Frank wrote: Yes brother, the Lord can and does use different things to draw His brethren. And all things He uses will be supported by scripture. He draws and His decision is final and efficacious. John 6:44 â€śNo man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.â€ť John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Precisely put, fellow pilgrim. It is interesting that Jesus himself told men to believe on him for his works' sake. Or Thomas in the upper room truly believing when he saw the resurrected Christ with all his wounds. There is far more to the salvation of a sinner than the quickening of the Spirit; it is a huge work in many cases, and requires much time and effort and expenditure, sometimes even the death of the evangelist/s.
The gracious God will use all sorts of things to bring people to believe on his Son, including miracles, storms, afflictions, near-death experiences, visions in the night, and a multitude of other ways. But the word is necessary, of course, in the normal run of things.
John 11:43-45 KJV (43)Â And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. (44)Â And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. (45)Â Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and **had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him**.
danfromtenn wrote: John from UK, I like John Gill's commentary (usually) and here is an excerpt for his comments on John 6:53 "... the words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins"
Hi Dan, yes I also usually like John Gill's comments.
John 6:55-56 KJV (55)Â For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (56)Â He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
If Gill is correct, and to eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood is a spiritual event, how do you personally accomplish that, seeing as it is of such paramount importance? In other words, to dwell in Christ and for Christ to dwell in us, we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Does this have anything to do with the communion?
1 Corinthians 10:16 KJV (16)Â The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
The word we translate as 'communion' means fellowship. Something to think about.
Dr. Tim wrote: â€ś...It is expedient for us, that one man [or, in our case, nine] should die...and that the whole nation perish not.â€ť (John 11:50)
So it is okay to weep over some, but not others? Sounds like you've come to believe the doctrines of predestination and election, Tim. Either that, or you're showing that you are a respecter of persons, which thing the NT forbids.
Do you really believe that Jesus came to save sinners? Even the wickedest of sinners, like Saul of Tarsus, who was rounding up Christians and killing some, imprisoning others?
If you have no faith that God will save Ginsburg, maybe the Lord is telling you that she is not one of his sheep for whom Christ died. Therefore you are praying that she dies right now, and goes to hell, to suffer eternal loss.
I'm sorry Tim but it just sounds so different from what you were arguing for earlier in the week.
danfromtenn wrote: Thank you John. But I still believe Jesus was referring to spiritual "eating" using a physical object (matzah) as a symbol.
No problem, Dan. The main point was the "breaking" of the bread.
In 1980 in my first church I was taught about "spiritually eating" also, and have held that ever since. But it never sat well with the following passage, so I am reviewing my position on this aspect of the communion.
John 6:52-58 KJV (52) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (53) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. (54) Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (55) For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (56) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (57) As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (58) This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Mike wrote: John, I'm not seeing Scripture saying "ye" is referring to the religious leaders, nor that it was them that he meant should be gathering the people as a hen gathers her chicks. He said "I" would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks, referring to himself, and Jerusalem's rejection of him with "ye would not" That included the people, who wanted Barrabas freed. I agree he shed tears over seeing the 70 AD destruction, such destruction a result of the rejection, otherwise known as "ye would not." I know we won't be coming to agreement on this, but grateful for civil conversation.
Bro Mike, there is one thing we can be fully agreed on, and this is far more important: that when Jesus came unto his own, his own received him not. That is, most received him not. Some DID receive him, and these were saved and became children of God through faith. We were both saved and became children of God through faith in Jesus Christ. The gospel calls men to trust in Christ; those who do so are saved, those who do not are not saved. The gospel must so portray Christ as to give men an opportunity to trust him in the correct way; and if they do so, they will be saved.
Mike wrote: Tim can answer in his own way. As for me, my Bible says Jesus said how often would have I gathered you.....but ye *would not.* He didn't say ye *could not* because ye are not my people because I didn't choose you to be. Question remains, why did he shed tears over Jerusalem?
Hi Mike, we've spoken of this before a couple of times, but never a problem to me, as repetition is helpful.
Firstly, who is the "ye" referring to? "Ye would not". Not the people, who are like sheep without a shepherd, but the spiritual leaders and rabbis, who would not fulfil their calling and gather the people as a hen gathers her chicks.
The question: why did he shed tears over Jerusalem?
Certainly not because he was powerless to do something about it. He can turn the hearts of kings. He can save an unlikely wretch like me. No, it was not that. I am giving you mine honest opinion here, bro. I think it was due to foreseeing the impending disaster which would come upon the holy city in AD70 and the awful atrocities that would occur during the siege and afterwards. And being fully human, he was affected by that sight, even though it was the prophesied will of God.
danfromtenn wrote: Please share what you learned, brother!
Certainly, Bro Dan.
We are so used to the bread that we eat being white and fluffy, or if it is wholemeal bread, brown and fluffy. Or it comes in rolls or baps. And we tend to press these into use for our communion services (I normally call it communion, because that explains what is happening).
But the bread that Jesus would have used in the passover meal, when he said, "Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you" (1 Cor 11:24) was unleavened Jewish matzah bread. This is a flat, cracker-like bread especially prepared for the passover. And unlike ordinary bread, which can only be torn, it breaks with a snapping sound (breaking of bread).
Now in John 6:55-56, Jesus says, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."
The greek word for "eats" in this verse is 'trogo' which means 'to gnaw or crunch' like when eating nuts. This shows that Jesus was not talking about eating spiritually, but about physically eating, about chewing with a crunching sound.
When I heard of this I included in my shopping yesterday some Ryvita bread and sure enough, they snap, and crunch while eating.
Thanks Chrisgp for your testimony concerning attendance at Brethren assemblies. The usual way for visitors to be accepted in the closed table, is for them to bring a letter of introduction from the elder/s at their local assembly, informing that they are in good standing with the Lord and with their own assembly.
In the assembly I attended for about six years, the sisters were permitted to wear a headcovering or a hat, so some would wear a shawl or some such thing, just draped over the head. They were not permitted to speak at all during the breaking of bread, not to pray even, or introduce a psalm or hymn. However, I had some great experiences of the Lord in that company, because everything was done extempore, nothing pre-planned, all was dependent on the Holy Spirit leading and guiding and motivating. Some gatherings were most wonderful.
It was only yesterday that I came to know why the Bible called it the "breaking" of bread. Do you know why?
Dr. Tim wrote: The compassionate Savior who wept over Jerusalem was Jehovah who ordered the complete destruction of the Canaanites. Was He a hypocrite?
Tim, your foundational theology is that which gives you an incorrect view of the Lord Jesus Christ.
What you are doing is vainly imagining that the Lord Jesus comes into Jerusalem, both sees and knows that the Jews will reject him (even though he is their Messiah), and he start crying because he is so sad that God will have to punish them for their unbelief, and he doesn't want God to punish them and send them to hell, he wants God to save them. But God won't save them unless they believe in his Son. And so he weeps, because he knows they will not believe. He is upset for them, and can do nothing about it.
What dreadful theology! It is disgraceful! It is putting the great and sovereign God into a little box and putting sinners in charge of him, to do and to will according to the sinner's pleasure.
Nay lad, you're batting on such a sticky wicket you will find it hard to extricate yourself.
My Bible tells me that Jesus WILL save HIS people from THEIR sins. Not 'might' or 'will try to' or 'hopes' but WILL. Hallelujah! Deep joy!
Dr. Tim wrote: Same old tactics, huh, John? Attack, attack, attack. No problem. Go back to your smug little world of omniscient correctness. Just another Nabal, â€śfor he is such a son of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him.â€ť
Tim, it is because there are plenteous people like you in the churches today, that I never recommend anyone to attend, not even when they get converted. I believe firmly that almost every church today is dangerous to a child of God, because of the mixture of wheat and tares, lack of care over membership, legalistic tendencies, ecumenical involvements, women in the pulpits or in leadership, unbiblical practices, sheep stealing, doctrinal errors, lack of strength on current issues, lackadaisical attitude towards sin, and so on.
Now you are talking about me "living in a smug little world of omniscient correctness". Ha! I am the one who is changing day by day, growing and learning, doing things differently, conforming myself to scripture.
It is YOU who says, "My word is right, my doctrine is sound, my practice is perfect, you must listen to me and do what I say, or me and my IFB mates will laugh at you and call you all sorts of names.
Michael Hranek wrote: What is it all about? Maybe like having others analyze whatever it is that your have or haven't done or said to death. God, help me if I can see it or think I see it in others I can be so guilty of the same kind of thing may self Where is the forest? Gotta put that ol' chain saw to work again.... so I can see to love others, even if they be packing to shot me, with the same love Jesus loved me with. Love you my brother gotta start ,working on cooking supper.
My amazing brother in Christ,
I fully understood your last paragraph, but none of the rest, sorry. Perhaps it is well.
Mike NY, thank you for wise words, I think you have the answer, bro. The human race is very diverse in their emotional make up. And to claim that all Christians ought to behave in a certain way, like sausages coming out the factory, is tantamount to legalism.
Adriel wrote: "The Holy Spirit "gives" Spiritual Understanding. "The work of the Spirit in imparting this knowledge is called â€śillumination,â€ť or enlightening. It is not a giving of new revelation, but a work within us that enables us to grasp and to love the revelation that is there before us in the biblical text as heard and read, and as explained by teachers and writers. Sin in our mental and moral system clouds our minds and wills so that we miss and resist the force of Scripture. God seems to us remote to the point of unreality, and in the face of Godâ€™s truth we are dull and apathetic. The Spirit, however, opens and unveils our minds and attunes our hearts so that we understand (Eph. 1:17-18; 3:18-19; 2 Cor. 3:14-16; 4:6). As by inspiration he provided Scripture truth for us, so now by illumination he interprets it to us. Illumination is thus the applying of Godâ€™s revealed truth to our hearts, so that we grasp as reality for ourselves what the sacred text sets forth. Illumination, which is a lifelong ministry of the Holy Spirit to Christians, starts before conversion with a growing grasp of the truth about Jesus and a growing sense of being measured and exposed by it." (J I Packer)
Dr. Tim wrote: John wrote, â€ś That is most helpful. I too have wept many times in prayer over the years, and it was involuntary. That is, the tears just came out of mine eyes, just as the prayers came out of my mouth. It was not something I could turn on or off like a tap.â€ť Apparently we were both composing our comments simultaneously. I have never posted one word on this thread that would indicate to a reasonable person that tears should be turned on and off by anyone but the Holy Ghost. Please donâ€™t twist my words. Thank you.
Tim, the way you convo with me causes me to wonder if you really do weep in prayer for others. It seems like you portray yourself as a genuine Christian, with great compassion, just like Jesus, yet towards your brother, whom you call a "dry-eyed automaton" it is like being assaulted by a lunatic.
Now I realise that is just how IFB's behave, with all the Yee Ha and psychological manipulation, laughing your head off with all your IFB mates, but really, do you believe that is normal Christianity. I believe it is abnormal. And yet still you claim, "I am okay, my doctrine is okay, my worship is good, I've no need to change a thing, etc."
BTW, I was talking to James about the tap, not you.
Sure, there are plenty of sinners in the Bible, but not many who washed the feet of Jesus with their hair. Oh, perhaps one. Amen. My guess is she loved Jesus and became a disciple.
In 2 Peter 2 you will read about a whole different type of sinner, and how Jesus spoke to them, through the apostle Peter. Not quite such a good result in their case. Nor with Alexander the coppersmith. And plenty of others.
Bro, you are just going to have to get more balanced in your thinking, or you will fall over.
You missed all the debates about gun toting for protection. If you are one such carryer, here is the scenario. You are weeping in prayer for local sinners and your carpet is wet; but one of these local sinners comes in through the kitchen door with a gun in his hand and points it at you. What do you do? Continue weeping and praying, or do you pull out your automatic and fire several shots into the heart area? Virtually everyone here (all from America) say that they would kill the intruder.
It seems odd to me. Weeping for that sinner one minute, the next you've killed him. What's it all about?
James Thomas wrote: I've wept many times in prayer John. I'm not necessarily emotional by nature but there are times I can be. When I pray for QC, I simply ask God to see them though the trial they have before them and that they may be stronger because of it. After all, that is the purpose of trials if we really stop and think about it. I think its always helpful to search out a term cover to cover and read the context just to see how its used and then we can discern the meaning of the tears. Reason I say that is Esau had tears, but they were of no use.
St James, thank you bro. That is most helpful. I too have wept many times in prayer over the years, and it was involuntary. That is, the tears just came out of mine eyes, just as the prayers came out of my mouth. It was not something I could turn on or off like a tap.
Yes, trials can strengthen a Christian or destroy. Tribulation is not an uncommon visitor to the Christian's home, and it is at times like that we have to apply those cliche verses that appear so often on cards and posters. All on a sudden we have to apply the word of God to our situation, and we suddenly realise the Bible is there as both sword and comfort. Amen bro. Thank you.
James Thomas wrote: https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=tears&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1 For anyone who's interested....Here's a link to the 35 mentions of "tears" in the KJV.
James, it is always helpful, thank you. If you are willing, can you give personal testimony of weeping in prayer yourself, or is that a rarity, or something that never happens, or something that happens now and again? Are you by nature an emotional sort of character? Or was that sort of thing knocked out of you by your parents or severe illness?
Okay if you don't want to say, no pressure.
Just as an example, there are many of us praying for the Quiet Brother's wife who was diagnosed with cancer. Did you weep yourself while praying or not? When I prayed I did not weep, that is my testimony.
Tim, one thing I forgot to mention, but which is extremely important is this:
Mark 11:22-24 KJV (22)Â And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. (23)Â For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. (24)Â Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
Jesus here is talking about faith in God. V22 have faith in God.
Then in v24 he is talking about applying that faith in prayer, because if you believe that you receive them, you shall have them.
He's talking about knowing in the Spirit the will of God and praying for it, believing, you will certainly have that prayer answered.
So if you know for sure you are going to receive the petition, what place is there for tears? Should there not be great rejoicing, great happiness, great anticipation.
I would have thought that tearful pray-ers were showing unbelief; they don't really believe God will give them anything. So what are they doing weeping and praying?
Tim, I think the problem lies with a misunderstanding as to God's character. Note,
Psalms 2:1-5 KJV (1) Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? (2) The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, (3) Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. (4) He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. (5) Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
What's this? The Lord laughing at the antics of his enemies? Doesn't he know they are poor lost sinners who cannot help what they do?
Why isn't the Lord weeping? Why is he being so nasty? Ah, but he is not being nasty, it is the sinners who are nasty. The humanist stands up for the wicked sinners and rejects the God of justice and judgment. The reason for this is because of lack of knowledge of God. Psalm 2 is never pondered on nor accepted nor sung in worship service. Why is this? It is because of the belief of universal love of God for all men. And that is a grievous error which leads to many other errors.