All over the lovely, wonderful, beautiful and complete destitution for the supply of needs of the richest Italian Christ Jesus. We bless thy great name. We bless the people of Jesus, who came here to the world to say it's a simple thing, that his grace is sufficient for us, and he's like the perfect of Jesus. Nor for the glory of thy name to him, as the one mediator between God and man, the man corrects Jesus.
What is the good news? He knows us, he's a Christ, not the Christ, not the Christ, not the Christ. He owns you, yet he is. He owns you, yet he is. He owns you, yet he is. But then the satisfaction, no, no. Now, at least not here. If you will, at least, you can probably rock and pour. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Where did New York, oh, it wasn't New York, New York. New York, New York.
Where did that, I suppose, you would have heard it the answer, and it was the last straw. I don't hear very much of Trinity I guess for questions, especially. That maybe my fault was still, as soon as I stand, it's all because the structures I think they already did. We have the color so much grown, I just get bored of these head, and I'm always keeping mine that doesn't let go of covering all the new signs. We have to have that thread. It's just a point to ask some questions. I don't say I can answer. I think you've also been trying today to discuss the question of saving, and I don't know the answer in the question, please be careful in the question. The question is, you know, this discussion of saving, you think it's a safe statement to make that true repentance is impossible without an adequate understanding of what's being written on the recording. What you mean by attitude creeps? That word attitude creeps is a very ambiguous term in our English usage, and sometimes it means a very subtle understanding of the nature and consequences of things that might mean just the trial of what you call a basic coming true with the knowledge of the nature and consequences of things. Or if you see there's a certain argument you would be about that was adequate. If you mean it in the sense of sufficient, yes, I would exceed your proposition to mean by adequate with sufficient. You see, we must always remember that all the conditions of saving is absolutely indispensable to the repentance, because repentance is basically turning from sin and to God, and there cannot be a turning from sin and to God unless there is a conviction of the sin and evil of sin. There must be some conviction, and it must be a true conviction, not the type of conviction, which is something which a natural man may have, which a man who is still in a political state may have, but a conviction that is consonant with the Evangelical type of repentance, and if he is to have that conviction, it must be there for a true conviction, consonant with the nature of sin and with the consequences at all, but we may never dogmify him as to the depth of that conviction. See, faith itself may be a grain of muscle state, and in some the conviction isn't what you might call a very overpowering conviction. It serves just for us, maybe what we would call a very germal conviction, but sufficient to be a true conviction, and therefore constant with the nature of the Evangelical repentance. And we must always be aware of plain doubt standards as to the degree near conviction, or as to the degree of faith, in some cases these things are very, very germal, very germative, but nevertheless they argue to the work of the Spirit of God, and this fly, these convictions are germal, but they supply sufficient conviction to make faith meaningful, and say it comes into that conviction, which is basically essentially a germal, a true conviction, that of course will result in some control when they are converted, have what you might call a very overpowering, a very inadequate if I may use the word in a sense or lack of service, but there is inadequate conviction, very inadequate, in that sense of being in a thorough way of development, very inadequate, and it is only afterwards that realization of the aimlessness of sin and of its bitter consequence expression in there, and sometimes you find that to be the very true, but there is faith in that religious and Christian experience, very often you find that people who have begun not a very Christian course with what you might call a rather superficial existence, later on there is a very, very marked sense of the aim, often what is there and sometimes with people whose Christian life has begun with a very intense, very, very intense conviction, may not later on be characterized by the same degree of conviction, respecting the aimlessness and the aimlessness as the person who began on a very different level. So you have to make allowance, all sorts of the right Christian experience, and you have to make allowance, and it is not proper for us to squire, the minimum of the maximum conviction in these matters, not at all. There was a burn, for example, in my home parish in Scotland, the way back in 1969, 1965, I was in the very old man of the age of 90, so I never saw him. He was a very good man, very good man, and a very evil man, also he couldn't read one word at the Bible, he knew the Bible almost by heart, I hear in his way, but he couldn't read one word at the shop, he never had any indication, but he was a native Indian, in that respect. Well, he was a man of 30 before he had been awakened in the sense of his own native Indian, but by being a little bit, he was deeply convicted of sin for the whole year and a half. He was enthroned. He did not come to the light of the gospel, because simply conviction of sin, he was still a natural man, but he had a different name of all the own conviction of sin, and he was here in a half before he believed by the light of the gospel, and the only comfort he ever had during that whole year and a half was when he would go to the early morning and hear the birds sing