness.
Go figure out. I seriously doubt you have even began to appreciate the enormity of the problem STATED in so many words in Gen 6.
I will now hold my breath. Thanks for the exchanges.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Cut down the barren fig tree!
Huge fig tree - see any fruit?Luke 13 "
6 ¶ He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.
======
Sing F Lau
Does Christ seek fruit from those who are not His?
Does he expect fruit from those dead in trespasses and sins?
Just asking!
He most certainly seek fruit from His people.
And it seems there are among His people who bear no fruit, and suffer just consequences.
Rich
Pruning live branches often results in a greater fruit.
Deadwood bears no fruit.
Abuliot
The unregenerate are duty bound only to the law of works and the duties commanded to them from that law. ie. love God and your neighbor as yourself.
No God did not expect the flesh to do good (as it is carnal and sold under sin)... but, he does command the them to do what they ought.
All of God's children bear fruit in differing degrees. There is no such thing as a regenerate child of God that has become utterly estranged from fruit bearing.
Rich
Abu, How much 'fruit' must you observe to believe that God is sovereign in his choices?
Sing F Lau
Abu, is the parable dealing with fig trees or people? If people, what kind of people? What kind of fruit is Jesus expecting from what kind of people?
In the parable, is there a real possibility that the fig tree remain barren? What does it mean to be cut down in the parable?
If the fig tree in the parable is cut down, has it become totally estranged from fruit bearing?
What do you mean by 'become totally estranged from fruit bearing? Did Lot become become totally estranged from fruit bearing? Did they that made a shipwreck of their faith become totally estranged from fruit bearing?
I am just inquiring to understand your position better.
Abuliot
@Abu, How much 'fruit' must you observe to believe that God is sovereign in his choices?
>>I'm not sure I understand the question? I don't believe you have to bear fruit to believe that god is sovereign in choices. One can be an unregenerate heathen and believe that God is sovereign in choices.
Rich
Believeth is a spiritual state of being. Man is put into this spiritual state by the power of Christ, plus nothing. What a child of God believes is foften determined by books vs. Bible.
Eternity doesn't begin by man's determinate will to start believing something, nor is man obligated to bearing fruit as a condition of eternal relationship with God.
Fellowship & relationship are distinctly different.
Conversion & regeneration are distinctly different.
A daily dosage of seminary books so often confuses the hearts and minds of the simple.
Thanks
Abuliot
It's dealing with the entire national people of Israel (not regenerate children). Jesus is seeking or looking for fruit among them... specifically the fruit of owning him as the true messiah and destroying their idolatrous traditions of men (taught in the nation). These were in their power to perform in the outward sense... and upon their rejection of him, and their increasing practices of idolatry... destruction came upon them.
Read Peter's account of Lot. His soul was righteous (though vexed)... That is experiential righteousness, not merely imputed righteousness. The account of his entire life is lacking. One can only assume to know the degree of fruit he bore.
I understand shipwreck to be referring to a shipwreck of the profession of faith which is common among false converts. God is the author and finisher of true faith and what He began he will finish. I'm not a freewill-sovereignty of man-synergist when it comes to the believers growth in grace. Such a doctrine destroys all my confidence and hope in my present walk and puts me under the legal conditionalism of the law again. "Do this and you be blessed, don't do this and I'll destroy you, cast you into a hell on earth, curse you with a timely destruction.. etc." That's all legal religion and it has nothing to do with the covenant of grace.
Abuliot
I don't read seminary books Richard. Nor, am I seminary trained. Much of the authors I read are rejected and mocked by the modern puritan and reformed movements. If it's wrong to read from the thoughts of other men, then how is it right for me to ever read your thoughts. Certainly, there is a place fro reading books and being edified by gifted ministers. My convictions are based on the authority of scripture. I've rejected many paragraphs from some of my favorite authors when the differ from scripture. I'm not a seminary student. thanks
Abuliot
"A daily dosage of seminary books so often confuses the hearts and minds of the simple."
But, A daily dosage of reading Richard and Sing is ever so healthy for the hearts and minds of the simple. Right? That's what I'm getting here.
I love you guys, but I disagree with the conditional (freewill-sovereignty of man) time-salvation view.
Rich
Abraham, I enjoy reading your posts!
Why do you identify yourself with 'REFORM' theologies?
Must your parentage be derived from Rome?
I'm not opposed to automotive repairs.
I wonder why anyone would hope to fix (reform) the Roman church.
Although you don't quote the Pope, you often quote men descended from Romish reforms.
Jude 3,4 is an appropriate model for our true and spiritual worship.
Thanks
Abuliot
Why do you identify yourself with 'REFORM' theologies?
I don't.
Abuliot
If your trying to be funny and slick, it comes across as ignorance. You know I don't follow Rome.
Rich
Abraham, I rest. I tell you what I believe and we exercise choices in this time world. Peter's counsel to save yourselves from this untoward generation is one such time salvation. He was addressing those already heaven bound.
Rich
No, I'm not joking. Reform is repair work intended to bring the the mother harlot into peace with God. Leave it, my friend!
Rich
Timely salvations are biblical. Believers are not robots!
Choices are made in this time world, for better or for worse.
Sing F Lau
Abu, there is a salvation which is of the Lord, and Him alone. In this salvation, which is wholly and completely and solely by the free and sovereign grace of God, each and every elect are absolutely EQUALLY SAVED in absolutely every aspect. Get it?
There is ALSO a salvation which is CONDITIONED upon your working out for yourself as God's children. In this salvation, which is conditioned upon the obedient response of God's children to the grace of God working in them, each attains his own salvation to a vastly different degree... like Lot and Abraham, and like Paul and those who make shipwreck of their faith. Get the point?
Both are taught, and PLAINLY taught in the Holy Scriptures. If you can't accept that basic premise, then no further profitable exchanges is possible... we are reading different Bible, or reading the same but perceiving it VERY differently!
Abuliot
I'm not following reformers. Brine, Gill, Hakwer, Huntington and others were accused of being Hyper Calvinist by the reformed strict Calvinists like Fuller. Primitives descended out of the Particular Baptists. Everyone has their roots. Your arguments go right back at yourself.
Abuliot
Sing I understand your view... as it leaves Sovereignty out of the picture when it comes to the believers growth in grace. Paul was who he was, and did what he did because of Sovereign grace.... not because of sovereign Paul.
Rich
Perseverance by man vs. Preservation by God
Sing F Lau
Abu@ "I understand shipwreck to be referring to a shipwreck of the profession of faith which is common among false converts."
=====
Such interpretation is making apostle Paul warning Timothy AGAINST something which CAN NEVER happen to Timothy, a spiritual son of Paul. Or Paul might be concerned about the possibility that Timothy might be a false convert, and needed such a warning! Pick your choice!
What a waste of words, and Paul's hypocritical concern for Timothy, his spiritual son!
Why exhort and warn Timothy of something that can happen only to false converts?
Many preachers and their followers may be that STEW-PIG and ILLOGICAL, not so with Apostle Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ!
Abuliot
@Perseverance by man vs. Preservation by God
>>preservation by God in an experiential life of hope in Christ vs. preservation by God in a life of utter backsliding shame from the hope of Christ. Let's keep things clear here.
Abuliot
A brother once wrote (and I agree), "Either God is sovereign over all things or there is no God. Either ALL who trust Christ will persevere or NONE will."
Have a good day gentleman.
Sing F Lau
Abu, you are so capable of misrepresenting.
You said, "Paul was who he was, and did what he did because of Sovereign grace.... not because of sovereign Paul."
You have not only misrepresented Paul, you have also misrepresented me.
A man who responds to God's grace working in him is NOT sovereign. (Your twisted logic led you to conclude that he is!) He is NEVERTHELESS accountable.
His responses to God's grace working in him determines the degrees and extents of his sanctification.
The human responsibility in sanctification explain why there is such a vast difference between Abe and many Arminians!
It is MOST CERTAINLY NOT God's sovereignty that left many of His children as misguided Arminians. It is their disobedience and unbelief to the word of God.
Each is commanded to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Sing F Lau
1Co 15:10 "But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."
God's grace that was bestowed upon Paul was NOT IN VAIN.
Why? He responded obediently to the grace working in him... thus he - he - he laboured more abundantly than the rest.
Yet, it was God's grace working in him.
The same grace works in every child of God... each turn out vastly different in their discipleship... because each responds to the SAME grace working in them in different measure.
It seems to me that you have jettisoned the human responsibility in sanctification, the only proper place for human responsibility.
Divine sovereign deals with our eternal salvation.
