Home > Arminian, Calvinism, Calvinist, Election, Free will > A Calvinist Spanking of Yours Truly from Christian Clarity Review?

A Calvinist Spanking of Yours Truly from Christian Clarity Review?

December 4, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

A rather pathetic title for a hissy-fit between a Calvinist named Timothy Elder Jr at Christian Clarity Review and one who doesn’t subscribe to the TULIP doctrines of Calvinism – me.  In the large scheme of things, this really is much ado about nothing.  Honestly, what new thoughts or arguments could possibly come forth between the centuries-old debate between Calvinists and Arminians?  From my perspective, both sides have considerable biblical “ammunition” and can lob verse after verse to effectively press either Calvinist or Arminian doctrine.  This on-going debate is somewhat distressing to me if only because there appears to be such divergence of opinion between the two camps with both sides often justifying their positions using the same Scriptures.  By and large, it’s been easier of late to not take part in the debate – at least not to the degree I used to.  Perhaps I got a little bruised and worn out and have, at least for now, decided to premise my Christian faith on the Arminian side if for no other reason that I am more comfortable with what I understand to be the nature and character of God as viewed from an Arminian perspective.

But now, back into the fray.  There was a recent post on Christian Clarity Review entitled; Arminians are not Christians.  Nice to know, I guess.  But I adamently disagree.

‘bdrex’ and ‘Bill’ initially posed some questions to CCR and things escalated quickly.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize Tim doesn’t appreciate any challenges to his views.  I got into the fray a little later.  And too, I admit to a little venting in what I was told would be my last posting to CCR.  But ultimately, I have to ask my Calvinist friends; is Christian Clarity Review someone who accurately represents Calvinist doctrine and thought?

Anyway, for those interested, here’s my last comment to Christian Clarity Review and his subsequent response:

Dear Tim,

I regret your request for me to no longer comment on your blog.  I’ve done my best to be open, candid, honest and respectful when posing questions, responding or otherwise commenting on CCR.  I’ve tried to do likewise when you have commented on my blog.   But I will honor your request.

For my last comments on your blog,  I thought of providing a list of what I believe to be justifiable arguments against Calvinism and attempt to show where (I believe) verses you reference do not support the contentions you make.  But what’s the point?  I’ve concluded that you’re going to believe what you will irrespective of illogical thought and misapplied scriptures.  If nothing else, I’ve come to understand that that if something isn’t hyper-Calvinistic in nature, you’ll naturally be against it irrespective of the many scriptural references appearing to support Arminian thought.  If ever someone desires to see a Hyper-Calvinist in action – you are the real deal, Tim.

Your responses in this post to bdrex and Bill were fascinating.  I’m admittedly slow, but I finally realized you aren’t able to tolerate challenges to your theology.  If someone doesn’t agree with you, out pours some verbiage condemning the questioner or equating them to Lucifer followed by hate-filled speech (spoken as if you were the Holy Ghost Himself) with a taken-out-of-context verse or two.

You’ve clearly studied a lot of church history and tenants of the Christian faith.  But for what purpose?  Where, Tim, is the fruit in your life?  Where can one find in your life the love and compassion that Jesus exhibited?  Why is there such anger and contempt within you?  Where is the joy that Jesus wants all believers to experience and in which he promises to make complete?  Why is there no apparent laughter and (oh dear, should I actually use this word – yes!) the “gaiety” in your life?

Can anyone, who questions your understanding on any matter of Christian thought and faith not be labeled a heretic sent straight from Lucifer?  Apparently not and yet, as you have previously said to me, Lucifer has intentionally deceived me (at God’s command, no less).  So, applying your logic gleaned from our previous conversations – any and everything that has ever happened or ever will happen is as a direct result of God’s intentional will and command?  If your answer is ‘yes’, then would you please answer this question: if there’s no free-will, why are you not praising God for (I’m using your words, here) the world being “inundated with homosexuality, whoredoms [sic], abortion, and false religion”?  I can only surmise that as a logical extension of your hyper-Calvinistic thoughts and logic, God desired, designed and implemented all that is antithetical towards Christianity and therefore to Himself.  To God be the glory, right?  So, why do I not hear a great big ‘halleluiah’ from you?  Why are you not thankful that God has sent me to your blog?  After all, am I not (according to your logic) visiting CCR as a direct result of God’s intentional will and command?  You should be praising God that I’m conversing with you for after all, I am one of the few who’re willing to do so.  Oh, wait, that’s right, God has already determined that you’re to despise anything that is contrary to hyper-Calvinism.  Sorry, Tim, but the most elementary reading of Scripture and the simplest application of logic brings down your house of ‘faith-cards’.  Your theology doesn’t hold up on its own merits.  It’s only with a heavy dose of hate and vile do you make believe and otherwise fool yourself that you are one of God’s chosen few.  Sad.

Bill asked you for source material within Christian literature compliant with the theological concept of created speech.  Honestly, it didn’t take hardly any time at all to find sources (http://christianbookreviews.net/?p=43#more-43) that, well, have an exceedingly different perspective of The Two Babylons – one of the books you referenced and which I presume to be a foundation of your faith.  This review states:

“As is commonly the case with fundamentalists, the truth did not get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.  Weaving an absurd tale reminiscent of other types of conspiratorial drivel, Woodrow (like Hislop before him) combined incredibly bad scholarship, paranoid delusions, and pure bigotry in an unseemly concoction lacking even a rudimentary understanding of historical developments within the Church.  This is where one would expect it to end – another entry in the “antichrist of the month” sweepstakes spoon fed to those who do have neither the knowledge nor the discernment to see past the smokescreen of their insulated belief system.”

Ouch!  Sorry, but your blog posts appear to be the epitome of this review, Tim.

Before I go, can we agree that there must be consistency throughout Scripture and that doctrine can’t be built on only a given verse.  Rather, doctrine that is true is reflected uniformly throughout all of the Bible.  With regard to individual election, then, using your beloved KJV, I would welcome an explanation of how you rectify the following verses:

(John 6:44) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day

(Titus 2:11) For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men

Do you see the apparent conflict with personal election?  No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him and yet God’s grace which brings salvation has appeared to all men.  I could present my $0.02 worth, but again, what’s the point?  However, if you ask nicely, I’d be pleased to answer that apparent contradiction.

Paraphrasing, you’ve stated that God has enlightened you with an understanding of non-creating speech and that you’re responsible for passing this knowledge on to the “brethren”.  You are then God’s enlightened messenger who’s the only person on earth that has received this revelation?  Perhaps you’re in good company for if a Christian has difficulty understanding the concept of created speech and can’t find biblical justification for that belief system, how can one be sure that Timothy Elder Jr. isn’t the origin of a created speech cult in much the same way that a Jehovah Witnesses will follow Charles Russell, Mormons follow Joseph Smith, Seventh-Day Adventists follow Ellen G. White, Christian Scientists follow Mary Eddy Baker or Scientologists follow Armstrong and Hubbard, etc.?  Pity, perhaps Walter Martin was died too soon to include you in his book, Kingdom of the Cults.

If you care, feel free to respond to some questions I’d hoped to delve further with you over time.  Per your request, unless you give me permission, I won’t respond.  But please, fire away:

  • Did God plan every evil act and every sin that anyone would have ever committed?
  • Did God predestine Adam and Eve to sin?
  • Did God plan and bring about the rebellion of Satan who was once the angel of light, Lucifer?
  • Did God originate sin?  With regard to this question, I don’t doubt that God planned and has “elected” (I’m guessing my definition of “elect” is different than yours) much within our human existence.  God may have allowed sin.  But I’m hard-pressed to find any Scriptural evidence that sin originated with God.  Please, show me where.
  • Has God truly chosen to make you such a wretched creature?  I don’t personally think so.  Rather, I believe you have exceeded your wildest expectations and have become all that you are of your own volition.

Congratulations!  You’re now done with me.  Perhaps you’d like to celebrate and go share your faith with someone?  I’m sorry, I forgot; outreach to a hyper-Calvinist is pointless.

Well, enjoy your life, Tim.  I know I enjoy mine.  I do wish you all the best and will welcome the opportunity to discuss anything further with you should you decide to do so.  You know where I can be reached.

Sincerely,

Bob

If you’ve read this far, you may be interested in Tim’s response to my last comment:

1. “I regret your request for me to no longer comment on your blog”.  It wasn’t a request.  Don’t change your username and go for it again. Not saying you’ve already done it.  If you post again I’ll delete it.

2. You should surely be hired by any arminian witch as their PR person.  Your lies are always disguised as sombre wishes for fair discourse while accusing those who point out your lies of being mean spirited asses who do everything they do, supposedly like you, on purpose.  I get the point.  I really do.  You love me in what you call love –but I, as the Big Meanie, won’t love you back by succumbing to your lies.  It isn’t that I don’t understand.  It’s that I do and I overtly don’t want the emotional common sense friendship or discourse of hardened sinners in addition to being blessed by God to not have to hear it.

You can’t choose to believe what God is Saying through me as truth.  No one has that ability.  I don’t speak as if you could and to pretend that is exactly why I speak is to lie to my face and to call me a liar, no matter that you think to have done so in some perfect emotional paradigm some onlookers will automatically be forced to think is politeness because they share your deceptions.

Proverbs 14: 7  Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

Proverbs 6: 12-15  A man of Belial, a wicked person, is he that goeth about with a perverse mouth; he winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; deceits are in his heart; he deviseth mischief at all times, he soweth discords.  Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly: in a moment shall he be broken, and without remedy.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Final thought – I truly have enjoyed the back-and-forth exchanges with many Calvinists on this blog as well as those with whom I associate personally.  Perhaps the ‘chemist’ within me needs to have a hypothesis, or in this case a premise of my belief, and then to go about determining whether or not the hypothesis is correct.  And I have truly struggled with determining where the truth lies within the  Calvinist-Arminian debate.  And that will probably continue for some time.  However, Tim may be the first person I would consider a hyper-Calvinist.  If I follow what I believe to be the natural outcome of Calvinist doctrine, it quickly leads me to someone who would espouse the views of Timothy.  I hope I’m wrong on that point.   And to that end, I would appreciate Calvinist’s comments to help identify the error – whether with me or with Tim.  (John 8:32)

Sincerely,

Bob

Advertisements
  1. charles
    December 8, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    Sorry if some are acrimonious. It’s much more common for noncalvinists (like Jerry Falwell for example) to claim that calvinists are heretics/devil-worshippers and not real christians than the other way around but there are definitely hypers out there.

    Might be better to stick with calvinists like Piper and Sproul or blogs like the pyromaniacs or over at challies. You never know who you’re dealing with on the internet…

    But on a side note, I have to say i’m mildly disappointed that you brought up Titus 2:11 – after all your interactions with calvinists, you surely know how many calvinists would understand it even if you disagree.

    Titus 2:11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

    The word for “all” there is the greek word “pas” again – just like in 1Tim6:10 (the love of money is the root of all evil – “all kinds” of evil or is every single evil act motivated by money?) and Acts2:17:

    In the last days, God says, “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy…”

    Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost – so was the Spirit poured out on “every single person” or “all kinds” of people: men and women, young and old…but only on believers? It’s pretty common for “pas” to mean “all kinds” so you need to take a hard look at the context.

    Titus2:11 starts with “for…” because it’s a conclusion of a larger discussion “teach the men this, teach the women that, teach the slaves this…” In other words, pastors are responsible to teach “all kinds” of people because the grace of God has come to “all kinds” of people. In that culture, slaves and women might have been considered beneath notice…but the modern practice of reading the bible as if it were written to the 21st century american IMO results in “all kinds” of bungles in interpretation.

    But the point in Titus 2:11 continues on in v12 – God’s grace teaches “us” how to live. And who is the “us” here? It’s “those who “wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own…”

    Titus chapter 2 is all about the church and what God is doing in and among His people. That is the context in which Titus 2:11 should be read and understood.

    But you are reading the bible as a modern westerner with an eye toward egalitarianism and fairness – nice enough on the face of it but it causes you to grasp at the translation of Titus2:11 for support for your foundational (and extrabiblical) notions rather than read the passage for its meaning within the larger context. For “all/pas” in Titus2:11 to mean every single person in the world as you interpret it would only work if it were a random comment or tangent with no connection to the rest of the chapter.

    But God is not bound by our notions of fairness and egalitarianism – there’s a whole old testament in your bible that shows that He never has been. Bet this verse has never been preached in your church…

    Psa147:19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel.
    20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. Praise the LORD.

    Was God good and generous in revealing Himself to Israel? Or in your philosophy, was God wicked and unfair in not revealing Himself as openly and clearly to other peoples in the same way as He did for Israel? Your philosophy should dictate that He was obligated to treat every single person the same, yet He didn’t and He doesn’t.

    • Bob
      December 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm

      Thanks for your comments, Charles. Even with passionate disagreement, I’d like to think it’s possible to maintain a sense of civil construct. Reading my last at Christian Clarity Review, I’m a little embarrassed as to the time and effort I put in responding. Anyway, it’s over. I shot my wad and said my $0.02. Nevertheless, even though there are “difficult” people on both sides of this Calvinist/Arminian theological divide, I feel fortunate to have crossed paths with the likes of you and that curmudgeon Jeff at the Lighthearted Calvinist.

      Sorry to have disappointed you with my choice of Titus 2:11. I agree that we must read a verse within its context. My NIV entitles Titus chapter 2 as, “What Must Be Taught to Various Groups”. As you mentioned, the groups Paul refers to within this chapter include older men, older women, young men and slaves. As I read it, the over-riding thought from verses 11-14 is that the grace of God teaches us to say ‘no’ to ungodliness and worldly passions. Paul’s inclusion of “the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men” is, I believe, to underscore that it is the same grace which not only brings salvation but also teaches us to turn away from sin.

      Unfortunately, I am at the mercy of those who are more linguistically oriented than I am. I respect your insight into the Greek and don’t necessary doubt what you’re saying. However, there are many commentaries that take – whether right or wrong – a more Arminian perspective. For instance:

      http://barnes.biblecommenter.com/titus/2.htm

      . . . the plan of salvation has been revealed to all classes of men; that it is announced or revealed to all the race that they may be saved.

      . . . that plan was fitted to secure the salvation of all men; that none were excluded from the offer; that provision had been made for all, and all might come and be saved.

      As such, I’m not convinced that your emphasis of “us”, “all”, and “a people that are his very own” refers only to the Calvinist definition of the elect. If the Greek is so explicit here, as you seem to imply, then why have not the translators of the various iterations of the Bible over the centuries used the English words, “all kinds”? Are there legitimate differences/disagreements in getting the Greek to fit into an English translation for this passage? I don’t know. I’ve chosen to use the NIV if only because I’m most familiar with it and the word ‘all’ written here (as well as other translations I looked at) makes no distinction related to TULIP election pertaining to one’s salvation. As such, I don’t think I’m taking this verse out of context or otherwise reading it with an egalitarian bent.

      I don’t think I’m guilty of having a philosophy that dictates God must treat everyone the same. But to your question – was God good and generous in revealing Himself only to Israel? In a word – yes. For whatever reason, since time began, Israel was God’s chosen people – His ‘elect’ if you will and I accept that. Even in OT times, I don’t think it was God’s intention to exclude anyone from righteousness through the law. Eventually though, Israel tried to use the law as a means of achieving personal righteousness. Enter in the new covenant when God, in His mercy, pays the debt for our sin and now all have the opportunity to accept salvation through faith. So far as I understand, the only distinction God makes is whether one is a Jew, a Gentile, or a believer – and perhaps that can be broken down to only believer or non-believer.

      Bob

      • charles
        December 16, 2010 at 10:16 am

        “If the Greek is so explicit here, as you seem to imply, then why have not the translators of the various iterations of the Bible over the centuries used the English words, “all kinds”?”

        It’s not explicit and I’m not going that far. That’s why you have to look at verses like 1Tim6:10 and ask “is the KJV correct to translate “pas” as “all (evil)” or is the NIV more clear in translating it “all kinds of evil?” Did King David commit adultery for the cash? I’m pretty sure that wasn’t at the root of adultery there, so I have a minor issue with the KJV translation on that point. When I look at Acts 2, I have to ask “was the Spirit poured out on every single person or on “all kinds” of believers, young and old…men and women? It looks like the context teaches that it was believers only…even though the translators imply otherwise.

        I’m assuming we would agree that in those two cases, “all kinds” looks more accurate regardless of what the translators have given us?

        So I am saying that when you hit Titus 2, try reading it both ways. Titus is a pastoral epistle, written to advise overseers in the church. When Paul starts by telling Titus to teach different kinds of people (young/old/men/women/slaves) and in v11 points to the foundation for that teaching as the grace of God, is he focused on teaching within the church – that a pastor is responsible for teaching all kinds of people within the church because God’s grace extends to all kinds of people, or is Titus 2 saying that the pastor is responsible for teaching all people everywhere – inside and outside the church – believers and unbelievers alike because God’s grace has appeared to all of them?

        I think “all kinds” just makes more sense in that case. Not a huge deal, generally, though.

        And Barnes is actually saying the same thing with a bit of a different emphasis right here:

        Barnes wrote: “If that which is in the text be adopted, it means that the plan of salvation has been revealed to all classes of men; that is, that it is announced or revealed to all the races that they may be saved…It is, that the gospel was adapted to man as man, and therefore might include servants as well as masters; subjects, as well as kings; the poor, as well as the rich; the ignorant, as well as the learned…”

        (The Barnes quote about God needing to plan to secure the salvation of every single person in order to offer salvation to every single person is the standard arminian logic, though.)

        And it’s also interesting that the NIV throws in the word “offers” (“God’s grace which ‘offers’ salvation”) while the other translations connect the grace to salvation more directly, and use the word “brings” or simply refer to the grace as “saving grace.” I’m pretty sure all calvinists (hypers don’t count) would affirm that salvation should be offered to every single person but not that saving grace is applied to every single person.

        You said: “I don’t think it was God’s intention to exclude anyone from righteousness through the law.”

        Not sure what you mean here. I don’t think Israel was ever offered righteousness through the law as such (Heb11 will show that it has always come through faith – even Moses was declared righteous “by faith” because He cared more about Christ than Egypt’s riches.) Psalm 119 and the like just point to the fact that God’s law reveals who He is. God dwelling with Israel in the OT and revealing His word to and through them was all about intimacy and love – pointing ahead to the fuller incarnation in Jesus.

        But in not revealing Himself similarly to other people groups, He was not giving everyone the same opportunity to know Him. And even among the jews, He obviously worked in their hearts differently – Ezek36 and Rom2:29:

        No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.

        But this is probably headed more toward the dispensational/covenantal divide than calvinism as such, so I’ll avoid going too far down this bunny trail…

  2. Scott Ferguson
    December 11, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    “But ultimately, I have to ask my Calvinist friends; is Christian Clarity Review someone who accurately represents Calvinist doctrine and thought?” An emphatic NO!

    “Tim may be the first person I would consider a hyper-Calvinist.  If I follow what I believe to be the natural outcome of Calvinist doctrine, it quickly leads me to someone who would espouse the views of Timothy.  I hope I’m wrong on that point.   And to that end, I would appreciate Calvinist’s comments to help identify the error – whether with me or with Tim.  (John 8:32)” — As one who gladly associates himself with Calvinism I side with you on this Bob.

    I would dare even call him a Hyper. He seems to have slide off the scale to something outside the realm of recognizable historic Christianity of any flavor. Calling Tim a Hyper insults real hypers like John Gill. I’m not sure how to tag him, but I dare say Calvin would distance himself from Tim and probably take him to task if they were to meet face to face.

    Tim’s a self-deluded nut job — he’s a self-proclaimed prophet of God (“Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!”) — and based on the post about Arminians not being Christians & the following comments, the Gospel does not appear to be in him despite his prolific puffing to the contrary.

    Tulips may be his favorite flowers, and he might even have “Calvin” name tags stitched in his undies (which are obviously overly-starched and chafing him and causing him great discomfort thus making him grumpy) but he knows nothing of the passion for our Savior (and I mean you and me) that Calvin had or God’s grace. He’s certainly no Calvinist despite his claims, although he knows all the right words.

    You are right to not engage in any more discussion with him. I doubt Tim would even consider me a legitimate Calvinist because I’m what is considered a “moderate” Calvinist; I still hold to all 5 summary points but extend the atonement to all humanity, not just the Elect. And I believe I chose the coffee I drank for breakfast this morning. Yikes! Guess I’ll see you in Hades my friend.

    Blessings,

    Scott

    P.S. Did you ever get a copy of Ichabod Spencer’s “A Pastor’s Sketches”? (I recommended it way back earlier this year). If not, you should put it on your Christmas list. I think you’ll really enjoy it.

    STF

    • Bob
      December 11, 2010 at 9:19 pm

      Hi Scott,

      Thanks for your comments here. Gee, if you’ll be in Hades then I know I’ll be in good company. No doubt Charles and Jeff will be joining too, I’m sure.

      I regret to say that I have not as yet gotten a copy of “A Pastor’s Sketches”. I do recall your recommendation and will make a more concerted effort to get it. I did acquire a copy of “Against Calvinism” co-authored by Jeff Peterson at The Lighthearted Calvinist blog.

      Be well,

      Bob

  3. March 7, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    Should a Christian declare that faith alone could save a perosn without accompanying with any action? James 2:21-24, e2€œWas not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. YE SEE THEN HOW THAT BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY.e2€9d The same is mentioned in James 2:18-19, e2€œ(that) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: SHEW ME THY FAITH WITHOUT THY WORKS, AND I WILL SHEW THEE MY FAITH BY WORKS. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.e2€9dShould a non-Christian repent for their sins or should he or she declare to believe in Jesus and yet worship Buddha simultaneously? John the Baptist went before Jesus to declare repentance and this shows that repentance is significant for Christianitye2€™s conversion. James 1:21, e2€œ(even mentions that) Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.e2€9d As the phrase, lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, is mentioned in James 1:21 prior to the phrase, receivee2€a6the engrafted word, it implies the significance of repentance prior to receiving Jesus as his or her Personal Saviour.Why should a non-Christian confess sin? 1 John 1:8, e2€œIf we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.e2€9d As the phrase, we say that we have no sin, is mentioned in 1 John 1:8 with the phrase, the truth is not in us, it implies that non-Christians would not have Gode2€™s truth with them if they declare that they are not sinners. As Gode2€™s truth is not with non-Christians if they do not confess that they are sinners before God, there is a query whether God would dwell within their bodies at the absence of biblical truth in them. Thus, it is a must for non-Christians to declare before God to be sinners to seek His forgiveness. The absolute promise of God for those who confess their sins before Him and that is: 1 John 1:9, e2€œIf we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.e2€9dRepentance and confession are significant to non-Christians for their receipts of the Holy Spirit since John 9:31, e2€œ(mentions that)e2€a6God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.e2€9d The phrase, God heareth not sinners, in John 9:31 implies Gode2€™s rejection of those non-Christians that insist not to repent and continuing in worshipping Buddha and the insisting that they are not sinners before God. These people would have their prayers to be in vain even if they declare to believe Jesus Christ and Buddha at the same time. The phrase, God heareth not sinners, in John 9:31 implies purity is significant for non-Christianse2€™ conversions and prior to the receipt of the Holy Spirit and that is why it demands non-Christians to repent and to confess their sins before God to have their sins to be cleansed for purity. Thus, it is significant for all the people that declare to believe in Jesus Christ to have their sins to confess before God especially Psalms 5:4, e2€œ(mentions that) For thou [art] not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.e2€9d Psalms 5:4 seems to highlight to us that God would not dwell among non-Christians if sins are with them. For this reason, it is advisable for all the people that declare to believe in Jesus Christ to confess their sins before God so as to have their sins to be cleansed with purity for Gode2€™s dwelling.Did the Gospel highlight to us to request for the Holy Spirit? The following are the extracted verses to prove that Jesus and even His disciples did request for the receipt of the Holy Spirit:1) John 4:10, e2€œJesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; THOU WOULDEST HAVE ASKED OF HIM, and he would have given thee living water.e2€9d The phrase, have asked of him, in John 4:10 has stressed the significance of the request for the Holy Spirit.2) John 6:32-34, e2€œThen Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. THEN SAID THEY UNTO HIM, LORD EVERMORE GIVE US THIS BREAD.e2€9d The phrase, Then said they unto him Lord evermore give us this bread, in John 6:34 is another proof that Jesuse2€™ disciples did request for the receipt of the Holy Spirit. However, their requests could only be fulfilled until after Jesuse2€™ resurrection in the Calvary.3) Luke 11:13, e2€œIf ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?e2€9dFrom the above extracts, these give an absolute certainty that a perosn could receive the Holy Spirit through requesting for the receipt of it.Bear in mind that Romans 8:9, e2€œ(mentions that)e2€a6if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.e2€9d As the phrase, any man have not the Spirit of Christ, is mentioned in Romans 8:9 with the phrase, he is none of his, it implies that those people, that do not have the Holy Spirit/Jesus Christ with them, are not considered to be Christians at all.Assurance from God that we will receive the Holy Spirit when we ask from Him: Luke 11:10, e2€œFor every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.e2€9d The same is supported in Mark 11:24, e2€œ(that) Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them].e2€9dRomans 10:9, e2€œ(mentions) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.e2€9d This verse implies that our faith should be grounded upon the resurrection of Jesus. Muslims too believe in Jesus, but they reject the resurrection of Jesus. However, Romans 10:9 demands not only to confess Jesus but also to believe He has been resurrected.Sinnere2€™s prayer has met the requisition of the confession since it demands non-Christians to confess themselves before God of their believes in the name of Lord Jesus Christ. It demands also the non-Christians to acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus and that meets the requirement of Romans 10:9. Not only that, it requires non-Christians to confess their sins before God for purification and also to express their needs for Jesus Christ to be their Personal Saviour. One should bear in mind that God will deny those people that believe in Jesus and yet refuse to proclaim the name of Jesus. The following are the extracts:1) Luke 9:26, e2€œFor whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Fathere2€™s, and of the holy angels.e2€9d2) Luke 12:8-9, e2€œAlso I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.e2€9d3) Matthew 10:32, e2€œWhosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.e2€9d There should not be any worry if a perosn does not have confidence whether he has received the Holy Spirit before, he should not hesitate but to ask for the receipt of the Holy Spirit since spiritual baptism only takes effect once. Once a perosn has received the Holy Spirit, he would not receive any more in the future since Ephesians 4:5, e2€œ(mentions that) One Lord, one faith, one baptisme2€9d. The phrase, one baptism, in Ephesians 4:5 implies one spiritual baptism instead of more than once.Now, lete2€™s meditate Matthew 5:9 again: Matthew 5:9, e2€œBlessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of Gode2€9d. As we know once a perosn receives Jesus Christ to be His Personal Saviour, his spiritual fruits will grow and these include peace in God and that is why Jesus mentions Matthew 5:9 to be appropriate since Christians would have their spiritual fruits to grow and these include peace, one of the spiritual fruits (John 15:5).

    • Bob
      March 7, 2013 at 9:04 pm

      I appreciate the input, Mostafa. Are you Muslim?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: