"St George's Tron Church said it had taken the decision after more than 12 months of thought and prayer."
*12 MONTHS* "CHRISTIANS" took the decision and left the Church of Scotland years ago!!!
Belonging to an obviously UNChristian UnBiblical Liberal organisation should prompt all real Bible Believers to leave asap.
Considering this "church"(?) for the last two assemblies has sent a commission to *discuss*??? allowing the abomination into the pulpit in Queens Cross church Aberdeen, demonstrates how far the Kirk has gone down to satanic levels.
Clearly the Holy Spirit is no longer a member of the Church of Scotland.
Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
quotes wrote: The links below will take you to the articles where I found the quotes.. I am confused maybe you can answer my question. Why does the Holy Spirit wait to indwell the sinner until after he believes?
Under the first link, we have evidence that Sibbes was not viewed as sound on this issue by none other than John Owen. I quote,
"..Sibbes did view sealing in the Spirit as two distinct matters..(he)..distinguished between the office or function of the Spirit as a seal given in regeneration to a sinner and the work of the Spirit in applying that seal to the believer's consciousness.
John Owen would later call this distinction unbiblical, for he said we are sealed when we are born again, and the Bible gives no justification for a second kind of sealing. Owen, following the early Reformers, taught a one-to-one correlation between those regenerated by the Spirit and those sealed by the Spirit. Calvin, for example, said that it was impossible to believe without being sealed by the Spirit. For Calvin, sealing represented the presence rather than the activity of the Spirit. Thus, the sealing work of the Spirit belongs to the essence of faith."
As to why "indwelling" after faith, read Pink, Howe and CD's explanation below
quotes wrote: Benjamin Keach..â€śNo man can come unto Me, except it were given unto him of My Fatherâ€ť (John 6:65)...
Richard Sibbes â€śSibbes taught ..the Spirit immediately begins to live within that person.â€ť.. BTW this is not Presby posting.
You may have noticed that when I cited authors, I tried to include the bible verses upon which they were commenting, and I was careful to ensure that the verses they were commenting on were pertinent to the subject matter in hand.
The issue to hand concerns order. At what point does the Holy Spirit indwell a person? CD has posted the scriptures relating to this issue and it should be clear to any impartial person that indwelling only takes place after faith.
This is not to deny the Spirit's work prior to indwelling. But the big problem we have is that Seaton cannot conceive of any work w/o indwelling. As he is trying to teach something additional to the Bible he has to make a case.
There is no denying that preachers do use licence in using terms losely. Our job is to determine whether they use it scripturally! So my question- How did Keach get that from that verse? What verse was Sibbes using to arrive at that conclusion?
Seaton is not interested in the Scriptures or in the writings of reformed men, Puritans or otherwise.
He has a pet theory and do or die, he is going to hold to this and teach it to others irrespective.
He is wiser in his own eyes than the scriptures and all the collective testimonies of reformed authors that can be produced to discover his error.
To engage him as you do, only inflates his pride. It makes him feel that he and his opinions count for anything!!
Look through this entire thread and see if he has engaged with any of the verses that clearly show indwelling after faith. You will find that He has not!
Look through this entire thread and see if he has engaged with any of the very clear citations from reformed authors showing that he errs. You will find that He has not!
In fact what you will discover is wresting of the scriptures and twisting the words of men to suit his theory. He even tried to make out that Spurgeon held to his belief! Then quotations from Spurgeon were produced to demonstrate that this could not be the case. What was his reaction. HE IGNORED IT!!
A quotation was produced from Sinclair Ferguson. Seaton tried to twist his words, ignoring the most pertinent part of the quote. What when this was pointed out to him? HE IGNORED IT!
John UK wrote: ...I hope he doesn't imagine this is all about winning a debate, as if we were a bunch of worldlings yelling and whooping in vain show of pride and intellectual snobbery; this is about the truth of God's word, which is worked out in the affairs of men....
I was not seeking to win a debate but to show the truth to NBW. Now I have given up on that, because frankly unless the Lord open his eyes he will not see the truth of this no matter what.
However, NBW may have unsettled some reading this thread and so my purpose in further postings was to demonstrate the truth of the claim that the overwhelming testimony of those in the reformed constituency is that indwelling occurs after faith and that it is only by virtue of faith that this happens.
No one in the reformed constituency has any issues with the Holy Spirit working in a soul without indwelling!
I think that a fair representation has now been made and I do not therefore intend to post any more on this topic.
Based on the text ""My beloved is mine, and I am his." (Song 2:16)" Watson writes :
"Doctrine: That there is a conjugal union between Christ and believers. The apostle, having treated at large of marriage, winds up the whole chapter thus: "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church" (Eph. 5:32). What is closer than union? What sweeter?.."
"Before this union with Christ there must be a separation. The heart must be separated from all other lovers, as in marriage there is a leaving of father and mother: "Forget your own people, and your father's house." (Psa. 45:10). So there must be a leaving of our former sins, a breaking off the old league with hell before we can be united to Christ. "Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols?" (Hos. 14:8), or as it is in the Hebrew, "with sorrows." Those sins which were looked on before as lovers, are now sorrows. There must be a divorce before a union.
The purpose of our conjugal union with Christ is ..... Co-habitation. This is one purpose of marriage, to live together: "that Christ may dwell in your hearts" (Eph. 2:17)....."
How many more testimonies do we need to humble an obdurate heart? A humble Christian would have recanted already!
Commenting on ""But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" (Rom. 8:9)"
He says under the header "The basis for the Spirit's indwelling":
"There must be moral fitness as well. The Spirit of God will not tabernacle with unbelieving rebels. "After (or "when") that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise" (Eph. 1:13). It is to those who obey the command, "Be ye not unequally yoked together" that God promises, "I will dwell in them" (2 Cor. 6:16). When by repudiating all idols, receiving Christ as Lord, trusting in the merits of His sacrifice, the heart is preparedâ€”the Spirit of God enters to take possession for Christâ€™s use. When we give up ourselves to the Lord, He accepts the dedication by making our bodies the temples of the Holy Spirit, there to maintain His interests against all the opposition of the Devil."
And so the list continues to grow, and not a single clear testimony from NBW for his view. Errorists are wedded to their errors and no reproofs will bear fruit!
NOTbyworks wrote: NB: quote; "brings with it the reality of ..... indwelling" NB: quote; "one and the same reality as ...... indwelling" This is exactly the same as I have stated [snip] Owen, Calvin and the historic Reformed theologians have agreed with this formula which I have posted over these last couple of weeks.
Your dishonesty knows no bounds!
Selective reading to extract what you want!
Read what he says:
1. "...the Spirit is not received separately from faith-initiation into Christ!..."
2. "..It is in believing in Christ that the Spirit of Christ is received..."
If what Ferguson insists on in the above is true then where was the Spirit prior to faith? Certainly not indwelling!!
Your last statement is a complete an utter lie (demonstrable from this thread alone) and since no liar will ever enter Heaven, I think we know your standing before God!
I shall pray for your soul, but I am not going to indulge your pride any more by continuing this discussion with you. You need to learn how to think and you need conversion for an honest heart. May the Lord be pleased to break into your darkness.
Lurker wrote: No, I suppose it wouldn't to you. But why do you suppose the apostles send Peter and John to pray for the Samarian believers "that they might receive the Holy Ghost" if He was already indwelling them? What do you know that the apostles at Jerusalem didn't know? This will be my final post on the subject.
Logic is not NBW's forte.
It is amazing that he insists on an Ordo Salutis, yet blatantly ignores the issue of order when examining texts which so clearly teach indwelling after faith.
Maybe he just likes using the latin "Ordo Salutis" to make him sound scholarly?
