Four Chinese Brothers...

 

From: sing
Sent: 30 August 2005 12:36
To: Lee, Tang, Loh (Ipoh East Church)
Subject: Re: churchmanship

Brother Lee,

I am glad that you have been chewing on the matter. I hope some progress is made from where you and I left off the discussion some distant while ago.

I don't know whether Rome was built in a day, but theologically there is nothing new under the sun. I think we agree on this.

By 'this view' in your question, I take it that you mean 'saving faith is an evidence of justification (and regeneration and adoption too - since these all are simultaneous, through logically distinct).

I don't know much history at all. In any case, the 1689 LBCoF is a historical document. So, if my understanding of the CoF is correct and consistent (he who disagrees please feel free to prove me wrong - I would be very thankful to be shown my errors), then, historically that body of men holds to that view. I believe that view was the standard view among the early particular baptists for quite a long time until it gradually became a minority view for various reasons - the rise of Arminianism which is naturally popular even with the true children of God; through misunderstanding from WITHIN and vicious and sustained caricatures from WITHOUT.

There are those who hold to this view today who have never departed from that understanding of the 1689 CoF. And there are more and more people from all places returning to the primitive (Collins: "adjective, of or belonging to the first or beginning; original") view of the early Particular Baptists. I believe I am one of them.

I was explaining the problem to brother Loh the last time I was in Ipoh, using this illustration.

There were 4 Chinese brothers in Shanghai (representing the early Particular Baptists embracing the truth summarized in the 1689 CoF- of which John Gill was the great and undisputed representative, even Mr. Spurgeon acknowledged this common fact). One went to Taiwan, another to Japan and one went to America.

After many years, the three brothers return to Shanghai, and the four brothers are together again. They began to squabble as to who among them are true Chinese in values and outlook. The one who went to America became an Arminian (still speaking the same language but a different gospel); the one to Taiwan became a 'standard reformed' (retaining old biblical language but with a different twist of the meaning); he who went to Japan became outright liberal! The one who went to Taiwan retains lots of 'chinese-ness' in him - he is the equivalent of a 'standard reformed'. When the four have come together, all of them claim to be Chinese... but only one of them remains a true original - one who stays put in Shanghai.

The 'standard reformed' brother back from Taiwan called the brother who has remained in Shanghai a 'hyper-calvinist' - and the literature of the 'standard reformed' publishing houses (whether from the Baptist or from the paedo-baptist) have INDOCTRINATED a whole generation in this falsehood! The brother who turned Arminian calls the 'standard reformed' brother back from Taiwan a 'hyper-calvinist'. The brother who has who remained in Shanghai can only sigh with grief - that his three brothers have all departed from their original beliefs.

I know this is a poor illustration, but it is sufficient to explain the confusion of various groups who claim to hold the beliefs summarized in 1689 CoF, but believe very different things in the fundamental of the faith.

But some former Arminians and some 'standard reformed' people, having realized the theological roots are abandoning the 'strange' ideas they have picked up while away from Shanghai, and have returned to the faith of their fathers.

The one who remained in Shanghai is known as Primitive Baptists today.
There are other churches that went astray, have realised their errors, and have reformed and returned to the original faith of the Particular Baptists. Some identify themselves with the Primitive Baptists. Others returned to the same truth but did not bear the name Primitive Baptists. I will give you more of these later. So, this view of justification is not held by the Primitive Baptists alone. There are other Baptist churches on both sides of the Atlantic holding to this primitive biblical teaching.

A few brief thoughts for your consideration.

Pastor Lau

Sons of God (Genesis 6) - They are not what you imagine!

 

Sons of God (Genesis 6)
They are not what you imagine!

Gen 6:1-2
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 

“And it came to pass…”: Adam was created on day 6 of year 1; Noah was born in the year 1056.; he lived for 950 years and died in the year 2006. The flood came when Noah was 600 years old, in 1656 since the creation week. So, when it is stated “and it came to pass” – the procreation activities of man - sons of men with daughters of men – had been going on for more than 1600 years.

Then something happened...
“the sons of God” is popularly understood as a reference to the godly Sethites. Even the venerable Dr John Gill said, “…this is to be understood of the posterity of Seth, who from the times of Enos, when then began to be called by the name of the Lord, Genesis 4:25 had the title of the sons of God, in distinction from the children of men…”

Matthew Henry: “The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves…” 

Remember these hard facts:
- It is said that Noah, a preacher of righteousness, preached for 120 years before the flood came; that's a long period; let's just halve it and make it 60; 60 years is not a short ministry either.
- During Noah’s long years of ministry, that WHOLE GENERATION of "the sons of God" did not believe but ALL perished in the flood.

Questions for consideration:
1. What had happened to ALL those so-called "sons of God" in Noah's day?
2. Did all the sons of God (i.e. so-called godly Sethites) end up lusting after and marrying daughters of men (i.e. ungodly Cainite women) then?
3. Why do the theologians and scholars insist that “the sons of God” are the godly Sethites even though all of them lusted after and married daughters of men (ungodly heathen women)?
4. Would the inspired Scriptures use the term “the sons of God” to describe those who neither believed nor repented during the long years of preaching by a preacher of righteousness?

All those "sons of God" - whom they insist were godly men – all perished in the flood. Noah’s long ministry had no good effect on them at all.

What kind of "sons of God" have they imagined - men who bore such a grand-sounding title "the sons of God" but who lusted after ungodly heathen women because of their outward beauty; and that none repented or were converted under the ministry of a faithful preacher of righteousness for 60 over years. 

Here are two Scriptures that speak of "the sons of God” -
John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” 
Romans 8:14 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

Is there the slightest semblance between the two: those sons of God in Gen 6 and those sons of God in John 1:12 and Rom 8:14?

And here is one more matter to consider.
2Pet 2:9 "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished."

Surely these precious words apply to the “sons of God” if indeed these refer to the godly Sethites in Gen 6:2. So, if the "sons of God" were godly men indeed - as universally imagined – then a reasonable conclusion is:
- either God FAILED catastrophically in delivering the imagined "godly men" in Gen 6, (but God forbids this blasphemous thought!)
- or 2Pet 2:9 is entirely false - because all the imagined "godly men" in Gen 6:2 perished in the flood!

So, which is which – the LORD God didn't know those godly men (sons of God), or God was too weak to deliver them; or is apostle Peter making an utterly untrue statement?

So, live with the implications of your view.

Do you still believe that the "sons of God" is a reference to godly men and not something else?

Let me suggest for your consideration:
The “sons of God” are some of the fallen angels who had unlawfully taken upon themselves human nature (like the two elect angels who visited Lot did), and procreated with the daughters of men… and brought about the universal moral degeneration... calling forth the divine judgment upon the whole human race.

Now read these:

2Pe 2:4 ¶ For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.

Verse 4 speaks of angels that sinned; verse 5 tells of the destruction of the world in Noah’s day. See the connection yet? Verse 6 reminds us of elect angels who became real men whom the Sodomites lusted after.

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

2Pet 2:4 and Jude 6 obviously speak of the same matter; the nature of the angels’ sin is stated in the latter.

They keeping not their first estate and leaving their own habitation are two sides of the same coin – they left their habitation in the spirit realm and transgressed into the physical human realm and procreated, with the desired catastrophic and universal moral degeneration, calling forth the righteous divine judgment to destroy the human race... thus, circumventing the appearance of the Seed of the woman who will crush the Serpent's head.

"BUT Noah found grace"; Satan's effort to circumvent the appearance of the Seed of the Woman, who would crush his head, failed spectacularly.

Saving, and justifying faith - what are they?

 

From: sing 
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:26:43 +0800
To: Loh, Tang, Lee - Ipoh East RB Church
Subject: studying "Pruning Seven Deformed Branches

Dear Brethren,
I am glad that you are gathering to discuss church matters, i.e. with regard to my teachings as expressed in the 'Pruning' book, and my future involvement with Ipoh East Church.

I pray that you will have a profitable time. I will suggest a few things for your consideration.

1. Endeavour to stick to the issues alone, and deal with the issues alone. It is so easy to be side-tracked by all sorts of things.

2. Avoid personality at all costs. Truth is not determined by personality, whether a renowned theologian or an ordinary pastor of a church.

3. Be honest and open as you study and examine the Scriptures together.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, for instruction in righteousness. Be ready to be CORRECTED and REPROVED in doctrinal matters too.

4. And please don't end up quarrelling among yourself! Theological discussion can be damaging to those who can't handle disagreement.

5. Remember, the teaching of Scriptures summarised in the 1689 CoF is the Doctrinal Standard of the Ipoh East Church. Study it and know it well. Believe what you want but make sure it is consistent and in conformity to the Scriptures as summarised in the 1689. CoF

6. Feel free to ask any question you like in relation to anything I have written in the book. I am not responsible for what others say of me. I am responsible for what I have written. Speak your mind.

May the Lord bless each of you as you study together. Regardless of what you have said and thought about me, and whatever decision you would make, I will bear no grudges and shall still love and respect each of you as dear brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I remain your brother and servant of Christ,
sing

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

p/s I paste below a post I sent to many RB theologians, and am waiting for their reply. Perhaps you may like to consider my simple questions when you come together to study. When I receive some replies, I will forward them to you.

From: sing <singlau@myjaring.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 23:30:00 +0800

To: Robert Oliver.
Cc: Tom Ascol, Tim Curnow,  Sinclair B. Ferguson, Roger Fay, Richard Barcellos, Reformed Baptist Academic Press, Philip Grist, Philip Eveson, Phil Collier, Phil Arthur, Peter Law.
Subject: Saving faith, Justifying faith

Dear Dr Oliver, 
Hello, and greetings from Penang, Malaysia.,

Please let me ask something:
What do Reformed people mean when they use these terms 'saving faith' or 'justifying faith'?

Is 'saving faith' the faith that saves or the faith exercised by a saved person - i.e one having been effectually called to grace and salvation?

(Saving faith receives and rests in Christ Jesus and His righteousness.)

 Is 'justifying faith' the faith that justifies a condemned person, or the faith exercised by a justified person and thus evidences the justified state of the person?

(... 1689.11.2. "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love."

Is receiving and resting in Christ the same as being justified by God?

Or is receiving and resting in Christ (saving faith) a saving grace exercised by the person already justified?

In what sense is faith the alone instrument of justification? Is it the alone instrument to secure one's justification before God, or the alone instrument to manifest/evidence one's justification before God by His free and sovereign grace when one was ungodly and in enmity against God?

What do 'reformed' people mean when they say, justification is by faith alone? Do they mean the same thing as the framers of the 1689 LBCoF? Or have they put an entirely new unbiblical twist to it?

'Faith is not alone in the person justified.' Doesn't this mean that faith is a consequence/effect of justification, that personal justification precedes the grace of faith? Faith is one of the saving grace shown by a person already justified.

I am wondering whether the 'reformed' people are holding to the same beliefs of the Particular Baptists as summarised in the 1689 LBCoF.

I asked because you are a reputable RB theologian.
I would be pleased to hear your comments and thoughts.

Thanks.

sing

Where is it held today?

From: sing 
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:51:44 +0800
To: Ipoh East Church - Loh, Tan, Lee
Cc: Edmund
Subject: Where is it held today? Don Fortner - (US)

 Dear Brother Lee,
You asked the following (and I am mighty glad you had asked...)
<<Maybe I can ask, historically and in today's context where does this view come from and where is it held today?>> 

I wrote to find out from Don Fortner - Pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Danville, KY - a non Primitive Baptist Church. His website is <www.donfortner.com>

From: sing
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:03:44 +0800
To: Don Fortner
Subject: Where is it held today?

Dear Brother Don,
Please permit me to make an inquiry. I visited your website and noted the churches listed in the Links. Do they all hold to the same view on justification and faith as expressed in your article 'What Does It Mean To Be Reformed?' - i.e. Faith in Christ is the result, not the condition of justification. I believe this is the teaching of the Scriptures, but I am facing great opposition in this corner of the Lord's vineyard.

I asked because a brother inquired what churches and groups of churches are there - historically, and at present - that hold to that view of justification. At least I know that Grace Baptist Church of Danville does.

Are there other groups of churches that hold to this biblical view of justification?

I would be very grateful for some information on this.

sing
far east.
---------

From: Don Fortner
Reply-To: "Don Fortner"
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:30:46 -0400
To: "sing" 
Subject: Where is it held today?

Bro. Sing,
It is difficult to say what a "group" believes, because various individuals
within the group may differ greatly, though holding to the same creed. But the English Strict and  Particular Baptist (and others)  historically understood and taught that faith is the result (not the instrumental cause) of justification in Christ.

So, too, did...
John Gill
John Brine
John Owen
Thomas Manton
Augustus Toplady
John Bunyan
C. H. Spurgeon
J. P. Boyce
Jonathan Edwards
George Whitefield
William Gadsby
William Huntington
John L. Dagg

And a host of others.

Where is the church you pastor? Tell me a little about yourself.

Don
Reply to don@donfortner.com

--------

From: sing 
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:12:46 +0800
To: Don & Shelby  Fortner
Subject: Where is it held today?

Brother Don,
Thank you for affirming that part of my inquiry. I did read in your tract this statement, 'When you lay this tract down, I want you to know precisely why we refuse to practice these things, believe them, or participate in any way with those who do.' So, I expected the answer, but just want to make sure.

Are there other baptist churches or groups of baptist churches that hold to the same biblical doctrine of justification - historically, and today?

I know you are very busy, but please spare a few moments to help me with my inquiry.

sing
Sungai Dua Church (1689 Free Grace Baptist)
Penang, Malaysia

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

 on 30.08.05 7:57 AM, Don Fortner at don@donfortner.com wrote:

Bro. Sing, 
So far as I know (and I think I do) all the churches and pastors linked to
www.donfortner.com fully believe and teach the doctrine of Holy Scripture concerning justification.

Don

Some grandest gospel truths stated in Romans 8:29-30

https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/10215197106496473
December 9, 2019

#Some_grandest_gospel_truths_stated

Romans 8
28 ¶And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
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.
31 ¶What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

Verses 28-30 form a paragraph. It states some of the grandest gospel truths. You may like to list them one by one, and ponder over each one. The exercise will enrich you.

But let's consider the questions in verse 31.

31 ¶What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

1. What do "these things" refer to?
2.  What shall we say concerning "these things"?
3. "If God be for us" - in what sense God be for us? Note the context
4. The second question is rhetorical, demanding a firm negative answer, "none."
- None can be against us in what sense?
- What does that mean to you?

Do some mental exercise... and rejoice in your blessedness of being the object of God's immutable grace.

Hebrews 5:14 KJV — But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.