BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Articles

The Perversion of the Sovereignty of God by Britt Williams

sermonindex Jan 25, 2010

This is being posted not for argument but for thought. There have been many articles posted from the "strong" calvinist point I think it is only right to post other articles from the other side from time to time.

----

[b]The Perversion of the Sovereignty of God[/b]
[i]by Britt Williams[/i]

The term “sovereign” refers to one who is supreme, above all others, who possesses authority above all. It involves freedom from limitation by any external power or authority. Interestingly, the term “sovereign” is never used in the King James Bible. In fact, no Hebrew word that could be properly translated “sovereign” occurs in the Old Testament. However, the Greek word kyrios is translated into the English word “Lord” and is used throughout the New Testament while the Greek word pantokrator is translated as “Almighty” in several verses in the book of Revelation. Thus, the concept of God as “sovereign” is indeed communicated in the Scriptures. Hence, all genuine Christians agree that God is the Sovereign Ruler over the universe. He is supreme in authority. There are no authorities, whatever they may be, that are not delegated by Him and deferential to His supreme authority. Therefore, God, as Sovereign, is never forced into any action by any external power; He possesses ultimate authority over all things. A.W. Tozer says…

“The sovereignty of God is a fact well established in the Scriptures and declared aloud by the logic of truth. But admittedly it raises certain problems which have not to this time been satisfactorily solved. These are mainly two...”
-A.W. Tozer (The Knowledge Of The Holy, XXII, p. 109)

Mr. Tozer goes on to elaborate on these two theological and philosophical issues raised by the truth of God’s Sovereignty, namely: (1) the existence of evil, and (2) the free will of man.

Calvinistic theology has attempted to address these two issues with less than stellar results. As we discussed in the article, "Is God the Author of Sin?" we learned that the logical end of Calvinistic determinism inescapably makes God the cause of all things, even sin. And, no doubt, though many sincere Calvinist would decry such a conclusion, this is the irrefutable implication of their theology.

In the matter of man’s free will, Calvinists again do violence to the Scriptures and sound reason. At the very heart of Reformed theology is an erroneous interpretation and overstatement of God’s sovereignty. Calvinists view God’s sovereignty in such a way as to deny the possibility of man’s will opposing God’s will. They view God as not only possessing ultimate authority over all things, but likewise, that He is also the ultimate cause of all things. Augustine was one of the first theologians to formulate a doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God. This extra-Biblical concept is at the heart of the Calvinistic system. The Calvinistic concept of God’s sovereignty was not derived from the Scriptures, but from philosophical considerations. Then, accordingly, this presupposition was imposed on the interpretation of Scripture to conform to the basic tenets of the system.

One example of this presupposition playing a part in Calvinistic theology is found in Augustine’s treatment of 1 Timothy 2:4…

“When we hear and read in sacred Scripture that God, ‘willeth that all men should be saved,’ although we know well enough that not all men are saved, we are not on that account to underrate the fully omnipotent will of God. Rather, we must understand the Scripture, ’Who will have all men to be saved,’ as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he doth not will, but that no one is saved unless He willeth it.”
-Augustine (Confessions and Enchiridion, Vol. VII of The Liberty of Christian Classics)

Here, Augustine obviously forces Scripture to conform to his doctrine. No contextual or linguistic consideration could render this verse as he interpreted it, yet he violently alters the meaning to protect his false presupposition of divine sovereignty.

John Calvin adopted and enlarged the teaching of Augustine, upholding the claim that no other will can resist God’s will. Like his predecessor, Calvin also took great liberties in interpreting God’s Word. Concerning the same passage, 1 Timothy 2:4, he commented…

“By this he assuredly means nothing more than that the way of salvation was not shut against any order of men…since it clearly appears that he is speaking not of individuals, but of order of men, let us have done with a longer discussion.”
-John Calvin, (Institutes of the Christian Religion)

Again, a brazen dishonest handling of the Word of God is necessary to arrive at such conclusions. No doubt, the presupposition of God’s absolute sovereignty plays into this false interpretation of God’s Word. Notice, although both Augustine and Calvin arrived at different conclusions regarding 1 Timothy 2:4, it was their skewed view of God’s sovereignty that fueled their misinterpretations. This erroneous concept of God robs men of libertarian free-will which ultimately makes God the cause of all things, including sin. Unfortunately, this perverted view of God’s sovereignty is at the foundation of the misguided theological system of Calvinism.

As mentioned earlier, God is indeed sovereign, meaning He is over all things and He, ultimately, is in control of all things. However, as a limitless God, He has chosen, in His sovereignty, to limit Himself by granting man free will. Thus, God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice. Moreover, the doctrine of man’s free will is not that man can choose a relationship with God, apart from God (Jn 6:44), but rather, that man has the ability to selectively resist God (Isa 63:10; Acts 7:51; Eph 4:30).

This view is verified not only by the Scriptures but by the early church as well. It is interesting to note that none of the early church fathers held to a view of God’s sovereignty that included divine predestination which denied the free-will of men. For example…

“Lest some suppose…that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain…if , all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritious nor the latter blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions of whatever kind they be. But, it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble.”
-Justin Martyr (The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p.177)

“We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit’s of each man’s actions. Now, if this is not so, but all things happen by fate, then neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed. And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions.”
-Justin Martyr (c. 160, Vol. 1)

“I have proved in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault.”
-Justin Martyr (c.160, Vol. 1, p. 269)

“The Stoics, not observing this, maintained that all things take place according to the necessity of fate. But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. and this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both (virtue and vice).”
-Justin Martyr (The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p.354)

"If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice."
-Ignatius (disciple of the Apostle John, late 1st Century/ Early 2nd Century, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 61)

“Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able to reject it again.”
-Tatian (The Anti-Nicene Fathers, 160, Vol. 2, pp. 69-70)

“This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For
there is no coercion with God, but a good will (toward us) is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves…”
-Irenaeus (c. 180, Against Heresies 37; God’s Strategy In Human History, p. 246)

“Choice depends on the man as being free. But the gift depended on God as the Lord. And He gives to those who are willing, are exceedingly earnest, and who ask. In this manner, their salvation can become their own. For God does not compel.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p. 593)

“We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p. 217)

“To obey or not is in our own power, provided we do not have the excuse of ignorance.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p. 353)

“Each one of us who sins with his own free will, chooses punishment. So the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c.195, Vol. 2, p. 226)

“Neither promises nor apprehensions, rewards, no punishments are just if the soul has not the power of choosing and abstaining; if evil is involuntary.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p.319)

“I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience of resistance.”
-Tertullian (c. 207, Vol. 3, pp. 300-301)

“No reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice.”
-Tertullian (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 61, published by Truth in Heart)

“The soul does not incline to either part out of necessity, for then neither vice nor virtue could be ascribed to it; nor would its choice of virtue deserve reward; nor its declination to vice punishment.” Again, “How could God require that of man which he [man] had not power to offer Him?”
-Origen (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 62, published by Truth in Heart)

“God is good and wise. He does what is best. Therefore, there is no fixed destiny.”
-Methodius (c. 190, Vol. 6, p.343)

“Now those [pagans] who decide that man is not possessed of free will, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate…are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause or author of human evils.”
-Methodius (c. 190, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins 16; God’s Strategy In Human History, p. 252)

Admittedly, God’s sovereignty is difficult for the finite mind to grasp. In closing, allow me to share a simple illustration, from A.W. Tozer’s excellent book, “The Knowledge Of The Holy”, that may help us understand the Biblical view of this doctrine.

“An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of Sovereignty. On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port. Both freedom and Sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other.”
-A.W. Tozer (The Knowledge Of The Holy, XXII, p. 111)

J
jpspeer Jan 25, 2010

Great article! Thanks for posting!

K
KingJimmy Jan 25, 2010

Good stuff.

T
TaylorOtwell Jan 25, 2010

I still fail to understand why it is the case that those who do not embrace Calvinistic teaching chide those who do embrace Calvinistic theology as being followers of men and not Jesus, yet they themselves usually resort to a long list of quotes from church fathers instead of seriously exegeting the Biblical text.

This article did nothing to seriously offer an exegesis of the pertinent Biblical texts. We must all grapple with the Scripture. Quoting Justin Martyr and Clement isn't serious Bible exposition.

If we want to discuss this issue, why not let some serious exegetical discussion take place between mature members of the board? Everyone likes a monologue, but not everyone wants a dialogue.

A
Axe1338 Jan 25, 2010

Well said Taylor!

W
whyme Jan 25, 2010

Moderator,

I can't understand the thought that this article that explictly characterizes the doctrines of grace as a perversion of, a violence to and a brazenly dishonest mishandling of Scripture would not cause an argument. The conclusions towards those who hold or present the apparently offending viewpoint are insulting and a very ad hominem attack that the moderators have moderated against for some time, especially on this subject matter. I have missed honest debate on the Scriptural support for the two sides of sovereignty but understood the need to tone down the rhetoric to avoid unedifying controversy. How does this help?

J
jpspeer Jan 25, 2010

I believe it was the purpose of this article to show the error of those who claim that calvinistic type theology was prevalent in the early church, not to prove the merit of the free will of man.

Most Calvinists I've talked to embrace calvinism because they claim that God's attribute of sovereignty suffers if man has a choice. I reject Calvinism because if man had no choice, then all of God's other attributes would suffer.

sermonindex Jan 25, 2010

Whyme. I agree. Of all people, the moderators should understand the discord these hot button issues present. To say 'here's a viewpoint but not for argument' on a forum like this, knowing the history of where this eventually leads, is surprisingly thoughtless. Can threads be started where an article is posted but not replied to?? If so then present both sides, as you say has been done, and disable the response capabilities. But to throw it out and say it's not for argument is kind of naive given the forum's history.... especially given prior admonishments from the moderators themselves to not post such things that could lead to such discord (ie... calvanism/armenianism)

On the other hand, if we're comfortable with our theology and our walk with the Lord then we should be able to read such things.... understand the rampant historical quarreling over the subject, then either entertain as food for thought or dismiss it altogether without having to point fingers or plead our case... yet again... with counter-argument. I wonder how many souls each theology has saved.... none... only Christ saves. And all this DESPITE differing viewpoints on this issue. The nerve of such a ONE who would continue to populate heaven in the midst of such a serious and important debate. Perhaps we should ask that He put His work on hold until each side comes to a mutual conclusion? I wonder how long God would have to wait in such a scenario.

sermonindex Jan 25, 2010

Greg,

I think you probably should have taken your own advice before posting this article:

The site moderators ask you before you post that you consider praying and ask the Lord if you have the right spirit to serve others in the body of Christ before posting and pressing the submit button. Please also look at these scriptures: Matthew 12:36, James 1:26, Colossians 4:6.

N
narrowpath Jan 25, 2010

We recently had a post featuring a sermon by Keith Daniel entitled the tightrope walker. I find it very balanced defending the scriptures rather then a theologically tainted school. In his exposition he shows a lot of grace towards both camps but does not compromise and inch on the integrity of scripture or tries to find a foul compromise. Believing a truth is good, but a man proving the truth he believes in his life with a remarkable testimony and saved soul is never at the mercy of doctors of religion.

He does not axe Calvin and Spurgeon and Luther, nor does he deify Wesley and Moody.


https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31754&forum=35

Matthew 11:19 (English Standard Version)

19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."

T
tjservant Jan 25, 2010

I still fail to understand why it is the case that those who do not embrace Calvinistic teaching chide those who do embrace Calvinistic theology as being followers of men and not Jesus, yet they themselves usually resort to a long list of quotes from church fathers instead seriously exegeting the Biblical text.

Amen.

I consider the articles I post to be from a strong Biblical point. Others often label them as being from a particular theology. I find all my support from the Bible.

L
Lysa Jan 25, 2010

ccrider
To say 'here's a viewpoint but not for argument' on a forum like this, knowing the history of where this eventually leads, is surprisingly thoughtless.

Brother,

Please tell me that you did NOT just call Greg thoughtless?

Brother, if I may offer my hopefully humble take on Greg's statement.

First and foremost Greg did not say no one could NOT debate!!

My understanding is that as the owner of a Christian website, people, whether consciously or unconsiously, look to Greg to see what he believes (or better said: what he [b]thinks[/b] is ok to believe); and I believe in order to avoid anyone surmising that he might be cramming this down a Calvinist's throat, he simply stated why he posted it.

Pure and simple, but look what all the calvinists read into it!! If that doesn't say something gigantic, I don't know what does. It takes one to know one because I used to be the first one to get skruffy with pre and post trib "discussions"!!!

Brothers united over calvinism, I know the Lord loves you but please consider your ways.

God bless you all!

(edited for clarity)

J
JoanM Jan 25, 2010

I am glad for your post on this Greg. It is timely in my life.

I have never posted on a thread such as this. I am only posting today because a man and wife in my Sunday school class, open-hearted disciples of Jesus [ who both believe and continue in His word] asked a question that ran to the heart of this. This coming Sunday we will discuss this.

I want to say that I am praying for that discussion time. Why? Because I have seen what has often occurred here in writing [not in what God may have done in the hearts of the writers and readers after-ward]. I witnessed members of my Sunday school class “jump down the throats” of these dear ones, who are not immature, to persuade them of a particular view. They alone responded that they would search the Word of God on this subject.

Quoting other students of the Bible, following their logic, human reasoning, whatever, just does not cut it for me. It goes so quickly to “men with arguments” as Leonard Ravenhill might say, and I can hardly tell the difference between Calvin, Brett Williams, a host of others including many who have posted on these threads and the thousands of Jewish commentators on the Torah.

What I would like to hear is how a”Calvinist” [I can hardly write that] understands the Scripture by which an “Armenian” [again hard to write] was persuaded to believe. And vise versa. Maybe that would be fruitful: a rule regarding who can give their understanding on which scripture when it comes to this “debate.”

[u]From Gareth Evans' web-site I happened to see today[/u]: Speaking of “ … the great move of God in the mid C18th which led to Methodism …” “He [Harris] began to go around local homes preaching until the crowds forced him to open air preaching. He was only a layman and was greatly opposed by the clergy, but he had great courage to continue though often beaten and persecuted. George Whitfield heard of him and came to visit him in Talgarth Church Cardiff. They became good friends and it was as a result of this that George Whitfield himself began to preach in the open air, later followed, at his suggestion, by John Wesley. Wesley also became a good friend of Harris' even though they held differing views on the sovereignty of God. Indeed, when Wesley and Whitfield were estranged because of their differing doctrines of free grace and the sovereignty of God, [u]it was Harris who was a major instrument in their reconciliation[/u].


[b]Now that bit of history I would like to know[/b]. It sounds like it might touch on the subject of this thread.

How often do we perceive truth in the scripture and apply it poorly, even missing the heart of it (Luke 13)?

G
Giggles Jan 26, 2010

A quote and an illustration from history.

Paul Washer:

"My dear friends, and I am going to say this bluntly, I know that there are Calvinists here and I know that there are Arminians here and I know that there are all sorts of strange animals in between, but I want you to know this. Although I am leaning more toward—I guess I call myself a five point Spurgeonist—I want you to know this. Calvinism is not the issue. No, I am going to get in a lot of trouble when this goes on the internet. Calvinism is not the issue. I’ll tell you what the issue is. Regeneration. And that is why I can have fellowship with Wesley and Ravenhill and Tozer and all the rest because regardless of where they stood on the other issues they believed that salvation could not be manipulated by the preacher, that it was a magnificent work of the power of almighty God. And with them, therefore, I stand, that I was a work of God." -From 10 Indictments

And the illustration (and brief set-up):

Today [9-24-2009], 250 years ago a great pastor was born, Charles Simeon. He was called to Trinity Church, Cambridge in May of 1782. And he endured fruitfully there through much fire for 54 years until his death November 13, 1836.

Simeon never married. He "had deliberately and resolutely chosen the…celibacy of a Fellowship that he might…better work for God at Cambridge" (Moule, Charles Simeon, 111).

His greatest influence was probably through sustained biblical preaching for 54 years. This was the central labor of his life. In 1833, he placed into the hands of King William IV the completed 21 volumes of his collected sermons.

He tried to be conciliatory in doctrinal disputes. Here is an example of how he conversed with the elderly John Wesley:

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

-Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

-Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

-No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

-No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

-Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

-Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree. (Moule, 79ff.)

[url=http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2016_a_250yrold_model_how_calvinist_simeon_related_to_wesley/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DGBlog+%28DG+Blog%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail]Source[/url]


(As a nod to historical accuracy, George Whitefield and John Wesley, however persuaded by the peacemaker Harris, were in part forced to take their messages to the fields, streets, and public squares as both were formally banned from preaching in the formal, orthodox churches of the day.)

*EDIT*

(Also in these matters, it is important to study a man's life fully to know the broad spectrum of his theology. Many a man of God has been, like scripture, quoted out of context in order to use his name as weight in a debate.)

T
TruthNLove Jan 26, 2010

Did Abraham choose God or did God choose Abraham? Or was it both? How about Israel? Did God determine what gifts he would give? Did he determine what country you would be born in, who your parents would be? Or did you.

It's interesting how we can accept and understand the the Sovereignity of God on some issues and not Salvation.

T
TaylorOtwell Jan 26, 2010

Friends,

I understand the sentiment of these stories and quotes. But the issue remains: what does God say? What do the Scriptures teach? Nothing else matters. The Holy Spirit mentions the concept of election quite frequently through the Apostles, which means that the Lord wants us to know what that means. It is presumptuous to ignore the issue or to skirt around it without serious study. The Lord desires his people to be greatly comforted by his abounding grace.

Serious, thorough Bible exposition will prove fruitful if it is conducted by mature, godly believers.

With care in Christ...

W
wayneman Jan 26, 2010

Wesley began the Methodist movement at a time when the protestant pulpit was dominated by a version of Calvinism so extreme that Calvin himelf might have found it odd. It was commonly taught, for example, that you could not do anything to be reconciled with God or even have assurance of salvation (you will find out on Judgment Day if you are one of the Elect); that it is blasphemous to send missionaries to the heathen because that would presume to improve on the Providence of God; that most stillborn babies went to hell, but a few are saved by Election. And Calvinism had even become a sociological philosophy; the Elect were not only chosen for eternal salvation, but elected to live a life of idol luxury while the damned were foreordained to draw water, hew wood and serve as chamber maids for the Elect. The upper class was the Elect; the poor were the children of wrath, and poverty was part of the punishment for their sins. This may sound like hyperbole, but it is not. This is what churchmen like Augustus Toplady actually taught.

It is not surprising that Arminianism made a comeback in those days. In America, Charles Finney's whole ministry was explaining to churches that their theology was dead wrong and the Lord required obedience on their part. But today one of the great errors of the evangelical pulpit is hyper-Arminianism, which puts so much emphasis on human performance that it effectively reduces God to an automation who is compelled by self-imposed laws to always respond in certain ways to human stimuli. Man is a free moral agent, but God is not.

That is what usually happens when Christians war over doctrine: they end up polarizing into two opposing errors.

T
TaylorOtwell Jan 26, 2010

Wayneman,

Can you post or PM me the Toplady writings you refer to?

With care in Christ...

G
Giggles Jan 26, 2010

Wesley began the Methodist movement at a time when the protestant pulpit was dominated by a version of Calvinism so extreme that Calvin himelf might have found it odd.

I'm sure he would have as the Bible in no way teaches the things you mentioned as being taught, and Calvin only taught what he believed the Bible actually teaches.

I know that Wesley and Whitefield also had to combat infant baptism, which was the rite guaranteeing salvation. They both preached regeneration by the sovereign work of God as necessary to salvation.

L
Lysa Jan 26, 2010

TaylorOtwell wrote:
I understand the sentiment of these stories and quotes. what does God say? What do the Scriptures teach? Nothing else matters.

Nothing else matters especially to people who think they are right in those matters!!!

I think that God has put many rest stops within His word. What do I mean by that? Do you believe that individuals can go all the way with God? I do!! I know that I haven't gone all the way with Him yet but I have hope that one day praise God!!! I believe that We can go all the way with God BUT ONLY if we choose to let go of our pride and arrogance. NOTHING has torn the church apart MORE than pride and arrogance of our own opinions on doctrine.

There are many rest stops along the highway of holiness. One rest stop is the prosperity doctrine, another is Calvinism and yet another rest stop is Arminianism. We pick and choose these like we pick and choose which resturant or rest stop might have the cleanest bathroom.

You and I DO NOT understand the importance of getting rid of "OUR" opinion on matters of doctrine; oh yes, that's right, the opinion you value so highly of yourself. If each of us are honest, we will admit that we value our beliefs in God more than we actually value God.

But then again... this is just my opinion!! (wink wink) Take it or leave it!

God bless us all, I pray we "[b]receive[/b] the [b]love[/b] of the Truth!"

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 47 posts