Featured GOD'S OPERATIONS OF GRACE BUT NO OFFERS OF HIS GRACE

Iconoclast · Apr 17, 2022

Iconoclast said: ↑

Chapter 5
A solution of the grand question; how must we preach the Gospel, if we do not offer the Gospel?
Or, how must we preach Christ to sinners, if we do not offer Christ to sinners?

Objection: Sir, we are sorry you have struck at the ministry of wise, great, and learned men, far beyond yourself. Pray, if we are not to follow them in this method of the ministry, how must we preach? And for my part, says one, I cannot preach the Gospel if I do not propound the offer of the Gospel to sinners; nor can I reckon that I do preach the Gospel, unless I tender Salvation to all whom I am called to preach; nor dare I do otherwise.

Answer: I might take notice that this is poor arguing, when set in the face of the three former chapters, the strength of which is founded on God's Word and Spirit. Heb.4:12 - Psal.33:6 - Jn.1:1 - Rev.19:13. Nevertheless, if men are at a loss how to preach, unless they go on in the old road, let me solve the inquiry more fully. I must divide my answers into one general resolution of the case, how preaching the Gospel must be, and to what end without offers of Salvation; and thereupon enter into many particulars to resolve this point.

The one general solution to the question is this, we must preach the doctrine of Salvation to all sinners openly within the hearing; and must preach Salvation included in the doctrine, which is the gift of God, to the elect alone, who are hid among them. But as to propounding an offer, either of the Doctrine or Salvation, it is a form of man's devising; and because of the evil nature of it, as I shall show hereafter, we must do it in no respect. This in the general, men must preach the Word of God, and the testimony held; that is, they must so preach as to fulfil the Scriptures, Rev.6:9, which everywhere speaks of evangelizing, or of preaching the Gospel, or, what is in its own nature good news and glad tidings, which, likewise, in the whole analogy of faith do give us light to expound the preaching of the Gospel according to the above distinctions, but do nowhere speak of propounding an offer, or tendering either Doctrine or Salvation. As to preaching the doctrine of the Gospel to all, though the Salvation of it reach but to the elect alone, the advantage, so far as intended in the Scripture, is much every way, as the apostle says; chiefly, because the wisdom of God, the government of Christ, the interest of the Church, and the sword of Justice, are all magnified, by the preaching of the doctrine of the Gospel to all sinners, without offers of Grace, or proposals of Salvation made. From the wisdom of God I argue the solution of the question, how must we preach the Gospel to sinners, if we do not offer the Gospel to sinners? We must preach the Gospel in the doctrine.

This is to be made known in the letter, or external revelation to all, because of the wisdom of God in that doctrine, Deut.32:2, hath engaged to confound the wisdom of this world. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” I Cor.1:18. The doctrine of the cross of Christ then, or the doctrine of Salvation, in which that Salvation is brought to the elect alone, is a doctrine that must be preached for condemnation even to them that perish; or else how will the wisdom of God in preaching it appear to be foolishness to them that perish?

{“For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish; to the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.” II Cor.2:15- 16.} Especially while they follow man's wisdom, I Cor.2:4, which aims to alter God's way of wisdom, and forsakes his wisdom in their own way of preaching. So verse 21, “for after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching {and pray what was then, is now, the foolishness of preaching, which contradicted, and still contradicts, the method and wisdom the times have contrived} to save them that believe.” And albeit there be many ways of deviating from the pattern, some far more gross than others, as I have plentifully insisted upon in my last book about the Glory of Christ Unveiled; yet this more refined device of offering Christ, where we should keep to the pattern of Preaching, Exod.25:40, {especially while one generation hath mellowed it for another generation to gather it,} makes the true pattern to be accounted 88 foolishness; while men have learned and found more wisdom to change the form of preaching Christ into the modish form of an offer. God's wisdom in his Grace hath contrived a way of saving His elect, which the world must hear of, even the efficacy of what they account to be foolishness of preaching, to the end their own wisdom may be baffled, and God's wisdom glorified. So, Acts 9:22, Paul, in preaching the doctrine of Christ to the very enemies of Christ in their synagogues, increased the more in strength, and confounded, {by the wisdom of God in the Old Testament,} the Jews who dwelt at Damascus, “proving that this is very Christ.” You may be sure he did not carry himself in the matter with what men now-a-days call temper or candour, which is a new phrase got up, calculated only to make the Gospel beg for its entertainment in the world. The synagogues opposed him, but he had strength from Heaven to confound them all. We read of none converted there at Damascus. What then? The Gospel nevertheless is preached, and the end of it there is attained; namely, God's wisdom glorified, while the faith is preached which once Paul destroyed. Gal.1:23. The wisdom of God must be preached to sinners, and the report made, though not one soul be converted by the Grace of God in all that synagogue. The net must be let down into the waters, though the fish may not lie where the net comes, and a man may toil all night and take nothing. Lk.5:5. This is a mighty argument for preaching the Doctrine of Christ, where the Salvation in the doctrine, or the power thereof, may not be applied to one single person.
Click to expand...

As i suspected it is in the next 5 chapters this error is starting to form.
He uses good verses that are true statements but comes to a mistaken conclusion.
He correctly states that God uses the preaching of the gospel to show those who are elect and those who are reprobate.
He claims that this is only to manifest and proclaim Gods glory, but does not constitute a free offer of the gospel suggesting the the inability of the sinner somehow makes the offer not a sincere one.
this conclusion is the beginning of a departure from biblcal truth.

h

37818 · Apr 17, 2022

Iconoclast said: ↑

He claims that this is only to manifest and proclaim Gods glory, but does not constitute a free offer of the gospel suggesting the the inability of the sinner somehow makes the offer not a sincere one.
this conclusion is the beginning of a departure from biblcal truth.
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, the writer makes his argument against God believing the Calvinism he holds is true to Scripture. [?]

Iconoclast · Apr 17, 2022

JonC,

The premise that our understanding of election and the atonement goes into philosophy.
Click to expand...

That is only so in your mind and understanding.
The facts of the Election, and Covenant redemption are bible 101.
the hyper Calvinist takes a large portion of truth but diverts it from it's God given meaning and supplies an alternate meaning.

Think of it this way - can you be saved with faith like a child, with simple faith in the gospel?

I believe so.
Click to expand...

Any saving faith is and must be God given, as men do not have that.

Can you be saved through an understanding of election and the atonement?[/QUOTE]
If a person is saved they will understand election and the atonement if they do any study into it.
Salvation is by grace through faith, it is the gift of God.
I do not read where the thief on the cross read the 1689 confession of faith first, passed the test, then was saved.
Any sinner who believes and continues to believe will be saved,Jn 3:15-16.
The doctrinal truths are always present.

Nothing in Scripture indicates this to be the case.
So which is more important?
Click to expand...

That is not what this thread is about.
He is trying to come against mainstream Calvinism, and offer his view.
he is not entertaining debating the issues that non Cals would like.That is not the focus

Any "theology" that seeks to know God apart from Christ is philosophy.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in this that i see that is suggesting such a thing. You are obsessed with calling everything Philosophy

We don't look at election, or even atonement through the Father's eyes. We look to Christ.
Click to expand...

Those of us who know and understand the great blessing of these truths and what they mean to us, do both. We look to Christ as we are drawn by the Spirit having been given by the Father.
Having come to the Lord savingly we look at all the promises and blessings that are bestowed upon us. That is the sublect of other threads however, not this one.

In the end you are posting what you believe to be false doctrine on this board.
Click to expand...

I am going over a PDF file. I suspect having glanced over some key portions I will uncover where it goes wrong, and that might help some who struggle with this issue.

[QUOTE]I see more praise and little complaint.
Click to expand...

You are not following the concept. I am not making a full judgment until I see what if any support comes from the PDF.
I believe there are people who profess to be Christians that can be off course and drifting. In order to offer correction, you have to know what needs to be corrected.

So I get concerned about people who may wander by, that they be inadvertently led astray.
Click to expand...

The truth will surface. I doubt random people who have enough interest will be led astray. The non cals have little or nothing to say. the old language runs other people off. most on BB have an averson to anything more than 3 sentences.

Iconoclast · Apr 17, 2022

37818 said: ↑

If I understand correctly, the writer makes his argument against God believing the Calvinism he holds is true to Scripture. [?]
Click to expand...

He is a hyper Calvinist.....not a Calvinist.
He is set against Calvinism
He believes there is no need to "offer" the gospel to sinners.
his reasoning is because the natural man cannot understand spiritual truth, there is no point to offering it...in between pg 87-234 he is going to suggest this. mainstrean calvinism believes in what is known as the FREE OFFER of the gospel to all men as spoken of In Mt.28.
We believe in Election and predestination, but believe the gospel is to be proclaimed and freely offered to everyone believing.
Those who do not believe are condemned already.
His departure from truth has really begun here in Chapter 5, so we will seek to expose and follow how he goes off.

Iconoclast · Apr 17, 2022

The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” Isa.9:7.} All the world must thus hear of Christ's greatness, and so of the report of doctrine, which, as a 90 King, he hath received by authority from the Father to bring into the world, though they can neither enjoy the Salvation, nor believe into Christ's Person without a prior bestowal of Grace to grasp hold of God's mercy in Christ. Sure then, ministers of Christ do know how to preach the Gospel to sinners, that even the non-elect may believe into the testimony of Jesus, without offers of Grace to them.

Christ hath a monarchical government in all the world; or all the world are subjects of it in providential administrations. {“The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.” Psal.103:19.} He has also a special government in the churches of Christ, and in the consciences of believers. The sceptre of this government in all the world extends regally beyond the saving virtue of his priesthood. {“The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion; rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.” Psal.110:2.} The Gospel, therefore, by virtue of this extensive government, is to be preached on the behalf of God's elect to all people, to all sorts of sinners, under the whole heavens, in season and out of season, wheresoever there is an opportunity to utter the joyful sound. {“Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound; they shall walk, O LORD, in the light of thy countenance.” Psal.89:15.}
Millions of non-elect sinners have been, and must be, though under other sins, respited, and have not been, nor shall be, damned, before they have heard the Gospel, and sinned against it {worse than what all their other sins amount to} by despising the wisdom of God in it, and trampling on the Government of Christ set up among the elect, being included within the monarchical government of Christ extending over all the world. {“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mk.16:15-16.}

Here he correctly points out the Kingdom rules over all, but suggests there is no offer to sinners in this preaching, but just sort of an announcement that redemption is accomplished and they are doomed. That conclusion is unwarranted in that we do not know the identies of those elected and those who are passed over.

He uses verses that are true, but tries to explain them from the Divine perspective.
That is a problem in that scripture is given to men for our understanding.
It is not given to us as if we can assume the perogatives that belong to God, but rather that we can preach the gospel of the kingdom worldwide.

JonC · Apr 17, 2022

Iconoclast said: ↑

JonC,

That is only so in your mind and understanding.
The facts of the Election, and Covenant redemption are bible 101.
the hyper Calvinist takes a large portion of truth but diverts it from it's God given meaning and supplies an alternate meaning.

Any saving faith is and must be God given, as men do not have that.

You are not following the concept. I am not making a full judgment until I see what if any support comes from the PDF.
I believe there are people who profess to be Christians that can be off course and drifting. In order to offer correction, you have to know what needs to be corrected.

The truth will surface. I doubt random people who have enough interest will be led astray. The non cals have little or nothing to say. the old language runs other people off. most on BB have an averson to anything more than 3 sentences.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about Calvinism.

Calvinism does not hold that understandings of election and atonement are more important than sharing the Gospel.

I agree that the writer will probably say some biblical things. Most heresies (if not all) contain Scripture.

I do not need to move past "be clear on the doctrine of election and the atonement, is more important than preaching the Gospel" to understand the article is wrong. I doubt many here need to move beyond that claim to judge the article.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy reading many authors who had poor theology (Reformed writers are some of my favorites).

Perhaps it just depends on where we draw lines.

Iconoclast · Apr 17, 2022

JonC,

You are wrong about Calvinism.
Click to expand...

Here you go again;
No JonC. Calvinism is the biblical teaching. That you have never understood it does not make it or me wrong.

Calvinism does not hold that understandings of election and atonement are more important than sharing the Gospel.
Click to expand...

I never said it did JonC. No Calvinist says that.
The article is written by a HYPER CALVINIST. NOT A CALVINST.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

I agree that the writer will probably say some biblical things. Most heresies (if not all) contain Scripture. [/QUOT
Let me ask you a question'
" to clarify"
If Mr.Hussey is READING SCRIPTURE as you say is all that is necessary, how did he come up with a different view than you? how come he did not come up with the exact view you hold?
Could it be that the scripture needs to be correctly understood?

[QUOTE]I do not need to move past "be clear on the doctrine of election and the atonement, is more important than preaching the Gospel" to understand the article is wrong.
Click to expand...

He is wrong on this, but the article has more to consider, we are looking at the whole thing.

I doubt many here need to move beyond that claim to judge the article.
Click to expand...

We will know when others check in. I am still going to look an allow him to try and make his case.

JonC · Apr 17, 2022

Iconoclast said: ↑

JonC,

Here you go again;
No JonC. Calvinism is the biblical teaching. That you have never understood it does not make it or me wrong.

I never said it did JonC. No Calvinist says that.
The article is written by a HYPER CALVINIST. NOT A CALVINST.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

We will know when others check in. I am still going to look an allow him to try and make his case.
Click to expand...

????

In post 35 I said that the author is relying on philosophy by holding it is more important to espouse a understanding of election than it is to share the gospel.

You replied "That is only so in your mind and understanding."

You are not making sense here. You disagree with the article when others note it is wrong, but when I note the exact same thing you claim I am wrong.

You cannot have it both ways, Icon. You are flip flopping, trying to ride a fence.

And you are wrong.

Calvinism includes hyper-Calvinism (nobody is arguing otherwise). BUT his view that it is more important to explain election than it is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT Calvinism.

Iconoclast · Apr 17, 2022

"JonC,

]????

In post 35 I said that the author is relying on philosophy by holding it is more important to espouse a understanding of election than it is to share the gospel.

You replied "That is only so in your mind and understanding."
Click to expand...

Now in the interest of honesty...where did I post this phrase;

["That is only so in your mind and understanding."]

What post number was that? I ask because post 35, was answered in post 37...I do not see that phrase in post 37...CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR US?

You lifted a quote from post 43, and tried to ascribe it to post 35...bad move JonC

DaveXR650 · Apr 17, 2022

JonC said: ↑

In post 35 I said that the author is relying on philosophy by holding it is more important to espouse a understanding of election than it is to share the gospel.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure this out too and having difficulty. The author's idea of the gospel seems to be that you can preach Christ and him crucified, but if you then set out a proposition - that you can believe in Christ and receive the benefits of the gospel, then you are making an "offer" that you shouldn't make. I don't understand how a set of facts that affect an individual can be told to them without it being considered an "offer". That question comes up on this board, a lot, but this time from the other side. Can you really preach the gospel to someone and give a genuine offer that IF they receive Christ they will be saved? (This of course, if you are a Calvinist, with the understanding that it's possible Christ did not die for the person you are proposing this to - and therefore, should you be doing that?) Arminians of course say Christ died for everyone. Most modern Calvinists from a Gospel Coalition, Piper, Keller, MacArthur background will say God has two wills or that it's a paradox we can't figure out. The high Calvinists say those guys are little better than Arminians and call them "hypoCalvinists".

Iconoclast · Apr 17, 2022

JonC,

????

In post 35 I said that the author is relying on philosophy by holding it is more important to espouse a understanding of election than it is to share the gospel.

You replied "That is only so in your mind and understanding."
Click to expand...

No JONC...I found out the answer to your ????.
I answered post 35 in verse 37....

You are not making sense here. You disagree with the article when others note it is wrong, but when I note the exact same thing you claim I am wrong.
Click to expand...

It looks like it does not make sense because once again you have twisted it. I have asked you not to do this.;here is where I actually used the phrase;
I responded to this defective post.
JonC
[The premise that our understanding of election and the atonement goes into philosophy.]

JonC said: ↑

????

In post 35 I said that the author is relying on philosophy by holding it is more important to espouse a understanding of election than it is to share the gospel.

You replied "That is only so in your mind and understanding."

You are not making sense here. You disagree with the article when others note it is wrong, but when I note the exact same thing you claim I am wrong.

You cannot have it both ways, Icon. You are flip flopping, trying to ride a fence.

And you are wrong.

Calvinism includes hyper-Calvinism (nobody is arguing otherwise). BUT his view that it is more important to explain election than it is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT Calvinism.
Click to expand...

That is only so in your mind and understanding.
The facts of the Election, and Covenant redemption are bible 101.
the hyper Calvinist takes a large portion of truth but diverts it from it's God given meaning and supplies an alternate meaning.

If a person is saved they will understand election and the atonement if they do any study into it.
Salvation is by grace through faith, it is the gift of God.
I do not read where the thief on the cross read the 1689 confession of faith first, passed the test, then was saved.
Any sinner who believes and continues to believe will be saved,Jn 3:15-16.
The doctrinal truths are always present.

[Nothing in Scripture indicates this to be the case.
So which is more important?]

That is not what this thread is about.
He is trying to come against mainstream Calvinism, and offer his view.
he is not entertaining debating the issues that non Cals would like. That is not the focus

Any "theology" that seeks to know God apart from Christ is philosophy.

There is nothing in this that i see that is suggesting such a thing. You are obsessed with calling everything Philosophy

We don't look at election, or even atonement through the Father's eyes. We look to Christ.
Those of us who know and understand the great blessing of these truths and what they mean to us, do both. We look to Christ as we are drawn by the Spirit having been given by the Father.
Having come to the Lord savingly we look at all the promises and blessings that are bestowed upon us. That is the sublect of other threads however, not this one.

In the end you are posting what you believe to be false doctrine on this board.
I am going over a PDF file. I suspect having glanced over some key portions I will uncover where it goes wrong, and that might help some who struggle with this issue.

[QUOTE]I see more praise and little complaint.
Click to expand...
You are not following the concept. I am not making a full judgment until I see what if any support comes from the PDF.
I believe there are people who profess to be Christians that can be off course and drifting. In order to offer correction, you have to know what needs to be corrected.

[So I get concerned about people who may wander by, that they be inadvertently led astray.]
The truth will surface. I doubt random people who have enough interest will be led astray. The non cals have little or nothing to say. the old language runs other people off. most on BB have an averson to anything more than 3 sentences.

Iconoclast · Apr 17, 2022

JonC said;

You cannot have it both ways, Icon. You are flip flopping, trying to ride a fence.
Click to expand...

No JonC , you are trying to disrupt another thread. I am not doing any flip flopping as you once again offer an accusation against me.

And you are wrong.
Calvinism includes hyper-Calvinism (nobody is arguing otherwise).
Click to expand...

You never understood Calvinism, or you would know they are not the same. Any actual Calvinist knows that

Iconoclast · Apr 17, 2022

DaveXR650 said: ↑

I'm trying to figure this out too and having difficulty. The author's idea of the gospel seems to be that you can preach Christ and him crucified, but if you then set out a proposition - that you can believe in Christ and receive the benefits of the gospel, then you are making an "offer" that you shouldn't make. I don't understand how a set of facts that affect an individual can be told to them without it being considered an "offer". That question comes up on this board, a lot, but this time from the other side. Can you really preach the gospel to someone and give a genuine offer that IF they receive Christ they will be saved? (This of course, if you are a Calvinist, with the understanding that it's possible Christ did not die for the person you are proposing this to - and therefore, should you be doing that?) Arminians of course say Christ died for everyone. Most modern Calvinists from a Gospel Coalition, Piper, Keller, MacArthur background will say God has two wills or that it's a paradox we can't figure out. The high Calvinists say those guys are little better than Arminians and call them "hypoCalvinists".
Click to expand...

We are starting to see how what is known as a hyper Calvinist has nothing to do with biblical Calvinism.
We freely offer the gospel to all men worldwide.
They suggest there is no point to that and suggest we are wrong to do so.

JonC · Apr 17, 2022

DaveXR650 said: ↑

I'm trying to figure this out too and having difficulty. The author's idea of the gospel seems to be that you can preach Christ and him crucified, but if you then set out a proposition - that you can believe in Christ and receive the benefits of the gospel, then you are making an "offer" that you shouldn't make. I don't understand how a set of facts that affect an individual can be told to them without it being considered an "offer". That question comes up on this board, a lot, but this time from the other side. Can you really preach the gospel to someone and give a genuine offer that IF they receive Christ they will be saved? (This of course, if you are a Calvinist, with the understanding that it's possible Christ did not die for the person you are proposing this to - and therefore, should you be doing that?) Arminians of course say Christ died for everyone. Most modern Calvinists from a Gospel Coalition, Piper, Keller, MacArthur background will say God has two wills or that it's a paradox we can't figure out. The high Calvinists say those guys are little better than Arminians and call them "hypoCalvinists".
Click to expand...

I would present it differently.

The gospel of Christ is very simple. All Christians believe the gospel.

But what we believe about the gospel differs.

We should not discount either as unimportant. BUT what we believe about the way men are saved is not more important than actually sharing the gospel.

We are called (all of us) to share the gospel. We are commanded (all of us) not to judge the servant of Another.

As far as hyper-Calvinism there are degrees depending on where you stand. In the early 1600's hyper-Calvinism was rejecting that Christ died so that all could be saved.

In the early 1800's hyper-Calvinism was the position within Calvinism that rejected evangelism as God elects and men should not try to witness.

So it depends on where you stand.

Nobody claims to be "hyper". Most would probably consider @Iconoclast a hyper-Calvinist. He would look to those with more extreme views as being "hyper".

JonC · Apr 17, 2022

Iconoclast said: ↑

JonC said;

No JonC , you are trying to disrupt another thread. I am not doing any flip flopping as you once again offer an accusation against me.

You never understood Calvinism, or you would know they are not the same. Any actual Calvinist knows that
Click to expand...

No. I was interacting with the article. Again you chose disruption.

I was a Calvinist for a long time (I probably am more knowledgeable about Calvinism than you).

Hyper-Calvinism is Calvinism taken to an extreme. But it is still Calvinism. You make the error (again) of pretending all Calvinists believe as you.

Johnathan Edwards was a Calvinist (just not a Calvinist like you). R.C. Sproul was a Calvinist (just not a Calvinist like you). Tim Keller is a Calvinist, so is John Piper (just not Calvinists like you).

Iconoclast · Apr 17, 2022

Iconoclast is a mainstream Calvinist and any Calvinist would know it from miles away.
Enemies of Calvinism classify a mainstream Calvinist as extreme to try and deflect away from truth.
The list of mainstream Calvinists is to long to list.

Iconoclast · Apr 17, 2022

"JonC,

No. I was interacting with the article. Again you chose disruption
Click to expand...

.

How did the quote from post 43 get linked to post 35?

JonC · Apr 17, 2022

Iconoclast said: ↑

"JonC,

.

How did the quote from post 43 get linked to post 35?
Click to expand...

You quoted me arguing my position in 35.

I was saying that the article makes an error by relying on philosophy (that our understanding of election is of more importance than sharing the gospel).

On post 43 you addressed it by posting "That is only so in your mind and understanding."

But it isn't. Most Calvinists (and non-Calvinists) would probably agree that the guy is wrong, that he is engaging philosophy in how he categories importance.

JonC · Apr 17, 2022

Iconoclast said: ↑

"JonC,

Now in the interest of honesty...where did I post this phrase;

["That is only so in your mind and understanding."]

Click to expand...

I said

JonC said: ↑

The premise that our understanding of election and the atonement goes into philosophy.

Think of it this way - can you be saved with faith like a child, with simple faith in the gospel?

I believe so.

Can you be saved through an understanding of election and the atonement?

Nothing in Scripture indicates this to be the case.

So which is more important?
Click to expand...

You replied

Iconoclast said: ↑

JonC,
That is only so in your mind and understanding.
Click to expand...

I think you did not grasp my post. It looks like you mistook my comment about the authors philosophy in his method to mean our ideas of election is philosophy. Some may be, some may not. I was not talking about election but about prioritizing election over sharing the gospel.

SavedByGrace · Apr 17, 2022

Exposing the ERRORS of Calvinism! Simple!

Featured GOD'S OPERATIONS OF GRACE BUT NO OFFERS OF HIS GRACE

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

37818 Well-Known Member

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator

SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

Useful Searches

Featured GOD'S OPERATIONS OF GRACE BUT NO OFFERS OF HIS GRACE

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

37818 Well-Known Member

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

JonC Moderator Moderator

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

JonC Moderator Moderator

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

DaveXR650 Well-Known Member

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

JonC Moderator Moderator

JonC Moderator Moderator

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

JonC Moderator Moderator

JonC Moderator Moderator

SavedByGrace Well-Known Member

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator