Which portion of John Murray's writing did you like best?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
World 3:16
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Scripture deals with the heart of man, which is "desire".
While I tend to agree with you, and do not contend that man has no will, I see man's will being influenced by our desires...which God's word has quite a bit to say about.
Some examples are here:
Jeremiah 17:9
Matthew 15:18-19
Mark 7:20-23
Desire acts as the "motivator", or engine for the will.
Man's will is directly influenced, or "governed" by our desires, which then lead to actions.
For example:
" Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." ( James 1:13-15 ).
Here we see that along comes temptation...
Man responds to that temptation because of lust.
Lust leads to enticement ( see Genesis 3:6 ).
Then, when it conceives ( a thing is formed ), it brings forth sin ( disobedience to God's will ), and when it's all said and done, it brings forth death ( separation from God ).
Then we see Romans 1:
" For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;"
" And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." ( Romans 1:28-32 ).
Based on these passages, where is man's will inclined?
I think that you and I are generally in agreement with what this says, but I know of many who post on this forum that cannot seem to see the significance of these passages, and how descriptive they are in their objectivity about us as men.
They paint a very informative picture of what man's will is like, wouldn't you agree?
Last edited:
When I posted to ITL.to read it slowly...I meantthat quite literally.Icon's faults notwithstanding, the same could be said of some of yours, ITL.
I have no idea how you get away with some of what you do, and still think that you are obeying the Lord in your conduct.
Some examples from this very thread:
This one is termed, "hypocrisy", and I believe that you object to this sort of treatment under # 5 in your signature.
Despite your complaints about people doing it to you, you seem to enjoy doing it to them when it suits you.
That brings me to a friendly suggestion...
When you're tempted to respond in kind, don't.
I also encourage you to remember this:
" And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." ( Luke 6:31 )
...And to remember that as God's children, we are not to do the things that the Lord will judge the lost for, because we enjoy His forgiveness and eternal favor.
This one is called, "ironic sarcasm".
It's generally used by people who disagree with someone else, but think they are better than the one they are disagreeing with.
I know it very well, having used it many times myself, to my shame.
I'd like to think that I'd never be tempted to do it again, but I cannot guarantee it.
I'll keep trying not to, despite being tempted on occasion.
This one is called "mocking", and again, I'd like to direct your attention to the Scriptures:
" Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." ( Matthew 7:12 ).
So, @InTheLight , do you find yourself objecting to poor treatment at the hands of those you disagree with?
Then keep in mind that you do it as well, and rest in the fact that God, in His patience, not only commands us as believers not to respond in kind, but that He is very patient with your faults and failures.
May God bless you sir, by reminding you of what He has done for you when He sent His Son to the cross.
The confession is a carefully worded statement.
It is meant to be read phrase by phrase.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Sometimes writing something, versus face-to-face communication, leaves a lot to be desired for its lack of 3 dimensions.
I can see how someone might misunderstand that you were only trying to encourage the reader to slow down and read every word carefully, but written communication is limited to words on a page, while face-to-face interaction gives people more information with which to determine things...like body language, etc.
In other words, it's easy to misunderstand an intention on a forum, unless one learns how to write.
I'm still learning, my friend, and I've made too many mistakes to count.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Responding to the OP:
"World" is a contextual term, as are many terms in the Scriptures.
How it is used in the Bible is often not carefully taken into consideration when verses are isolated from the rest of what God has to say on a matter.
@Iconoclast , I think you gave a good example in your first few posts.
Please allow me to develop...
" For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." ( John 3:16-17 ).
Without more context, here is what I see with just these verses:
God so loved the world...every single man, woman and child who ever lived.
God sent His Son into the world...to this earth.
Not to condemn the world....every single man, woman and child who ever lived.
But that the world through Him might be saved....every single man woman and child who ever lived.
There it is, and there it stands...
With no other information brought in from other things that God has to say on the matter, it is limited to what we can make of it in isolation.
"World" is a contextual term, as are many terms in the Scriptures.
How it is used in the Bible is often not carefully taken into consideration when verses are isolated from the rest of what God has to say on a matter.
@Iconoclast , I think you gave a good example in your first few posts.
Please allow me to develop...
" For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." ( John 3:16-17 ).
Without more context, here is what I see with just these verses:
God so loved the world...every single man, woman and child who ever lived.
God sent His Son into the world...to this earth.
Not to condemn the world....every single man, woman and child who ever lived.
But that the world through Him might be saved....every single man woman and child who ever lived.
There it is, and there it stands...
With no other information brought in from other things that God has to say on the matter, it is limited to what we can make of it in isolation.
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
As discerning readers of God's word, should that be enough to proceed on...the results of one or two verses?
Let's do that.
Let's take what we see in the verses above, and run with it...
God loves everyone ( the world ).
Now before we go any further...
Does God hate anyone?
Are there examples of God not loving everyone, or favoring some and not others?
To find those, we'll need to study His words a lot more than simply taking what one or two verses seem to say on any particular topic, shouldn't we?
So, when I read His word, I start to come across other things that God has to say about who He loves and who He hates...
Here are some that deal with God hating someone:
Psalms 5:5
Psalms 11:5
Romans 9:13.
Now we have a problem that, if anyone seriously seeks to let God's word speak on any given subject, they should not be content to simply accept the first thing that comes to mind.
If the "world" in John 3:16 means every single man, woman and child who ever lived, then we have a contradiction that should not be overlooked, should it?
No.
Because that contradiction could lead to ignoring what is said in the other passages, and favoring parts of what God's word says, when we should be favoring it all equally ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ) and arriving at a consensus of it on any subject, when that subject is studied out thoroughly.
Study His words, dear reader...
All of them equally.
Don't fall for simply believing what verses say in isolation, no matter what one preacher or another has to say on the matter... whether they are "Calvinist", "Arminian" or "Traditionalist".
At the end of the day, you are the one who needs to be persuaded, and it should only be God's words ( and a thorough understanding of them ) that should be doing the persuading.
@Iconoclast :
The thread is yours again, my friend, and I thank you for the privilege of replying to your OP.
Have a good evening.
Let's do that.
Let's take what we see in the verses above, and run with it...
God loves everyone ( the world ).
Now before we go any further...
Does God hate anyone?
Are there examples of God not loving everyone, or favoring some and not others?
To find those, we'll need to study His words a lot more than simply taking what one or two verses seem to say on any particular topic, shouldn't we?
So, when I read His word, I start to come across other things that God has to say about who He loves and who He hates...
Here are some that deal with God hating someone:
Psalms 5:5
Psalms 11:5
Romans 9:13.
Now we have a problem that, if anyone seriously seeks to let God's word speak on any given subject, they should not be content to simply accept the first thing that comes to mind.
If the "world" in John 3:16 means every single man, woman and child who ever lived, then we have a contradiction that should not be overlooked, should it?
No.
Because that contradiction could lead to ignoring what is said in the other passages, and favoring parts of what God's word says, when we should be favoring it all equally ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ) and arriving at a consensus of it on any subject, when that subject is studied out thoroughly.
Study His words, dear reader...
All of them equally.
Don't fall for simply believing what verses say in isolation, no matter what one preacher or another has to say on the matter... whether they are "Calvinist", "Arminian" or "Traditionalist".
At the end of the day, you are the one who needs to be persuaded, and it should only be God's words ( and a thorough understanding of them ) that should be doing the persuading.
@Iconoclast :
The thread is yours again, my friend, and I thank you for the privilege of replying to your OP.
Have a good evening.
Last edited:
I believe we are influenced by our desires. This is, IMHO, what Scripture is speaking if when it speaks of the flesh or the desires of the flesh and the Spirit or the desires of the Spirit.
We always have free will (we are not forced to wilfully act in one way or another) but we tend to do as our heart leads.
I believe this the point of God removing our old heart and spirit to give us a new one.
The lost reject God of their own free-will following their heart. The saved obey God of their own free will according to their rebirth.
When we get into issues of free-will (beyond Scripture's use of flesh and spirit) and start comparing free-will to human free agency or volition then we are venturing into philosophy and cannot be too dogmatic. That is all I was trying to communicate to @Iconoclast. I do not know why it was received as an offensive claim.
Both @Dave Gilbert and @Reynolds have made some very good points. I disagree with some of their positions (they disagree with each other as well) , but I respect that they are capable of engaging Scripture.
There is too much reliance on the words of men, theories, commentaries, philosophies of the will (some vain, some perhaps not) and even a bit of Stoicism.
Why? We have the Scriptures. Do we need to rely on men like John Murray, or whatever Confession fits our camp?
How can we say Scripture is enough if every thread we depend on the teachings of men about Scripture above the Bible itself?
There is too much reliance on the words of men, theories, commentaries, philosophies of the will (some vain, some perhaps not) and even a bit of Stoicism.
Why? We have the Scriptures. Do we need to rely on men like John Murray, or whatever Confession fits our camp?
How can we say Scripture is enough if every thread we depend on the teachings of men about Scripture above the Bible itself?
you do not understand what you are reading here.
#4 (Again)
i could show you, but you did not call my friend.
try tommorow if you want.
i was not going to speak about you as you suggested.\
call now, I will be awake for a couple more hours.
Last edited:
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
These two posts represent diametrically opposite viewpoints such that no bona fide reconciliation seems possible. How is it they emanate from the same poster?
Chapter 9: Of Free Will
1._____ God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 )
2._____ Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.
( Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6 )
3._____ Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 )
4._____ When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
( Colossians 1:13; John 8:36; Philippians 2:13; Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23 )
5._____ This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.
( Ephesians 4:13 )
Hello RT,
Free will does not exist. It is a philosophical construct, do a google search.
Those who wrote the 1689, addressed the topic to answer those who hold this idea.
Here are 3 other links I offered for anyone who wanted to look at it;
Free Agency by John Murray
Free-Will - A Slave
Myth of Free Will, Walter J. Chantry | The Reformed Reader
Last edited:
So...we should set aside John Murray, and Spurgeon, and the puritans to read your posts??? I am sure people are going to burn all those books tomorrow so they can scan your posts.
are you suggesting John Murray did not read and study scripture, or Spurgeon did not????
Professor John Murray (1898-1975) was recognized in his own lifetime as one of the leading Reformed theologians in the English-speaking world.
Born at Migdale, near Bonar Bridge, Scotland, he attended Dornoch Academy, and served with the Royal Highlanders (Black Watch) in France during the First World War, losing an eye in the conflict. After the War, he pursued studies, first at the University of Glasgow (MA, 1923), and then at Princeton Theological Seminary, USA (1924-27).
In 1929 he was invited to teach Systematic Theology at Princeton, and did so for one year, before joining the Faculty of the newly formed Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. There he shared with such scholars and Christian leaders as J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til in the great struggle to maintain the old Princeton tradition in theology, represented by the Hodges and B. B. Warfield. He was ordained in 1937 by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, USA.
John Murray remained at Westminster until his retirement in 1966. He returned to his native Scotland, married Valerie Knowlton in December 1967 and enjoyed a brief period of fatherhood prior to his death in 1975. A careful scholar, an eloquent lecturer, a moving preacher, and the author of many outstanding articles and books, Murray’s driving passions were to declare Christ’s Word, advance his cause, and bless his people.
The Trust publishes his Collected Writings in four volumes, and his Redemption – Accomplished and Applied, in which he expounds particular redemption, stresses union with Christ, and sees adoption as the apex of the redemptive privileges.
[See also Iain H. Murray’s The Life of John Murray.]
No need to read him,
Yes. I am saying that you are wrong. Christians do not need to read John Murray. Christians need to read God's Word.So...we should set aside John Murray, and Spurgeon, and the puritans to read your posts??? I am sure people are going to burn all those books tomorrow so they can scan your posts.
are you suggesting John Murray did not read and study scripture, or Spurgeon did not????
Professor John Murray (1898-1975) was recognized in his own lifetime as one of the leading Reformed theologians in the English-speaking world.
Born at Migdale, near Bonar Bridge, Scotland, he attended Dornoch Academy, and served with the Royal Highlanders (Black Watch) in France during the First World War, losing an eye in the conflict. After the War, he pursued studies, first at the University of Glasgow (MA, 1923), and then at Princeton Theological Seminary, USA (1924-27).
In 1929 he was invited to teach Systematic Theology at Princeton, and did so for one year, before joining the Faculty of the newly formed Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. There he shared with such scholars and Christian leaders as J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til in the great struggle to maintain the old Princeton tradition in theology, represented by the Hodges and B. B. Warfield. He was ordained in 1937 by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, USA.
John Murray remained at Westminster until his retirement in 1966. He returned to his native Scotland, married Valerie Knowlton in December 1967 and enjoyed a brief period of fatherhood prior to his death in 1975. A careful scholar, an eloquent lecturer, a moving preacher, and the author of many outstanding articles and books, Murray’s driving passions were to declare Christ’s Word, advance his cause, and bless his people.
The Trust publishes his Collected Writings in four volumes, and his Redemption – Accomplished and Applied, in which he expounds particular redemption, stresses union with Christ, and sees adoption as the apex of the redemptive privileges.
[See also Iain H. Murray’s The Life of John Murray.]
No need to read him,
When we study Scripture we need to set aside commentaries at the start. Otherwise you end up studying an amalgamation of God's Word and what you believe those men are saying without the ability to separate the two.
Study Scripture prayerfully. After you have drawn conclusions then read commentaries to make sure you have not invented something new. Study those who support your view and why. But also be very careful to make sure you study those who argue against your view and the reasons they do so.
I am not saying reading these men are bad. But in the end you have chosen Murray, Pink, and Gill over Moody, Wright, and Wesley. Do not elevate these writings to the level of Scripture as if God uses Murray and not men like Billy Graham or Tozer.
Those men are right and wrong. They are subjective.
Scripture is perfect. Scripture is objective. God uses men like Billy Graham, Wesley, Moody, NT Wright, John MacArthur and John Murray. But it is not a matter of need.
Scripture is sufficient.
And once again can you show where I posted in my own words not to read scripture?
Can you show where professor Murray says do not read scripture?
Could you show a puritan who suggests such nonsense?
When you can, post it...thank you so much
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Hi back, IC,
My only point is that the 1689 LBCF embraces a concept of free will in its explanation. It doesn't explain it away. In other words, the 1689 LBCF does not square with your total denial, meaning it doesn't support your stance, but you seemed to be referencing it as though it does. Either its explanation is error-filled or your total denial is erroneous, or both.
I did consider the possibility that the blanks after the numbers are to be filled in with T or F depending on the reference verses, but that doesn't seeem to be the intent of the Confession.
Another possibility is that you did not mean to imply that it supports your stance. In any case, it doesn't.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Jon?
If I may ask, what was the purpose of this?
No purpose. I just thought it was funny. Reading the thread it came to mind and I got a bit of a chuckle.
"And if by chance an honest man like yourself should make enemies, then they would become my enemies. And then they would fear you."
Reading posts on this section of the BB there seems to be the idea that people band together in camps rather than unite in Christ. That is sad. But I thought the pic funny.
- Status