Originally posted by Chappie:
I have done that ad nauseum on this board, Chappie. I have done it with John 6 more times than I care to think about. John 6 is the context of eternal life and how one gets it. It is by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which is clearly a metaphor for believing in him. All who believe will never be cast out but Christ will surely raise him up at the last day. In fact, no one can come unless the Father draws him and Christ will raise him up at the last day. So at face value, having yet gone no farther, “raise him up at the last day” is used twice (v. 40, 44) – once with believe and once with draw. Therefore, it seems patently obvious that we must see some connection between drawing and believing. Then we move through the passage of those who doubted down to vv. 63-65 where Christ flatly and without deference tells the hearers that some of them do not believe and he goes on to say why they do not believe … because the Father hasn’t given it to them to come. Now, with that brief synopsis, let’s tie it together. All who the Father gives will come (v. 37) yet no one can come unless the Father gives (v. 65). So right off the bat you have two mutually exclusive groups both tied to the giving of the Father. Those whom the Father gives come and those who he does not give do not come (yea even cannot come … a word of ability – So much for that idea that all men have the opportunity. Christ himself said there were a group of people he was talking to who “cannot come.”) Next we see the issue of raising up at the last day. It is guaranteed for those who behold and believe (something that comes from the giving of the Father [vv. 63-65]) and those who are drawn (v. 44). Therefore in the context, it is hard to escape the fact that future resurrection is tied to the drawing of the Father which is virtually synonymous with the “giving” of vv. 37, 65. Therefore, all who are given come and no one gives unless given. If you believe that all men are given opportunity, then you must of necessity believe that all come and therefore you are a univeralist. Yet I don’t think you believe that. If you believe in the final resurrection, then you must tie it to the drawing of the Father which certainly ends in the resurrection of the one drawn. Yet you would have some drawn who are not raised, a direct contradiction of v. 44. It simply will not work.I have extensively gave my interpretation, in context, of John 6:44. You post scriptures, yet you never take the time to place them in context; nor do you take the time to explain how you feel they support your position. Just once Pastor, I would like to see you do that.
Now do you want to continue to say that I do not deal with Scripture in context? If you do a search, you will find this same explanation in several different places over the last 3500+ posts of mine.
/qb]It is disappointing to see you again misrepresenting my position after we have talked about it. I have never talked about imposed will. I vehemently deny the aspect of imposed will. God does not work apart from the free will of the individual.The fact that all are not saved can just as easily, more justly, and more logically be explained by freewill as imposed will that you so lovingly proclaim.
Read the text in the Greek and tell me what it says. Then we will carry on this discussion.Pastor, how is it that you heard him say men, but John, who was there, and is further validated by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all heard him say all men. It saddens me, what you do this passage to make it fit into your theology. … The bible says “all men”, you change it to “men”. Do you feel so secure in your theology that you would:
You will find that I have changed nothing. And it is disingenuous and again misrepresentative to say that I have. I will say you the trouble of looking up the Greek. I will give it to you. The phrase in question reads: pantas elkusw pros emauton, which being interpreted is “all I will draw to myself.” The Greek word for man is anthropos and I will tell you with absolute certainty and no fear of contradiction that you will not find it in that verse. Thus your charges and citation of Rev 22:18-19 is dead wrong and it totally out of line. You should know better.
Now on to the point of the verse, I noticed that you, having begged for me to deal with passages in context, completely ignore it to go on with your preconceived ideas about what the text says. Why? If you want me to take time to reinvent the wheel here for you (when this stuff can be looked up in a number of good resources) then do me the favor of interacting with what I take time to put forth. I dealt with the context. I showed you why Christ uses “pantas” in the sense of all men without distinction (i.e., Jews and Greeks/Gentiles) vs. all men without exception, something that would contradict clear passages of Scripture. You take a passage with no other explanation (John 6) and interpret it in light of a passage with an explanation that coincides with John 6. If John 12 had no other interpretation than yours, I would grant you a tremendous amount of tension. The fact is that John 12 fits perfectly with the book of John and the testimony that Christ died for the whole world, not simply for the Jews. That he why he says that when he is lifted up, he will draw all men to himself, even those Gentiles who previously had asked to see him.
Then I see a whole list of verse to close your post, none of which I disagree with. Why do you cite them without showing how they support your position? Every single one of those verses supports my position.
For instance, you cite Matt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. You make Christ out to be a liar because “all men” did not hate them. Christ was a man who didn’t hate them; the apostles were men who didn’t hate each other. In fact, there were many believers who didn’t hate each the apostles. So in reality, this verse supports me, not you. It undermines the position that you are trying to argue for.
Rom 5:18 is another interesting one: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (KJV) Are you now a universalist believing that all men have justification of life? Surely you are not a universalist so you must admit that not all men have justification of life. Again, this verse proves my point, not yours.
The point is that your proof texting is not a good method of argumentation and more importantly, it doesn’t even support you. Chappie, I have to wonder if you have really though through these issues. I don’t mean to be hard on you, I really don’t. I appreciate your participation. Yet I read this post and wonder what in the world you are thinking. You probably did a concordance search for “all men” and listed a number of verses that came up without really thinking about what they really say. I would encourage you to think through these things some more.
-
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!
Some Things That “Limited Atonement” Does Not Mean:
- Thread starter Monergist
- Start date
Bible-belted
New Member
Larry,
I have found in my interactions with Chappie that he does seriously consider the issues. I admit that occasioanlly I have ot remind him that ther are somethings we have already agreed on, and he should argue from that agreement, and not the disagreement we started out with, but that is a very minor thing. You likely will have to do the same thing, occasionaly reminding him about things alredy pointed out. Such is to be expected in this environment when posts that are close on the webpage can be separated by days in terms of posting time.
Sometimes I fid it useful to remember thatthe flow and continuity that are seen in these conversations is in some ways artificial.
Chappie is earnest in his efforts to understand. That ismy experiene. I encourage you to accept that and respond to him accordingly. I find that if you do, he responds in kind.
I have found in my interactions with Chappie that he does seriously consider the issues. I admit that occasioanlly I have ot remind him that ther are somethings we have already agreed on, and he should argue from that agreement, and not the disagreement we started out with, but that is a very minor thing. You likely will have to do the same thing, occasionaly reminding him about things alredy pointed out. Such is to be expected in this environment when posts that are close on the webpage can be separated by days in terms of posting time.
Sometimes I fid it useful to remember thatthe flow and continuity that are seen in these conversations is in some ways artificial.
Chappie is earnest in his efforts to understand. That ismy experiene. I encourage you to accept that and respond to him accordingly. I find that if you do, he responds in kind.
This same word is translaged "drag" in both James 2 ("Do not the rich oppress you and DRAG you into the courts"), and in Acts where Paul and Silas are "dragged" before the authorities. So, the New Testament, which was originally written in Greek, would here seem to support the Calvinistic position.
Rev. G
Bible-belted
New Member
"You guys have to admit, this is pretty clever. I wonder how long it will be until we have the "Calvinistic" version. Oh, wait! We do. "Amazing Grace" was authored by a Calvinist, John Newton."
Good one!
Good one!
I too have found exchanges with him to be enjoyable. I get a little frustrated when he misrepresents what I have made explicit and when he says that I should do something that I have done, namely talk about Scripture in context. I have tried to point out to him some of the fallacies of his interpretive scheme by showing Scripture in context. As I say, I appreciate his contribution and participation but I encourage him as I do all not to misrepresent the other position.
On that topic, the song parody is quite funny and while some will take offense, it is intended as a humorous contribution. I would urge any arminian to answer the questions put forth by it.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
v1 Arminian "grace!" How strange the sound, Salvation hinged on me.
I once was lost then turned around,
Was blind then chose to see.
v2 What "grace" is it that calls for choice,
Made from some good within?
That part that wills to heed God's voice,
Proved stronger than my sin.
v3 Thru many ardent gospel pleas,
I sat with heart of stone.
But then some hidden good in me,
Propelled me toward my home.
v4 When we've been there ten thousand years, Because of what we've done,
We've no less days to sing our praise,
Than when we first begun.
An answer:
v1: Arminian grace is not strange. God gives the opportunity for all men to repent, for it is His will that all men repent. Salvation does not hinge on the man. Without Christ, there is no salvation.
v2: What "grace" is it that gives no choice?
v3: It's not through any hidden good that a man is saved. It's through the drawing of the Spirit.
v4: Anyone who sings their own praise about salvation is an idiot - not a true Arminian. It's not about us. It's about Jesus Christ.
How's those for answers?
I once was lost then turned around,
Was blind then chose to see.
v2 What "grace" is it that calls for choice,
Made from some good within?
That part that wills to heed God's voice,
Proved stronger than my sin.
v3 Thru many ardent gospel pleas,
I sat with heart of stone.
But then some hidden good in me,
Propelled me toward my home.
v4 When we've been there ten thousand years, Because of what we've done,
We've no less days to sing our praise,
Than when we first begun.
An answer:
v1: Arminian grace is not strange. God gives the opportunity for all men to repent, for it is His will that all men repent. Salvation does not hinge on the man. Without Christ, there is no salvation.
v2: What "grace" is it that gives no choice?
v3: It's not through any hidden good that a man is saved. It's through the drawing of the Spirit.
v4: Anyone who sings their own praise about salvation is an idiot - not a true Arminian. It's not about us. It's about Jesus Christ.
How's those for answers?
F
ForumChaplain
Guest
Latreia:
These comments are made by Pastor Larry. I would like to have a point by point evaluation by you if it is possible.
John 6:65
65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
John 6:64-65
65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
NKJV
John 6:65
65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
NIV
John 6:65
65And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
ASV
John 6:65
65And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
NASU
John 6:65
65And he remarked, "That is what I meant when I said that no one can come to me unless the Father attracts him to me."
TLB
Only the NIV, translates in a way that is favorable to your cause.
Ok, all you Hebrew talkers, which is the best and more accurate translation. Enabled, granted, given attracts. Is it salvation by devine decree??
John 6:65
65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
John 6:65
65Kaí élegen Diá toúto eíreeka humín hóti oudeís dúnatai eltheín prós me eán-meé eé dedoménon autoó ek toú Patrós
John 6:65
65 Kaí élegen Diá toúto eíreeka
kai\ e&legen, Dia\ tou=to ei&rhka
2532 3004 1223 5124 4483
And he said, Therefore said I
humín hóti oudeís dúnatai eltheín prós
u(mi€n o%ti ou)dei\$ du/natai e)lqei€n pro/$
5213 3754 3762 1410 2064 4314
unto you, that no man can come unto
me eán-meé eé dedoménon autoó
me e)a\n mh\ h@| dedome/non au)tw=|
3165 3362 5600 1325 846
me, except it were given unto him
ek toú Patrós
e)k tou= patro/$.
1537 <9999 > 3588 3962
of my Father.
(Interlinear Transliterated Bible.
NT:1325
didomi (did'-o-mee); a prolonged form of a primary verb (which is used as an altern. in most of the tenses); to give (used in a very wide application, properly, or by implication, literally or figuratively; greatly modified by the connection):
KJV-adventure, bestow, bring forth, commit, deliver (up), give, grant, hinder, make, minister, number, offer, have power, put, receive, set, shew, smite (+with the hand), strike (+with the palm of the hand), suffer, take, utter, yield.
John 6:65
And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
Except it be given him of the Father ean (NT:1437) mee (NT:3361) ee (NT:2228) dedomenon (NT:1325) autoo (NT:846) ek (NT:1537) tou (NT:3588) patros (NT:3962). Condition of third class with ean (NT:1437) mee (NT:3361) and periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive of didoomi (NT:1325). Precisely the same point as in John 6:44 where we have helkusee (NT:1670) instead of ee (NT:2228) dedomenon (NT:1325). The impulse to faith comes from God. Jesus does not expect all to believe and seems to imply that Judas did not truly believe.
(from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft & Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament. Copyright (c) 1985 by Broadman Press[/i]
NT:1325
didomi--
(from The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright (c)1993, Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.)
1) to give
2) to give something to someone
a) used of one's own accord to give one something, to his advantage to bestow a gift
b) to grant, to give to one asking, to let have
c) to supply, to furnish necessary things
d) to give over, to deliver
1) to reach out, to extend, to present
2) used of a writing
3) to give over to one's care, to intrust, to commit
a) something to be administered
b) to give or to commit to some one something to be religiously observed
e) to give what is due or obligatory, to pay: wages or reward
f) to furnish, to endue
2) to give one to someone, to follow him as a leader and master
3) to give one to someone to care for his interests
4) to give one to someone to whom he already belonged, to return
4) to grant or permit one to commission
[ October 04, 2002, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]
These comments are made by Pastor Larry. I would like to have a point by point evaluation by you if it is possible.
Also, could you evaluate the following:
John 6:65
65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
John 6:64-65
65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
NKJV
John 6:65
65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
NIV
John 6:65
65And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
ASV
John 6:65
65And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
NASU
John 6:65
65And he remarked, "That is what I meant when I said that no one can come to me unless the Father attracts him to me."
TLB
Only the NIV, translates in a way that is favorable to your cause.
Ok, all you Hebrew talkers, which is the best and more accurate translation. Enabled, granted, given attracts. Is it salvation by devine decree??
John 6:65
65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
John 6:65
65Kaí élegen Diá toúto eíreeka humín hóti oudeís dúnatai eltheín prós me eán-meé eé dedoménon autoó ek toú Patrós
John 6:65
65 Kaí élegen Diá toúto eíreeka
kai\ e&legen, Dia\ tou=to ei&rhka
2532 3004 1223 5124 4483
And he said, Therefore said I
humín hóti oudeís dúnatai eltheín prós
u(mi€n o%ti ou)dei\$ du/natai e)lqei€n pro/$
5213 3754 3762 1410 2064 4314
unto you, that no man can come unto
me eán-meé eé dedoménon autoó
me e)a\n mh\ h@| dedome/non au)tw=|
3165 3362 5600 1325 846
me, except it were given unto him
ek toú Patrós
e)k tou= patro/$.
1537 <9999 > 3588 3962
of my Father.
(Interlinear Transliterated Bible.
NT:1325
didomi (did'-o-mee); a prolonged form of a primary verb (which is used as an altern. in most of the tenses); to give (used in a very wide application, properly, or by implication, literally or figuratively; greatly modified by the connection):
KJV-adventure, bestow, bring forth, commit, deliver (up), give, grant, hinder, make, minister, number, offer, have power, put, receive, set, shew, smite (+with the hand), strike (+with the palm of the hand), suffer, take, utter, yield.
John 6:65
And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
Except it be given him of the Father ean (NT:1437) mee (NT:3361) ee (NT:2228) dedomenon (NT:1325) autoo (NT:846) ek (NT:1537) tou (NT:3588) patros (NT:3962). Condition of third class with ean (NT:1437) mee (NT:3361) and periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive of didoomi (NT:1325). Precisely the same point as in John 6:44 where we have helkusee (NT:1670) instead of ee (NT:2228) dedomenon (NT:1325). The impulse to faith comes from God. Jesus does not expect all to believe and seems to imply that Judas did not truly believe.
(from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft & Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament. Copyright (c) 1985 by Broadman Press[/i]
NT:1325
didomi--
(from The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright (c)1993, Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.)
1) to give
2) to give something to someone
a) used of one's own accord to give one something, to his advantage to bestow a gift
b) to grant, to give to one asking, to let have
c) to supply, to furnish necessary things
d) to give over, to deliver
1) to reach out, to extend, to present
2) used of a writing
3) to give over to one's care, to intrust, to commit
a) something to be administered
b) to give or to commit to some one something to be religiously observed
e) to give what is due or obligatory, to pay: wages or reward
f) to furnish, to endue
2) to give one to someone, to follow him as a leader and master
3) to give one to someone to care for his interests
4) to give one to someone to whom he already belonged, to return
4) to grant or permit one to commission
[ October 04, 2002, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]
KenH
Well-Known Member
Nice job, Scott.
Thanks for also admitting that the Arminian idea of God is a God who cannot carry out His own will, but is instead subject to the whims of His creation; that the Arminian God is a God that could actually end up being unable to save anyone.
Ken
A Spurgeonite
Thanks for also admitting that the Arminian idea of God is a God who cannot carry out His own will, but is instead subject to the whims of His creation; that the Arminian God is a God that could actually end up being unable to save anyone.
Ken
A Spurgeonite
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Or a third option: That God is a God who chooses to allow His creation to have their own will and gives creation the power to choose Him. That God is a God who being both in and out of time was ablt to see that people would choose Him.Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Nice job, Scott.
Thanks for also admitting that the Arminian idea of God is a God who cannot carry out His own will, but is instead subject to the whims of His creation; that the Arminian God is a God that could actually end up being unable to save anyone.
Ken
A Spurgeonite
Why must you always make things an either/or proposition? Do you not understand that there may be several different options instead of your worst-case scenarios? How long will you continue to mischaracterize God, when at the same time you grip about Calvinists mischaracterizing your theology?
Sovereign Grace
New Member
Masked man? I don't understand the implication. The post I'm referring to is the one about the meaning of the word "draw" (Gr. helkuo or helko). The word cannot mean "to beg" or "to plead." That is the definition you force upon it. It certainly never means "to invite" or "to accept" either. Out of curiosity does your church do the "altar call," the "sinner's prayer," or the "decision card?" The sinner's prayer seems to be the most popular way of "getting saved" in Arminian churches nowadays. I don't see how you can claim that salvation isn't hinged on you because it most certainly is in your theology, for God can do nothing unless you "invite Him into your heart." According to the Bible, God gives His people a new heart to know Him. Our heart, before regeneration, is a heart of stone. Is that what you gave God? Some gift! Oh, but I bet He was just so pleased with good little you and your "decision" to "let" Him be God. "Let God be God," or so I've heard Arminians say to sinners. Or, "Let God have His way."
"We deny the charge as unjust made by the Arminians against the wise and good Ruler of the universe. God did elect His people before the foundation of the world, long before any of them had a being, and those not elected were left out, and God is not unjust. It is blasphemy to charge a God of purity and justice with being unjust. It is a wonder that He allows His depraved creatures to live who utter such vile epithets in denouncing Him while they pretend to worship Him." - Elder John R. Daily
"We deny the charge as unjust made by the Arminians against the wise and good Ruler of the universe. God did elect His people before the foundation of the world, long before any of them had a being, and those not elected were left out, and God is not unjust. It is blasphemy to charge a God of purity and justice with being unjust. It is a wonder that He allows His depraved creatures to live who utter such vile epithets in denouncing Him while they pretend to worship Him." - Elder John R. Daily
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
As has already been noted - Cavlinism - even 5 Point Calvinism is constrained to use Arminian methods of evangelism - since Calvinism just does not work there.
You have to use the Arminian model of "God loves you Yes You my friend. And He loves your family too! HE died for You, He is calling you today! Wont you choose Christ today? you may not have another day! Today may be your last opportunity. I urge you to come forward..."
Typical - Arminian terms - heard from all effective Calvinist evangelists.
But why do they not "rather" say --
"NOTHING we do or say here today will change your fate. God alone wills it - God alone determines it. He has chosen to love ONLY the Few - though He sometimes calls that - So Loving the World.
The chances that YOU are among the FEW are slim to none. The chances that EVEN IF you are among the few - that ANY of your children are also the FEW of MAtt 7 are even slimmer.
Since nothing I say will chancge what God has willed today - one iota - lets all just relax and watch to see who God may have willed to get saved today because of Jesus Christ's Life death and resurrection".
You will note - that the up-front reliance on that Calvinist model to be born out in real life - is never seen in real life.
In Christ,
Bob
[ October 08, 2002, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Really Loving ALL and really dying for ALL - but refusing to force ANY to submit - is viewed as failure by some
By contrast - note the post on page one of this thread - where God says of your child burning in hell "Sure I COULD have done something - if I had CARED to".
There is no comparison. It is night and day - hands down in favor of the Arminian view of God.
In Christ,
Bob
And that is the "risk" in that system that chooses to leave the "ALL" as ALL and chooses to leave the "WORLD" as World.
By contrast - note the post on page one of this thread - where God says of your child burning in hell "Sure I COULD have done something - if I had CARED to".
There is no comparison. It is night and day - hands down in favor of the Arminian view of God.
In Christ,
Bob
KenH
Well-Known Member
Only in your fantasyland, Bob.
(Isaiah 55:8-11 NKJV) "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. {9} "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. {10} "For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater, {11} So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.
(Daniel 4:35 NKJV) All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, "What have You done?"
(Isaiah 14:24 NKJV) The LORD of hosts has sworn, saying, "Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand:
(Isaiah 46:9-10 NKJV) Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, {10} Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'
My God never fails, Bob. Evidently you are quite content that yours does fail. But mine does not.
"Then another difficulty comes in; not only is everything made contingent, but it does seem to us as if man were thus made to be the supreme being in the universe. According to the freewill scheme the Lord intends good, but he must win like a lackey on his own creature to know what his intention is; God willeth good and would do it, but he cannot, because he has an unwilling man who will not have God's good thing carried into effect. What do ye, sirs, but drag the Eternal from his throne, and lift up into it that fallen creature, man: for man, according to that theory nods, and his nod is destiny. You must have a destiny somewhere; it must either be as God wills or as man wills . If it be as God wills , then Jehovah sits as sovereign upon his throne of glory, and all hosts obey him, and the world is safe; if not God, then you put man there, to say. "I will" or "I will not; if I will it I will enter heaven; if I will it I will despise the grace of God; if I will it I will conquer the Holy Sprit, for I am stronger than God, and stronger than omnipotence; if I will it I will make the blood of Christ of no effect, for I am mightier than that blood, mightier than the blood of the Son of God himself; though God make his purpose, yet will I laugh at his purpose; it shall be my purpose that shall make his purpose stand, or make it fall." Why, sirs, if this be not Atheism, it is idolatry; it is putting man where God should be, and I shrink with solemn awe and horror from that doctrine which makes the grandest of God's works—the salvation of man—to be dependent upon the will of his creature whether it shall be accomplished or not. Glory I can and must in my text in its fullest sense. "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."" - From Charles Spurgeon's sermon entitled "God's Will and Man's Will"
Ken
A Spurgeonite
[ October 05, 2002, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
ScottEmerson
Active Member
And isn't that the MOST important part?Originally posted by Rev. G:
Scott, I can definitely agree with you on this statement (although I edited the "Arminian" part).
[ October 06, 2002, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]