Human responsibility is restricted to the context of timely salvation. And God holds each of His children responsible for their won salvation that they must work out for themselves with fear and trembling.
And don't attribute to God's sovereignty when some one mess up his life, like Lot!
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the things of God.
Even as a hen gathereth her chickens
Did the puppy prevent the hen from gathering her chicks to herself?“O Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, how often would I have gathered thy children together, EVEN AS a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” (Mt. 23:37)."
=====
Sing F Lau
The hen had laid and hatched her eggs, and brought forth her chicks.
The chicks are prior to the hen's act of gathering.
Hen gathers her chicks but Christ is prevented from gathering His people? But prevented in what sense? If Christ be as the other hen, who are his chicks?
The children of Jerusalem referred to by Christ ARE His people, even as chicks are the hen's, those that have been regenerated and given eternal life. They are His, He has effectually called them unto eternal life. No one can hinder the effectual calling of an elect unto eternal life. But many of God's children are hindered, by all sorts of obstacles, from being gathered into the NT church, professing Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
BUT they are prevented from coming to Him outwardly ONLY, i.e. professing Him as their Lord and Saviour publicly.
The religious leaders threatened them with all sorts of things from openly professing Christ. And it was a weighty matter to those children of God to be expelled and ostracized from their Jewish community. It was a burden many cannot bear.
Joh 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue."
The elitist calvinists will WRITE OFF such children of God as unregenerated cowards! They proclaim that there can be no such among God's children.
In every generation, many of God's children are not converted through the gospel ministry for a host of reasons!
=====
Abe Jul
He says, "thy children..." not "my children." This is a commentary from an old strict/particular baptist manual of faith...
So, conversion is conditioned on freewill and the sovereignty of man now. This presents God as a frustrated beggar that cannot accomplish His own works of grace. This is what the Pelagians teach. It is synergism divorced from sovereign grace.
Joh 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue."
Read the last 2 verses of John 2. Not all "believers" were true converts and regenerate children.
I can't find your view among the old school baptists. Only the conditional time-salvation Primitives. Even this view is not among all Primitives. But, its easy to spot out when one denies God's absolute sovereignty over all things and starts teaching a freewill and synergism time-salvation.
John Foreman
http://againstdutyfaith.blogspot.com/search/label/BK40%20-%20Matthew%2023%3A37
John Gill
http://againstdutyfaith.blogspot.com/2010/05/matthew-2337-john-gill.html
Sing F Lau
Abe, be careful NOT to impute to me thing I have not said. I suggest that you refrain. I do rejected your "So..." It may be your sincere conclusion, but that is not my belief.
Joh 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue."
The passage say "among the chief rulers also MANY believed on Christ." I take for granted that as many as believed on Jesus Christ DID SO because of the eternal life wrought in them.
Were the chief rulers' public profession of Christ hindered because of the fear of men? Yes, or no?
Was God's sovereignty frustrated here at all? It most certainly was IF - IF - IF divine sovereignty INDEED guarantees and ensures that each and every one of His children (sentient ones only, it sounds stupid to even qualify, as though the gospel ministry is intended for the non-sentient among God's children) is converted, make public profession of faith through the gospel ministry!
Is it to deny God's sovereignty to note the PLAIN FACT recorded here in John 12:42 - that some who believe in Jesus Christ DID NOT make public profession of faith in Christ, i.e. they were not converted?
Does God's sovereignty guarantee the conversion of every regenerated elect? Yes, or no?
Also, does God's sovereignty guarantee that each regenerate elect become a reformed calvinist too? Are believers of Jesus Christ among the Arminians God's children then? Or did God's sovereignty fail among such? And what about believers like me, who are neither reformed nor arminians?
I remind you that the divine sovereignty is a double-edged sword. Be careful with it - it cuts both ways. Wield it with great care!
Just what exactly do you want to make divine sovereignty to guarantee?
John 2:24-25 DO NOT say that Jesus did not commit himself to them BECAUSE "Not all believers were true converts and regenerate children." That is what you say! You assume that are the reasons!
Abe Jul
Brother Sing, many of your questions and statements are irrelevant to the scripture and have no place in discerning doctrine from error.
Sing F Lau
That's a neat way of answering questions that expose the irrationality and inconsistencies of one's interpretation.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Great Commission or Grand Delusion
A common myth explodedSomeone posted a note that Billy Graham Evangelistic Association is fulfilling the Great Commission that Christ gave to the Apostles in Mt 28 and Mk 16, and the following exchanges took place.
