Bible Election: Questions and Answers
How do Protestants view Church History? How do Roman Catholics view Church History? How do Eastern Orthodox view Church History? Why are there so many Protestant denominations? Where do we go for truth? How do the various Christian traditions view truth? How do my traditions, reason, experiences, and general revelation contribute to my theology? What do emotions and special revelation contribute to my theology? Does God still speak today? Why do some people believe that God still speaks today? Why do some people say that God does not speak through prophets today?
Part 1 essential and controversial. Part 2 essential and controversial. What is the Soft Cessationist view of prophecy? Can we have unity and diversity in the Church? How do we do theology in our culture today? How do Christian traditions have unity in diversity? Who do we trust for Christian authority? What are the five main view for Christian authority? Is the Scripture all we need? Is the Bible alone the only infallible source for authority sola Scriptura? Has the text of Scripture changed since it was first written?
How was the text of Scripture transferred from one generation to the next? How accurate are Scriptures? Do we have the right books? What are the facts concerning the canon? What are the tests of canonicity? Basic overview of the canon of the Old Testament. How were the New Testament books decided upon?
How were the New Testament book decided upon? What is the doctrine of inspiration? What is the biblical view of inspiration? What are the different theories of inspiration? What is the most common mistake that evangelicals make with regard to their understanding of the inspiration of the Scriptures? How do we know the Bible is inspired? What is the internal evidence for the inspiration of Scripture? What is the external evidence for the inspiration of Scripture? Does the Bible err? How is inerrancy different from infallibility? Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy essential.
What are the objections and responses to inerrancy? How have people historically interpreted Scripture? How did the Rabbis interpret the Old Testament in Christ's day? How did the Apostles interpret the Old Testament? How did the early Church interpret Scripture? How did people interpret Scripture during the medieval period? How did the Reformers interpret Scripture? What is the modern way of interpreting Scripture?
What are the basic principles of biblical interpretation? What are some common interpretative fallacies? What is a worldview? What is a theistic worldview? What are deistic, pantheistic, and panentheistic worldviews? What are polytheistic, naturalistic, and pluralistic worldviews? Canfinite humans understand the infinite God? Is human language adequate to describe God? Why do peopleobject to the study of God's existence?
Can we prove that God exists? What are the arguments against the existence of God? What are the arguments for the existence of God? What are the argumentsfor the existence of God? What makes God, God? How is simplicity an attribute of God? How is the simplicity of God to be defined?
What are the objections to simplicity? How is eternality an attribute of God? How is immutability an attribute of God? What are the objections to immutability? How is omnipresence and attribute of God? What is the doctrine of aseity? How is omniscience an attribute of God? How is omnipotence an attribute of God? How is sovereignty an attribute of God?
Other communicable attributes of God? An evaluation of Openess Theology? How did the early church understand the Trinity? What are the early Trinitarian heresies? What is the importance of the ecumenical councils? What are some of the difficulties in communicating the doctrine of the Trinity? How did the early Church understand the humanity of Christ?
How did the Council of Chalcedon affect Christology? What are the different interpretations of Chalcedon? What do the Scriptures say about the humanity of Christ? Why was Christ born of a virgin? What does it mean that Christ emptied Himself? Was Christ able to sin? Why did God create man? What is our essential nature? What is the constitution of man? What is the response to trichotomy?
What is conditional unity? What is Gnostic dualism? What are the negative effects of Gnosticism? When and how was our soul created? What does it mean that we are in the image of God? What else does it mean to be created in the image of God? What are the aspects of the image of God within man?
How did the Fall affect the imago dei? How far did we fall? What does Scripture say about the Fall? What are the different types of sin? What is the Augustinian view of Original Sin? What is the Arminian view of Original Sin? What is Original Sin? Is there such a thing as Free Will? What are the different positions on Free Will?
What are the different Free Will views of responsibility? What are the problems with the different views of Free Will? What is the theological difference between men and women? What are the two main theological positions on the difference between men and women? What is the Egalitarian view? What is the response to Egalitarianism? What is the defense of Complementarianism? Do you see what I am trying to say? I always thought that, to a certain extent, we did prevail with God providing we were not asking for something outside of His will -- by that I mean His pleasure or permissive will rather than a fixed, premeditated plan.
I guess I thought, for instance, that if a loved one were sick and the Lord didn't have any actual decision made that that was the time they were to die, He would spare their life in answer to prayer. But according to sovereignty, the reason He spared it was simply because He wasn't ready for them to die yet, therefore my prayer had nothing to do with it. They would have recovered in any event. If that were His foreordained plan, or died if that were His plan. If prayer doesn't change God's mind, then what use was there in Abraham interceding for Sodom and Gomorrah?
God would have saved 50 or 40 or 10 in any event if they had been found. Or Moses interceding for Israel. God had a plan for Israel that He would carry out regardless of Moses' prayer so that Moses and the rest of us just pray for something that is bound to happen whether or not we pray! To me that defeats the whole purpose of prayer. It almost makes one feel that we are deluded into thinking we are accomplishing something by prayer, whereas in reality it has all been decided upon ahead of time. Now, for instance, in the case of Mueller's Orphanage. God had a plan for that work which would be carried to fruition since He is sovereign.
If prayer doesn't carry any weight with God, so to speak insofar as influencing Him, then would that milk truck have broken down in front of the Orphanage thereby supplying milk for all those children whether Mueller had spent the night on his knees or not? According to theologians, it was not Mueller's prayers that resulted in the seemingly miraculous supply of milk for the orphanage, but just part of a plan that would have come to pass anyway. Mueller might just as well have spent the night in bed as on his knees. I don't understand it. To me, such reasoning contradicts James 5: I wonder sometimes if the trouble is not with men's interpretations of Scripture rather than with Scripture itself.
This is a terribly long letter and I do apologize for being so wordy. But this subject is too vast, I guess, to be covered by correspondence. How I wish I could sit down and talk with you. I am keeping a copy of this letter so that I can refer to it when your answer comes. I do hope you will not think I am imposing on you; but your pamphlet has really stirred me up. I can see where election is indeed a wonderful doctrine if only it didn't seem to contradict other Scriptures.
I hope and pray that you can give me more light and that you won't be offended with such a long letter from a stranger. Greetings in the Name of His whose Name is above every name! Your good letter under date of the 5th, was duly received. And it could not have reached me at a busier time, which accounts for my delay in making reply. I am a clerk of Little Bethel Association, and your letter came the first day of our annual meeting.
There was a lot of work in preparing for the meeting, and much more work in getting the material in the hands of the printer. At first, I thought I would write briefly, stating my situation, and promising to get to it as soon as possible. And then it occurred to me that I might save this time in the hope of getting to the matter before the time you mentioned ran out. I trust you will not take my delay as evidence of indifference on my part.
Moreover, due to infirmities of age, I do not have the capacity for work I once enjoyed. First of all, let me commend you for your honest attitude towards the doctrine of ELECTION and related subjects; and may I also congratulate you on your grasp of these doctrines. I rarely receive such a well-written letter on any subject. You put your problems in a clear perspective, which makes it easier to deal with them. And I can answer sympathetically because your problems are also my own problems.
Much as I would like to solve them for you, I fear my efforts will be disappointing. I believe you are unduly disturbed over your inability to harmonize all that is in the Bible. This Book is the revelation of the Infinite and the finite mind cannot understand to perfection all that God has revealed. To be able to do so would be an argument against the Bible as God-breathed, and reduce it to a mere human production.
Moreover, the determination to harmonize apparent contradictions is sure to result in one of three things, found in actual life. One will either ignore Sovereignty on the one hand, or human responsibility on the other hand, or else be plagued with a disturbed mind as you confess to having.
On the one side are the so-called Primitive Baptist Hardshells , who cannot reconcile human inability with responsibility in the matter of repentance and faith. And so they emphasize the doctrines of sovereignty, the Divine decrees, and human inability, and ignore the Scriptures which command sinners to repent and believe the gospel, hence they have no gospel for the lost.
On the other hand there are those who preach the doctrines of human responsibility and the command to repent and believe, and have nothing to say about human inability, the Divine decrees, and sovereignty. Here in my own church and association, as well as throughout the South generally, there is little heard of Election, Depravity, and Sovereignty in salvation. It is because the brethren feel they cannot preach both; that the two are beyond reconciliation -- the one being true, the other must be false.
Now, in your case there is both the determination to accept all Scripture and to harmonize them, resulting in a confused and disturbed mind. Let us, at the risk of being called inconsistent, take all the Scriptures whether we can harmonize them or not. Moody one of my fathers in the faith used to say, that if one waited to accept the doctrines until he could harmonize them, he would never accept them; the way to harmonize them is to receive them without question, and they will harmonize on the inside of the soul. This may not be exactly true, but it will be of help.
I am not saying that we should make no effort to harmonize seeming contradictory doctrines, but I do warn against a persistent determination to do so. With this introduction, I will now take up your questions in their order. It is true that most I would say all people feel that election is unjust. This is not strange since the carnal mind is enmity against God. People may love a god of their own invention, but only born-again believers can love a Sovereign God who does what He will with His own 1 John 4: God's rights with the sinful human race are the rights of a potter over the clay.
We can readily see that the criminal has no claims upon the human court, and it is just as true that the sinner has no claims upon an offended God. Moreover, to say that election is unjust is to put salvation on the basis of justice, thus robbing every sinner of any hope. When we find people who seem to be interested in salvation, we are encouraged to think they are of the elect, for the elect are not saved without becoming interested in salvation.
When we pray for their salvation, we are not asking the Holy Spirit to put them on the fence where they may fall off on either side. They are already on the wrong side -- the attitude of ignorant rejection of Christ -- and we pray that He may translate them from the Kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of His dear Son Col.
We pray for their conversion to faith in Christ, that they may not be left to the choice of a depraved nature. Why He does not convict and convert everybody we preach to and pray for is due to His sovereignty and not to His weakness. We do not pray to a weak God. However, we must distinguish between the desire to be saved from sin and the desire to be saved from Hell. Nobody wants to burn, but the desire to be saved from sin is a holy desire created by the Holy Spirit. When He creates such a desire His further work of conversion will follow, but we cannot assuredly determine the motive of the desire.
You ask to what extent are they the non-elect responsible for being lost? They are responsible for all the sins they commit and for their sinful nature also. What one does is a revelation of what he is. This is not apparent to our sense of justice. I cannot see how God can justly hold me responsible for the exercise of a sinful nature inherited -- for a nature I had nothing to do with acquiring -- for a nature I was born with. If I were to sit in judgment on God perish the thought I would say that it is not right to punish me for an inherited sinful nature.
I accept my responsibility for sin even though I cannot understand the justice of it.
- Intersection of Life and Faith.
- My Understanding of the Biblical Doctrine of Election | www.newyorkethnicfood.com!
- The Anniversary.
- ;
- Is the Doctrine of Election Biblical??
Those who have not been "ear-marked" for salvation fall into two groups -- those who have the gospel preached to them, and those who never hear of Christ as Saviour. Those who have the gospel preached to them are responsible for all their sins, including the sin of rejecting Christ, while those who never hear of Him are free from the sin of rejecting Him, although they are guilty of other sins for which they are held responsible.
The heathen who have never heard the gospel will not have to answer for the sin of unbelief. Whether we can understand it or not, the sinner in all his depravity and helplessness is accountable to God. The woman in your class who remarked that the doctrine of election makes everything so hopeless, adding that she thought anyone could be saved; that the decision was "theirs", might be answered this way. Anyone can be saved who is willing to be saved God's way through faith in Christ, but nobody, left to himself, wants to be saved this way. God's way is foolishness to him.
The decision is "theirs" but the decision to trust Christ is the result of a renewed mind -- the result of grace in the soul. Paul speaks of the time when he thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth Acts In the telling of his conversion he ascribes it to the grace of God. There is no self-salvation, either in providing it or applying it. The work of the Spirit in us is as essential as the work of Christ for us. Paul says that the Jews were asking for a sign they wanted him to perform a miracle and that the Greeks were clamouring for wisdom they wanted him to philosophize , but without catering to the wishes of either, he preached Christ crucified.
Salvation through faith in a crucified Christ was to the natural Jew a scandal, and to the Greek it was foolishness. Those effectually called by the Holy Spirit were able to see the power and wisdom of God in such a plan of salvation. Why God does not effectually call more than He does is not due to inability but to sovereignty. As I say in my article on election, we must either limit God's power or His mercy, or go over boots and baggage to universalism.
If God is trying to save everybody and does not succeed, He is not almighty; if He is not trying to save everybody His mercy is not universal. Deserving mercy is a contradiction of terms. The flesh in us -- remnants of depravity -- rebels at this aspect of Divine sovereignty. The writer is aware of this, just as you seem to be. There are passages like John 3: However, the word "world" rarely ever means every individual of the human race. The word "world" is sometimes used to distinguish between the saved and the lost 1 John 5: I believe John 3: He died for men as sinners and not as any class or kind of sinners.
The Jews thought their Messiah, when He came, would deliver them and destroy the Gentiles. John says that He is the propitiation or Mercy-seat for all believers regardless of class or colour. In other words, Christ is no tribal Saviour. If we think of Christ's death as substitutionary, then I agree with Spurgeon, that He died for the elect only. If he died as the substitute for every individual, then every individual would be saved, else His death was in vain.
Now I believe there is a sense in which Christ's death affects every person. By His death He bought the human race, not to save every individual, but in order to dispose of every individual. The right to judge this world is Christ's reward for His suffering. All judgment has been committed unto the Son John 5: In the parable of the hid treasure, Christ is the man who bought the field world for the sake of the treasure the elect for the sake of those given Him by the Father Matt See also John 17 and 2 Peter 2: Incidentally, the word for Lord in 2 Peter 2: In 2 Peter 3: This refers to His will of purpose.
It is God's purpose that all should come to repentance and be saved. In longsuffering He waits until all the "us-ward" have been brought to repentance. The "us-ward" are described as those who had obtained the like precious faith 1: Christ's longsuffering towards the elect keeps Him on His mediatorial throne until all have been saved.
Had He come sooner than planned, many of the elect would not have been saved. I have been a Christian for 51 years, and if He had come before my conversion, I would have perished in my sins. It is not His will of purpose that any of those given to Him by the Father shall perish.
The words "all" and "every" are hardly ever used in the absolute sense. The "all" of 2 Peter 3: This is not good grammar, but it is good theology and necessary to plainness. Christ will not come in judgment until all those given Him by the Father have come to repentance. When He comes He will usher in the new era of the "New heavens and a new earth" , wherein dwelleth righteousness. The story told you by your dear father has been duplicated in many cases of people who seem to be under deep conviction, and yet oppose those who try to lead them to Christ.
Such conviction is not of the Holy Spirit, who convicts of the sin of unbelief and leads to faith in Christ. Such cases do reveal the fact of the enmity of the carnal mind towards God, and not a mind wrought upon by the Holy Spirit. A case in point is that of Felix who trembled at the preaching of Paul and then dismissed him until a more convenient season Acts There is a natural conviction of sin which may be felt by everybody when confronted by his sin John 8: God never abandons the good work He begins in the soul Phil 1: The Holy Spirit, in my judgment, never tries to regenerate one of the non-elect.
There is much Scripture for this. The New Testament speaks often of those given to the Son by the Father and their salvation is assured. These are called "sheep" and "elect" before they come to Christ. You ask whether or not the woman referred to was an "elect"? I do not know. I can only say that at the time she gave no evidence of being an elect. However, later she may have been convicted by the Holy Spirit of the sin of unbelief and brought to repentance.
We can only judge whether a person is an elect or not by his attitude toward the gospel of Christ. If she were a sheep of Christ, she did come to His at some later date, for Christ says, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me". Calling in the New Testament usually means the effectual call to salvation -- saints are made by a Divine call, but it cannot mean that many hear the invitation to accept Christ who have not been chosen by God to salvation 1 Thess 1: Calling and choosing are not the same.
The choosing or electing took place in eternity past; calling takes place in time and brings about conversion to faith in Christ. There is a general call given to every sinner in gospel preaching, and there is the special call of the Holy Spirit, inducing acceptance of the general call.
Unconditional election - is it biblical?
The general call in gospel preaching is to men as sinners; the special call by the Holy Spirit is to the elect and results in salvation. You complain of being "caught up in a sort of fatalistic attitude -- that what is to be will be". There is a vast difference between cold, impersonal something called "fate", and the providential workings of a great and wise God. Things do not come to pass by cold fate, but by God, "Who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" Ephesians 1: Charles Hodge was once asked if he believed what is to be will be.
He replies, "Why yes I do; would you have me believe that what is to be won't be? The second paragraph of your letter on this subject expresses a glorious truth. God is ruling this world, making even the wrath of man to praise Him; the remainder of wrath men might do, He restrains. Referring to the 1st paragraph of your letter on page 27 it is true that the elect will be saved, and that my failure to witness will not thwart God's purpose to save them.
God uses me, but He is not dependent upon me. I dare not think that God is helpless without me; if I fail He can use someone else. I am not to witness because of any assured results, but in obedience to His will of command. I cannot know His will of purpose concerning those to whom I bear testimony, We are to witness to people as sinners and not as elect sinners.
20 Most Frequently Asked Bible Questions (Topics)
Election has nothing to do with our obligation to witness. Isaiah preached when he was told there would be no good results in the way of response from the people. Then said I, Here am I; send me. And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, 12 And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land. Your letter closes with questions concerning prayer. I have no hope of giving much help here, but will make some observations.
Prayer is one of the means by which God brings to pass what He has decreed. Answered prayer is indicted by the Holy Spirit.
Is the Doctrine of Election Biblical?
He knows the mind and will purpose of God and makes intercession for us according to the will of God Romans 8: How one may know that his prayer is indicted by the Holy Spirit, I cannot tell. But the Holy Spirit leads us to pray for that which is within the circle of the Divine will, and if we ask anything according to His will He heareth us 1 John 5: We are taught to pray for His will to be done. This shows we are not to try to change His will by our praying.
This would take control out of His hands and put us in charge. Whether we can harmonize our praying with His decrees or not; It is our duty to pray because He commands it Luke Prayer implies two things: Prayer is an act of dependence upon God who is "able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think" Eph 3: I do not presume to be able to reconcile the doctrine of Divine decrees with such passages as James 4: But I can see how prayer can prevail without changing God, when I think of it as one of the means by which His will of purpose is effected.
In Mueller's case, I can think that he was led by the Holy Spirit to spend the night on his knees as the means of getting milk for the children. We have the same difficulty in the case of Paul's ship-wreck as recorded in Acts When all hope of being saved was gone He then comforts the despairing sailors, soldiers, and prisoners, saying, Be of good cheer; for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me Then later when the sailors were about to abandon the ship, Paul said to the centurion and soldiers "Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved" God had declared there would be no loss of life, and Paul believed Him, and yet he believed their safety depended upon the sailors staying with the ship.
We might charge Paul with inconsistency but there it is. As to praying for the sick, we must always pray without knowing what the Divine will is in every particular case. It is appointed unto men once to die, and when the appointed time comes our praying will not cancel the Divine will. David recognized this in praying for his sick child. He fasted and prayed while the child was alive, but when the child died, he bowed to the manifest will of God and said, "While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me that the child may live?
Paul's prayer for the thorn to be removed is another case of asking for something outside the circle of God's will of purpose. Paul prayed without knowing the will of God, and when it was made known to him, that sustaining grace would be given rather than the removal of the thorn, he bowed in sweet submission and said, "Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me" 2 Cor My mind often reverts to the terrible war between our North and our South -- the so-called "Civil War". There were men of God on both sides -- men of piety and prayer -- who pleaded with God for victory.
I believe it is conceded that the most outstanding men of God belonged to the Southern Army -- such men as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Robert E. And now all of us rejoice that it was God's will for the Union to be saved. It is becoming in all of us to seek our Father's face and pray for His blessings, and then bow in reconciliation to His mysterious providence in our lives.
I'd rather He unlocked the day; And as the hours swing open, say, 'My will is best. We are all poor sinners in the need of an adequate Saviour. If Christ is the Saviour of sinners, this poor sinner can qualify for salvation. I praise Him for dying for me, and I praise the Holy Spirit for making me to realize my helplessness and for taking the things of Christ and showing them to me John May the Lord bless you in the coming discussion on Nov.
I wish I might have been of more help in this reply to your questions. Let me exhort you not to worry over failure to be able to reconcile doctrines which seem to our finite minds to be contradictory. With heartfelt thanks for this opportunity to discuss with you some of the deep things of God, I am. Do you think you can stand another letter from me? I shall try not to be so verbose this time!
Your wonderful and most helpful letter came two weeks ago tomorrow, so you can see it was in plenty of time for our meeting last night. I was going to acknowledge it immediately; then it occurred to me that if I waited till after the meeting, I could "kill two birds with one stone", so to speak -- thank you for the letter and report on the meeting as well.
I cannot begin to tell you how much I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to help a complete stranger -- and yet, perhaps, we are not such strangers after all, as we are related through the bonds of the gospel. But you went to a great deal of work, I am afraid, to answer my letter at such length and in such detail and I appreciate it more than I can say. But above all, I feel I owe you a debt of boundless gratitude for your article on Election which sparked off my interest in it and subsequent study of it.
I feel as if a completely new world has opened up to me; I get almost excited over it all, Dr. I do hope it is not wrong to attach so much importance to it, but somehow, I feel as if it is the most significant and personal doctrine in the whole Bible. Nothing should eclipse the Atonement I know; but I feel that even my conversion, somehow, never made the impression on me that Election has. When you have been brought up in a Christian family, heard the Scriptures from childhood and been active in the Church, there isn't the marked cleavage, somehow, when one becomes a Christian that there is if you have been turned from a life of vice.
Is it because we don't feel, in the innermost recesses of our being, that we need Christ as badly as the other type does? I don't know; but I have often felt that I didn't have the joy in my Christian life that I should. It seemed stale and flat, so often; one did things for the Lord from a sense of duty. Sometimes I have even wondered if I were saved at all. Now all that is changed. The very fact that my salvation is all of grace -- in the application of it as well as the provision of it -- has transformed everything for me. And I have you to thank for it. Oh, how wonderful it must be to a minister to be so used of God.
When I first read your pamphlet, in addition to all my other objections to Election, I didn't like the idea that in a sense I had nothing to do with becoming a Christian. I had always supposed that, with the Spirit's help, I had had sense enough and intelligence enough to recognize something worthwhile and take it! It didn't appeal to me at all to think that if I had been elected, I really had nothing to do with my salvation at all -- even in the accepting of it.
But now that is almost the best part of it! It is humbling and breath-taking and frightening and thrilling all at once. I just can't get over it, Dr. To think that all these years I am 41 , I have missed this tremendous teaching and the thrill and joy of it. It has made my salvation and conversion much more real and personal. I have always envied people who spoke with such joy of their conversion and felt that something had happened, I never could. I couldn't remember a time when I didn't believe, if you know what I mean.
And it has worried me; I've had a sneaking fear that maybe all I had was a head or credal belief because I was brought up in a Christian home and accepted that as I did other patterns of behaviour and thought. I have prayed off and on for months that if I were saved the Lord would make me realize it beyond all shadow of doubt and give me "the joy of His salvation".
Not just a barren orthodoxy. Never did I dream of getting the "witness of the spirit" through the doctrine of Election. I wouldn't want the Lord to think I'm not grateful for salvation. I am; but right now, I feel as if I'm more grateful for Election. Over and over I keep saying to myself, like someone rescued from a sinking vessel, when others are lost, "Why me? When I wake up in the morning, I used to feel tired and exhausted and wish I didn't have to go to work I am a war widow ; now, almost as soon as I am conscious, I have the feeling that something new and exciting has happened -- and then it flashes across my mind in a wave of remembrance -- "you are elected" and I get so excited I am wide awake instantly and ready to be up and doing.
I cannot explain it -- but somehow as long as you feel that you had the least little bit to do with your own conversion, it takes away some of the thrill and bloom of it. But when the full impact of the thought and realization hits you -- that not only the provision of salvation is due to God's grace but also His choice of you as recipient, one can only stand back and marvel -- lost in wonder, love and praise.
Now, I must tell you about last night. There were nearly 30 women out. Nothing that we have studied in the 7 or 8 years that I have taught that class has so stirred them as this Doctrine! They came with Bibles and pens I went all over it again very carefully, reminding them first that:. Regardless of how it may appear to us we have this knowledge and comfort that the Judge of all the earth will do righteously. Well, after I had made my points, the members asked questions. I felt really sorry for one woman in my class. She has come to our church from the United Church. I think she is saved -- but periodically one detects in her thinking and from her remarks, a throwback to the United Church doctrine of salvation through works!
Evidently she has been really wrought up over this subject -- which I consider a good sign. I told her she couldn't have been any more disturbed than I was at first. She cannot see that it is not unjust of God. I thought your illustration of being on the fence and God pushing them to one side or the other excellent, so I elaborated on that.
I think, with most of them, they finally began to see a glimmer of light that if God hadn't elected some, none would be saved. We all seem to have the same reaction -- that if the decision had been left to us, we had a better chance of getting saved than by having God settle it all in Eternity; because we don't or won't accept that teaching that of ourselves we are incapable of reaching out for God.
I told them that in our natural state, we are dead in trespasses and sins and a corpse just cannot flicker even an eyelash! So they were just deceiving themselves if they thought for one minute that they would ever accept Christ, apart from God taking certain measures to make them. This woman also thought as did others that Scriptures elsewhere we contradicted by Election -- such as John 3: I was glad to have your explanation of "all" and "world" rarely being used in the absolute sense.
I told them to look up the first part of that verse and they would get a shock! They were simply stunned! But seemed to react more as if it made sense and were opening up new worlds of thought. Afterwards, while we were waiting for tea, this one particular woman came to me. I did feel so sorry for her; she was flushed and almost tearful and I said, "Edythe, is it any clearer? But there are other things that I just feel I can't reconcile with my ideas of God and the Bible". I said, "Don't try, Edythe, Dr.
Editor's Picks
Cole told me not to attempt to reconcile all points of this teaching with other passages of Scripture because I would only confuse myself, and I believe he is right". By the way, that was a wonderful help to me, personally, what you told me about just getting a confused mind. I just let go all the arguments, after reading your letter, and told the Lord that I guessed I had struggled long enough trying to crowd the ocean of His theology into the teacup of my mind and I wasn't going to fuss anymore about the points I didn't understand.
He understood them and that was good enough for me. And it is since then that I have had such peace. I tried to tell something of this to Edythe; she said, "Marjorie, I have nearly gone out of my mind this week". And her voice broke. She said, "I can't think of anything else and I go over and over it until I am nearly crazy". I just ached with pity for her because I had been through the same thing until I got your letter back.
It flashed across my mind that perhaps your letter would help her too. So I asked her if she would like a copy of my questions to you and your reply. She was terribly grateful. I had them with me so was able to let her have them right away. Would you pray with me that she will get peace and learn, by the help of the Holy Spirit to love this doctrine as we do? One other member, a new-comer to my class although she has been in our church several years, said to me with the sweetest smile afterwards, "I am like you; I know now I have been elected and it is simply thrilling. I wish you could have seen my husband, though.
He wanted to come so badly tonight -- he asked me if I thought you would mind if he slipped into a back seat"! It seems her husband took her pamphlet and read it; was so thrilled and worked up over it, he read it again and said that never in all his life had he heard anything like it -- why don't we hear about it? And do you know, Dr.
Cole, person after person has said that to me; "Why don't our ministers preach it?? One girl, also from the southern states Texas -- but not the one I mentioned in my first letter; she wasn't out last night has been very keen on this, but admitted to me on different occasions that it simply upset a lot of her ideas and understandings!
However, last night, as I closed she said, in front of all the others, almost with a blissful sigh, "Well, it certainly takes the fear out of dying, doesn't it"? And you know, that is what I have felt so strongly. I just stared at her for a minute when she said it -- it was the echo of my own heart. Sometimes I feel I can't wait to get to heaven and learn more about Election and all the rest of the Bible. A third woman, mother of a 6 year old boy, said to me, "Marjorie, I don't know. I feel that since this study and the thought I have given to Election that everything has cleared up in my mind.
And so many passages of Scripture fit in and make sense now when they didn't before". Yet another girl has talked to me different times and said that at first she felt when I taught my first lesson in Sept. But the more she read your pamphlet and thought about it, the more she thought the doctrine really was taught in the Bible and therefore she should be willing to believe it and leave the parts she didn't understand until she got to heaven! Last night, after we were finished, she whispered to me across the table, "Well, I'm happy too, tonight Marjorie.
But I'm afraid some aren't. But it's more a case of won't with them. However, I am praying that the Holy Spirit will do His work in the hearts of those that are confused or resisting. I feel their very interest is encouraging and, as you so truly put it, none of us likes this doctrine; it takes the Holy Spirit to teach a person to love it. Now, I promised you I wouldn't write such a long letter and I have.
I do hope you aren't bored. But I am so full of it all and so indebted to you that I felt I had to overflow to you. Have you, by any chance, had any of your other teachings put up in pamphlet form? I was looking over some old Witnesses the other day and saw several of yours in serial form, on Sin, Salvation, etc. I should love to have them complete. I can never thank you enough for your article. Certainly God must have led you to have it printed.
It would be so wonderful to sit under that kind of preaching today. Why don't ministers preach doctrinal sermons anymore -- instead of this milky, predigested, topical preaching that so many give? No wonder Christians today aren't strong and virile and know what they stand for -- they have never got off the milk of the Word onto the strong meat. I heard one Baptist minister say that we are "snackbar" Christians today when we should be dining-room Christians. And I think he had something. Now, I must go. Again, my heartfelt thanks for all you have done for me.
I pray God's richest blessings upon you and yours and your ministry for Him which will be fruitful, I am sure, beyond your deepest imaginings and hopes. Thank you very much indeed. I am thoroughly enjoying the magnificent study on the doctrine of God. How it magnifies and exalts Him and restores Him to His rightful position of King of kings and Lord of lords. I have felt for a long time that the Christian church needs a fresh vision of the holiness and majesty of God, and to realize that He is "the high and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity".
There is entirely too much spirit of camaraderie in our attitude toward God today. I wish more of our present-day ministers preached doctrine. It seems to me that church members would be more firmly rooted and grounded in their faith if we had more doctrinal teaching and less "snackbar" preaching! Apropos of our study on Election, I am still getting repercussions from it from some of my class members. Nothing that I have ever taught has stirred up such interest.
I also gave a copy of your pamphlet to our minister; am awaiting his reaction! We were visiting with some friends from another Baptist church a few weeks ago and something came up about my Bible Class and this teaching on election. Would you believe it -- not one person in that room, apart from the members of my own immediate family who were present, had even heard about Election, let alone understood it?
And yet they are all good Christian people -- not just nominal church members. We only got into a preliminary discussion of it when we were interrupted. But I could see that it was not at all favourably received! As you say, we are all Arminians by nature! One woman and her aged father who had moved away to Arizona about two years ago, are back in Calgary and were present that night. About a week ago, I ran into this woman at the post office in one of our local department stores.
She is working there temporarily and as there were people waiting to be served she didn't have too much time to talk to me. But as I was leaving the wicket, she said, "Oh, Marjorie; I want to have a talk with you some time on that matter that we were discussing at Thelma's the other night. She smiled and said, "You know, we started a discussion about it".
Suddenly light dawned and I said, eagerly, this is my favourite subject now "Oh yes, of course. I'll be glad to any time you are free. I don't understand it and don't say that I agree but I want to learn more about it". So there is another ripple from the stone you cast into the pool! Cole, when you are so busy, I do hate to bother you with my questions but I feel that you are so learned in this subject that you are in a better position to help me than anyone else.
May I trouble you with one or two further questions:. At first when I was reading 2 Peter 1: And yet, because I believe in the eternal security of the believer even more so since I understood Election I didn't see how this could be. As I prayed about it, it seemed to me that perhaps what is meant is rather that a person who does what Peter admonishes is less likely to backslide rather than be lost? Do you think that is the meaning of it? I mean the part where it says "that He might have mercy upon all". Some people argue that verse as being opposed to Election, saying that if God wanted to have mercy on all, He would not pick and choose people for salvation as the doctrine of election teaches.
Not in the sense of punishment for their sins, because Judgment on sin was passed at Calvary. But when the Bible says, "So then we must every one give an account of ourselves to God;" and again, Romans 2: I don't know why it is, but the thought of having all my sins exposed to view, even though I am not going to be punished for them, robs heaven of considerable joy.
I backslid very badly some years ago and although the Lord is dearer to me now than He ever was before, I sometimes feel that nothing can undo the sins of those years. God knows all about them and has forgiven me; why must they be published for all the world to see when I get to heaven? I thought the passages in Psalms that "as far as the east is from the west so far have I removed thy transgression from thee", meant that once we were saved God really blotted out our sins and we never had to hear about them again.
But there seems to be several passages in the epistles which would lead one to think that, although we will not be punished for our sins in the sense of going to hell, we shall certainly have to account for them. If this is so, it seems to me that no Christian could die really at peace, knowing you had that ahead of you.
Why are we more afraid of man's opinion than God's? I had always understood prior to my study of Election , both from Scripture and various hymns and sermons that I had heard, that there is danger in delaying salvation; that a person could be cut off from this life before they had accepted Christ and be hurled into a Christless eternity. But according to the doctrine of Election, no one who is elected for salvation can possibly die without being saved?
It seems to me I just get things sorted out in my mind to where I understand them, when I read something that puts me off again! As I say, I used to believe too that there was danger in delay. All the hymn-writers speak of it etc. But since studying Election, I concluded that I must have been wrong.
There is no real urgency, in the sense of it being a life and death matter, because no one can die before he is saved, if God intends him to be saved. Therefore, why do ministers even those like yourself who believe in Election urge people to make haste and accept Christ before it is too late? It can never be too late for an elected person, can it?
I should appreciate being straightened out on this point. You will get so you dread to see a letter from me if I always write at such length. But there is so much I need to ask you about and modern ministers, like doctors, are so busy they haven't time for people any more. Greetings and best wishes for a happy holiday season! When I mailed you the books, I intended to follow at once with a letter explaining that you would be under no obligation to pay for them, since you had not ordered them. But other things took precedence, and I was still planning to write when your letter arrived with enclosure.
Perhaps I should return part of the money as it was more than enough to pay for what I sent. The supply of books and tracts I have written is almost exhausted, and this is one reason why I sent you what I did. I have two or three large scrap books containing articles published in various magazines. At my age now in my 75th year , I do not expect to publish any more books. However, I have many dear friends among young ministers and some of them may want to publish some of my writings after I am gone.
With this brief introduction, I will now attend to your questions in the hope I may be of some help. One must not take his salvation for granted without proper evidence of it. Of course he means to make it sure to ourselves, for we can make nothing sure to God. His words have to do with assurance and not to the fact of salvation. He starts with the grace of faith as God's gift, and urges us to build upon that faith so that our lives may not be barren and unfruitful. No unfruitful believer can have assurance of salvation as a subjective experience. Apropos of your own experience while a backslider.
This does not mean that He refuses mercy to any who trust Christ for it, but that He does not cause all to look to Him for mercy -- some are left to their own carnal will. His sins have been judged in Christ and will not appear against him in the day of Judgment. Salvation is of grace; reward is for work. There will be degrees both in heaven and in hell, for both the saved and lost will be judged for their deeds -- the lost will receive the degree of punishment commensurated with their evil deeds, and the saved will receive glory according to their works.
I do not expect the reward of Paul, for my works have not equaled his. Romans 2 is dealing with principles of judgment under law: The chapter is not showing how to be saved, but what one may expect from the law, whether he be Jew or Gentile. Romans 14 warns believers against judging one another for various scruples in regard to eating and observing days on the ground that we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ vs. We shall give account of ourselves to God and not to one another. We cannot judge or appraise the works of one another here and now, for there is much we cannot know, such as motives and hidden things, but when Christ comes He will know everything about us, and "then shall every man have praise of God" 1 Corinthians 4: We are not qualified to judge so as to determine the place one shall have in glory -- God will look after that.
We do not know who the elect are until they manifest it in faith and good works. And we are to address them as in need of salvation, and urge them to trust the one and only Saviour - and to trust Him now.
- Threat Assessment of Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) on Targeted Individuals and Those Experiencing Electronic Harassment and Gangstalking.
- Theology Questions and Answers | www.newyorkethnicfood.com?
- 20 Most Frequently Asked Bible Questions (Topics).
Shall we tell them to trust Him at once or wait until some other time? It is true that "no one who is elected for salvation can possibly die without being saved". But this does not mean that they will be saved apart from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And the means of salvation are as truly elected as are the persons. Paul knew more about the doctrine of election than any other man, and yet he persuaded people concerning Jesus Acts He knew the elect would be saved, and yet he prayed and worked for the salvation of Israel.
I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. We must not allow the doctrine of election to rob us of compassion for the lost, nor close our eyes to the urgency of salvation. There will be things we cannot understand and doctrines we shall not be able to harmonize, but it is plainly His commanding will for us to witness to all people concerning Christ Jesus. Secret things belong to God, but the revealed things fix our duty.
The Bible Doctrine of Election by Dr. May the Lord bless His word as it is read by those that search these pages. Alfred M Gormley Pastor: Election is not salvation but is unto salvation. Election is not the cause of anybody going to hell, for election is unto salvation. Election belongs to the system of grace. Election does not prevent the salvation of anybody who wants to be saved.