Posted on 09/05/2001 2:47:45 PM PDT by RnMomof7
GW...the best humor has its base in truth! Thanks for a laugh before my 1st coffee!
Did you try my link?
Verse |
Who God Wills to Save |
How God Wills to Save |
||||
All |
Some |
N/A |
Free Will |
Election |
N/A |
|
|
Ezekiel 33:11 |
9 |
3 |
1 |
12 |
|
|
|
Matthew 7:21 |
|
7 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
Matthew 12:50 |
2 |
7 |
1 |
7 |
3 |
2 |
|
Matthew 18:14 |
10 |
2 |
|
1 |
8 |
5 |
|
John 1:13 |
|
6 |
3 |
|
13 |
|
|
John 3:8 |
|
10 |
3 |
|
9 |
3 |
|
John 3:16-17 |
11 |
1 |
|
9 |
|
|
|
John 5:21 |
|
11 |
1 |
|
13 |
|
|
John 6:38-40 |
|
6 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
1 |
|
Acts 22:14 |
|
8 |
4 |
1 |
8 |
1 |
|
Galatians 1:4 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
|
9 |
2 |
|
Ephesians 1:5-11 |
1 |
11 |
|
1 |
13 |
|
|
1 Timothy 2:4 |
13 |
|
|
3 |
5 |
4 |
|
2 Peter 3:9 |
13 |
|
|
7 |
3 |
1 |
|
Revelation 22:17 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
8 |
3 |
|
Totals |
62 |
81 |
31 |
54 |
96 |
23 |
Notice that little word "us"?
Does this "us" include anyone whom God doesn't draw/drag to Jesus to give him/her *His* "saving faith"?
Jesus: "NONE can come to me unless my Father draws (drags) him ......"
|
|
| Chapter 10:14. He hath perfected, etc. The word simply means to complete, to finish, to perfect; and it depends on the context what that completion or perfection means. To perfect the sanctified or the expiated, or those atoned for, was completely to free them from the imputation of sin, to make them fully clear from guilt, or in other words, fully to take away their sins, which was never done by the sacrifices of the law, verse 11. This is the point here handled. Stuart gives the real meaning by the following free translation, -- "By one offering, then, he hath fully accomplished for ever what was needed by those for whom expiation is (was) made." The perfecting "for ever" by one offering in this verse, proves that "for ever," [Greek text omitted], in verse 12, is to be connected with the offering of one sacrifice, and not with the sitting on God's right hand; the verse may be thus rendered, -- 12. "But he, having offered one sacrifice for sins for perpetuity, (or, according to Beza and Stuart, 'one perpetual sacrifice for sins,') sat down on the right hand of God, henceforth waiting until his enemies be made his footstool." Some copies have [Greek text omitted] -- "he;" and some, [Greek text omitted] -- "this." If the latter be adopted, it ought not to be rendered "this man," but "this priest," such being the word used before. As one sacrifice is opposed to many sacrifices, so a perpetual sacrifice, that is, a sacrifice perpetually efficacious, is opposed to those sacrifices which were often made. |
Verse 14. He hath perfected them for ever - That is, has done all that was needful in order to their full reconciliation with God.
But I was correct. Most churchgoers in our day are not born again. Think about that.
The mess the Pharisees were in is presented in the Bible as a spiritual warning to us. They hated Jesus' message, one of the most important elements of which was that the majority of the professed followers of Jehovah were no more regenerate than my dog.
And Paul is telling us in Romans 9 that this was no accident.
From a Calvinist's viewpoint, why? How does this statement have any meaning to a Calvinist? We are either Elect, or reprobate--correct? If we are Elect, we WILL go to heaven--OTOH if we are reprobate, we WILL go to hell. There is nothing we can do about it. So--
Why is it dangerous?
It doesn't deserve the time it takes to reply it is so LIMP
regards
don
Naw but he did have a crown to throw at Gods feet *grin*
Did you ever look it up in Adam Clarke? He is on God rules .com site...much more indepth than Wesley and readible.
thanks for the table..
You have been quite predatory with RnMom. (I refer to On the Trinity post #4, #21, #67, #130, 184, etc., and that is just on the previous thread.) You are demanding complete control over her mind in religious matters, with the alternative being eternity in hell if she refuses. This goes far beyond "contending earnestly for the faith", far beyond the "foolishness of preaching", and far beyond trying to win souls to Christ, far into forbidden territory.
You call her a heretic, a false teacher. That is a dime-a-dozen everyday accusation around here from your fellow Calvinists, but buried in the midst of your long, malevolent posts it appears to carry a much heavier connotation. It wasn't so many centuries ago that evil men were burning at the stake those they charged with heresy, trying to enforce their orthodoxy through terror. Thankfully no one can use such means in this free country, so long as our freedoms are protected from abusive government and illegal individual acts, but you are nonetheless earnestly trying to enforce your orthodoxy, hoping to make God -- or rather the idolatrous god of the Calvinists, and the prospect of eternity in hell, your enforcer.
The other Calvinists posting here need to have enough discernment to know the difference between the preaching of the Gospel and predatory mind-control behavior. What is mind-control over the Internet if not this? They need to think about the need to discipline their leader when he gets way out of line. The Democrats needed to discipline their leader -- remove him from office -- and wouldn't.
Sometimes it is the medical professionals, the caregivers, who are the last to realize that they are in need of professional help.
Please, doc, do your best to convince RnMom, and the others, to their satisfaction, that you are not in the mind-control business. You can start by letting others know that they can disagree with you without accusations, attacks, and heavy warnings of eternal damnation. As you exhort all to come to Christ, tell the truth about those who already have, and acknowledge their devotion and commitment in faith to Him, even though you disagree with them on matters of doctrine.
Your #30: the majority of the professed followers of Jehovah were no more regenerate than my dog
You mean dogs don't go to heaven? :-)
30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth; yea, I will praise him among the multitude.
31 For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor, to save him from those that condemn his soul. (Psalm 109:30-31)
Adam Clarke? Believe it or not, I actually have a very old set of his commentaries. They were given to me along with a very old and worn set of Matthew Henry's Commentary. On a side note......I have the Works of John Wesley as well. Sadly, as has been pointed out on these threads, the guy hated Calvinism! (i.e., the absolute sovereignty of GOD).
I will, however, have to agree with Misteh Spudgin.....uhhhh......Mr. Spurgeon, when he stated that Clarke was a dangerous, Arminian (Pelagian), "twister of the Word."
I will read the work of Wesley,Clarke,Finny,McGee,McArthur,Gill,Calvin..etc...with out fear.
You know spudgin truth isn't determined by how loud it is shouted..
Ephesians 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ:
How does one BECOME A MEMBER OF THE FLOCK ?
The problem is, your very question is completely ignoring the obvious point of John 10:26 and also ignoring the obvious implications of John 10:16.
***
Since you think John 6:45 trumps everything I have shown you, I will start there.
The folks whom the Lord Jesus addressed in John 10:26 would not NOT LISTEN to the Father and would NOT LEARN from Him in the crucially important way of BELIEVING. Hearing with one's natural ears doesn't count for anything. The sinner has to listen and learn.
And according to 1 Corinthians 2 and 3, the person who does not even have the Spirit of regeneration will do NEITHER. The sinner needs to have his soul fully engaged in the Spiritual reception of what is merely coming into his ears and bouncing around in his spiritual empty head! Apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit--implanting Truth receptors in the soul--the gospel message saves no one at all. (Any sinner who has experienced God's startling work of regeneration should immediately realize that this ability to listen with a fully engaged soul is supernatural, not natural.)
My point, again, is that the folks whom the Lord was addressing in John 10:26 would NOT listen and learn in this crucially important way. And the Lord Jesus is telling them the reason WHY they would NOT listen and learn in this way of believing into and through the Doorway Who is Christ.
He is telling them that they were not chosen unto salvation in the first place.
This is why they experienced no legitimately regenerating power attending the message. The Lord is presenting the important matter of theological cause and effect. The Lord is ultimately telling them why they would NEVER listen and learn from God.
(Sounds like most of my Wesleyan/Arminian friends, unfortunately. Maybe some of them are just struggling in carnality, but many of them haven't even gotten to first base in the Spirit of regeneration. This would certainly explain why they can't understand Romans 9, John 6, Hebrews 10:14, Acts 13:48, or 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 or a zillion other passages in the Bible which they don't like. I'm afraid that they have no Truth receptors. And by the very nature of the Satanic mess they are in, they don't even KNOW that they don't. Their religiosity fools them. Their vain use of the name Jesus fools them. They definitely need to sober up--somehow, some way.)
Notice how blunt this confrontation by the Lord Jesus was. It was not the Lord's completely typical approach to soteriological controversy, but He decided to be blunt in John 10:26. It was not for the good of His addressees--because nothing was going to do them any good!--but it is instructive for us. (At least, it is for me!)
Now, I realize that you are trying to imply that the addressees in John 10:26 would have become sheep by believing. Well, this would be true except for the fact that it is impossible for a non-sheep to believe the gospel. (They won't listen to God for real. You just haven't ever fully understood this. You just haven't come to grips with how bad, how incapacitating sin is.)
Oddly enough, the impossibility of a non-sheep believing the gospel is obvious even if we accept the Wesleyan/Arminian theory of election.
Why? Because the sheep in John 10 are not the saved. The sheep to whom the Lord is referring are the elect. That's different, and the difference is important. If you will so much as concede that the sheep are elect sinners rather than necessarily saved sinners, even your Wesleyan/Arminian theology cries out against the idea of a non-elect sinner being saved through true faith. (This is impossible by anyone's definition of election.)
Hold that thought for a moment.
Back to John 10:26, we definitely need to notice that the reason why the folks to whom He was speaking didn't believe the gospel is because they were not His sheep.
Everything in your theology screams out that they were not His sheep because they did not believe. But that is not the logic which Christ is presenting. You will twist His words to your peril.
You see, although there is a very real sense in which believing the gospel in a saving way does reveal a person as elect, it does not newly constitute him as elect. It saves him--and that is important!--but it doesn't secure for him the status of elect. He was already elect.
To use the language of John 10, believing the gospel may very well be said to reveal a person as one of the Lord's sheep, but it doesn't newly constitute him as a sheep. He was already a sheep.
So, John 10:26 is actually explaining John 6:45.
Now, when you go back to John 6:37, 39, and 44, you will be forced to read it without stupidly misreading v.45 in an effort to overthrow everything vv.37, 39, and 44 are OBVIOUSLY saying.
John 6:37-45, in other words, is presenting the Calvinist doctrines of TOTAL DEPRAVITY, UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, IRRESISTIBLE GRACE, AND THE PRESERVATION/PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. The only point which is missing--concerning the extent of the Atonement--is established elsewhere in Scripture, but it was beside the point of what the Lord was saying in John 6:37-45. (What He was saying was quite heavy enough for His audience without adding an even more mysterious doctrine!)
***
Now, let's go back to the point which we put on hold. I am referring here to the idea that the sheep in John 10 are God's elect, not God's saved.
God has a spiritually elect people, what is known elsewhere in Scriptural as a [spiritual] "Israel"--not to be confused with the literal, national Israel (see Romans 9:6 for Paul's reference to both of these "Israels").
And these elect sinners have been in His heart from before the foundation of the world. So, when we move from eternity into time itself, these sinners lost in the Fall are "like sheep [who] have gone astray" (see Isaiah 53, of course!). Gone astray? When?
I just told you. The elect went astray in the Fall.
Now, considered as sheep (Isaiah 53 again), the elect have to be found and brought into the fold of salvation. Election is not salvation. They have to be sought out and brought to God.
According to everything we know about the Good Shepherd, He has to go find them with the gospel message.
This is why the Lord said in John 10:16 "Other sheep have I and they are not of this fold. And there shall be one fold and One Shepherd."
The Lord is clearly talking about elect Gentiles. They were not even saved--since the Gospel had not yet broken out of the confines of Judea to evangelize the Gentiles--and yet they were already sheep.
So, it all hangs together beautifully. John 10:26 is merely the pivotal verse.
Notice also that inasmuch as the sheep are a metaphor for God's elect in John 10, then the doctrine of eternal security is obviously true. Therefore, the Wesleyan/Arminian "reading" of 10:28 is bunk, too.
And everything I have shown you in this post fits Romans 9 to a tee. Paul was obviously an absolute predestinarian.
Therefore, a reasonable, teachable student of God's Word should conclude that your entire theology is EVIL TRASH.
***
I realize that this is blunt. But you really need to look at John 10:26 again. It makes mincemeat of everything in your theology. And it also reveals that the Lord Jesus was pretty blunt on occasion. (For an even more blunt confrontation, see John 8:30f--another thoroughly Calvinistic passage.)
Furthermore, Paul was pretty blunt in Romans 9. Arminians hate Romans 9, and Paul doesn't seem to care that they do. By warning them concnerning Pharaoh, he is actually warning them concerning Pharaoh. {I love these fonts!)
Absolutely, no truly discerning Christian, will put any spiritual stock, so to speak, in anything that you say about the Bible or spiritual matters.
I am not trying to be unfriendly with you, but you had better repent of your idolatrous religion! In fact, we(Christians) tell you that because like the Apostle, we are debtors, not because we desire to be unfriendly.
The least you could do is to quit parading yourself as a Christian. You are not! Mormonism is an altogether different religion.
I am aware of Satan's devices, though!
Historical Christianity, as has been defined for 2,000 yrs, authoritatively by Scripture, (and yes, Creeds and Confessions, as representations of what Scripture teaches, to keep the wolves out), is the completion of Judaism....... the fulfillment of long awaited promises by GOD, even from the beginning (Gen 3:15). Therefore, Christianity is not some kind of new "religion."
Mormonism, defined by Christian standards, is a bona fide cult.
ON THE DEATH OF THE REV. MR. GEORGE WHITEFIELD
Preached at the Chapel in Tottenham-Court Road and at the Tabernacle, near Moorfields, on Sunday, November 18, 1770.
"Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!" Num. 23:10.
1. "Let my last end be like his!" How many of you join in this wish? Perhaps there are few of you who do not, even in this numerous congregation! And O that this wish may rest upon your minds! -- that it may not die away till your souls also are lodged "where the wicked cease from troubling, and where the weary are at rest!"
2. An elaborate exposition of the text will not be expected on this occasion. It would detain you too long from the sadly- pleasing thought of your beloved brother, friend, and pastor; yea, and father too: for how many are here whom he hath "begotten in the Lord!" Will it not, then, be more suitable to your inclinations, as well as to this solemnity, directly to speak of this man of God, whom you have so often heard speaking in this place? -- the end of whose conversation ye know, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever." And may we not,
I. Observe a few particulars of his life and death?
II. Take some view of his character? and,
III. Inquire how we may improve this awful providence, his sudden removal from us?
1. We may, in the first place, observe a few particulars of his life and death. He was born at Gloucester, in December, 1714, and put to a grammar-school there, when about twelve years old. When he was seventeen, he began to be seriously religious, and served God to the best of his knowledge. About eighteen he removed to the University, and was admitted at Pembroke College in Oxford; and about a year after he became acquainted with the Methodists (so called), whom from that time he loved as his own soul.
2. By them he was convinced that we "must be born again," or outward religion will profit us nothing. He joined with them in fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays; in visiting the sick and the prisoners; and in gathering up the very fragments of time, that no moment might be lost: and he changed the course of his studies; reading chiefly such books as entered into the heart of religion, and led directly to an experimental knowledge of Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
3. He was soon tried as with fire. Not only his reputation was lost, and some of his dearest friends forsook him; but he was exercised with inward trials, and those of the severest kind. Many nights he lay sleepless upon his bed; many days, prostrate on the ground. But after he had groaned several months under "the spirit of bondage," God was pleased to remove the heavy load, by giving him "the Spirit of adoption;" enabling him through a living faith, to lay hold on "the Son of His Love."
4. However, it was thought needful, for the recovery of his health, which was much impaired, that he should go into the country. He accordingly went to Gloucester, where God enabled him to awaken several young persons. These soon formed themselves into a little society, and were some of the first- fruits of his labor. Shortly after, he began to read, twice or thrice a week, to some poor people in the town; and every day to read to and pray with the prisoners in the county jail.
5. Being now about twenty-one years of age, he was solicited to enter into holy orders. Of this he was greatly afraid, being deeply sensible of his own insufficiency. But the Bishop himself sending for him, and telling him, "Though I had purposed to ordain none under three-and-twenty, yet I will ordain you whenever you come" -- and several other providential circumstances concurring -- he submitted, and was ordained on Trinity Sunday, 1736. The next Sunday he preached to a crowded auditory, in the church wherein he was baptized. The week following he returned to Oxford, and took his Bachelor's degree: and he was now fully employed; the care of the prisoners and the poor lying chiefly on him.
7. But he was quickly called from hence again, to supply the cure of Dummer, in Hampshire. Here he read prayers twice a day; early in the morning, and in the evening after the people came from work. He also daily catechized the children, and visited from house to house. He now divided the day into three parts, allotting eight hours for sleep and meals, eight for study and retirement, and eight for reading prayers, catechizing, and visiting the people. Is there a more excellent way for a servant of Christ and His Church? If not, who will "go and do likewise?"
8. Yet his mind still ran on going abroad; and being now fully convinced he was called of God thereto, he set all things in order, and, in January, 1737, went down to take leave of his friends in Gloucester. It was in this journey that God began to bless his ministry in an uncommon manner. Wherever he preached, amazing multitudes of hearers flocked together, in Gloucester, in Stonehouse, in Bath, in Bristol; so that the heat of the churches was scarce supportable: and the impressions made on the minds of many were no less extraordinary. After his return to London, while he was detained by General Oglethorpe, from week to week, and from month to month, it pleased God to bless his word still more. And he was indefatigable in his labor: generally on Sunday he preached four times, to exceeding large auditories; beside reading prayers twice or thrice, and walking to and fro often ten or twelve miles.
9. On December 28 he left London. It was on the 29th that he first preached without notes. December 30, he went on board; but it was above a month before they cleared the land. One happy effect of their very slow passage he mentions in April following: "Blessed be God, we now live very comfortably in the great cabin. We talk of little else but God and Christ; and scarce a word is heard among us when together, but what has reference to our fall in the first, and our new birth in the Second, Adam." It seems, likewise, to have been a peculiar providence, that he should spend a little time at Gibraltar; where both citizens and soldiers, high and low, young and old, acknowledged the day of their visitation.
10. From Sunday, May 7, 1738, till the latter end of August following, he "made full proof of his ministry" in Georgia, particularly at Savannah: he read prayers and expounded twice a day, and visited the sick daily. On Sunday he expounded at five in the morning; at ten read prayers and preached, and at three in the afternoon; and at seven in the evening expounded the Church Catechism. How much easier is it for our brethren in the ministry, either in England, Scotland, or Ireland, to find fault: with such a laborer in our Lord's vineyard, than to tread in his steps!
11. It was now that he observed the deplorable condition of many children here; and that God put into his heart the first thought of founding an Orphan-house, for which he determined to raise contributions in England, if God should give him a safe return thither. In December following, he did return to London; and on Sunday, January 14, 1739, he was ordained priest at Christ Church, Oxford. The next day he came to London again; and on Sunday, the 21st, preached twice. But though the churches were large, and crowded exceedingly, yet many hundreds stood in the churchyard, and hundreds more returned home. This put him upon the first thought of preaching in the open air. But when he mentioned it to some of his friends, they judged it to be mere madness: so he did not carry it into execution till after he, had left London. It was on Wednesday, February 21, that, finding all the church doors to be shut in Bristol (beside, that no church was able to contain one half of the congregation), at three in the afternoon he went to Kingswood, and preached abroad to near two thousand people. On Friday he preached there to four or five thousand; and on Sunday to, it was supposed, ten thousand! The number continually increased all the time he stayed at Bristol; and a flame of holy love was kindled, which will not easily be put out. The same was afterwards kindled in various parts of Wales, of Gloucestershire, and Worcestershire. Indeed, wherever he went, God abundantly confirmed the word of his messenger.
12. On Sunday, April 29, he preached the first time in Moorfields, and on Kennington Common; and the thousands of hearers were as quiet as they could have been in a church. Being again detained in England from month to month, he made little excursions into several counties, and received the contributions of willing multitudes for an Orphan-house in Georgia. The embargo which was now laid on the shipping gave him leisure for more journeys through various parts of England, for which many will have reason to bless God to all eternity. At length, on August 14, he embarked: but he did not land in Pennsylvania till October 30. Afterwards he went through Pennsylvania, the Jerseys, New York, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina; preaching all along to immense congregations, with full as great effect as in England. On January 10, 1740, he arrived at Savannah.
13. January 29, he added three desolate orphans to near twenty which he had in his house before. The next day he laid out the ground for the house, about ten miles from Savannah. February 11, he took in four orphans more; and set out for Frederica, in order to fetch the orphans that were in the southern parts of the colony. In his return he fixed a school, both for children and grown persons, at Darien, and took four orphans thence. March 25, he laid the first stone of the Orphan-house; to which, with great propriety, he gave the name of Bethesda; a work for which the children yet unborn shall praise the Lord. He had now about forty orphans, so that there was near a hundred mouths to be fed daily. But he was "careful for nothing," casting his care on Him who feed the young ravens that call upon Him.
14. In April he made another tour through Pennsylvania, the Jerseys, and New York. Incredible multitudes flocked to hear, among whom were abundance of Negroes. In all places the greater part of the hearers were affected to an amazing degree. Many were deeply convinced of their lost state, many truly converted to God. In some places, thousands cried out aloud; many as in the agonies of death; most were drowned in tears; some turned pale as death; others were wringing their hands; others lying on the ground; others sinking into the arms of their friends; almost all lifting up their eyes, and calling for mercy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.