It is common for many to claim that their ministry is based on the great commission given to them by Jesus Christ, even though the Scriptures is plain that the ministry of the NT pastors teachers is based upon the plain commands the apostles had given to the church - 1Tim 3, Tit 1.
=====
Hart
Decisional regeneration is unbiblical.
Jacobs
Preach it Richard!!!
Crabb
So Stephen, Peter, and Paul never preached the Gospel ? We give people the opportunity to chose. Those that are truly Regenerate Repent, those that reject the Gospel stand Guilty before God. But we present it as though it was a Choice. Repent and be Saved is Still a Valid Message ? I know that just say the magic words and sit around on the pews saying, we be saved, we be waiting on the rapture bus is Ridiculous !
Hart
Preaching of the gospel has NEVER resulted in spiritual regeneration of a sinner.
Crabb
So, We don't preach the Gospel anymore???
[That's a very foolish and imbecile conclusion! -- sing]
Hart
Preaching the gospel doesn't save anyone eternally.
Hart
Repentance isn't a 'step' toward the new birth; repentance can only occur after the new birth.
What we make of the Bible doesn't have anything to do with the new birth.
GOSPEL REGENERATION and DECISIONAL REGENERATION are Satan's lies - always trying to diminish the effectual work of Jesus in an effort to exalt man's free will.
Smith
The Gospel is the POWER of God for everyone who "Believes"![Rom 1:16] So We Must preach it and it does save! However, Just because we preach it doesn't mean WE are saved. Yes we must choose, but Jesus Christ is the Author and Perfecter of our "FAITH". Regeneration is simply God choosing us FIRST. Without HIM choosing us first, we would still be lost in our sins, namely pride. Sorry to disagree with you Richard, but I stand alone on the Bible. Our friend Billy has a lot MESSED UP theology, but I do have to say he has preached the Gospel in the past and his son, Franklin, is preaching it now. I disagree with "Decisional Regeneration" so don't misunderstand me. We are not Born again "BY" faith, but Born Again "TO" faith. Faith is the result of the New Birth.
As Heb 11:1 puts it: 11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,THE EVIDENCE of things not seen.
So faith is the "evidence" of an unseen work of GOD in our heart at point BEFORE we received Christ.
Back to the Gospel, it is what God "chose" to use as a tool being preached TO SAVE those who believe. 1 Cor 1:21-22.
Not everyone who "hears" the Gospel gets or is saved, That is where the "limited" atonement comes in. Only those whom God has "predestined" will be saved. But predestination is NOT the Gospel. He didn't tell us to out into all the world and preach "predestination" did He? No he said, Preach the Gospel and Make disciples. The disciplining happens in Church and that's where they here "Predestination". Then if they reject that doctrine of Truth, they reveal their "false" conversion. They went out from us, because they were NEVER of us says John.
Hart
Kelly, your question about the purpose of gospel preaching is given to us, his children ..... Luke 2:77-79 "To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."
1) to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
2) the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
3) to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
4) to guide our feet into the way of peace
Jesus Christ, our LORD remitted those sins for all his people.
Sitting in darkness (ignorance)
Shadow of death - not death itself, only in the shadow of it
Mark Smith @ "So we must preach it, and it does save!"
Saved from what, Mr. Smith? Believeth is a spiritual state of being which we do NOT put ourselves into - it's the capacity instilled by the Spirit. What we believe is not what saves us. Jesus is the only saving agent - Eternal Salvation
So again, Saved from what?
We need to be saved as Peter advised. We can save ourselves from this untoward generation of false prophets and false teachers!! - Time Salvation
Smith
How can they hear of Jesus with out a preacher, Richard? Yes, The work of Christ Jesus on the cross satisfying The Father's wrath and Holy Spirit raising Him from the dead on the third day is the Gospel. The saving agent, i.e. the POWER OF GOD unto salvation. GOD is the gospel as Piper would say. Saved from The Father's WRATH, Richard. Saved from sin and it's consequences. I don't know you Richard, but I'm just guessing your a KJV only. Sometimes you can be so "Reformed" that your a hindrance to the Spirit, i.e. quenching the Spirit. I pray you don't end up like the "circumcision" group Paul was talking about in Galatians and in Romans. Do I have to know Greek to be saved? Do I have to know Old English to be saved? Do I have to know Hebrew to be saved? Do I have to know Aramaic to be saved? Do I have to know everything there is to know to be saved? NO, I need to know Christ to be saved! John 17:3-4
3 And this is eternal life, that they may KNOW You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
How do we come to KNOW God? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. It doesn't say Faith comes by hearing the KJV only. Are there some words left out of the NKJV? Yes, I agree, there some "important" words left out. But it is not enough to send anyone to Hell, Richard. How much did the thief on the cross beside Christ have to know to be saved, Richard?
Jacobs
Preaching of the Gospel of Christ is commanded. Still, decisional regeneration IS unbiblical. Salvation is MONERGISTIC not SYNERGISTIC.
Smith
Believeth is a spiritual state of being which we do NOT put ourselves into - it's the capacity instilled by the Spirit.
Where do you get this from scripture, Richard?
I agree, faith is a gift of God, but faith is what we do. WE can only do it when God sovereignty takes out a "heart" of stone and gives a "heart" of flesh according to the Spirit in Ezekiel. It says nothing of the will. Now I'm guessing your going to use:John 1:12-13 "But as many as "RECIEVED" Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: Which were "BORN", not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
KJV
The word "RECIEVED" here is in the "active" voice.
How did they "receive" Him? Answer-He gave them POWER.
How did He give them POWER? Answer- Ezekiel tells us God changed the "heart". The problem is NOT the will of man. The problem is the "heart".[Jer 17:9, Luke 6:45]
When we were slaves to sin, are wills(the act of choosing) always choose sin, because our heart was evil. But in God's amazing grace, He changed our heart(i. e. the new birth) and made it pure. The word "BORN" here is in the "passive " voice. That is God's work of changing the heart. With the new heart we now have the ability to choose righteousness by obeying His word. We are not robots. We even have the ability to still choose sin. If the Spirit was "literally" controlling all my decisions, I would never sin. However, when I yield or surrender to the Spirit I am then 'Spirit controlled'. Do not misunderstand what I am saying Richard. I am on your side. I am thankful you are making a stand against "decisional regeneration", but don't get legalistic on us. God will reveal who the sons of God "really" are. But I hope we aren't trying to strain out a nat, only to swallow a camel.
Crabb
Even Jonah preached,"Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown," and at that simple message the people repented in sackcloth and ashes. The goodness of God leads us to repentance and Jonah's simple sermon is living proof of this. But equally true is the fact that God still told Him to go and preach. God still uses His servants to Preach the Gospel, the hearing and receiving and regeneration was predestined before time. God still uses means to accomplish His will being carried out.
Hart
Mark, I get BELIEVETH from the inspired and preserved Bible.
Corrupt perversions change the grammar and wrest the focus to the action of the verb.
Mark, the King James Translation has been preserved for God's English speaking people. I speak and read English. Chinese, Russians, Spanish, etc. need NOT learn English to be eternally saved - Neither the Bible nor the gospel saves anyone for heaven. Christ alone saves eternally!!!
"The Bible does not teach that belief in Christ is what saves us from hell: but rather, belief tells that we ARE saved from hell. Paul tells us that the gospel brings eternal life to light. It reveals what is already there, and it enlightens us to believe all the more." - David Montgomery
Crabb
Richard are you going to answer my last comment about Jonah and Nineveh ?
Crabb
Some people read the Bible only to proof text what they already believe, when the Bible was written to be read as a narrative. In a narrative you don't get to pick and chose the parts that you accept, it is a whole and continuous story.
Sing F Lau
Kelly, if only you can distinguish between regeneration which is wholly by the work of God and without any instrumentality, and conversion which is by the instrumentality of the gospel ministry, you would save yourself from much confusion and serious error.
Preaching is VERY IMPORTANT, but it is very important ONLY for the purpose it was divinely ordained. The purpose of the gospel ministry is for the conversion of God's children.
The elect dead in trespasses and sins need to be regenerated, and this by the free and sovereign work of God alone, through His Spirit and for Christ's sake alone. No instrumentality is involved at all. Regeneration is the direct and immediate work of God in quickening the dead... it is a new creation. No human activity is involved... ZILCH, NIL.
Those regenerated, by direct and immediate act of God, need to be CONVERTED. God's children, born by the direct and immediate act of God, need to be brought to know the truth of their ETERNAL salvation by the free and sovereign grace of God. Those believing shall be saved from their errors, and falsehood and ignorance... they shall save themselves from this perverse and wicked generation. The gospel truth shall set them free from lies and falsehood.
But so many PRESUMPTUOUS preachers claim that their preaching activity is ordained of God as an instrumental for the REGENERATION of those dead in trespasses and sins. They are like silly midwives who insist that they ALSO instrumental in the conception of the new lives which they were privileged to deliver! I haven't met any such deluded and self-conceited midwives... but I have met HORDES of such preachers - those who call themselves Reformed Calvinists, and other whom they consider 'deformed'.
Sing F Lau
Brother Kelly, please tell me... in all these activities of God, does preaching play any role?
" 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... See More: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
Does the gospel ministry play any role in the predestination.... to the glorification of the elect? If so, where and how?
Crabb
Now this I can digest. The Ethiopian Eunuch was chosen, and Philip was the means that God ordained ?
Sing F Lau
Brother Kelly, I don't know what you intend to make of the Nineveh's story. What actually happened in Nineveh? Was there any gospel preached? What is that gospel?
Jonah preached, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." There was no gospel at all... that was CONDITIONAL threat of destruction upon Nineveh. And how did their repentance save them?
Were all the Ninevites saved with eternal life? Were they saved from their eternal condemnation because they believe the threatened judgment upon their city and repented?
The fact that you appealed to Jonah and Nineveh and likened it to gospel ministry and repentance reveals serious misunderstanding!
There is a gulf between the two that cannot be bridged! But you managed to bridge them!
Smith
So I was already saved before I believed? That is NOT what the Bible says: John 3:18 He that believeth ON Him is NOT condemned: but he that believeth NOT is condemned ALREADY, because he hath NOT believed in the name of the ONLY begotten Son of God.
KJV - JESUS CHRIST
Sing F Lau
Mark, see if I can help you understand a bit.
The Scriptures REPEAT many times, 'whoever believes HAS eternal life.' "Whoever believes has eternal life' is a statement of fact. It is not a statement of offer, i.e. making an offer to the dead in trespasses and sins, that if they believe, they shall have eternal life.
'Whoever believes has eternal life' is making a declaration of fact.... that the one believing DOES SO because he ALREADY possesses eternal life. And this is plain and simple, and COMMON SENSE - without eternal life, without being born again with eternal life, it is impossible for one to believe. Believing is an activity of the eternal life that has been bestowed by God at effectual calling out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation.
THEREFORE, you must be SAVED by God first before you can ever believe. The salvation with which you have been saved by God is eternal salvation - saving you from the ETERNAL condemnation of your sins.
The finished work of Jesus Christ alone SAVES you with eternal salvation.
Your believing ALSO save you, BUT BUT BUT it does not saves you the way God saved you. Your believing does not save you from the eternal condemnation of your sins and bring eternal redemption to you. Your acts of believing does save you from falsehood, lies and errors, and brings you into the light of the knowledge of God.
There is a salvation which is wholly and solely by the FREE FREE FREE grace of God, i.e. COMPLETELY independent of any merit or aid or cooperation of men.... and that is eternal salvation.
There is a salvation that you, as a child of God, HAVE to work out for yourself with fear and trembling... beginning with repenting and believing in Jesus Christ, and all the way through your whole life until your last breath... and that is timely salvation, i.e. salvation that relates to this present life here n earth!
The former is wholly and solely monergistic.
The latter is synergistic, God's children responding to the grace working in them. They must work with fear and trembling... if they don't they messed up their life like Lot and Samson did.
Smith
Sorry, Sing, I was directing my last comment or 'rhetorical' question to Richard Hart. I failed to mention that in my last comment, but I agree with you Sing which is what I was trying to explain to Richard. =)
Sing F Lau
Mark, don't just quote Scriptures. At least explain them also.
The ETERNAL SALVATION by the free and sovereign acts of God that enables a man to believe and the salvation that is conditioned upon the faith of God's children are TWO very different and distinct salvations.
You need to learn to rightly divide the word of truth.
The life that is given you by your parents, and the life that you will enjoy by your obedience to your parents are two different and distinct lives.
Make sense to you?
Smith
The last time I checked Sing, God's Sovereign act of regeneration is not salvation. It is only a GRACE given as a "part" of the whole of salvation. How are we justified, Sing? Can I be justified without faith? Can I be saved without being justified? You guys need to chill, come off your HYPER-Calvinism. Come on man! Go out and try to win some souls!
That's what Jesus DID!
[O Smithy, being regenerated and given eternal life is not salvation? Being delivered from death and bron a child of God is not ETERNAL salvation?]
Smith
By Grace though faith! Does this explain anything to you?
Crabb
Sing God still uses means to accomplish His will. J. I. Packers book, "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Both are true at the same time. God's Sovereignty is true, being Commanded to Evangelize is true too. We Evangelize because we know that if they are chosen, lost sheep, they will believe. They don't have a choice. I do not believe that we have a free will when it comes to Salvation.
Crabb
How beautiful are the feet of those sent to preach the Gospel. To deny this essential part of the Gospel is sheer Rebellion against Jesus' "Great Commission." Please do not tell me that you are going to explain this away. YES I BELIEVE ROMANS 9 AND EPHESIANS 1.
Sing F Lau
"By Grace though faith! Does this explain anything to you?"
I did say, when you quote Scriptures, you can do better by given your explanation... to see whether you have rightly divided the word of truth?
What does 'by grace through faith' mean?
By whose grace and through WHOSE faith?
How is that faith related to the salvation by grace?
If it is through your faith, then is it still by grace?
Take a look at a short article here:
http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2008/01/saved-by-grace-through-faith-whose.html
Sing F Lau
"By Grace though faith! Does this explain anything to you?"
The Reformed Calvinists insist that their act of believing is the instrument to APPROPRIATE the eternal salvation which God has freely purposed and accomplished in Jesus Christ
The Bible insist that it is the faith OF - OF - OF Jesus Christ through which we are saved by God's grace with eternal salvation.
Bible insists that believing is the instrument to EVIDENCE and MAKE MANIFEST the eternal salvation that God has freely purposed, accomplished, and APPLIED to an elect personally.
There is an unbridgeable gulf between the two.
Sing F Lau
'Great Commission' - Crabb, there is great confusion here...
======
I wrote this to an inquirer last week:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Verse 18: Jesus spoke to THEM... the apostles. The APOSTLES were commissioned.
Verse 19-20a: The scope of the commission
- TEACH all nations... i.e. TEACH God's children in all nations... not helping God make His children through their preaching!
- TEACHING enables them to identify the children of God, those who believe give evidence that they are God's children... such ONLY who give evidence of eternal life should be baptized.
- TEACHING them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded them, THE APOSTLES.
Verse 20b: Christ's promise of His presence with them through signs and miracles... as stated in Mark 16:17-18.
- 'I am with you alway', the pronoun 'you' are specifically the apostles, NOT anyone else!
- 'even to the end of the world', the end of the Jewish WORLD... in 70 AD.
- By then the commission was COMPLETED by the apostles.
The commission was clearly given to the apostles... TOGETHER with the UNIQUE promises mentioned in Mk 16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
THESE SIGNS SHALL follow them (addressed to the apostles) that believe (the commission Christ delivered to them)... making the signs part and parcel with the commission. It was a great commission because it was accompanied with those great promises of signs.
The great commission to the apostles and the unique promises to them are PART AND PARCEL of that commission. They cannot be separated. Whoever wants to claim that the commission to the apostle is still in force, then let them show the signs that Christ promised SHALL accompany that commission! What Christ has put together, let not man put them asunder.
Sounds a little blasphemous to hint of 'the unfinished work of Christ' - in whatever sense meant! Christ declared loudly from the cross, "It is finished." Whatever work Christ was commissioned by the Father to do, He finished and completed it! "I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
It is not less blasphemous to even hint of the apostles not completing the commission given to them! Christ Himself confirmed that the Apostles finished and completed the commission. Christ sent for the Roman army to raze Jerusalem because the gospel has been preached to 'ALL NATIONS' - 'all nations' in His definition, both in the commission in Mt 28:19, and His warning in Mt 24:14, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." It was for a WITNESS unto all the Jews that were scattered in all the nations! It is NOT the 'all nations' idea of most preachers.
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT - first, second and last rule of rightly dividing the word of truth.
'Great Commission' - Crabb, there great confusion, and delusion here...
Peruse these short article here:
http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2008/01/great-commission-given-to-whom.html
http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2008/02/preached-in-all-world-for-witness.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
