Featured Faith Precedes Regeneration - Note What Spurgeon Said

Dave, I highlighted your statement to which I am responding.
I would restate it and say, "There is a direct belief and trust in Christ that is essential and you will do it because God has appointed it."

 

No, there is not. That is man's vain attempt to regard himself as having at least a measure of freedom outside of God's sovereignty.

 

Amen. The Law of Moses was "If you will, then I shall", while the gospel of Christ is "I will, and you shall."

 

Ken. None of those verses prove the kind of meticulous direct causation that would indeed make God the author of evil. Somebody, it may have been you, posted the other day something from Cheung where he said that God was directly the author of sin. I didn't believe it and had to look up the reference. Stay away from him.

 

Was it ordained by God at the appointed time...or not?
Of course we humans act sinfully and contrary to God's holiness. We are corrupt by nature. But does that mean God is passively sitting on the bleachers, watching the game? No. God is appointing the time...even the time that evil corruption will act.

 

You should reconsider your statement:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

(emphasis mine)

 

True, but you shall. You cannot get away from the fact that when two rational beings interact, even if the differences are immense like us and God, there still is an interaction. And the gospel is understood by us as a proposition and faith and belief is understood by us as a condition, and we must respond. God's absolute sovereignty in bringing this about does not mean that what happens on our part does not actually happen. Or that to speak of it as actually happening or necessary is not theologically correct.

 

Yes. Cheung meant moral evil, I'd have to go back and look at it but I think he even said God caused sin. Creating evil as in calamity and death and disaster of course that's true. But God doesn't even tempt men to sin, unless James is wrong.

 

True. God uses means as the sovereign Creator of the all the universe.

Romans 10:14-15 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? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Somehow or other, people have adopted the false idea that God using means negates His sovereignty and that it opens to door to espousing the false teaching of human free will.

 

We are not going to agree on this subject. I believe that God is absolutely totally sovereign for the reasons I have already noted. I will not be moved off that position.

You are attempting to judge God based on human values and what we think is "fair". God isn't to be judged based on human definitions of "fairness". God is absolutely totally sovereign. Period!

 

Nobody said he was. But there is a belief that God is directly causing all that happens in a meticulous way. I just don't think that the choice is between those two things. It's not God sitting passively by or determining every molecule, one or the other.

 

I'm just going from memory so maybe Cheung didn't say that or mean that. But you should look into the idea of God being a complete determiner of everything or not being sovereign at all. That is a false choice. I am not the one judging God. He is sovereign, but not a determiner of all things and has revealed some of his plans to us in scripture. They will all come about. He has also revealed to us something of his nature. He will not go against his nature. If I hear a theologian make a claim about God that goes against what is revealed in scripture as God's nature I will question it.

 

I know little about C.D. Cole(1885-1968) so I don't know how much I would agree with his writings in total, but he did write this about the sovereignty of God, which strikes to the heart of our disagreement:

"There is no alternative between an absolute sovereign God and no God at all. A man once wrote that he believed God was a sovereign, but not an absolute sovereign. A woman once talked of two supreme beings. But we believe in a sovereign God whose will is not subject to veto by His creatures."

 

God has clearly revealed that HE is sovereign. I rejoice in that fact.

If you want to believe that random things are happening in your life and throughout the world, go ahead. I refuse to live that way anymore.

 

davexr

I dont see any disconnect, maybe you do. However Faith, Repentance, coming to Christ are Gifts of Gods Saving Grace. Jesus is the Saviour and giver of Repentance Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

And you are dead wrong by saying it doesn't matter the origin of these things, it certainly does matter, Gods Glory is at stake, that's what's wrong with man now, he wants to take some kind of credit in his Salvation, when it should be God in Christ getting all the Glory and credit for all of Salvation of a person from eternity to eternity. So yes man does those things because God is the effective cause in him doing those things when He saves and converts him.

 

Once again. the question is not about sovereignty but the claim of direct meticulous determinism which is different. I know that what you are saying is a bonified belief system and my view of God being sovereign but not causing everything directly is derided by those guys, especially Cheung. (I looked up the quote and he indeed does say God is the author of sin).

But my belief is not something I cooked up myself either. They are not deriding me in this but the Westminster Confession of Faith. Other people reading this should be aware that my view has a formidable group of theologians who believe that way. I always felt that the meticulous determinism view was just something I was failing to understand and that some of the non-Calvinists on here were overreacting to claims of God's sovereignty. I realize now after reading Cheung that their claims were accurate - if he is right then God is the author of evil. Cheung says so.

 

Well, not sure if you know this or not, but Vincent Cheung wrote a book on the subject, free to read here:

The Author of Sin (vincentcheung.com)

 

Irrelevant. Just because a gaggle of folks teach something doesn't mean it is Biblical. There are lots of people who teach Pelagianism as I was raised on in the Church of Christ. Lots of people teaching it doesn't make it Biblical. I thank God for opening my eyes to the truth and giving me ears to hear it.

 

I agree. My concern here is when I see some people taken to task for bringing works into the salvation process simply because they claim they actually did what the substance of those gifts entailed. If someone says they came to Christ or believed the gospel or got saved just say "Amen", don't accuse them of legalism or self-salvation. And if a preacher like Spurgeon tells people to repent and believe don't tell him he ain't allowed to do that because it's all a gift. That's not necessary!

Maybe my language wasn't clear here. I'm saying the origin doesn't matter in context of the necessity that those things are actually done by the person and that the question HERE is not about the origin. The origin doesn't change my point that the individual must do those things. The origin matters a great deal if my claim was that they do not originate as gifts, which was never my claim.

 

It's definitely not inspired so you can take it or leave it or critique it at will but the WCF was not developed by a "gaggle" of folks. I just choose to go with them over Cheung. Thanks for the reference for his works though.