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.

Monday, March 5, 2012

A host of heresies... embraced by a group of people

A host of heresies... embraced by a group of sincere people
- There is no regeneration in the OT, i.e before the resurrection of Christ
- Jesus was personally sinful...
- Jesus was also dead in trespasses and sins
- Jesus needed to be regenerated ALSO like you do
- Regeneration is the same as receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit
- There is salvation without regeneration
- Before Christ's death, there is crediting of righteousness... i.e. there is justification but no regeneration for OT saints...
- But since Jesus' death, there is no need of crediting righteousness... i.e. no justification in the NT.
- And on and on.

If you think such are impossible, read on and discover for yourself!

The discussion here continues from http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/02/some-fables-indeed-on-regeneration-and.html

Sing F Lau
  [Pastor teacher at Sungai Dua Church, Penang]
Heb 11:13 "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."

Ed's question: "what was the promise that the OT saints died in faith waiting for?"
Ed's assertion: that promise was their regeneration in Jesus Christ.

He believes there was no regeneration in the OT, but those OT saints died in faith, not having received the promise of regeneration.

Join in... but stick to the subject. You too, Ed.
February 2 at 10:50am

Ed Elliott  [President at Word of Life World Outreach ]
Sing, maybe you should reread what I have written. I have covered this a number of times already with you. Jesus was the first born from the dead. Paul says that the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead also makes us alive. If OT saints were born again b/4 Jesus was raised from the dead than Jesus wasn't the first.

Jesus tells us that Abraham was in Paradise the place he told the thief He would take him. Peter tells us that Jesus preached to those spirits being held. Paradise is where OT saints were being held until the resurrection. When the promise of the spirit was available to them. Again I suggest you read Gal 3 where Paul talks about what Abraham believed and saw afar off in relation to his seed. You will notice Paul called it the promise of the spirit. This means by faith man is made righteous, saved, has God living in them etc. The permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit was not found in OT saints. The prophet, priest and king were anointed "spirit upon" them for work and service of God. This wasn't regeneration, like Sampson the anointing to do feats. Balams donkey was anointed to talk does this mean it was regenerated? No it doesn't.

OT saints were led by signs, burning bush, clouds, fire etc. NT believers are led by Gods spirit and we walk by faith not by sight aka our senses.

NT saints are warned to not live under the law b/c it will nullify Gods grace but many OT saints did live under the law. I could list many more reasons but as I said, they are already listed in the link I provided.

[A fatal flaw: Jesus' resurrection from the dead is equated as the regeneration... therefore because jesus is the first born, there can be no one regenerated before him! What confusion!]

Mattong
From what I can read from your past post, you seem to use the OT to try to disprove the obvious written in NT like:
--------------------------------------
Personally I believe NT scripture has more information shown than OT.
--------------------------------------
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, *as Isaac was*, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was *born after the Spirit*, even so it is now.
--------------------
1) as Isaac was : OT saint.
2) born after the Spirit : NT written text to cast clear light on Isaac.
---------------------
If you hold that NT is greater revelation than OT, than the other posting you have written is self-opposing logic that state all OT saints are not born again, because Gal 4:28-29 shows otherwise. BTW, balaam donkey is not a saint, just a beast.

Phillip JB
Ed stuck to the subject but someone is following another doctrine.
[Ed sure has zealous followers, urging him to be stuck in his errors!]

Sing F Lau
Ed, which do you believe? Kindly answer.
Do you believe that the OT saints were NOT REGENERATED, or Do you believe that the OT saints were regenerated but were not regenerated the same way NT saints are?

Simple to answer. Thanks
I will be away for few hours.

Ed Elliott
Matt, I mean no disrespect at all but if you had read through the link I provided you see I already addressed the Isac and Ishmael question.
Your other assumptions about what I believe are off based as well. The NT is the light the OT is the shadow, we should shine the light of the NT into the shadow of the old to get a proper understanding. That is what I did when explaining that OT saints were not regenerated as NT saints are today. Jesus was the first born from among the dead. If OT saints had the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead than Jesus would not have been the first born from among the dead. Something to think about.

Ed Elliott
Sing, I have already answered that question in many ways to you already. I am beginning to suspect that you are not reading my posts.

Terisa
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/re-the-new-covenant-and-the-holy-spirit-in-the-old-testament << wil definitely clear this all up. This is a little piece of the article 9) But now, if I understand you correctly, you think that the array of exemplary saints in Hebrews 11, with no regenerative work of God in their heart, by some natural human power overcame their enmity toward God and took such great delight in his promises that they sacrificed even their lives to remain faithful.

If this is possible, I ask again: who needs regeneration? If a man can have forgiveness of sins (Psalm 32), obedience of faith (Hebrews 11), intimate fellowship with God (Psalm 23), joy (Psalm 43:4; 51:8, 12) and peace (Psalm 119:165; 4:7, 8) before the Spirit of God ever comes to him, then his coming has lost all its significance and the idea of “regeneration” is reduced to I know not what.
My question would be how could David do the things that Paul says is impossible unless you are regenerated by the Holy Spirit?

Psa 119:127 Therefore I love your commandments above gold, above fine gold.
Psa 119:159 Consider how I love your precepts! Give me life according to your steadfast love.
Psa 119:163 I hate and abhor falsehood, but I love your law.

Did Old Testament saints have the Holy Spirit? If so, what was the significance of Pentecost?<​/p>

Ed Elliott
Terisa, I posted a link earlier where I pretty much covered those issues you have. If you read through all my comments you will get a better understanding of what I believe and why.

Philip NJD
‎@Ed When the Bible refers to Jesus being the firstborn from the dead reference Revelation 1:5 where he is the first begotten from the dead. This means he is the first of his kind from the dead, raised to never die again. Lazarus was raised but he had to die again.

2. If you say that God had one way of saving OT saints and another way of saving NT saints you deny John 3:8 - The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Notice "so is every one that is born of the Spirit". We are all born again the same way, by the work of the Spirit of God.

3. Cornelius was born again before Peter preached to him. His praying was evidence that God had already dealt with him in his heart.

Acts 18:10 - God tells Paul "for I have much people in this city" before Paul preaches to them. How can God have much people in this city b4 the gospel is preached? Because it is not the gospel that gives man eternal life. God had much people because of electing grace.

4. Acts 13:48 - and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. You say that the Apostles were saved because they believed. This text states exactly the opposite. Belief is not the cause of salvation but the evidence of it. Belief does not cause something to be true. Also, rational people believe based on evidence. If there is no faith in a man he has no evidence in his heart to tell him this is so.

1 Cor 14:24, 25 - the unlearned that comes and hears the message has the "secrets of his heart made manifest". Notice some thing is inside him already when he hears and responds.

5. If you want to continue down the road to gospel regeneration, that no one is saved unless they hear and believe the gospel then you must eliminate the un-evangelized, and the mentally handicapped, and all infants. Are you willing to put all these groups in hell to support that doctrine? Or is there some other way of salvation for them also? If so then refer back to John 3:8 - so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Mattong ‎
@Ed: Your understanding of death seems to be very different from others shown here. That is why I am asking. How do you define first death and also second death?

Sing F Lau
Ed - 'Sing, I have already answered that question in many ways to you already. I am beginning to suspect that you are not reading my posts.'

Every point you raised has been debunked and you suspect I haven't read your posts?

I asked the question because your first statement ""I wrote a lot on why I do not believe OT saints were not regenerated in the same way NT saints are" equivocal.

Do you believe that the OT saints were NOT REGENERATED, or Do you believe that the OT saints were regenerated but were not regenerated the same way NT saints are?

If you are not willing to answer this question, I suggest you hold your peace.

Ed Elliott
Sing, I have asked you a number of times to cease with the insults and childish insults. Every time we have a discussion you are insulting and demeaning. I am sorry but this type of behavior goes against what scripture teaches in how one does correct another. I have already asked you a number of previous times to act in a civil tone and to stop with the childish insults. You have not rebuked anything I have written. You disagree but that isn't a debunk. You also ignore the many questions I have asked you over and over again. I have answered your questions many times and I have been polite while doing it, sadly you either don't read my answers or are rude in your replies and just ignore my questions. If you are regenerate trying showing some fruit to prove it.

Ed Elliott
Matt, please explain how my understanding of spiritual death is different from yours? What did I write that would lead you to believe such a thing. Please try quoting something I wrote so I can see what you are talking about.

Sing F Lau
Ed, the only question you asked incessantly and which I didn't bother to answer, is what is promise in Heb 11:13. But that passage speaks of 'promises'.

I am on the subject that there is NO REGENERATION in the OT. You hold to that fable.

I take it that you are very rude for refusing to affirm or deny when asked to ascertain what you exactly believe... to make sure I have understood you correctly. BUT you cause a big fuss by refusing to answer simple questions! That's very rude to me.

Ed Elliott
Phillip,
1. Lazarus wasn't regenerated when he was raised from the dead, he was just brought back to physical life. You might want to read Rom 8:11 where Paul says that the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead also quickens our mortal bodies. If the OT saints had the same spirit in them as you and Sing believe than Jesus wouldn't have been the "first born" from among the dead. Isn't regeneration being born again and wasn't Jesus born again after he died? Paul says so and identifies that experience as regeneration in Titus 3.
[Jesus' resurrection from the dead is EQUATED as regeneration from the dead... and Ed is a master in Israel!]

2. It would really help if you would go and read what I wrote on Sings other link I posted. I really didn't want to come here and have to retype a few days worth of answers that I had already dealt with. I actually covered this but in brief, Abraham has in Paradise according to Jesus this was not heaven, this is where Jesus told the thief on the cross he would take him. Peter talks about Jesus going to a place to preach to the captives this place I believe was paradise. Those OT saints were saved but still not regenerated b/c they couldn't have been b/c the cross had not happened yet. In Heb 11:13 it says the OT saints died in faith not having received the promise. In Gal 3 Paul tells us what that promise was and it is the indwelling presence of Gods spirit and being made righteous, etc.
[Ed is convinced that the promised referred to is regeneration!]

3.Coenelius was not born again b/c as Paul writes in Rom 10 how can they be save unless the hear the gospel. Cornelius had not yet heard the gospel. That is why Peter came to preach to them and you will notice than the Holy Spirit fell on them all. If Cornelius was already saved why then did the Holy Spirit fall, if in fact He was already there b/c Peter arrived.
[Ed is ignorance of the fact that only those born again can believe... John 3:35.]

4. If you have evidence already why than do you need to "believe"? Faith believes what it cannot see, Heb 11:1 says faith is the evidence of things not seen. Paul said in Rom 4 that Abraham was credited with righteousness after he believed God, not b/4. Notice all the people who came to Jesus for healing, they didn't believe in healing b/c Jesus healed them, they believed b/4 they saw any evidence of their healing. By faith one receives what is truth with God even though one cannot see the evidence with their natural eyes. I suggest you go read what Jesus taught on faith and how it works. Than go and compare that with Heb 11 and see how all those folks uses faith. Abraham didn't have any evidence he could produce a child but Paul said he believed God inspite of what he saw. That is how faith works and it is why Paul uses Abraham as an example of faith.
[Believing is an  evidence of the eternal life already bestowed at regeneration. Believing is not to get life. Believing is evidence of life! Those without eternal life are incapable of spiritual activity]

5. Are you a Universalist or Ultimate Reconciliation?
I believe what Paul taught and that one needs to hear the gospel and believe it to be saved. Your misunderstanding of John 3 doesn't ignore everything else Jesus also taught like he that believes will be saved and he that doesn't will be condemned. Same chapter as verse 8 I might add.
Paul also said that God would judge those outside the church so it isn't my or your job to. The bible talks about an age of accountability and babies and handicapped people are covered already by Gods mercy.
[The salvation by God's free grace, and the salvation obtained through believing are distinct and different. Ed is ignorant of this basic truth. The life you get from your parents, and the life you must get through you obedience to your parents are distinct and different!]

Ed Elliott
Sing, you baggier me to come over here and ignore my dozens of questions on the other thread that I have asked you many times and than promise me you would answer them here which you have yet to do and now you tell me if I don't answer your questions I am to hold my peace. Have I ever been that rude to you in our many discussions? Seriously the Holy Spirit would never allow me to be that rude to another brother.

Might I suggest you read these verses below and pray and ask God to help you understand what they mean. I know you believe I am in error. Thats ok with me if you think that, I was a Calvinist so I understand. But have the decency to honor Gods word and obey it in our discussions. Your snide and rude remarks and demeaning and insulting comments are a poor witness for Christ. I have taught hundreds of pastors in Vietnam and now Laos and I never come across such a believer who could be so rude to another believer. I feel sorry for the unbelievers who might want to talk about God with you if you are this hateful. I have asked you a number of times to cease with the insults and this will be my last warning or I am finished discussing Gods word with you. I came here as per your invitation. You should no how to treat a guest.

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. 2 Tim 2:24-26

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Gal 6:1

Sing F Lau
‎Ed Elliott, you're just repeating the same points that have all been interacted with... debunked... such as the silly notion that since the word 'regenerate' and 'born again' are not used in the OT, therefore, there is no such thing!

Go and check the questions asked that you have not answered.

Ok, repeat your questions that you insist I have not answered. I will answer them here.

I start this thread to answer your question, ""what was the promise that the OT saints died in faith waiting for? with respect to Heb 11:13.

Heb 11:13 says PROMISES.

I conclude that you believe than a man in his native state of sin and death and without regeneration can do all those spiritual activities, worship God, believing all those promises concerning the Messiah and His coming... work righteousness, and died in faith!

Thank you.

Ed Elliott
Sing, when I have already answered your questions a dozens times and you don't answer mine but keep insisting I answer yours over and over. It is nauseating.
Promise or promises who cares just answer? In salvation we have many promises do we not? What did Paul say Abraham saw far off in Gal 3? Paul called it the promise of the spirit. If Abraham was regenerated than he have the spirit would he not? But Paul knew that Abraham did not have the promise of the spirit.

You didn't debunk anything you just disagreed. I said the terms regeneration never refer to any OT saint and is used with NT saints being in union with Christ.
If your going to claim OT saints are regenerated shouldn't you have scripture to back it up? So far all you offered is theory and ideas based on reformed views but no solid scripture.

A man filled with demons came and worshiped Jesus in the NT. I pointed this out to you b/4 and you ignore it are you telling me that the demons and the Holy Spirit lived side by side in this man? So how did he come to
Jesus? We know God does not make his home with demons but this demon possessed man was still able to come to Jesus. I know these biblical examples contradict your theology but Gods word isn't wrong.

Rodney J
The OT saints were not regenerated, how could they of been. Jesus went to abrahams bosum and led them free, no one was in heaven until Jesus died and sprinkled his blood on the mercy seat. Only then could they leave the holding place called abrahams bosum. That place does not exist any more. Another point is this where thay looking forward to thier regeneration of thier physical body. Just as we are.

I tell you what i see lately is a lot of Grace people in the other side of the ditch, thier is nothing we have to do to be pleasing and accepted by God, however there is things we have to do to get the kingdom of God working through us. And one of those things is RIghtly dividing the word of truth, including understanding covenants. And until Jesus ratified the covenant with Abraham NO ONE was righteous in thier spirit.
[This Jones does not know the distinction between regeneration, and resurrection!!!]

James
Abraham saw it and was glad, David said David said God hat made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure, for this is my salvation. So surely they saw it and died in faith waiting for it.

Rodney J
ERxactly James, they saw it but it had not been done, thier righteousness was accredited to them but thier spirit was not righteous. That is why Jesus said Abraham saw my day and rejoiced

Sing F Lau
Ed @ It is nauseating. Promise or promises who cares just answer? In salvation we have many promises do ...we not? What did Paul say Abraham saw far off in Gal 3? Paul called it the promise of the spirit. If Abraham was regenerated than he have the spirit would he not? But Paul knew that Abraham did not have the promise of the spirit.

Nauseating indeed Ed Elliott.
I already pointed out that you err by equating regeneration with having the Spirit. You see the point? I have dealt with that. The NT plainly shows that regeneration and the gift of the Spirit are distinct. You foolishly equated them!

Ed @ 'The NT is the light the OT is t...he shadow, we should shine the light of the NT into the shadow of the old to get a proper understanding. That is what I did when explaining that OT saints were not regenerated as NT saints are today."

You stated the right principle, and yet fail to learn from that simple principle.

The NT declares repeatedly that man by nature are in enmity against God, and are incapable of spiritual activities unless they are regenerated and have life. Instead of being guided by what the NT informs us, you concluded the very opposite about the OT saints... that though they were dead in trespasses and death, yet they do all those things mentioned in Heb11:13.

I did ask you whether the people in the OT were also dead in trespasses and sins... but you ignored... may be more politely, didn't register with you! That's one among many questions.

Sing F Lau
‎Rodney J, @ 'Another point is this where thay looking forward to thier regeneration of thier physical body. Just as we are.'

What is meant by regeneration of their physical body?
Thanks.
[Rodney CAN'T EVEN distinguishes between resurrection and regeneration!]

Rodney J ·
I thes 5, 23 we are a three part being, we are saved, spirit, we are being saved Soul and we will be saved Body. In regards to the body Romans 7,24 to 25, 2 corin 5 1 to 8, Galations 6, 7 to 8. Our flesh or Body is opposed to God, it where sin is generated it has the nature of the devil "I WILL" is its language, our spirit on the other hand on regenerated, born again, righteous Ezk 36,26 is with God. Sing what i see is this, you think God acts the same with man as he did from the get go, That is the problem! Legally your points are moot as you clearly have no grip on blood covenants and fail to see where things change in terms of this. My point in case, when Adam fell, He and eve clothed themselves in fig leaves! Who clothed them in skins? let me answer GOD DID, so God took an inocent animal and shed its blood so that man could continue in fellowship with him. So blood has always been the price that needs to be paid. Why we live in this tent or body and dont get our new one until we are dead or raptured, because otherwise we would not have to live by faith.

Sing F Lau
Ed Elliott @ 'If Abraham was regenerated than he have the spirit would he not? But Paul knew that Abraham did not have the promise of the spirit. "

Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed because you equate regeneration with the promise of the Spirit. Here is the relevant passage.
Ga 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Q. What was the blessing of Abraham?
A. His experience of the blessedness of his justified state when he believed. He was already justified by God while an UNGODLY man when God effectually called him in Ur of the Chaldean.

Q. What is the promise of the Spirit?
A. The promise of the Spirit is NOT the promised Spirit as imagined. Because the promised Spirit is not received through faith. If the promised Spirit is received through faith, then you have DEMOLISHED your own fiction... because Abraham had faith, and if the promised Spirit is received through faith, then Abraham would have the promised Spirit.

Q. What is the promise of the Spirit that is received through faith?
A. The promise spoken of is the blessing of Abraham... the great blessing that Abraham received and experienced in Gen 15:1-6... through faith. That is the promise.Paul was dealing with experiential justification through faith.
And it is called the promise of the Spirit because it is a spiritual blessing administered through the working of the Holy Spirit.

Rodney J
Death means seperation from God, where the OT saints seperated? where they in heaven? NO when did they go, after Jesus was resurected. "he led the captives free, "they saw the old saints walking around" Did the OT saints have the Holy spirit NO, so where dead in thier trespasses? stop looking at points and using the understanding of words today. For example when God sai if you eat of this tree you will die! did they die as we no it? NO they where seperated from God though, that is death in its truest form, and if the OT saints had no way of washing sin away just covering it how could they not be in death?

Sing F Lau ‎
Rodney J... start a new thread... to discuss bicycle or tricycle!

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.

Man DOES NOT have a soul.

Man IS IS IS a living soul... when his body and spirit are in union, he is a living soul... when body and spirit are separated, physical death occurred.

In the fall of Adam, all men died spiritually, i.e. became separated from God - death in its truest form...

Therefore without regeneration, they remained in their spiritual death. And remaining in their spiritual, they would be utterly incapable to those spiritual activities we read of in the OT!

The lives of the saints we read in the OT would be impossible without regeneration... for all were in spiritual death... dead in trespasses and sins.

Sing F Lau ‎
Rodney J @ ERxactly James, they saw it but it had not been done, thier righteousness was accredited to them but thier spirit was not righteous. That is why Jesus said Abraham saw my day and rejoiced

Righteousness accredited them but their spirit not righteous! So, the LORD's work of accrediting righteousness is quite deficient then!

What righteous Able's spirit righteous?

O whatever has happened to sanctified common sense!!!

Phillip JB
All that are following the doctrines of men are wrong, the word of God is our source for truth, it is our responsibility to flee all opinion's of man's reasoning and logic.

Sing F Lau
‎Phillip JB, when man's statement contradicts God's word, he is plainly wrong.

And your statement plainly contradicts God's witness about righteous Abel...

God's word declares that Abel was righteous.
Will you agree that he was righteous because righteousness was accredited to him? If righteousness was a accredited to him, Abel - his whole person was made righteous.

So, was the spirit of righteous Abel righteous?

Making platitudes like you do is a cop out!
Answering questions that expose the validity of opinions is better.

Phillip JB
No, adding to the word of God is the error and the same error anyone can see in the garden and in the account of cain and abel.

Sing F Lau
Phillip, you make statements, I make inquiries about the statement you made, and you don't have the courtesy to answer them, and you are still fussing about!
Then this is not the right place for you.

Phillip JB
I answered it put it seems as though you are not receptive to the truth as you have rejected all you where given. Abel was accounted righteous because of his act of faith Cain was not counted because of unbelief, you where given an example of spirits of men in spiritual death, did you hear it, that you might believe it?

Sing F Lau
What was my question again, if you have answered? Don't worry about Cain! What was my question?

Phillip JB
No Thank You, It is all of men's ability in whatever state he is in to choose, but he must have an ear to hear and eyes to see, thus it is in the Kingdom of God, some have hardened their heart against the word of God thus they will not see or hear, thus it is Just as Jesus taught.

Sing F Lau
And the Lord Jesus said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God... That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

And you CONTRADICT Christ's word, "It is all of men's ability in whatever state he is in to choose, but he must have an ear to hear and eyes to see, thus it is in the Kingdom of God."

You and Christ are on very different page.

Thank you for your ranting here!

Phillip JB
No One said anything about the kingdom of God you are the one avoiding the truth, Thank you.

Terisa ‎
@Ed, Maybe something you could do is step back, consider all that has been said, and study it out. *Humbly* your assertions are not lining up with Scripture, if you have a humble Spirit in the Lord I am asking you to step back and check it out. We need the brethern to hold us accountable, for our good.

Phillip JB
Btw the way me and the anointed one are walking together with his word.

Sing F Lau
Phillip, @ 'No One said anything about the kingdom of God you are the one avoiding the truth, Thank you."

You wrote this @
"No Thank You, It is all of men's ability in whatever state he is in to choose, but he must have an ear to hear and eyes to see, thus it is in the Kingdom of God, some have hardened their heart against the word of God thus they will not see or hear, thus it is Just as Jesus taught."

You specifically mentioned the Kingdom of God... and now you said 'no one said anything about the kingdom of God..."

You forgot what you said just one breath away!!!

Kindly stop your ranting.

Mr Elliot You did well reaching out in love to speak the truth.

Sing F Lau
Mr Elliot meant well, but he most certainly speaks a great lie that the OT saints were not regenerated. Scriptures condemns such a lie.
Sinners dead in trespasses and sins without regeneration can be saints - that's fables.
Sinners dead in trespasses and sins without regeneration can die in faith - that's fiction.
Sinners dead in trespasses and sins without regeneration came embrace the promises of God - that's filthy dream.
Sinners dead in trespasses and sins without regeneration can be righteous - that's myth.
That's a fair conclusion.

Ed Elliott
Sing, I already pointed out that regeneration is about salvation. In Acts 2 they were not waiting for salvation but power to do the works of Jesus. They had already been regenerated and they were waiting for the power of the spirit to do the works of Jesus. You seem to confuse both events and besides Abraham didn't receive power to do miracles did he?

Your understanding that man is totally depraved comes from a misunderstanding of two verses that you mis-interpret to come to the conclusion that man dead in his sins cannot come to God, worship God etc. I have already showed you many times where unregenerate man did come to Jesus and even one that was demon possessed came to worship Jesus. When Paul quotes Psalm 14 about none being righteous or seeking God or does good, etc. you ignore Job who was called righteous and did good and I can easily list many other examples as well. So to take those passage literally causes you to ignore the whole counsel of God, which shows that a man dead in his sins can seek God.

Ed Elliott
Sing, in Rom 4 Paul says that Abraham was "credited" with righteousness b/c of his faith. This means simply that b/c Abraham chose to believe God that God counted his faith for righteousness. Abraham didn't have faith b/c God "credited" him with righteousness, he had faith b/4 he was righteous. Faith precedes righteousness in Abraham's life as it does in a believers life today. The scriptures are very plan about this.

Ed Elliott
Terisa, I have studied Gods word for over 30 years and I have and do humble myself b/4 God. The views I have are founded solidly on what the word of God teaches not reformed theology that you and Sing try and make Gods word fit into. I have given numerous examples from scripture that would contradict the views you both held. Example Sing believes man cannot come to God unless he is regenerated but a demon possessed man came to Jesus and we know the devil and Holy Spirit don't live together than hos did this man come to Jesus? This is just one of dozens of examples I have given to Sing that he ignores and has not answered. In the link I provided when I joined this thread, I gave many biblical reasons that OT saints were not and could not have been regenerated as believers are today. Those reasons have been ignored as well. I suggest that you go read them and allow the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to His truth. I was once a Calvinist myself and I began to see that reformed theology contradicts much of Gods word. You may struggle believing this and my saying it does not make it true but I would just pray and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal His truth to you.

Ed Elliott
Sing, what is sad is that you really don't understand how your view makes God out to be a monster. If God could regenerate man b/4 the cross than making His son go through all that torture, pain and agony was for nothing b/c justice did not need to be satisfied and the mercy seat didn't need to be sprinkled with blood etc. b/c as you claim God didn't need Jesus death burial and resurrection to inhabit man and make him righteous and holy. God could do it without the need for the cross. How sad!

Phillip JB
We know and We believe that if The lord Jesus be lifted up He will draw all men unto himself and we know that he is lifted up when you proclaim him according to his word.

Rodney J
Sing, Hebrews 4,12, the spirit and soul can be seperated, they are two distinct areas. Hence james 1, 21 to 22. now that is not the point, typical of unteachable people such as yourself, you point out a minor matter which you still do not understand and turn things around and yet the bulk of the points bought up you totally ignore and continue to push your flawed doctrine. So since this thread is just designed to push your opinion and not a true discussion because of your flawed understanding thier is no point in answering any of your questions. Because you wont understand them or you will reject them. I like what it says in Ephesians chapter 2, 7. "God has us where He wants us with all the time in this world OR NEXT" so sing i would say it is the next for you and I look forward to being one of your teachers. good bye and all the best on working out your peace

Sing F Lau
Ed @ 'Sing, I already pointed out that regeneration is about salvation."

Since that's the case, no regeneration, no salvation. Therefore, according to your fable, there is no salvation in the OT since there is no regeneration in the old OT.

Ed @ Sing, what is sad is that you really don't understand how your view makes God out to be a monster.

God regenerated OT saints BASED on the work that Christ would do. God regenerates His saints in the NY also based on the same work of Christ.

Your view makes God to be a little impotent God constrained by time!

Sing F Lau
Ed @ Sing, what is sad is that you really don't understand how your view makes God out to be a monster. If God could regenerate man b/4 the cross than making His son go through all that torture, pain and agony was for nothing b/c justice did not need to be satisfied and the mercy seat didn't need to be sprinkled with blood etc. b/c as you claim God didn't need Jesus death burial and resurrection to inhabit man and make him righteous and holy. God could do it without the need for the cross. How sad!

This is a perverse logic at best!

God regenerates His elect, whether pre or post cross based on the redemptive work that Jesus Christ would do (OT) and has done (NT). God acted based on the covenant of redemption before the foundation of the world.

God could do without it??? - such idea is blasphemous!

Your view makes God a little impotent man constrained by your perverse logic!!!

Sing F Lau
Now rave on . I will be away for some church planting work in a distant city.

Ed Elliott
Sing, my God isn't little and impotent he is the father of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ and the creator of all.

I agree the OT saints who were waiting in Paradise were regenerated after the cross but nor b/4. They could not have been for the numerous reasons I have stated and you ignored. Jesus was the first born from among the dead. This is talking about a spiritual birth since Jesus had become a sin offering to God. If OT saints were born again b/4 the cross than Jesus could not have been the first born! Paul says the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead quicken his mortal body. So regeneration is connected to Jesus being raised from the dead and since that happened after the OT saints died in faith they could not have received that promise. Heb 11:13.
Sing, you like to quote Rom 3 that their are none righteous etc. bit Job was called righteous and did good and Abraham was credited with righteousness. So is it possible that when you read the "whole counsel" of God you might be mis-understanding that verse since the bible says that there were people who were righteous and did good?

Ed Elliott
Sing, you claim it is perverse logic but you show an incredible ignorance about the old and new covenant. You believe God could live in unredeemed man who is still an old creation instead of the new creation we are in Christ. Why was the Veil of the temple rant in two when Jesus died on the cross? Was it because the spirit of God could know live in the hearts of men? The error in logic isn't mine, it is in you trying to make everything fit according to your theology instead of allowing the bible to be your theology.
Your stuck on the fact that sinful man cannot come to God or worship Him unless they are first born again but when I point out that a demon possessed man came to Jesus you ignore that. How could a demon possessed man be born again and both demons and the Holy Spirit live in the same man? Sorry my friend it is your logic that causes you to deny the simple truth of scripture.

Sing F Lau
Have you heard that Jesus NEEDED regeneration too!
That's by Mr Ed Elliot!

And based on this idea, there can be no regeneration of any one before Jesus was regenerated first!

He equates Jesus resurrection from the dead as regeneration from the dead.

See you all later! Wish me a safe journey, and pray for the Lord's blessings.

Sing F Lau
I have changed the setting to 'Friends' - will change it back to 'Public' when I return to prevent too many comments when I return.

Let me just say this before I go:
Ed reasoned @ "If God could regenerate man b/4 the cross than making His son go through all that torture, pain and agony "

By the same kind of il-logic, there is no justification in the OT because before Christ lived and secured righteousness, there was no righteousness to be imputed to the pre-cross saints!

And if Ed argue that there was righteousness to be imputed in the OT, THEN making Christ to render perfect obedience to all the laws, meeting the demands of His law... is STEWPIG!

Charles Page
Gospel regenerationist will do all they can to make the rich young ruler an unregenerate Jew if it means making all the Jews unregenerate. You just HAVE to do something to be regenerated!

Scott Collinge or Cornelius too Charles. Don't forget you can fear Him, work righteousness and be accepted of Him in an unregenerate state. Makes me wonder why you need to even be born again with their doctrine.

Mattong
Exo 28:3 And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have *filled with the spirit of wisdom*, that *they* may make Aaron's garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.
--------------------------------
Exo 31:3 And I have *filled him with the spirit of God*, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
------------------------------
These are the verses that is found showing clearly that there were OT regenerated saints. Not just one of two person, the word 'they' speak of regeneration. It has been long falsely accused in the internet, that these OT jews copied their culture from Egyptian.
This verse entirely also proof that it NOT true.

Ed Elliott
Matt, being filled with a spirit of wisdom isn't regeneration. Those verses do not talk about mans spirit being recreated they speak of God giving wisdom, knowledge not "eternal life". God enabled a donkey to speak does that mean the donkey was regenerated? Jesus was the FIRST BORN from among the dead. Paul says in Rom 8:11 that the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead has quicken our mortal bodies.
There was no OT saint who had the permanent abiding presence of the Holy Spirit IN them. The spirit of God came UPON people for the work and service of the ministry. In the OT the prophet, priest and king were had the spirit UPON them. Regeneration is just about God giving man wisdom and knowledge but about man receiving a NEW spirit a recreated spirit that is why Paul says we are NEW CREATIONS in Christ. This wasn't possible in the OT. The NT never teaches that OT saints were regenerated. We can see where Samson lost the anointing, if he had been regenerated as you all supposes he was that he couldn't have lost it.

Ed Elliott
Sing, Abraham was "credited" with righteousness he was not made righteous as believers are today. Abraham was "credited" with righteousness b/c payment for sins had not been made yet. In the OT sins were just covered up but in the NT they are taken away. Today believers are made not credited with righteousness as Abraham was b/c Jesus by his death made payment for all sin.

Sing F Lau
‎Ed Elliott, @ Sing, Abraham was "credited" with righteousness he was not made righteous as believers are today. Abraham was "credited" with righteousness b/c payment for sins had not been made yet. In the OT sins were just covered up but in the NT they are taken away. Today believers are made not credited with righteousness as Abraham was b/c Jesus by his death made payment for all sin.

Read again and again, and see whether there was righteousness accredited to Abraham here!

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

What was counted to Abraham for righteousness?

Read here for a massive theology blunder!
http://pruning-deformed-branches.blogspot.com/2008/01/justification-circular-letter-in-1785.html.

Sing F Lau
Ed Elliott @ Abraham was "credited" with righteousness he was not made righteous as believers are today.

Here is another fable: a man is credited with righteousness but is not made righteous?

If a man is credited righteousness and is not made righteous, then what is his standing? A man is either condemned by nature or declared righteous by the righteousness imputed.

So, Abraham remained unrighteous all his life because he was in the OT?

Sing F Lau
Ed Elliott, @ Today believers are made not credited with righteousness as Abraham was b/c Jesus by his death made payment for all sin.

So sinners in the NT DO NOT need justification... they do not need the righteousness of Jesus Christ to be applied to them???

Jesus paying for their sins absolved them of their just condemnation only! They still do not have righteousness! So how!!! May be NT sinners need no righteousness!

O what a mess of confusion!

Thanks Ed. There will be no end to this.

Pj Walters
It seems as though it be necessary that a distinction be made between being raised from death in trespasses and sin (being born again/spiritual regeneration) and being raised from physical death (physical regeneration/resurrection).

Grant P
Arrogance is very unbecoming.
[Promoting heresies and lies are damning. Zeal for the truth is no arrogance.]

Pj Walters
Yes, Christ was regenerated, but not from spiritual death. He was the first begotten of the dead. This means He was the first, as the brother stated earlier, to be physically raised to never die again. Regeneration is used not only in reference to the new birth, but also in reference to bodily resurrection.

Sing F Lau
Fables confuse resurrection with regeneration!

Ed insisted that Jesus Christ is the first to be regenerated... as sinners are regenerated. And based on this fiction, he said that no one before Christ was regenerated, Christ being the firstborn, the first one ever regenerated! Therefore, all the OT elect died in their native state of sin and death, i.e. remained in their unregenerated!

And Jesus needed to be regenerated because be became dead in trespasses and sins when he bore the sins of others!
And on and on and on.

Sing F Lau
Ed, @ You're stuck on the fact that sinful man cannot come to God or worship Him unless they are first born again but when I point out that a demon possessed man came to Jesus you ignore that. How could a demon possessed man be born again and both demons and the Holy Spirit live in the same man? Sorry my friend it is your logic that causes you to deny the simple truth of scripture.

Why is this so difficult with you?
In some restricted circumstances God SUFFERED His children (REGENERATED elect) to be demon possessed SO THAT the power and authority of Jesus Christ may be made manifested, to evidence who He is to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

But for your logic insists that the OT saints were not regenerated, i.e. remained in their native state of sin and death, that is really perverse logic and irrational fables!

They can remained unregenerated, yet they can be saints, and were saints waiting for the fulfillment of the glorious promises of God to them, and were saints who died in faith!!!

It is less irrational and perverse to insist that dead man can eat!

Sing F Lau
Ed Elliott @ Sing, to respond to your comments that you removed. I think you totally misunderstood what I said. I never said NT sinners did not need justification as you implied I did. Also the words "account" and "credited" mean the same thing. Paul wrote that Abraham's righteousness was "credited" this means he wasn't actually made righteous but because of his faith in God, he would be treated as if he was righteous. Believers are "made" righteous today because of their faith.
Personally I think some of your misunderstanding of what I am saying is because English isn't your first language. I really don't understand why you need to be insulting. Is it possible for you to just simply agree to disagree?


Of course you didn't say it. But what you did say NECESSARILY implies that! Of course the two words mean the same thing. You said in the OT righteousness is credited. But in the NT because Jesus Christ has died, there is no longer need for righteousness to be credited. That simply means there is no justification in the NT!

Sing F Lau
Ed @ Today believers are made not credited with righteousness as Abraham was b/c Jesus by his death made payment for all sin.

There is no misunderstanding at all. There is logical conclusion from your plain statement.

Your statement above, as it stands. is a complete error. It betrays how messed up your understanding of the truth of justification... a multi-faceted jewels.

There is so much to be corrected but I don't want to waste time further, else you will be insulted further! I don't know how one can end up believing as you do on justification!!!

I don't think I am insulting. You don't like it because I call your error fables and fiction. If you don't like me calling your ideas what they are, I am not sorry.

We can agree to disagree on personal opinions and likings, not when fables are paraded as the truth of God!

Grant P
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor 5:21

a. Christ became sin. - if that's not spiritual death, what is?
b. We became righteous, we are not 'credited' with righteousness. There is a significant difference. Old Testament saints were credited, New Covenant saints are made new creations- a new spiritual species- new as in different to any previous spiritual being, made righteous. We have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, OT saints never had that. Note that Jesus breathed on His disciples after the resurrection- not before. Before the resurrection the disciples were Old Testament saints, after the resurrection they were born again, by the Holy Spirit, they were NT saints.

Mark Thomas
There is only one eternal Saviour and only one way of eternal salvation according to Scripture. This false dicotomy of two ways is nothing but a man made fable.

Grant P
True Mark, and it's good to know we all believe in Jesus.

Sing F Lau ‎
Grant P @ 'a. Christ became sin. - if that's not spiritual death, what is?

That's a great error!
Christ became sin only in the legal sense... in that the punishment of the sin was laid upon Him, and he suffered and endure the fullness of the condemnation that sin deserved.

Jesus DIDN'T die the spiritual death, and DIDN'T need to be regenerated as some pedal the blasphemous fable!!!

Grant @ b. We became righteous - we are not 'credited' with righteousness."

Another horrible error. Righteousness is earned by Christ in His sinless life of perfect obedience to all the laws of God.

God IMPUTED that righteousness earned by Jesus Christ to all His elect when Christ died on the cross. What is imputed legally at the cross is applied personally at effectual calling.

Christ death DOES NOT make you righteous. Christ's death did bear away the eternal wrath due to your sins. That speaks of Christ's BLOOD!

Christ's life of perfect obedient to the whole law of God secured the righteousness that is acceptable to God. God CREDITED that righteousness to His people.

God JUSTIFIES the UNGODLY...
And the UNGODLY embraces EVERY saint in the OT and NT!

Grant P
‎Sing @ How can you be legally dead and not actually dead?
That's like the undertaker asking a doctor, "Is the man dead?" and the doctor replies, "Only legally".


If Jesus only died legally then he did not pay the full price for our sin.

If Jesus didn't die spiritually then either we were not dead in sin, or he did not fully identify with us in his death.

It was our sin that Jesus died for, it was our death that he died. It was for our justification that he was justified.

(FYI- Billy Graham: 'The penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23). Death includes two dimensions -- physical and spiritual. Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body. Spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God. Since Jesus was dying for our sin as our substitute, He was experiencing the agony of separation from His Father. It was the agony of hell .' Did God really forsake Jesus when He was dying on the cross?)

Ed Elliott
Sing, you say Jesus was legally dead but not dead in sin. What bible are you reading? Jesus did die spiritually he went to hell as all sinners do when they die in their sins. Even John Calvin believed Jesus died and went to hell.

Sing F Lau
‎Ed Elliott, the more I hear from you, the more I find that your understanding of Scriptures is so perverted!

I read from the KJV.

Let me ask, did Jesus have any personal sin? Or was Jesus without sin?

You have reduced Jesus to become like a common sinner, who needed regeneration from the state of sin and death.
Jesus was NOT dead in sin like you and I were dead in sin. Jesus was without sin, so how can he be dead in sin personally? You STUPID idea that Jesus was personally dead in trespasses and sin spawns another stupid idea that Jesus needed to be regenerated! You are not stupid, your ideas.

He did suffer the full condemnation due to the sins of the His people. In taking the sin of His people upon Himself, He didn't become sinful personally - how can it be since he had no personal sin. Jesus personally remains SINLESS.Their sins was legally imputed to Him... the debt became his, and he suffered and paid for it fully.

Don't be addicted to sound byte... Get the sense.

Sing F Lau ‎
Grant P, your question "How can you be legally dead and not actually dead?" show your confusion.

"Christ became sin only in the legal sense."

You want Jesus to become sin in the personal sense... such that he became like you and me, dead in trespasses and sins, and needed to be personally regenerated!

Christ is WITHOUT personal sin. So He can never become sinful personally even though He bear the sins of others as a substitute.

If you object to this statement "Christ became sin only in the legal sense", your question should be, "How can Christ be became sin legally, and not sin personally?"

When you can't even ask proper question, how to learn the truth?

Whoever said anything about being legally dead? What's that? You use that term, please explain what that idea is?

Christ did suffer death for the sin of His people. He actually died, suffered separation from God... and suffered the full wrath of God due to sin... ALL the time as the SINLESS SUBSTITUTE. As the SINLESS substitute he died in the place of His people. And he was raise from that death.

Ed Elliott
Sing, For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor 5:21

God made Jesus to be sin is what Paul says. This isn't my "stupid" idea but what Gods word actually says. You disagree with Gods word not me.

Why did Jesus say this, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matt. 27:46 Isn't spiritual death being separated from God?

The bible says that Jesus was the first born from among the dead. What type of dead people was Jesus the first born from? Were they not those dead in trespasses and sins?

You ask how can Jesus become sin when he didn't sin? How can a sinner become righteous when they did sin?

You seem to have ideas and opinions that go against what Gods word says. You are trying to twist Gods word into fitting your theology. Why not just believe what it says?

I asked you last night a question you didn't answer. Paul asked the Galatians, "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? "
Paul says that the Galatians had received the Holy Spirit by faith. Now how is this possible according to you, one needs to already have the spirit to have faith but Paul says they had faith before they had the Holy Spirit. Looks like your views don't agree with what Paul says.

Sing F Lau
Your STUPID idea [your idea, not your... you do look smart!] is to understand that as Jesus became personally sinful, such that he became dead in trespasses and sins, and needed to be regenerated.

SENSE, not just sound byte, Ed Elliott. Sense... rightly dividing the word of truth.

The death that Jesus died was a real dead, with him experiencing all the wrath of God personally. That was not because he became sin personally - such that he needed to be regenerated like Ed needed to!

Sing F Lau
‎Ed Elliott @ You ask how can Jesus become sin when he didn't sin? How can a sinner become righteous when they did sin?

Jesus became sin because God imputed to Him the sin of others. Imputation is legal... didn't make Jesus personally sinful, for he was without sin personally.

A sinner become righteous with the righteousness of Christ imputed to them... even though personally they are sinful and deserve condemnation.

Ed Elliott
Sing, God's word says Jesus became sin, it also says he was the first born from among the dead. You believe Jesus wasn't and played possum and didn't really die. You can call my ideas stupid all you want but it is Gods word that you disagree with.

Sing, I never said or claimed that Jesus sinned personally. I said what Gods word says and that Jesus became sin. Read what I am writing not what you think I am going to say.

Why do you keep ignoring this question?

I asked you last night a question you didn't answer. Paul asked the Galatians, "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? "
Paul says that the Galatians had received the Holy Spirit by faith. Now how is this possible according to you, one needs to already have the spirit to have faith but Paul says they had faith before they had the Holy Spirit. Looks like your views don't agree with what Paul says.
[Ed can't differentiate between Jesus sinned personally, and Jesus become personally sinful!!! Only when a man sins personally, he becomes personally sinful. When the sins of others are credited to him, he does not become personally sinful... he become LEGALLY sinful. The crediting of sin to him is a legal transaction!]

Sing F Lau
‎Ed Elliott @ "I asked you last night a question you didn't answer. Paul asked the Galatians, "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? "

You are just so obtuse. Now I am not abusive, but factually describing your thought pattern.

The regeneration that enables a man to believe and received the blessings of the Holy Spirit are different things altogether.

You being addicted to sound byte what to make the reception of the Spirit as the equivalent to regeneration!!!
That's fable fly in the face of all the teaching of Paul.

Ed Elliott
Sing, Paul was asking the Galatians how they received the Holy Spirit aka regeneration aka salvation. The Holy Spirit does the regeneration which is salvation. Paul knew that the HS was received by faith the same way Abraham was credited with righteousness by faith. If they had already had the Holy Spirit Paul would not have had to ask "how did you receive the Holy Spirit". You need to do some more study I pray the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to the truth.

Sing F Lau
That where you are very mistaken...
I am tired of responding to your weird idea.
just consider you are right, and I am wrong.
So, thanks.

Grant P
No one said that Jesus sinned personally.

The Bible said he was 'made to be sin'. Ed Elliott and I are simply restating what the Bible says.

You say Jesus was only made to be sin 'legally'. Where does the Bible say that?

'For he (God the Father) hath MADE him (Jesus) TO BE SIN for us, who knew no sin; that we might be MADE the righteousness of God in him.'

Jesus didn't sin personally, no-one said he did_ but the scripture does say he was made to be sin.

Paul could have said 'he was made legally sin': but he didn't. The Holy Spirit deliberately left that little word 'legally' out of there.

Zip, zero, nada- no 'legally' in there- it's not there- sorry.

It does say, he was MADE TO BE which is exactly and precisely what we are saying. But it does no say 'legally'.

I know you think I'm "STUPID' but I can't help myself- if I read it in 1/2 a dozen good translations I tend to believe it.

Sing F Lau
Ga 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

The passage should put to rest once for all...
Because ye are sons - born of God, regenerated precedes the reception of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ.

Sing F Lau
Christ was made to be sin - in what sense Grant P?

- You said... Christ became sinful personally, and became personally dead in trespasses and sins such that he needed to be regenerated.

And where does the Bible ever say that - that Jesus became PERSONALLY sinful, and became dead in trespasses and sin, and had need to be regenerated like you?????

And please don't repeated the STUPID idea that Christ resurrection from the dead is the same as your regeneration from your state of sin and death because of your own sins.

- I said, Christ was made to be sin, even though He was sinless, and was treated a sinner and made to bear the consequences of the sin that was imputed to him. He was made sin because sin was imputed to him, and he bore the consequences of those sin... the full penalty of it.

Enjoy yourself. I am off for some work.

=======
 Exchanges took place here: 

Does your scruple handicap your usefulness?


Does your scruple handicap your usefulness?

Matthine
Just met this Church of Christ man in Tesco Extra who approached me and told me this.
-- Church of Christ invitation to a special program.
-- The bible teaches baptism saved eternally.
-- I have been reading NIV from cover to cover and cannot find any contradiction with what Jesus Christ said.

Sing F Lau
I heard the same way back in 1987 from the same group of people.
If you want to be of service to him, tell him how baptism saves, and how baptism does not save.
Don't quarrel with him over NIV yet! Else you will choke him to death! Give him some light porridge first!

Matthine 
He uses cm and I am using inch. Cannot service him unless he understand the cm is man made.
[Is the 'imperial system' divine made??? ]

Sing F Lau 
Matthine , your FIXATION with KJ is not a virtue, but a HANDICAP, and it renders you unserviceable to non-KJ users. It is a tragedy.

Learn from APOSTLE PAUL...
"1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." And this is from KJV toooooooooooooo!

My issue is not with KJ.
My issue is with your FIXATION with KJ that renders your useless in helping others.

Your fixation DISTRACTED you from helping him to know the truth... how baptism doesn't save and how baptism saves! Agree with him that baptism does save, but not in the way that he thinks...

You can show from the NIV too that someone who believes DOES SO because he has been born again. John 3:3-5. Only those whom God has saved with eternal salvation is able to believe. And baptism saves in the temporal sense because it is obedience to God's command...

But you are toooooo stuck-up with your scruple!
It is a handicap by choice!
It is your way of doing thing... but it renders you unserviceable to non-kj users. Sad!

Matthine 
You are right, I am not able to help them. Only the Holy Ghost with the Spirit of Truth is able to.

Sing F Lau 
Matthine , you do sound like you couldn't care less whether you are of help to them or not!!! The Lord gave you an opportunity to minister, you squandered it!!!

Why don't you admit that your fixation with KJ hinders your usefulness in ministering to others? Why give a cop out answer like that - the Holy Spirit is able to.

Your answer betrays a misunderstanding!
Conversion to the truth comes through the means of instruction. Faith cometh by hearing... no hearing of the truth, no conversion to the truth... see Rom 10.

If the Holy Spirit is able to convert him to the truth without you speaking the truth to them, then why waste time hammering them on the KJ issue? Why don't you just leave it to the Holy Spirit?

Aren't you not selectively inconsistent!
Then why talk so much all the time??? Aren't you wasting your breath if all your talking is not the appointed intended to instruct and edify?

Matthine 
Dear Sing, remember the conceal and the reveal truth preached by pastor Jonathan. Unless they even have an open eye, it is impossible to have a different baseline and because Jesus Christ preached about it in the parable of the sower.

One baseline devalue the personhood of Jesus Christ and price He paid.

‎1John 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that *no lie is of the truth.* ---------------------  How to agree with anything that is a lie as a christian?

Unless you are able to demonstrate that to me, I cannot understand how that can be done. The very simple case of Stevie, he is still in his corruption.

Sing F Lau
Dear Sing, remember the conceal and the reveal truth preached by pastor Jonathan. Unless they even have an open eye, it is impossible to have a different baseline and because Jesus Christ preached about it in the parable of the sower.

Matthine, to conceal or reveal is God's prerogative alone.

Your duty and mine, Matthine , is to show them the truth, i.e. how baptism saves, and how it doesn't save. That is the issue I am dealing with.

How do you even know that they don't have an open eye?

You acted completely CONTRARY to what the parable of the sower teaches... SOW even on the wayside and stony ground and thorny ground... but you would only sow when you see someone carries and thumbs a KJB... hallucinating that those who carry KJV are the good ground!

God did have mercy on you in your pre-KJV days, didn't He??? You did have a different baseline then, didn't you? Just remember that why you are dealing with those who are not using KJV yet!

You have SQUANDERED an opportunity God had sent your way. An opportunity missed is a STRING of opportunities missed. You should grieved over the missed opportunity instead of justifying your little scruple!

Matthine 
Based on what I was preached to and believed, God shown me general longsuffering via his providence in creations. Those that worked the corruption to my understanding, are NOT from God. Yes, I had a different baseline, but deep within me, there are something like what you have preached the contradiction, the so call blessed inconsistency, and the inability to clarify my understanding of clear doctrine. I am not saying they, non king james holy bible user, are all not eternally saved, some (perhaps larger than half) might be. So far, I can only work with the ability that the Lord provided for me. Beyond that, I am neither given any special wisdom of natural man languages from my many circular miseducation. You know my personal malaysia chinese kampung boy education background. Stating this as mere facts.

BTW, The posting I had "You are right, I am not able to help them. Only the Holy Ghost with the Spirit of Truth is able to.", this is a statement of faith. I give this not to condemn them.

Matthine 
Joh 16:13 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

This is the verse whereby I am claiming that as a statement of faith for all His elected that I encountered.

Sing F Lau 
Matthine , it has nothing to do with your chinese kampong boy education. You know enough to engage in debate which translation is superior (I hope you have jettisoned your idea of 'INSPIRED' translation!!!) - so you are not deficiently educated.

It is your fixation with KJV that cripples and severely limits your usefulness to non-kjv folks. And you are quite proud of it, instead of being sadden. And in your pride, you keep justifying your foolish antics!

Sing F Lau
And you have misunderstood John 16:13.
That is addressed to the Apostles, who were indeed shown and guided into ALL TRUTH, who in turn gave the full revelation of God in the NT Scriptures.

No, no, no.... that statement DOES NOT apply to ALL God's elect. It applies specifically and particularly to the Apostles. They were DIRECTLY and IMMEDIATELY taught and guided by the Spirit of Christ... into ALL truth.

The rest of us is taught through means, and need great effort and humility to learn some measure of the truth.

So, if you really want to help that Church of Christ man, you must know the truth and tell him the truth about baptism.
And if he asks you about a reliable translation, tell him that also!

That's all I wish to say!

Matthine  ‎
@Sing: See, I was trying to agree with you that I am not skilled.
So far, I can only work with the ability that the Lord provided for me.

I am not trying to make excuses here. I am trying to be as precise as I can be. Which is why I never try to use any greek or hebrew and ask others to step in.

If I cannot even properly claim verses in KJT which has already been shown to me as the word of God, how can I be possibly expected to argue using any other english version that has over 400 versions and multiple edition. I have only 24 hours a day and my like to invest more time in the right version.

How to remember which of those 'versions has' or does not have the important Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might *be justified by the faith of Christ*, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Sing F Lau 
Matthine , you still don't get the point!
You have made a deliberate choice - unless someone uses KJT, you are not WILLING to assist the person! [It is not because you are not skilled! You are skilled enough to debate all sort of subjects!]

That's not a virtue. That a handicap by choice. Thanks.
That is my point all along. You can justify all you want.
Such mind set cripples your usefulness.


Matthine is Matthew Ong, aka Matthew Dosolatite on Facebook!

Monday, February 13, 2012

Some fables indeed - on regeneration and justification

 
'Today believers are made not credited with righteousness as Abraham was b/c Jesus by his death made payment for all sin' --  Ed, president of a certain global outreach organization


This is a completely erroneous statement, betraying a very messed up understanding of the doctrine of justification. See if you can detect the grievous errors and confusion. State them February 6 at 11:19am

Sing F Lau
Let's try to understand what the statement says:

1. Today believers are made.... (i.e. in the NT)
- NOT credited with righteousness as Abraham was.
- Why? because Jesus by his death made payment for all sin.

What are some necessary implications from this statement?

Adam Wells
Wouldn't this be tantamount to what the RCC taught concerning righteousness being imparted whereas the reformers taught imputed righteousness?

Grant 
Why would God need to credit me with righteousness - if he made me righteous in the new creation? No, I don't have to be credited with something I already am!
OT saint were never new creations, they needed to be credited with righteousness. We have a better covenant.

Ed
Adam, the Old Testament never employs the terminology of "regeneration" or being "born" with the spiritual life of God in reference to Old Testament believers. Neither does the New Testament ever apply such terminology to Old Testament personages in the past. "Regeneration" and spiritual life are exclusively related to the unique spiritual union between Jesus Christ and the Christian.

[ERROR No. 1 : Just because the OT does not use the term 'regeneration' or 'born again', Ed concludes therefore there is no regeneration in the OT. However, OT is full of the accounts of men and women who manifested the EVIDENCES and EFFECTS of spiritual life - and but Ed's prejudice prevent him to see them. He insists that OT must employ the terminology he wants! Such impudence! Spiritual activities are most certainly evidences and effects of spiritual life... whether the terminology 'life' is used.']

The "Word of God" (Jesus Christ) became incarnate (John 1:14). "In Him was life" (John 1:4). He proclaimed that He was "the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6), and that He "had come that we might have His life" (John 10:10). "Whoever believes in the Son has the eternal life" of Jesus Christ (John 3:16, 36). "He who has the Son has the life" (I John 5:12), and has "passed out of death into life" (I John 3:14). "The Spirit (of Christ) gives life" (II Cor. 3:6), whereby the Christian can "walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4), "reign in life through Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:17), and be "saved by His life" (Rom. 5:10).

[ERROR No. 2: The Word of God, the Life-giving Logos, the Second Person of the eternal Godhead, was already active in giving eternal life to God's elect from the beginning. Read John 1:1-f. He did not begin to give eternal life ONLY AFTER He was resurrected. Ed believes so, therefore no regeneration UNTIL AFTER Christ's resurrection ]

Nowhere in Scripture are the Old Testament believers said to have "passed from death to life," to have been "regenerated," to have been "born again," or to have participated in the dynamic of the indwelling life of the risen Lord Jesus.

[All the effects and evidence of spiritual life abound. Unless of course Ed believes that the people in the OT were not dead in trespasses and sins.]

I believe in imputed righteousness but Paul taught in Rom 4 that Abraham's righteousness was "credited" why? B/c it was many years b/4 the cross were payment for all sins would be paid. Paul explains this in Gal 3. Another point is that Jesus tells in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, now where were they? In Paradise not in heaven, why? B/c they were waiting for the cross to happen. No OT saint had the permanent indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in them. Some had the spirit UPON them but not in them making them a new creation in Christ as believers experience today. Jesus was called "the first born from among the dead" if Abraham and other OT saints were born again that this would have been before Jesus and therefore Jesus could not have been the first. Paul said the same spirit that raised Christ from the dead has quicken out mortal bodies. There are many more reasons OT saints could not have been born again, like NT believers are told that the Law will nullify grace and Paul tells believers they are not under the law but if OT saints were born again how did they function under the Law when a NT believers are told grace /law don't mix? OT saints followed signs, burning bush, clouds, pillars of fire etc. but NT believers are told to walk by faith and not by our senses, why? Because we are led by the spirit something that OT saints weren't. There are many other scriptural reasons as well.

[ERROR No 3. Romans 4 DOES NOT speak of the imputation of righteousness to Abraham. It speaks of the imputation of Abraham's faith to Abraham. And Ed is oblivious to this basic monumental error, and keep droning on and on. When a teacher can't even differentiate between Abraham's faith and the righteousness of Christ, ]

Sing F Lau
Ed @ I believe in imputed righteousness but Paul taught in Rom 4 that Abraham's righteousness was "credited" why? B/c it was many years b/4 the cross were payment for all sins would be paid.

Ed is completely deluded. In Gen 15:6, there is no crediting of righteousness in that passage. "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."

What was counted to him for righteousness?

Was Abraham STILL an unjustified man in Gen 12-14?
An unjustified man is a man under the condemnation of death.

When Apostle Paul marshal Abraham for his teaching, what did he want to prove in Romans 4?

Ed
What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was CREDITED to him as righteousness." Rom 4:5

Grant  ‎
'Counted it to him' and 'credited to him' are essentially the same thing- they are accounting terms weighed against a ledger- being 'made righteous' is something very different. I can't think of anywhere that NT saints have righteousness credited to their account.

Sing F Lau
Ed, what is the pronoun 'it'? I have asked so many times, have you even got the question? What was credited to Abraham?

Ed
Sing, Abraham b/c he wasn't yet ""made" righteous was in Paradise waiting. What was he waiting for? Why wasn't he in heaven if he was already made righteous? You keep avoiding these questions.

[Another fable: someone without righteousness can be found in Paradise!]

Impressive but stuck in filthy waters!

Sing F Lau
‎Grant @ I can't think of anywhere that NT saints have righteousness credited to their account.

You don't have to go far! Here is it:
Ro 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.

Read the words, "that righteousness might be imputed unto them also."
There is indeed imputation of righteousness to the NT saints. Grant, you are PLAIN wrong.
I hope you don't repeat that point again, unless you can prove that Rom 4:11 doesn't answer you point.

[That's another big fable: no imputation of righteousness in the NT]

Ed
‎9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised (Jews), or also for the uncircumcised (Gentiles)? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was CREDITED TO HIM as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it CREDITED? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as A SIGN, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be CREDITED TO THEM. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. Rom 4:9-12

Grant
Nice try, Mr Sing, touche, now find a parallel verse that says that Abraham was a new creation and became righteous and I'll buy you a coke.

Context is King- Romans 4 is not specifically talking about new creation believers, it's talking about all OT saints, (although it has implications for NT saints).
In Romans 4 Paul was arguing that even under the OT, righteousness was by faith- he was not discussing the New Creation or being made righteous. He leads into that in Romans 5- having established a basis for OT faith.
Back to the concordance.

Yoel
After reading Grant and Ed views/understanding, I've being wondering how both will teach Matthew11:11 ?.... I think the answers has to be totally different from Sing ... and John the Baptist was a OT saint or a NT saint??

Sing F Lau
Grant @ Why would God need to credit me with righteousness - if he made me righteous in the new creation? No, I don't have to be credited with something I already am! OT saint were never new creations, they needed to be credited with righteousness. We have a better covenant.

Your statements above are full of confusion. And I will explain what I say so.

If God does not credit to a man with the righteousness of Christ, that man is without the only righteousness that God approves, and remains under condemnation. No ifs and no buts.

You are quite mistaken by separating the new creation from God's free and gracious act of justifying the UNGODLY, those without righteousness, by crediting to them the righteousness of Jesus Christ. That act of crediting righteousness is part and parcel of God's work in the new creation.

You are very mistaken about the better covenant from the one uniform and exactly the same covenant of redemption. The better covenant you are talking about is distinguished from the old covenant of the OT administered through Moses. Christ abolished that old covenant because he fulfilled that covenant.

Every elect of God is saved by God in exactly the same way in the covenant of redemption. God deals with His children differently in the old covenant and the new covenant.

Adam Wells
I wonder why Jesus would have asked Nicodemus, with knowledge of the OT covenant only, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"... concerning the necessity of being born again.

[Adam, what a loaded question. Regeneration was already a reality in the OT. However, Nicodemus was ignorant of it, and Ed is willfully ignoring the same truth too!]

Grant
Yoel, John the Bapist was an OT saint- he died before the New Covenant was implemented- Yes Matt 11:11 speaks of the difference between OT saints and NT saints.

Sorry you are confused, Sing, I'll try and explain it simply.

If I credit you with a dollar, it doesn't mean you become a dollar.
I can be credited with have said something witty but that doesn't mean I have become something witty.
Someone can credit me with a sausage, it doesn't mean they have made me into a sausage.
To become something and to be credited with something are two different things.
We have BECOME the righteousness of God.

You can be credited with righteousness and also become righteous at a later date, but not necessarily so, they are two different things.

[If I credit you with a dollar, it doesn't mean you become a dollar - this sort of reasoning is just plain stupid. If you credit me with a dollar, it does mean that I have a dollar to my name. When God credits a man with righteousness of Christ, he is declared righteous. But Grant would reject that plain connection.]


Yoel
I believed we are currently under better covenant because this new covenant was sealed by the Blood of Christ the only Lamb of God that can atone for sins at once and forever ...no like the blood of bulls and other beast that were required to be sacrifice every year....All OT saints sins were finally atoned at once at the cross

Grant
Yes, Yoel.

Ed
Yoel, that has been the point from the very beginning. In the OT the sins were covered, in the NT Jesus took away all sins. Just one of the many reasons the new covenant is better.
Btw, I agree with Grant about Matt 11.

[New covenant contrasted with the old covenant speaks of the system of worship God instituted for His people in the OT and the NT. The covenant of redemption is one and the same throughout the OT and NT... the one same way of salvation for God's chosen people. The OT people are saved (justified, regenerated, and adopted) based on the redemptive work of Christ that WILL BE accomplished, and the NT people are saved (justified, regenerated, and adopted) based on the redemptive work of Christ that HAS BEEN accomplished]

Yoel
I go to sleep at night like a baby knowing I'm declared righteous and justified on the merits of Christ ALONE ...even if one day I'll stop believing what is already true

Sing F Lau
Grant @ "Nice try, Mr Sing, touche, now find a parallel verse that says that Abraham was a new creation and became righteous and I'll buy you a coke."

We are very different. To me coke is poisonous. There is no need to bring in the new creation yet here.

You stated: 'Counted it to him' and 'credited to him' are essentially the same thing- they are accounting terms weighed against a ledger- being 'made righteous' is something very different. I can't think of anywhere that NT saints have righteousness credited to their account."

I showed you the plain Scriptures that conclusively prove the falsity of your fable - "that NT saints did not have righteousness credited to their account."

Sing F Lau
‎Grant, consider this Scriptures,
Rom 8: 29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

My question to you and Ed: do the pronoun 'whom' and 'them' refer to all the saints in both the OT and the NT, i.e. ALL THE SAINTS of God in every generation from the beginning of the world to the end of the world, or just to NT saints.

[Grant avoided this question... because answering this question will condemned his idea as a fable! Every elect is justified, and every elect is regenerated, both in the OT and NT, no exception. But of course, Grant doesn't want the truth!]

Ed
Yoel, I think Grant and I would agree 100% with you. The beauty about believing is the joy it adds to ones life over an unbelieving believer.

Sing, Grant is not saying NT saints were credited with righteousness, just the opposite, it was OT saints who were credited with righteousness. NT saints are "made" righteous. Jesus made full payment for sin on the cross, so credit isn't the issue today. Righteousness is a reality!

[You refuse the plain statement in Rom 4:11 - "... "that righteousness might be imputed unto them also." Don't be so stiff neck!]

Sing, the OT saints sins were in the past, the NT saints sins were in the future but all sins were forgiven at the cross, past present and future. So today at this moment OT saints and NT saints are the righteousness of God in Christ. All are ONE in Him and in Him all are ONE. This was only possible after the cross not b/4.

[Your problem Ed, you limit God to your puny mind, that God is locked in by time... The OT saints are justified (imputed with righteousness, regenerated and adopted) based on what Christ's redemptive work, whether prospectively or retrospectively... all agreed by the Godhead in the covenant of redemption.]

Yoel
Well I just found out that all have strong agreements which make me stoked as it is in heaven ....but strong disagreements as it is on earth since the fall ....

Sing F Lau
‎Grand @, Context is King- Romans 4 is not specifically talking about new creation believers, it's talking ab...out all OT saints, (although it has implications for NT saints).

In that you are most deceived.
First, he was addressing the Romans believers.

Second, in the latter part of chapter 3, Paul demonstrated that justification is by the righteousness of God alone, i.e the righteousness provided by God in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, it is not through the works of righteousness by man himself. This deal with the BASIS of justification - justification by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Third, Paul also settled with the issue of how that righteousness of Jesus Christ is accounted to sinners... FREELY by the grace of God. That's justification by God's free grace.

Fourth, God justifies the UNGODLY. Faith, the act of believing in Jesus Christ, justifies the believer i.e faith certifies and evidences his justified state by God's free grace.

Then Apostle Paul moves on to the next matter in Romans 4. How to experience the blessedness of that justification that has taken place by God's free grace?

Is it through the observance of the old covenant laws, like circumcision, like God's children among the Jews would insist?

It is at this point that Apostle Paul MARSHAL the example of Abraham (whom the Jews had great veneration) to declare that faith in Jesus Christ is the way to experience the blessedness of one's righteousness by God's free grace.

Sing F Lau
‎Ed & Grant,
It is becoming very tedious interacting with you both... we are just too far apart... and I don't want wasting time disagreeing with what is written here on my wall. If fables are written elsewhere, I will leave them alone... not when there are littered here! I will shred them and call what what they are.

First, there is no regeneration in the OT.
Then, there is no need of justification in the NT... Grant's idea!
Worse, jesus was dead in trespasses and sins, and needed to be regenerated.
And several more.

So, please say what you need to say here...
I will let you have the last words
Some time later I will limit your access here.

Ed
Sing, I think you and Grant would agree! But the issue is and was about were OT saints regenerated as NT are today. I believe Grant and myself have offered numerous scriptural reasons why they were not and could not be. You just given us your views and opinions and really haven't addressed our points. Calling what we believe fables and myths when we supplied and ample amount of biblical text shows you are being insincere.

[You are quite confuse with the regeneration of the OT and NT saints, and the difference between the OT and NT saints with regard to having the gift of the Holy Spirit. The two are distinct... regeneration by the Spirit and the reception of the gift of the Spirit are two distinct matters. Because of your confusion, you conclude that the OT saints were not regenerated at all!]

Sing F Lau
That's ok. When I have time, i will summarize your numerous scriptural reasons, and my scriptural rebuttal offered but were never noticed. That's my offer to your grudges. is that acceptable?

Ed
What grudges? I doubt anyone is holding a grudge. I answered many or most of your rebuttals with scriptures and questions. Example you did answer my question on how a demon possessed man could come to Jesus. I just wished you had provided scripture instead of opinion. To say that God allowed a regenerate man to be demon possessed for His will does not make any sense. You provided no proof the man was regenerate. You assume he was b/c you cannot accept the fact that unregenerate people can have faith and come to Jesus so you have to make a demon possessed man a regenerate person so it will fit your theology. Maybe you should let Gods word change your theology instead of changing Gods word to fit your theology. Saying a demon possessed man was regenerate makes no sense at all b/c God does not live with demons and Gods word tells us to give the devil no place. You have God going against His own word.

Pj Walters
Why was Christ telling Nicodemus of the new birth and saying that he should have known of it already if it was not yet in effect? Truth is, it was already happening. It had been for eons.

[ But Ed, like Nicodemus a teacher in Israel, is equally oblivious to the reality. May be like Ed, Nicodemus could find terms like 'regeneration' or 'born again' in the OT!!!]

Sing F Lau
Ed @ You just given us your views and opinions and really haven't addressed our points.

That's what I meant by grudges... in black and white.
So when I have time, I will summarized them.

Ed @ Example you did answer my question on how a demon possessed man could come to Jesus. I just wished you had provided scripture instead of opinion. To say that God allowed a regenerate man to be demon possessed for His will does not make any sense.

Then why don't you offer Scriptural reason why it doesn't make sense?

I cannot accept regenerated person can have faith because of many Scriptural reasons. But you insist that unregenerated are capable of faith.

Ed @ 'Saying a demon possessed man was regenerate makes no sense at all b/c God does not live with demons and Gods word tells us to give the devil no place.

God suffered that for a purpose - to demonstrate the power of Christ over Satan, in delivering His people from it. You say this makes no sense... and prefer to say that spiritual dead sinners are capable of faith makes sense! You have God going against His own word.

You and I are disagreed at a fundamental level:
I take it as a settled truth that life must precede the activities of that life. You disagree by insisting that those without spiritual life is capable of spiritual activities.

Ed
Sing, I did offer reasons why a regenerate man who you claim was demon possessed came to Jesus. Now you say I didn't but then try and rebut a reason I used. Here are the others you ignored light cannot fellowship with darkness but you believe the Holy Spirit and demons can live together in the same man. Even your reasoning makes no sense. Could not Jesus have found an unregenerate demonic to prove He had power over Satan? This idea is perverse b/c it telling believers that the God who tells you in His word to give the devil no place. Will if he desires fill you with demons if he so desires.

You struggle with a demoniac coming to Jesus or others coming to Jesus for healing and Jesus said that these people had faith for healing. You have to assume they are all born again b/c you cannot accept that unregenerate people can actually have faith. So Jesus wasn't the first born from among the dead according to you.

You misunderstand Rom 3 and 1 Cor 2 which you use as support for your belief. When it is shown to you that in fact their were people who the bible says were righteous and did good when you claim there was no one. What about Job and Abraham? It shows that your use of "“There is no one righteous, not even one;" isn't correct b/c there were those who did good and God called righteous.

I dealt with 1 Cor 2:14 & Rom 3 in great detail and you just ignored my line of reasoning. Yet when confronted with direct scriptural proof that your understanding of those passages cannot be correct b/c the bible does not contradict itself you claim we are teaching myths and fables. Maybe you should ask the Holy Spirit to teach you what these passages actually mean.

Sing F Lau
Anything else, Ed?

Ed
Sing, did you block Grant and Rodney? If you did why? Why wouldn't you just answer their questions and allow them to respond to yours? Why invite me here to have a discussion and than not discuss?

Sing F Lau
Rodney is blocked. He is just a nuisance...
He doesn't discuss. Grant does.

There is nothing more to discuss.
We don't have common ground.

I take it as an fundamental truth that life must precede the activities of that life. You disagree by insisting that those without spiritual life is capable of spiritual activities.

This disagreement cannot be reconciled.
So, I don't want to waste time calling such ideas as fables and myth here on my wall.

Sing F Lau
Ed @ You misunderstand Rom 3 and 1Cor 2 which you use as support for your belief. When it is shown to you that in fact their were people who the bible says were righteous and did good when you claim there was no one. What about Job and Abraham? It shows that your use of "“There is no one righteous, not even one;" isn't correct b/c there were those who did good and God called righteous.

By nature, there is none righteous, no not one. And this is the truth. The Scriptures does not contradict itself. Those who did good and whom God called righteous is BECAUSE... and the only explanation is this: the work of divine grace has made the difference.

Isn't that so obvious!

Ed
That OK with me. In the future I suggest you actually try having a discussion using scripture to support your position. To just say it is a myth or fable is childish and ignores the evidence that is up for discussion. I understand why you find it difficult to accept that the unregenerate can have faith. I use to be a Calvinists and my study and journey with God has shown me that reformed theology has problems. As has been pointed out by me and others blood covenant and covenants in the bible seem to escape your understanding and that is why you overlap the new into the old. You don't understand the legal problems that came along with all these covenants that would not allow God to cause anyone to be born again before the cross. Well at least we gave you some truth to think about and I will trust the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to these wonderful and mighty truths. Be blessed Sing you are in my prayers. I recognize you as a brother in the Lord and you never know one day we may meet. I have lots of invitations to your country and I might come sometime. Blessings, Ed

Scott
Ed says 'Grant is not saying NT saints were credited with righteousness, just the opposite, it was OT saints who were credited with righteousness. NT saints are "made" righteous. Jesus made full payment for sin on the cross, so credit isn't the issue today. Righteousness is a reality'

NT saints are imputed, accounted,counted or reckoned with righteousness:

Rom 4:20-24
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for US ALSO, TO WHOM IT SHALL BE IMPUTED, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Ed
Sing, why did Paul say there were none righteous Rom 3? We know Job was as was Abraham or did Paul have a different view in Rom 3 or Psalm 14 which Paul is quoting.

Scott, 3049 is the Strong's word in the Greek, impute = Credited. They mean the same thing. Paul goes into detail in Gal 3 as well. Pretty obvious Abraham wasn't born again.

[Why the fuss about 'credited' and 'imputed'? Why avoid the issue. The point from Scott's quote is to show that NT saints enjoy and experience the same crediting (since you prefer this word) as Abraham did - something explicitly denied by Ed and Grant!)


Sing F Lau
Paul was demonstrating that all man are unrighteous, and are under the just condemnation of God.

This prepares the grand and glorious declaration of God's provision of righteousness in Christ Jesus... by Christ obedience to the law. I have said men like Job and Abraham were righteous BECAUSE of the work of God's free grace in them. I hope that is noted.

Ed
Sing, you are missing my point. If Job and Abraham were righteous born again like NT saints. Than Paul could not use the word "none" in that passage the way you do. Paul himself was righteous as were all the believers. So if people b/4 the cross were righteous and after the cross, when was the time where there was "none"?

Sing F Lau
O Ed, you are just so obtuse, given to sound-byte instead of sense.
Paul is making the point that man by nature, apart from the gaving grace of God, there is none righteousness.

Context: there is none righteous APART from the gracious work of God. And that righteousness is found in Jesus Christ alone, a righteousness of God's own provision.

I thought this is so evident... but even this we have to waste time disputing!!!

Your rhetorical question is quite mistaken... as though Paul is making an absolute statement, that at no one time, there was any righteous man.

Mark
None are righteous prior to their being sovereignly given spiritual eternal life in the new birth. Either OT or NT. None have any righteousness which will stand before God without such. There is only one eternal Saviour, either OT or NT. There is only one way of eternal salvation taught in Scripture. This notion of there being two ways is nothing but a man-made myth.

Ed
Sing, I was showing you that what Paul was saying was not an absolute statement and I pointed this out a few days ago and you ignored it. Now you are agreeing with me. The same can be said of 1 Cor 2:14 it isn't an absolute statement but Praise God we are making progress. ;)

Mark, I agree with you! I was pointing out that OT saints were not regenerate. Paul says in Heb 11:13 that they died in faith not having received the promise. Paul explains in Gal 3 that is the promise of the Holy Spirit to be made righteous with God etc. The OT saints were in paradise aka Abraham's bosom waiting for this promise. Today they are regenerated like every NT believer is when they put their faith in Christ.

Sing F Lau
It is an absolute statement in that there is none righteous without the gracious work of grace.

It is not an absolute statement in that there is none righteous at any one time in history. There are righteous men because God's gracious work has intervened in the lives of those men.

No progress... we are still on different pages.

You still believe in the fiction that there can be righteous men WITHOUT regeneration from their fallen state of sin and death!

Mark
Ed. If the OT saint is not regenerated in the same way as the NT saint then you have TWO ways of eternal salvation. That is not Biblical. There is only ONE way of eternal salvation.

Ed
Yes I agree, there are no righteous people without Gods grace.
I do believe that there were unregenerate men like Abraham who had faith and were "credited" with righteousness.

[Abraham's faith was credited to him in Gen 15:6, and not righteousness was credited. When you will ever learn this plain truth, Ed? The very idea of the unregenerate having faith is just contrary to Scriptures and common sense. ]

Mark
Unregenerated men have no righteousness before God, Ed. Wake up and smell the coffee.

The dead have no faith.

Ed
Mark, Jesus is called the first born from among the dead. Pretty much settles the fact that no one was born again b/4 Jesus was raised from the dead.
The OT saints were save by faith like we are but they did not have their spirit recreated like believers do today until after the resurrection. That is why they were in Paradise waiting for the promise they died in faith waiting for.

Mark, I said Abraham was "credited" with righteousness that should say it all. Jesus made full payment and today we are made righteous.
[There was NO crediting of righteousness to Abraham in Gen 15:6! ]

Sing F Lau
In 10 - TEN minutes from now, I will show you to the gate of this pasture.

I don't want to waste time going round and round. Thank you for the discussion.

You and I are on parallel tracks on a fundamental point:
- Life precedes the activities of that life.
- Life activities is possible without that life.

Ed
Mark a demon possessed man came to Jesus now how did that happen if as you say the dead cannot have faith?

Mark
Faith is an act of life. No life, no action. Real simple stuff Ed.
 Men have faith because they ARE saved. Not to get saved.

Sing F Lau
Ed is repeating the same mistake... equating the resurrection of the begotten Son of God from the death as the same of regeneration of those dead in trespasses and sins.
It is just going round and round and round.

Ed
Says who? Your definition of faith or is it what Gods word says? People came to Jesus all the time and were healed and Jesus said their faith has healed them. Did all these people get born again b/4 they came to Jesus? What about the 10 lepers who were healed only one came back to say thank you. Were all 10 born again? C'mon Mark read the bible not some theology that opposes it.

Mark
I agree Bro. Sing. He does not want to see. It would pull down his whole 'house of cards'.

Ed
Mark, Paul says in Rom 4 that Abraham was righteous after he believed not b/4.

Mark, please explain all those people who Jesus came in faith to be healed were they all born again first b/4 they had faith?
If God was able to get people born again why did His son have to die such a torturous death?

[Why? He had to meet the costly price for their eternal life! Before the cross, God saves based of what Christ will do. After the cross, God saves based on what Christ HAS DONE on the cross!]

Mark
He believed because the righteousness of Christ had already been imputed to him in the new birth.
They were born again in prospect of His payment. God is not dependant upon time. He is above time.
The dead do not have faith Ed. The dead do nothing spiritual.
Spiritual life preceeds spiritual action.

[Unrighteous ungodly Abram was justified when he was UNGODLY. Paul declares, God justifies the UNGODLY.]

Ed
That is not what Paul said happened, However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Paul makes it clear that Abraham's faith was credited with righteousness. He didn't have faith b/c he was righteous.

[Ed does not understand what 'faith was credited for righteousness' mean. Apostle Paul was demonstrating that believing is the way appointed for those ALREADY JUSTIFIED by God's free grace to experience the blessedness of their justified state by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Abraham was ALREADY a justified man in Gen 12-14. In Gen 15, he experienced the blessedness of his justified state through his believing. Abraham did not experience that blessedness through observing some ceremonial laws like circumcision!]


Ed
Mark, is sin spiritual? How can a corpse sin than? If they can't have faith than they can't sin either b/c as you say the dead can do nothing. Maybe you should have another look at what those dead in sins can do b/c we both know they can sin and sin is spiritual.

[How very confused, and illogical! Ed equates the deadness in trespasses and sins as a dead corpse! How silly! Sin is the transgression of God's law. A living man by nature is spiritually dead, i.e. he is incapable of any spiritual activity that will commend him to God, like believing Christ. He is actively opposed to God, a rebel in active enmity against God in his heart and actions! ]


Sing F Lau
‎Ed @ "If God was able to get people born again why did His son have to die such a torturous death?"

This is his major premise of his fable: the OT saints are righteous and died in faith even though they were not regenerated... still in their naive state of sin and condemnation in Adam!

This objection DOES NOT register of Ed at all, and he just rave on and on and on.

God justified and regenerated His people in the OT based on what Christ will as their redeemer, and so His tortuous death was necessary... because salvation has been bestowed in the OT. His life of sinless obedience secured the righteousness, and His tortuous death secured the forgiveness of sins.

Mark
You are confusing two differing aspects of justification Ed. Until you learn better you will be as confused as a termite in a yo-yo. Distinction is the hallmark of sound theology. Distinguish between righteousness before God and righteouness in the framework of one's own conscience.

Ed
Sing, you still never answered what the promises were they died in faith not having received.

Mark
I answered that at the outset Ed. The actual physical coming of the Son of God and the establishment of His physical church upon the earth.
[Ed didn't like the answer. He insists that the promise is regeneration in a distant future!]

Sing F Lau
Ed @ Paul makes it clear that Abraham's faith was credited with righteousness. He didn't have faith b/c he was righteous.

This is just an absolutely ignorant statement.
At least now you say that it was Abraham's faith was the thing that was credited!

When Abram was an UNGODLY man in Ur of the Chaldean, he was justified when God called him out of his native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation. This enables him to obey God. His faith is the fruit of his justification by the free grace of God.

When he believed in Gen 15:6, his believing was blessed by God... and he experienced the blessedness of his justified stated by the righteousness freely given to him.

He believes because he was justified and righteous.

Paul said, 'The JUST shall live by faith."
Abraham's faith was an effect of his justified state.

Ed
Mark, I understand righteousness and I understand why God had to "credit" it to Abraham. Sadly you are not able to and diminished Christ work at the cross as being unnecessary b/c God was able to regenerate people b/4 the cross. You really not thought this through at all. If they were saved in the same way as NT saints are today than why did Paul warn believers not to get entangled with the "law". Paul taught that mixing law and grace would nullify grace. In the OT saints were led by signs burning bush, clouds etc. in the NT saints are led by Gods spirit. Now why the difference? Like I said you haven't really thought this through. You just embraced Calvinistic theology and let it be the Holy Spirit for you.

[See how Ed revert back to that basic error... Abraham's faith is mistaken for righteousness!
The law Paul warned them is ceremonial laws. Abraham experienced the blessedness of his justification by God's free grace through faith, and not through observing some ceremonial laws. There was no ceremonial laws yet, declared Paul... so that cannot be the means to experience the same. What confusion!]

Sing F Lau
Ed @ Sing, you still never answered what the promises were they died in faith not having received.

You have no ears to hear what you don't want to hear. So don't say I didn't answer.

Ed
Sing, you are adding your theological view into what Gods word actually says. You are correct that God blessed Abraham's faith with crediting him with righteousness.
When I quote scripture you should not call it ignorant.

[Your quoting Scriptures? Which Scriptures? Is it '... FOR righteousness' or '... AS righteousness' or '... WITH righteousness'? Which of it is Scriptures?]

Mark
I am not a Calvinist Ed. I have thought it through. I am not the one left with 'blessed inconsistencies'. I hold to one way of eternal salvation for both the OT and the NT saint. You do not. Nor do you wish to espouse what Scripture teaches after many admonitions. I am done with you.

Ed
Sing, go read what Paul said about Abraham "However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness."

[God JUSTIFIES the ungodly (that DOESN'T register with you, does it???)... and you think God justifies the believing Abraham! God ALREADY justified Abraham when he was yet an UNGODLY man in idolatrous Ur. In Gen 15:6., Abraham experienced the blessedness of his justification through faith, not through observing some ceremonial laws, which so many Jewish believers imagined.]


Ed
Mark, I really didn't expect you to continue, it was obvious you really haven't thought these views through and are just parroting what others have told you. I doubt you really know what a scriptural admonition is. Rejecting your views b/c they don't harmonize with scripture is what a true believer should do. Bless you Mark, I be praying for you.

Mark
Power and position are the opiates driving most of the christian religion today. Those teachings which elevate the power and postion of the preacher or the believer are not difficult to disprove by either logic or Scripture, but parting with them is usually only accomplished by individuals who love truth more than power and position and are willing to see themselves as powerless to save themselves and in a postion where left alone they would never have even desired it. It is a rare individual who loves Divine truth more than power and position.

Sing F Lau
Ed @ You are correct that God blessed Abraham's faith with crediting him with righteousness.

Now, that's very mistaken. That's the very thing I rejected.
I didn't say what you make me say. That's your imagination!

I said God blessed Abraham's act of believing to experience the blessedness of his justified state by God's free grace. God justified Abraham when was still an UNGODLY man in Ur.

God justifies the UNGODLY.
Faith justifies the BELIEVING.

Distinguish these two, and then, if God give opportunity, we can discuss again.

Ed
Sing, you didn't answer, you made some kind of an objection about promise means promises etc. but when I asked you dodged the question.
You ignored that the bible teaches that Jesus was the first born from among the dead. Even Mark wouldn't touch that one.

[Ed, you are so stiff neck... Jesus' resurrection from the dead is vastly different from the regeneration of sinners dead in trespasses and sins. You even believe the horrid lies that Jesus was also dead in trespasses and sins, and needed to be regenerated  just like any other sinners, and based on that, that no one is regenerated until Jesus Christ was regenerated... because jesus is the first born of regeneration! O what a load of misguided notions.]

Ed
Mark, what does that have to do with what we are discuss

[Ed is too obtuse to connect the dots!]

Sing F Lau
Ed, you had better make up your mind:
Is it 'with righteousness' or 'as righteousness'. None of them is found in the Kj I use.

I read everywhere as "for righteousness"!
Go figure the difference... and we can continue later.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Ro 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Ro 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Ro 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Ga 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Ed
Sing, I never said that God did not justify the ungodly? Paul said that Abraham was credited with or as ( means the same thing) righteousness b/c of his faith.

[Ed, if I say you are stupid, I am not wrong at all. You have MISREAD Gen 15:6, and all the NT quotes of it. There is no crediting of righteousness because of his faith. There is a crediting of Abraham's faith for righteousness. You can't even read that passage properly, much less understand! Wake up, Ed, don't be drunk on sound-byte! Be sober and get some sense!]

Sing F Lau
Ed @ 'Sing, you didn't answer, you made some kind of an objection about promise means promises etc. but when I asked you dodged the question.'

Go back to read it, if you can see it any way!

Ed
Abraham's faith was credited not his righteousness, he had none until he first had faith. So simple!

[Now at least you say rightly. BUT have you figured out what 'his faith was credited unto him for righteousness' mean? Go figure it out first.]

Deon
John 3 16 & 17

Sing F Lau
At least now, you have forsaken that stupid mistake... that what was credited is not righteousness but Abraham's act of believing. Rom 4 tells us how that believing of Abraham is related to the blessedness experienced by him.

Have you read before, 'The just shall live by faith'????
Why did apostle quote that, and marshaled Abraham as a classic example of that statement of truth?

Answer: Abraham believes (live by faith) because he was already JUSTIFIED when he was an ungodly man in Ur.
The just manifests their justified state by their faith... not by their obsession with their ceremonial laws... addressing God's children among the Jews!

Sing F Lau
‎Ed "Abraham's faith was credited not his righteousness, he had none until he first had faith."

So, righteousness is CONDITIONED upon a man's faith!
This I call the lie of the devil!
Scriptures say that righteousness is credited FREELY by the grace of God.

Deon
And everyone who is not a theologian or who does not understand the finer details of your religion will now go to hell.

Sing F Lau
Deon, did any one even hint at that?

Deon
It is implied. After many years in the back benches I am so sick and tired of the word games. I have decided not to argue with people anymore - Pharasees argue and abuse the law. What the big print giveth - they water down with the Law and the fine print. What is the GOOD NEWS if everyone keeps changing their minds ?

Ed
Sing, Paul said that Abraham's faith was "credited" as/with righteousness. I did not say it or write I just quoted it from scripture that Paul wrote to the Romans. So according to Paul the condition for righteousness is faith. You can call Paul a liar all day, I could careless, you can rip out Romans and Galatians from your bible b/c they teach the same thing. Paul asked the Galatians how did they received the spirit and Paul said they did it by faith. By faith they received Gods spirit and Paul doesn't say they have faith b/c they have the spirit. He says they received Gods spirit by faith. I stick with what Paul preaches and teaches.

Good night Sing.

Sing F Lau
Deon, the good news is God saves sinners.... and of those He saved, some even make shipwreck of their faith... some messed up their life big time... some shall be saved; yet so as by fire... but they shall all be in heaven BECAUSE GOD saved them by His free grace, through the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Their well being here and now is conditioned upon their working out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

Their place in heaven, is entirely and solely and completely by the FREE GRACE of God, in Christ Jesus.

Sing F Lau
Ed didn't read the passages of Scriptures I quoted... each of them has '... for righteousness.' Whether it is '... as righteousness' or '... with righteousness' or '... for righteousness' is IRRELEVANT to Ed.

Now, you are just being silly for changing the subject.
We are dealing with the relationship between faith and righteousness... but you are running away from it, and raising a different and separate matter... faith and the receiving of the spirit!

Sing F Lau
Ed @ 'So according to Paul the condition for righteousness is faith."

This is the truth according to Paul:
Ro 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Tit 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Justification involved the crediting of righteousness to one's account - and this is not condition on faith, but by the free grace of God. Ed, you reject this truth.
So, according to Paul, there is no condition for righteousness to be credited to a man... it is credited by the free grace of God.

However, Paul did teach that the condition to EXPERIENCE the blessings of that righteousness credited freely by the free grace of God is believing in Jesus Christ. That's experience does not come through works of righteousness or observing ceremonial laws.

This statement is a whole world of different from Ed's statement.

This explains why there is this SOLEMN INJUNCTION:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Reprobation, a popular Calvinistic doctrine, is a Heresy!

Reprobation   by John R. Daily


   

Those who do not believe that God elected His people in eternity say that if He did so, He must have reprobated all others, and that this act of reprobation must have been as much a sovereign act of decretive will of God as the act of election was. This objection to the doctrine of... personal, eternal and unconditional election urged against it by Arminians, gives it a very uncomely dress. When God elected His people, His act of choosing them became the first great cause of their salvation, and if that act had reprobated all others, then the same act that results in the salvation of His people results in the condemnation of the lost, and God is as much the cause of one as the other.

     This is a gross misrepresentation of the doctrine of election which evidently results from a misunderstanding of the meaning of terms.  Non-election, and not reprobation, is the opposite of election. Election is the act of God. Non-election is simply no act at all. When God elected His people, which the Bible teaches He did before the foundation of the world, He did nothing whatever to those He did not elect. God did not choose them, neither did He reprobate them. To pass them by and not choose them is doing nothing to them at all.

     It is argued that God is unjust if He chose some and did not choose all. If that be true, then either He did not choose any or He chose all, for He is not unjust. If He did not choose any, there was no election, for election is choice; and if He chose all, there was no election, for election is choice; and if He chose all, there was no election, for election is choice of a part. But the Bible says He did choose some "before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestinated them unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto Himself according to the good pleasure of His will." This is sometimes explained as referring to the apostles only. But if it would be unjust for God to choose all that will be finally saved and to leave out all others, it would be equally unjust for Him to choose the apostles and leave all others to the uncertainty of chance, or pass them by without choosing them. But that He did choose some to eternal salvation is proved by every passage that contains the words, "election", "elect", etc., and by many circumstances recorded in the word of God.

     We deny the charge as unjust made by the Arminians against the wise and good Ruler of the universe. God did elect His people before the foundation of the world, long before any of them had a being, and those not elected were left out, and God is not unjust. It is blasphemy to charge a God of purity and justice with being unjust. It is a wonder that He allows His depraved creatures to live who utter such vile epithets in denouncing Him while they pretend to worship Him.

     While God did not choose the non-elect, He did not reprobate them.  Reprobation is the opposite of approbation and not election, and may relate to the state of a person, the frame of his mind, or the nature of his conduct. To approbate is to approve or express approval of. To reprobate is to disapprove or express disapproval of. Election is an act performed in eternity, and is not based upon any merit seen in the persons chosen.  Approbation and reprobation belong only to time and are based upon the state and conduct of the persons approved or disapproved. Whatever is right in state or conduct is approved or approbated, and whatever is wrong in state or conduct is reprobated or disapproved. All are reprobate, therefore, in a state of nature, both the elect and non-elect.

     In 2 Corinthians 13:5, Paul says, "Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?' This teaches that they are reprobates who have not Christ in them. The elect have not Christ in them before they are regenerated. They are then the children of wrath even as others. Being not approved, they are then reprobates, but when Christ is in them, the hope of glory, they are no longer reprobates, for they are then approved in the imputed righteousness of Christ.

     The approval of the children of God is through Christ who is in them.  They are approved because He is in them. The flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh, so that the child of God cannot do the things he would. When he does the things that he would, it is explained not to be he that does it, but sin that dwelleth in him. This sin, being not approved of God, is reprobated.

     When the Lord's people are disobedient and rebellious, they are declared to be as "reprobate silver". (See Jeremiah 6:30.) The Lord visits their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquities with many stripes.  He takes away the joys of His salvation, and refuses to fight their battles for them. This, with them, is a state of reprobation. Sad and dark are the hours of such a trial. There is a fearful looking for of fiery indignation. The peace they once enjoyed is displaced by sorrow. The sweet light of the dear Savior's presence is withdrawn, and darkness hangs over their pathway.
They cry,
                       "Where is the blessedness I knew,
                          When first I saw the Lord?
                        Where is the soul-refreshing view
                          Of Jesus and His word?"

     The non-election of the non-elect is not reprobation. As they are born into the world, and manifest by a course of sinful conduct, the sinful nature they possess, God disapproves of them or reprobates them. They are reprobates from the origin of their sinfulness, and continue reprobates because of their sinfulness. All the blame of reprobation rests upon the reprobates. Sin lies at the door in every case. None can truthfully charge God with being accountable in any sense for their reprobation. All the elect may truthfully ascribe all the glory of their election to God. If that act of election had reprobated others, then their reprobation would have been as much the result of God's purpose and act as election, but it did not reprobate any. We believe God, according to His own sovereign, eternal, and unchangeable purpose, in eternity, ere time began, did make choice of His own elect, and that all thus chosen will dwell with Him in glory and chant the praises of Him who saved them and called them with an holy calling, not according to their own works, but according to His own purpose and grace which He gave them in Christ before the world began. But we know that God is not chargeable with being responsible for the reprobation or the guilt of any.

      In a debate we held several years ago with an Arminian preacher, he asked this question: "If the sinner is lost, whose fault is it?" We answered: "It is the sinner's fault." We then showed that all the blame of sinfulness rests upon the sinner, and that all the praise of salvation is due to Jesus Christ. The Arminian idea of blame seems to be that the sinner who is finally lost is to blame merely for not having believed on Christ.  They say that the sinner cannot believe on Christ unless Christ is preached to him. Surely, then, those who never hear Christ preached are not to blame  for not believing on Him. They cannot be to blame for not believing on Christ, who have had no opportunity to believe on Him. There is no escaping the conclusion that all who die without hearing the gospel preached are lost without blame. This theory represents more than two-thirds of the human family as being lost without blame!
The great difficulty is that the Arminian doctrine puts the blame on the sinner upon the wrong basis. The coming of Christ and the proclamation of His gospel is not the cause of the condemnation of sinners in any sense. If Christ had never come into the world all would have been sinners just the same. All being sinners, the sentence of death would hve passed upon all even if there never had been a gospel sermon preached. The reprobation of those who are finally lost, then is not the result, either directly or indirectly, of the election of God's people, the coming of Christ to redeem them from all iniquity, or the preaching of His gospel.