 |
| A little man moving a mountain! |
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God!
John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Sadly,
so MANY think to be given "power to become the sons of God" is the SAME
as to be born again or regenerated by God!!! That a most basic and
obvious error. Just think about it!
A child is not born
when he acknowledges a man as his father! A child who acknowledges a man
as his father was ALREADY born much earlier. When he acknowledges a man
as his father, he receives, and experiences the right and authority to claim that he is
the son of that man, and have access to all the blessings and privileges that belong to the sons of that man! Though a son nevertheless, his non-acknowledgment
deprives him of such EXPERIENTIAL and PRACTICAL blessings.
On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Joeho wrote:
Brother Sing,
I
have a question for you that I'm sending privately to you rather than
on the public Forum. I raise the question to you because I respect your
knowledge of Scripture and your soundness in the faith.
A
man tells you that he believes that "Receiving Christ" in John 1:11-12
refers to the new birth. He believes that the unregenerate sinner must
so "Receive Christ" to be born again. However, he quickly qualifies his
point by saying that he also believes that God has effectually and
irresistibly predestinated that all the elect shall so receive Christ.
Therefore,
according to his reasoning, he believes that salvation is all of God
just as fully as you. Therefore, you should not be upset with his view,
nor strongly disagree with him. How would you react? How is this view
different from the RBs whom you wisely left?
God speed to you, Brother,
Joeho
On November 10, 2011 8:59 AM sing wrote:
Dear Brother Joeho,
Thanks for your kind thoughts. If the truth be told, it is people like you who has taught me the gospel of Christ!
It is a serious mistake for him to understand 'receiving Christ' in John 1:11-12 as referring to new birth.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
It is very clear that three distinct and specific things are mentioned in the two verses :
- 'received him' : man's act of believing and receiving Christ... (conversion)
- 'given the power to become the sons of God'... (experience the one's sonship)
- 'born of God' the new birth... (regeneration)
And
the order of these three actions are obvious: new birth, conversion,
and experiencing the right and authority to claim divine sonship.
A
man who believes in Jesus Christ gives evidence that he has eternal
life... 'whoever believes have eternal life.' Whoever believes HAS BEEN
born of God, experiences the right and authority to divine sonship. It
is obvious that one must be born of God first, which enables him to
believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in believing he is given the
power to become... to claim himself as a son of God.
It is a common error to equate being given power to become the sons of God as the new birth!
The new birth by the sovereign activity of God that enables a man to believe.
And it is believing the gospel truth that enables a man to experience the power to become a son of God.
His
believing that the unregenerate sinner, i,e, dead in trespasses and
sins, can so 'receive Christ' in order to to be born again, is so
contrary to Christ's own declaration, 'Except a man be born again, he
CANNOT...'
His belief has repudiated the declaration of Christ. He is contradicting Christ! And that is no light matter!
His
statement that God has effectually and irresistibly predestinated that
all the elect shall so receive Christ (through hearing the gospel, and
believing it) is plainly contrary to Scriptures, as well as historical
facts.
He has erroneously conditioned regeneration on the
preaching and the hearing and believing of the gospel. It is typical of
Calvinists to confuse the effectual call as the gospel call blessed to
the regeneration of sinners dead in trespasses and sins... whereas
effectual call is God's direct and immediate activity in calling an
elect out of his native state of sin and death to that of righteousness
and eternal life.
I would remind him that his scheme of
salvation is not by free grace alone, but tainted and adulterated with
man's activities. If he insists that his scheme of salvation is as 'free
grace' as my understanding, I would be angry with him... and will call
him a liar if he persists after he has been shown the vast difference!
I
would remind him that we are world apart: He believes that the
activities of life can precede life; I believe that life must precede
any activity of that life! The difference is fundamental! We are on
parallel roads!
He sounds so like the RBs here in
Malaysia. The RBs here, in reacting to the truth I bring to them, have
swung further away... and is sliding towards full blown Arminianism.
Why would some old baptists even return to the vomit of the Calvinists???
Why Lord? Why?
Ready to be your arm-bearer,
sing
On Nov 10, 2011, at 5.59 PM, Joeho wrote:
Brother Sing,
A full, unrestrained "Amen" to every point you make.
Love in Christ,
Joeho
