Commentary on the book of John

Exposition of the Gospel of John by A. W. Pink

.... highly recommend it.

 

Bookmarked!

PBMinistries has some great stuff. I remember spending a lot of time there when I was wading through the pre-trib v post-trib debate a couple years ago. Very helpful.
Though, looking through it now, particularly the theology section, they have a whole lot of articles from VERY different sources. This seems to be a website that promotes the writing of reformers and Puritans... yet they have an article by David Cloud on Music?? Just goes to show you need to be careful on any site you go to.

 

If one wants to study shoddy theology, i.e. Calvinist misinterpretation, then this book might be in your wheelhouse.

However, if one wants to consider what John actually wrote, this is not helpful, except possibly as an example of what John did not write.

A. W. Pink has those that "received Him" already born of God. When a person is born of God, they are born into God's family, thus at birth, they are sons or children of God. So John writes that those who believe are given the right to become, in the future, children or sons of God. But Pink reverses the order and says they became children of God by being born anew before they believed.

Just read it folks, John 1:11-13, and the truth will set you free from the shoddy scholarship of Calvinism.

 

If you could not figure out I was addressing the Exposition of the Gospel of John by A. W. Pink, excuse me indeed.

 

As far as the RC Sproul book, again he rewrites the text of John 1:11-13, by claiming as many as [were made by the Holy Spirit] received Him. Thus, according to RC, they did not really receive Him, no they were made to receive Him by the Holy Spirit administering irresistible grace. Not how the text reads.

 

John presents the inspired truth, that as many as receive Him are then given the right to become children of God, born from above.

We love Him because He first loved us, as demonstrated by Christ dying for us on the cross. Without beholding Him, high and lifted up, we would not be drawn by His lovingkindness toward us. No one can come to Him unless first drawn by the Father, through the call of the gospel.

 

Other than getting faith and regeneration backwards, and claiming Mac, Pink, Sproul and Calvin are "correct," you've got "great points" here. :laugh:

Yes, God is sovereign. But man is also responsible, and that doesn't just mean that he's responsible even though he's incapable. If far more complex than that. Your gentlemen listed there never caught on to that, preferring black and white theology to a whole picture.

 

God is sovereign is Calvinist code for Exhaustive Determinism, God predestines whatsoever comes to pass. But the doctrine is cloaked in double speak, so that at the same time mainline Calvinism can say God is not the author of sin.

Those on the other side of the street simply define God's sovereignty as God either causing or allowing whatsoever comes to pass. Thus God is not the author of sin.

According to the book of John only after believing in His name are we then given the right to become children of God born from above. This would be God allowing us to choose life or death, and crediting our faith as righteousness if we wholeheartedly chose life.

 

Any Calvinists have ears to hear?

 

Jesus taught that our yes should mean yes, and our no should mean no, and therefore we should not engage in profane chatter, as false teachers do, going off the path of righteousness.

If salvation is 100% of God, why not take God's word, which says He gives the right to become children of God after we believe in the name of Christ. Why rob God of the grace of crediting our worthless filthy rag faith as righteousness?

 

That is the traditional calvinistic view on his soveregn ways though van!
That God either determined through direct causes, or theough others to have His plans and purposes, his will to get done!