Free Will-- A Slave

his is one of the great guns of the Arminians, mounted upon the top of their walls, and often discharged with terrible noise against the poor Christians called Calvinists. I intend to spike the gun this morning, or, rather, to turn it on the enemy, for it was never theirs; it was never cast at their foundry at all, but was intended to teach the very opposite doctrine to that which they assert. Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved. Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words "will," or "will not" in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will. It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free-will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is "Alpha and Omega" in the salvation of men.

Our four points, this morning, shall be: First—that every man is dead, because it says: "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have LIFE." Secondly—that there is life in Jesus Christ: "Ye will not come to ME, that ye might have life." Thirdly—that there is life in Christ Jesus for every one that comes for it: "Ye will not come to me, THAT YE MIGHT HAVE LIFE;" implying that all who go will have life. And fourthly—the gist of the text lies here, that no man by nature ever will come to Christ, for the text says, "YE WILL NOT COME TO ME, that ye might have life." So far from asserting that men of their own wills ever do such a thing, it boldly and flatly denies it, and says, "Ye WILL NOT come to me, that ye might have life." Why, beloved, I am almost ready to exclaim, Have all free-willers no knowledge that they dare to run in the teeth of inspiration? Have all those that deny the doctrine of grace no sense? Have they so departed from God that they wrest this to prove free-will; whereas the text says, "Ye WILL NOT come to me that ye might have life."

No being needs to go after life if he has life in himself. The text speaks very strongly when it says, "Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life." Though it saith it not in words, yet it doth in effect affirm that men need a life more than they have themselves. My hearers, we are all dead unless we have been begotten unto a lively hope. First, we are all of us, by nature, legally dead—"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death," said God to Adam; and though Adam did not die in that moment naturally, he died legally; that is to say death was recorded against him. As soon as, at the Old Bailey, the judge puts on the black cap and pronounces the sentence, the man is reckoned to be dead at law. Though perhaps a month may intervene before he is brought on the scaffold to endure the sentence of the law, yet the law looks upon him as a dead man. It is impossible for him to transact anything. He cannot inherit, he cannot bequeath; he is nothing—he is a dead man. The country considers him not as being alive in it at all. There is an election—he is not asked for his vote because he is considered as dead. He is shut up in his condemned cell, and he is dead. Ah! and ye ungodly sinners who have never had life in Christ, ye are alive this morning, by reprieve, but do ye know that ye are legally dead; that God considers you as such, that in the day when your father Adam touched the fruit, and when you yourselves did sin, God, the Eternal Judge, put on the black cap and condemned you? You talk mightily of your own standing, and goodness, and morality—where is it? Scripture saith, ye are "condemned already." Ye are not to wait to be condemned at the judgment-day—that will be the execution of the sentence—ye are "condemned already." In the moment ye sinned; your names were all written in the black book of justice; every one was then sentenced by God to death, unless he found a substitute, in the person of Christ, for his sins. What would you think if you were to go into the Old Bailey, and see the condemned culprit sitting in his cell, laughing and merry? You would say, "The man is a fool, for he is condemned, and is to be executed; yet how merry he is." Ah! and how foolish is the worldly man, who, while sentence is recorded against him, lives in merriment and mirth! Do you think the sentence of God is of no effect? Thinkest thou that thy sin which is written with an iron pen on the rocks for ever hath no horrors in it? God hath said thou art condemned already. If thou wouldst but feel this, it would mingle bitters in thy sweet cups of joy; thy dances would be stopped, thy laughter quenched in sighing, if thou wouldst recollect that thou art condemned already. We ought all to weep, if we lay this to our souls: that by nature we have no life in God's sight; we are actually, positively condemned; death is recorded against us, and we are considered in ourselves now, in God's sight, as much dead as if we were actually cast into hell; we are condemned here by sin, we do not yet suffer the penalty of it, but it is written against us, and we are legally dead, nor can we find life unless we find legal life in the person of Christ, of which more by-and-by.

But, besides being legally dead, we are also spiritually dead. For not only did the sentence pass in the book, but it passed in the heart; it entered the conscience; it operated on the soul, on the judgment, on the imagination, and on everything.

"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," was not only fulfilled by the sentence recorded, but by something which took place in Adam. Just as, in a certain moment, when this body shall die, the blood stops, the pulse ceases, the breath no longer comes from the lungs, so in the day that Adam did eat that fruit his soul died; his imagination lost its mighty power to climb into celestial things and see heaven, his will lost its power always to choose that which is good, his judgment lost all ability to judge between right and wrong decidedly and infallibly, though something was retained in conscience; his memory became tainted, liable to hold evil things, and let righteous things glide away; every power of him ceased as to its moral vitality. Goodness was the vitality of his powers—that departed. Virtue, holiness, integrity, these were the life of man; but when these departed man became dead. And now, every man, so far as spiritual things are concerned, is "dead in trespasses and sins" spiritually. Nor is the soul less dead in a carnal man, than the body is when committed to the grave; it is actually and positively dead—not by a metaphor, for Paul speaketh not in metaphor, when he affirms, "You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." But my hearers, again, I would I could preach to your hearts concerning this subject. It was bad enough when I described death as having been recorded; but now I speak of it as having actually taken place in your hearts. Ye are not what ye once were; ye are not what ye were in Adam, not what ye were created. Man was made pure and holy. Ye are not the perfect creatures of which some boast; ye are altogether fallen, ye have gone out of the way, ye have become corrupt and filthy. Oh! listen not to the siren song of those who tell you of your moral dignity, and your mighty elevation in matters of salvation. Ye are not perfect; that great word, "ruin," is written on your heart; and death is stamped upon your spirit. Do not conceive, O moral man, that thou wilt be able to stand before God in thy morality, for thou art nothing but a carcass embalmed in legality, a corpse arrayed in some fine robes, but still corrupt in God's sight. And think not, O thou possessor of natural religion! that thou mayest by thine own might and power make thyself acceptable to God. Why, man! thou art dead! and thou mayest array the dead as gloriously as thou pleasest, but still it would be a solemn mockery. There lieth queen Cleopatra—put the crown upon her head, deck her in royal robes, let her sit in state; but what a cold chill runs through you when you pass by her. She is fair now, even in her death—but how horrible it is to stand by the side even of a dead queen, celebrated for her majestic beauty! So you may be glorious in your beauty, fair, and amiable, and lovely; you put the crown of honesty upon your head, and wear about you all the garments of uprightness, but unless God has quickened thee, O man! unless the Spirit has had dealings with thy soul, thou art in God's sight as obnoxious as the chilly corpse is to thyself. Thou wouldst not choose to live with a corpse sitting at thy table; nor doth God love that thou shouldst be in his sight. He is angry with thee every day, for thou art in sin—thou art in death. Oh! believe this; take it to thy soul; appropriate it, for it is most true that thou art dead, spiritually as well as legally.

The third kind of death is the consummation of the other two. It is eternal death. It is the execution of the legal sentence; it is the consummation of the spiritual death. Eternal death is the death of the soul; it takes place after the body has been laid in the grave, after the soul has departed from it. If legal death be terrible, it is because of its consequences; and if spiritual death be dreadful, it is because of that which shall succeed it. The two deaths of which we have spoken are the roots, and that death which is to come is the flower thereof. Oh! had I words that I might this morning attempt to depict to you what eternal death is. The soul has come before its Maker; the book has been opened; the sentence has been uttered; "Depart ye cursed" has shaken the universe, and made the very spheres dim with the frown of the Creator; the soul has departed to the depths where it is to dwell with others in eternal death. Oh! how horrible is its position now. Its bed is a bed of flame; the sights it sees are murdering ones that affright its spirit;. the sounds it hears are shrieks, and wails, and moans, and groans; all that its body knows is the infliction of miserable pain! It has the possession of unutterable woe, of unmitigated misery. The soul looks up. Hope is extinct—it is gone. It looks downward in dread and fear; remorse hath possessed its soul. It looks on the right hand—and the adamantine walls of fate keep it within its limits of torture. It looks on the left—and there the rampart of blazing fire forbids the scaling ladder of e'en a dreamy speculation of escape. It looks within and seeks for consolation there, but a gnawing worm hath entered into the soul. It looks about it—it has no friends to aid, no comforters, but tormentors in abundance. It knoweth nought of hope of deliverance; it hath heard the everlasting key of destiny turning in its awful wards, and it hath seen God take that key and hurl it down into the depth of eternity never to be found again. It hopeth not; it knoweth no escape; it guesseth not of deliverance; it pants for death, but death is too much its foe to be there; it longs that non-existence would swallow it up, but this eternal death is worse than annihilation. It pants for extermination as the laborer for his Sabbath; it longs that it might be swallowed up in nothingness just as would the galley slave long for freedom, but it cometh not—it is eternally dead. When eternity shall have rolled round multitudes of its everlasting cycles it shall still be dead. Forever knoweth no end; eternity cannot be spelled except in eternity. Still the soul seeth written o'er its head, "Thou art damned forever." It heareth howlings that are to be perpetual; it seeth flames which are unquenchable; it knoweth pains that are unmitigated; it hears a sentence that rolls not like the thunder of earth which soon is hushed—but onward, onward, onward, shaking the echoes of eternity—making thousands of years shake again with the horrid thunder of its dreadful sound—"Depart! depart! depart! ye cursed!" This is the eternal death.

for he says: "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life." There is no life in God the Father for a sinner; there is no life in God the Spirit for a sinner apart from Jesus. The life of a sinner is in Christ. If you take the Father apart from the Son, though he loves his elect, and decrees that they shall live, yet life is only in his Son. If you take God the Spirit apart from Jesus Christ, though it is the Spirit that gives us spiritual life, yet it is life in Christ, life in the Son. We dare not, and cannot apply in the first place, either to God the Father, or to God the Holy Ghost for spiritual life. The first thing we are led to do when God brings us out of Egypt is to eat the Passover—the very first thing. The first means whereby we get life is by feeding upon the flesh and blood of the Son of God; living in him, trusting on him, believing in his grace and power. Our second thought was—there is life in Christ. We will show you there are three kinds of life in Christ, as there are three kinds of death.

First there is legal life in Christ. Just as every man by nature considered in Adam had a sentence of condemnation passed on him in the moment of Adam's sin, and more especially in the moment of his own first transgression, so I, if I be a believer, and you, if you trust in Christ, have had a legal sentence of acquittal passed on us through what Jesus Christ has done. O condemned sinner! Thou mayest be sitting this morning condemned like the prisoner in Newgate; but ere this day has passed away thou mayest be as clear from guilt as the angels above. There is such a thing as legal life in Christ, and, blessed be God! some of us enjoy it. We know our sins are pardoned because Christ suffered punishment for them; we know that we never can be punished ourselves, for Christ suffered in our stead. The Passover is slain for us; the lintel and door-post have been sprinkled, and the destroying angel can never touch us. For us there is no hell, although it blaze with terrible flame. Let Tophet be prepared of old, let its pile be wood and much smoke, we never can come there—Christ died for us, in our stead. What if there be racks of horrid torture? What if there be a sentence producing most horrible reverberations of thundering sounds? Yet neither rack, nor dungeon, nor thunder, are for us! In Christ Jesus we are now delivered. "There is therefore NOW no condemnation unto us who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Sinner! Art thou legally condemned this morning? Dost thou feel that? Then, let me tell thee that faith in Christ will give thee a knowledge of thy legal acquittal. Beloved, it is no fancy that we are condemned for our sins, it is a reality. So, it is no fancy we are acquitted, it is a reality. A man about to be hanged, if he received a full pardon would feel it a great reality. He would say, "I have a full pardon; I cannot be touched now." That is just how I feel.

"Now freed from sin I walk at large, The Saviour's blood's my full discharge, At his dear feet content I lay, A sinner saved, and homage pay."

Brethren, we have gained legal life in Christ, and such legal life that we cannot lose it. The sentence has gone against us once—now it has gone out for us. It is written, "THERE IS NOW NO CONDEMNATION," and that now will do as well for me in fifty years as it does now. Whatever time we live it will still be written, "There is therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus."

Then, secondly, there is spiritual life in Christ Jesus. As the man is spiritually dead, God has spiritual life for him, for there is not a need which is not supplied by Jesus, there is not an emptiness in the heart which Christ cannot fill; there is not a desolation which he cannot people, there is not a desert which he cannot make to blossom as the rose. O ye dead sinners! spiritually dead, there is life in Christ Jesus, for we have seen—yes! these eyes have seen—the dead live again; we have known the man whose soul was utterly corrupt, by the power of God seek after righteousness; we have known the man whose views were carnal, whose lusts were mighty, whose passions were strong, suddenly, by irresistible might from heaven, consecrate himself to Christ, and become a child of Jesus. We know that there is life in Christ Jesus, of a spiritual order; yea, more, we ourselves, in our own persons, have felt that there is spiritual life. Well can we remember when we sat in the house of prayer, as dead as the very seat on which we sat. We had listened for a long, long while to the sound of the gospel, but no effect followed, when suddenly, as if our ears had been opened by the fingers of some mighty angel, a sound entered into our heart. We thought we heard Jesus saying, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." An irresistible hand put itself on our heart and crushed a prayer out of it. We never had a prayer before like that. We cried, "O God! have mercy upon me a sinner." Some of us for months felt a hand pressing us as if we had been grasped in a vice, and our souls bled drops of anguish. That misery was a sign of coming life. Persons when they are being drowned do not feel the pain so much as while they are being restored. Oh! we recollect those pains, those groans, that living strife that our soul had when it came to Christ. Ah! we can recollect the giving of our spiritual life as easily as could a man his restoration from the grave. We can suppose Lazarus to have remembered his resurrection, though not all the circumstances of it. So we, although we have forgotten a great deal, do recollect our giving ourselves to Christ. We can say to every sinner, however dead, there is life in Christ Jesus, though you may be rotten and corrupt in your grave. He who hath raised Lazarus hath raised us; and he can say, even to you,

In the third place, there is eternal life in Christ Jesus. And, oh! if eternal death be terrible, eternal life is blessed; for he has said, "Where I am there shall my people be." "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given unto me, be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory." "I give unto my sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish." Now, any Arminian that would preach from that text must buy a pair of India rubber lips, for I am sure he would need to stretch his mouth amazingly; he would never be able to speak the whole truth without winding about in a most mysterious manner. Eternal life—not a life which they are to lose, but eternal life. If I lost life in Adam I gained it in Christ; if I lost myself for ever I find myself for ever in Jesus Christ. Eternal life! Oh blessed thought! Our eyes will sparkle with joy and our souls bum with ecstasy in the thought that we have eternal life. Be quenched ye stars! let God put his finger on you—but my soul will live in bliss and joy. Put out thine eye O sun!—but mine eye shall "see the king in his beauty" when thine eye shall no more make the green earth laugh. And moon, be thou turned into blood!—but my blood shall ne'er be turned to nothingness; this spirit shall exist when thou hast ceased to be. And thou great world! thou mayest all subside, just as a moment's foam subsides upon the wave that bears it—but I have eternal life. O time! thou mayest see giant mountains dead and hidden in their graves; thou mayest see the stars like figs too ripe, falling from the tree, but thou shalt never, never see my spirit dead.

III. This brings us to the third point: that ETERNAL LIFE IS GIVEN TO ALL WHO COME FOR IT.

There never was a man who came to Christ for eternal life, for legal life, for spiritual life, who had not already received it, in some sense, and it was manifested to him that he had received it soon after he came. Let us take one or two texts—"He is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto him." Every man who comes to Christ will find that Christ is able to save him—not able to save him a little, to deliver him from a little sin, to keep him from a little trial, to carry him a little way and then drop him—but able to save him to the uttermost extent of his sin, unto the uttermost length of his trials, the uttermost depths of his sorrows, unto the uttermost duration of his existence. Christ says to every one who comes to him, "Come, poor sinner, thou needst not ask whether I have power to save. I will not ask thee how far thou hast gone into sin; I am able to save thee to the uttermost." And there is no one on earth can go beyond God's "uttermost."

Now another text: "Him that cometh to me, [mark the promises are nearly always to the coming ones] I will in no wise cast out." Every man that comes shall find the door of Christ's house opened—and the door of his heart too. Every man that comes—I say it in the broadest sense—shall find that Christ has mercy for him. The greatest absurdity in the world is to want to have a wider gospel than that recorded in Scripture. I preach that every man who believes shall be saved—that every man who comes shall find mercy. People ask me, "But suppose a man should come who was not chosen, would he be saved?" You go and suppose nonsense and I am not going to give you an answer. If a man is not chosen he will never come. When he does come it is a sure proof that he was chosen. Says one, "Suppose any one should go to Christ who had not been called of the Spirit." Stop, my brother, that is a supposition thou hast no right to make, for such a thing cannot happen; you only say it to entangle me, and you will not do that just yet. I say every man who comes to Christ shall be saved. I can say that as a Calvinist, or as a hyper-Calvinist, as plainly as you can say it. I have no narrower gospel than you have; only my gospel is on a solid foundation, whereas yours is built upon nothing but sand and rottenness. "Every man that cometh shall be saved, for no man cometh to me except the Father draw him." "But," says one, "suppose all the world should come, would Christ receive them?" Certainly, if all came; but then they won't come. I tell you all that come—aye, if they were as bad as devils, Christ would receive them; if they had all sin and filthiness running into their hearts as into a common sewer for the whole world, Christ would receive them. Another says, "I want to know about the rest of the people. May I go out and tell them—Jesus Christ died for every one of you? May I say—there is righteousness for everyone of you, there is life for every one of you?" No; you may not. You may say—there is life for every man that comes. But if you say there is life for one of those that do not believe, you utter a dangerous lie. If you tell them Jesus Christ was punished for their sins, and yet they will be lost, you tell a wilful falsehood. To think that God could punish Christ and then punish them—I wonder at your daring to have the impudence to say so! A good man was once preaching that there were harps and crowns in heaven for all his congregation; and then he wound up in a most solemn manner: "My dear friends, there are many for whom these things are prepared who will not get there." In fact, he made such a pitiful tale, as indeed he might do; but I tell you who he ought to have wept for—he ought to have wept for the angels of heaven and all the saints, because that would spoil heaven thoroughly. You know when you meet at Christmas, if you have lost your brother David and his seat is empty, you say: "Well, we always enjoyed Christmas, but there is a drawback to it now—poor David is dead and buried!" Think of the angels saying: "Ah! this is a beautiful heaven, but we don't like to see all those crowns up there with cobwebs on; we cannot endure that uninhabited street: we cannot behold yon empty thrones." And then, poor souls, they might begin talking to one another, and say, "we are none of us safe here for the promise was—"I give unto my sheep eternal life," and there is a lot of them in hell that God gave eternal life to; there is a number that Christ shed his blood for burning in the pit, and if they may be sent there, so may we. If we cannot trust one promise we cannot another." So heaven would lose its foundation, and fall. Away with your nonsensical gospel! God gives us a safe and solid one, built on covenant doings and covenant relationship, on eternal purposes and sure fulfillments.

IV. This brings us to the fourth point, THAT BY NATURE NO MAN WILL COME TO CHRIST,

for the text says, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." I assert on Scripture authority from my text, that ye will not come unto Christ, that ye might have life. I tell you, I might preach to you for ever, I might borrow the eloquence of Demosthenes or of Cicero, but ye will not come unto Christ. I might beg of you on my knees, with tears in my eyes, and show you the horrors of hell and the joys of heaven, the sufficiency of Christ, and your own lost condition, but you would none of you come unto Christ of yourselves unless the Spirit that rested on Christ should draw you. It is true of all men in their natural condition that they will not come unto Christ. But, methinks I hear another of these babblers asking a question: "But could they not come if they liked?" My friend, I will reply to thee another time. That is not the question this morning. I am talking about whether they will, not whether they can.

You will notice whenever you talk about free-will, the poor Arminian, in two seconds begins to talk about power, and he mixes up two subjects that should be kept apart. We will not take two subjects at once; we decline fighting two at the same time, if you please. Another day we will preach from this text—"No man can come except the Father draw him." But it is only the will we are talking of now; and it is certain that men will not come unto Christ, that they might have life. We might prove this from many texts of Scripture, but we will take one parable. You remember the parable where a certain king had a feast for his son, and bade a great number to come; the oxen and fatlings were killed, and he sent his messengers bidding many to the supper. Did they go to the feast? Ah, no; but they all, with one accord, began to make excuse. One said he had married a wife, and therefore he could not come, whereas he might have brought her with him. Another had bought a yoke of oxen, and went to prove them; but the feast was in the night-time, and he could not prove his oxen in the dark. Another had bought a piece of land, and wanted to see it; but I should not think he went to see it with a lantern. So they all made excuses and would not come. Well the king was determined to have the feast; so he said, "Go out into the highways and hedges, and" invite them—stop! not invite—"compel them to come in;" for even the ragged fellows in the hedges would never have come unless they were compelled. Take another parable:—A certain man had a vineyard; at the appointed season he sent one of his servants for his rent. What did they do to him? They beat that servant. He sent another; and they stoned him. He sent another and they killed him. And, at last, he said, "I will send them my son, they will reverence him." But what did they do? They said, "This is the heir, let us kill him, and cast him out of the vineyard." So they did. It is the same with all men by nature. The Son of God came, yet men rejected him. "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life." It would take too much time to mention any more Scripture proofs. We will, however, refer to the great doctrine of the fall. Any one who believes that man's will is entirely free, and that he can be saved by it, does not believe the fall. As I sometimes tell you, few preachers of religion do believe thoroughly the doctrine of the fall, or else they think that when Adam fell down he broke his little finger, and did not break his neck and ruin his race. Why, beloved, the fall broke man up entirely. It did not leave one power unimpaired; they were all shattered, and debased, and tarnished; like some mighty temple, the pillars might be there, the shaft, and the column, and the pilaster might be there; but they were all broken, though some of them retain their form and position. The conscience of man sometimes retains much of its tenderness—still it has fallen. The will, too, is not exempt. What though it is "the Lord Mayor of Mansoul," as Bunyan calls it?—the Lord Mayor goes wrong. The Lord Will-be-will was continually doing wrong. Your fallen nature was put out of order; your will, amongst other things, has clean gone astray from God. But I tell you what will be the best proof of that; it is the great fact that you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him. You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind.

An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, "Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them." That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said, "I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?" If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, "My dear sir, I quite believe it—and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." Do I hear one Christian man saying, "I sought Jesus before he sought me; I went to the Spirit, and the Spirit did not come to me"? No, beloved; we are obliged, each one of us, to put our hands to our hearts and say—

"Grace taught my soul to pray, And made my eyes to o'erflow; 'Twas grace that kept me to this day, And will not let me go."

Is there one here—a solitary one—man or woman, young or old, who can say, "I sought God before he sought me?" No; even you who are a little Arminian, will sing—

Then, one more question. Do we not find, even after we have come to Christ, our soul is not free, but is kept by Christ? Do we not find times, even now, when to will is not present with us? There is a law in our members, warring against the law of our minds. Now, if those who are spiritually alive feel that their will is contrary to God, what shall we say of the man who is "dead in trespasses and sins"? It would be a marvelous absurdity to put the two on a level; and it would be still more absurd to put the dead before the living. No; the text is true, experience has branded it into our hearts. "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

Now, we must tell you the reasons why men will not come unto Christ. The first is, because no man by nature thinks he wants Christ. By nature man conceives that he does not need Christ; he thinks that he has a robe of righteousness of his own, that he is well-dressed, that he is not naked, that he needs not Christ's blood to wash him, that he is not black or crimson, and needs no grace to purify him. No man knows his need until God shows it to him; and until the Holy Spirit reveals the necessity of pardon, no man will seek pardon. I may preach Christ for ever, but unless you feel you want Christ you will never come to him. A doctor may have a good shop, but nobody will buy his medicines until he feels he wants them.

The next reason is, because men do not like Christ's way of saving them. One says, "I do not like it because he makes me holy; I cannot drink or swear if he saved me." Another says, "It requires me to be so precise and puritanical, and I like a little more license." Another does not like it because it is so humbling; he does not like it because the "gate of heaven" is not quite high enough for his head, and he does not like stooping. That is the chief reason ye will not come to Christ, because ye cannot get to him with your heads straight up in the air; for Christ makes you stoop when you come. Another does not like it to be grace from first to last. "Oh!" he says, "If I might have a little honor." But when he hears it is all Christ or no Christ, a whole Christ or no Christ, he says, "I shall not come," and turns on his heel and goes away. Ah! proud sinners, ye will not come unto Christ. Ah! ignorant sinners, ye will not come unto Christ, because ye know nothing of him. And that is the third reason.

Men do not know his worth, for if they did they would come unto him. Why did not sailors go to America before Columbus went? Because they did not believe there was an America. Columbus had faith, therefore he went. He who hath faith in Christ goes to him. But you don't know Jesus; many of you never saw his beauteous face; you never saw how applicable his blood is to a sinner, how great is his atonement; and how all-sufficient are his merits. Therefore, "ye will not come to him."

And oh! my hearers, my last thought is a solemn one. I have preached that ye will not come. But some will say, "it is their sin that they do not come." IT IS SO. You will not come, but then your will is a sinful will. Some think that we "sew pillows to all armholes" when we preach this doctrine, but we don't. We do not set this down as being part of man's original nature, but as belonging to his fallen nature. It is sin that has brought you into this condition that you will not come. If you had not fallen, you would come to Christ the moment he was preached to you; but you do not come because of your sinfulness and crime. People excuse themselves because they have bad hearts. That is the most flimsy excuse in the world. Do not robbery and thieving come from a bad heart? Suppose a thief should say to a judge, "I could not help it, I had a bad heart." What would the judge say? "You rascal! why, if your heart is bad, I'll make the sentence heavier, for you are a villain indeed. Your excuse is nothing." The Almighty shall "laugh at them, and shall have them in derision." We do not preach this doctrine to excuse you, but to humble you. The possession of a bad nature is my fault as well as my terrible calamity. It is a sin that will always be charged on men; when they will not come unto Christ it is sin that keeps them away. He who does not preach that, I fear is not faithful to God and his conscience. Go home, then, with this thought; "I am by nature so perverse that I will not come unto Christ, and that wicked perversity of my nature is my sin. I deserve to be sent to hell for it." And if the thought does not humble you, the Spirit using it, no other can. This morning I have not preached human nature up, but I have preached it down. God humble us all. Amen.

Sorry for the long delay, but my OTR job, and priorities when home, can put FR way down the list.

I will try and cover all of your assertions, which I’ve heard numerous times before, and even used myself, when I was a Calvinist over 30 yrs ago. It would be nice to have a $100 for each time I’ve answered points like these over the years. I’ve even answered many of those points on FR, but it’s been quite some time, so I’m not going to try and find them.

**1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.**

No man filled with His Spirit is going to deny Him. And only a man filled with the Holy Ghost can say that Jesus is Lord of his life.

First and foremost:
ANY scriptures taken from the epistles are to be read with this understanding: The epistles were written to the churches; the saints, whether they be pastors, elders, or other born again members. Most of the introductions point this out, with the most common being, “to the saints..”. Those people had already been born again. There are a few passages alluding to that experience, but not mentioned regularly since they had already ‘been there’. Paul makes a parallel example, comparing the disobedient behavior of the church in Corinth with the disobedient Israelites of the exodus, alluding to a rebirth: ..”our fathers were under the cloud, and ALL passed through the sea; And were ALL baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did ALL eat that same spiritual meat; And did ALL drink that same spiritual drink...”. 1Cor. 10:1-4

The Corinthians were even focusing on which mighty preacher baptized them, instead of the name of the one into whom they were baptized. Which led Paul to scold them, saying that it was fortunate that he personally had only baptized a few in that assembly.

I quoted: “But what saith Jesus Christ?........”..how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ASK him.” Luke 11:13

To which you replied:
**How does that contradict the sovereign will of the Holy Spirit? In these verses, Christ is encouraging, presumably, believers to ask freely of God whatsoever they want, including the blessings of the Holy Spirit. It does not mean that the Holy Spirit does not quicken you to believe in the first place, so that you should desire to be filled with the Spirit.**

Paul came across some in Ephesus that had not received the Holy Ghost since they believed. That was quickly corrected. Until that baptism in the name of Jesus, and the subsequent filling of the Holy Ghost, those ‘certain disciples’ were not born again. Just like Calvinists teaching a new life in Jesus, without obeying Acts 2:38, so were those ‘certain disciples’ before meeting Paul.

My quote: “The Lord said there would be a SOUND, and He said that that would be the case for EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit.”

**This sounds like something from one of the Charismatic groups, as they emphasize miraculous gifts. It seems to suggest that tongues is necessary to prove that one is saved. However, tongues is not a universal gift given in the scripture.**

I gave you three examples of the ‘sound’ (tougues) in actual rebirth circumstances, with a fourth occurance astonishing a big time magician of the day. Do the other conversions in Acts have to be spelled out in the same detail? If so, then shouldn’t other examples of God’s ordinances have the same repetitiveness, such as the details in the setting up of the tabernacle at every location where the Israelites camped.

The detailed accounts have witnesses to the fact, my favorite being Peter’s response:
“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” Acts 10:47. And his account to the brethern in Jerusalem: “..the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us AT THE BEGINNING.” 11:17 (caps to remind that the beginning of the church is that initial outpouring).

**1Co 12:29-30 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? (30) Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?”. If a believer must make a “SOUND,” presumably of the “diversity of tongues” variety, then Paul wouldn’t ask “do all speak with tongues?” Since it is a given, speaking to Christians, that they would all do so, if what you say is true.**

That’s from a letter to the church. Those folks have already been born again. The gifts of the Spirit are not to be confused with the initial infilling.

**The real witness of the Holy Spirit within us is not tongue speak, but fruits that make us better persons.
Gal 5:22-24 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (24) And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.**

And that is how people, who are taught ‘accept the Lord as your personal saviour’ (but have no biblical born again experience), go about ‘proving’ they have the Spirit. A good friend of mine from years ago had nearly all of the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ by man’s definition. He had all of those, EXCEPT the gift of faith. One of the kindest people I have ever known, but an aetheist. God’s definitions of the fruit are to be proven in the actions of saints in the routine things, and the extremely difficult tests of faith.

**Jas_2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.**

But without the actual rebirth experience, people unwittingly resort to doing works to ‘prove’ they have faith.

**Eph 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.**
**But more important than all of these visible manifestations was the fruit of the Spirit, that is, of a changed and moral life. James does not ask them to speak in tongues for him, but asks them to “shew their faith by their works.”**

The Lord has never called anyone to disobey Acts 2:38. Any church organization that disregards that command is even in the race yet.

**The purpose of salvation isn’t just so we can speak in tongues or sit around and rot. He ordains us to “bring forth fruit,” and “to be holy and without blame.” That is not to say that we can be perfect, but the true Christian covets perfection (at least, in spirit, if not in the members of his flesh that wars against him) and to do the will of God.**

No argument there.

**But the real problem is that Christ never actually said that the sign of salvation would be glossolalia. You didn’t attempt to justify any of the assertions I objected you to making, nor did you really explain why not all the Christians of Corinth spoke in tongues. Though you did write:
“e Oneness Pentecostals teach it to be the initial sign of Holy Ghost baptism, which with some converts, may be their only experience with tongues.”**
**On what biblical basis would you assert that someone who once spoke in tongues, can do so no longer?**

He said there would be a sound, and there was in every DETAILED account in Acts of souls receiving the Spirit. The Christians at Corinth had already been born again. The ‘gifts of the Spirit’ are given as the Lord so wills, but only to those already born again.

**Nor were tongues (and this is real language, not glossolia) in the book of acts the only visible manifestations of the Spirit. He came over the Apostles, and presumably everywhere else (since it was visible enough that even Simon Magus noticed it, though no tongues or miracles were mentioned) as a “cloven fire” over the believers. Along with tongues, they also spoke prophecy:
Act_19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.**

They also were said to ‘magnify God’ (Cornelius’ household). The key is they were speaking in a language that they previously were alien to. A sound that the witnesses were astounded to hear, knowing it was from God. Of course they would glorify God in the infilling experience. Speaking in another language about the best deals down at the market place would seem a little unspiritual, wouldn’t you agree?

**Having once been in the Pentecostal movement (though not the ONENESS Pentecostals, who are Modalists I believe, and not Trinitarian), and seeing an emphasis on spiritual manifestations over scripture truth, I realized some time ago that the reason why tongues were always emphasized to such a high degree was because they were the easiest to fake. It’s quite difficult for someone to fake the gift of prophecy, at least for predicting events. (Most of them gave “prophecy” that was as vague as possible).**

I have witnessed such lame behavior in Charismatic churches (my sister belongs to one). Those that haven’t obeyed Acts 2:38 are going to show up at the ‘wedding feast’ without a garment (bad end to that parable). Oneness with unspiritual leadership can fall for carnal mistakes as well (as 1 Corinthians testifies to)

**So then, what is a real means to see if someone is saved or not? Not through supposed spiritual manifestations, of which we do not know the origin beyond all doubt, but through the Gospel they preach (the most important aspect) and the fruit in their lives.**

Obey Acts 2:38

“Paul came across some in Ephesus that had not received the Holy Ghost since they believed.”

And who were these people you claim did not have the Holy Spirit and were believers? Book, chapter and verse?

“Until that baptism in the name of Jesus, and the subsequent filling of the Holy Ghost,”

Just to clarify, baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19) When Peter commanded them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, he did not do so to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit. He emphasized Christ since it was He whom the Jews had rejected.

“I gave you three examples of the ‘sound’ (tougues)”

You’re moving on with this ridiculous point without actually answering any of my objections to your assertion that the “sound” is glossolalia, and not, say, prophecy, or praise, or the Gospel message. Or that the “sound” is even in reference to something the believers would make. As it does not say that believers would MAKE an “uncertain sound”, or that they would MOVE like the “wind” that blows where it listith, but rather that, these people would be born of the Spirit in like manner to the metaphors employed. You’ve built a theology on a single word, and on your own preconceptions. The foundation of your argument you have not even attempted to prove, and this will be the third time I asked you to.

“And his account to the brethern in Jerusalem: “..the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us AT THE BEGINNING.”

So then it follows that tongues are not “uncertain” glossolalia, but are actual “certain” foreign languages that people understood who spoke them. (Acts 2:6)

Even if you claim it is some angelic language that you spoke, or some language from some obscure African tribe, it at least had syntax, a grammar, and definite meaning. It wasn’t this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOHlTnOxS8A&list=PL71D524DEE837365A

Notice she even goes into convulsions. This is no different than anything, say, Marjoe Gortner could cause in any of his victims. And he even has a documentary where he exposes his own fraud, talking about his emotional manipulation of people as he goes about causing people to speak in tongues, be “baptized in the Holy Spirit,” all at the power of his unbelieving touch. I’ve seen stage hypnotists cause the same reactions, under similar circumstances. Heck, even the early Mormons behaved in that manner. Nor is this strange even for those within the occult outside of a semi-Christian context. Many a “psychic vampire,” or shaman, or Druid Priestess, marvels at their ability, supposedly, to make a person fall at their touch, or fall into esctatic utterances. And most cases of Demonic possession themselves involve even worse behavior, though even the Demons are able to speak German, or Italian, or Hebrew, instead of the mere babble that is more common. That’s probably the difference between Demonic influence and self-hypnosis, as self-hypnosis cannot give itself knowledge of a foreign language.

Furthermore, if it is like “at the beginning,” then it follows that there was a shaking, and cloven tongues of fire hovering over them. Yet, in that video, all I saw was a chubby woman having a fit in a bathtub, with the loud music drowning out her glossolalia.

I myself was involved with all of these poor people. I used to traffic in tongues, speaking them and having them interpreted. Visions and dreams were a dime a’dozen, as were mysterious flowings of power, and of fire, and of ecstasy. Yet, not one vision from even the most powerful of Prophets, not one word, could ever touch upon or repair that inner restlessness in my heart. As it was not true faith that I had, even when hearing all these different prophecies, only a show-faith, and a show-power. You yourself can’t even tell the difference between an Atheist and a Christian! So I imagine that you, also, do not know the difference between show-power and real power. I did not truly experience the power of God, until after I had fallen so low, to the depths of the Earth, nearly to my death, and God pulled me out of it... not with the signs and wonders of the Penteocostals, or the signs and wonders of the heretical Oneness cults, but through an education of who and what He really is... and when I had finally received faith, it was not the faith that produces tongue or visions. It was a faith that moved mountains, with real power, in a way that I had never experienced before in my life. Not so flashy as the infidels, but answers to prayer that were specific, mighty, wonderful, and not so that I would believe... but because I believed already, and therefore they were answered.

To me, all this nonsense over tongues, which would render every believer for almost 2,000 years, till Seymour at Azuza, actually DAMNED, is nothing more than a reversion to an unsanctified and carnal anticipation over the real fruit of the Spirit, which moves with a far greater power than all your gibberish and chantings and false visions.

**And who were these people you claim did not have the Holy Spirit and were believers? Book, chapter and verse?**

Acts 19:1-3 “..Paul..came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples; He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, unto John’s baptism.”

Note that these were apparently disciples of John the baptist, who taught all that came to him that he was simply the messenger coming ahead of the Messiah. How many he baptized, and how long a time had passed, before baptizing the Lord Jesus is a bit of a guess. At which point we know he specifically declared Jesus Christ as the promised one. We do know that he continued baptizing until his arrest by Herod, and that Jesus had his disciples performing the same baptism as John. Paul continues:

4 “..John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6.....the Holy Ghost came upon them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied.”

Note there was no indication that John’s message had not gotten to through to these disciples, for Paul, after getting acquainted in vss 1&2, asked “have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?”. That’s hardly the type of question one would ask to the completely uninformed. Paul realized that they believed in something pertaining the the Lord, or he most likely wouldn’t have asked them: ‘since ye believed’.

**Just to clarify, baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19) When Peter commanded them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, he did not do so to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit. He emphasized Christ since it was He whom the Jews had rejected.**

‘Just to clarify’? You should have worded that ‘Just to personally interpret’. Because that is what you are doing, to satisfy your tradition. Here’s some ‘plain reading’:

John 5:43. “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another come in his own name, him ye will receive”. The Christ just testified that his name is not his own.

Heb. 1:4. “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath BY INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent name then they.” That verse is witness that the Son inheritted his name. And we know that the name of the Son is Jesus (Matt. 1:21; Luke 2:21). Not his own? Inheritted the name? Yes, it appears that the name of Jesus belonged to the Father originally (one of his many names).

John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in MY name..” (that would be Jesus).

The fulness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus Christ. This is made plain by the Lord’s words in Matt 28:18, saying: “ALL power is GIVEN me in heaven and in earth”.

In vs 19, the Lord says to baptize in the ‘name’ (singular). By this time, his disciples knew that the Son had come in his Father’s name, and that the Holy Ghost was to sent in Jesus’s name. That is why they used the name of Jesus in EVERY detailed baptism in the book of Acts:

Acts 2:38 “Repent, and be baptized in the name of JESUS Christ for the REMISSION of sins.......”.

8:16 (For as yet he was fallen on none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord JESUS.) Note that those Samaritans ‘believed’ and were baptized four verses earlier, with Simon believing and being baptized in the following verse.

10:48 “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..”. Peter made it clear who the ‘Lord’ is in vs 36: “..preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)”

And the afore mentioned 19:5; “..baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”.

Paul, scolding the Corinthians over whose name is applied to water baptism, and not who baptized them, said: “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” 1Cor 1:13.

I’m a father, son, and husband, but those are titles, not my name. My boss could address his workers in this way: “Go and tell our customers in the name of your company founder, CEO, and fellow worker, that we will provide the best service possible. I know his name; he doesn’t have to tell me WHO he is.

The fulness of the Godhead is in Jesus Christ. You omit no power of the Godhead by using the name of Jesus in water baptism.

Concerning Holy Ghost baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues, you said:

**You’re moving on with this ridiculous point without actually answering any of my objections to your assertion that the “sound” is glossolalia, and not, say, prophecy, or praise, or the Gospel message. Or that the “sound” is even in reference to something the believers would make. As it does not say that believers would MAKE an “uncertain sound”, or that they would MOVE like the “wind” that blows where it listith, but rather that, these people would be born of the Spirit in like manner to the metaphors employed. You’ve built a theology on a single word, and on your own preconceptions. The foundation of your argument you have not even attempted to prove, and this will be the third time I asked you to.**

I believe that the witnesses, including the receiver KNOW that they have spoken in tongues. As far as ‘tie my tie, tie my tie, tie my tie’, yeah there are people wanting to become ‘part of the club’ instead of yielding to God.

When describing the wind, Jesus said that the ONE aspect you could be CERTAIN of is the ‘sound’ of the wind. Maybe you live in a drafty house, or drive a car with a broken window, but I can be in my house or car, or even walking in a deep valley, hear the wind, but not feel it at all, and KNOW there is wind because of the sound. “..so is EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit”.

**Even if you claim it is some angelic language that you spoke, or some language from some obscure African tribe, it at least had syntax, a grammar, and definite meaning. It wasn’t this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOHlTnOxS8A&list=PL71D524DEE837365A**

**Notice she even goes into convulsions.**

Do you think that the observers, on the day of Pentecost, thought that the recipients of the Holy Ghost were drunk just because they were speaking in other languages? In the video they didn’t hold a mike up to her so I could hear, so I certainly am NOT going to say she did not receive the Holy Ghost evidenced by tongues. If you choose to say God had no part in that, then that’s your decision. But, from my own past experience of denying the power of God, I recommend that you don’t forget to buckle your seatbelt, etc.

I told you before that I agree that there are fakers out there. Equally bad are those that deny that baptism in the name of Jesus is for the remission of sins. If you don’t believe that, then you best get your black marker and blot those words out.

**Furthermore, if it is like “at the beginning,” then it follows that there was a shaking, and cloven tongues of fire hovering over them. Yet, in that video, all I saw was a chubby woman having a fit in a bathtub, with the loud music drowning out her glossolalia.**

(Wow! picking on people with a weight problem. Let’s see....which fruit of your spirit led you to say that? And personally I have told pastors they really should tone down the drums. It drowns out voices in all parts of the service). No, there is no mention of cloven tongues of fire, or an earthquake at Cornelius house. Peter, giving account back in Jerusalem, said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning”. 11:15. Peter didn’t seem concerned about other signs, only the sign that came out of the receivers mouths, which he, and those of the circumcision, were witness to.

Your argument is with Peter. Good luck with that.

**I myself was involved with all of these poor people**

“these poor people”. Are your their Judge? I hope not. Or are you expressing a sorrow for them? (if so, you need to express that. Your screen name seems to once again come to mind). After reading your experiences, I am reminded of the many that ARE only intersted in the ‘loaves and fishes’ and not real conversion. I did not first visit a Oneness church because I wanted to see supernatural things. I saw the astounding transformation of my stepmother, that only grew stronger for the last 33 yrs of her life. She didn’t harp on tongues, just the joy that she had received through the Holy Ghost, and the washing away of her sins (she was quite worldly wild). I said that I agree that there are fakers. God sorts them out though his word, sometimes using leaders that are spiritually minded, and hear his voice.
Even before obeying Acts 2:38 (think Rom. 6:17), I can’t imagine sitting through one service of the charismatic church you once attended. I don’t think the one my sister attends is THAT crazy. I visited it once, because we were there on vacation, but will not drop in that assembly again (unless they want to be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins).

**You yourself can’t even tell the difference between an Atheist and a Christian!**

Well, there’s a lie, since I told you that the person I made mention of had no faith in God, and therefore wasn’t going to have such tests of faith. But he could certainly (by many mainline denominatioal standards) pass the love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance, test. The faith part just ain’t there (but it seems to short supply in many churches around here, so he possibly justifies himself accordingly)

**To me, all this nonsense over tongues, which would render every believer for almost 2,000 years, till Seymour at Azuza, actually DAMNED**

IMO, not only do you seem to judge of men’s souls, you seem to have connections from every corner of the world, from every decade since the writing of the book of Acts, and seem proclaim that there were no tongues for almost 2,000 years. Personally, I use supplemental oxygen when elevated over 16,000 ft (10,000 ft, when pilot-in-command).

“Note that these were apparently disciples of John the baptist, who taught all that came to him that he was simply the messenger coming ahead of the Messiah.”

And so these were not Christian believers at all, but simply disciples of John who “had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost,” and who converted when they heard the Messiah was Jesus Christ, as John had prepared them to expect:

Act 19:4-5 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard THIS, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Since John did preach that Jesus Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, (Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16), and therefore, if they were present, they would have heard of the Holy Ghost; and since they converted when Paul said that John prepared them to believe “on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus,” we can conclude that they had not yet become believers in the Christian religion.

Therefore, your conclusion that these were Christians walking around without the Holy Spirit are all false.

“‘Just to clarify’? You should have worded that ‘Just to personally interpret’.”

How do you “personally interpret” this some other way?

Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

” That is why they used the name of Jesus in EVERY detailed baptism in the book of Acts:”

Those are merely commands, emphasizing Christ since it is the Christian religion they were being baptized into. It wasn’t the actual baptism scene described, which is never described in detail, since all believers would probably be aware of the Baptismal formula.

“John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in MY name..” (that would be Jesus).”

Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit hovered over Him at John’s Baptism (Luke 3:22). Nor is He the Father, as He prays to the Father, and submits to the Father as the Son, which proves the Father and the Son are not the same person. And they are always differentiated in the New Testament in the following way: The Father elects, the Son Redeems, the Holy Spirit applies.

“When describing the wind, Jesus said that the ONE aspect you could be CERTAIN of is the ‘sound’ of the wind.”

This is merely a re-assertion of what you said before, without actually replying to anything I wrote. Your description here of what Christ said is also false. He never said “one aspect you could be certain of is the sound.” There was no emphasis on the sound at all, or any idea that the sound is separate from the metaphor of the wind. You haven’t even explained how any other aspect of the sentence supports you, or even the context, nor are you even using the wording of the verse to defend your position. In the context of how men would be born again, He states that “the wind bloweth where it listith, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or where it goeth.” He is doing nothing more than describing the sound of wind, which is all a metaphorical answer to Nicodemus’ question “How can a man be born when he is old?”

The meaning, being simply, that the Holy Spirit is a Free Agent (He moves where He listith), that His working is as powerful as the force of the wind (for he describes the Spirit like wind), and yet it is subtle and as mysterious as the wind (you cannot tell where it cometh or where it goeth), completely unknowable to the natural man (1 Co 2:14).

“Do you think that the observers, on the day of Pentecost, thought that the recipients of the Holy Ghost were drunk just because they were speaking in other languages?”

Yes, as that is exactly what it says. Though those who spoke those languages and therefore understood them, did not accuse them of being drunk. The idea that the Apostles were stumbling around, flopping like fish on the ground, is simply ridiculous, and if it was so, then everyone would have thought them drunk, even if they were speaking their languages while flopping about on the floor.

“But, from my own past experience of denying the power of God, I recommend that you don’t forget to buckle your seatbelt, etc.”

Of all the threats I have ever received from my former brethren in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, not one has ever come true. I’ve been told that I would face “judgment,” that God would strike me down, that God would do this or that. But it’s never happened, and, in fact, my faith has become a living faith, moreso than it ever was before. What a wrathful God, who punishes me with freedom and blessings that I never had when I was with those miracle-mongers! So, I think I’m A-OK in denying all your experiences, especially those of the Oneness Pentecostals, as I can’t imagine the Holy Spirit would work through someone who denies His identity.

“No, there is no mention of cloven tongues of fire, or an earthquake at Cornelius house.”

By your logic, they wouldn’t have to, since you explained earlier that the reason why tongues are not always mentioned when people were filled/baptized by the Holy Spirit was because it was not worth repeating all the time. Since Peter said “as it fell on us as in the beginning,” I can only conclude it was exactly the same, since I’m using your logic to do so. It is only your illogical assumption that tongues is the end all and the be all, and that everyone was obsessed with them and thought only of them.

“IMO, not only do you seem to judge of men’s souls, you seem to have connections from every corner of the world, from every decade since the writing of the book of Acts, and seem proclaim that there were no tongues for almost 2,000 years.”

I’ve read a great deal of church history, from the ancient times to the reformation. And though the Reformists, especially those in Scotland, did indeed move with the Spirit, with prayers that toppled mountains, with words from God on very specific issues, yet not one ever spoke of babbling, or shaking, or falling over “drunk in the Spirit.” And so you would regard them damned. Not to mention, none of them were “Oneness.” Probably a double strike on them. So, who, exactly, has the judgmental opinion here? You with your exclusive club of babblers? Or me who owns these Christians for what they are?

**Since John did preach that Jesus Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, (Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16), and therefore, if they were present, they would have heard of the Holy Ghost; and since they converted when Paul said that John prepared them to believe “on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus,” we can conclude that they had not yet become believers in the Christian religion.**

You want it both ways. You want them to be followers of John, yet not knowing about Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost baptism that John taught and prophesied about. Which would make one wonder how they would have even known about John’s baptism.

**How do you “personally interpret” this some other way? Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:**

Well, the apostles certainly knew how to follow through with that command, rather than simply repeat words. They knew the NAME (singular).

**Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit.**

Jesus Christ is the administrator of Holy Ghost baptism. He said it would be sent in his NAME. What name do you use since you seem to prefer to contradict him?

**The Holy Spirit hovered over Him at John’s Baptism (Luke 3:22). Nor is He the Father, as He prays to the Father, and submits to the Father as the Son, which proves the Father and the Son are not the same person. And they are always differentiated in the New Testament in the following way: The Father elects, the Son Redeems, the Holy Spirit applies.**

If you want to continue the Godhead debate, we can resume that back where there are still the 7 or so questions at the end of about 5 posts that you still haven’t answered:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3018091/posts?page=1245#1245

**This is merely a re-assertion of what you said before, without actually replying to anything I wrote. Your description here of what Christ said is also false. He never said “one aspect you could be certain of is the sound.”**

He said you don’t know where it comes from or where it’s going. But you WILL hear the sound (provided you aren’t deaf). That sounds pretty certain to me. And that it would be so for EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit.

**You haven’t even explained how any other aspect of the sentence supports you, or even the context, nor are you even using the wording of the verse to defend your position. In the context of how men would be born again, He states that “the wind bloweth where it listith, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or where it goeth**

You accuse me of not putting things in context, and then you leave off the rest of that verse as though the Lord has completely changed the subject at that point.

And the drunken issue?

**Yes, as that is exactly what it says. Though those who spoke those languages and therefore understood them, did not accuse them of being drunk.**

The ones that said “..these men are full of new wine.” are not accused of not knowing the languages the converts were speaking. Peter even clarified it for all present: “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is the third hour of the day.” Peter didn’t deny an appearance of drunken behavior.

Flopping like fish? You certainly like to go the extreme. My wife will admit to getting drunk several times before I met her (in a bar). But, she says she never was down on the floor.

**Of all the threats I have ever received from my former brethren in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, not one has ever come true.**

I intended it as a caution, hardly a threat. But, call what you want. From your testimony about that madhouse church you attended, I guess I wouldn’t lose any sleep over any supposed threats from them either. I just know what happened to me when I dissed the Acts 2:38 message. Some are more noble than others in receiving the whole gospel, such as Cornelius, Apollos, and the certain disciples in Ephesus.

**By your logic, they wouldn’t have to, since you explained earlier that the reason why tongues are not always mentioned when people were filled/baptized by the Holy Spirit was because it was not worth repeating all the time. Since Peter said “as it fell on us as in the beginning,” I can only conclude it was exactly the same, since I’m using your logic to do so. It is only your illogical assumption that tongues is the end all and the be all, and that everyone was obsessed with them and thought only of them.**

“I can only conclude..” that Peter was testifying of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Signs that were coming from elsewhere (rushing mighty wind, cloven tongues of fire) were just that: signs that something was going to happen. They were not the infilling of the Holy Ghost. THAT is the promise of the Father.

**I’ve read a great deal of church history, from the ancient times to the reformation. And though the Reformists, especially those in Scotland, did indeed move with the Spirit, with prayers that toppled mountains, with words from God on very specific issues, yet not one ever spoke of babbling, or shaking, or falling over “drunk in the Spirit.” And so you would regard them damned. Not to mention, none of them were “Oneness.” Probably a double strike on them. So, who, exactly, has the judgmental opinion here? You with your exclusive club of babblers? Or me who owns these Christians for what they are?

So, you’ve got their room numbers in heaven already. I judge no man. Here’s a question for you:

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the REMISSION of SINS: Is it of heaven, or of men?

“You want it both ways. You want them to be followers of John, yet not knowing about Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost baptism that John taught and prophesied about.”

I want it the way it’s written, as they themselves say “we’ve not so much as even heard that there is a Holy Ghost.” So, they must not have heard him teach on the subject, since John says:

Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

“Well, the apostles certainly knew how to follow through with that command, rather than simply repeat words. They knew the NAME (singular).”

You’re actually correct in a way, since by “be ye baptized in the name of Jesus,” which is understood as “converting to the Christian religion,” as that is what Baptism signifies, implies being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as that is the baptismal formula established by Christ Himself.

Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And so it has always been practiced:

Didache (40AD-120AD) (Translation by Dr. Lightfoot)
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.

“Jesus Christ is the administrator of Holy Ghost baptism. He said it would be sent in his NAME.”

You seem to say this as if it proves that the Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ. However, to be sent “in His name” only means “by His request, intercession, etc.” You admit this yourself, because you wrote “Jesus Christ is the administrator of the Holy Ghost baptism,” though obviously you mean it in an entirely different sense.

“If you want to continue the Godhead debate, we can resume that back where there are still the 7 or so questions at the end of about 5 posts that you still haven’t answered:”

The reverse is true. The only thing you have going for you is persistence in repeating your arguments again and again, while ignoring everything else others say to you. You’re more than welcome to try it again here, but I affirm my right to ignore repetitions of previously refuted arguments.

“He said you don’t know where it comes from or where it’s going. But you WILL hear the sound (provided you aren’t deaf). That sounds pretty certain to me.”

The word “will” and the emphasis on sound doesn’t actually exist in that scripture, so I don’t know how it can sound “certain’ to you when all you’re doing is wresting one word out of a sentence and putting it into a new one. And, for a 4th time, you didn’t answer any of my original objections to this to begin with, nor any of my new objections. Nor did you even attempt to refute the reasonable interpretation already given, though you keep capitalizing words and trying to build a theology around a single word. And then you don’t even explain how, in your universe, the “sound” is tongues, instead of, for example, praise, or prayer, or prophecy, or preaching the Gospel, which are all “sounds,” unless you use telepathy.

Since I don’t think you’re going to come up with anything new on this one, I will ignore any further comments on this matter unless something new or interesting comes up on your end.

“Peter didn’t deny an appearance of drunken behavior.”

He denied that they were drunk, and the only evidence of “drunken behavior’ was speaking in a foreign language by those who likely didn’t understand, or didn’t appreciate what they heard. No other behavior of shaking, convulsing, or an inability to stand on their own, is described. Nor did anyone who for sure understood the languages accuse them of drunkenness.

If Peter was shaking around and unable to stand, “drunk’ in the Spirit, as you would assume, he certainly could not claim that he wasn’t drunk at all. Just not drunk on wine. You also would expect this behavior to be mentioned, and justified, since it is so incredibly embarrassing to behold.

“From your testimony about that madhouse church you attended,”

I never claimed it was a madhouse. And since your only complaint about the video was the loudness of the drums, it seems you’re madhouse was worse than mine. Tongues were actually not focused on in my church at all, though they were a part of it. It was mostly in incredibly vague visions. It was in other churches where tongues had more of an emphasis, which I also witnessed, and not at all different from your average Oneness Pentecostal meeting as seen on YouTube. I would say they are identical, actually. Same loud music, same chubby lady convulsing on stage, etc.

““I can only conclude..” that Peter was testifying of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Signs that were coming from elsewhere (rushing mighty wind, cloven tongues of fire) were just that: signs that something was going to happen. They were not the infilling of the Holy Ghost. THAT is the promise of the Father.”

Indeed, the promise of Jesus Christ is the infilling of the Holy Ghost, and not any particular sign or wonder that historically came along with it, such as tongues, and prophecy, and cloven tongues of fire.

1Co_12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

“So, you’ve got their room numbers in heaven already. I judge no man. Here’s a question for you:”

Except that you’ve already judged every human being that has not convulsed like a Oneness Pentecostal and spouted gibberish as not having the Holy Spirit. This is the teaching of your religion that unless one has spoken in gibberish, then they do not possess the Holy Spirit.

Unless you really do have something new or interesting to say, this will be my last reply to these repetitive posts of yours.

**If Peter was shaking around and unable to stand, “drunk’ in the Spirit, as you would assume**

Have you ever been drunk? you don’t have to be unable to stand. Peter said that they weren’t “drunk as ye SUPPOSE seeing it is the third hour of the day”. You’re treating those observers as idiots that don’t know what SEEMED to be drunken behavior. But, that condescension appears to be an addiction.

**The only thing you have going for you is persistence in repeating your arguments again and again, while ignoring everything else others say to you. You’re more than welcome to try it again here, but I affirm my right to ignore repetitions of previously refuted arguments.**

Spin, dodge, “I affirm my right to ignore..”. If you had specifically answered my 7 questions on the Godhead, I would have no argument there. You throw your opinions up pretty fast it seems. So why are those too hard?

**I never claimed it was a madhouse. And since your only complaint about the video was the loudness of the drums, it seems you’re madhouse was worse than mine. Tongues were actually not focused on in my church at all, though they were a part of it. It was mostly in incredibly vague visions. It was in other churches where tongues had more of an emphasis, which I also witnessed, and not at all different from your average Oneness Pentecostal meeting as seen on YouTube. I would say they are identical, actually. Same loud music, same chubby lady convulsing on stage, etc.**

I don’t make a habit of tearing apart church assemblies I have never personally attended. You were dissing your old assembly, so I condensed your description to a madhouse. You do seem to have a disdain for those that are overweight. Classy. (I’m almost 59, and am right where I’ve been most of my life; 6’ 1”, 180 lbs. I been blessed with good health, some aren’t, and some can’t help that, for example, a thyroid that has thown their system out of whack).

I said: **“So, you’ve got their room numbers in heaven already. I judge no man. Here’s a question for you:”**

Which you didn’t answer. Here it is again: Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins: It it fom heaven or of men?

You won’t answer it. Just like the Godhead questions; if you can’t answer them, you just claim you did, and make condescending remarks. (I even asked by freepmail if you would just answer the question about John 17:1-3 where Jesus is praying to the Father and calling him “the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”).

**Unless you really do have something new or interesting to say, this will be my last reply to these repetitive posts of yours.**

That as good of a repetitive dodge as any of your others.

Obey Acts 2:38 and you can lay claim to Romans 6:17.

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.