LOOKING TO PRAISE AND WORSHIP JESUS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Chapter 10 They Repented Not

by H.A. Ironside
http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/article/10453

Labels: ,

20 Comments:

Blogger mark pierson said...

From chapter 10

"An evangelist had noticed a careless young woman who throughout his preaching had giggled and chattered to an equally thoughtless youth. At the close, an overzealous and most unwise “personal worker” stopped the girl at the door and asked, “Won’t you trust in Jesus tonight?” Startled, she replied, “Yes, I will.” He directed her to the well-known verse, John 3:16, and read it to her: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “Do you believe that?” he inquired. “Sure, I believe it all,” was the ready reply. “Then, don’t you see, God says you have eternal life?” “O sure, I guess I must have,” she answered with nonchalance, and passed out the door. Elated, the young worker hurried to the evangelist with the information that the young woman had “found peace tonight.” “Peace!” exclaimed the preacher. “Did she ever find trouble?” It was a good question. Far too many are talked into a false peace by ill-instructed persons who would not know what David meant when he exclaimed, “The pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow” (Ps. 116:3). It is the troubled soul who comes to Christ for rest."

May 26, 2009 7:59 AM

 
Blogger goe said...

Mark,

So what is your point Mark? That if a young girl giggles and chatters in church it "proves" she could not possibly be saved or believe Jn 3:16? Also, in this anecdote the young girl says she "guesses" she has eternal life. Whenever anyone correctly understands and believes Jn 3:16 they will not be guessing, they will KNOW they have eternal life because the promise of Jesus they are believing tells them have eternal life. The problem is that many people who say they believe Jn. 3:16 in reality deny it because what they REALLY believe is that more is necessary then "mere" belief like Jesus says over and over in the Gospel of John. They redefine faith to fit there own works or perseverance theology...you know, kind of like John MacArthur.

Actually, I've heard many "evangelists" who deserve to be ignored, so maybe his little girl wasn't such a terrible sinner after all. John MacArthur would be a good example of just such a preacher.

But I know, it's just a made up story to start with isn't it? But not a very good one I might add. Just goes to show that you have to take what many preachers say with a grain of salt, even if their name is Ironside.

May 26, 2009 9:56 PM

 
Blogger goe said...

I meant to say that beleiving Jn 3:16 "tells them that they have eternal life", not "tells them have eternal life". Those typos! :)

May 26, 2009 10:34 PM

 
Blogger goe said...

About Ps. 116:3. This is a Messianic Passover Psalm and was likely recited by Jesus on the night of His arrest when He and the disciples celebrated Passover.
"Hell" should be translated "sheol". The Psalmist is praising God in this Psalm for deliverance from physical death. This verse has nothing to do with conviction of sin or his conversion experience. Ironside has taken this verse out of context and made it mean something it doesn't mean. I've noticed he had a bad habit of doing that at times. You've got to really stay on your toes with lots of these preachers. They can be manipulative if you don't watch it.

May 27, 2009 12:54 AM

 
Blogger mark pierson said...

"So what is your point Mark? That if a young girl giggles and chatters in church it "proves" she could not possibly be saved or believe Jn 3:16?"
-------------------
In context Ironside was illustrating a personn who displayed NO conviction of sin. The sermon being preached was a look at what the Bible says about God's holiness and man's sinfulness. "Giggling" is no way to respond.
-----------------
"Also, in this anecdote the young girl says she "guesses" she has eternal life. Whenever anyone correctly understands and believes Jn 3:16 they will not be guessing, they will KNOW they have eternal life because the promise of Jesus they are believing tells them have eternal life."
----------------
Gary, let's keep that portion of the girl's response that you brought over here in context - “Do you believe that?” he inquired. “Sure, I believe it all,” was the ready reply." -
for emphasis, "sure, I believe it all...". So are you questioning the validity of her response here?
--------------------
“Then, don’t you see, God says you have eternal life?” “O sure, I guess I must have,” she answered with nonchalance, and passed out the door."
----------
Again, this is an illustration of there being no conviction of sin. Her nonchalance is the focus here.
----------
"The problem is that many people who say they believe Jn. 3:16 in reality deny it because what they REALLY believe is that more is necessary then "mere" belief like Jesus says over and over in the Gospel of John. They redefine faith to fit there own works or perseverance theology...you know, kind of like John MacArthur."
---------------
You have no idea how much of a badge of honor it is to see somebody who represents a system devised in 1981 accuse me or MacArthur of redefining faith. You see the Hodges/Wilkin system has to reread the entire New Testament in order to do away with "troublesome" books and chapters - ones like James 2:14-26; and all of 1 John. When a "society" has to come out with their own line of commentaries red flags aught to go up. "Novelty" should be a major concern.
--------------
"Actually, I've heard many "evangelists" who deserve to be ignored, so maybe his little girl wasn't such a terrible sinner after all. John MacArthur would be a good example of just such a preacher."
------------
Hodges/Wilkin have just taken a major thumping from the FGA. Ouch! Now that the Hodges/Wilkin system has been isolated, the question is how bleek is its future?
-----------
"But I know, it's just a made up story to start with isn't it? But not a very good one I might add. Just goes to show that you have to take what many preachers say with a grain of salt, even if their name is Ironside."
----------
Um, Gary, where did Ironside say that he made the story up? He did not say so. Again that "grain of salt" thing; and this coming from a representative of a mini internet sect. ;-)

May 27, 2009 7:08 AM

 
Blogger mark pierson said...

About Ps. 116:3. This is a Messianic Passover Psalm and was likely recited by Jesus on the night of His arrest when He and the disciples celebrated Passover.
"Hell" should be translated "sheol". The Psalmist is praising God in this Psalm for deliverance from physical death."
-----------
Correct. And the hearers of that sermon should have been squirming in their seats at the thought of dying outside of Christ. That was Ironside's point.
---------
"This verse has nothing to do with conviction of sin or his conversion experience. Ironside has taken this verse out of context and made it mean something it doesn't mean."
-----------
Remember the Philippian jailor, or the crowd in Acts 2? They were convicted of their sinfulness, even pricked in their heart. THAT is why Ironside went to Psalm 116:3.
-------------
"I've noticed he had a bad habit of doing that at times. You've got to really stay on your toes with lots of these preachers. They can be manipulative if you don't watch it."
--------------
And this coming from a represtative of a small internet sect that first came into evistance in 1981.

May 27, 2009 7:20 AM

 
Blogger mark pierson said...

typos -
representative
existence

May 27, 2009 7:22 AM

 
Blogger mark pierson said...

Gary,
the Lord willing I shall be back tomorrow, around 10:30 AM eastern. Gotta head to work now - while I still have a job.

P.S. I see ya in the sitemeter. Thanks for giving me some big numbers with all your visits. You're pretty much the only one who reads here. That's cool.

May 27, 2009 1:17 PM

 
Blogger goe said...

Hi Mark,

Since you singled out that quote from Ironside I can only assume you thought it especially meaningful or significant. I just don't see your point though. What does a young girl giggling and chattering in church prove? That she wasn't sufficiently contrite and trembling on that particular night to satisfy you or Ironside? If that's the case then ALL of us are condemned aren't we? Neither you, me, Ironside, MacArthur or anyone else is sufficiently contrite if that is your standard. We are only deluding ourselves if any of us think we are sufficiently contrite even AFTER we are saved.

You also seem to always place a lot of weight in majority opinion as evidenced in your remarks about the GES. That's interesting considering that the vast majority of Christendom is Arminian and believes in some form of works salvation. So why don't you just be an Arminian or a Roman Catholic? Non-Arminians are just an extremely small segment of Christendom. They probably would even consider us a "sect" or "cult" from their vantage point. For them eternal security is a heresy, so we are "heretics". I also find it interesting that I've never read about or encountered a single Arminian who doesn't agree with the Lordship Salvation position on the "gospel". Or the LS understanding of James and 1 John for that matter. All Arminians have a LS understanding of the gospel. It it largely because of their misunderstanding of James and 1 Jn ( which you share) that they believe in a faith plus works salvation. So since they make up almost all of Christendom and believe in LS, why don't you just join them if the majority is right?

Actually, I don't have a problem being in the minority because Jesus and His disciples, as well as the early church, were just a minority "sect" too. Actually, if the GES understanding of the Gospel is correct, there could be many born again believers scattered across all denominational lines but who are now in churches that are not teaching them sound doctrine.

The GES gospel is not new Mark. It is the same one found in the Gospel of John. Since the Gospel of John is the ONLY book in scripture written for the primary purpose of telling us how to be born again and have eternal life (Jn. 20:31), I know I'm on the firm ground of apostolic teaching when it comes to the Gospel. The simplicity of how to be born again and pass from death to life is there for all to see, and it's been there for 2000 yrs. The majority of Christendom doesn't see the unique and special place of John' gospel though, and so they are confused, try to piece together the "gospel" from scripture intended mainly for people who were already born again, believe in some form of works salvation, and accordingly lack assurance of their eternal destiny.

Anyway, I wish you the best Mark. I really do want us to be friends even if we don't agree. Honestly, I've kind of grown to like you and respect you because I believe in your sincerity and I believe you love the Lord. You've always been up front with me and I've tried to be up front with you. Sometimes that has caused some sparks, but we can still love each other in the Lord until that Great Day. Deal?

Best regards,
Gary

May 27, 2009 3:00 PM

 
Blogger goe said...

Well I'll be. You were lookin at me while I was lookin at you. If I ever get to blogging again I'll have to get me one those sitemeters so I'll know who's in the room peekin at me ! :) At least then you know if you're fixin to get attacked right? :)

May 27, 2009 3:19 PM

 
Blogger mark pierson said...

"Since you singled out that quote from Ironside I can only assume you thought it especially meaningful or significant. I just don't see your point though. What does a young girl giggling and chattering in church prove? That she wasn't sufficiently contrite and trembling on that particular night to satisfy you or Ironside? If that's the case then ALL of us are condemned aren't we? Neither you, me, Ironside, MacArthur or anyone else is sufficiently contrite if that is your standard. We are only deluding ourselves if any of us think we are sufficiently contrite even AFTER we are saved."

Gary, if you had read the link you would have seen that Ironside made it clear that our contrite-ness has nothing to do with our meriting salvation. It is merely an indicator, an indicator of the work of the Spirit inside. Secondly, and the reason I pulled this quote from Ironside, is because it was most fitting considering the recent comments at Antonio's blog. My main focus was on the "worker" who thought that the young girl had "found peace tonight". That was Ironside's point. Ironside called the "worker" "most unwise". Note Ironside's thoughts here - "Elated, the young worker hurried to the evangelist with the information that the young woman had “found peace tonight.” “Peace!” exclaimed the preacher. “Did she ever find trouble?” It was a good question. Far too many are talked into a false peace by ill-instructed persons who would not know what David meant when he exclaimed, “The pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow” (Ps. 116:3). It is the troubled soul who comes to Christ for rest." - Ironside's point was that where there is no conviction of sin there can be no salvation. If you had been reading all of these links you would have seen his flow of thought. Also, I like how you threw in that "AFTER we are saved" thingy. Nice twist. Ironside's point is that he didn't see any signs of salvation here. This is where you and I come to the table with different assumptions. I say there WILL be evidence of conviction resulting in one calling upon God for salvation resulting in evidence that one is saved, while you say that that is not necessarily so.

"So why don't you just be an Arminian or a Roman Catholic?"

I was raised Roman Catholic and saved in an Arminian church. After a while neither of their doctrinal positions and arguments could persuade me.

"Non-Arminians are just an extremely small segment of Christendom."

Yes, but the Calvinists numbers are growing. Note the Southern Baptists. The Arminian faction has all it can do to quell the growth of Calvinism. The Calvary Chapel Movement is constantly having to deal with numbers of its pastors and faculty discovering the DoG.

"I also find it interesting that I've never read about or encountered a single Arminian who doesn't agree with the Lordship Salvation position on the "gospel". Or the LS understanding of James and 1 John for that matter. All Arminians have a LS understanding of the gospel."

And that is where the Arminians have it right. Kudo's for them there.

"It it largely because of their misunderstanding of James and 1 Jn ( which you share) that they believe in a faith plus works salvation."

Not "faith plus works". Nice GES twist. It is faith that results in works. Works are a fruit of saving faith. The GES is into novelty here.
End of part 1

May 28, 2009 8:21 AM

 
Blogger mark pierson said...

part 2

"So since they make up almost all of Christendom and believe in LS, why don't you just join them if the majority is right?"
----------
Funny. You just said I am minority. Now you say I like majority. Hmmm. Actually I prefer to follow the Bible, period.
--------------
"Actually, I don't have a problem being in the minority because Jesus and His disciples, as well as the early church, were just a minority "sect" too. Actually, if the GES understanding of the Gospel is correct, there could be many born again believers scattered across all denominational lines but who are now in churches that are not teaching them sound doctrine."
-----------
The GES does not teach sound doctrine. It is based on a few verses alone from John alone. Meanwhile the LS position is based on the whole Bible.
---------------------
"The GES gospel is not new Mark."
-------------
Yes it is. It did not exist prior to Zane Hodges. I'm just sorry for those caught up into being slaves to his theology. And slaves you are, too.
------------
"It is the same one found in the Gospel of John."
---------------
No. It is manufactured only by isolating a few verses from that Gospel and building an unscriptural system around them.
-----------
"Since the Gospel of John is the ONLY book in scripture written for the primary purpose of telling us how to be born again and have eternal life (Jn. 20:31),"
------------
Wrong. It is one of 66 books in the Bible. John's purpose statement was not meant by him for anybody to draw the GES conclusions from it. Before Chafer/ Hodges that notion was not evident, not the plain reading of it.
----------
"I know I'm on the firm ground of apostolic teaching when it comes to the Gospel."
------------
No you're not. Paul preached repentance as did John the Baptist and Jesus before him.
----------------
"The simplicity of how to be born again and pass from death to life is there for all to see, and it's been there for 2000 yrs."
-----------
Yes, and the L/S Calvinists are the ones who are careful to present that truth.
-------------
" The majority of Christendom doesn't see the unique and special place of John' gospel though,"
---------------
John's gospel is not unique in the way the GES sees it. It does not stand alone. It is one of 66 books.
----------------
" and so they are confused, try to piece together the "gospel" from scripture intended mainly for people who were already born again, believe in some form of works salvation, and accordingly lack assurance of their eternal destiny."
----------
Moor GES drivel. The synoptics were written as gosples too. In fact they introduced a whole different genre into literature. A "gospel" was never acknowledged or seen before them.

To be clear Jesus died for sins and rose again that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name.

May 28, 2009 8:24 AM

 
Blogger jazzycat said...

Gary and Mark,
Mark, this was a good series and your comments were well taken. Gary, if I might add my two cents worth, it seems you have staked out solid positions that just do not jive with Scripture.

For example:
1) You said….. "Since the Gospel of John is the ONLY book in scripture written for the primary purpose of telling us how to be born again and have eternal life (Jn. 20:31),"

John 20:31 does not make the claim that John is the only book in Scripture to tell how one may have eternal life. It is a good thing it doesn’t since many other books of the Bible also clearly explain the gospel such as Romans 3. Scripture also clearly explains that being born again is not a human activity that is controlled by human decision. It is divine act applied by God.

2)You said…. "I know I'm on the firm ground of apostolic teaching when it comes to the Gospel."

I am afraid you are not on solid ground when you deny that sanctification and discipleship always flow from saving faith unless providentially hindered [death bed conversion, etc.]. The following passages establish this fact: 2 Cor. 5:17, Rom. 8:14, John 10:3, Eph. 2:10, 2 Thess. 2:13, Titus 1:16, James 2:14-26, Romans 8:1-8.

To believe these passages does not deny justification by faith alone; however, to deny and marginalize them is to reject the power of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and His indwelling ministry of sanctifying believers. Such a belief would mean that the prayer of Jesus that believers would be sanctified would have to go unanswered.

No matter how many times GES shouts from the roof tops that it is works salvation to assert that sanctification will flow from regenerated believers, this view does no harm to the principle of justification by faith alone in Scripture, because Scripture gives the same report!

wayne

May 28, 2009 10:54 AM

 
Blogger goe said...

Good morning guys,

It was not my intention to get into yet another futile "debate" with anyone--especially two on one. I've already explained that to Mark previously. I already see so many distortions, misrepresentations and caricatures of what the GES teaches that I simply don't have the time to cover that much ground in a blog. I wish we could discuss it in person because that is the only efficient way to make any progress, if any progress were possible.

I will just say this however, to assert that the Gospel of John is not uniquely evangelistic in purpose and can not stand alone for that purpose is to assert that John failed in his expressly stated purpose for writing that gospel. That is an absurd and indefensible position.

And yes Mark, I do agree that the Christian "worker" in Ironside's story was misguided and had a superficial view of what it means to believe Jn. 3:16. I already indicated that in my previous comment.

Hope you both have a great day and God bless.

May 28, 2009 12:00 PM

 
Blogger mark pierson said...

"I will just say this however, to assert that the Gospel of John is not uniquely evangelistic..."
----------
I hand out Gospel's of John ocassionally for evagelistic purposes. its message is clear and concise...but no different than the others beyond that. I do not isolate just a few verses alone from it. It is to be read in its entirety, for the purpose of getting to know Christ, in Whom is life.
------
"... in purpose and can not stand alone for that purpose"
------
I did not say that it cannot stand alone. It is part of a whole, yes. But its message can stand alone because it contains the message of the whole. Please don't twist what I say.
-------------
"is to assert that John failed in his expressly stated purpose for writing that gospel. That is an absurd and indefensible position."
-----------
Wow. This is how you people think that have won arguments versus L/S Calvinists. Antonio and Alvin and Gary McNees do this too. You come at this without ackowledging you're coming to the table with different assumptions, all of which force you to have to refashion your opponent's arguments (read:build a strawman) so that you can make your position more believable. Nice going, Gary.

May 28, 2009 12:21 PM

 
Blogger mark pierson said...

The Gospel of John is quite loaded with discipleship passages as well. So evangelism is not the only thing on John's mind. In fact he taught that the call to salvation, and the call to disciplship is all one. See John 8:30-32.

May 28, 2009 12:26 PM

 
Blogger goe said...

No Mark, Jesus actually makes a distinction between "believing in Him" and discipleship in Jn. 8:30-32. In John's gospel "believing in Him" ALWAYS means genuine saving faith. There are no exceptions to this EVER in John's gospel! If these people had not "truly" believed then John (and the HS) would not have said they DID believe in Him. The people who were opposing Jesus in v 33-59 were not the same people in the crowd that believed in Him in vv 30,31. Those who believed in Him in vv 30,31 were born again and had eternal life, yet Jesus told them to "abide in His Word" in discipleship. Discipleship is NOT a condition for receiving eternal life and this passage proves it.

We've already covered this passage more than once and your LS and Tulip is blinding you to its plain meaning.

I hope you see it one day.

Peace

May 28, 2009 6:11 PM

 
Blogger mark pierson said...

Gary,
Pay close attention to the wording in John 8:31 and 32 for they pose a dilema for your position:

Firstly there is the word "indeed". Why is it there? See verse 30 "as He spoke these words". Abiding in His word going forward from verse 31 and 32 is LINKED to those words believed in verse 30.Because abiding in His word is the RESULT of true faith; not a condition for salvation as your novel system claims we say.

Secondly, look at verse 32 "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". Free from what? Verses 34-36 provide the answer: freedom from slavery to sin. So my position sees salvation as including freedom from the slavery to sin. Also a look further on in that chapter we see Jesus saying that the true children of Abraham you would do the "works" of Abraham. Works? Yup, a life of obedience,; imperfect obedience, yes, but obedience marks the life of those who are children of Abraham - and those who abide in Christ's word.

To be clear, the L/S position DOES NOT say that discipleship is a "condition" for receiving eternal life as you erroneously claim we do. No. Discipleship is the RESULT of having received eternal life. Again, see verse 8:31-32. Are you saying that a saved one can go WITHOUT knowing the truth and being made free? I can't see how anybody would swallow something like that. You see the L/S position views salvation as ALL of God, and a very complete work at that.

May 29, 2009 7:18 AM

 
Blogger jazzycat said...

Gary,
Following up on Mark’s point by looking at Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work. We learn from this passage that one can profess or claim to have faith, but in fact be a hypocrit. This same point is driven home in the parable of the four soils, James 2:14-26, Mt. 7:21-23, and many other passages. The fact is that Scripture reveals that a believer and a disciple of Christ or one and the same. We agree that belief is the key that saves the soul of sinners, but that does not mean a person is so unchanged that discipleship may or may not follow. No, John and all these passages are making the point that discipleship flows from genuine faith. Therefore, It is a warning that true believers are those who abide in him.

May 29, 2009 9:35 AM

 
Blogger jazzycat said...

ABOUT REPENTANCE......What did Peter tell those who asked him at Pentecost, “What shall we do?” He said, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I ask you, was that an evangelical setting? What does repent mean? Did Peter offer two plans of receiving eternal life one which was believe and go on your merry way unchanged and another where you repent from your merry way and believe? Are we to believe the gift of the indwelling Spirit could result in total failure?

Gary, you and others seem to want to make references to Calvin, TULIP, MacArthur, etc. when debating us. HOWEVER, please make note that Mark and I debate from Scripture only and we use all of Scripture. When you used the term manipulative preachers earlier, would this include Hodges and Wilkin?

Also, believing in Him does not always mean genuine saving faith as James makes clear when he refers to the demons believing.

May 29, 2009 9:38 AM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home