contd..

Some years ago John would have been repentant because he still had a tender conscience. I noticed that previously when John and Michael Hranek played tag team it brought the worse out of both of them. I referred to this in private correspondence with John once and he confessed that this was the case and he said he repented of it. However I see the same again, and that John has once again become very defensive and all too frequently employs tactics that he would not dream of at other times.

Now why am I writing all this? Because it pains me to see John UK all over the place doctrinally and to see him attacking fellow believers whose only crime is to come to the defense of the truth, which he would at one time have done himself.

Sister LB feels deeply hurt by the personal insults against her and does not want to return to the forum. Over the years I have come to love and value many on here for their stance for the truth, but I know that they have been the few rather than the many. I won't name names because I don't want to seem factious or to embarrass any.

OOS

When we therefore see these truths being tinkered around with, treated lightly as if they are inconsequential or derided because someone thinks them unfair, we do come to the support of these truths with passion because we see the truth of God at stake. Should we feel any different?

However, what is noticeable is that on many an occasion such attempts to correct are met not only with intransigence because of their preconceptions about the reformed camp, but also then lead to name calling and personal attacks.

I for one have never felt threatened by personal differences, but when the truth of God is at stake, my zeal prevents me from standing on the sidelines and I see the same with some like sister LB and brother Kev.

John's treatment of some of the sisters e.g. LB, MS and Bonny has been shameful..

Christopher000 wrote:
I understand that there are still differences...

Good morning.

I think you should know a few things so you know where I am coming from.

When I first came to SA a few years ago now, John UK, Lurker and I had extensive correspondence against the Preby view of baptism and covenants. I considered him a brother then because of his eagerness to learn from the Bible among other things.

Over time John's postings have become muddied and confusing e.g. Whether Billy's gospel is the true gospel, whether any one should support Billy given his life of compromise, his ecumenism etc, whether Madam Guyon's "christianity" which is nothing but mysticism should be a model for modern day Christians etc And in addition, as I have mentioned before, there is his constant sniping at the reformed baptist constituency even though he claims to believe in the DOG, his constant attempts to redefine his position on some of the DOG e.g. recently claiming that Christ's satisfaction does not guarantee that a believer may not be judged for their own sins (double jeopardy), that the atonement is for every single individual etc.

John UK wrote:
...
if you wish to better understand Observer's position, have a listen to any evening (gospel) service at the Met Tab in London, where Dr Peter Masters is the pastor. ..
In the gospel message he preaches, he avoids telling anyone an untruth, in keeping with his understanding of scripture; yet like Spurgeon, there would be no-one in the great congregation who could say that salvation was refused to them. It is a great skill.

Just seen the above post and had to drop by to respond.

It is a necessary skill if one is to preach the gospel faithfully!

I wanted to hear him myself to see if what you say is right. Coincidentally he preached on John 3.16 on Christmas Day!! I have to say, on the whole it was a good sermon. The points which we have been discussing in this thread he took great care over, and he crafted the message so that the personalizing did not compromise the doctrine of limited atonement.

Thanks for the recommendation.

For anyone else who wants to listen to it, here is the link:

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
...
You are a blessing brother, good to see you posting again.
God bless

We'll agree to disagree on Mark 10:17-27, but I can see why you brought it up. But, as I said the passage does not encourage us saying to any individual during evangelism that God specifically loves them in a saving way. Though Christ loved the man and we are told this, I believe it is significant that He didn't tell the man to his face that He loved him but suffered him to depart. The after story we are not told, but I do believe we will meet this man in heaven.

In fact here is a link to a Spurgeon sermon on that text, and what you'll find is that he doesn't use it to tell his hearers of how the Lord loves them in the same way. He doesn't presume.

[URL=http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols58-60/chs3334.pdf]]] Lovely but lacking [/URL]

May the Lord bless you and cause his face to shine on you.

______________________

Bro John UK

You see, we don't have to broaden the atonement or its benefits to get there.

Lord bless

___________________

G'nite y'all.

John UK wrote:
Hello bro
1. .. therefore the message must be same to all men.

John UK wrote:
2. ..It is good if we do similar.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works

Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

contd..

Bro UPS - thanks for the link to the Spurgeon sermon. But he makes the very point I am making in the following extract taken from that link:

"...

Thirdly, the love of God shines forth with transcendent brightness in a third point, namely, in THE PERSONS FOR WHOM THIS PLAN IS AVAILABLE, and for whom this gift is given. They are described in these words—"Whosoever believeth in him." There is in the text a word which has no limit—"God so loved the world"; but then comes in the descriptive limit, which I beg you to notice with care: "He gave his Only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him might not perish." God did not so love the world that any man who does not believe in Christ shall be saved; neither did God so give his Son that any man shall be saved who refuses to believe in him. See how it is put—"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish." Here is the compass of the love: while every unbeliever is excluded, every believer is included. ..."

John UK wrote:
They entered not in because of unbelief.

_____________

Brother UPS

Thanks for your reply.

I am not sure that I am going to be able to cover my response in one post.

Re: Mark 10.17-27 - I do believe with a great many reformed authors that the man was later saved because of what is written in the text. However, please notice that Christ did not tell him this but let him go.

Re: Lying
Everyone knows weather forecasting is a very imprecise "science", and expects inaccuracies even with the forecasters using the best available tools and data.

We are nowhere commanded to offer any kind of forecast as to a person's election as part of preaching the gospel. In fact making our election and calling sure is the duty of anyone who claims to be a Christian. I find no instructions for impenitent sinners to attempt any such thing.

Re: Rom 5.8 - since the verse specifically speaks of the death of Christ, which we know is only for God's elect, is it a surprise that the verse is addressed to believers? It would be wholly incongruent for an impenitent sinner who is still dead in trespasses and sins to utter such a thing. Believers however may indeed trace God's love and say that they love the Lord because He first loved them, and with the apostle Paul that we live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Gal 2.20).

I have no problem with your sentence that God in his love and mercy has provided a payment for sin but I would add that it is only for all that will come to repent and believe and then urge and impress on the sinner why they should repent and believe without delay.

Christopher000 wrote:
Dr. Tim from Southern U.S. writes:
My doctorate is in a drawer. It's from a college. Cluck.
Dr. Detroit? Dr. Suess? Dr. Zhvago? Dr. McGilliciddy? The doctor from the game, Operation? Doctorate from Opossum U? Hillbilly Tech? Trailer park night school?
Am I getting close?

He says his doctorates are in a drawer. Probably the drawer is worth more than they are.

John UK wrote:
...a sinner hearing that could say, "Well I haven't trusted Christ, therefore probably Christ did not die for me, therefore there is no good news for me, therefore I might as well go home..

Just as Jesus is the "... Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Rev 13.8, in God's intent and plan, but the actual death of Christ had to await some 4,000 years from creation so the number chosen was fixed from the beginning (2 Thess 2.13) in the eternal compact between the members of the Godhead. The OT saints were saved by their faith in the prospective death of the Savior (as communicated to them in types and shadows) and we are saved by our faith in his historic act. It is not the number that changes but the experience of salvation by the elect as the Spirit of God applies the benefits of that death prospectively in the OT and rectroactively since the Savior's death.

Dr. Tim wrote:
... I both like and love Charles Spurgeon. If thousands were converted under his ministry, it wasn't because he was a great Calvinist, but because he was enough of a Baptist to passionately urge them to trust Christ as Savior right then and there. Gobble gobble. Quack.

Also Spurgeon specifically put his success down to his theology and the methodology born from it, which trusts in God, which is what dependence on grace means.

What amazes me is that you say you have read Spurgeon and Finney and the only difference you find between them is altar calls! Really? Wow!

Unprofitable Servnat wrote:
How do we know if the unsaved person to whom that is said is not elect, which would make the statements accurate?

Dare we risk lying to any? Or is the probability that a statement may only be a lie 50% of the time make it ok?

Unprofitable Servnat wrote:
Hopefully you can enlighten me. Show me where a gospel presentation was not personal but general. ....

It is not the direct form of address that I object to but the content that is addressed to the person being spoken to.

Can we say to any unregenerate soul that we know they are elect? If not, how can we possibly tell them that Christ died for them, or loves them with the special saving love that he has only towards the elect?

In my last post you will see that Spurgeon was careful in this respect. He never said Christ died for you, but that Jesus Christ took upon himself the sins of all who ever will trust him.

"..If you will not come to him,” Spurgeon urged, “others will. If you reject him, he has a people who will accept him, by his almighty grace.” God will send his messengers into the most unlikely places and gather together the most unlikely people, while others who now are invited will endure the eternal pains of outer darkness. “Oh,” Spurgeon groaned, as if warning his audience that they had all to gain but that God would lose nothing by their negative response, “I charge you, think not that your refusal of the gospel invitation will leave any gaps in the ranks of the redeemed!” At the end of further earnest and unrelenting remonstrance with resistant sinners Spurgeon entreated, “God the Holy Ghost speaks by me now to souls whom God hath chosen from before the foundation of the world, and he says, ‘Today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.’” He closed the message by posing a question: “How is it to be done?” The plan is very simple, Spurgeon said. Its simplicity, however, is stated very carefully. “Jesus Christ took upon himself the sins of all who ever will trust him.” ..

_________________________

Before I reply to brother UPS, here's a quote from a recent book:

"While many would be lost, Spurgeon could not be satisfied if there were none who would be saved. If not, he felt he must give up preaching. “I cannot stand here beating the air. If my hearers are not converted, I have lost my time; I have lost the exercise of brain and heart. I feel as if I had lost my hope, and lost my life, unless I find for my Lord some of his blood-bought ones.” As Spurgeon continued to call for the well-considered but immediate decision of his hearers, and while he reminded them of the benefits to be gained in receiving him and the dangers of having him as judge instead of Savior, he did not fear that Christ would lose any for whom he had died. “Do not suppose,” said Spurgeon, “that if you refuse Christ, he will lose the effect of his death.” Isaiah 53 promised that the Messiah’s travail of soul would surely bears its due fruit...

Enjoy tomorrow with your families and if there are any among them who are strangers to the things of God, do please share the good news with them of the grace and mercy of God in Jesus Christ.

Dr. Tim wrote:
....
C....I'd be a lot more concerned that someone who WAS "supposed" to get saved missed out because all the sheep were so busy trying to sniff out the goats.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Enjoy Christmas Day with your family.

Dr. Tim wrote:
No, Ladybug, Isaiah 45:22 doesn't mean that all will be saved. It just means that all may be saved. Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:6)