a debate
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:29 pm
"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." Titus 3:9
I was asked once if our church would like to host a debate, which would basically juxtapose Calvinism and Arminianism. It would involve two candidates, considered worthy to represent the two positions. One being that God saves sinners freely, having elected a particular people in eternity based solely on his own will without regard to any quality or action on the sinners part, and effectually redeems those sinners, and only them by the blood of his Son. The other would be that Gods election was based upon the decision of man which he foresaw and reacted to their faith by rewarding it with salvation, Christ having died attempting to save all men, but depending upon the sinner to make his blood effectual by distinguishing himself from other sinners by inherent faith independently exercised. Such debates have been held commonly throughout the ages.
I want you to think about what that man asked me in essence. What he was saying was, we have found someone who hates the sovereign, free grace of God and the God who bestows it in Christ, as he is revealed in His Word. He not only hates God, but he is good at expressing his hatred for God and at perverting His Gospel. He is a qualified blasphemer of God, and that is why he is being considered. We know before he comes that he will blaspheme our Saviour, and that is why we would ask him to come. Wouldnt you like to have him come to your place of worship and blaspheme? Would you provide him a microphone and an audience so he can lie about your God? Hmmm, let me think about thatno. Thatno is not a misspell, it is exactly how I would end my answer to such a preposterous proposal.
God has plainly revealed himself and how he saves sinners, and imagine a couple of worms sitting around trying to clear up what God meant by what he said. There is only one appropriate response to what God has said: "Truth, Lord." (Matt 15:27)
I was asked once if our church would like to host a debate, which would basically juxtapose Calvinism and Arminianism. It would involve two candidates, considered worthy to represent the two positions. One being that God saves sinners freely, having elected a particular people in eternity based solely on his own will without regard to any quality or action on the sinners part, and effectually redeems those sinners, and only them by the blood of his Son. The other would be that Gods election was based upon the decision of man which he foresaw and reacted to their faith by rewarding it with salvation, Christ having died attempting to save all men, but depending upon the sinner to make his blood effectual by distinguishing himself from other sinners by inherent faith independently exercised. Such debates have been held commonly throughout the ages.
I want you to think about what that man asked me in essence. What he was saying was, we have found someone who hates the sovereign, free grace of God and the God who bestows it in Christ, as he is revealed in His Word. He not only hates God, but he is good at expressing his hatred for God and at perverting His Gospel. He is a qualified blasphemer of God, and that is why he is being considered. We know before he comes that he will blaspheme our Saviour, and that is why we would ask him to come. Wouldnt you like to have him come to your place of worship and blaspheme? Would you provide him a microphone and an audience so he can lie about your God? Hmmm, let me think about thatno. Thatno is not a misspell, it is exactly how I would end my answer to such a preposterous proposal.
God has plainly revealed himself and how he saves sinners, and imagine a couple of worms sitting around trying to clear up what God meant by what he said. There is only one appropriate response to what God has said: "Truth, Lord." (Matt 15:27)