on the tree, which was the same. That's what you see there is next to him. That's the most striking instance I ever heard of. For the land being for such a long period of time, hence, conviction of sin, and that our view is of impending belief by the light of the gospel later on and became very unsafe. Now, I'm not saying that in his case at all, the conviction of sin later on, in which we generally state, was not also very acute. So what I think, but in any case, what I am saying is that we never believe that the subsequent course of the subsequent course was the believer's life by the beginning. That was a good question. Very well. And the only thing that I would like to add to that is the reason I asked it. So I think it's the problem because time again, it's a pastor, and it's always very easy to express sin through what is really unique, to make it apparent to the people, and so on, and this is all sort of what I've had in mind. All well known as a difficult question. But just to be able to live with this, that's to be maximum, not going to fall down and to be able to enjoy the contemplation of the heinousness, the guilt, and the evil consequence of sin, to the measure of what may be a person's consciousness, that's never to be open, but it's the word of God. Now, we have to make allowance for the fact that our contemplation of the heinousness, the guilt, and the evil of sin, may be reflected in the consciousness of a truly penitent person, only to the very limited extent, but it isn't that limited, it's the extent that is to be the gauge of our preaching, but we have to reach to the standard that God has given us, it's the word. And our preaching must always be maximum, through that conviction and through believer may be what we call, as it were a deliverance, a conviction may be measured, it's not because our preaching should ever be found, it's all always teaching the spiritual perspective, the heinousness of sin, the spectrum of the guilt, the spectrum of sin, the misery, the spectrum of sin. Well, it's true now, so no, you don't have to. You suggested a direction of what is the doctrine that is incompatible with preaching, and the gospel, and then you said your answer is, and it's time to round down, that they are predicated on the fact that there's a total inability to get one of your critical eyes on this. Yes, but the free offer is the gospel, and I think you just form the doctrine of Christ totalism. Well, the reason for my saying that, this is the doctrine of scripture, and therefore it must be predicated, you know what is true? The free offer of the gospel is not predicated, or any other doctrine was taken in virtue, this doctrine of total inability, or so of course of spirituality, and yet so more. Yes, but we'll leave them specifically within ability, and since this is the doctrine of scripture, the free offer of grace in the gospel is predicated on it, and therefore must be compatible with it. That's my point here, and of course you might go a step further that the very nature of the gospel, as a gospel of grace, has no other free supposition.
The very doctrine of grace has no other free supposition than the complete back of the seed man. If you don't pre-report the complete back of the seed man, that is just another way of saying, he's totally impatient. You may offend the fulfillment of grace, because the limit of doctrine is the grace of God from beginning to end. There's no point in that. There's always grace as God is just now in respect to the pre-ordination. What is offered in the gospel is a post-Christ-specific effort, but Christ has to be held. Well, this is another question. Here is the third question. The point is, apparently in Peter's hand, in the original sense, you said with regards to the original sense that we possess the masculine, cool, cool, and clean up of the original sense, and not by an act of voluntary sin in the personal choice, but through solidary exam. Yes, that's also true in Peter's sense. It's not that we don't possess this sin because the voluntary sin is the perfect sort of order. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. The same order is to offer the imputation of the guilt that I've been saying, the imputation of the guilt. Oh, yes. The same order is true. Absolutely. What you see, my point, Mr. Profes, is the point that not that it may make the man that's analysed more subtleties than any before he else, in the evening, developed the point that the innocent, he was born of an Edward, and as far as Jonathan Edward said, walk in the sunshine, but you see, I was making the point, because I was not very many of whom to theologians, late outside of the few nitrogen papers, that I would be involved in original sense, and being involved in original sense, in the present, is an indication of that sense that it's appearing towards. You don't think that, that we become the prey because of our solidarity, or it's putting that in the future, we become the prey because of the indication towards what I was saying, and of course, what you would say is that we collect, that we collect, when you're focusing attention upon the guilt of adjuncting absolutely, you fight for that, that's why, probably, didn't you sufficiently stress that point to the man that's remarked that you have gotten the correct in destroying the relation and thus, in respect with all that, is that anything else? Let's go. We're headed to serve as a friend and will make the point by wondering how what an act with definition of the freedom of man's will is, you say it, that consists of in treating the act and supporting with its nature, we estimate that's the topic we're going to deal with next. That's the next lecture. And this sentence in regard to all the objections to the ability to adapt only to these three rules which are pretty good. I, I, I can purify the everything you've said and in fact, in terms of question, I'll follow up some of that, but the thing that is, you know, is, I believe the objection here is, in terms of adaptability with our being able to alter the obstacle. In other words, talking to you, often you preach a gospel for someone to respond to, when you know that they cannot respond, because I was wondering a very practical point here, how, how you would offer the gospel in terms of the gospel. Yes. Yes. Yes. Oh, that's it. On the contrary, well, in question, this is, very well in question, in terms of, I know, there is me appreciate the difficult thing that some people may have to say. As you say, they might agree with everything that I said, respectively, the compatibility with us. And we, we have preached constantly, conflict, the ethic of, is, oh my God, it's preached to their people, which will be offered the gospel to their people. Now, of course, I'll be dealing with that later on, even if they can see it. They, they will all have a limit. When we come to be the whole subject of faith, but nevertheless, let's remark this is, now, we believe when I was a student a year, some student would ask a question, and I think he was very right in asking this question, Dr. Hudson. Quite cool, you would say, from the roster. I shall answer that question in the second term of the senior year. Well, but how are we going to do it well? There are many aspects to it. But to get to the current of the question, I would say that I can't do anything else. I just can't possibly do anything else. I don't reach the gospel in all its fullness and happiness to man their interests, business and things, because that's what I'm commissioning to do. That's what I'm commissioning to do. And when I'm based on the question, what's the sense of it? I may ask that question, but I may have that question in my own way, what's the sense of it? Well, the answer to that is, just for hands, let us do that. I know that that is the means through which of the big freedom we can be taught in their minds. In their minds we will get just because of them. Just by that very poor pre-proclamation, that he is always free. What can he seriously be taught with men, so to respond? And of course, that is, generally speaking, there are many in the comments in the history of the Christian society. There is a question, he is dead in trespassing. He has some degree of conviction which makes the gospel meaningful. Here he comes to a particular service of whatever it may be, an evangelicalistic service. And Christ is presented to him in all his fullness, in glory and dreams. And his heart is drawn out. I mean, he joins. That's the work of the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit, working in his heart, glorifying Christ. He enables him thus to respond. But I know that it was just in connection with that full free proclamation and overture of Christ, that God, the Holy Spirit, is doing. And that's what gives me a touch whenever I have revered yet. So I may not see any fruit. That's what God has designed. I know that in his own good times, in his own sovereign position, he blessed that full and free overshared the gospel of God. So I have to repeat that every person in the audience is able to get to trespass themselves. But I never know. And the Holy Spirit is going to be able to be hard to come. I never know where that full and free proclamation of the gospel, but he tells him to enter the need of a particular person. I mean the conscious need of a particular person, because that person is at the point of desperation. His inner access to me is open, his consciousness, the fear that comes across the cross-nation of Christ. And the free offer of the gospel is just to this effect that Christ is all over the glory of the person. And all the perfection of his finished work, and all the efficacy of his heavenly hands, which is placed in the very last semi-steaded first person. I never know. And the Holy Spirit told him to make heart of this fifty people, and he would be more into that Christ's play. So that he would receive an embrace from the exercise of faith. That is a good question. Can you see that? How dead is this very dead in connection with death in connection with death in Christ's play? That is a good question. Can you see that? How dead is this? Death in connection with death in Christ's play. That is a good question. Can you see that? How dead is this very dead in connection with death in connection with death natural ability to understand what it takes in connection with the remnant of the use of God's life in connection with death? How dead is that nature that you are dead? Oh, well, this word dead is the name of death. That's the pertinence of death in the answer of death in connection with death. Is there totally an evil to understand the things of the spirit of God? Is there totally an evil to receive them? Is there totally an evil to live to the glory of God in a way that is whatever is easy to them? Is there totally an evil to where the commandments of God? That is what we mean by death in Christ's existence. That that question does not live to God. He does not live in the in the well of God's healing grace. He lives in the entire universe as well. But your question is a very low question. But again, in the sense of self-humanity, something that we developed a very considerable length in senior years in connection with the physical faith. This has to do with physical faith. In the reign of Bethlehem's book on three estimates, you hear this question of original faith in the death of the answer. These things include all people who are sure and glad for the rich and Asian account building. Are in God's life very poor? No one really goes to hell because of living faith and reputation. Here are your great myths. Where do we see that have been in position for us? Fire, fire, we form theologians. Where are we? Where are we? Where are we? Where are we? Where are we? Where are we? Where are we? Where are we? Or a human being would invite him that was the içer of his family as we as homeless. He was even more receptive to the massshir in charge of art forms. And that was the number of more of less people's call the things of addiction. And as hell would explain before removing us from the end and supporting us. And what the need for we as homeless's own teleportation, a developed development, led us to notice this probably in the memory of our 된ers. in the history of talk, in the forms of talking, questions, in the forms of talk, that have been a very distinct development. And then we want to talk in these elements, not many things, but all in society, in the space. My invitation to the message that I cannot say, if it is God's good pleasure to say, we have all in the sense dying in an innocent thing, but I don't think this is the human existence of God. I like the things we do when we think this is the human existence. The exact existence of God is the existence we can go for. We have more ways to say it, however we can feel it, we have more ways to say it. The exact existence we die in, that's something, that's something we can feel. We just have to be non-commit. We don't know. We leave unrelieved things to God. We have to adopt for what to catch with these people. I would have to look at what they have to do, what they have to do with it. And I'm walking, of course, and I'm drinking a glass. I'm not drinking any more drinking, especially to some of the people interested in for such as the Community's Lord, of the kingdom of God, including all in some diocese, and that is for that reason, that it has survived by the such as the kingdom of God. And there was some in the field, in the moment by the kingdom, which by the English Ascension, which there seems to be some of the foundations or of an enemy being found the relationship of Christ to mankind, or is it a common Christian or a Christian or a Christian or a Christian or a Christian or a Christian or a Christian or a Christian. But because beyond that I have to remember that it was terrible. Of course, I would have to go back and I have to do these things for quite a long time. And I don't remember, I just have to remember what the text does. But I know that too much in the 1950s. The Matthew 19 and the Mark of Newspaper one of the main issues of this dealt with. I remember the off-handy evidence the AP's who in the edition. I'm going to deal with the concept of age and accountability under first-year authorities. When the age of accountability starts, you mean, well, what's the subject in general? Are you going to include it in any of your lectures to the age of accountability? Oh, I don't like those rules, I'm tempted to remember, there's nothing in this course, there are nine layers in the next year and you'll see, it's what's coming in connection with that system, the, what's coming in connection with that subject, that's the subject, that's the subject, or that's the subject, but I don't any longer like the subject, that's the subject, but the book conduct is, it's what is really going to be, it's a complete time, it's coming in today, but it does come in there, really, there's a new element. But the left one, that's a statement where it's called made from spatula and here's a solid and there's the election and say, was they had in mind there, and the election, the election, the children of the leaders. Oh, you can't tell. You can't tell. You can't tell. What does it have to mine? That is the enemy. There was this non-delict. Of course, this happened. It was meant to define, in accordance with common reforms that he did hold, that the instance of the seed just believing in fairness will die in innocence. It will be saved. There's the great news. There's the adoption of the government. It has to be for more than a common purpose of the reform thinking. It's very easy to see this out. That's the beginning. It's easy just believing in fairness, dying in innocence, saying. But of course, if you ask mine a question on that, if you don't mind. If you want that again, I would have to have a question. That would be the result of the news. What is that? It's why in the evening, in our mission, there's a thing that is just because that the chairman's happened to be protecting the meeting and the memory of the Church that the children of automatically face in the first place, why would I be able to answer the questions? And we can pick. Is that the game? Yes, that's what we meant. Any more questions? So, in the moments that I've seen the Americans move through, we've seen a lot ahead of us. We've seen a one man and a right of one man. So, if the guy was thinned, I'm tied. You can set it. Yes. So, here's the two, one, right of one. And there's one cop. Yes. Two, the right of the one. The right of the one. On to all the men. Yes. And the rest of the 19, the murderers are used to tolerate men. So, since we're on top of everything in the universe, they've seen it on the right. Yes. And it's a lot of things. And it's a lot of things. So, there's a lot of things. Well, also, in the universe, well, it's happened. We've not seen it. And so, you know, in the beginning of the world, well, yes, it's happened in the beginning. Well, that's also the answer. I mean, if you finished it, if you could play a part of it for the first 12, in terms of the first 12, which of course is part of us, it would read, so, by one month, wait until it's entered into the world. And like by itself, and so life passed on to all men in the old way, completely. So, what would have seen things you would have in the very beginning? Well, well, that's the whole question. And you are familiar with the humans. Our minions, our minions, X and D, use our domain, private A, D, and that should be obvious. You know the same thing. It's obvious you don't say, all men can get rid of it. The name gives a universal denotation to the all-indulgent, belongs to the all-indulgent purpose. And of course, if you are familiar with it, well, no. And it likes to mean that if you have to give as broad a denotation to the world's real economy, it has to happen to you. What's the fact that there will be understood in the existence of all of the original things of the guilt of Adam's first sin and the taking away of the humanity which was so pumped out of his first sin? Well, that all of them are genetically followed in the justification which is valid for the country. Now, I think that that is not terrible and that you have to give to the universalistic terms in the hypothesis the restrictive denotation you must because all is not dealing with the remission of the guilt of Adam's first sin in this hypothesis. He's dealing with all-indulgent justification that is not to each other on life. That's the justification is dealing with the missing people, or simply the justification from the guilt of Adam's sin. But all-indulgent justification and you cannot give it a more limited connotation and this happens all the time 18. No, the time. That was kind of realistic of fault. The universalistic expression for me does not use them in the existence of the distribution of the universal. You will go over to Christchurch in 15th century. So, as Adam all died, even so he was right to always be made alive. That was quite a challenge and he demonstrated by the Jesus of that time the quality of the universalistic expression and the life. Not with the resurrection of all men in this domain. That was the resurrection of the demons. With reference to them, we see in this case, both of them in Adam and Adam all died even so that the wrong individual has been expressed in the Christian Union in Versus. That is the Christian Union in Versus in the tropica, Adam all died. We know that, not simply for both Christians in Versus but for some other Christian race. There is a Christian union in Versus in the tropica. The Christian Union in Versus in the tropica has been expressed with 15th century见 the heart. No one was born behind the demons. The thought that Adam was a Christian person is relatively univirtual. Again, the Son of gladiaturistic is not race. If we go to the Athodisi to save the universalist in this demon gang Because all this dealing with happiness, kindness, infinity, justification, has an issue in eternal life. And you can't believe that happiness applies to all distributed lakes, unless you believe in the final destination of all life. So, according to Paul's rule, he dreams, is that he is living in a pathogen. According to Paul's rule, he dreams that his thoughts have changed as the universal legislation of all kind of time. And will be finally lost. That's what it isn't all about. And all will be fine. That's what I mean. Now to the fold. That this is Paul's new canvas in Rome. But I've seen these from there to be just to be patient of all men. It's good to believe. What Paul's being was told is all for them. What is all for them. And not just Paul with the dress for the denotation. All is of the hand. It is the point of the content. And then had him all die even though in crisis all the people are. And then had him all die from the face of the denotation. And then had him to the side.
Oh, and then he came out of his bed. And then for three years and all, two years and a half and a half and a half and a half. Now I was quite satisfied with it. I did it the best time. I did it the best time, three. But then he had all the easy ones. In the world and in the world and in the world and in the world. I still don't believe in books. And I have them all marked up so that I read them very carefully. And a few years later I could see different books than I knew it. And my needs when I go back to find them all marked up with my own pencil. So I must have read them. I don't mind having them in my own country. But it's quite a while. I look in the package book. And when I did read them, I thought it was a slightly tight package back to the tree. After this question. Okay, Dr. Pacto is highly, even quite intelligent. He's a consistent thinking. He's the most incisive thing. And he has a very important piece of art. I support him while reading the book. And that's good. Do you think that is tight with it? That's good. So you can post on this question. When you're reading the book. In fact, he's never been straight. He's got a pretty broad brain dying for you. He's running with his personal followers. He's got a pretty good sense of truth. He's got a lot of stuff. Wherever he is. I have never heard of this way before. And I thought it was just very helpful to me. I was very nervous for this book. It's an eminently proper. I'll be dealing with that like it. There's sometimes do it. It makes you feel safe. It makes you feel safe. It makes you feel safe. But that's the eminently correct. So everybody is reporting to the doctor in the description. And we know that he can't say proper to anyone to take on that individual. Who is still, of course. I'm a conductor. Nice to die for you. He will cling to you with the formula that he's using to the attack in the mouth. The mouth of the other identity. He said that the size of the bleeding is shown in my studies strictly. And which was his followers. You know, by Thomas Austin. The mouth of modern validity was a book published in 1964. So the title is not sleep. There's often not sleep at that time. And that is the commonest. It's darkening. The sexist type. It's mainly the dimple. Especially in Scotland. In the matter of friction, the dog. The author of the dog. But they had a form. Which they used. And that is. They wouldn't say to anyone. That's very funny. But the two things were all in Christ's dead for you. But I'm not a see-through to that. But do you know what I'm looking for in my instrument? That that's never enough. It's a very interesting thing. In terms of volume. I could see you. By the mouth. You know what I mean. In January. Seven things. Seven three. In particular. In the evening.