SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : The Perversion of the Sovereignty of God by Britt Williams

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
JoanM
Member



Joined: 2008/4/7
Posts: 797


 Re: John 8

Thank you Giggles for your Simian-Wesley reported conversation. By checking your source (the link you gave), I found a useful conversation there after the article. One comment included:[i]Surely we can agree that our salvation is the working of God through Christ by the Spirit through faith from first to last, but we surely differ on whom that offer is given to, and various aspects of the heart of the God who gives it.[/i]

I noticed recently in John 8: 30-31, that Jews that believed on Jesus when He spoke specific words, quickly picked up stones to kill Him (John 8:59). I cannot tell if it was just His prophecy that led to their believing or also words He spoke prior to that. Setting aside[u] many[/u] deep truths in this chapter, their immediate sticking-point was over the issue of their freedom (John 8: 32-33). My [u]only[/u] point here being that it is easier for believers, perhaps even disciples, to agree about who Jesus/God is than it is to agree about who man is [even for those as mature as the men mentioned in this thread].

This may be just an interesting parallel from before He was lifted up. I truly hope that God will use all this in my conversation in Sunday school with the two precious disciples I spoke of. Have I mentioned how little I care for what is called “debate.”

 2010/1/25 22:27Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

It is interesting to me that the word "sovereignty" absolutely implies freedom without any constraints, or autonomy.

But it seems that this gets overlooked when we come to our God?

What I mean is that this is a COMPLETELY black and white issue: either God is sovereign(meaning no one and nothing can overthrow His plans or work) or He is not.

Just simply based on the meaning of the word "sovereignty" we can see that [i]if[/i] there is anything that hinders God, He is not sovereign.

I really don't care to debate about this, and I find it personally appalling that anyone can for a minute doubt the sovereignty of God in their salvation or the salvation of others. I don't at all mean that as if I am saying, "I am right and you are wrong!" but instead, "this is GOD we are talking about here!"

Please, if God is not sovereign absolutely then He would be a fool and a liar to say that He makes ALL things work together for good for those who love Him!

I will now go back into my cave ;-)


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2010/1/25 22:36Profile
savannah
Member



Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 2042


 Re: In defense of brother Augustus


Wayneman, retract your lie about one of the members of the family of God. A member of Christ's body, even His bride.

"...the Elect were not only chosen for eternal salvation, but elected to live a life of idol luxury while the damned were foreordained to draw water, hew wood and serve as chamber maids for the Elect. The upper class was the Elect; the poor were the children of wrath, and poverty was part of the punishment for their sins. This may sound like hyperbole, but it is not. This is what churchmen like Augustus Toplady actually taught."

May we all hear brother Augustus speak for himself now;

"Certainly, election is the act, not of man, but of God: founded, merely, upon the sovereign and gracious pleasure of His own will. It is "not of works lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:9); but solely of Him, Who has said, "I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Romans 9:15). God merits of us, not we of Him: and it was His free-will, not ours, which drew the impassable line between the elect and the pretermitted...

Say not; "Upon this plan, sanctification is kicked out of doors, and good works are turned adrift." Nothing can be more palpable and flagrantly untrue. Newness of heart and of life is so essential to, and constitutes so vast a part of, the evangelical scheme of salvation, that were it possible for holiness and its moral fruits to be really struck out of the account, the chain would, at once, dissolve, and the whole fabric become an house of sand.

With regard to sanctification and obedience, truly so called; it can only flow, and cannot but flow, from a new heart: which new heart is of God's own making, and of God's own giving:

I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh [a soft, repenting, believing heart] and I will cause ye to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgments and do them (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Now, God accomplishes this promise, by the effectual working of His blessed Spirit: by the mystic fire of Whose agency having melted our hearts into penitential faith, He then applies to them the seal of His own holiness; from which time, we begin to bear the image and superscription of God upon our tempers, words, and actions.

This is our "licentious" doctrine: namely, a doctrine which (under the influence of the Holy Ghost) conforms the soul, more and more, to God: carefully referring, at the same time, all the praise of this active and passive conformity, to God Himself, Whose gift it is; singing, with the saints of old, "Thou, Lord, hast wrought all our [good] works in us" (Isaiah 26:12); and for all the works so wrought, for the will to please Thee, for the endeavour to please Thee, for the ability to please Thee, and for every act whereby we do please Thee- "Not unto us, 0 Lord, not unto us, but to Thy Name, give glory."

And indeed, was not this the truth of the case, i.e. if conversion and sanctification and good works were not God's gifts and of His operation; men would have, not only somewhat, but much, even, very much, to boast offer they would be their own converters, sanctifiers, and saviours. Directly contrary to the plain letter of Scripture, which asks; "Who maketh thee to differ from others, and what hast thou which thou didst not receive?" (I Corinthians 4:7)- i.e. from above. Nor less contrary to the scriptural direction; "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (I Corinthians 1:31).

But, for the present, leaving Pharisees and legalists to the hands of Him Who alone is able, and has a right, to save or to destroy; let me address myself to the true believer in Christ. You were called, it may be, ten or twenty years ago, or longer, to the knowledge of God; and you still are found, dwelling under the droppings of the sanctuary, and walking in Him your Lord; sometimes faint, yet always wishing to pursue; tossed, but not lost, occasionally cast down, but not destroyed. How comes all this? How is it, that many flaming professors, who blazed out, for a while, like luminaries of the first lustre, are quenched, extinguished, vanished; while your smoking flax, and feeble spark of grace, continue to survive, and sometimes afford both light and heat? While more than a few, who, perhaps, once seemed to be rooted as rocks, and stable as pillars in the house of God, are become as water that runneth apace; Why are you standing, though in yourself, as weak, if not weaker than they9 A child of God can soon answer this question. And he will answer it thus: "Having obtained help of God, I continue to this day" (Acts 26:22). Not by my own might and power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts (see Zechariah 4:6).

And He, that kept you until this day, will keep you all your days. His Spirit which He freely gives to His people, is a well of water, springing up, not for a year, not for a lifetime, only; but "into everlasting life" (John 4:14). God's faithfulness to you is the source of your faithfulness to Him. Christ prays for you: and therefore He keeps you watching unto prayer. He preserves you from falling; or, when fallen, He restores your soul, and leads you forth again in the path of righteousness, for His Name's sake. He had decreed, and covenanted, and promised, and sworn, to give you a crown of life; and, in order to that, He has no less solemnly engaged and irrevocably bound Himself, to make you faithful unto death.

"Well, then," says an Arminian, "if these things are so, I am safe at all events. I may fold up my arms, and even lay me down to sleep. Or, if I choose to rise and be active, I may live just as I list." Satan was the coiner of this reasoning: and he offered it, as current and sterling, to the Messiah, but Christ rejected it as false money. "If Thou be the Son of God," said the enemy; "if Thou be indeed that Messiah Whom God upholds, and His elect, in Whom His soul delighteth; cast Thyself headlong; it is impossible Thou shouldest perish, do what Thou wilt: no fall can hurt Thee; and Thy Father has absolutely promised that His angels shall keep Thee in all Thy ways; jump, therefore, boldly, from the battlements, and fear no evil."

The devil's argumentation was equally insolent, and absurd, in every point of view. He reasoned, not like a serpent in his wits, but like a serpent whose head was bruised (see Genesis 3:15), and who had no more of understanding than of modesty. Christ silenced this battery of straw, with a single sentence: "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matthew 4:7). So said the Messiah. And so say we. And this is answer enough, to a cavil, whose palpable irrationality would cut its own throat, without the help of any answer at all."

Verily there has been/is a 'per-version of the Sovereignty of God'. This very article and this very author of the same is proof enough that such is true even today 2010.

The Genesis of such may be found in Cain, and his progeny are still among us.

"And He said, "He that has ears to hear, let him hear!"
But when He was by himself, those around Him together with the twelve asked Him about the parable. And He said to them, "Unto you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come to be spoken in parables,so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.'" (Mark 4:9-12)

 2010/1/25 23:20Profile
wayneman
Member



Joined: 2009/1/24
Posts: 454
Michigan

 Re:

I should have inserted a paragraph break to clarify that Toplady ascribed to elitist Calvinist social policy, and not necessarily "all of the above."

Better yet, I should go back and edit out Toplady's name and pretend I don't know what you're talking about.

Even better yet, I should have my head examined for jumping into a Calvinism versus Arminianism debate when I don't give a flip about either.


_________________
Wayne Kraus

 2010/1/26 0:04Profile
HeartSong
Member



Joined: 2006/9/13
Posts: 3156


 Re:

Red blood cells and white blood cells are, in essence, completely different. While both are necessary for the body's proper functioning, they each have singular roles. Red blood cells carry oxygen, while white cells do not, for example. Red blood cells in humans do not have nuclei, while white cells do.

Red blood cells, also called erythrocytes, are responsible for the characteristic color of our blood. They are responsible for picking up carbon dioxide from our blood and for transporting oxygen. The essential component of red blood cells is hemoglobin, which can hold oxygen so the cells can then transport around the body. This process is what gives the body energy, which explains why people who suffer from anemia — low count red blood cells — often feel tired and sleepy. A high count of red blood cells is rare, but it can happen. Causes include kidney disease, dehydration, anabolic steroid use, and pulmonary fibrosis. People suffering from a high count of red blood cells usually have impaired circulation, and are at a high risk for heart disease.

White blood cells or leukocytes, on the other hand, are primarily responsible for fighting foreign organisms that enter the body. This includes everything from bacterial and parasitic infections to allergic response. T-cells, a form of white blood cells, are the ones that stop functioning properly in the presence of an HIV infection. An overproduction of white blood cells can lead to leukemia. On the other hand, certain medications, such as Clozapine®, used in psychiatry, can reduce the number of white cells significantly.

There are approximately 5 million red blood cells in every cubic millimeter of blood; there are only 3,000 - 7,000 white blood cells in the same amount of blood. Red blood cells have an average lifespan of 120 days, while white cells live a maximum of four days.

Red blood cells have a circular shape that resembles a shallow bowl, but they can change shape without breaking to squeeze through smaller spaces if necessary. White blood cells have different shapes, depending on their function. While they can multiply easily, they don't change shape.


[url=http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-red-and-white-blood-cells.htm]Source[/url]

 2010/1/26 0:32Profile
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3407
This world is not my home anymore.

 Re: red vs white;

Quote:
Red blood cells and white blood cells are, in essence, completely different. While both are necessary for the body's proper functioning, they each have singular roles.


Yeah, and I bet they don't try to kill each other!

I checked and when they do attack is when there is disease in the body. Hmmm.

PS: I love your analogy!


_________________
Lisa

 2010/1/26 4:28Profile









 Re:

"Please tell me that you did NOT just call Greg thoughtless?" Lysa

Hi Lysa. My implication for the word was 'without careful consideration and thought'. I may have used the wrong word there but my point was if the moderators are going to admonish others for posting issues that would cause discord, why would they themselves do it? There has been several admonishments and thread closures because of the Calvanist/Armenian debates and we were told NOT to post such things but refer to the link that posts the past debates for review. So why the need? I don't get the inconsistency in what is said versus what is done. Greg then said it was not for 'arguments' sake... debate/argument .. we can split hairs there. Again, that may have been his intention but that's not been the historical reality of these types of threads... otherwise they wouldn't have to refer people who start such threads to a link for historical review, and this being done in an attempt not to keep rehashing the same old debates over and over... just like this one. He may have stated why he put the thread in but given the thread closures in the past and the link for review I wondered why it was necessary.

I'm NOT a Calvanist (not sure if your implication was that I was one, I've never given that impression), never have been, and I am not united with any of this... nor am I 'Armenian'. I simply read the Bible and glean what I glean in the revelation God gives me. I don't attempt to presume to know 'truth' in this area and take seriously the historical discord it has produced. I think quarreling over these things is useless.... if it were profitable then the historical review would have the peace of Christ in it with some kind of amicable conclusion. This is why I posted the last part of my post.

"Pure and simple, but look what all the calvinists read into it!! If that doesn't say something gigantic, I don't know what does. It takes one to know one because I used to be the first one to get skruffy with pre and post trib "discussions"!!!" Lysa

I couldn't agree more Lysa, see the last part of my post.

Greg, please don't take offense at my 'thoughtless' use of language. I think that word actually describes my use of it better:)




 2010/1/26 7:28
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

Lysa,

Again, I appreciate your sentiment regarding "rest stops". However, if you find the historical doctrines of Calvinistic thinking to be false, then they should be able to be shown false by Bible exposition and exegesis.

Our God is not the vague, confusing god of the pagans. His Word is clear, and can be understood. The Apostles wrote much regarding election, and it is our responsibility to know what the Spirit was speaking through them. This is done through studying the issue closely and carefully. It is no sign of spirituality to ignore it or to gloss over it. In fact, it would be a disrespect to our Lord.

The Scriptures state that the Lord is going to [b]cause[/b] us to walk in His statutes (Ezek. 36:26-27). That's a powerful God. He is breaking down the strongholds of our stony hearts and giving us new desires. Christ has sheep He came to save, and He calls them sheep before they even believe (see John 10), meaning He has a people to save and they [b]will[/b] be saved. Christ [b]will[/b] receive the reward of his sufferings. The teachings of man's complete inability to choose God without divine regeneration and of God's free and sovereign grace are woven throughout the Scriptures. God renews our wills. Every decision is free, however, because of our depravity, we will never freely choose God unless He enables us (see John 6). Once he renews us, we freely choose Him with open arms. Oh, the glorious grace of God! If these understandings of Scriptures are wrong, then let it be proved by sound Bible exposition.

With care in Christ...


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2010/1/26 9:19Profile









 Re:

"Our God is not the vague, confusing god of the pagans. His Word is clear, and can be understood." Taylor


Hi Taylor. So are you saying that you understand all the mysteries of the Bible?? The Apostles and prophets also wrote much about the end times but do you understand that perfectly?? Do you know exactly who the Nicolaitans are in Revelation?? Do you know perfectly the book of Daniel? Do you understand all the symbolism given in the book of revelation and what that means for mankind perfectly?? Without being confounded or even in curious wonderment?? If you say yes then you qualify for your own website to give sound Bible exposition on all of it... which would greatly help all those who fail to use scripture as the basis for their theology. On the other hand if you do not understand perfectly (as in clarity.. without any vagueness in the original distibution or in careful interpretation) these things, even in careful exposition and exegesis, then do you feel that it is a Bible of a 'vague confusing god' of the pagans??

Perhaps the Bible CAN be understood clearly but that doesn't mean that it is.

 2010/1/26 10:30
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

ccrider,

I didn't claim to. But, the point remains, the book of Daniel [b]can[/b] be understood if I devote the time to study it, with the help of the Spirit of God.

In the same way, election can be understood. But, to gloss over it or give superficial reasons to ignore it is ungodly.

With care in Christ...


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2010/1/26 12:20Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy