Sermons On Sovereignty CHS

Why don't you admit the truth? Man-up! Admit that you were wrong for once.
Here is the post that bothers you so much. Why not address it?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2175306&postcount=131

And the more direct link:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0279.htm

You need to read the whole thing.
It is obvious that Spurgeon preached a different message than you and the other Calvinists on this board. You won't admit it, neither will you comment on this message of his.

 

I like all Spurgeons messages...not every word he says...but I am on the same page . This sermon is fine...I like when he says this;

My doctrinal sentiments did at thee time somewhat hamper me. I boldly avow that I am unchanged as to the doctrines I have preached; I preach Calvinism as high, as stern, and as sound as ever; but I do feel, and always did feel an anxiety to invite sinners to Christ.

and here;
But I glory in the avowal that I preach Christ even to insensible sinners—that I would say even to the dry bones of the valley,

as Ezekiel did, "Ye dry bones live!" doing it as an act of faith; not faith in the power of those that hear to obey the command,

but faith in the power of God who gives the command to give strength also to those addressed, that they may be constrained to obey it.

yes DHK...good sermon..he speaks of Divine enablement right here! Surely you can see this now???

not faith in the power of those that hear to obey the command....
this is the exact opposite of what you have been trying to teach us isn't it?
Why would you pick this sermon then?
Oh wait...it uses the word whosoever will......but we have told you many times...that phrase is not problematic and does not chamge the teaching at all....

Keep looking for more CHS...we love that Brother!

"Whosoever understandeth let him come," but "whosoever will," and I do not doubt but what there are many souls who when they first come to Christ have very little understanding of the way of salvation, and very little knowledge of the way in which he saves; but they come to Christ, the Holy Ghost makes them willing to come, and so they are saved.

yes indeed...the irresistible grace and effectual call described! good stuff DHK...Divine Enablement.

 

Rippon,

Going through this old thread, it is interesting to note the objections of the old posters were not scripturally based , but emotional in nature.
The same objections of many today. The truth and teaching remainsas an anchor for the soul according to His promise.

 

Icon, I have interacted with you many, many times. I know how earnestly you believe in the DoG, how salvation is ALL of God, etc. You would never agree to this statement of Spurgeon's:
but I do feel, and always did feel an anxiety to invite sinners to Christ.

You don't believe anyone should be "invited" to "come" to Christ, but that God should "do the work of regeneration" on the person first, otherwise he cannot be saved. Obviously, that is not what Spurgeon believed. He invited, not the regenerated, but the unregenerated, the goats, the unsaved, to be saved. His invitation was to all, not simply to sheep.
This is the point of my quoting this porting of his sermon.

I remember Kyr posting that the Great Commission was Jesus commanding Peter to feed His sheep, and not "Go into all the world and preach the gospel..."
It seems like many here believe that the gospel is only to the elect. That is not what Spurgeon believed. His emphasis was "whosoever will." And his invitation was not to the elect, but to all unsaved.

 

DHK

DHK,
I speak with people about the gospel everyday. Today I spoke with a waitress in central Georgia, gave her the information for Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in Jackson Georgia....pastor Brandon Smith
. In God's providence that church is 5 miles from her home. What comes of it is between her and God.
I opened up my laptop in between responding to you and the fine posts by Rippon...so I pulled upsermonaudio for her and wrote down the information for her. She was thankful.
When you say I would never agree with Spurgeons statement you are wrong.
if that is what you think you would be shocked at what I do when the Lord gives me any opportunity. if you can arrange it...you could ride along and see for yourself.
Every person I see I view as a Divine appointment. I pray for opportunities to speak about the gospel. God provides abundantly.
The places I am in...do not contain many professed believers truckstops have a unique clientele.

[

.

Your statement is wrong. God indeed saves sinners. Sinners are unregenerate, until God regenerates them.
I have always posted that regeneration happens at the same time as conversion. Jesus taught the Spirit moves in the unseen realm, like the wind.

I do what I am responsible to do....God does the saving, or condemning.
When we speak truth to any person...we are a savor of life unto life, or death unto death.

Sheep are saved...why would I invent sheep to be saved? Why would I invite regenerated persons to be saved? they already are. I cannot see anyones heart to know for sure who is saved.

Every cal on here agrees with Spurgeon ..most of his quotes and sermons.
I have found a few times where I believe Spurgeon missed the truth.
He knew much more than I ever will, but he also is only a man.

I have no problem when anyone posts a link I will interact with it. I will read links. Everyone is pointing out to you that you are missing it and yet you insist that all of us are missing it instead.

I believe KYRED denies being a Calvinist..so he will answer for himself. I respect kyred very much but I publically had to resist his ideas on this topic as we differ....he thinks I am inconsistent with following through on the truths we do share. I think he has gone to far. I still enjoy many of kyreds posts on most every other topic. that is why a forum like this exists..
We can differ and interact.

Even though we differ we can still interact. Kyred does not try and lecture me or twist my words. he speaks man to man, states his case and I believe I have done the same with him....Biblicist also ...we went at each other on one or two topics....mostly agree, but some sharp disagreement.
You asked why I 'mocked" you ? I think yesterday....I fyou look carefully...I have asked you not to think for me, or twist what I did say, into what you want it to be....and yet you persist, saying what you do.
Sometimes you do interact, but before the post is over you resort back to your M.O.....I either have to stop interacting with you, or defend against the attack. The results are not pretty. I expose what you do. I would rather you do not and interact without the attacking, and frankly...lying, or false witness which is one of the ten Commandments....
Others have asked you to change...consider it for your own sake.

Will you give me twenty dollars for every time a cal says that is not so? I will do the work of going over cal posts ..if you pay me.

Are you saying we have not repeated...we do not know who the elect are? so we preach to all men...sinners.

there are 888000 sermons on sermonaudio...can you find one where a reformed Baptist asks all elect persons to come to Jesus?
find me one...I will listen:laugh:

 

DHK, just stop it. You have been taken to task and proven wrong at every turn, CHS was a five point Calvinist. Everything he preached that these Brothers have posted on here is consistent with DoG. It`s just your inability to understand what it was CHS preached that causes the confusion,


Those aren`t windmills you`re seeing, Don Q....

 

There is no doubt that many of his sermons are Calvinistic, I will grant you that. I have simply said some of them are not and seem to contradict his own Calvinism as he appeared to confess in the sermon I referenced.

That being said, can you tell me why just as many non-Cals as Cals claim Spurgeon as their authority? Its more of an observation. The very fact that non-Cals do quote Spurgeon, and do it often demonstrate that much of his work is not as Calvinistic as Cals would like to think.

 

I am glad to hear it Icon.
But all of the above contradicts your earlier remarks when you agreed with Archangel's explanation of John 3:16.
Your insistence that his interpretation was the correct interpretation and the KJV and other translations were wrong was astounding. Why?
Because he negates the "whosoever believes in him has eternal life," as an appeal to the world of the unsaved, what you say you do, and turns it to a statement about the elect instead.
That gives the impression you have no concern for the unsaved, the whosoever, the invitation to come. They are a call to the elect not to the unsaved, as Archangel twisted the verse to mean.

It seems to be an obsession with "the elect." Just an observation.

There are more of you than of me. :laugh:
So often I can't keep track of who said what.
But I do know that various Cals say that their obligation is to the elect, and not the unsaved. You have to admit that you are all not united. There is a wide variety of Calvinists on this board. There might be some who would disavow MacArthur as a Calvinist just because he is a dispensationalist.

 

Rippon, I hope you do not mind if I add to your collection here.

Reading through this thread, and the related ones in the C/A debate forum, I felt like reading a sermon to start my day right. I found this one:

The Sheep and Their Shepherd

I. Who is the proprietor of the sheep? They are all Christ's. "My sheep hear my voice." How came the saints to be Christ's?
They are his, first of all, because he chose them. Ere the worlds were made, out of all the rest of mankind he selected them. He knew the race would fall, and become unworthy of the faculties with which he endowed them, and the inheritance he had assigned them. To him belonged the sovereign prerogative that he might have mercy on whom he would have mercy; and he, out of his own absolute will, and according to the counsel of his own good pleasure, made choice severally and individually of certain persons, and he said, "These are mine." Their names were written in his book: they became his portion and his heritage. Having chosen them of old so many ages ago, rest assured he will not lose them now.


Amen.

 

DHK

We should all be glad when any believer gets to speak words of life to someone in need of Jesus.

Did it ever occur to you that both can be true at the same time, and that there is no contradiction?

WHY? because it is the correct interpretation, I have heard 2-3 pastors who teach the greek and Hebrew explain the text. I have read on it also.

The thing is.....while AA has the correct translation, he showed you exactly where to look....the truth contained in the passage does not really change at all anyhow..in that EVERYONE believing....are the exact same persons as your whosoever will... watch

everyone believing= whosoever will.......

everyone believing...does not equal....whosoever will not:thumbs:

Whosoever will not= equals everyone...not believing:thumbs:

Ask him to clarify if you need to. I have never met AA personally yet, however I can assure you hedoes NOT negate that.
Why do you have such an irrational fear? cals believe both. You can also if you set aside your fear and actually read what we are saying.

Look...at the doctrinal root is unconditional election in scripture. It is a great blessing without which no one would be saved.

No one knows who are elect or not elect.

We do know that all sinned in Adam.

we know that people are perishing outside of Christ.

we know that the father gives amultitude to the Son.

we know at a point in time, all that are given....WILL COME.

if a person we are speaking with has not come yet, we can urge them to seek God for mercy., based on this knowledge, plus verses such as this;


24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

If you have that fear, or impression...simply ask for clarification..every cal here has offered some clarification already. No cal does what you say...at all.

No..sorry ..AA did not twist the verse at all. I am totally supportive of most everything he has said. If he said something amiss ....do you think I would have not posted about it? You should know me better than that.
I for one am very glad to have AA posting,and would that he posted even more, but I would venture to say he is busy labouring in the word and doctrine. Ask him up front...do not accuse first

.
it seems that way..because manyn here resist the teaching and attack us....so we are not afraid to speak of it... In cal churches it comes up in conversation, but do not dwell on it.

There is room for one or two more on the cal side. I do not try and convert you to it DHK, that is between you and God.
What started this thread is my statement that a person cannot believe these things unless God allows them to.
I believe these points are the truth...so if it is god who reveals or conceals truth...either in parables, or in a persons individual study...he alone knows for certain why.
Some are infra lasarian, some Supra lapsarian, different eschatology, different .ecclesiology.

This is where Rippon said you must be careful not to lump all in together. Those who say that deny being cals. They believe they have reasons for that. I will let them speak for themselves.

No one is really united in some ways. we are each different. yet we have most things in common. that is why I go to a confessional church...even with minor differences. The word of God always trumps the confession.

When I was premill John M was one of my go to guys....I still respect and enjoy him. He is wrong on Israel and the church however. When I hear him on it, I just translate those portions.

 

Another blog post I wrote...

Cont'd....

 

The remainder...

 

There is a contradiction, a definite contradiction.
(KJV) 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.

Here is a translation I found that might be similar to what Archangel was translating:
for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

They don't say the same thing. The KJV rendering is as an invitation to anyone, whosoever, all, anyone (elect or not). It is not us that makes that decision. You don't witness to just the elect. Thus whosover (of the all in the world) that believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. The verse is written for us, for our understanding.

In the second translation, it is wrong. It has already made an assumption, a conclusion that makes the verse redundant and nonsensical.
It is like saying: "Whosever is watching TV is a "TV-watcher." Duh!
The verse doesn't even make sense that way.
Whosoever is elect has eternal life. Duh. We know that already. That is not what Christ is saying. He is not teaching the obvious and being redundant.
Whosoever, any, whoever, in all the world will believe on Jesus will have eternal life. That is a promise. It is an invitation to come and believe. If it is anything other than that it will not make sense.
"whosever is believing" is just a phrase that describes the elect, and we all know that the elect have eternal life already. Christ doesn't need to repeat himself with redundant silly statements. The verse is a promise to those who will believe. They will get a reward, that of eternal life, and will never perish.

AA is wrong. There are many Greek scholars fare more educated than he is. Just because he put some Greek up here on this board doesn't make him right. The entirety of the Bible is against him.

"Those who are believing," or "everyone who is believing..." shall not perish but have everlasting live.

"Those who are the elect shall have everlasting life." Is that a surprise?

"Those who are drivers shall drive" Obviously.

"Those who are home-owners will have homes." This one is the most applicable. It is simply stating the obvious. That is not what Christ was doing. He was teaching, teaching Nicodemus that he needed to be born again, needed to be saved, needed to trust Christ. Nicodemus was not yet saved. He was not one of the elect. He was one of the "whosoevers" that needed to come to Christ and believe in order that he might have eternal life. This is contrary to AA's interpretation.

It is a great curse. It teaches a God of anger and not of love. The Bible does not teach of God as one who so loved his creation that in eternity past he created it just to cast into the Lake of Fire. That is a horrible doctrine and not the God of love that I know.

True enough.
It is only God that know those that will be elected. Our obligation is to be his witness.

I am glad that you don't. Some Cals seem to be against evangelzation. Like I said, there is a wide variety on the board. Even the basic interpretation of John 3:16 would lead to deterrence in evangelization.

In this case you agree with his error.

But you know that is not true on this board. Both theology forums and Cal/Arm forum is full of these same themes over and over again. It is an obsession.

And that is not true. It is as false as false can be. Steaver called you out on a statement like that. You couldn't defend yourself. There are many Calvinists who chose to be because they thought it was better than being an Arminian, or because that is what their parents taught them, or because that is what their church taught them. It is not because God led them. The term "God allows," is misleading. God allows death in the family. God allows children to be raped, pedophilias to be on the loose, wars to take place, terrorists to be on the rampage, natural disasters to happen, etc. He allows all those things. But I don't think that is what you meant.

And I don't believe them to be truth, as do many others that agree with me.

 

DHK

no contradiction at all(

.

Yes we have offered it to you about 20times already..it is youngs literal translation...! it is correct:thumbs:

God chooe greek and aramaic...the greek is even clearer than YLT...In the greek the wording is there for emphasis...God's Son...I mean his only begotten

It does not read well in english, but the wordorder and the grammar are given by God. you are calling it...redundant nonsense

Maybe not to you but to AA and others trained it makes complete sense and shows you do not know what you are talking about ,at all.

No..you are wrong again, and unteachable..You have not learned your lesson.

You are wrong for certain here once again...dead wrong.

That is what AA said.
"

i see no one who agrees with you...no one.I guess you could claim plain and simple but she has also disqualified herself.

 

I find this denial quite amazing and very interesting.
The above statement is in response to my statement:

Now faithfulness to a friend is one thing, but to the point of blind allegiance--I thought that was reserved for Christ?

No one, I mean no one, is the best in all the world and in all the ages to past.
Icon is putting Archangel above all 54 of the KJV translators, and all other translators of all other versions and translators of Bibles. He is putting him above and beyond all other scholars.
I said:
"There are many Greek scholars far more educated than he is."
Icon says, that I am wrong; unteachable, etc. Amazing!

Please learn not to follow one man; not to be a man-follower.
[FONT=&quot]John 3:16 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.[/FONT]

The above verse needs no revision, no correction. It is properly translated. To devotedly stand behind a man who steadfastly claims that John 3:16 is wrongly translated is pure foolishness.

 

Why are you making such an ordeal over this verse...John 3:16? The way you post it and the way Brother AA posts it matters not. Both sayings are true. God so loved the world He sent Jesus to save believers. Neither side of this debates states/believes otherwise. God saves believers, not unbelievers...

 

Brother DHK,

I'm gonna be the one to put the final nails in your coffin here....


In another thread that was closed in the Cal/Armin board, you posted this...

You are jumbled all over in this post. You say that Christ died for everyone, that He desires all to be saved, and then you turn around and said we are born again by the Word of God. What about all those who never knew about Jesus, never heard His name mentioned? That is why the likes of Carey was so desirious to do missionary work...to get the gospel to them.

Yet, not everyone who has ever lived, knew that Jesus existed. Christ died for those who would believe and not those who would never believe, regardless how hard we preached and/or witnessed to them...