• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Samuel Rutherford and the sinner's warrant to call on Christ

Status
Not open for further replies.

Winman

Active Member
Once again, you reverse, thus repudiate the Biblical order. "shall come" is future tense in regard to "giveth" and therefore by simple grammar "shall come" is conditioned upon first being given. You are simply perverting and thus rejecting God's words and rearranging them to suit your own desires.

I didn't say a word about "being given" to Christ. I said God has the power to "give" eternal life to whomsoever he chooses, and he has chosen to give eternal life to those that believe. Those that refuse to believe will be damned.

Yes, Jesus did say that all the Father gives him shall come to him. Yes, then it would be true that only those persons given by the Father will come to Jesus.

OK, but what does that mean? The explanation is given in vs. 45;

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Verse 45 explains that 100% of men who come to Jesus were taught by God the Father. But it also says that those who have HEARD and LEARNED come to Jesus.

The Father does the teaching, but it is the man's role to HEAR and LEARN.

Again, Jesus told his disciples to take heed how they hear, to those that hear, more shall be given, but to those who do not hear, what was given them shall be taken away.

Mar 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

And what does teaching give a man? KNOWLEDGE.

It is knowledge of Jesus that enables faith in Jesus, this is why Paul asked how it is possible to believe in Jesus unless we have heard of him?

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Does Paul ask how any man can believe unless God the Father supernaturally instills faith in him? NO, Paul simply implies that all that is necessary for a man to have the ability to believe is that a preacher must come and preach the gospel to him.

So, the only inability man has is IGNORANCE. Man is able to believe, but no man can believe what he does not know and has never heard.

There is not one word of scripture to support this false doctrine of Total Inability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I didn't say a word about "being given" to Christ.

Oh pleeeeeease be honest for a change! Everyone reading this thread knows you were giving a response to my post and they know what I said and the point I made and I NEVER referred to "power" but to the limitation that the Father placed on whom He gave the Son. I said that limitation by the Father demonstrates the Father was not willing to give ALL FLESH to the Son for eternal life because coming to the Son for eternal life is consequential to first being given to the Son by the Father for that very purpose (Jn. 17:2; Jn. 6:37-39).

You then REVERSED the Biblical order and said that giving was consequential to coming in order to escape the problem that the Father LIMITED who he gave to the Son for eternal life - "as many as" were given to him to them alone He gave eternal life. If the Father had given ALL FLESH than the son would had given eternal life to "AS MANY AS" were given but he did not give "ALL FLESH". The fact that "ALL" the father gives does in fact come to Christ for eternal life so that NONE ARE LOST and thus "ALL" have eternal life proves that giving eternal life is consequential to the LIMITATION of whom is given NOT THE REVERSE as you attempt to twist the scriptures.

GIVING precedes and is the condition for coming to Christ for eternal life - Jn. 6:37-39 and "shall come" proves this grammatically.

the NUMBER given by the Father precedes and is the condition for Christ giving eternal life and the words "as many as" proves that.

Hence, it is the Father that placed the limitation on whom the Son SHALL give eternal life to! The only ones that come to Christ for eternal life are those given by the Father and "ALL" the Father gives to come to the son SHALL COME and thus shall be given eternal life. (1) The Father gives a precise number "all"; (2) The "all" do in fact come to Christ fore eternal life; (3) Christ does in fact give eternal but only to "as many as" were given him by the Father. You have to twist, reverse, deny this order and that is precisely what you do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OK, but what does that mean? The explanation is given in vs. 45;

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Verse 45 explains that 100% of men who come to Jesus were taught by God the Father.

You are confusing the quotation of plural "prophets" (Isa. 45a) with the explanation of Christ (Isa. 45b)

Furthermore, you are ignoring the contextual definition of "all" by use of the prophets as it does not refer to "all flesh" but to "all" partakers of the New covenant according to these prophets (Jer. 31:33-34; Isa. 54:13; Ezek. 36:26-27; Heb. 8, 10). However, you could care less about context, right?
 

Winman

Active Member
Oh pleeeeeease be honest for a change! Everyone reading this thread knows you were giving a response to my post and they know what I said and the point I made and I NEVER referred to "power" but to the limitation that the Father placed on whom He gave the Son. I said that limitation by the Father demonstrates the Father was not willing to give ALL FLESH to the Son for eternal life because coming to the Son for eternal life is consequential to first being given to the Son by the Father for that very purpose (Jn. 17:2; Jn. 6:37-39).

You then REVERSED the Biblical order and said that giving was consequential to coming in order to escape the problem that the Father LIMITED who he gave to the Son for eternal life - "as many as" were given to him to them alone He gave eternal life. If the Father had given ALL FLESH than the son would had given eternal life to "AS MANY AS" were given but he did not give "ALL FLESH". The fact that "ALL" the father gives does in fact come to Christ for eternal life so that NONE ARE LOST and thus "ALL" have eternal life proves that giving eternal life is consequential to the LIMITATION of whom is given NOT THE REVERSE as you attempt to twist the scriptures.

GIVING precedes and is the condition for coming to Christ for eternal life - Jn. 6:37-39 and "shall come" proves this grammatically.

the NUMBER given by the Father precedes and is the condition for Christ giving eternal life and the words "as many as" proves that.

Hence, it is the Father that placed the limitation on whom the Son SHALL give eternal life to! The only ones that come to Christ for eternal life are those given by the Father and "ALL" the Father gives to come to the son SHALL COME and thus shall be given eternal life. (1) The Father gives a precise number "all"; (2) The "all" do in fact come to Christ fore eternal life; (3) Christ does in fact give eternal but only to "as many as" were given him by the Father. You have to twist, reverse, deny this order and that is precisely what you do.

I am and have been honest. You may have been speaking about being given, I was simply saying that I agree God can give life to whomsoever he chooses, and the scriptures show and say he has chosen to give eternal life to those who believe, and damn those who do not believe.

I do not agree that God imposes faith on certain men, and you have not proved this view whatsoever.

What God gives men is knowledge. That is why Jesus said they shall all be TAUGHT of God. Teaching gives KNOWLEDGE. And it is knowledge that enables a man to believe. That is why Paul asked HOW can a man BELIEVE in whom he has not HEARD?

Paul doesn't say one word about the necessity to be supernaturally regenerated to believe, and this would have been the perfect place to say so. In fact, Paul never says it anywhere in scripture, not once. You cannot possibly show it and you know it.

No, Paul simply implies that all that is necessary for a man to believe is that a preacher must come and preach the gospel to him. So, what men lack is KNOWLEDGE, not ability.

The thing "given" to men by the Father is knowledge. They must be TAUGHT by the Father.

That said, the man has to hear and learn. You could have the best teacher in the state, but if you do not pay attention to that teacher you will not learn and you will fail.

Now, if you weren't such a fanatical Calvinist trying to make scripture fit your flawed theology, you would readily admit a student must pay attention and hear to learn from a teacher. A ten year old kid knows this. But you will be stubborn and obstinate to the end.

You just keep telling yourself you are right, but time will tell.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I was simply saying that I agree God can give life to whomsoever he chooses, and the scriptures show and say he has chosen to give eternal life to those who believe, and damn those who do not believe.

You are repeating the same lie! You are responding to the texts I set forth that prove giving eternal life is RESTRICTED by "as many as" the Father has given for that purpose not vice versa as you are once again repeating.

If your interpretation were correct John 17:2 would say, "The Father has given me ALL FLESH to give eternal life to as many as come to me for it." IT DOES NOT SAY THAT but that is how you are interpreting it! So you are not being honest with the scriptures I set forth.

Coming to Christ for eternal life is RESTRICTED to only those given to the Son by the Father for that purpose and the Father did not give the Son "ALL FLESH" for that purpose.
 

Winman

Active Member
You are repeating the same lie! You are responding to the texts I set forth that prove giving eternal life is RESTRICTED by "as many as" the Father has given for that purpose not vice versa as you are once again repeating.

If your interpretation were correct John 17:2 would say, "The Father has given me ALL FLESH to give eternal life to as many as come to me for it." IT DOES NOT SAY THAT but that is how you are interpreting it! So you are not being honest with the scriptures I set forth.

Coming to Christ for eternal life is RESTRICTED to only those given to the Son by the Father for that purpose and the Father did not give the Son "ALL FLESH" for that purpose.

Again, I was not speaking of verse 37 where it says "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me". I wasn't speaking of that verse at all. Just because you said something in your post does not require me to respond to it, and I was not responding to that portion of your post. I wasn't lying, and I am not lying now.

But it just shows you know you are losing the debate, you resort to slander.

Now, if you want to me to give my view, I believe that God the Father knows from the beginning who will believe on Jesus, and gives these persons to Jesus. This is who Jesus calls "my sheep" and their distinguishing characteristic is that they HEAR and FOLLOW Jesus. They believe.

But before they believed Jesus, they believed the Father through the scriptures.

Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

See, you have to believe the Father, believe the words of scripture before you will believe on Jesus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
Come on and quit saying the word "lie", pweeze? It does not help your case, and I agree with you, Brother Biblicist.....

He calls me a liar because he is losing the debate. It's all he's got.

And what part of his view do you agree with?
 

Winman

Active Member
And then what about those who dont or cant hear, or see, or comprehend scriptures?

You mean someone like Helen Keller, or a baby? Or a person who never hears the gospel?

I believe the scriptures are clear concerning babies and little children, they do not know between good and evil and therefore are not accountable.

As for others, scripture says those without the law shall perish without the law, and that man has the law written on his heart.

The scriptures also show a man is held accountable for what he knows.

Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Jesus said the servant who knew his lord's will, but did not prepare himself shall be beaten with many stripes, but the servant who did not know his will, but did things "worthy of stripes", shall be beaten with few stripes.

I am not sure what this means, but it implies that folks who do not know the gospel will receive a lesser punishment.

I personally believe that if any man desires to know the truth, God will reveal himself to that person.

Mat 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I personally believe that if any man desires to know the truth, God will reveal himself to that person.

Mat 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

The man who wants salvation already HAS it. The man who hungers and thirsts (desires it) after righteousness is a blessed character (Matt. 5: 2-6). The alien sinner doesn't want salvation, he doesn't fear God, and he doesn't love God; therefore we conclude that the man who wants salvation, fears God and loves God is a subject of grace (Rom. 3: 11, 18; I John 4: 10) .
 

Winman

Active Member
The man who wants salvation already HAS it. The man who hungers and thirsts (desires it) after righteousness is a blessed character (Matt. 5: 2-6). The alien sinner doesn't want salvation, he doesn't fear God, and he doesn't love God; therefore we conclude that the man who wants salvation, fears God and loves God is a subject of grace (Rom. 3: 11, 18; I John 4: 10) .

You assume a Calvinist view when that is the question.

The Philipian jailer desired life, but the was not saved, else Paul would not have told him to believe to be saved.

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

"Shalt be" is future tense, the Philipian jailer was not saved when Paul told him to believe to be saved. This refutes your view and shows an unregenerate man can desire to be saved.

Total Inability is false doctrine. I do not simply say this, I show you actual scripture that demonstrates this. You can read, did the Philipian jailer desire to be saved? Was he saved when he asked Paul how to be saved?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You assume a Calvinist view when that is the question.

The Philipian jailer desired life, but the was not saved, else Paul would not have told him to believe to be saved.

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

"Shalt be" is future tense, the Philipian jailer was not saved when Paul told him to believe to be saved. This refutes your view and shows an unregenerate man can desire to be saved.

Total Inability is false doctrine. I do not simply say this, I show you actual scripture that demonstrates this. You can read, did the Philipian jailer desire to be saved? Was he saved when he asked Paul how to be saved?

Yes....I believe he was saved...he was just looking for Paul's instruction
 

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Brother Benjamin,

God has chosen to save some and leave others in their lost state. It's not us who did this but God Almighty. He set this up in a way that pleases Him, and not man.

Rev. 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Those whose names are recorded in the Lamb's Book of Life are those given to the Lamb to redeem, and their names were already written therein. Look, when God called out to us, it was not to write our names in it, but because our names were already there. He ordained everything needed to redeem us, His elect, His church, His bride, His New Jerusalem.....

I’m sorry to have tell you, brother Convicted1, that due to getting caught up in Calvinistic Systematic Theology you have developed a wrong understanding on the Nature and Ways of God. God is Love, Goodness, Mercy and Truth as well as God is a God of “Judgment” in TRUTH! God is a Just God and in His judgment He will judge man according to the nature that all men were made in (divinely designed in creation) and that nature includes sense, reason and intellect which allows not only for all to be sinners but for all to be saved as our Loving God promised from before the foundation of the world for all His creatures. God’s “true judgment” of all His creatures allows for mercy which was His purpose in creation because He is a God of Love. You have purposed to limit God’s ability to be One of “true judgment AND true mercy” by fitting His Nature into a God who cannot create creatures who could have the kind of nature that could be judged in TRUTH because of imposing a form of Predestinarianism that comes from the ideas of man, not God or His loving plans. Your “new” “understanding” of the nature and abilities of man denies the truth of God’s Nature and His judgment of mankind which is a subject I have addressed more fully here. I welcome you to address these issues there without all the nonsense that goes on here.

Your view is heading into an “extreme” form of Calvinism (Hyper-Calvinism) that carries with it serious flawed theological implications. Your view has now come to having a loving God deterministically creating men with no genuine hope (as you have admitted above) but only to be predestined to be condemned to everlasting punishment. If that is the Good News you wish to preach into the world, like you are doing here with the suggestion that some/most men have no ability of their own to respond to the free loving offer of grace because of being predestined not to be able to do so then I strongly suggest you be consistent with your “truth” and include it in your gospel message every time lest you be a liar. BUT, to be clear I will tell you that if that is your view of the Nature and promises of God from creation then your god is my Devil.

I implore you to think out the reasoning you put forth in your theology more closely and consider the message you carrying into the world to “in truth” be one of despair for most of God’s creatures. Will you really reason with me that your interpretation of the names written in the Book of Life leads to a true conclusion according to your Calvinist’ systematic theological view and do you believe this proof-text proves such to me? Is that really how you will begin to reason with me that such a theological system is true? In complete disregard for the fore-mentioned natures of God and man while you attempt to argue ideas of these forms of limiting predestination to predetermination according to that interpretational basis? I’m not sure whether to find that personally insulting that you would think I would buy into such reasoning or if I should consider avoidance of the real issues behind this on your part…

Will you really begin to argue and support these detrimental theological Hyper-Calvinist ideas with such poor circular reasoning as to go down the road of using this scripture as evidence that you are telling me a truth about God’s Nature to be One who was “pleased” to create men with no real hope???

Do have any idea how easily this circular reasoning attempt to begin “proving” your theological systematic view of Divine Deterministic Sovereignty to conclude this form of creational predestination is true as per man’s ideas is logically (truthfully) refuted!? If not, will you please set aside your enthusiasm to teach me your systematic view of predestination is correct long enough to consider that God’s form of predestination includes the divine ability to blot of these names from the Book of Life therefore rendering your manmade rules of predestination to be an unchanging declaration of God from before creation to be an invalid and meaningless argument!?

Brother Convicted1, you need to think from outside this box! I’m sorry if the foregoing or this if following advice is insulting, but if so I ask you to humble yourself because you are demonstrating some pretty foolish reasoning. It is foolishness to throw out that proof-text like you did as if that would be convincing to me that to believe that some/most men have no hope of salvation – a very despairing conviction for me to hear from you BTW. You have done nothing with that verse other than put on a rhetorical meaningless show that you can proof-text your system. You know me better than that. Do you really believe that my arguments for the free will/volition of man doesn’t go much deeper than to merely offer me such a foolish argument as if it supports this view you’ve adopted that some/most men have no genuine hope???

The only thing you have accomplished, which I would be concerned about if I were you, is to possibly spread a gospel message of most probable “bad news” to an onlooker who may be reading it here AS IF it were “truth”. In love, I ask you to think out the Nature of God and His divine design of man more carefully and to forgo these types of foolish argument.
 

Winman

Active Member
Yes....I believe he was saved...he was just looking for Paul's instruction

Well, Paul did not believe he was saved, Paul told him to believe on the Lord Jesus and thou "shalt be" (future tense) saved.

If it comes to you or Paul, I will believe Paul.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You have to rest in the fact that everything God does is perfectly right. He is not a mortal and you should not try to bring him down to your level and your finite notions of what is fair or unfair.

There is one God and you have to deal with Him and believe that He is way beyond our comprehension --but He does reveal Himself in His Word.You can try to find the kindest individual on the earth but that person would be considered cruel and utterly sinful by God's standards.

Instead of asking questions that should not be asked :"What if... ?Couldn't He have...?"I don't understand why God would ....?" You need to show your confidence in the Lord and His perfections.Doubting Him is certainly not the way to go.

:thumbs::applause::thumbs:
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Benjamin
I’m sorry to have tell you, brother Convicted1, that due to getting caught up in Calvinistic Systematic Theology you have developed a wrong understanding on the Nature and Ways of God.

Convicted 1 has posted clearly and correctly.:thumbsup: the fact that both you and Winman object and distort his post is testimony to the correctness of it.:applause:


God is Love, Goodness, Mercy and Truth as well as God is a God of “Judgment” in TRUTH! God is a Just God

God always judges righteous judgement.This is nothing new and has nothing to do with Convicted 1 's post.


and in His judgment He will judge man according to the nature that all men were made in (divinely designed in creation)

This is a denial of revealed biblical truth...all sinned in Adam and are guilty,they are not created apart from Adam.

and that nature includes sense, reason and intellect which allows not only for all to be sinners but for all to be saved as our Loving God promised from before the foundation of the world for all His creatures
.
Of course nothing in scripture supports this at all...but it is an interesting carnal philosophy.

God’s “true judgment”
You seem quite fond of suggesting to God what true judgement might be at
least in your world. The saints in heaven understand that God already has a perfect justice...true and righteous judgement....He does not have to consult with you first.

19 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:

2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

3 And again they said, Alleluia And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.



of all His creatures allows for mercy which was His purpose in creation

No...mercy is God's purpose in the redemption of
the elect...in the New Creation
because He is a God of Love.
No...because he is God...all of His attributes are Holy attributes....Holy love, Holy wrath,etc.

You have purposed to limit God’s ability

His post just reflected revealed scripture without added carnal speculation.

to be One of “true judgment AND true mercy” by fitting His Nature into a God who cannot create creatures who could have the kind of nature that could be judged

You deny romans 3 and romans 5 again...but who is counting?

in TRUTH because of imposing a form of Predestinarianism that comes from the ideas of man
,

The Spirit had the man Paul write it down for us...so we can study it.:love2:
not God or His loving plans.

Election of individuals is God's loving plan!
3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Your “new” “understanding” of the nature and abilities of man denies the truth of God’s Nature and His judgment of mankind

No...not at all.It has enhanced his understanding of scripture.


Your view is heading into an “extreme” form of Calvinism (Hyper-Calvinism) that carries with it serious flawed theological implications.

No...again you do not understand either calvinism or hyper-calvinism.


Your view has now come to having a loving God deterministically creating men with no genuine hope (as you have admitted above)
this is your third denial of romans 3,5.....the "hat trick"![
but only to be predestined to be condemned to everlasting punishment.
No one teaches this as you suggest it here.
If that is the Good News you wish to preach into the world, like you are doing here with the suggestion that some/most men have no ability of their own to respond
The good news is that Jesus died to save every sinner who believes.Men are responsible to believe period.

to the free loving offer of grace
the

gospel is freely offered to all sinners.
because of being predestined not to be able to do so

You cannot show anywhere where predestination is used this way...but you seek to put words in Convicted1 's post because you have no biblical answer.


BUT, to be clear I will tell you that if that is your view of the Nature and promises of God from creation then your god is my Devil.
Convicted 1 believes in the biblical God....
benjamin says...
then your god is my Devil.

Does this place Benjamin outside the kingdom in the same way as a cultist who denies Jesus.??? If not why not? This is a clear denial of the biblical God
....maybe even a denial of BB rules....

I implore you to think out the reasoning you put forth in your theology more closely and consider the message you carrying into the world to “in truth” be one of despair for most of God’s creatures
.

The only reasoning and despair being put forth....is your post.

Will you really reason with me that your interpretation of the names written in the Book of Life leads to a true conclusion according to your Calvinist’ systematic theological view and do you believe this proof-text proves such to me? Is that really how you will begin to reason with me that such a theological system is true? In complete disregard for the fore-mentioned natures of God and man while you attempt to argue ideas of these forms of limiting predestination to predetermination according to that interpretational basis?

Willis is concerned with scripture...not your denial of scripture.

QUOTE]I’m not sure whether to find that personally insulting that you would think I would buy into such reasoning or if I should consider avoidance of the real issues behind this on your part…

you may contemplate that for awhile.


Will you really begin to argue and support these detrimental theological Hyper-Calvinist ideas with such poor circular reasoning as to go down the road of using this scripture as evidence that you are telling me a truth about God’s Nature to be One who was “pleased” to create men with no real hope???

Do not confuse his post with your confused and fragmented philosophy.

Do have any idea how easily this circular reasoning attempt to begin “proving” your theological systematic view of Divine Deterministic Sovereignty to conclude this form of creational predestination is true as per man’s ideas is logically (truthfully) refuted!?

Of course you have never done it.:laugh:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Of course you have never done it.:laugh:

According to you it has never been done, but we both know that is not true. Read and learn from history that I am not alone in my opinion of about the detrimental effects of your doctrines my friend:

Wesley in regards to the Calvinist Doctrines of Predestination:

23. Thus manifestly does this doctrine tend to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation, by making it contradict itself; by giving such an interpretation of some texts, as flatly contradicts all the other texts, and indeed the whole scope and tenor of Scripture; -- an abundant proof that it is not of God. But neither is this all: For, Seventhly, it is a doctrine full of blasphemy; of such blasphemy as I should dread to mention, but that the honour of our gracious God, and the cause of his truth, will not suffer me to be silent. In the cause of God, then, and from a sincere concern for the glory of his great name, I will mention a few of the horrible blasphemies contained in this horrible doctrine. But first, I must warn every one of you that hears, as ye will answer it at the great day, not to charge me (as some have done) with blaspheming, because I mention the blasphemy of others. And the more you are grieve with them that do thus blaspheme, see that ye "confirm your love towards them: the more, and that your heart's desire, and continual prayer to God, be, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do!"

24. This premised, let it be observed, that this doctrine represents our blessed Lord, "Jesus Christ the righteous," "the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth," as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied, that he everywhere speaks as if he was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say he was not willing that all men should be saved, is to represent him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler. It cannot be denied that the gracious words which came out of his mouth are full of invitations to all sinners. To say, then, he did not intend to save all sinners, is to represent him as a gross deceiver of the people. You cannot deny that he says, "Come unto me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden." If, then, you say he calls those that cannot come; those whom he knows to be unable to come; those whom he can make able to come, but will not; how is it possible to describe greater insincerity You represent him as mocking his helpless creatures, by offering what he never intends to give. You describe him as saying on thing, and meaning another; as pretending the love which his had not. Him, in "whose mouth was no guile," you make full of deceit, void of common sincerity; -- then especially, when, drawing nigh the city, He wept over it, and said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, -- and ye would not;" hqelhsa -- kai ouk hqelhsate. Now, if you say, they would, but he would not, you represent him (which who could hear) as weeping crocodiles' tears; weeping over the prey which himself had doomed to destruction!

25. Such blasphemy this, as one would think might make the ears of a Christian to tingle! But there is yet more behind; for just as it honours the Son, so doth this doctrine honour the Father. It destroys all his attributes at once: It overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. More false; because the devil, liar as he is, hath never said, "He willeth all men to be saved:" More unjust; because the devil cannot, if he would, be guilty of such injustice as you ascribe to God, when you say that God condemned millions of souls to everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, for continuing in sin, which, for want of that grace he will not give them, they cannot avoid: And more cruel; because that unhappy spirit "seeketh rest and findeth none;" so that his own restless misery is a kind of temptation to him to tempt others. But God resteth in his high and holy place; so that to suppose him, of his own mere motion, of his pure will and pleasure, happy as he is, to doom his creatures, whether they will or no, to endless misery, is to impute such cruelty to him as we cannot impute even to the great enemy of God and man. It is to represent the high God (he that hath ears to hear let him hear!) as more cruel, false, and unjust than the devil!

Pay especially close attention to these words Icon as you act as if you've never heard them before. It appears Wesley must have known someone much like you:

26. This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree+ of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. But you say you will prove it by scripture. Hold! What will you prove by Scripture that God is worse than the devil I cannot be. Whatever that Scripture proves, it never an prove this; whatever its true meaning be. This cannot be its true meaning. Do you ask, "What is its true meaning then" If I say, " I know not," you have gained nothing; for there are many scriptures the true sense whereof neither you nor I shall know till death is swallowed up in victory. But this I know, better it were to say it had no sense, than to say it had such a sense as this. It cannot mean, whatever it mean besides, that the God of truth is a liar. Let it mean what it will it cannot mean that the Judge of all the world is unjust. No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works; that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove predestination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top