Calvinist Understanding wrote:
A couple of quotes from Spurgeon:
".... You must never divide the renewing of the Holy Spirit from the pardon of sin. They go together and he that receives the pardon of sin receives a new birth — and is made a new creature in Christ Jesus then and there. **The work of regeneration and the act of faith which brings justification to the penitent sinner are SIMULTANEOUS** and must, in the nature of the case, always be so."

I am surprised to see Spurgeon using the word "simultaneous" in the above quote, as that was the term I used a few weeks ago, as a knee-jerk reaction to the seemingly endless discussion of "which comes first" - regeneration or faith. I've been influenced by Spurgeon's writings for years, but have no memory of having read this before now.

Anyway, it is a validation for me to know that Spurgeon said the same thing.

___________

DJC,

I found your "off-topic" post amusing.

John UK wrote:
But from the very first time I read this verse 13, I see in it the reason why two men can hear the same gospel message together, with one receiving it and the other rejecting it. The one who was saved, was 'sanctified' by the Spirit. He was 'set apart' from all others in the assembly, and was 'quickened', thereby enabling him to see and understand the gospel.
God chose the 'method' through which he would save his elect: the preaching of the gospel, the sanctification of the Spirit, then belief of the truth.

John UK wrote:
Are you saying that a sinner is born again, then he believes?
(1 Corinthians 1:21 KJV)
It is clear that "saved" is the result of "believed".
And in this verse of scripture:
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
(2 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV)
How do you understand the "sanctification of the Spirit"? Obviously before "faith" so why did Paul use this particular expression?

I do not think that these occur sequentially, but at the same time.

Belief is salvation. Belief is faith. Faith is salvation. They are inseparably linked.

One who is born again would never say, "I was saved, then I believed." One may say, "I believed, and was saved." At the point of belief, there is salvation. Salvation is regeneration. These terms are synonymous.

I don't think there is any separation.

Permit me wrote:
[URL=http://www.dod.org/Products/DOD1982.aspx]]]Day of Discovery- Drs Paul and Margaret Brand[/URL]
And I'm not young

http://www.dod.org/Products/DOD1982.aspx

It is a short video production by "Day of Discovery" on the lives of Drs. Paul and Margaret Brand, who were medical missonaries to leprosy patients in India.

Hope the link works. I am soooo non-tech! Where are the young people when you need them??????

Takeheed wrote:
good perspective on pain can be found in a book by Dr. Paul Brand & Philip Yancey called "Pain, The Gift Nobody Wants."
It pays to make sure what the author believes and what he doesn't believe, though Yancey might say much that is good consider Cecil Andrews article
http://www.takeheed.net/YANCEYlasciviousness.htm
Take heed that no man deceive you

Google Dr. Paul Brand. His obituary alone would inspire one to awe.

Dr. Robert Bork, Surgeon General of the U.S. said if he could be anyone other than himself, he would have been Dr. Brand. I couldn't agree more.

Better yet, read his books. They are EXCELLENT!

rogerant wrote:
Now I can understand your preoccupation with this whole issue about regeneration before faith issue that has dominated this forum.

When the word of God resides in the heart, and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit is the Teacher, we have discernment.

The problem is that many people look to a particular person to shape or define their views. WE should be as the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to see if what is being taught is true.

I have noticed how often pastors will drop the names of noted men of intellect, thereby associating them with a man of great intellect, to be seen as such.

A teacher may also intentionally or unintentionally, align himself with a particularly gifted pastor, such as Spurgeon, and distort or present falsely the beliefs of that person to support his own teaching.

As people of God, we should so know the word of God, that even if an "angel from heaven" as it were, teaches something contrary, we will reject it.

You won't read this until the morning, but I need to correct something that I said in a previous post where you asked whether I believed in one or two covenants. I mis-spoke, and said one, and for no other reason than conscience, I need to correct myself.

I know that there is distinct reference to two covenants in Scripture, the old being under the law, and the new being of Grace. The new covenant is far superior to the old, as dealt with in Hebrews.

What I meant was that I believe the OT saints were saved exactly as the NT saints are saved and that is through the atoning work of Christ on the Cross, His substitionary death satisfying the demands of the Father as payment for sin. All of Grace.

I'm sure that it's not something that you dwelt on, but, my answer bothered me.

Another clarification needs to be made about my times listening to John MacArthur. Yes, I have listened to him since college days, but my post sounded like I was travelling in sales for 30 yrs. Not so! Not important, but misleading, and I have a super-sensitive conscience.

John UK wrote:
The best books I've seen recently are the daily readings from the gospels by JC Ryle, and a daily devotional by James Smith. I never tire of reading Ryle.

John UK wrote:
My favourite text since conversion is Revelation 21:4. Afflictions do have a sanctifying and mellowing effect, but oh how wonderful to be in eternity without trial, suffering, pain or death.

That verse captivated me even as child, though it seems strange. I wouldn't know much of trial, suffering, pain, and death as a child. Yet, I remember that verse piercing my heart as a pre-teen.

Mercifully, God has spared me much, until recent years, but my trials, pains, and sufferings have been suffered vicariously through others. The human condition is a source of pain for me. I long for an end to that.

A good perspective on pain can be found in a book by Dr. Paul Brand & Philip Yancey called "Pain, The Gift Nobody Wants." Dr. Brand, a son of missonaries, worked with leprosy patients in India, as well as in America, and his books describe his work. The spiritual lessons that can be learned from the human body is presented in a way that only a godly man like Dr. Brand could link.

He washes him from his sins in His own blood, and gives him a free pardon: this is justification.

He puts the Holy Spirit into his heart, and makes him an entirely new man: this is his regeneration.

The two things are both absolutely necessary to salvation. The change of heart is as necessary as the pardon; and the pardon is as necessary as the change. Without the pardon we have no right or title to heaven. Without the change we should not be meet and ready to enjoy heaven, even if we got there.

John UK wrote:
I don't know if was the same organisation, but thirteen years before my conversion I somehow turned up at a Navigators meeting in a church. I was about twelve or thirteen, and why I went I cannot remember. I don't remember going more than once or twice.
But who knows whether the Lord was encouraging me towards him, even then, when I was rebelling against all things 'religious'?

DJC49 wrote:
Sorry, *Candle lit*, but John MacArthur is absolutely a Dispensationalist. I own his 2201 page NKJV Study Bible and it is rife with Dispensational language.

I have that Bible, also, but refer to the commentary only occasionally, as I get distracted from what I intended, and that is to put God's Word in my heart. You are a serious student of Theology and the different views, so you are more familiar with John M.'s views re: dispensationalism.

I am a student of the Bible. I was a "Navigator" in college. Dawson Trotman was the founder of an organization, call the Navigators, where one person taught another person the Bible - a discipleship program. Scripture memory was a big part of the learning process.

rogerant wrote:
Why do you and Candle Lit always show up whenever JM's name pops up? We don't see you coming to Calvin's defense do we? Yes you defend YOUR theology with a passion. But you immediately attack those who don't agree with you and charge them with self righteousness and riding a high horse.
Is that fair?

Loyalty to a brother in Christ who has been used by the Lord to bless me, is the only reason that I speak up.

Calvin is with the Lord. He doesn't need any defense. His writings may be used to support one's views, and he is to be studied by those in ministry, but the average person isn't impacted by Calvin.

Mike wrote:
I haven't agreed on a few items taught by JM, but then I haven't agreed with anybody 100% so that's no big deal. If I were to find one in total agreement with me, I'd have to wonder what's wrong with him. I do find him to be a very good teacher. I highly recommend his book "The Truth War."

What I like about John MacArthur is that he is current with the issues that face us, and speaks to people where they live with practical application of Scripture.

"The Vanishing Conscience" was published in 1994, and is a good book to read now.

DJC49 wrote:
he just can't seem to let go of the promises God made to "national" Israel about the LAND. That's his stumbling block and that's what's preventing him from being an historic pre-mil Calvy.
Even Johnny Mac ain't perfect.
(and neither am I - if y'all were wonderin')

I don't have a problem with his eschatology, but then I'm not a pastor or teacher, so I don't have to explain it to a congregation.

It isn't essential to salvation, and no one has it "all" "right".

John UK wrote:
But if he does believe in seven dispensations, with a millenium reign of Christ on earth after the 'church age', followed by eternity, then I would not wish to be taught by him or others following such teaching, as that goes against what I have come to believe from the Bible.

does John hold to these seven divisions where God tried out different ways?

I have never heard John MacArthur teach dispensationalism.

He systematically teaches Scripture - allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

This week he has been teaching the Doctrines of Grace.

He has taught with some of the well-known Reformed theologians of our day.

Of course, he has a degree in theology, and history. He would not consider himself a theologian's theologian, but he KNOWS the Word of God, and, after 4 decades with Grace Community Church, still sees himself as a student of God's Word. If anyone loves Truth, it is John MacArthur. He gets excited when he talks about it.

John MacArthur is Biblical - thoroughly, BIBLICAL. The difference that you may have with him would be in eschatology.

I consider John MacArthur's teaching the constant in my life. Living in several Southern States over the past 3 decades, in sales, travelling by car, allowed me time to listen to him everyday - 5 days a week. So, thirty years of listening to John MacArthur, reading his books, etc., allows me to say his teaching is Biblical.

I would not consider him dispensational, unless you would consider men like Bunyan, Whitefield, Spurgeon dispensational. No, there's no indication that he is anything other than a man who "rightly divides the Word of Truth." As I said, he is pre-mil in his teaching on eschatology, and many differ there.

He has held conferences with Reformed men like R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and others.

I appreciate John MacArthur because when I didn't have a pastor, he was there. I know his voice as I do members of my own family, and met him when he was a local church.

Calvinist Understanding wrote:
I think what Candle lit and John UK are talking about when they speak of "habitual sin" is sin that is planned and regularly indulged! We all have besetting sins, but at least we have a loathing for it and try and avoid the occasion of sin, we try and resist the temptation when it arises and we feel mortified when we succumb. A person who lives in "habitual sin" does none of these and though he may feel bad afterwards, it does not stop him from planning the next occasion.

I have to shake my head when fellow church members will defend someone who lives in habitual sin. For fellow believers to support such, while non-christians have a certain expectation that being a Christian should show itself outwardly, mystifies me. Have we bought into the "love is tolerance" mentality? Sin is just a "problem" for the church?

DJC49 wrote:
Hi, *Candle lit*!
Hmm. "Habitual sin."
Interesting.
But have YOU stopped sinning?
No sins yesterday? The day before? Last week? And your thoughts? And what about what you've perhaps failed to do that you should have done? Can you go to bed at night and honestly confess before the Throne of Mercy & Grace that you were sinless that whole day?
Hmm. "Habitual sin."
Interesting.

I love how you think. You are consistent with your message (your emotions - well, that's another issue). I like knowing that you are on point with your message.

And, I'm glad that you have that "fire" for debate.