Posted on 09/07/2001 3:24:04 PM PDT by RnMomof7
THE SAVIOR LIFTED UP & FAITH
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."-John iii. 14, 15.
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (This he said, signifying what death he should die.)"-John xii. 32, 33.
IN order to make this subject plain, I will read the passage referred to-Num. xxi. 6-9. "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that He take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."
This is the transaction to which Christ alluded in the text. The object in both cases was to save men from the bite of the serpent, its influence being unchecked, is the death of the body: the effects of sin, unpardoned and uncleansed from the heart, are the ruin of the soul. Christ is lifted up, to the end that sinners, believing in Him, may not perish, but may have eternal life. In such a connection, to perish cannot mean annihilation, for it must be the antithesis of eternal life, and this is plainly much more than eternal existence. It must be eternal happiness -- real life in the sense of exquisite enjoyment. The counterpart of this, eternal misery, is presented under the term "perish." It is common in the Scriptures to find a state of endless misery contrasted with one of endless happiness.
We may observe two points of analogy between the brazen serpent and Christ.
1. Christ must be lifted UP as the serpent was in the wilderness. From the passage quoted above out of John xii. it is plain that this refers to His being raised up from the earth upon His cross at His crucifixion.
2. Christ must be held up as a remedy for sin, even as the brazen serpent was as a remedy for a poison. It is not uncommon in the Bible to see sin represented as a malady. For this malady, Christ had healing power. He professed to be able to forgive sin and to cleanse the soul from its moral pollution. Continually did He claim to have this power and encourage men to rely upon Him and to resort to Him for its application. In all His personal instructions He was careful to hold up Himself as having this power, and as capable of affording a remedy for sin.
In this respect the serpent of brass was a type of Christ. Whoever looked upon this serpent was healed. So Christ heals not from punishment only, for to this the analogy of healing is less pertinent -- but especially from sinning -- from the heart to sin. He heals the soul and restores it to health. So it was said by the announcing angel, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. His power avails to cleanse and purify the soul.
Both Christ and the serpent were held up each as a remedy. and let it be specially noted -- as a full and adequate remedy, The ancient Hebrews, bitten by fiery serpents, were not to mix up nostrums of their own devising to help out the cure: it was all- sufficient for them to look up to the remedy of God's own providing. God would have them understand that the healing was altogether His own work. The serpent on a pole was the only external object connected with their cure; to this they were to look, and in this most simple way -- only by an expecting look, indicative of simple faith, they received their cure.
Christ is to be lifted up as a present remedy. So was the serpent. The cure wrought then was present, immediate. It involved no delay.
This serpent was God's appointed remedy. So is Christ, a remedy appointed of God, sent down from heaven for this express purpose. It was indeed very wonderful that God should appoint a brazen serpent for such a purpose such a remedy for such a malady; and not less wonderful is it that Christ should be lifted up in agony and blood, as a remedy for both the punishment and the heart-power of sin.
The brazen serpent was a divinely-certified remedy; not a nostrum gotten up as thousands are, under high-sounding names and flaming testimonials; but a remedy prepared and brought forth by God Himself, under His own certificate of its ample healing virtues.
So was Christ. The Father testifies to the perfect adequacy of Jesus Christ as a remedy for sin.
Jesus Christ must now be held up from the pulpit as one crucified for the sins of men. His great power to save lay in His atoning, death.
He must not only be held up from the pulpit, but this exhibition of His person and work must be endorsed, and not contradicted by the experience of those who behold Him.
Suppose that in Moses' time many who looked were seen to be still dying; who could have believed the unqualified declaration of Moses, that "every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live?" So here in the Gospel and its subjects. Doubtless the Hebrews had before their eyes many living witnesses who had been bitten and yet bore the scars of those wounds; but who, by looking, had been healed. Every such case would go to confirm the faith of the people in God's word and in His own power to save. So Christ must be represented in His fullness, and this representation should be powerfully endorsed by the experience of His friends. Christ represents Himself as one ready and willing to save This, therefore, is the thing to be shown. This must be sustained by the testimony of His living witnesses, as the first point of analogy is the lifting up of the object to be looked upon, the second is this very looking itself.
Men looked upon the serpent, expecting divine power to heal them. Even those ancient men, in that comparatively dark age, understood that the serpent was only a type, not the very cause in itself of salvation.
So is there something very remarkable in the relation of faith to healing. Take, for illustration, the case of the woman who had an issue of blood. She had heard something about Jesus, and somehow had caught the idea that if she could but touch the hem of His garment, she should be made whole. See her pressing her way along through the crowd, faint with weakness, pale, and trembling; if you had seen her you would perhaps have cried out, What would this poor dying invalid do?
She knew what she was trying to do. At last unnoticed of all, she reached the spot where the Holy One stood and put forth her feeble hand and touched His garment. Suddenly He turns Himself and asks, Who was it that touched me? Somebody touched me: who was it? The disciples, astonished at such a question, put under such circumstances, reply -- The multitude throng Thee on every side, and scores are touching Thee every hour; why then ask -- Who touched me?
The fact was, somebody had touched Him with faith to be healed thereby, and He knew that the healing virtue had gone forth from Himself to some believing heart. How beautiful an illustration this of simple faith! And how wonderful the connection between the faith and the healing!
Just so the Hebrews received that wonderful healing power by simply looking toward the brazen serpent. No doubt this was a great mystery to them, yet it was none the less a fact. Let them look; the looking brings the cure, although not one of them can tell how the healing virtue comes. So we are really to look to Christ, and in looking, to receive the healing power. It matters not how little we understand the mode in which the looking operates to give us the remedy for sin.
This looking to Jesus implies that we look away from ourselves. There is to be no mixing up of quack medicines along with the great remedy. Such a course is always sure to fail. Thousands fail in just this way, forever trying to be healed partly by their own stupid, self-willed works, as well as partly by Jesus Christ. There must be no looking to man or to any of man's doings or man's help. All dependence must be on Christ alone. As this is true in reference to pardon, so is it also in reference to sanctification. This is done by faith in Christ. It is only through and by faith that you get that divine influence which sanctifies the soul -- the Spirit of God; and this in some of its forms of action was the power that healed the Hebrews in the wilderness.
Looking to Christ implies looking away from ourselves in the sense of not relying at all on our own works for the cure desired, not even on works of faith. The looking is toward Christ alone as our all-prevalent, all-sufficient and present remedy.
There is a constant tendency in Christians to depend on their own doings, and not on simple faith in Christ. The woman of the blood-issue seems to have toiled many years to find relief before she came to Christ; had no doubt tried everybody's prescriptions, and taxed her own ingenuity bee sides to its utmost capacity, but all was of no avail. At last she heard of Jesus. He was said to do many wonderful works. She said within herself -- This must be the promised Messiah -- who was to "bear our sicknesses" and heal all the maladies of men. O let me rush to Him, for if I may but touch the hem of His garment, I shall be whole. She did not stop to philosophize upon the mode of the cure; she leaned on no man's philosophy, and had none of her own; she simply said -- I have heard of One who is mighty to save, and I flee to Him.
So of being healed of our sins. Despairing of all help in ourselves or in any other name than Christ's, and assured there is virtue in Him to work out the cure, we expect it of Him and come to Him to obtain it.
Several times within the last few years, when persons have come to me with the question, Can I anyhow be saved from my sins -- actually saved, so as not to fall again into the same sins, and under the same temptations? I have said -- Have you ever tried looking to Jesus? O yes.
But have you expected that you should be actually saved from sin by looking to Jesus, and be filled with faith, love, and holiness? No; I did not expect that.
Now, suppose a man had looked at the brazen serpent for the purpose of speculation. He has no faith in what God says about being cured by looking, but he is inclined to try it. He will look a little and watch his feelings to see how it affects him. He does not believe God's word, yet since he does not absolutely know but it may be true, he will condescend to try it. This is no looking at all in the sense of our text. It would not have cured the bitten Israelite; it can. not heal the poor sinner. There is no faith in it.
Sinners must look to Christ with both desire and design to be saved. Salvation is the object for which they look.
Suppose one had looked towards the brazen serpent, but with no willingness or purpose to be cured. This could do him no good. Nor can it do sinners any good to think of Christ otherwise than as a Savior, and a Savior for their own sins.
Sinners must look to Christ as a remedy for all sin. To wish to make some exception, sparing some sins, but consenting to abandon others, indicates rank rebellion of heart, and can never impose on the All-seeing One. There cannot be honesty in the heart which proposes to itself to seek deliverance from sin only in part.
Sinners may look to Christ at once -- without the least delay. They need not wait till they are almost dead under their malady. For the bitten Israelite, it was of no use to wait and defer his looking to the serpent till he found himself in the jaws of death. He might have said -- I am wounded plainly enough, but I do not see as it swells much yet; I do not feel the poison spreading through my system; I cannot look yet, for my case is not yet desperate enough; I could not hope to excite the pity of the Lord in my present condition, and therefore I must wait. I say, there was no need of such delay then and no use of it. Nor is there any more need or use for it in the sinner's case now.
You have done so on many occassions doc..
You have missed the point again. You are still sitting tall and proud on your high horse. You are flatly refusing to accept the obvious meaning of very, very simple passages of Scripture.
1 Corinthians 2:14 declares that unless a person already HAS the Spirit of Christ in his soul, he/she CANNOT receive the Truth.
This necessarily means that a true supernatural regeneration has to precede saving faith. This, in turn, means that:
1) God is the one who determines who will receive saving faith when exposed to the message of the Scriptures, and
2) inasmuch as regeneration is what produces this spiritual will to receive the Truth, election cannot be based on God's precognition of that sinner's faith! (The effect of election cannot be the cause of election. The Wesleyan/Arminians have not understood what God's foreknowledge is. It is a planning faculty. It is not mere precognition!)
The above VERY SIMPLE two-point OBSERVATION from 1 Corinthian 2:14 also agrees exactly with what the Lord Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:3. You have read that verse umpteen times and you never even noticed what it is saying, RnMomof7.
And what I am showing you from 1 Corinthians 2:14 also agrees with everything I have shown you from John 6:37, 39, and 44 and Romans 9 and 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 and Acts 13:48 and a zillion other verses which you always quickly dismiss.
And it agrees exactly with John 10:26.
So, do you see from 1 Corinthians 2:14 why I question whether you even HAVE the Spirit of Christ in your soul?
Please put yourself in my place. Read 1 Corinthians 2:14 honestly for a change. It is very serious, very profound. And yet you just gloss over what it is saying. It is so simple that you ignore it.
Now, if we read further in the Corinthian epistle, we discover the possibility, based on 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, that you are just a regenerate but weirdly carnal Christian, i.e., an unteachable spiritual brat for the time being.
And if you don't like that pejorative language, I would point out that it was Paul's way of speaking--and that he was being charitable. The alternative was to write you off completely as just plain unregenerate (1 Corinthians 2:14 again).
This is why Jerry_M and I have both said that there is something profoundly wrong with you. Either you are the most carnal Christian we have ever encountered or you're just plain lost.
My bottom-line point is that you are not walking in the Spirit Whom you profess to love. (So, we are forced to discount your profession in this Age of Antichrist.) By the same token, we are forced to tell you that your doctrine of entire sanctification (like GWB's, too, I'm afraid), is a monstrous error. You are being carnal and calling it spiritual. You are sinning incessantly on these threads. Your doctrinally refractory spirit is SHAMEFUL.
(If I were not a Calvinist--i.e., someone who by the sheer grace of God can receive what 1 Corinthians 2:14 is saying--I would be flabbergasted at how dense your demonic controller has made you in your Pharisaic fleshliness. You think you are so spiritual as to continually avoid sinning, whereas you are overflowing with Truth-suppressing wickedness. This is why you don't seem to grasp even the easiest stuff in Calvinistic doctrine. You have been on these threads for MONTHS, and yet you recently asked us if a non-elect sinner can repent! Good grief, RnMomof7, I see why Paul walked away from people like you. It's manifestly a waste of time to talk with you.)
