| Author | Message | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 376 Registered: 7-2004  |
Chris, you have captured what has been a growing conclusion of mine as I move further and further away from SDAism. Scripture is full of paradox and mystery. Systematic theologies, by their nature, seek to limit these. But the result is force fitting some passages in order to match our philosophy. On the Calvinism/Arminianism scale, I clearly tip Calvinistic. But even with that mindset, I still see too many pieces being forced together to fit the underlying philosophy. At this point, I would rather try to accept that there is paradox than to force ideas (and therefore God) into a box. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2986 Registered: 12-2003  |
Ric_b, you have expressed my understanding perfectly. "ÖI clearly tip Calvinistic, but I still see too many pieces being forced together to fit the underlying philosophy. At this point, I would rather try to accept that there is pardox than to force ideas (and therefore God) into a box." The more I study, the more convinced I am that truth really is a paradox. That doesn't mean it's disjucnt; it just means we can't see how it all fits into a complete, seamless whole in the heart of God. To us, it seems contradictory. In God resides the "unifying theory of everything". Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1081 Registered: 7-2003  |
Well said, Rick and Colleen. Although it probably doesn't sound like it at this moment in time, on an Arminian to Calvinism scale I'm much definately closer to the right end of the scale (Calvinism). If forced to classify myself I would probably identify myself in the same way Norman Geisler does as a "Moderate Calvinist" (I also find Middle Knowledge intriguing as a way of explaining the paradoxes, but I tend to understand and define Middle Knowledge via a Moderate Calvinistic perspective). I guess what really bothers me is that instead of all sides being willing to say, "You know, the Bible really does seem to teach predestination and human choice, I guess I can't fuly explain it", the discussion always goes to why one is true and the other cannot be. This forces both extremes into the position of forcing certain passages of scripture into a philosophical construct whether or not they actually fit. I'm just not willing to do that anymore. Chris | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 495 Registered: 4-2000  |
The truth is that BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism teach limited atonement. This is the unavoidable outcome of the Arminian view when taken to its logical conclusion. In both views there is definitely a "limited atonement." The difference is over WHO ultimately determines the limited atonement. In Calvinism, God is the one who determines our destiny, and in Arminianism, it is man who determines his destiny. Both views end up with many people suffering eternally in hell--the result of a limited atonement (whether God-imposed or self-imposed). The ultimate question we must ask ourselves is who do we consider the master of our destiny. The Arminian position is well illustrated in the case of an American who more than a hundred years ago was sentenced to be hanged. Before the time of his execution, however, President Andrew Johnson granted him a pardon. But the man refused and even appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld his right to refuse a pardon. The Court declared that the president may grant a pardon, but that a pardon may never be forced on a person, and may be rejected. Similarly, the Arminian says, God may offer man a pardon on the basis of Christ's death, but a condemned sinner may reject that pardon. However, anyone who would reject a pardon--from God or from the president--is a fool. There is no proof-texting in Calvinism--it is the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, it is the big picture of salvation. I concur with Martin Luther when he declared, "If any man doth ascribe to salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." Charles Spurgeon comments on Luther's statement, "It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that he is 'Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died" (C. H. Spurgeon from the sermon "Free Will A Slave," 1855). George Whitfield added, "We are all born Arminians. It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon concludes, "I would rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of men be added to it. I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, 'You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself.' My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will. A man is not saved against his will, but he is made willing by the operation of the Holy Ghost. A mighty grace which he does not wish to resist enters into the man, disarms him, makes a new creature of him, and he is saved." And all God's people said, "AMEN." Dennis Fischer | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1039 Registered: 3-2005 |
Interesting discussion as always. I do agree with Dennis on these issues. I don't think you can classify Grudem as an extreme Calvinist, as he clearly doesn't believe in double predestination, as the reprobate are still responsible for their choice in rejecting Jesus. Grudem summarizes the differences between Arminian and Reformed positions as this: "The Reformed position says that the highest value of God is His own glory, while the Arminian says that the highest value of God is man's free will." Page 684 Chris, you may have a point that the truth lies in between, but, if I believe the Bible to be inerrant, then I have to say, that when Paul or Jesus teaches in a systematic way in the form of a sermon, such as John 6, where it so clearly states that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, and "all that the father gives me will come to me", then there is two ways to interpret this, and that is either only the elect that were chosen from eternity past will be saved, or that everyone will be saved. Matt.11:27 is one of the clearest passages that says that we don't choose Jesus, He chooses us. "...Only the Son knows the Father, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him. There again, this must mean either the elect only, or everyone he will choose. Then you have theological treatises in Rom. 8-11, and Ephesians 1 and 2 which are irrefutable. So, then, to take the Arminian position with the few problematic texts does not seem to be the logical way to exeget scripture. The usual principal is you go to the passages that are very clear, then interpret other passages that may seem less clear in the light of these other clear passages. John 1:13 states very clearly that we are born of God, not by any human will. As Grudem says, none of us had anything to do with our physical births, so why would it be any different with our spiritual births? So, then, when you come to texts such as John 3:16, then that must be interpreted in light of these other scriptures, that only the new birth can enable us to truly believe, and the same goes for other similar texts. The idea of predestination and election just permeates the entire scripture old and new from Abel in Genesis 3 to the call of Abraham, and so forth. Also another question I have for anyone. Since Reformed doctrine is only present in about 5-10% of U.S. Christendom, why does it seem like all the truly great Christian writing and preaching at least seems to be by majority Reformed in their soteriology? MacArthur and J. Vernon McGhee are dispensational but fully Reformed in soteriology. Then, you think of the great authors of the Christian faith from the Reformers to John Bunyan and many other puritan writers, then the great early awakening preachers and authors Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. Then the famous Charles Spurgeon, who writes prose that is unequaled. Then you come to more modern times J.I. Packer "Knowing God" which I am re-reading now, and it is just awe-inspiring. Then R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, and John Piper with another classic "Desiring God". It seems, that this great writing and preaching is inspired by the theology of God being totally sovereign in everything, and with the glory of God as the primary purpose of their writing. How many great Arminian authors are there? And, I know there are many, but I just can't name any right now. And, if you were given the choice, that besides the Bible, there was only one set of books that you could read the rest of your life, what authors would you choose to read, Arminian or Reformed? I admit to my biases, and they are undoubtedly showing. The authors mentioned above just seem to resonate in my spirit when I read them. Melissa, There are some very good Reformed authors such as Michael Horton who does believe that God has chosen all babies that die before accountability, and retarded ones as chosen by God in eternity past for salvation. So, I would take courage if I were you for both you and your children. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1040 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dennis, I didn't see your last post, but you saved me from having to say something about definite atonement. You said it well! Stan | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1084 Registered: 7-2003 |
"There is no proof-texting in Calvinism--it is the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ." Really? So Dennis, would you consider a belief in Calvinism to be one of the essentials of the Christian faith? Stan, does Grudem teach that the reprobate are those who are not chosen for salvation and that Jesus never died for them and has never offered them salvation? If this is true than they are predestined for Hell and double predestination is true. If this is true then they don't have any true choice at all because salvation was never in any sense available to them. They were not chosen for salvation, it was not offered to them, Christ did not die for them, it is not an option for them, they were predestined for Hell. Grudem teaches this as does RC Sproul. Interestingly, Geisler argues that this view is more extreme than Calvin's own view hence the label "extreme Calvinist" or "hyper-Calvinist". One other point that puts Grudem in the extreme Calvinist camp: Grudem ultimately makes God the author of evil by likening him to Shakesphere who is ultimately the author of the murder that Macbeth commits. I'm curious by the way. Few Calvinists would want to go as far as Grudem has done in this regard. How would a slighlty more moderate Calvinist explain Adam and Eve's sin (I've memorized Sproul's chart/grid on this, but he never truly explains how God is not the author of evil)? Or here's a tougher one, how does one explain Satan's sin without going as far as Grudem has done? Chris (Message edited by Chris on November 29, 2005) | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 159 Registered: 3-2005 |
I don't even begin to comprehend the implications of this conversation! If I think that I am only saved because God has called me and I accepted that call, then I know I am saved. But - what if God didn't call me? Am I being deceived about my assurance of Salvation? And why bother to witness to my children and others if they will only be saved if God calls them? It seems that if God intends them to be saved they will and if not they won't no matter what any of us do to witness. Or do I witness because God intends that for me? I am feeling pretty discouraged right now. I thought that Salvation was "easy" in the sense that "all" I had to do was accept Jesus' death as atonement my sins. It seemed so simple when I understood that free gift of Grace. Now I don't know. What if I accept what I think is an offer of Grace, but it really isn't offered to me? How do I know I am one of the "called"? I thought I didn't need to understand all the theology involved, even though it is interesting. I thought all I needed was "simple" faith. I didn't need to know all those rules and timelines, etc. to be saved. I only need to say YES to God's call. And now even my faith is being challenged. What if I wasn't called? Maybe I'm all confused? I'm not writing this to discourage this conversation. I'm just venting because I am feeling pretty discouraged right about now. Am I deluded in my saying "I know I am saved"? Maybe Salvation isn't offered to me - or to my children. How would I know? So, again, it seems I'm back to it doesn't really matter what I believe - in the end what will be will be!? I guess I'm in a funk right now. -tisha | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1042 Registered: 3-2005 |
Chris, I think it is more accurate to reserve the term hyper-Calvinism for those wackos on the internet who say that those who are Arminian in their theology are not saved. Grudem would never entertain such a notion. Also hyper C's believe that the gospel should not be even universally preached to the non-elect. If you read Grudem on limited atonement I think he comes across as very even-handed, and he presents both sides of arguments. He doesn't hold himself up as infallible, and I don't necessarily agree with everything he teaches either, but for some one like me who doesn't have formal training in theology, then an author like him helps point out the relevant passages, and then I can make a decision about whether he is correct by my own personal study and prayer. At least Grudem has a humble spirit about him. As far as double predestination, he just says that that is an unfair term used because election is an active work of God, but since God just chooses not to save some and passes over them, that that is a passive work. One key concept seems to be that God would be perfectly just if He didn't save anyone. Just like the angels who rebelled, he didn't save any of them. He would be just as righteous, if he chose not to save any of us. But what makes grace truly grace is the fact that we didn't have any choice, we were doomed, but in His mercy he reached down to save some according to His good pleasure. If we could choose to be born again by our will, then grace would not really be grace, and we could take some of the credit, as is commonly done today where many people think they are saved because they made the choice, and that poor soul over there didn't make the choice, so in a way there is boasting. These are difficult doctrines to accept, because it goes against the grain of everything we were taught in Adventism, as well as in American culture. That is why it was so difficult for me to become Reformed in my thinking. Everything in medical school revolved around competition and earning your place. Even after becoming saved, I rebelled against anything close to Calvinism, because it was so against everything I had been taught. When Dennis mentioned that Calvinism is the authentic gospel, then I remembered that Charles Spurgeon said this also at www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm where his direct quote was "Calvinism is the gospel". But he clarified what he meant by this in the rest of this article (which is a great read BTW), and he also said in this article that "the heresy of Arminianism is that it adds to the work of the Redeemer". But, he was also very charitable to those who didn't see these doctrines of grace the way he did. He said that even though he despised the doctrines of John Wesley, but that Wesley was a much greater saint than he was. This represents the kind of charity we should all have in these fascinating discussions. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1043 Registered: 3-2005 |
Tisha, I just saw your post after my last post. By all means do not be discouraged by a discussion like this. The true fact is that anyone who is trusting in Christ alone for their salvation has been elected and chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, because that is the certain promises of God. John 3:16, and Romans 10:9,10, and John 5:24 are all still true. The good news is that it is the grace of God that is enabling you to believe in Jesus, and these doctrines when taught correctly are to be taught for our assurance. The gospel is simple as you say, but it is also true that Jesus as well as Paul made it very clear that God the Father as well as Jesus chose us as his children before the foundation of the world. That sounds like exciting news! But rest assured, that if you are trusting in Jesus alone, then you are saved and have nothing to fear. Stan | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 496 Registered: 4-2000 |
Colleen, In regard to the descendants of Esau, Obediah prophesied that "the house of Esau will be stubble. And they will set them on fire and consume them, so that there will no survivor of the house of Esau. For the Lord has spoken" (Obediah 18). Esau's descendants, the Edomites, lived south of modern Ammon, Jordan in one of the spectacular, natural wonders of the world known as "Petra." Verse 10 of Obediah says that "because of violence to your brother Jacob, you will be covered with shame, and you will be cut off forever" (NASB). By the way, my wife Sylvia slept one night in an Edomite cave at Petra. Sylvia saw the altars where the Edomites sacrificed their children to their heathen deities. Biblical history repeatedly confirms that God is very jealous and gets most upset over the worshipping of false gods. In fact, God made this an issue the very first commandment in the Decalogue. Petra has now become a major tourist attraction with large hotels nearby, shuttle service from the international airport in Ammon, etc. Indeed, Petra confirms, the prophecy of Obediah, that the Edomites would have "no survivors." Thus, today there is no trace of their existence in the world. Scripture and archaeology confirm the accuracy of Obediah's predictions. Petra used to be on a major trade route linked to India. Also, Petra can only be accessed on foot or horseback due to the narrow gorge between the gigantic stone formations. Many travel agencies now feature special getaway trips to Petra. Obediah 16 tells us that the Edomites "would be as if they had never been" as a nation, kingdom, or people. The Edomites were most evil in their ways. Amazingly, as you well know, this is actually a major proof-text by SDA apologists on the state of the dead. Talk about taking things out of context! Dennis Fischer | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 497 Registered: 4-2000 |
Correction: Obadiah not "Obediah" (sorry). | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1085 Registered: 7-2003 |
Tisha, I certainly do not mean to discourage anyone by bringing up these issues. I do however think it is important to understand what the debate is all about. If full-bore Calvinism is correct it is not a matter of you "accepting" anything at all. If Calvinism is correct you can not do so because you don't truly have the type of free-will that would allow you to choose Christ or not choose Christ. Even if you did have free-will it wouldn't matter because you haven't been given that choice in the first place. You are either chosen by God for salvation, in which case that calling is irresistable, or you are destined by God for reprobation, in which case salvation is not extended to you in any sense. Either way, it's not a choice and you can't accept or reject anything. You are what you are (saved or retrobate) according to God's sovereign choice.......if full bore Calvinism is correct. Because there are massive implications it's worth having the discussion. But as Stan said, if you know you have faith in Jesus Christ than you need not worry, you ARE saved. This is true whether you're a Calvinist or an Arminian because THAT'S the Gospel of Jesus Christ (not a particular philosophical or theological construct). Chris | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 498 Registered: 4-2000 |
Chris, To me, Calvinism (a mere "nickname" for the Gospel as Spurgeon believed) is indeed the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the Gospel as Paul and others preached it. In this respect, Calvinism is an essential of the Christian faith. Without any doubt, however, countless numbers of people will be in heaven who have not fully understood or comprehended all the specific details of soteriology (the science or study of salvation). God does not expect the impossible from us. He takes us just as we are and transforms us. Many do not know all the fancy theological terms--nor do they need to. In the truest sense, Christianity is not a religion, but rather it is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Many in cults today do not know very much about their aberrant beliefs, praise God, but they know Jesus personally in spite of their cultic heritage or upbringing. For example, my late mother knew very little about her Adventism, but she had a close relationship with Jesus. I still treasure some of the German phrases she used in her prayers. It is most important not to make the simple Gospel technical or complicated in any way. In this endeavor, Calvinism succeeds beautifully. No other Christian view teaches the simplicity of the Gospel in a clearer or better way. More importantly, no other view stresses a relationship with Jesus better. In awe of His grace, Dennis Fischer | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1086 Registered: 7-2003 |
So Dennis, If Calvinism is an essential of the Christian faith then as Chrisians we would need to divide ourselves from those who understand Calvinism and yet reject it. We cannot give ground on the essentials, especially not the Gosspel itself. If what you say is true, then those who understand Calvinism and yet reject it are to be eternally damned for preaching another Gospel (Galatians Ch. 1). My friend, this type of overstatement and dogmatism is very sad to see, very very sad indeed. I mean this with utmost sincerity, I am truly saddened. I also need to say that I would consider it at least bordering on blasphemous to "nickname" the Gospel after a mere man and his philosophy. If Spurgeon truly called the Gospel by the name of John Calvin he should be ashamed. Chris | ||
| Insearchof Registered user Username: Insearchof Post Number: 33 Registered: 8-2005 |
As someone relatively new to this forum, I have hesitated to get too involved in these discussions. Most of you are much brighter than I, and having been only recently exposed to Calvinism, I am not sure I have all the pieces in place. Having said that, I want to add a few comments for what they are worth... I think there is a lot of wisdom in the Spurgeon sermon that Stan referenced in his post. I read it a while back (actually, I try to limit my time with Pastor Spurgeon. I get so involved in reading his sermons that hours can go by...), but I digress. I find that as I study and expose myself to the doctrines of grace, I am drawn to Calvinism. But I remember when I first heard RC Sproul explain what it meant to be Calvinist, I thought he was out of his mind. Really. Since I began to study, I find that he is not out of his mind. He is actually closer to Biblical truth than I once believed. I am comforted to see on this forum that you folks (whom I very much respect for your desire to adhere to Sola Scriptura) have some of the same questions I have regarding Calvinism. It is easy to take things to their logical extremes which actually distort the points of Calvinism. There have to be guardrails if you will that keep us from going to far left (Arminianism) or to far right (Hyper-Calvinism). It is a human failing that we always want an 'either-or'. It seems to me to be this way with Arminians (the free-will people) and the Hyper-Calvinist - both ignore crucial passages of Scripture by trying to resolve what may best be classified as a mystery in favor of 'either election or the free offer of the Gospel' with no in-between. I am reading an article by Michael S. Horton (thanks Stan!) in which he cautions that there are guardrails that we need to be careful not to stray beyond. To read Scripture for more than it actually says. There are extremists on both sides. Wisdom says don't speculate beyond what Scripture actually says while we insist on proclaiming the WHOLE counsel of God, not simply those passages which seem to re-inforce a one sided emphasis. Ric posted on a CARM forum that there were things he did not understand in Scripture (like how Jesus can be fully God and fully man) but he accepted them because that is what the Bible said. At this point, it seems clear to me that the doctrine of election is what it says it is in Ephesians and elsewhere. I am not sure I fully accept that when Jesus says 'whosoever will may come' he only means those pre-destined, either. So I find myself somewhere 'betwixt and between' as it were. I can't say I am as fully Calvinist as RC or Spurgeon, but I definately lean hard that way. For Tisha I would say this..."the natural man receives not the things of God for they are foolishness to him; niether can he know them for they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). You felt the call of God. That tells me based on this verse (and others!) that He is working in you. My Bible also says that "being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6). Don't let discussions like this get you down. They can be interesting, exciting, (even fun!), but you know Who holds you in His hand! I will say this...regardless of where I end up in my understanding regarding the doctrines of grace, it is wonderful to know that He chose me from before there was a 'me' and I am safe in God's hands. That is something I never had before. I wouldn't trade it for anything! Thanks for your patience with me... InSearchOf | ||
| Cy Registered user Username: Cy Post Number: 28 Registered: 1-2005 |
This discussion is quite interesting to me, and I hope it isn't causing discouragement for anyone. I trust fully in Jesus Christ and His completed work of salvation on my behalf. That said, I have trouble resolving predestination and divine election with the great commission. Why proclaim Christ to the world when He already knows who are His? On the other hand, why do we try futilely to show those the Light who are bound for hell? Is it simply because God's love is flowing through us, or do I simply have to accept the paradox? Sorry for "stirring the pot", but these are among the questions that roll around in my mind as I contemplate Christianity. Cy | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 499 Registered: 4-2000 |
Chris, For the record, Charles Spurgeon was opposed to the label or "nickname" of Calvinism as it has become known. He, of course, much preferred the title of "Christian" for himself. He believed that what John Calvin and others preached was nothing less than the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, he was totally committed to what John Calvin preached--believing it to be the genuine Gospel of Jesus Christ and nothing else. Here are a few excerpts to bring clarity to this important topic from three different theologians: "It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are truly and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus...and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, 'If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that he is 'Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men." (C. H. Spurgeon from the sermon "Free Will A Slave", 1855). "You must first deny the authenticity and full inspiration of the Holy Scripture before you can legitimately and truly deny election." (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 3, p. 130). "If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then he intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in Hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins...That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in Hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain." (Charles Spurgeon, Autobiography:1, The Early Years, p. 172). "If the ultimate determining factor in whether we will be saved or not is our own decision to accept Christ, then we shall be more inclined to think that we deserve some credit for the fact that we were saved: in distinction from other people who continue to reject Christ, we were wise enough in our judgment or capacities to decide to believe in Christ. But once we begin to think this way then we seriously diminish the glory that is to be given to God for our salvation." (selected excerpt from "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem, pp. 674-79). All in all, the Biblical truth shining forth from the preceding quotations are worthy of our thoughtful consideration. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2990 Registered: 12-2003 |
Thank you for the Obadiah quote, Dennis. I've been studying Romans 11 phrase by phrase recently, and I'm really struck by the implications (many of which I can't quite articulate) of natural branches being cut out of God's olive tree to make room for the wild olive branches being grafted in. Then, the wild olive branches are NOT to be arrogant, because those pruned natural branches may be grafted back in if they believe, and the wild ones may be cut off if they don't. One of the overriding "things" I'm seeing is that God does what He wills for reasons of His own, and we can't even see the implications of those actions or those reasons, often, until thousands of years have passed. Even though Edom was destroyed (and thank you again for that quote!), God still allowed that nation to be brought into "cohabitation" with Israel for a time. Obviously this combining was not for their salvationóperhaps it was even for their judgmentóbut He did not wipe them out completely before allowing them "access" to His revelation to the Jews. I'm not trying to draw conclusions about Edom's "chances" as I think of this. What does astonish me is the amazing sovereign moves of God that actually deal directly with whole groups of people over spans of centuries and millenniaóand all for purposes we rarely see clearly. But they are for His glory. I remember how awed I was last year when I really "saw" this verse when our women's Bible study was going through Acts: "And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:25-27). Wow. He determined the times set and the exact places where they should live. What an amazing, sovereign God we serve. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 500 Registered: 4-2000 |
Cy, My suggestion is to leave the calling and election to God. Our God-given mission is to consider everyone we meet as a potential candidate for heaven. Calvinism doesn't create an impediment for evangelism in any way. God has chosen us as his ambassadors to a dying world--to reach those who have not yet heard his call and bent their knee before him. With His own timing, God calls us. Think of Charles Spurgeon's successful evangelistic efforts in England. He was on fire for God. God used him mightily, and He still does through his written words that far outnumber any other Christian writer in history. Many of his sermons are readily available online. They can be downloaded without cost. By the way, Charles Haddon Spurgeon was the founding pioneer in having "colporteurs" work for him in selling Bibles and his books throughout England in the late nineteenth century. I understand that at one time he had 70 colporteurs working for him on commission, but he also used his royalties to support them financially. In stark contrast, Ellen White was not generous enough to ever share her royalties with those who sold her books. Dennis Fischer |
