SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The “whosoever that believeth”

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
learn
Member



Joined: 2008/7/24
Posts: 613


 Re:

I'm very willing to end my participation in this thread heare as its giving me a headache now. Plus I believe that this is as far as what I'm suppose to understand at this stage. I don't feel any urges to explore further currently on this matter. If I go further, I will just have more doubts, less faith and always questioning myself as to my salvation and thus be ineffective.


_________________
geraldine

 2008/8/1 13:12Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1330


 Re:

Just got back and thanks everyone!

Brother learn, I very much see your point and I am in very much agreement with you.

To my strong Calvinist brethren!

Let’s say we all believe from the teachings of the bible that God is Love. He loves all His creation and desires for all of them to repent and believe in the finished work of Christ.
He has predestined all of the elect to be formed to the image of Christ in true holiness before God.

Here are a few more questions.

Do you believe God loves all and has predestined all His elect that He has chosen in Christ to eternal life?

Do you believe that everybody in Hell is only there because they never had an opportunity to be saved because God did not want them to be part of the elect or because they rejected his plan?

Is it possible that many who do not accept Christ will know that they could have been one of the elect if they had not rejected God’s plan of salvation?

Blessings to all!

 2008/8/1 16:12Profile
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

God does the calling and we use our free will to choose to answer.


_________________
Jordan

 2008/8/1 16:31Profile
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4994
Sweden

 Re:






The Sovereignty of God

Who wouldst not fear Thee, O Lord God of Hosts, most high and most terrible? For Thou art Lord alone. Thou has made heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth and all things that are therein, and in Thy hand is the soul of every living thing, Thou sittest king upon the flood; yea, Thou sittest king forever. Thou art a great king over all the earth. Thou art clothed with strength; honor and majesty are before Thee. Amen.

God’s sovereignty is the attribute by which He rules His entire creation, and to be sovereign God must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and absolutely free. The reasons are these:

Were there even one datum of knowledge, however small, un-known to God, His rule would break down at that point. To be Lord over all the creation, He must possess all knowledge. And were God lacking one infinitesimal modicum of power, that lack would end His reign and undo His kingdom; that one stray atom of power would belong to someone else and God would be a limited ruler and hence not sovereign.

Furthermore, His sovereignty requires that He be absolutely free, which means simply that He must be free to do whatever He wills to do anywhere at any time to carry out His eternal purpose in every single detail without interference. Were He less than free He must be less than sovereign.

To grasp the idea of unqualified freedom requires a vigorous effort of the mind. We are not psychologically conditioned to understand freedom except in its imperfect forms. Our concepts of it have been shaped in a world where no absolute freedom exists. Here each natural object is dependent upon many other objects, and that dependence limits its freedom.

Wordsworth at the beginning of his “Prelude” rejoiced that he had escaped the city where he had long been pent up and was “now free, free as a bird to settle where I will.” But to be free a bird is not to be free at all. The naturalist knows that the supposedly free bird actually lives its entire life in a cage made of fears, hungers, and instincts; it is limited by weather conditions, varying air pressures, the local food supply, predatory beasts, and that strangest of all bonds, the irresistible compulsion to stay within the small plot of land and air assigned it by birdland comity. The freest bird is, along with every other created thing, held in constant check by a net of necessity. Only God is free.

God is said to be absolutely free because no one and no thing can hinder Him or compel Him or stop Him. He is able to do as He pleases always, everywhere, forever. To be thus free means also that He must possess universal authority. That He has unlimited power we know from the Scriptures and may deduce from certain other of His attributes. But what about His authority?

Even to discuss the authority of Almighty God seems a bit meaningless, and to question it would be absurd. Can we imagine the Lord God of Hosts having to request permission of anyone or to apply for anything to a higher body? To whom would God go for permission? Who is higher than the Highest? Who is mightier than the Almighty? Whose position antedates that of the Eternal? At whose throne would God kneel? Where is the greater one to whom He must appeal? “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

The sovereignty of God is a fact well established in the Scriptures and declared aloud by the logic of truth. But admittedly it raises certain problems which have not to this time been satisfactorily solved: These are mainly two. The first is the presence in the creation of those things which God cannot approve, such as evil, pain, and death. If God is sovereign He could have prevented their coming into existence. Why did He not do so?

The Zend-Avesta, sacred book of Zoroastrianism, loftiest of the great non-Biblical religions, got around this difficulty neatly enough by postulating a theological dualism. There were two Gods, Ormazd and Ahriman, and these between them created the world. The good Ormazd made all good things and the evil Ahriman made the rest. It was quite simple. Ormazd had no sovereignty to worry about, and apparently did not mind sharing his prerogatives with another.

