Enquirer wrote "Does anyone consider that a person who believes in Jesus but not in the Trinity is saved?"

The early church had the old testament bible.

Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

JD wrote:
This is tragic. This man is willing to say that God can not and will not keep his covenants. He must have not read the covenant. God did not say there would not be a break in someone on the throne of David. If fact, he said just the opposite. There was a discipline built into the covenant where God would chasten the family but the Messiah would come through his seed and occupy the throne forever The Messiah has not taken the throne yet but a good part of the prohets fortell of the time when he will
Ps 89:30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David

Can you please provide for us the names of all the successive kings on David's throne from David to date .. that is after all what a continuos succession means, right?

Mike wrote:
I could be wrong, but isn't "for ever" fairly tangible? Or has it taken a newer, more inclusive meaning?

Moderator Gamma wrote:
ML,
JD,
and others?
As it has already been said Sermon Audio is an "open forum" open to all users regardless of denomination or theological conviction.
We do not seek to discourage honest debate or discussions. However, we do ask that SA's Forum Policies be adhered to and that would include refraining from personal insults of other users.
Thank you for your cooperation.

JD wrote:
ML,
If you do not believe what God says then I suggest you continue to deny it until you die. No one is going to stop you. You have free speech on this forum and can say what you want.

JD wrote:
...It does not fit their religious template. This is nothing less than denying the word of God!

Instead of trying to understand the purposes of God, which he discovers to us in the Bible; those eternal purposes, you hanker for something tangible that you think will give you more confidence in God.. just like the Pentecostals and Charismatics.

Your hermeneutic may be convenient for your pride and well being, but it has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches.

JD wrote:
The Land Covenant (Palestinian) sworn to by an oath etc..

The promise was originally made to Abraham, and guess what? He did not even live to see it! But was he dismayed? Did he think God was unfaithful? No, because he understood it spiritually - Hebrews informs us that he looked for a city with foundations! He understood that the land was just a token to a better fulfillment.

The dispys are the modern day Judaizers wanting to return the church to the beggarly elements of the Old Testament.

R. K. Borill wrote:
Hi Murray,
......Try not to judge them too harshly until you have walked some distance in their shoes. No one today comes close to effectively exposing the causes of modern theological diseases as well as these two men. As much as I love the Puritans, they have not face today's deception.

I do not believe that Murray was attacking Clark but merely criticising one particular aspect of his teaching. Like Murray I have the greatest respect for Clark, and have benefitted much from his writings, but the criticism must nevertheless be levelled because it presents a defective view of faith.

People do go wrong, like Dr MLJ, but we still recognise them as brethren in the Lord and praise where we are able and criticise where we must.

I stated it was a feeble illustration because to suggest that this is an exact parallel to our spiritual salvation would be a travesty.

When we start looking at the scriptural description of the unconverted person what do we find?

1. He is enslaved by king sin
2. His mind is darkened
3. He loves his sins and his disobedience and unbelief are wilful
4. He hates God
5. He does not accept spiritual truths
6. He cannot please God
7. His mind, will and emotions are all corrupted and so every thought, act and emotion are tainted by sin.
etc.

What inherent power does such a person have to break out of his condition and move in the opposite direction towards God? Hence the reason why the Lord says we must be born again from above. Only the Holy Spirit can change the depraved nature of man. His agency is absolutely crucial in bringing any person to saving faith.

His blessed and efficient operations are always through the Word of God .. hence faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word etc..

Notice how one famous Reformed confession puts it at:

[URL=http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc10.html]]]1689 Baptist Confession of Faith[/URL]

Mike wrote:
So DB, are you saying God does force belief? Of course it is God who saves. That is not the issue. The question is not who saves, but is someone *made* to believe?

No Reformed person that I know has ever maintained that we are forced against our will. So where do you get that from?

There is a world of difference between saying God makes us willing and being forced against our will!

Permit me to illustrate albeit with a feeble example. Imagine a group of youths playing blindfold chase near a dangerous cliff. The person who is blindfolded, not thinking of the danger, starts running straight for the edge of the cliff. His playmates start shouting, but either because of the clamour or that the blindfolded person does not believe them he continues to run to the edge of the cliff.

In a desperate attempt to prevent a fatal accident a friend runs to the blindfolded person and whips off the blindfold. The person now seeing his immediate danger has no hesitation in turning back from the edge of the cliff and running in the opposite direction!

Was he forced against his will? - No! Was he made willing? Yes, by being made to see his danger.

Clark regards the addition of these requirements to assent in the Westminster Confession of Faith to be "unfortunate".

R. K. Borill wrote:
"Clearly" you have farther to go. I will get back to you when you catch up.

R. K. Borill wrote:
If you can not see the connections, then I can't help you. Perhaps the graduates from Fuller Theological Seminary and their associates may be able to help you: John Piper, Peter Leighthart, Doug wilson, James Jordan, et al.

You clearly have no answers.

R. K. Borill wrote:
ML,
For your consideration:
Westminster Confession of Faith.. I suppose that according to Fuller's, Lloyd Jones', Haykin's, and consequently your judgment these were all "Sandemanian" theologians.

You simply do not understand the issue! Where in all the quotes you gave does anyone on of them restrict saving faith to an "intellectual assent to the truth"?

The WCF speaks of "accepting, receiving and resting".. Edwards speaks of "acquiescing and relying on".. Henry speaks of the "assent of the soul" etc..

Let me illustrate the issue...

Here is a tightrope walker who claims he can cross the Niagra falls while pushing a wheelbarrow. To have faith in him is not just to have the **knowledge** that he claims he can safely transverse the falls, nor just to **assent** that he can indeed do it. Faith is **trusting** him enough to be willing to sit in the wheelbarrow while he does it!

Faith is much more than just knowledge or intellectual assent!

Ever thought about 2 Thess 2.9-11- Why is it that the apostates are described as those that "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved"?

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
Now that was not that hard was it. It is much better than the itchy-twitchy dance, is it not? Well, honestly, you have just contradicted yourself. You can't state that justification is by faith but it is not the basis of it (the fundamental reason why one is justified). You can at least state that it is at least one of three fundamental reasons why one is justified, the other two being grace and blood. Romans 1:17 and 3:22 makes it very clear that faith is the basis of justification. Now moving on. By choosing faith over unconditional election you have just confessed that one is justified NOT because he has been unconditionally elected but rather that he has exercised faith.
Do you realize this?

You state: "Romans 1:17 and 3:22 makes it very clear that faith is the basis of justification."- I say utter rubbish. It does no such thing. This is an assumption on your part - a convenient one to fit into your freewill theology.

The underlying greek text makes it clear that faith is not the grounds upon which we are justified.

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
For someone who exercise his free will everyday including at the time he made the conscience choice to invite Jesus in his life, you sure have a beef against it.
Or maybe it's just another of the worn out straw man. Yea, I think that's what it is.
So tell me, is justification by faith or unconditional election?
So far what I got from you guys is the itchy-twitchy dance.

RK

R. K. Borill wrote:
Not so, ML. I read it all. I don't have a fear of opposing opinions, you and the good Dr. of the article are free to your opinions. But, Andrew Fuller, D. Martin Lloyd Jones by no means has done justice to the full implications of this Biblical view of faith. Furthermore, the article of the good Baptist Dr. is certainly not exhaustive on the subject.
Nevertheless, when you begin "speaking in tongues", and your experiences begin to mean more to you than revealed truth, remember that your friend warned you here on SA.

I cannot make my mind up.. you are either very rushed and therefore do not have the time to read posts carefully, or you are just pugnacious and always looking for a fight.

Let me make it clear.. I already acknowledged that on the question of the Charismatic gifts MLJ got it wrong, big time! But, this was much later in his life and for the most part his life was exemplary and his sermons and research papers were excellent.. you should try reading some for yourself. The fact that he was an eminent medical doctor early in life and gave up a promising career to follow the Lord's calling to be a preacher is laudable!