Extract from "The Holy Spirit" by Sinclair Ferguson
"....The Spirit is received in the context of coming to faith in Christ the Lord. For Paul, therefore, in the normal pattern of experience in the Gentile world, the Spirit is not received separately from faith-initiation into Christ. It is in believing in Christ that the Spirit of Christ is received. For believing into Christ brings with it the reality of the receiving of Christ and his indwelling. This is one and the same reality as the reception and indwelling of the Spirit, since it is in and by the Spirit that Christ comes to dwell us......."
A modern reformed author adds his weight to the sentiments expressed by: 1. Owen 2. Howe 3. Walter Marshall 4. the WCF 5. Charles Hodge 6. McClaren 7. Rev. John MacPherson 8 Spurgeon
who all understood the biblical teaching on indwelling.
NBW will no doubt still insist that he is right and everyone else is hyper-Wesleyan and unbiblical, including the reformed heavy weights who have been cited.
Shame he cannot produce any evidence for his claims!
We can carry on adding testimonies like these, because this is the consistent teaching of all in the reformed tradition, but I suspect that they will make no difference to NBW because his stubborn pride is at stake!!
John UK wrote: ...But then, if the indwelling Spirit of Christ is permanent, why does he say that he will "come in to him" if he will but hear his voice and open the door? Is he not already in? (Christ in you, the hope of glory). Maybe you are right. I don't know.
John, the passage you refer to is not dealing with indwelling. Indwelling occurs after saving faith and this is true for all believers now.
The passage is speaking of Christ coming as a bringer of blessings to a church that had to be rebuked for its lukewarmness, smugness and pride all of which prevented them seeing their true condition. They had in effect shut Christ out of the Church because they considered themselves rich and in need of nothing!
Sermon Prince wrote: But what did Spurgeon say against gay marriage?
Rev. John MacPherson (Presbyterian b.1847- died 1902)
In his commentary on the WCF:
"The gift of the Spirit is secured by the merits of Christ, and is the fruit of personal justification.....Now the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and when the justified sinner becomes a member of Christ's body, the Spirit which belongs to the person of Christ must enter into and pervade this new member..."
When is a sinner justified?
Answer: Justification by grace through FAITH.
Without faith no justification.
Conclusion: Rev John MacPherson believes with the rest of Christendom that the indwelling of the Spirit takes place after faith. And therefore whatever work the Spirit carries out prior to faith is not by indwelling!!!
How many reformed testimonies will we have to produce before NBW humbles himself, if ever?
How many testimonies has he produced to corroborate his statement "Reformed theology of whatever source agrees with my representation of indwelling after Pentecost.."? None to date. Not ONE SINGLE testimony!!
From the reformed constituency how many so far have agreed with the opposite view?Hodge, Owen, Howe, McClaren, the WCF and now John MacPherson.
Then we have all the scriptures which address the issue which NBW has deliberately chosen to IGNORE!!
John UK wrote: Seeking the Lord is very important.
Seaton's problem is an utter inability to process the data.
All the verses in the NT which refer to indwelling make it clear that it only happens after faith and therefore only those who are believers have the indwelling Spirit.
So what of those who are not believers? How is the Spirit ever to bring them to faith?
Seaton's answer is he must indwell them.
Can he provide any proof for this hypothesis. No! Not a single verse. And in fact in his hypothesis he plainly contradicts those verses which very clearly teach that indwelling only occurs after faith!
BUT his inability to process the data also prevents him from seeing this contradiction as a problem.
Bottom line is that he has comprehension problems and so the continuation of this discussion with him is futile. No amount of evidence will persuade him otherwise.
Even the absurdities that are produced by his belief go right over his head. E.g.he equates any work of the Spirit with Indwelling. So a sinner upon whom the Spirit is just commencing to work, must be indwelt according to Seaton. On another thread he says as soon as a sinner is indwelt he is pardoned!! Really?!! So all the blessings of belief w/o belief!!
NOTbyworks wrote: Precisely!! You are getting closer to the Biblical fact of indwelling and that the sinner dead in sin, at enmity with God and spiritually blind cannot even identify sin - never mind salvation and the Holy Spirit....
I think curious is right. There is something definitely wrong with your comprehension.
Even my 8 year old son understood the point of my last post. You have a severe mental blockage!
Everyone on this thread, calv or otherwise, understands the issue and we have all come to the same conclusion based on the scriptures. We have also cited reformed heavy weights Hodge, Owen, Howe, McClaren and even the WCF. But the thick fog you dwell in wont allow in any light.
So I'm done.
I suggest that you follows Curious' advice. Go see your pastor if you have one. And in the meantime abandon the label "reformed" because there is no affinity between what you believe and the reformed faith. Your beliefs are peculiar to yourself. No one shares them with you!
John UK wrote: Ah yes, that's the way of it. If Calvinism be judged by its fruit as epitomised on these threads.... "By their fruits ye shall know them."
Indeed John UK, indeed.
We read in Prov 18.17 "The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him" (NASB)
In bygone ages the advice for those who wished to study 'controversial theology' was that they read as widely as possible, and not limit themselves to the works of their own denomination. To obtain a true estimate of any school of thought one must allow them to speak for themselves. And in that spirit I have read widely and from the original sources. What I have learned is that Christians who differ from me are just as eager to learn the truth and though I may differ from them I admire that they too are trying to do justice to the scriptures.
Study Arminius and you may be surprised at the misinformation and lies about him & what he believed in so called reformed literature. You may also be surprised at how close his beliefs were to Calvin's. After all he was a student of Calvin and Beza!
We live in sad days where too much ignorance passes for calvinism. Seaton sadly is not a lone example of a cancerous spirit in our ranks. May God have mercy on us!
John Owen in answering some of Goodwin's works extended the utmost civility to him.
Spurgeon wrote a little known work on Wesley which landed him in hot water, because of his praise for Wesley. But, Whitfield did no less and he knew Wesley well enough to know whether such praise was deserving or not.
Calvinists of all people should be the humblest since they affirm that what knowledge they possess they possess by the grace of God. Why then do some pour scorn on others who do not share their light as though it depended on their intellects?
I would suggest that the narrow, bigotted spirit of some who profess the doctrines of free grace actually does more harm to the cause of God and Truth than the espousal by many a good heart to the doctrines of evangelical arminianism.
NBW is a classic example of such a spirit. Divisive, intolerant and prideful to his core and the worst part is that it is his own ignorance which is the major contributor to his makeup.
No doubt this will evoke a response from him and I will be labelled as odius to the Christian faith. But, so be it. Thankfully, he will not be my judge on that great day!
I feel for every non-calv true believer whose only encounter with someone who believes in free grace is with someone like NBW!
Lurker wrote: Thanks for the correction. And thanks for the commentaries below.
Let me preface what I am about to write with a short comment. I AM NOT ARMINIAN. I hold to the doctrines of free grace in moderate form.
I am very troubled by the narrow spirit of some ill informed and ignorant calvs on SA who are obviously not widely read, who appear to think that anyone who cannot utter their shibboleth must of necessity be arminian and/or that arminianism is the worst error in the whole world.
What we have to remember is that there are/have been plenty of very godly folk who when considering theological systems espouse in good conscience the system of Arminius over that of Calvin as more biblical. Are we therefore to castigate them and treat them as outcasts from the Israel of God?
Take the example of John Goodwin, a puritan, but an arminian. John Owen, Dr Calamy and later Job Orton (all calvs) spoke in very high terms about his character and they never questioned whether he was a genuine Christian. In fact Venning wrote the Epistle Dedicatory to his work on the Spirit.
And then we have Whitfield and Spurgeon who were both great admirers of John Wesley and neither doubted that he was saved!