A.W. Pink On Election ...

[iamwhatiam]

It surprises me at times to see the posts coming from some of our fellow Christians. Some of the personal attacks are needless and only lead us away from where God wants us to be.

But, it is expected to be critized when needed... to correct the sheep, and lead them back to the Shepherd.

Thus, I offer the following in support of God's election of us, with sincere hope that it reaches the ones battling with His decree.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

God has predestinated us to life.

He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time to effectually call us by His Word and Spirit, out of the state of sin and death which we were in by nature.

To grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. He enlightens our minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God.

He took away our heart of stone and gave to us a heart of flesh. He renews our wills, and by His almighty power, causes us to desire and pursue that which is good. He effectually draws us to Jesus Christ, yet in such a way that we come absolutely freely, being made willing by His grace.

This effectual (effectual; to product a desired effect - God's desire, not ours) call is of God's free and special grace alone, not on account of anything at all foreseen in man. It is not made because of any power or agency in man who is wholly passive in the matter.

We were dead in sins and trespasses until quickened, (quickened: to make alive; to come to life; to reach the stage of gestation at which fetal motion is felt; a sudden renewal of life or activity especially in something inert and renewed by the Holy Spirit.

By this we are enabled to answer the call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it. This enabling power is no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.

Others are not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may experience some common operations of the Spirit, yet because they are not effectually drawn by the Father, they will not and cannot truly come to Christ and therefore cannot be saved.

Much less can men who do not embrace the Christian religion be saved, however diligent they may be to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the requirements of the religion they profess.

We profess what God has enligtened us to, and must realize that many others on this board, and in the world, will not agree with us because they do not, (and some cannot) understand the total Sovereignty of God; but instead make Him out to be a tyrant for choosing the things for His purpose.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

[J.D.]

Calvibatist said: "Regeneration first. Faith next (at least in theological jargon). In reality, they are probably simultaneous but one logically follows the other."

Calvi, I hate to disagree with you in front of Arminians, but I believe a closer look will lead you to the inexorable conclusion that rebirth MUST ALWAYS PRECEDE, IN TIME, faith. I think the confusion comes as we look into scripture and see that certain passages are not always dealing with sequence, either logical or chronological, and salvation is often presented as a whole, it's parts not being distinguished.

I think this is orthodox understanding.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by J.D.:
Calvibatist said: "Regeneration first. Faith next (at least in theological jargon). In reality, they are probably simultaneous but one logically follows the other."

Calvi, I hate to disagree with you in front of Arminians, but I believe a closer look will lead you to the inexorable conclusion that rebirth MUST ALWAYS PRECEDE, IN TIME, faith. I think the confusion comes as we look into scripture and see that certain passages are not always dealing with sequence, either logical or chronological, and salvation is often presented as a whole, it's parts not being distinguished.

I think this is orthodox understanding.

I think I misspoke when I said "simultaneously." What I actually meant was that faith is almost certainly "immediate" after regeneration. To the human mind they might be simultaneous, but there is a sequence.

 

[iamwhatiam]

Another stumbling block for many in accepting God's election, is the word "world"... when study of the scriptures makes it clear what God's desire is... one must realize that His desire is also the order that Christians accept and live by.

Still, many struggle needlessly with the word "world". This is because the deceiver has planted that doubt in the hearts and minds of many.

I am not saying that those who do not understand all of God's ways are not Christians - just the opposite. For no man knows everything about God. As a matter of fact, we DO NOT know his ways - we only obey our Master.

I also know the power of John 3:16, and how it is used wrongly to corrupt the meaning of God's Word.

With that, I would like the ones still doubting God's election and man's depravity to consider the following from John 14:17;
"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

Our Lord is made clear later in the Gospel of John what the true meaning 3:16 is - we must read the Book!

John 3:16 says;
"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."

Now, we must realize, that THE ONLY WAY ANY OF US CAN BELIEVE - AND BE SAVED, is if God quickens us.

A dead person, (dead to God, not dead in a coffin) is unable to beleive in God.

Therefore, the spriitually dead to Christ will not ever be part of the "whosoever" group.

Also, please note that 3:16 is speaking of a promise... NOT a promise of life - but a promise of EVERLASTING life. It is spoken to God's children, to us who are to be comforted by His Word.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

[J.D.]

Calvi, I know the feeling. As I was pinging you on that one, someone else was pinging me on a foot-in-mouth I did on another string.

 

[iamwhatiam]

Hello, again,

I would like to share with all, an important link to a complete library archive of the works by Arthur W. Pink.

If you have never visited this site, you will be surprised at this virtual "gold mine" for Christians.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/pinks_archive.htm

All that take breath should visit this site... please forward the link to all Christians of the "world."

note: scroll down when arriving at the site, as it first appears that the link is struck out... but that is only because you at there!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

[Rippon]

Pink's writings were powerful . I have been blessed immeasureably from his ministry . However , he was under a dispensational mindset with a couple of books such as " The Redeemer's Return " and " The Antichrist " . Later in life he renounced those views concerning latter day things which he formerly held . Hey , Augustine had to revise his thinking later in life with his " Retractions " . He was a free-willer initially !

 

[quickened1]

I think the Calvanist need to show that people in the Old Testament were regenerated. Because we find some repenting. Some doing right in God's sight. Some believing. The Holy Spirit did come and go back then. Mostly for some special work like building the temple. If O.T. regeneration did not take place, we have unregenerates repenting, believing and doing right. I dont see how there could be any truth to total inability without O.T. regeneration.

 

[Dave]

Old testament or new testament the only people saved were the ones who God had mercy on. Read the Psalms and see how many times David asks the Lord to be merciful to him.

God drew certain men from the beginning of time, and many of those anticipated (quite correctly) the coming messiah to save them.

 

[quickened1]

Originally posted by Dave:
Old testament or new testament the only people saved were the ones who God had mercy on. Read the Psalms and see how many times David asks the Lord to be merciful to him.

God drew certain men from the beginning of time, and many of those anticipated (quite correctly) the coming messiah to save them.

Hey Dave
Calvanist and Non-Calvanist have argued over whether or not an unregenerate can repent and believe. Calvanist say a man must be regenerated first. Non Calvanist say repentance and belief come before regeneration. Regeneration being the new birth or born again. Im trying to get the Calvanist veiw of the Old Testament. If they believe O.T. people were regenerated and if so,what scriptures do they site.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by quickened1:
Hey Dave
Calvanist and Non-Calvanist have argued over whether or not an unregenerate can repent and believe. Calvanist say a man must be regenerated first. Non Calvanist say repentance and belief come before regeneration. Regeneration being the new birth or born again. Im trying to get the Calvanist veiw of the Old Testament. If they believe O.T. people were regenerated and if so,what scriptures do they site. [/QB]

I can't speak for other Calvinists either here on the board or elsewhere. But I, as a Calvinist, believe that no one was ever saved who was unregenerate. If a person in the Old Testament ends up in heaven, it is because they were regenerated (and they believed).

I believe that salvation has always been the same througout history. It has had the same source - God. It has had the same agency - the Holy Spirit. It has had the same means - faith. It has had the same basis - the death of Christ. People in the OT may not have had all the facts yet, but they were saved the same way we are - by grace through faith based on the death of Christ.

This is why when people bring up Adam and Eve to me and make that a major argument about people using their free will in an unregenerate state, I have absolutely no problem saying, "Gee, they must have been regenerated before they responded."

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:

Originally posted by quickened1:
This is why when people bring up Adam and Eve to me and make that a major argument about people using their free will in an unregenerate state, I have absolutely no problem saying, "Gee, they must have been regenerated before they responded."

But cal, and I will say you have brought up some good pts, but you have no grounds to say they were regenerated before God approached them. YOu are not even close to addressing adam and eve. Best you just say I can't answer everything then muttle through with some half answer.

 

[quickened1]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by quickened1:
Hey Dave
Calvanist and Non-Calvanist have argued over whether or not an unregenerate can repent and believe. Calvanist say a man must be regenerated first. Non Calvanist say repentance and belief come before regeneration. Regeneration being the new birth or born again. Im trying to get the Calvanist veiw of the Old Testament. If they believe O.T. people were regenerated and if so,what scriptures do they site.

(CalviBap said)
I can't speak for other Calvinists either here on the board or elsewhere. But I, as a Calvinist, believe that no one was ever saved who was unregenerate. If a person in the Old Testament ends up in heaven, it is because they were regenerated (and they believed).

I believe that salvation has always been the same througout history. It has had the same source - God. It has had the same agency - the Holy Spirit. It has had the same means - faith. It has had the same basis - the death of Christ. People in the OT may not have had all the facts yet, but they were saved the same way we are - by grace through faith based on the death of Christ.

This is why when people bring up Adam and Eve to me and make that a major argument about people using their free will in an unregenerate state, I have absolutely no problem saying, "Gee, they must have been regenerated before they responded." [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[quickened1]

Originally posted by quickened1:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by quickened1:
Hey Dave
Calvanist and Non-Calvanist have argued over whether or not an unregenerate can repent and believe. Calvanist say a man must be regenerated first. Non Calvanist say repentance and belief come before regeneration. Regeneration being the new birth or born again. Im trying to get the Calvanist veiw of the Old Testament. If they believe O.T. people were regenerated and if so,what scriptures do they site.

(CalviBap said)
I can't speak for other Calvinists either here on the board or elsewhere. But I, as a Calvinist, believe that no one was ever saved who was unregenerate. If a person in the Old Testament ends up in heaven, it is because they were regenerated (and they believed).

(Quickened1 said)
The only way I can see O.T. believers being regenerated would be after they died. Jesus preached to the spirits in prison 3 days and nights. I would think these spirits were O.T.
believers. This is over my head though and best I leave it alone.
In light of Romans 8:29 I dont believe people that lived and died before Christ was born, could have been regenerated. That would include O.T. believers.
"For whom he did foreknow,he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
In order for Christ to be the firstborn among all those regenerated,no one could have been regenerated until after Christ physical birth. I dont think anyone was regenerated until Pentecost. This is signifacant because people in the O.T. did repent and believe.

(Calvibap said)
I believe that salvation has always been the same througout history. It has had the same source - God. It has had the same agency - the Holy Spirit. It has had the same means - faith. It has had the same basis - the death of Christ. People in the OT may not have had all the facts yet, but they were saved the same way we are - by grace through faith based on the death of Christ.

(Quickened said)
I disagree here but will save it for another day.

(CalviBap said)

This is why when people bring up Adam and Eve to me and make that a major argument about people using their free will in an unregenerate state, I have absolutely no problem saying, "Gee, they must have been regenerated before they responded." </font>[/QUOTE][/QB]</font>[/QUOTE](Quickened1 said)
I dont see where that was possible.

 

[Dave]

Why wouldn't one look at Adam and Eve as hearing the voice of God with their physical ears, even as all the people of Israel at Mt. Sinai heard God with their physical ears.

The dead in sin are spiritually dead, not physically dead. God can certainly use a voice that can be heard physically.

 

[Dave]

Oh, and I do also believe that one must be regenerated (quickened) first. The spiritually dead cannot truly hear and respond. We are spiritually dead from birth because of our sinful nature. Unless we are made alive spiritually, how can we respond spiritually?

This was as true in the old testament as the new. God is the same forever.

 

[webdog]

Dave, Adam and Eve responded to a very spiritual God, whether physically or not. If they were spiritually dead (they were) according to Calvin's definition of "sprititually dead (corpse)", and your second post, they wouldn't have even heard God.

This means that a spiritually dead (separated) person CAN respond to God. If you are regenerated, quickened, born again, whatever, you have already expressed faith in God. You don't put the cart before the horse.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by webdog:
Dave, Adam and Eve responded to a very spiritual God, whether physically or not. If they were spiritually dead (they were) according to Calvin's definition of "sprititually dead (corpse)", and your second post, they wouldn't have even heard God.

Huh? You are redefining what it means to hear just to come to your private conclusion.

Read Matthew 13

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; 15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’

Is Jesus not God? Didn't the people "hear" Him? Sure they did. But it was not given to them to hear in a way that they would UNDERSTAND. They weren't quickened, and therefore weren't able to "hear", even though their ears heard the very words of God in person.

This quote should also silence those who quote this passage of Isaiah as if it supports free will. Jesus Himself quoted it in the context of those to whom it has been given to hear, and those to whom it has NOT been given. Of course, it won't silence anyone. Free willers have an uncanny ability to continue to ignore the plain meaning and context of these scriptures.

 

[quickened1]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
Dave, Adam and Eve responded to a very spiritual God, whether physically or not. If they were spiritually dead (they were) according to Calvin's definition of "sprititually dead (corpse)", and your second post, they wouldn't have even heard God.

Huh? You are redefining what it means to hear just to come to your private conclusion.

Read Matthew 13

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; 15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’

Is Jesus not God? Didn't the people "hear" Him? Sure they did. But it was not given to them to hear in a way that they would UNDERSTAND. They weren't quickened, and therefore weren't able to "hear", even though their ears heard the very words of God in person.

This quote should also silence those who quote this passage of Isaiah as if it supports free will. Jesus Himself quoted it in the context of those to whom it has been given to hear, and those to whom it has NOT been given. Of course, it won't silence anyone. Free willers have an uncanny ability to continue to ignore the plain meaning and context of these scriptures. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey npetreley,

You cant take this passage and apply it to every man from fallen Adam up until today. If you look at the previous chapter (12) verses 22-24, you will see where the Pharisees, the religious leaders, accused Jesus of casting out devils "by Beelzebub the prince of the devils". Not only are the Pharisees rejecting Jesus but I think this amounts to the unpardonable sin. Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. Because of all this Jesus began to speak in parables that his teachings would not be understood by the unbelieving.
The scriptures you quote in Matt 13 were aimed at the Jew of that day and still applies now. The fact that it was prophesised in Isaiah shows that this event where people would hear and not understand / see and not perceive was not your everyday ordinary event.
Im sure a lot of folks will disagree but the disciples were not regenerated at this point in scripture.
Main point is that the scriptures you qoute in Matt 13 can not be used to show total inability.

 

[Dave]

Just because the Pharisees accusation was the immediate pre-cursor to this parable does not mean that the meaning of the parable is limited to them. It is a constant thread throughout the Bible.

Did the Israelites understand the prophesies about the Messiah? They heard them enough, but did not understand. Did they understand the purpose of the law? Do people today understand the Gospel? Only a select few ever understand and it is because God opens their eyes so they can see and opens their ears so they can hear.