SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Hell: did Jesus die for those burning..?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Svineklev,

Quote:
(BTW, Calvinists aren’t the slightest little bit against freedom of the will. Our argument has to do with the ABILITY of the will. We all are free to leap tall buildings at a single bound, but only Clark is up to the task….)



As you will well know, but for the sake of those who may not, Augustine had a favorite saying in dealing with Pelagius, "Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt." (Pelagius was a man who lived contemporary with Augustine and essentially believed that man was at liberty to keep the commandments of God). Augustine seems to indicate in this statement that man cannot keep the commandments of Christ unless God gives the ability to do it. The key to understanding these things is Titus 2:11-13 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; . The key is "hath appeared unto ALL men."

At the end of the day those who consider themselves Calvinists, in my experience, are trying to set about to appropriate ALL glory unto God for salvation. Certainly all glory belongs to God alone. The problem arises when things begin to be attributed to God that are no glory to Him whatsoever. For example; sit two 3 year old boys down at a table and give the first one 5 cupcakes and the second one 1 cupcake. What will happen? The one who received the 1 cupcake will complain or make some attempt to get the same amount. Why? Because he is born with a sense of justice and knows to some degree the basic concept of fair and unfair even at 3 years old. This sense of justice is God given and it is to a large degree trustworthy. You and I had not understood logic had we not a sense of justice. Now, aside from all the passages that deal with God's grace appearing to ALL and that if Christ were lifted up ALL men would be drawn unto Him, there is at the most basic level of justice the fact that God will distribute His grace to whosoever will. Notice that the issue is not whosoever "I will to will" , but "whoseoever will." God say's choose ye this day whom ye shall serve.

If Jesus wept over Jerusalem do you actually believe that He prefers being glorified in their damnation? This is why Armenians have a hard time with TULIP. Jesus wept. The angels do NOT rejoice over souls being damned to an everlasting Hell, they rejoice over REPENTANCE. Is God glorified by a doctrine that sets the majority of mankind in a state of unconditional reprobation as though God saught man's damnation rather than his salvation? Again, this makes God into Satan. God does not command the impossible and then selectivly administer grace to a few to enable them to keep the commandment.

Should he plead that men had been hardly treated by the Law-giver, either in their creation, or by His providential arrangements, or by suffering them to be so tempted -- or if, in any wise, he brings forward a plea that reflects upon the Law-giver, in creation, or in the administration of His government, the Law-giver can not listen to his plea, and forgive the sinner, without condemning Himself. In that case, instead of insisting that the sinner should repent, virtually the Law-giver would be called upon Himself to repent. (C.G.F Christ Our Advocate)


Moreover, the receipt of grace (so called "unmerited" favor and provision) is also conditional. It is explained in this passage; God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble. Humility is a condition for receiving the grace. This is a whole different topic, but I will make note of it here.


God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/15 8:36Profile
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re:

Quote:
From Bro. Ron:
I’m rock solid on this bit. I don’t know anyone who preaches ‘dead in sins’ more insistently than me! It is the whole thrust of ‘ye must be born again’. I am solid on ‘original sin’; my slippage with ‘T’ is on the ‘original guilt’. I do not believe the Bible teaches that the whole race is sentenced to hell because of Adam’s rebellion.

You're no more slipping on Total Depravity than I am (though it may be contended that I am), as I also do not believe in 'original guilt', largely due to Ezekiel 18 (which KingJimmy was so kind as to bring up in a previous discussion on that issue). The soul that sins, it shall die. I could understand, given our present day over-emphasis on individualism (and thus general lack of ability to see federal headship in the Biblical view of the human race), that Adam's guilt is ours, but I don't think that is the case. The point is somewhat moot, as we inherit Adam's depravity, which (in every case I know of, and as is seemingly confirmed in Romans) leads to every single one of his descendants (except the second Adam) committing sin(s) of their own. Nonetheless, I maintain that the inherited depravity is "total" in that we are "dead" in sin and completely disinclined to obey God (though we remain free to do so, if we wanted to) apart from His regenerating us. Part of the question here is: is that regenerating grace (we could also call it justifying grace, if they happen at the same time as I maintain) given solely by God (i.e. monergistically)? Or is it synergistic? Note that here I am not talking about post-conversion sanctification, but about the death-to-life, born-again, old-creation-to-new thing.

The synergistic answer, if given, would likely be given in the form of "prevenient grace" as my friend mentioned earlier. That explanation (favored by Wesley, for any onlookers who may not know), is essentially God working "from both ends" (though Wesley maybe would not like that phrase) in that He provides "prevenient" (preceeding, or "before") grace to the unregenerate person to enable them to respond to His offer of salvation (the grace from the other "end"). If the person accepts, they are regenerated. Please let me know if I've mis-stated the theory. In any case, while this is certainly synergistic, I don't see how it gets away from at least some of the accusations leveled at the standard Calvinistic monergistic regeneration idea: in giving the "prevenient" grace, God already knows if the unregenerate person will respond, and presumably could apply more or less (though I find it odd to apply quantity terms to grace, it doesn't seem wrong to me, God is generous to who He will be generous to, and has mercy on whom He will have mercy) if He wanted a different outcome. So He's still determining whether or not the person is actually regenerated, no?

In any case, I was just anticipating a possible answer, let me know if I guessed right :)
Quote:
Our Romans verse is referring to ‘God-lovers’. No ‘continuing’ sinner is a God-lover.

Amen.
Quote:
Only God-lovers are called; ‘the called’ is a statement about the ‘God-lovers’.
...
Predestination, in these verses, is to ‘conformity to Christ’s image’.

Certainly predestination is to such conformity (i.e. sanctification), but to clarify: are you saying that the predestination is not to justification (and/or regeneration, but I'm still thinking of those two as simultaneous and essentially indivisible)? The passage indicates that the person is "foreknown," "predestined," "called," "justified," and "glorified." Why would a God-lover need to be justified (assuming, as I think we all do here, that none of the unjustified truly love God)? Or would you say (just a guess) that these are not necessarily in chronological order?
Quote:
It is an action performed by God; this, I think, is not a discrete number but is the ‘pre-destiny’ of all who become God-lovers.

And how does someone become a God-lover, again? :-)
Quote:
BTW just for us foreigners what is UGA?

The University of Georgia, the present academic institution at which I am enslav- err, enrolled :-)
Quote:
From Bro. Robert's Wesley quote:
God, as sovereign Lord and Proprietor of all, dispenses his gifts or favours to his creatures with perfect wisdom, but by no rules or methods of proceeding that we are acquainted with. The time when we shall exist, the country where we shall live, our parents, our constitution of body and turn of mind; these, and numberless other circumstances, are doubtless ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules that lie quite out of our sight.

So you do believe that God "orders" all those things? Do you believe that He ordains (or orders, is there a difference?) whatsoever comes to pass? Nevermind the set of rules by which it was done, for the moment, but was it done?
Quote:
This is an argument I have yet to hear answered reasonably. Again, no doctrine can make God to be the author of sin or the Father of Lies. No doctrine can make God into Satan.

What, exactly, qualifies as making God "the author of sin" or "Father of Lies"?
Quote:
From Brother Ron:
You say that ‘sin’ is a manifestation of evil. I’m not sure that it isn’t the other way around, namely that evil is a manifestation of sin.

I suppose we could get into some pretty fine-grained definitions here, which is of course (I think) where we need to be, if we're to really understand each other. I think it would be clearer if I said that "sins" are a manifestation of evil, but it could also be said that "sins" are a manifestation of "sin". What I was doing was describing "evil" as an "orientation", namely the orientation "away" from God, wherein the evil being is predisposed (perhaps completely) towards autonomy and against theonomy. What I'm calling "evil" may be what you call "sin", if by that you mean something along the lines of "sin nature".
Quote:
I have often said that we know so little of the real origin of evil.

So true, and I have long puzzled over this. Honestly, when I hear the statement "God is not the author of sin" I feel like saying something along the lines of "If not you, then who? Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?" (that's a childhood game, at least here in the states, that involves going from accused to accused asking who actually stole the often fictional cookies). Is God a sinner? Of course not. Did God create sin, albeit indirectly? Well, if not Him, then who? Is Dualism true? If it was God, is there a problem with that?
Quote:
The phrase ‘in thine heart’ is usually indicative of thought or intention rather than its execution. I am not sure that it ever got beyond the ‘I will’ stage;

I agree, it does seem there wasn't any kind of open "rebellion" or mounting of arms or some such all-too-carnal-sounding event in Heaven. "Rebellion", essentially, begins "in the heart" of the rebel, it's just usually the case that the king doesn't notice it until there's an army on the other hill flying strange colors. In God's case, He knew of the "rebellion" immediately (and, indeed, He knew it [b]would[/b] happen beforehand, but Satan was not morally responsible for a choice he had not yet made, right?), so the whole business could have been dealt with rather promptly.

Interesting thoughts on Satan being in a judgment, or even priestly, capacity. I'd be far more inclined to the former than the latter (though the irony would be intense in that case), since that name means "accuser" (or so I recall being told), and it may be that he went on doing his previous work after the fall, just twisting it to his own goals which were at that point different from God's goals.
Quote:
The problem arises when things begin to be attributed to God that are no glory to Him whatsoever. For example; sit two 3 year old boys down at a table and give the first one 5 cupcakes and the second one 1 cupcake. What will happen? The one who received the 1 cupcake will complain or make some attempt to get the same amount. Why? Because he is born with a sense of justice and knows to some degree the basic concept of fair and unfair even at 3 years old.

Matthew 20 (NASB)
9 "When those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius.
10 "When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius.
11 "When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner,
12 saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.'
13 "But he answered and said to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius?
14 'Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you.
15 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?'

Is there a difference if the master was paying in cupcakes? If he had given 2 cupcakes to the people that had only worked 1 hour, but still only 1 cupcake to the rest? It seems his only obligation was to give what was "fair" (apparently a denarius to the people who worked all day, and something less than that for those that worked less), and that only because he had stated that he would do so in exchange for the labor. If he felt like giving extra to any and/or all of them, in any proportions whatsoever, there could be no complaint of injustice, right?

Of course, in your example, the 3 year old would object, but if the cupcakes were gifts (i.e. not deserved, or if they only deserved 1 each), then the objection would be unfounded. Right? On the other hand, if both deserved 3 cupcakes, that would be a different matter, as obligations must be met. But what obligations does God have to us? Only what He has promised to do, and He certainly didn't have to make those promises to begin with.

 2004/12/17 2:27Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

It is an action performed by God; this, I think, is not a discrete number but is the ‘pre-destiny’ of all who become God-lovers.

And how does someone become a God-lover, again?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/17 4:55Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
RonB wrote: It is an action performed by God; this, I think, is not a discrete number but is the ‘pre-destiny’ of all who become God-lovers.

Keith wrote: And how does someone become a God-lover, again?


By having the love of God poured out in his heart by the Holy Spirit being given to them.

I have a little notion about Colossians. It is an invaluable epislte for many reasons, but I think there is one reason that may have escaped the commentators. Paul makes several assertions relating to the Colossian saints whom he had never met. How could he do this? He had enough information from Epaphras to know that they had known 'the grace of God in truth' ie in reality. This is not a doctrine but a personal experience that the Colossians saints had had. There are other key facets of their experience which Epaphras had related, one which is their 'love in the Spirit'. These are 'God-lovers'.

Knowing that certain facts were true of them Paul can adduce other facts ie their circumcision in Christ. These 'other facts' cannot simply be adduced to all who have 'decided for Christ' but can be adduced of people like those described in Colosse by Epaphras.

So if we find out what Paul knew about the Colossians we discover the basis on which he made these statement. Conversely, if there are folks who do not have the initial experience of the Colossians we should be wary in adducing other things to them that Paul mentions here. Follow my reasoning?

IN other words find out all that Epaphras told Paul about the Colossians and you have a working model for first century Christian experience.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/17 5:05Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Part of the question here is: is that regenerating grace (we could also call it justifying grace, if they happen at the same time as I maintain) given solely by God (i.e. monergistically)? Or is it synergistic? Note that here I am not talking about post-conversion sanctification, but about the death-to-life, born-again, old-creation-to-new thing.


My own understanding is that regenerating grace may be clearly distinguished, though not separated, from justifying grace. Two things may 'happen at the same time' without being synonymous. Synchronicity is not the same as synonymous.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/17 5:10Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Keith wrote: Certainly predestination is to such conformity (i.e. sanctification), but to clarify: are you saying that the predestination is not to justification (and/or regeneration, but I'm still thinking of those two as simultaneous and essentially indivisible)? The passage indicates that the person is "foreknown," "predestined," "called," "justified," and "glorified." Why would a God-lover need to be justified (assuming, as I think we all do here, that none of the unjustified truly love God)? Or would you say (just a guess) that these are not necessarily in chronological order?


I am leaning towards that statement, that predestination is not of the sinner to justification but of the justified to conformity to the image of the Son. In that case God’s perfect will would have been for all men to fulfil the original purpose; let us make man in our image and likeness. Peter’s injunction would fit this scenario; [b] Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (2Pe 1:10 KJV)[/b] I think too of many OT references to the covenant ‘being established’; I see the same idea there.

I would see the chronological section of [b] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Rom 8:30 KJV)[/b] as beginning from ‘called’, hence… called, justified, glorified, would be the chronological order. The predestined are those He foreknew, those described in the earlier verse as ‘the God-lovers’. I am always cautious about straight line theology; the ancient pattern was recursive, and repetitive.

By the time we get to verse 30 we have a well established group in mind that can now be called ‘them’. Hence…
[u]them[/u] he also called: and whom he called, [u]them[/u] he also justified: and whom he justified, [u]them[/u] he also glorified.

I am in broad agreement with Wesley’s comments on these verses;
[b]Rom 8:29[/b] - Whom he foreknew, he also predestinated conformable to the image of his Son - Here the apostle declares who those are whom he foreknew and predestinated to glory; namely, those who are conformable to the image of his Son. This is the mark of those who are foreknown and will be glorified, 2Ti_2:19. Phi_3:10, Phi_3:21.
[b]Rom 8:30[/b] - Them he - In due time. Called - By his gospel and his Spirit. And whom he called - When obedient to the heavenly calling, Act_26:19. He also justified - Forgave and accepted. And whom he justified - Provided they "continued in his goodness," Rom_11:22, he in the end glorified - St. Paul does not affirm, either here or in any other part of his writings. that precisely the same number of men are called, justified, and glorified. He does not deny that a believer may fall away and be cut off between his special calling and his glorification, Rom_11:22. Neither does he deny that many are called who never are justified. He only affirms that this is the method whereby God leads us step by step toward heaven. He glorified - He speaks as one looking back from the goal, upon the race of faith. Indeed grace, as it is glory begun, is both an earnest and a foretaste of eternal glory.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/17 6:31Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Bro Keith,

Quote:
Of course, in your example, the 3 year old would object, but if the cupcakes were gifts (i.e. not deserved, or if they only deserved 1 each), then the objection would be unfounded. Right? On the other hand, if both deserved 3 cupcakes, that would be a different matter, as obligations must be met. But what obligations does God have to us? Only what He has promised to do, and He certainly didn't have to make those promises to begin with



God has promised to pour His Spirit out upon all flesh. He is said that if He be lifted up, He will draw all men unto Him. We are told that the grace of God that bringeth salvation has appeared unto all men. We are also told that God has given to all the measure of faith. So on and so forth. It is ALL of God's grace; but His grace is unto all. That is all I am saying. God does not withhold His grace for the purpose of unconditionally damning a soul because He is not willing that any perish but all come to repentance. If a person is bent on resisting the Holy Spirit and is to be "cut off without remedy" God may exalt that person in society for the purpose of making them an example, as He did with Pharoah (for this cause have I raised thee up, etc.).

Quote:
What, exactly, qualifies as making God "the author of sin" or "Father of Lies"?



God was not sins creator. God created the 'raw substance' that Satan used to twist into sin. In other words, God created free moral agency, and the capacity to choose contrary to God's will, but He did not create sin itself, nor does He compel His moral agents to sin. This is summed up in one verse God cannot be tempted with sin neither tempteth He any man.

Quote:
The synergistic answer, if given, would likely be given in the form of "prevenient grace" as my friend mentioned earlier. That explanation (favored by Wesley, for any onlookers who may not know), is essentially God working "from both ends" (though Wesley maybe would not like that phrase) in that He provides "prevenient" (preceeding, or "before") grace to the unregenerate person to enable them to respond to His offer of salvation (the grace from the other "end").



Again, it is always God's grace working; and the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men. Pelagius would disagree, but he was clearly wrong (Eph 2:8).

Quote:
So you do believe that God "orders" all those things? Do you believe that He ordains (or orders, is there a difference?) whatsoever comes to pass? Nevermind the set of rules by which it was done, for the moment, but was it done?



I believe that God works all things together for good to those that love Him and are called according to His purpose. Moreover, I believe He works all things after the counsel of His own will and for His own good pleasure. And that will, as revealed in the New Testament, is to bring ALL to obedience to the faith. He is a God that would have all men to be saved, who would gather them under His wings, yet many would not. In the lost He is genuinely grieved and has wept real tears that have dropped upon real soil as proof of it. They are the most valuable tears stored in the vials of Heaven, for they testify throughout all eternity that God really loved us whilst we were yet sinners.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/17 9:15Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
RobertW writes: Even though John Foxe defends Calvin in this matter there is a sentence we read worth noting and it is the one in which I wish to affix our attention; It cannot, however, be denied, that in this instance, Calvin acted contrary to the benignant spirit of the Gospel. It is better to drop a tear over the inconsistency of human nature, and to bewail those infirmities which cannot be justified. He declared he acted conscientiously, and publicly justified the act.

To this I must ask, how could this be? I am open to any answer that will make it make sense. We have nearly crucified preachers in America for laying with harlots and here is a person who appears by most accounts to be responsible for burning a man to death.


Robert
You will know that I have very few sympathies with Calvin and his reign over the Kingdom of God in Geneva. I am by instinct non-conformist; you may have noticed.;-) In the Summer I visited friends in Switzerland and made a specific personal pilgrimage to Geneva to see Michael Servetus’ ‘expiatory monument’. You don’t get to see many ‘expiatory monuments’. You will be asking, what? Propitiation points to the offended party, expiation points to the offence. So ‘God is propitiated’ and ‘sin expiated’. The reverse side of the monument has a French inscription which can be translated; “"Dutiful and grateful followers of Calvin our great Reformer, yet condemning an error which was that of his age, and strongly attached to liberty of conscience, according to the true principles of the Reformation and of the Gospel, we have erected this expiatory monument. October 27th, 1903."

This is an instructive inscription. It ‘condemns the error’ but adds the phrase ‘which was of his age’. I think we must be careful to condemn the ‘error’ but not the man. To condemn the man would mean we were able to judge his heart and thoughts and motives. This is a prerogative that God has reserved to Himself; it is pity that Calvin and his associates did not understand this.

Calvin’s mistake was to try to set up the Kingdom of God in Geneva. He did this by banishing all who would not give allegiance to his understanding of the truths of the Reformation. The idea was to create the Kingdom by separation. Within the kingdom, God’s law would be established. Those outside the kingdom were not the church’s (or Calvin’s) responsibility but were the responsibility of the civil authority. We must understand that their world was falling in on their heads. Governments and kingdoms which had long been under the sway of Rome were now trying to find out how they should behave now that they were ‘free’. In England, Henry VIII’s follies were part of the same struggle. The ‘old’ was vanishing, what would replace it.

They had only known ‘State Religion’ and had no concept of State that was not governed by Religion. Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon, Calvin were all the same in this. They had no blue-print and no leisure to work on one, kingdoms were rising and falling; they had to do something. I sometimes wonder how much pain has been caused down the centuries because ‘something must be done about it’!

So what did they do? They turned to the Bible for help. It doesn’t take long to realise that you’re not going to get much help from the New Testament with its total indifference to territorial states. But they discovered a perfect example in Israel; God’s own kingdom people. How was the integrity of Israel to be maintained and God’s blessing guaranteed? By the ‘cutting off’ the blasphemer, and the sorcerer! It was ‘tailor-made’ for their needs. They each tweaked it in their own way, but each was simply applying the ‘truths’ of the Bible.

Luther did not create a kingdom of God exclusion-zone as Calvin did, and theoretically believed that a man might believe what he chose. However, Luther believed that the civil authority ‘bore the sword’ so in his application of these principles blasphemers were not ‘put to death by the church’ but handed over to the civil authorities as ‘disturbers of the peace’. The result was the same but Luther’s logic had taken a different route.

Calvin was working on the principle of necessary amputation of diseased limbs to prevent the death of the patient. His patient was his Kingdom of God in Geneva; Michael Servetus was a diseased limb. As I said I have little sympathy with Calvin and his views. The succession of reformers in Geneva was Farel, Calvin, Beza and Knox, and in my estimation each one was worse than the last. However, they were men ‘of their age’. We must leave them to stand before God to answer for their own deeds done in the body.

The New World, of course, was colonised by people like Servetus; not in their particular doctrines but in their understanding that State and Church must be kept separate. Watching from this side of the water, I am often concerned at the power of the ‘church’ and its influence on the ‘state’. The ‘church’ surely is to be the world’s conscience not its legislator. The tenacity with which some would want ‘non-conformers’ to God’s word to be removed from society may be our 20th century equivalent of Calvin’s territorial kingdom of God.

As regards his theology, well that’s another matter. And, not living in Geneva in the 16th century, we can criticise it to our heart’s content.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/17 9:28Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Bro. Ron,

Quote:
We must leave them to stand before God to answer for their own deeds done in the body.



Your point is quite moving and well said. That would have been quite an experience to see that monument.

The situation was truly and thoroughly removed from anything I could ever know here in Kansas City. It was a different age.

When I think of Calvin I think of some accounts I have read about how he looked so old when he died. The weight of his beliefs had to have been quite heavy. yet, Only God really knows what was going through their minds and it is not for me to judge.

My real concern is that of the influence of the Holy Spirit and the natural outworkings of the FPC doctrines. Were they birthed by the Holy Spirit or were they natural deductions of mans reasonings? I then must ask, is their evidence of the Holy Spirit present in the lives of these men? Do they walk according to the tradition delivered to them? Do they walk in love?

These men must give an account to God for their deeds as we all will. Yet, we must wrestle with teachings that have filtered down to our days. Am I looking to destroy credibility? Could be. I hope not. God forbid! Personally I don't see unconditional reprobation as a doctrine birthed in a heart of God's great love. I don't see the weeping for the lost souls. I don't see an urgency to spread the Gospel. I know there are exceptions to this such as George Whitfield, Dr. D. James Kennedy and others. I actually took evangelism explosion as a college class. I know many Calvinists love the Lord and preach repentance. But the doctrine, its the doctrine that I cannot accept.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/17 10:35Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
But the doctrine, its the doctrine that I cannot accept.


Robert
100% agreement here. But as much as we are able we have to keep making a distinction between a man and his doctrine.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/17 10:58Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy