Hi Philip,I am glad that you clarified. We simply disagree then. Jesus said.........Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen. The doctrine of Jesus............brother Frank
Very confusing. One could think that according to the remnant doctrine only a few of the professing church are truly saved and the rest are lost.Where is God's grace in any of this?
Hi Rev,Thats why Tozer calls it a "terrible," doctrine. Terrible because the reality is so fearful. Ravenhill is quoted as saying that he believed that only 2% of professing Christians in America were truly saved. When you consider that almost 90% of America claims to be Christian and 100 million claim to be born again, if true what Tozer and Ravenhill claim, its truly shocking. Wilberforce makes a similiar claim in "Real Christianity.' He wrote that if the present state of affairs continued in Britain (1800) then Britain would become a post Christian world. C.S.Lewis writes about the same subject in "Mere Christianity," and said that the term "Christianity,' was rendered meaningless. He used the analogy of the word "Gentleman. In the 1700s in Britain, the term "Gentleman," was only used by those who owned land. As the decades went on, more and more men started calling themselves "Gentlemen," whether they owned land at all. Eventually, that vast majority of "Gentlemen," were not landowners at all, thus rendering the true origin of the word meaningless...........brother Frank
I agree with the thought behind the article, but I think the title is confusing. What Tozers really talking about is the doctrine of original sin or the depravity of man. The terrible thing that we human beings do not like to hear is the fact that we are born enemies of God. We are born cut off from God, slaves to sin, and children of the devil. If Tozer was talking to those he felt were merely "professors" and not actually born again, then he would have done better to simply preach the Gospel again starting with the fallen and terrible state of all men, just like Paul does in Romans. While I do agree there is a remnant theme within scripture, like any other theme in scripture, it should be taught within the context of the Gospel with Christ as its object. I am not sure Tozer does that here; thus, the confusion.
Hi Mahoney, I can tell you that he is definately not talking about original sin."The terrible thing that we human beings do not like to hear is the fact that we are born enemies of God. We are born cut off from God, slaves to sin, and children of the devil. "I agree with that Mahoney, but that is another subject. Re-read the article and you will see that he is not talking about original sin, and neither was Ravenhill when he guessed the number of genuinly born-again as opposed to mere professors. In the article, Tozer talks about the mutitude " spewing,' out of church, but, he says " follow them home or follow them half a block," and see how they live...........brother Frank
You're right, He is not talking about original sin, but he would have done better if he did. My point is, the real terrible doctrine in the bible is not the teaching about the remnant, it is the doctrine that we are born guilty in Adam, lost, without God, slaves to sin, dead in our sin, enemies of God, rebels, God-haters, and unless God saves us we will remain as such and go to Hell for eternity. I am not sure why we have to make a distinction between those who are saved and those who are not within the visible church, as though that is what will cause men to really act like Christians. No one really knows who is saved and who is not. We cannot know the hearts of men. On what basis did Ravenhill claim that only 2% of professing Christians are truly born-again? Did he have some secret knowledge? If you follow me home some days when my 5 kids are all acting up, I did not get much sleep, and had a bad day at work, you might question whether of not I'm one of the 2%. Would Ravenhill or Tozer condemn me? The point Lewis was making in his "gentleman" illustration is that when someone used to use that word, they were simply stating a fact.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognizable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A.
When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.)
They believed just what Samson believed when he went to sleep in the lap of Delilah. He believed that he was well set for life and that he had some experience in religion, and therefore there was nothing to worry about. But when he awoke, he found out that he had been captured, and his eyes were soon put out, and he was grinding, at the mill and they were making sport of him in the name of a false god. He took himself for granted, which always is a bad and dangerous thing to do.
Ravenhill is quoted as saying that he believed that only 2% of professing Christians in America were truly saved.
yes. amen. in Jesus Love, make it so. amen.
by KingJimmy on 2010/9/22 12:56:48 The Church is the remnant ~ Paul Washer