My bottom-line point is that you need to throw out your entire theology. You have gotten it from carnal goofballs like Wesley and Finney. And they were heretics. They had a completely inadequate view of sin. This is why Wesley was such an obvious hypocrite.
Oh, but almost nothing is obvious in this mess for an unspiritual person who has been conditioned to believe that there is nothing wrong with her "lovely" spirit. For some strange reason--called the Truth-suppressing wickedness of the Fall!--you really can't tell the doctrinal snakes from the faithful teachers of God's Word, Eve.
Again, you are hereby warned.
One of our elder candidates calls the NIV the "Nearly Inspired Version"..
I have used that for church (my church's pew bibles are Revised Standards I think),bible studies where different versions are read and so on.. I have a couple KJ that I have used when there has been discussion here..they are the word study ones..so I havent been completely in the dark *grin*
No, absolutely not. This wrong understanding has led others, like Jewish believers, to be horrified with Christianity.
In no way, shape or form, should Our Lord EVER be identified with the serpent. The sins of mankind, yes, but not the Lord
Peg one of the guys should respond to this..I will just say it is accepted that the snake in the desert is a typology of Jesus..peg,to my understanding the serpent is the sign of sin..satan slithering...Jesus became sin FOR us on the cross..
But I will leave to the men that have more time in this to respond I am sure it is more complicated than that
3:14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
3:15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
3:19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
3:20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
3:21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Peg, Jesus Christ is the one that likened Himself and the cross to the serpent.
Is Jesus a liar?
****
If you really want to see how 1 Timothy 2:4 fits the Calvinistic position, the first thing which I recommend you do is go back and read Uriel195's post on a previous thread, found at The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit #124.
Uriel1975's argument does not depend on the exegesis of the Greek word usually translated as "all" in our English language versions. (If you haven't worked through his post, please do so before continuing further.)
****
Now, the point which I want to make about Uriel1975's argument is that it exactly fits the Calvinistic position. And it is the explanation offered for 1 Timothy 2:4 by a great many mainstream Calvinists, including Charles Spurgeon.
But why does it fit the Calvinistic position so well? It's because it fits the two distinctives of the Calvinistic position.
My point here is that Calvinism is not the doctrine of absolute predestination. Rather, Calvinism is the theological system which embraces both the doctrine of absolute predestination and the free offer of the gospel. These are two distinctives, not one.
At the risk of being tedious, let me point out that both the Arminian and the hyper-Calvinist maintain that these two distinctives are mutually exclusive. They maintain that true (absolute) predestination and a true (sincere) gospel offer can't both be true. This is presuppositional with them. (But it is a purely philosophical presupposition. They don't get it from the Bible. They just think they do. Their presupposition actually warps the way they read the Bible.)
What makes this mess so interesting is the fact that Arminians and hyper-Calvinists start with the same presupposition and wind up reaching different bottom-line conclusions! (The Arminian tries to use the free offer of the gospel to rule out true predestination, i.e., to argue that the Bible's "predestination" is just a matter of God's precognition with some kind of vague meddling by God thrown in. The hyper-Calvinist, on the other end of the spectrum, tries to use the fact of God's absolute predestination to rule out the free offer of the gospel, i.e., to argue that we have somehow misunderstood the verses which definitely do suggest that God makes a sincere offer of salvation.)
Well, I don't care if the Arminians and hyper-Calvinists can't believe that absolute predestination and the free offer are both true. They are both taught in the Bible--no doubt about it! And if they say this can't be correct, then I'll dare to point out that they sound like unbelieving Jews or Mormons. (The Jews say that the Oneness of God rules out the Threeness of God. But they're wrong; they don't even know the God of the Bible, and the fact that they call their God Jehovah means nothing. The Mormons, on the other hand, are polytheists who do not really believe in the One True God. They don't know the God of the Bible either; the fact that they worship a god whom they call "Jesus" means nothing.)
***
My bottom-line point is that Calvinism is a Biblically balanced theology. This is why we Calvinists are not at all ashamed to say that 1 Timothy 2:4 is presenting the free offer of the gospel in the freest possible way. But it also why we refuse to read it in the stupid way the Arminians try to read it (i.e., pretending that the Lord Jesus is somehow at odds with the God of election!).
Perhaps the best way to appreciate Uriel1975's argument concerning 1 Timothy 2:4 is to look at what the Lord Himself said in John 6:37: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."
Notice that the Lord is promising to save every single solitary person who comes to Him, i.e., everyone who exercises true faith in Him--necessarily including faith in the veracity of the Offer! Notice, furthermore, that the Lord Jesus is saying, in effect, that if God the Father were pleased to bring every single person in the world to His Son in saving faith, then the Lord would willingly receive and save every single one person in the world.
Ah, but the Lord also knew that this would not happen, because He knew that it was not the Father's purpose to see everyone supernaturally converted. ONLY THE ELECT WILL COME TO CHRIST IN SAVING FAITH.
In the final analysis, the mystery of the extent of the Atonement is actually beside the point of what Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:4. The mosrt important point of the verse is the free offer, not the mystery of predestination. Paul is keying on the fact that Christ is an All-Sufficient Savior, and he is keying on the the obvious sense in which He is willing to save everyone. But this is precisely the same sense which the Lord Jesus presented in John 6:37. In the final analysis, He definitely defers to the Father's will.
Please think about this for a while. After you have had a chance to absorb it, I will show you something else which you have overlooked about 1 Timothy 2:4. And this is largely because you don't read New Testament Greek.
And I think it will knock your socks off.
On the previous thread, you inquired about a couple of verses. In the post which follows, I will address the first of these, 1 Timothy 2:4.
****
If you really want to see how 1 Timothy 2:4 fits the Calvinistic position, the first thing which I recommend you do is go back and read Uriel195's post on a previous thread, found at The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit #124.
Uriel1975's argument does not depend on the exegesis of the Greek word usually translated as "all" in our English language versions. (If you haven't worked through his post, please do so before continuing further.)
****
Now, the point which I want to make about Uriel1975's argument is that it exactly fits the Calvinistic position. And it is the explanation offered for 1 Timothy 2:4 by a great many mainstream Calvinists, including Charles Spurgeon.
But why does it fit the Calvinistic position so well? It's because it fits the two distinctives of the Calvinistic position.
My point here is that Calvinism is not the doctrine of absolute predestination. Rather, Calvinism is the theological system which embraces both the doctrine of absolute predestination and the free offer of the gospel. These are two distinctives, not one.
At the risk of being tedious, let me point out that both the Arminian and the hyper-Calvinist maintain that these two distinctives are mutually exclusive. They maintain that true (absolute) predestination and a true (sincere) gospel offer can't both be true. This is presuppositional with them. (But it is a purely philosophical presupposition. They don't get it from the Bible. They just think they do. Their presupposition actually warps the way they read the Bible.)
What makes this mess so interesting is the fact that Arminians and hyper-Calvinists start with the same presupposition and wind up reaching different bottom-line conclusions! (The Arminian tries to use the free offer of the gospel to rule out true predestination, i.e., to argue that the Bible's "predestination" is just a matter of God's precognition with some kind of vague meddling by God thrown in. The hyper-Calvinist, on the other end of the spectrum, tries to use the fact of God's absolute predestination to rule out the free offer of the gospel, i.e., to argue that we have somehow misunderstood the verses which definitely do suggest that God makes a sincere offer of salvation.)
Well, I don't care if the Arminians and hyper-Calvinists can't believe that absolute predestination and the free offer are both true. They are both taught in the Bible--no doubt about it! And if they say this can't be correct, then I'll dare to point out that they sound like unbelieving Jews or Mormons. (The Jews say that the Oneness of God rules out the Threeness of God. But they're wrong; they don't even know the God of the Bible, and the fact that they call their God Jehovah means nothing. The Mormons, on the other hand, are polytheists who do not really believe in the One True God. They don't know the God of the Bible either; the fact that they worship a god whom they call "Jesus" means nothing.)
***
My bottom-line point is that Calvinism is a Biblically balanced theology. This is why we Calvinists are not at all ashamed to say that 1 Timothy 2:4 is presenting the free offer of the gospel in the freest possible way. But it also why we refuse to read it in the stupid way the Arminians try to read it (i.e., pretending that the Lord Jesus is somehow at odds with the God of election!).
Perhaps the best way to appreciate Uriel1975's argument concerning 1 Timothy 2:4 is to look at what the Lord Himself said in John 6:37: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."
Notice that the Lord is promising to save every single solitary person who comes to Him, i.e., everyone who exercises true faith in Him--necessarily including faith in the veracity of the Offer! Notice, furthermore, that the Lord Jesus is saying, in effect, that if God the Father were pleased to bring every single person in the world to His Son in saving faith, then the Lord would willingly receive and save every single one person in the world.
Ah, but the Lord also knew that this would not happen, because He knew that it was not the Father's purpose to see everyone supernaturally converted. ONLY THE ELECT WILL COME TO CHRIST IN SAVING FAITH.
In the final analysis, the mystery of the extent of the Atonement is actually beside the point of what Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:4. The mosrt important point of the verse is the free offer, not the mystery of predestination. Paul is keying on the fact that Christ is an All-Sufficient Savior, and he is keying on the the obvious sense in which He is willing to save everyone. But this is precisely the same sense which the Lord Jesus presented in John 6:37. In the final analysis, He definitely defers to the Father's will.
Please think about this for a while. After you have had a chance to absorb it, I will show you something else which you have overlooked about 1 Timothy 2:4. And this is largely because you don't read New Testament Greek.
And I think it will knock your socks off.
The fonts should be correct...now.
I accept predestination and election and so forth-- I have to, they're in there. I dont pretend to fully understand them, though. I'm leaning 4-point now, but being careful.
I had been meaning to talk to you recently about my possible differences with the Calvinist in this area. I want you to know that this verse has consummed me for 2 days now. Thank you brother.
My eyes have been opened up to see something which is very nearly the opposite of what everybody has told me this verse means. Stupid me for not checking before now.
Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 24:7, Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,.... It pleased God to reveal His Son in me.
Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing; Thou hast put off my sackcloth and girded me with gladness, to the end that my glory may sing praise to Thee and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give thanks unto Thee for ever.
Apart from the fact that I did answer this, I'll say it this way; a way which I doubt you will understand.
John 3:3 LOUDLY proclaims the answer and LOUDLY shredds your view of Ephesians 2:8......
Hey, doc, this is getting funnier with each post.
The Bible ssays that me are blessed who seek God, 'with their whole heart'(Psa.119:2)
I'll answer 1 more: Yes, men who seek God are blessed. But you don't know how they are blessed to seek God. You don't have a clue; really, you don't.
Ok, if you say so. But fortheDeclaration has the right words. Really, he does. He just doesn't believe what he himself has posted:
Depravity means that a chasm has been created where man, born into sin and therefore spiritually dead cannot do anything to please God. --- fortheDeclarationDon't you believe that God must create in man the capability to respond to the Free Gift? Even drot believes this.
Thus, God must initiate (Gen.3:15), offer the free gift (Rom.5:15) which man must take in order to be saved(Jn.16:9)
Now, what part of that process is it you do not understand?
Is it because you think that taking the gift is 'good' and thereby something that 'pleases God'?
It is the 'gift' that pleases God so that the taker of the gift becomes identified with the giver(2Cor.5:17)
Even so, come Lord Jesus
That conscience is darkened (Jn.3:19) but can make a choice to believe when the light shines into the soul (2Cor.4:6)
By the way, was Cornelius who was a 'devout man' saved or not?
Even so, come Lord Jesus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.