For the Christian this explanation will not do, for it flatly contradicts the truth taught so emphatically throughout the whole Bible, that there is one God and that He alone created the heaven and the earth and all the things that are therein. God’s attributes are such as to make impossible the existence of another God. The Christian admits that he does not have the final answer to the riddle of permitted evil. But he knows what that answer is not. And he knows that the Zend-Avesta does not have it either.

While a complete explanation of the origin of sin eludes us, there are a few things we do know. In His sovereign wisdom God has permitted evil to exist in carefully restricted areas of His creation, a kind of fugitive outlaw whose activities are temporary and limited in scope. In doing this God has acted according to His infinite wisdom and goodness. More than that no one knows at present; and more than that no one needs to know. The name of God is sufficient guarantee of the perfection of His works.

Another real problem created by the doctrine of the divine sovereignty has to do with the will of man. If God rules His universe by His sovereign decrees, how is it possible for man to exercise free choice? And if he can not exercise freedom of choice, how can he be held responsible for his conduct? Is he not a mere puppet whose actions are determined by a behind-the-scenes God who pulls the strings as it pleases Him?

The attempt to answer these questions has divided the Christian church neatly into two camps which have borne the names of two distinguished theologians, Jacobus Arminius and John Calvin. Most Christians are content to get into one camp or the other and deny either sovereignty to God or free will to man. It appears possible, however, to reconcile these two positions without doing violence to either, although the effort that follows may prove deficient to partisans of one camp or the other.

Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.

Perhaps a homely illustration might help us to understand. An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of sovereignty.

On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port.

Both freedom and sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other. So it is, I believe, with man’s freedom and the sovereignty of God. The mighty liner of God’s sovereign design keeps its steady course over the sea of history. God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfilment of those eternal purposes which He purposed in Christ Jesus before the world began. We do not know all that is included in those purposes, but enough has been disclosed to furnish us with a broad outline of things to come and to give us good hope and firm assurance of future well-being.

We know that God will fulfil every promise made to the prophets; we know that sinners will some day be cleansed out of the earth; we know that a ransomed company will enter into the joy of God and that the righteous will shine forth in the kingdom of their Father; we know that God’s perfections will yet receive universal acclamation, that all created intelligences will own Jesus Christ Lord to the glory of God the Father, that the present imperfect order will be done away, and a new heaven and a new earth be established forever.
Toward all this God is moving with infinite wisdom and perfect precision of action. No one can dissuade Him from His purposes; nothing turn Him aside from His plans. Since He is omniscient, there can be no unforeseen circumstances, no accidents. As He is sovereign, there can be no countermanded orders, no breakdown in authority; and as He is ominpotent, there can be no want of power to achieve His chosen ends. God is sufficient unto Himself for all these things.

In the meanwhile things are not as smooth as this quick outline might suggest. The mystery of iniquity doth already work. Within the broad field of God’s sovereign, permissive will the deadly conflict of good with evil continues with increasing fury. God will yet have His way in the whirlwind and the storm, but the storm and the whirlwind are here, and as responsible beings we must make our choice in the present moral situation.

Certain things have been decreed by the free determination of God, and one of these is the law of choice and consequences. God has decreed that all who willingly commit themselves to His Son Jesus Christ in the obedience of faith shall receive eternal life and become sons of God. He has also decreed that all who love darkness and continue in rebellion against the high authority of heaven shall remain in a state of spiritual alienation and suffer eternal death at last.

Reducing the whole matter to individual terms, we arrive at some vital and highly personal conclusions. In the moral conflict now raging around us whoever is on God’s side is on the winning side and can not lose; whoever is on the other side is on the losing side and can not win. Here there is no chance, no gamble. There is freedom to choose which side we shall be on but no freedom to negotiate the results of the choice once it is made. By the mercy of God we may repent a wrong choice and alter the consequences by making a new and right choice. Beyond that we can not go.

The whole matter of moral choice centers around Jesus Christ. Christ stated it plainly: “He that is not with me is against me,” and “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” The gospel message embodies three distinct elements: an announcement, a command, and a call. It announces the good news of redemption accomplished in mercy; it commands all men everywhere to repent and it calls all men to surrender to the terms of grace by believing on Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

We must all choose whether we will obey the gospel or turn away in unbelief and reject its authority. Our choice is our own, but the consequences of the choice have already been determined by the sovereign will of God, and from this there is no appeal.

The Lord descended from above,
And bowed the heavens most high,
And underneath His feet He cast
The darkness of the sky.

On cherubim and seraphim
Full royally He rode,
And on the wings of mighty winds
Came flying all abroad.

He sat serene upon the floods,
Their fury to restrain;
And He, as sovereign Lord and King,
For evermore shall reign.
Psalm paraphrase,
by Thomas Sternhold


Chapter 22 from Knowledge of the Holy

By A.W Tozer


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2008/8/1 16:34Profile
tjservant
Member



Joined: 2006/8/25
Posts: 1658
Indiana USA

 Re:

I would also suggest reading this article originally posted [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=23799&forum=34]here[/url]

Spurgeon's Theology: Embracing Biblical Paradox

The merits of a theology that advocates belief in Scripture's revealed truths concerning God and man...even when we can't reconcile those truths.

by Randy Alcorn

Nineteenth century London pastor, preacher and writer Charles Haddon Spurgeon was a Calvinist. As such, he was opposed by anti-Calvinists and a variety of non-Calvinists. He recognized their salvation and sincerity, but believed their view of God was often too small, and hence their view of man too big.

Spurgeon's big view of God motivated him to take seriously God's commands to reach out to the needy. He had a deep concern for caring for the poor and spreading the gospel. Spurgeon built seventeen homes to help care for elderly women, and a large school for hundreds of children. Spurgeon and his church built homes for orphans in London, rescuing them from starvation and vice on the streets. He tirelessly preached the gospel and encouraged his church to reach out to the lost, extending to them the gospel of Christ.

For these good deeds, Spurgeon was aggressively opposed by another theological group: the hyper-Calvinists, a fatalistic dogmatic Calvinist minority. Among other things, they disdained his practice of indiscriminately preaching the gospel to the unsaved, and inviting people in meetings to come forward or otherwise respond to the gospel. This struck them as putting salvation in man's hands rather than recognizing it was in God's. Spurgeon believed salvation was in God's hands, but that men needed to embrace it, and that God wanted men to hear the gospel and wanted him to preach it. (See Iain Murray's Spurgeon vs. Hyper Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching. I'm indebted to Murray for about half of these citations from Spurgeon.)

Concerning 1 Timothy 2:3-6, especially "God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" and "Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all," Spurgeon said something dramatically different than the hyper-Calvinists:

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. 'All men,' say theyÑthat is, 'some men': as if the Holy Ghost could not have said 'some men' If he had meant some men. 'All men,' say they; 'that is, some of all sorts of men': as if the Lord could not have said 'All sorts of men' if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written 'all men,' and unquestionably he means all men. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away;he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. ... My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God.(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 26: 49-52)

Spurgeon didn't try to reconcile every paradox or apparent contradiction in the Bible. He said:

That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring. (New Park Street Pulpit, 4:337)

Spurgeon warned against theologies that attempt to reconcile, by means of shortsighted human logic, every apparent biblical inconsistency:

Men who are morbidly anxious to possess a self-consistent creed, a creed which will put together and form a square like a Chinese puzzle, are very apt to narrow their souls. Those who will only believe what they can reconcile will necessarily disbelieve much of divine revelation. Those who receive by faith anything which they find in the Bible will receive two things, twenty things, ay, or twenty thousand things, though they cannot construct a theory which harmonizes them all. ("Faith," Sword and Trowel, 1872)

Both Arminianism and Calvinism sometimes ignore or minimize one teaching of God's Word because they can't understand how it fits with another. So they choose between them, instead of believing both. Some embrace God's sovereignty, then redefine human choice and responsibility in a way that makes it no longer meaningful choice or meaningful responsibility. Some embrace human free choice and redefine God's sovereignty and election in light of it, reducing God's "sovereignty" to merely seeing in advance that people will choose him, so then based on their foreseen decisions, he "chooses" them; or seeing what bad people will do but being unable to stop them, God is forced to try to make the best of it. (As opposed to "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good," Genesis 50:20). More recently, with Open Theology, God is actually said to be unable to see in advance exactly what choices people will make! (What's next? God is too tired of this big job of running the universe, and he needs us to take the throne to help keep things going?)

Scripture reveals that God's will is effective and He is sovereign in all things and that man is free and responsible for all his actions. Spurgeon wrote, "Both are true; no two truths can be inconsistent with each other; and what you have to do is to believe them both."(New Park Street Pulpit, vol. 4, 343.)

In an early sermon on "Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility" Spurgeon introduced his subject this way:

The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once...Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there is no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free to be responsible, I am driven at once to Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestinates, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is the fault of our weak judgment...it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. (New Park Street Pulpit, vol. 4, 337).

Years later, in another sermon, Spurgeon said,

I believe in predestination, yea, even in its very jots and tittles. I believe that the path of a single grain of dust in the March wind is ordained and settled by a decree which cannot be violated; that every word and thought of man, every flittering of a sparrow's wing, every flight of a fly...that everything, in fact is foreknown and foreordained. But I do equally believe in the free agency of man, that man acts as he wills, especially in moral operationsÑchoosing the evil with a will that is unbiased by anything that comes from God, biased only by his own depravity of heart and the perverseness of his habits; choosing the right too, with perfect freedom, though sacredly guided and led by the Holy Spirit...I believe that man is as accountable as if there were no destiny whatever...Where these two truths meet I do not know, nor do I want to know. They do not puzzle me, since I have given up my mind to believing them both. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 15, 458).

Spurgeon also said,

It is my firm belief that everything in heaven, and earth and hell, will be seen to be, in the long run, part of the divine plan; yet never is God the author or the accomplice of sin...sin rests with man, wholly with man, and yet by some strange overruling force, Godlike and mysterious, like the existence of God, his supreme will is accomplished...to deny this truth because we cannot understand it, were to shut ourselves out of a great deal of important knowledge. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 15, 458).

Spurgeon was first a Biblicist, and only second a Calvinist. (Though imperfect and capable of misinterpreting Scripture, for the most part he was led to his beliefs by Scripture, not Calvinism.) His Calvinism didn't inhibit him, but inspired him to offer the gospel to all men. He believed that more sinners could be saved if the gospel was preached to them. He didn't try to harmonize this with God's election, since Scripture clearly teaches both. He believed his responsibility was to preach the gospel, and that God, in his sovereignty, would use both preaching and prayer to produce a greater harvest of souls. He had prayer meetings Monday nights, and before preaching services. His classic book The Soul Winner is still in print.

Graciously, Spurgeon acknowledged the need for love and kindness between sincere Christians with different doctrines. He also acknowledged that some (though far from all) theological differences were largely semantic:

But I do maintain there should be, and there must be if our churches are to be healthy and sound, a constant adherence to the fundamental doctrines of divine truth. I should be prepared to go a very long way for charity's sake, and admit that very much of the discussion which has existed even between Arminians and Calvinists has not been a discussion about vital truth, but about the terms in which that vital truth shall be stated. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 6:395.)

Spurgeon recognized that both Arminians and Calvinists were correct in many of their understandings of Scripture, but their mistake was in choosing one set of truths over another, rather than accepting both regardless of their apparent contradiction. He attributed our lack of understanding to our finite and fallen minds, not to problems with God or Scripture. Spurgeon put it this way:

The Calvinist has said, and said right bravely, that salvation is of grace alone; and the Arminian has said, and said most truthfully, that damnation is of man's will alone, and as the result of man's sin, and of that only. Then they have fallen out with one another. The fact is, they had each one laid hold of a truth, and if they could have put their heads together, and accepted both truths, it might have been greatly for the advantage of the Church of Christ. These two doctrines are like tram lines that you can travel on with safety and comfort, these parallel lines—ruin, of man; restoration, of God: sin, of man's will; salvation, of God's will: reprobation, of man's demerit; election, of God's free and sovereign grace: the sinner lost in hell through himself alone, the saint lifted up to heaven wholly and alone by the power and grace of God. Get those two truths thoroughly engraven upon your heart, and you will then hold comprehensively the great truths of Scripture. You will not need to crowd them into one narrow system of theology, but you will have a sort of duplicate system. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 41:500.)

Our desire for logical consistency, as we understand it, can become our God. Then we, not Scripture and not God, become our own ultimate authority. We end up ignoring, rejecting, or twisting Scripture that doesn't fit our chosen theology. On the contrary, our theology should be a reflection of Scripture itself, and wherever Scripture teaches apparently contradictory ideas, our theology should embrace those same ideas, rather than resort to a consistency which rejects part of God's revealed Word.

My Greek professor liked to say, "I would rather be comfortable with my Bible and uncomfortable with my theology, than comfortable with my theology and uncomfortable with the Bible." Theology is a very good thing—as long as it is true to Scripture, and helps us understand it, and see it in its fuller picture. When theology replaces Scripture's authority, and ends up obscuring Scripture and causing us to reinterpret it rather than accept it, that's when it interferes with rather than illuminates God's sacred revelation.

May we read Scripture and believe it, not explaining away what doesn't fit our theology, but stretching our theology to embrace the full breadth of God's revealed truth


_________________
TJ

 2008/8/1 16:57Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1330


 Re:

Thanks again brother hmmhmm!

You have brought another fresh anointed word to this thread.

A.W Tozer sure does bring a refreshing word to the understanding of the sovereignty of God.

I really enjoyed his words about soverignty and the man's freedom therein.

Blessings brother!

 2008/8/1 17:01Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1330


 Re:

Quote:

tjservant wrote:

Both Arminianism and Calvinism sometimes ignore or minimize one teaching of God's Word because they can't understand how it fits with another. So they choose between them, instead of believing both. Some embrace God's sovereignty, then redefine human choice and responsibility in a way that makes it no longer meaningful choice or meaningful responsibility. Some embrace human free choice and redefine God's sovereignty and election in light of it, reducing God's "sovereignty" to merely seeing in advance that people will choose him, so then based on their foreseen decisions, he "chooses" them; or seeing what bad people will do but being unable to stop them, God is forced to try to make the best of it. (As opposed to "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good," Genesis 50:20). More recently, with Open Theology, God is actually said to be unable to see in advance exactly what choices people will make! (What's next? God is too tired of this big job of running the universe, and he needs us to take the throne to help keep things going?)

Scripture reveals that God's will is effective and He is sovereign in all things and that man is free and responsible for all his actions. Spurgeon wrote, "Both are true; no two truths can be inconsistent with each other; and what you have to do is to believe them both."(New Park Street Pulpit, vol. 4, 343.)



Thanks brother Tj for all of this article even though I only took one quote.

Brethren if we could see the truth that Tozer and Spurgeon has discovered.

May we settle upon the revealed truth in the word of God. These scriptures come to mind.

1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

Blessings to all!

 2008/8/1 17:16Profile
tjservant
Member



Joined: 2006/8/25
Posts: 1658
Indiana USA

 Re:

My favorite Tozer quote:

"God will not hold us responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination and the divine sovereignty. The best and safest way to deal with these truths is to raise our eyes to God and in deepest reverence say, 'Oh Lord Thou knowest.' Those things belong to the deep and mysterious Profound of God's omniscience. Prying into them may make theologians, but it will never make saints." A.W. Tozer


_________________
TJ

 2008/8/1 17:28Profile
learn
Member



Joined: 2008/7/24
Posts: 613


 Re:

I may read the new posts another time.

However, I would like everyone to consider this.

1) For those that believe that God choses whoever He wants without letting man a choice on whether to come to Him, then what would these people think if :

All their family--spouse, children, parents etc except you yourself reject God. So all your family except you yourself will spend eternity in hell despite your feverish efforts in trying to save them. Seems to make sense to me ie 1 person saved out of so many--after all a remnant will be saved only and the majority go to Hell. Please think carefully.


2) Also, I read some parts of Spurgeon's autobiography. He mentioned that God does the chosing despite whether we want to or not. Some of his reasons were that because He didn't want to go to God, that we did not choose who our parents were and how we looked/behaved etc That's the reason he rejected that God elected based on 'foreknowledge of who will have faith' when someone pointed this out. I know He has other points in the bible but I'm just talking about his experience here only.

For me, the above mentioned points are not a strong enough reason to reject that people have a free will to chose God or not. After all human life is less than 100 years old. What is a 100 years compared to eternity? Can any suffering of a 100 years be comparable that of hell in eternity. Even if all your family suffer 100 years, you would still be willing if they are not in hell (as hell is worse and its for all eternity)

If one says that God choses as He will while rejecting the fact of giving us a chance to chose Him, then back to my 1st point ie :

1) For those that believe that God choses whoever He wants without letting man a choice on whether to come to Him, then what would these people think if :

All their family--spouse, children, parents etc except you yourself reject God. So all your family except you yourself will spend eternity in hell despite your feverish efforts in trying to save them. Please think carefully

John 6:37
all that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away

John 6:40
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day

I think John 6:40 needs to have a qualifier now if man does not have a choice to chose to come to God


_________________
geraldine

 2008/8/1 17:29Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1330


 Re:

Brother learn,

I do hope you read two earlier posts on Tozer and Spurgeon.

They are a blessing!

 2008/8/1 17:36Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy