Sermons On Sovereignty CHS

Quoting OT examples doesn't do much good.
As for your example with Paul, he wasn't regenerated, he was called. IOW, God knew he would come to Christ at some time in the future (he also knew the time as well of course). But read the accounts of his conversion. Each time it was Paul that was obedient to the heavenly vision. He was the one that exercised obedience on his part. God did not force him to obey. Regeneration and salvation took place at that time, the time that he addressed Christ as "Lord," showing submission to Christ as Lord. That was the most difficult thing in the world for any Jew to do, especially for Paul who was on his way, papers in hand, to persecute the followers of Christ.

 

....and you know that how?

...and you know that how?

Your man-centric stenched with the flesh theology robs the glory owed to God and credits it to man. This is how Paul describes his conversion:

15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother`s womb, and called me through his grace,
16 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: Gal 1

 

dhk

We know he Paul was called, but what scripture says that he was not regenerated when he was called ? Gal 1:15-16

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Now show us where it says he was not regenerated when called, or is that an assumption on your part ?

 

You and I both know that a lost man can be convinced on an intellectual level and remain lost without any effect.

What produces conviction is the internal revelation by God that Paul describes in 2 cor. 4:6, which is a creative act. The confession of faith by Peter did not originate from "flesh and blood" but was by divine revelation within Peter (Mt. 16:16-17). Paul's conviction did not come from his immense knowledge of the scriptures nor the gospel witness he must have heard countless times from Stephen until the road on demascus. He attributes it to God REVEALING IN HIM the Son (Gal. 1:15-16).

Faith is created by this internal creation of METAPHORICAL light where one is confronted with or made to look directly into "the face of Jesus Christ" - 2 Cor. 4:6

 

There first must be an intellectual belief. That is why the gospel is presented first. True it is not the intellectual belief that saves. It is the first step. The Lord does not act in a vacuum as our Calvinistic brethren are claiming in previous posts concerning the Apostle Paul.

After the facts of the gospel are understood and accepted then the conviction of the Holy Spirit is able to, and begins to work. The Holy Spirit works through the Word. through the Word that a man gains faith.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

Concerning Peter, Peter had accepted Christ as Messiah some time before his great confession. That "revelation" was not his salvation, but something that God revealed to him as a believer. It is not a description applicable to salvation.

Look at the context of the passage in Galatians:
[FONT=&quot]Galatians 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.[/FONT]

Paul is demonstrating to the churches of Galatia why the doctrine of the false teachers of Judaizers, these Pharisaical teachers of the law, were so wrong. In so doing he gives his own credentials.
1. When he was a Jew, he was better than his own peers.
2. He was more zealous than they were, even more zealous of the traditions of the fathers.
3. His message was not from men; it was from God. It was not of the traditions of his fathers; it was of God.
4. God had separated him from his mother's womb. That is what his pleasure was. He had a purpose for Paul.
5. However, all the works that Paul did: his education, being a part of the Sanhedrin, a Rabbi, persecuting the Christians, everything he did as a Pharisee were all for nought.
6. He was separated. The word "separated" is the same word that is used for "Pharisee." It is a play on words. But He was separated to do God's will not man's will. This was the true will of God.
7. He never even consulted man, not even the apostles.
8. Why? God called me by His grace. That was not at birth. That was on the road to Damascus. Just because it is in the same verse does not mean it is at the same time as his birth. God called him on the road to Damascus. Paul himself testifies to that. He was not disobedient to the heavenly vision.
9. When he was called by God grace, God revealed His Son in Paul that he might preach, and so Paul did. It all happened at the same time. The first thing Paul did after meeting with Ananias was to preach the gospel.

These two verses must be taken in their context.
His message, the gospel, was given to him by direct revelation of God.
That is the emphasis of the passage. Let's not take scripture out of context.

 

When I was born my father called me (DHK), and I became a hockey player. According to your logic I started playing hockey the day I was born.

Paul was not regenerated in the womb any more than I played hockey the day I was born. The grammar doesn't necessitate that he was.
He was regenerated when he called upon the Lord.

 

DHK
y1 had said salvation was a process...you said;

now in the same thread you describe a long process:laugh::laugh:

Make up your mind DHK:thumbs:












k

 

There was no process. Just read the last line of my post:
believe in his HEART on the Lord Jesus Christ, and be saved. That is what the Bible teaches.
k

 

I agree there is first intellectual comprehension of the message that comes first.

Here is the crux of our disagreement. Yes, "The Holy Spirit works through the word" but that work is described as a CREATIVE work "in the heart" according to 2 Cor. 4:6. That CREATIVE work is an effectual divine revelation from which FIRM CONVICTION is the creative product "in the heart" or whereby we are "his workmanship CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS" (Eph. 2:10a). It is just as effectual as when God spoke light into existence in Genesis 1:2 from which Paul draws his analogy of this inward working of the Holy Spirit with the Word of the gospel (2 Cor. 4:6) so that the gospel does not come in "word only, BUT IN POWER and IN THE SPIRIT and IN MUCH ASSURANCE" this describes the effectual production of firm CONVICTION in the gospel by divine fiat.

If that was not the origin of his salvation conviction, then how would the church be built upon a Post-salvation experience? The pronoun "it" in verse 18 has for its antecedent that revelation in verse 17 which in turn has for its antecedent Peter's profession of faith in Christ. It is this kind of profession required to be a member of one of the Lord's congregations and that is the profession of salvation, rather than a post-salvation experience.

Separation from his mother's womb introduces called me by his grace and separation from his mothers womb is birth. If the calling here was not the second birth, then the analogous comparison with the first birth makes little sense. Just as a child is revealed in the womb at point of physical birth, so Christ is revealed in the heart at the time of spiritual birth. This corresponds exactly to 2 Cor. 4:6 and Ephesians 2:10 concerning God's creative work of revealing Christ IN THE HEART at the time of salvation.

 

All that what you stated was well and good, but you failed to address the question . It says that Paul was called, but where does it say that he was not regenerated when he was called ? Do you have a answer for that from scripture ?

 

DHK

then you say this again:laugh::laugh:

 

Yes, I expound the Scripture as they should be in their proper context and come to a different conclusion than you do.
Now, you give evidence where it says that Paul was regenerated in the womb. There isn't any!!

 

You have not done anything, but fail to show what you stated by scripture !

Also you are trying to relate that which is earthy and natural with what is Heavenly and Spiritual !

I believe Pauls Call in Acts 9 and Gal 1 was a Heavenly Call from God, Like in Heb 3:1

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

It was a Holy Calling to a Holy Person 2 Tim 1:9

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

That Grace is the Grace he was called by Gal 1:15

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

I dont see how you have expounded anything from scripture, your comment was unscriptural and unspiritual ! It referenced the natural man :

Look at what you posted:

And you call that expounding the scripture as it should be. You didnt even use a scripture Lol !

 

Perhaps you didn't read post #125

 

This verse is speaking of illumination, the work of God in believers well after salvation. It should not be taken out of its context and be used as a pretext for another existing text.

Again, Eph.2:10 is applicable to believers only. Verses 8,9 speak of salvation, whereas verse 10 is directed at believers and what believers should be engaged in after salvation--good works. The believer is "his workmanship created in Christ Jesus."

You have read too much into this. The gospel is preached in power, yes.
But there is no "creative power" as there was in Gen.1:2. God has made us a new creature in Christ, yes. But his creative works ceased when he rested on the seventh day. The analogy doesn't fit. And the scripture you are using doesn't fit, a scripture that simply speaks of illumination.

When the church started has been a controversial point throughout the ages. But here are facts that we do know.
1. [FONT=&quot]John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.[/FONT]
--Andrew immediately believed that Christ was the Messiah.
He went and found Peter. Peter's belief at that time was immediate.
He left everything to his father and followed Christ. He wouldn't have done that if he wasn't convinced that Christ was the Messiah.

[FONT=&quot]John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.[/FONT]
--As evidence Jesus immediately changed his name. "Simon" means "angry man." "Cephas" the Aramaic name for Peter, means rock. Peter would become a rock of stability in the Christian faith. His life would change. He began to follow from that day. He believed on that day.

[FONT=&quot]John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.[/FONT]
--We don't read much about Nathaneal, but this is a fairly strong confession of faith. Peter's confession of faith was by his works. He followed Christ. We are not told if Nathaneal did or not. Not everything is recorded in the Bible. IOW, Peter may have confessed more than once that Christ was the Son of God, even as Nathaneal did here.

Technically a church is simply an assembly. Christ had this assembly ever since he had called his 12.
[FONT=&quot]Luke 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;[/FONT]
--These are the ones upon whom he built his church.

Jeremiah was called from his mother's womb.
John the Baptist was called from his mother's womb.
And so was Paul.
That doesn't mean they were all regenerated at that time.
That kind of logic is hogwash.
God doesn't allow regenerated men to roam the streets murdering people. Murder is not one of the fruits of the Spirit. It is a work of the flesh, of the devil, and something that Paul continued to regret.

Wrong Scriptures, wrong context, wrong conclusion.

 

dhk

Show me in that post from the scripture where it stated that Paul was not regenerated when he was Called by God's Grace in Gal 1:15. Thats all i need to see !

You stated:

Now, what proof do you have that he was not regenerated when he was called by Grace ?

I am not talking about when he was seperated from the womb, of course then he was not yet born again, but at the time of his Call, he had to be ! Now if you have scripture proving or stating otherwise, show it !

 

How is that? The context is directly dealing with the lost, those who have been blinded by Satan, not the saved:

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

The difference between the lost whose minds are blinded, and where the glorious gospel does not shine in verse 3-5 and the saved in verse 6 is that divine command that brings light "in the heart". That is the point of this whole contextual contrast between verses 3-5 and verse 6. The difference between lost and saved in this context is God commanding the light to shine in "our" hearts which is not shining in their hearts.

The words "for we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus" is explanatory of why salvation is not of our works (v. 9) but is a "gift of God" and "not of ourselves." Furthermore, "by grace are ye saved" is explanatory of quickening as verse 5 first introduces "saved by grace" as explanatory of being "quickened."

Regardless of when the church started, it is this profession of faith that forms the foundation and that is simply a matter of grammar tracing nearest antecedents. "This rock" is a third person singular, which has for its nearest grammatical antecedent "it" in verse 17 which has for its antecedent the profession of faith in verse 16. "Thou" is a second person singular and has no grammatical connection with the foundation "upon" which Jesus built the church institution. The grammatical antecedents have nothing to do with the apostles but with the profession of faith by the apostles.

 

And Romans Chapetr 8 tells us that God indeed has an entire salvation process, as he predestines/calls/justifies/glorifies those of us to get saved in Christ!

Salvation is more than just being Justified thru faith in Jesus....

 

Predestination is not much more than God's omniscience put in action. It has nothing to do with your actual salvation. There are some so foolish to take this doctrine to an extreme and to say that they are born again before the foundation of the world (spiritually), and then saved in a physical sense on earth. It is just a bunch of hogwash that interferes with God's omniscience. The Calvinist presumes he knows the heart and mind of God, IOW, that he is omniscient as God is. That is blasphemous.
Why not take the Bible at face value instead.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Fairly simple isn't it?
Then comes a PROCESS of sanctification. That comes after a positional sanctification that takes place at salvation.
Glorification takes place at the second coming. It does not refer to anything but the redemption of our body. It has nothing to do with our salvation, per se. Thus you are only playing a game of semantics here.
Regeneration and salvation are simultaneous. It is not a process it is an event.

If it is a process then you believe in a religion of works just like all the other religions of the world, and your faith is not like biblical Christianity at all. Pity!