For Whom Did Christ Die? - Calvinism

The Spurgeon Archives ^ | Delivered on Lord's-Day Morning, September 6th, 1874 | C.H. Spurgeon

[CCWoody]

"Christ died for the ungodly."—Romans 5:6.

n this verse the human race is described as a sick man, whose disease is so far advanced that he is altogether without strength: no power remains in his system to throw off his mortal malady, nor does he desire to do so; he could not save himself from his disease if he would, and would not if he could. I have no doubt that the apostle had in his eye the description of the helpless infant given by the prophet Ezekiel; it was an infant—an infant newly born—an infant deserted by its mother before the necessary offices of tenderness had been performed; left unwashed, unclothed, unfed, a prey to certain death under the most painful circumstances, forlorn, abandoned, hopeless. Our race is like the nation of Israel, its whole head is sick, and its whole heart faint. Such, unconverted men, are you! Only there is this darker shade in your picture, that your condition is not only your calamity, but your fault. In other diseases men are grieved at their sickness, but this is the worst feature in your case, that you love the evil which is destroying you. In addition to the pity which your case demands, no little blame must be measured out to you: you are without will for that which is good, your "cannot" means "will not," your inability is not physical but moral, not that of the blind who cannot see for want of eyes, but of the willingly ignorant who refuse to look.

While man is in this condition Jesus interposes for his salvation. "When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly"; "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," according to "his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses and sins." The pith of my sermon will be an endeavour to declare that the reason of Christ's dying for us did not lie in our excellence; but where sin abounded grace did much more abound, for the persons for whom Jesus died were viewed by him as the reverse of good, and he came into the world to save those who are guilty before God, or, in the words of our text, "Christ died for the ungodly."

Now to our business. We shall dwell first upon the fact—"Christ died for the ungodly"; then we shall consider the fair inferences therefrom; and, thirdly, proceed to think and speak of the proclamation of this simple but wondrous truth.

First, here is THE FACT—"Christ died for the ungodly." Never did the human ear listen to a more astounding and yet cheering truth. Angels desire to look into it, and if men were wise they would ponder it night and day. Jesus, the Son of God, himself God over all, the infinitely glorious One, Creator of heaven and earth, out of love to me stooped to become a man and die. Christ, the thrice holy God, the pure-hearted man, in whom there was no sin and could be none, espoused the cause of the wicked. Jesus, whose doctrine makes deadly war on sin, whose Spirit is the destroyer of evil, whose whole self abhors iniquity, whose second advent will prove his indignation against transgression, yet undertook the cause of the impious, and even unto death pursued their salvation. The Christ of God, though he had no part or lot in the fall and the sin which has arisen out of it, has died to redeem us from its penalty, and, like the psalmist, he can cry, "Then I restored that which I took not away." Let all holy beings judge whether this is not the miracle of miracles!

Christ, the name given to our Lord, is an expressive word; it means "Anointed One," and indicates that he was sent upon a divine errand, commissioned by supreme authority. The Lord Jehovah said of old, "I have laid help upon one that is mighty, I have exalted one chosen out of the people"; and again, "I have given him as a covenant to the people, a leader and commander to the people." Jesus was both set apart to this work, and qualified for it by the anointing of the Holy Ghost. He is no unauthorised saviour, no amateur deliverer, but an ambassador clothed with unbounded power from the great King, a Redeemer with full credentials from the Father. It is this ordained and appointed Saviour who has "died for the ungodly." Remember this, ye ungodly! Consider well who it was that came to lay down his life for such as you are.

The text says Christ died. He did a great deal besides dying, but the crowning act of his career of love for the ungodly, and that which rendered all the rest available to them, was his death for them. He actually gave up the ghost, not in fiction, but in fact. He laid down his life for us, breathing out his soul, even as other men do when they expire. That it might be indisputably clear that he was really dead, his heart was pierced with the soldier's spear, and forthwith came there out blood and water. The Roman governor would not have allowed the body to be removed from the cross had he not been duly certified that Jesus was indeed dead. His relatives and friends who wrapped him in linen and laid him in Joseph's tomb, were sorrowfully sure that all that lay before them was a corpse. The Christ really died, and in saying that, we mean that he suffered all the pangs incident to death; only he endured much more and worse, for his was a death of peculiar pain and shame, and was not only attended by the forsaking of man, but by the departure of his God. That cry, "My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?" was the innermost blackness of the thick darkness of death.

Our Lord's death was penal, inflicted upon him by divine justice; and rightly so, for on him lay our iniquities, and therefore on him must lay the suffering. "It pleased the Father to bruise him; he hath put him to grief." He died under circumstances which made his death most terrible. Condemned to a felon's gibbet, he was crucified amid a mob of jesters, with few sympathising eyes to gaze upon him; he bore the gaze of malice and the glance of scorn; he was hooted and jeered by a ribald throng, who were cruelly inventive in their taunts and blasphemies. There he hung, bleeding from many wounds, exposed to the sun, burning with fever, and devoured with thirst, under every circumstance of contumely, pain, and utter wretchedness; his death was of all deaths the most deadly death, and emphatically "Christ died."

But the pith of the text comes here, that "Christ died for the ungodly"; not for the righteous, not for the reverent and devout, but for the ungodly. Look at the original word, and you will find that it has the meaning of "impious, irreligious, and wicked." Our translation is by no means too strong, but scarcely expressive enough. To be ungodly, or godless, is to be in a dreadful state, but as use has softened the expression, perhaps you will see the sense more clearly if I read it, "Christ died for the impious," for those who have no reverence for God. Christ died for the godless, who, having cast off God, cast off with him all love for that which is right. I do not know a word that could more fitly describe the most irreligious of mankind than the original word in this place, and I believe it is used on purpose by the Spirit of God to convey to us the truth, which we are always slow to receive, that Christ did not die because men were good, or would be good, but died for them as ungodly—or, in other words, "he came to seek and to save that which was lost."

Observe, then, that when the Son of God determined to die for men, he viewed them as ungodly, and far from God by wicked works. In casting his eye over our race he did not say, "Here and there I see spirits of nobler mould, pure, truthful, truth-seeking, brave, disinterested, and just; and therefore, because of these choice ones, I will die for this fallen race." No; but looking on them all, he whose judgment is infallible returned this verdict, "They are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Putting them down at that estimate, and nothing better, Christ died for them. He did not please himself with some rosy dream of a superior race yet to come, when the age of iron should give place to the age of gold,—some halcyon period of human development, in which civilisation would banish crime, and wisdom would conduct man back to God. Full well he knew that, left to itself, the world would grow worse and worse, and that by its very wisdom it would darken its own eyes. It was not because a golden age would come by natural progress, but just because such a thing was impossible, unless he died to procure it, that Jesus died for a race which, apart from him, could only develop into deeper damnation. Jesus viewed us as we really were, not as our pride fancies us to be; he saw us to be without God, enemies of our own Creator, dead in trespasses and sins, corrupt, and set on mischief, and even in our occasional cry for good, searching for it with blinded judgment and prejudiced heart, so that we put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. He saw that in us was no good thing, but every possible evil, so that we were lost,—utterly, helplessly, hopelessly lost apart from him: yet viewing us as in that graceless and Godless plight and condition, he died for us.

I would have you remember that the view under which Jesus beheld us was not only the true one, but, for us, the kindly one; because had it been written that Christ died for the better sort, then each troubled spirit would have inferred "he died not for me." Had the merit of his death been the perquisite of honesty, where would have been the dying thief? If of chastity, where the woman that loved much? If of courageous fidelity, how would it have fared with the apostles, for they all forsook him and fled? There are times when the bravest man trembles lest he should be found a coward, the most disinterested frets about the selfishness of his heart, and the most pure is staggered by his own impurity; where, then, would have been hope for one of us, if the gospel had been only another form of law, and the benefits of the cross had been reserved as the rewards of virtue? The gospel does not come to us as a premium for virtue, but it presents us with forgiveness for sin. It is not a reward for health, but a medicine for sickness. Therefore, to meet all cases, it puts us down at our worst, and, like the good Samaritan with the wounded traveller, it comes to us where we are. "Christ died for the impious" is a great net which takes in even the leviathan sinner; and of all the creeping sinners innumerable which swarm the sea of sin, there is not one kind which this great net does not encompass.

Let us note well that in this condition lay the need of our race that Christ should die. I do not see how it could have been written "Christ died for the good." To what end for the good? Why need they his death? If men are perfect, does God need to be reconciled to them? Was he ever opposed to holy beings? Impossible! On the other hand, were the good ever the enemies of God? If such there be are they not of necessity his friends? If man be by nature just with God, to what end should the Saviour die? "The just for the unjust" I can understand; but the "just dying for the just" were a double injustice—an injustice that the just should be punished at all, and another injustice that the just should be punished for them. Oh no! If Christ died, it must be because there was a penalty to be paid for sin committed, hence he must have died for those who had committed the sin. If Christ died, it must have been because "a fountain filled with blood" was necessary for the cleansing away of heinous stains; hence, it must have been for those who are defiled. Suppose there should be found anywhere in this world an unfallen man—perfectly innocent of all actual sin, and free from any tendency to it, there would be a superfluity of cruelty in the crucifixion of the innocent Christ for such an individual. What need has he that Christ should die for him, when he has in his own innocence the right to live? If there be found beneath the copes of heaven an individual who, notwithstanding some former slips and flaws, can yet, by future diligence, completely justify himself before God, then it is clear that there is no need for Christ to die for him. I would not insult him by telling him that Christ died for him, for he would reply to me, "Why should he? Cannot I make myself just without him?" In the very nature of things it must be so, that if Christ Jesus dies he must die for the ungodly. Such agonies as his would not have been endured had there not been a cause, and what cause could there have been but sin?

Some have said that Jesus died as our example; but that is not altogether true. Christ's death is not absolutely an example for men, it was a march into a region of which he said, "Ye cannot follow me now." His life was our example, but not his death in all respects, for we are by no means bound to surrender ourselves voluntarily to our enemies as he did, but when persecuted in one city we are bidden to flee to another. To be willing to die for the truth is a most Christly thing, and in that Jesus is our example; but into the winepress which he trod it is not ours to enter, the voluntary element which was peculiar to his death renders it inimitable. He said, "I lay down my life of myself; no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself." One word of his would have delivered him from his foes; he had but to say "Begone!" and the Roman guards must have fled like chaff before the wind. He died because he willed to do so; of his own accord he yielded up his spirit to the Father. It must have been as an atonement for the guilty; it could not have been as an example, for no man is bound voluntarily to die. Both the dictates of nature, and the command of the law, require us to preserve our lives. "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not voluntarily give up thine own life any more than take the life of another." Jesus stood in a special position, and therefore he died; but his example would have been complete enough without his death, had it not been for the peculiar office which he had undertaken. We may fairly conclude that Christ died for men who needed such a death; and, as the good did not need it for an example—and in fact it is not an example to them—he must have died for the ungodly.

The sum of our text is this—all the benefits resulting from the Redeemer's passion, and from all the works that followed upon it, are for those who by nature are ungodly. His gospel is that sinners believing in him are saved. His sacrifice has put away sin from all who trust him, and, therefore, it was offered for those who had sin upon them before. "He rose again for our justification," but certainly not for the justification of those who can be justified by their own works. He ascended on high, and we are told that he "received gifts for men, yea, for the rebellious also." He lives to intercede, and Isaiah tells us that "He made intercession for the transgressors." The aim of his death, resurrection, ascension, and eternal life, is towards the sinful sons of men. His death has brought pardon, but it cannot be pardon for those who have no sin—pardon is only for the guilty. He is exalted on high "to give repentance," but surely not to give repentance to those who have never sinned, and have nothing to repent of. Repentance and remission both imply previous guilt in those who receive them: unless, then, these gifts of the exalted Saviour are mere shams and superfluities, they must be meant for the really guilty. From his side there flowed out water as well as blood—the water is intended to cleanse polluted nature, then certainly not the nature of the sinless, but the nature of the impure; and so both blood and water flowed for sinners who need the double purification. To-day the Holy Spirit regenerates men as the result of the Redeemer's death; and who can be regenerated but those who need a new heart and a right spirit? To regenerate the already pure and innocent were ridiculous; regeneration is a work which creates life where there was formerly death, gives a heart of flesh to those whose hearts were originally stone, and implants the love of holiness where sin once had sole dominion. Conversion is also another gift, which comes through his death, but does he turn those whose faces are already in the right direction? It cannot be. He converts the sinner from the error of his ways, he turns the disobedient into the right way, he leads back the stray sheep to the fold. Adoption is another gift which comes to us by the cross. Does the Lord adopt those who are already his sons by nature? If children already, what room is there for adoption? No; but the grand act of divine love is that which takes those who are "children of wrath even as others," and by sovereign grace puts them among the children, and makes them "heirs of God, joint heirs with Jesus Christ."

To-day I see the Good Shepherd in all the energy of his mighty love, going forth into the dreadful wilderness. For whom is he gone forth? For the ninety and nine who feed at home? No, but into the desert his love sends him, over hill and dale, to seek the one lost sheep which has gone astray. Behold, I see him arousing his church, like a good housewife, to cleanse her house. With the besom of the law she sweeps, and with the candle of the word she searches, and what for? For those bright new coined pieces fresh from the mint, which glitter safely in her purse? Assuredly not, but for that lost piece which has rolled away into the dust, and lies hidden in the dark corner. And lo! grandest of all visions! I see the Eternal Father, himself, in the infinity of his love, going forth in haste to meet a returning child. And whom does he go to meet? The elder brother returning from the field, bringing his sheaves with him? An Esau, who has brought him savoury meat such as his soul loveth? A Joseph whose godly life has made him lord over all Egypt? Nay, the Father leaves his home to meet a returning prodigal, who has companied with harlots, and grovelled among swine, who comes back to him in disgraceful rags, and disgusting filthiness! It is on a sinner's neck that the Father weeps; it is on a guilty cheek that he sets his kisses; it is for an unworthy one that the fatted calf is killed, and the best robe is worn, and the house is made merry with music and with dancing. Yes, tell it, and let it ring round earth and heaven, Christ died for the ungodly. Mercy seeks the guilty, grace has to do with the impious, the irreligious and the wicked. The physician has not come to heal the healthy, but to heal the sick. The great philanthropist has not come to bless the rich and the great, but the captive and the prisoner. He puts down the mighty from their seats, for he is a stern leveller, but he has come to lift the beggar from the dunghill, and to set him among princes, even the princes of his people. Sing ye, then, with the holy Virgin, and let your song be loud and sweet,—"He hath filled the hungry with good things, but the rich he hath sent empty away." "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners." "He is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." O ye guilty ones, believe in him and live.

II. Let us now consider THE PLAIN INFERENCES FROM THIS FACT. Let me have your hearts as well as your ears, especially those of you who are not yet saved, for I desire you to be blessed by the truths uttered; and oh, may the Spirit of God cause it to be so. It is clear that those of you who are ungodly—and if you are unconverted you are that—are in great danger. Jesus would not interpose his life and bear the bloody sweat and crown of thorns, and nails, and spear, and scorn unmitigated, and death itself, if there were not solemn need and imminent peril. There is danger, solemn danger, for you. You are under the wrath of God already, and you will soon die, and then, as surely as you live, you will be lost, and lost forever; as certain as the righteous will enter into everlasting life, you will be driven into everlasting punishment. The cross is the danger signal to you, it warns you that if God spared not his only Son, he will not spare you. It is the lighthouse set on the rocks of sin to warn you that swift and sure destruction awaits you if you continue to rebel against the Lord. Hell is an awful place, or Jesus had not needed to suffer such infinite agonies to save us from it.

It is also fairly to be inferred that out of this danger only Christ can deliver the ungodly, and he only through his death. If a less price than that of the life of the Son of God could have redeemed men, he would have been spared. When a country is at war, and you see a mother give up her only boy to fight her country's battles—her only well-beloved, blameless son—you know that the battle must be raging very fiercely, and that the country is in stern danger: for, if she could find a substitute for him, though she gave all her wealth, she would lavish it freely to spare her darling. If she were certain that in his heart a bullet would find its target, she must have strong love for her country, and her country must be in dire necessity ere she would bid him go. If, then, "God spared not his Son, but freely delivered him up for us all," there must have been a dread necessity for it. It must have stood thus: die he, or the sinner must, or justice must; and since justice could not, and the Father desired that the sinner should not, then Christ must; and so he did. Oh, miracle of love! I tell you, sinners, you cannot help yourselves, nor can all the priests of Rome or Oxford help you, let them perform their antics as they may; Jesus alone can save, and that only by his death. There on the bloody tree hangs all man's hope; if you enter heaven it must be by force of the incarnate God's bleeding out his life for you. You are in such peril that only the pierced hand can lift you out of it. Look to him, at once, I pray you, ere the proud waters go over your soul.

Then let it be noticed—and this is the point I want constantly to keep before your view—that Jesus died out of pure pity. He must have died out of the most gratuitous benevolence to the undeserving, because the character of those for whom he died could not have attracted him, but must have been repulsive to his holy soul. The impious, the godless—can Christ love these for their character? No, he loved them notwithstanding their offences, loved them as creatures fallen and miserable, loved them according to the multitude of his loving-kindnesses and tender mercies, from pity, and not from admiration. Viewing them as ungodly, yet he loved them. This is extraordinary love! I do not wonder that some persons are loved by others, for they wear a potent charm in their countenances, their ways are winsome, and their characters charm you into affection; "but God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." He looked at us, and there was not a solitary beauty spot upon us: we were covered with "wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores," distortions, defilements, and pollutions; and yet, for all that, Jesus loved us. He loved us because he would love us; because his heart was full of pity, and he could not let us perish. Pity moved him to seek the most needy objects that his love might display its utmost ability in lifting men from the lowest degradation, and putting them in the highest position of holiness and honour.

Observe another inference. If Christ died for the ungodly, this fact leaves the ungodly no excuse if they do not come to him, and believe in him unto salvation. Had it been otherwise they might have pleaded, "We are not fit to come." But you are ungodly, and Christ died for the ungodly, why not for you? I hear the reply, "But I have been so very vile." Yes, you have been impious, but your sin is not worse than this word ungodly will compass. Christ died for those who were wicked, thoroughly wicked. The Greek word is so expressive that it must take in your case, however wrongly you have acted. "But I cannot believe that Christ died for such as I am," says one. Then, sir, mark! I hold you to your words, and charge you with contradicting the Eternal God to his teeth, and making him a liar. Your statement gives God the lie. The Lord declares that "Christ died for the ungodly," and you say he did not, what is that but to make God a liar? How can you expect mercy if you persist in such proud unbelief? Believe the divine revelation. Close in at once with the gospel. Forsake your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall surely live. The fact that Christ died for the ungodly renders self-righteousness a folly. Why need a man pretend that he is good if "Christ died for the ungodly?" We have an orphanage, and the qualification for our orphanage is that the child for whom admission is sought shall be utterly destitute. I will suppose a widow trying to show to me and my fellow trustees that her boy is a fitting object for the charity; will she tell us that her child has a rich uncle? Will she enlarge upon her own capacities for earning a living? Why, this would be to argue against herself, and she is much too wise for that, I warrant you, for she knows that any such statements would damage rather than serve her cause. So, sinner, do not pretend to be righteous, do not dream that you are better than others, for that is to argue against yourself. Prove that you are not by nature ungodly, and you prove yourself to be one for whom Jesus did not die. Jesus comes to make the ungodly godly, and the sinful holy, but the raw material upon which he works is described in the text not by its goodness but by its badness; it is for the ungodly that Jesus died. "Oh, but if I felt!" Felt what? Felt something which would make you better? Then you would not so clearly come under the description here given. If you are destitute of good feelings, and thoughts, and hopes, and emotions, you are ungodly, and "Christ died for the ungodly." Believe in him and you shall be saved from that ungodliness.

"Well," cries out some Pharisaic moralist, "this is dangerous doctrine." How so? Would it be dangerous doctrine to say that physicians exercise their skill to cure sick people and not healthy ones? Would that encourage sickness? Would that discourage health? You know better; you know that to inform the sick of a physician who can heal them is one of the best means for promoting their cure. If ungodly and impious men would take heart and run to the Saviour, and by him become cured of impiety and ungodliness, would not that be a good thing? Jesus has come to make the ungodly godly, the impious pious, the wicked obedient, and the dishonest upright. He has not come to save them in their sins, but from their sins; and this is the best of news for those who are diseased with sin. Self-righteousness is a folly, and despair is a crime, since Christ died for the ungodly. None are excluded hence but those who do themselves exclude; this great gate is set so wide open that the very worst of men may enter, and you, dear hearer, may enter now.

I think it is also very evident from our text that when they are saved, the converted find no ground of boasting; for when their hearts are renewed and made to love God they cannot say, "See how good I am," because they were not so by nature; they were ungodly, and, as such, Christ died for them. Whatever goodness there may be in them after conversion they ascribe it to the grace of God, since by nature they were alienated from God, and far removed from righteousness. If the truth of natural depravity be but known and felt, free grace must be believed in, and then all glorying is at an end.

This will also keep the saved ones from thinking lightly of sin. If God had forgiven sinners without an atonement they might have thought little of transgression, but now that pardon comes to them through the bitter griefs of their Redeemer they cannot but see it to be an exceeding great evil. When we look to Jesus dying on the cross we end our dalliance with sin, and utterly abhor the cause of so great suffering to so dear a Saviour. Every wound of Jesus is an argument against sin. We never know the full evil of our iniquities till we see what it cost the Redeemer to put them away.

Salvation by the death of Christ is the strongest conceivable promoter of all the things which are pure, honest, lovely, and of good report. It makes sin so loathsome that the saved one cannot take up even its name without dread. "I will take away the name of Baalim out of thy mouth." He looks upon it as we should regard a knife rusted with gore, wherewith some villain had killed our mother, our wife, or child. Could we play with it? Could we bear it about our persons or endure it in our sight? No, accursed thing! stained with the heart's blood of my beloved, I would fain fling thee into the bottomless abyss! Sin is that dagger which stabbed the Saviour's heart, and henceforth it must be the abomination of every man who has been redeemed by the atoning sacrifice.

To close this point. Christ's death for the ungodly is the grandest argument to make the ungodly love him when they are saved. To love Christ is the mainspring of obedience in men—how shall men be led to love him? If you would grow love, you must sow love. Go, then; and let men know the love of Christ to sinners, and they will, by grace, be moved to love him in return. No doubt all of us require to know the threatenings of the wrath of God; but that which soonest touches my heart is Christ's free love to an unworthy one like myself. When my sins seem blackest to me, and yet I know that through Christ's death I am forgiven, this blest assurance melts me down.

"If thou hadst bid thy thunders roll,
And lightnings flash, to blast my soul.
I still had stubborn been;
But mercy has my heart subdued,
A bleeding Saviour I have view'd,
And now I hate my sin."
I have heard of a soldier who had been put in prison for drunkenness and insubordination several times and he had been also flogged, but nothing improved him. At last he was taken in the commission of another offence, and brought before the commanding officer, who said to him, "My man, I have tried everything in the martial code with you, except shooting you; you have been imprisoned and whipped, but nothing has changed you. I am determined to try something else with you. You have caused us a great deal of trouble and anxiety, and you seem resolved to do so still; I shall, therefore, change my plans with you, and I shall neither fine you, flog you, nor imprison you; I will see what kindness will do, and therefore I fully and freely forgive you." The man burst into tears, for he reckoned on a round number of lashes, and had steeled himself to bear them, but when he found he was to be forgiven, and set free, he said, "Sir, you shall not have to find fault with me again." Mercy won his heart. Now, sinner, in that fashion God is dealing with you. Great sinners! Ungodly sinners! God says, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways. I have threatened you, and you hardened your hearts against me. Therefore, come now, and let us reason together: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." "Well," says one, "I am afraid if you talk to sinners so they will go and sin more and more." Yes, there are brutes everywhere, who can be so unnatural as to sin because grace abounds, but I bless God there is such a thing as the influence of love, and I am rejoiced that many feel the force of it, and yield to the conquering arms of amazing grace. The Spirit of God wins the day by such arguments as these; love is the great battering-ram which opens gates of brass. When the Lord says, "I have blotted out thy transgressions like a cloud, and like a thick cloud thine iniquities," then the man is moved to repentance.

I can tell you hundreds and thousands of cases in which this infinite love has done all the good that morality itself could ask to have done; it has changed the heart and turned the entire current of the man's nature from sin to righteousness. The sinner has believed, repented, turned from his evil ways, and become zealous for holiness. Looking to Jesus he has felt his sin forgiven, and he has started up a new man, to lead a new life. God grant it may be so this morning, and he shall have all the glory of it.

III. So now we must close—and this is the last point—THE PROCLAMATION OF THIS FACT, that "Christ died for the ungodly." I would not mind if I were condemned to live fifty years more, and never to be allowed to speak but these five words, if I might be allowed to utter them in the ear of every man, and woman, and child who lives. "CHRIST DIED FOR THE UNGODLY" is the best message that even angels could bring to men. In the proclamation of this the whole church ought to take its share. Those of us who can address thousands should be diligent to cry aloud—"Christ died for the ungodly"; but those of you who can speak to one, or write a letter to one, must keep on at this—"Christ died for the ungodly." Shout it out, or whisper it out; print it in capitals, or write it in a lady's hand—"Christ died for the ungodly." Speak it solemnly, it is not a thing for jest. Speak it joyfully; it is not a theme for sorrow, but for joy. Speak it firmly; it is indisputable fact. Facts of science, as they call them, are always questioned: this is unquestionable. Speak it earnestly; for if there be any truth which ought to arouse all a man's soul it is this: "Christ died for the ungodly." Speak it where the ungodly live, and that is at your own house. Speak it also down in the dark corners of the city, in the haunts of debauchery, in the home of the thief, in the den to the depraved. Tell it in the gaol; and sit down at the dying bed and read in a tender whisper—"Christ died for the ungodly." When you pass the harlot in the street, do not give a toss with that proud head of yours, but remember that "Christ died for the ungodly"; and when you recollect those that injured you, say no bitter word, but hold your tongue, and remember "Christ died for the ungodly." Make this henceforth the message of your life—"Christ died for the ungodly."

And, oh, dear friends, you that are not saved, take care that you receive this message. Believe it. Go to God with this on your tongue—"Lord save me, for Christ died for the ungodly, and I am of them." Fling yourself right on to this as a man commits himself to his lifebelt amid the surging billows. "But I do not feel," says one. Trust not your feelings if you do; but with no feelings and no hopes of your own, cling desperately to this, "Christ died for the ungodly." The transforming, elevating, spiritualising, moralising, sanctifying power of this great fact you shall soon know and be no more ungodly; but first, as ungodly, rest you on this, "Christ died for the ungodly." Accept this truth, my dear hearer, and you are saved. I do not mean merely that you will be pardoned, I do not mean that you will enter heaven, I mean much more; I mean that you will have a new heart; you will be saved from the love of sin, saved from drunkenness, saved from uncleanness, saved from blasphemy, saved from dishonesty. "Christ died for the ungodly"—if that be really known and trusted in, it will open in your soul new springs of living water which will cleanse the Augean stable of your nature, and make a temple of God of that which was before a den of thieves. Trust in the mercy of God through the death of Jesus Christ, and a new era in your life's history will at once commence.

Having put this as plainly as I know how, and having guarded my speech to prevent there being anything like a flowery sentence in it, having tried to put this as clearly as daylight itself,—that "Christ died for the ungodly," if your ears refuse the precious boons that come through the dying Christ, your blood be on your own heads, for there is no other way of salvation for any one among you. Whether you reject or accept this, I am clear. But oh! do not reject it, for it is your life. If the Son of God dies for sinners, and sinners reject his blood, they have committed the most heinous offence possible. I will not venture to affirm, but I do suggest that the devils in hell are not capable of so great a stretch of criminality as is involved in the rejection of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Here lies the highest love. The incarnate God bleeds to death to save men, and men hate God so much that they will not even have him as he dies to save them. They will not be reconciled to their Creator, though he stoops from his loftiness to the depths of woe in the person of his Son on their behalf. This is depravity indeed, and desperateness of rebellion. God grant you may not be guilty of it. There can be no fiercer flame of wrath than that which will break forth from love that has been trampled upon, when men have put from them eternal life, and done despite to the Lamb of God. "Oh," says one, "would God I could believe!" "Sir, what difficulty is there in it? Is it hard to believe the truth? Darest thou belie thy God? Art thou steeling thy heart to such desperateness that thou wilt call thy God a liar?" "No; I believe Christ died for the ungodly," says one, "but I want to know how to get the merit of that death applied to my own soul." Thou mayest, then, for here it is—"He that believeth in him," that is, he that trusts in him, "is not condemned." Here is the gospel and the whole of it—"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be damned."

I am a poor weak man like yourselves, but my gospel is not weak; and it would be no stronger if one of "the mailed cherubim, or sworded seraphim" could take the platform and stand here instead of me. He could tell to you no better news. God, in condescension to your weakness, has chosen one of your fellow mortals to bear to you this message of infinite affection. Do not reject it! By your souls' value, by their immortality, by the hope of heaven and by the dread of hell, lay hold upon eternal life; and by the fear that this may be your last day on earth, yea, and this evening your last hour, I do beseech you now, "steal away to Jesus." There is life in a look at the crucified one; there is life at this moment for you. Look to him now and live. Amen.

---

PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE READ BEFORE SERMON—Ezekiel 16:1-14; Romans 5:1-11.

[White Mountain]

Your #1150: All, I have noticed that the LDS no longer want anybody to directly link to their material. So, anybody wanting to verify the quotes will have to go the long way: www.lds.org

You are jumping to conclusions. The links in your #1148 look like they should work if you remove the "www." before the "scriptures.lds.org" in each one before you repost it.

I am telling you, the Adam-God Theory is not a teaching of the LDS Church, and is not true. Interesting that you quote me saying that and then immediately proclaim the Adam-God Theory in big bold letters. You are believing your anti-LDS websites rather than me, telling me what I believe. For shame!

[White Mountain]

Your #1178:

Freely express is fine, relentless attack is something else. Do you support my free expression, or do you attack me when I post?

I have had many a fine discussion of differing views with Calvinists who enjoy a cordial discussion. Much free expression took place. The atmosphere of threads like these drives such people away.

[White Mountain]

Your #1151:

You are still stuck on the fact that miracles are a grace, which is true enough. How about "ability to repent"? That is the phrase I used to use long ago, until I decided "grace to repent" conveyed my meaning better to the Calvinist ear.

What backpedaling do you refer to?

[RnMomof7]

Would you explain why you want to "discuss " scripture or Christian doctrinal differences when you so not believe the bible is accurate? I do think that if you want to put your two cents in you need to disclose that you are LDS for casual readers ....they have a right to know that. Everyone else on FR states their doctrinal bias up front..you need to do that too,and not pretend you are an Armenian

Would you please post that part of your approved doctrine on your church position on Adam?

And you owe me an apology

[xzins]

Okay, so..... He established a plan which predestined to save many Tyrians and Sidonians at a later point in history, but to leave many Tyrians and Sidonians of an earlier generation in their sins. It was within His power to demonstrate miracles to them which would save them, but this was not according to the timetable which He sovereignly elected to establish.

So, He absolutely predestined to Damn some and Save others. His reasons for doing so are His own, but those are the facts of the case.

Let's see, you've conceded that God can have any attributes that I like. You've given that humanity can have all the free will that I like. You've even agreed that the free will that man does have includes the capacity both to want God or to not want God, and that this free will can have man decide for God when presented with the choice.

Now, I hear you saying that there was a plan implemented by God, probably before time and creation, that had its significant fulfillment in Christ's first advent and will be totally fulfilled through Christ after He puts all his enemies at his feet.

Your argument is now that because the expansion of Christ's gospel message took time that that is what is meant by God sovereignly choosing who would be saved and who would be damned.... because the decision to be witnesses "in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the world" wasn't completed immediately by miracle.

This means that Jesus was saying, in effect, "They aren't saved in Tyre/Sidon because they haven't yet been reached by preaching!" I think it is so true what is said, "How beautiful...those who preach good news....How can they hear without a preacher."

Ortho, we both know that what you've agreed to isn't calvinistic predestination. In fact, it isn't any kind of predestination at all.

It is individual humans living in ignorance of God until confronted by the gospel message at which time the hearer must decide for or against the gospel and has the capacity to make the right decision.

[xzins]

Or was his plan that Moses would intercede for the people?

His plan is what the Bible reveals that plan to be....and our Bible is God's inspired Word.

[xzins]

Sometimes only tough love works..Paul had to be knocked off his horse and made blind so he could see.

Paul was knocked off his horse in the movies. In the Bible, it merely says that he fell to the ground. It doesn't indicate he was on a horse either before, during, or after his encounter with God.

I would like to highlight that the fact I've pointed out is picayunish and irrelevant to the discussion on this thread. Nonetheless, it is a fact.

[fortheDeclaration]

God's DESIRE was for the salvation of all those. God's decision was that all of this MUST be according to a certain patterned plan. Why according to plan and not immediately by fiat? Because the plan and only the plan brings about the total defeat of evil while simultaneously demonstrating both God's glory and the total righteousness of God. God's plan and only God's plan results in that great body of believers who gather around the throne and give glory to the Lamb who was slain.

excellent! Amen and Amen!

[fortheDeclaration]

The purpose to God in all of this (according to the Bible) is His own glorification. Gosh, it is right there in black and white (and red), depending upon your edition.

I was not disagreeing that Glory was stated to be a purpose. However it also states He was doing things for his own pleasure (Eph.1:9, Rev.4:11).

Thus the Glory that God will receive will be that of showing just how deep His Love is by dying for His creation (Jn.3:16,Rom.8,Phil.2:6) and providing a Plan that in eternity will forever remove sin and death (Rom.11:33).

It will not be the Glory of just picking out a few while leaving most to go to the Lake of Fire.

Your God is too small to be the God depicted in the Bible.

[RickyJ]

So, He absolutely predestined to Damn some and Save others. His reasons for doing so are His own, but those are the facts of the case.

Wrong. Those are not the facts of the case. I believe the term predestined is being mistranslated, it's more like predetermined. God knew before the creation of the world who would accept him and who wouldn't, but that hardly means God excluded anyone from salvation through his Son Jesus Christ, just because he didn't "predestine" them for salvation.

Many will say unto me "Lord, Lord, we have done many things in your name" and I will say unto them, "depart from me, ye that work iniquity, for I never knew you".

[fortheDeclaration]

Ya' see, this just makes you look desperate. You must take me for some kind of fool to think that you can say that "haply" means possible and that I don't know any better. It does not.

I am not the one who is desperate, since you are the one running to the Greek to get rid of the word. But lets look at the 'Greek'

Acts 17:27 does not mean what you want it to mean. It never has and it never ever will. You are so desperate to deny that God is in control that you are just inventing things in the scriptures. ara {ar'-ah} probably from 142 (through the idea of drawing a conclusion); part AV - therefore + 3767 7, so then + 3767 4, now therefore + 3767 1, then + 1065 2, wherefore + 1065 1, haply + 1065 1, not tr 7, misc 7; 51 1) therefore, so then, wherefore

I see the word 'haply' listed. Now, what does Strong say about ara

(686)prob from 142(through the idea of drawing a conclusion)a particle denoting an inference more or less decisive (as follows) hapily, what manner( of man), no doubt, perhaps, so be, then, therefore, wherefore. often used in connection with other particles...

Now, how do the other versions translate it? The NASB,NIV-perhaps NKJV-hope

Now, you can do what the Tyndale and Geneva do, leave out the particle and just translate it 'That they should seek God if they might feel and find him...' but the particle does mean 'perhaps'.

However, that is not the real problem with the verse for the Calvinist, the real problem is should seek Him, which shows He has made possible

[fortheDeclaration]

If God knows and decides not to act is that not predestination??

God is always acting,either through a directive will or permissive will.

To say Predestination ( a Biblical word) one is going to have to remove the Calvinist definition (not Biblical) that that God did not give His creatures the ability to choose against and for Him.

Arminius did not teach as did Pelagius that God had to react in time to what man's free decisions would be (this the heresy the Calvinist's want to tie to Armininus, although guys like Pinnock have gone that route). Armininus did believe that God's Plan did have it in all that was ever going to happen (or else how could God prophecy?). That the free will decisions of man (being foreknown) were viewed in eternity by God's Omniscience (knowing the all the possiblites, hence Matt.11:21 is a real statement), and then factored in along with God's directive will.

God is not afraid of free will and does not feel threatned by it. He knows every decision man will make before the man was even born ( Ps.139,Isa.45,speaking of Cyrus, and Rom.9:17,speaking of Pharoah,). They are part of His Plan, but the wrath of man shall praise Him!(Ps.76:10) as the free response of man will glorify Him(Lk.19:10, Jn.3:16,Rev.4:11)

[fortheDeclaration]

He does it to please Himself and to glorify Himself before all His creation. Do not imagine Arminians are perched upon some high ground here from which lofty elevation they may look down upon the humble Calvinist.

I do not understand what you mean by this? I am saying that how God will be glorfied, not that He will be. That is the point of contention between the two schools regarding the ultimate purpose of God's creation.

The purpose to God in all of this(according to Calvinism) is His own glorification. With regard to salvation and other matters, the Bible repeatedly teaches us that God intends to show His eternal glory. And He demands that we acknowledge it. And this pattern of glorification will ultimately culminate at the Judgment Throne where every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is King. And I suspect that the damned will confess it as well before they are cast into hell. You will not embarass a Calvinist by accusing him of a proper fear of God and acknowledging God's intent in glorifying Himself over and above all His creation.

Is the implication of the statement that the Arminan does not have a fear of God?

Yet, the glory of saving millions when He could have saved billions seems an empty glory. Could not the glory relate to the fact that despite opposition He achieved His goals, to provide salvation for all (even though all will not accept it) and still perserve the will of His creatures to respond freely to His grace. You may feel that God has diminished His glory by not choosing to offer universal salvation. If so, your KJV has done you little good. I do not judge God's methods.

George, from whence comes this tone? You might not feel it necessary to ask the question of why evil is in the universe, but a theological system that cannot answer that question has failed since that is the key question that must addressed and not just ignored,

A problem of evil is also a problem about the internal consistency of a theological position.The crucial question is not whether a theological position contradicts another theistic system or even whether it contradicts the atheists views, but whether it contradicts itself

This point has important implications for both theists and critics of theism. The theist must so structure a theology as to contain views of God, evil and human freedom which, when put together, do not contradict each other.

In particular, theists must avoid a system in which God is said to be both good and able to remove evil, despite the systems admission of the existence of evil. Such a system will most assuredly succumb to its problem of evil.(Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Ed.Walter A.Elwell, p.168)

That is the problem is what any theological system must address, why does evil exist with a good, holy, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, God?

Glory? Yes, but how will all of this Glorify Him?

This He did because it gave Him pleasure (Rev.4:11) Let's look closer, shall we? Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. - Revelation 4:11 KJV The writer is declaring Christ worthy of glory and honor and power through the Father. All creation was created by and through Him but the power of the Father worked all these things for the pleasure of the Son. At least, this is my reading.

The Son was also involved in the actual creating (Co.1:16)

Now, in time, all things are turned over to the Son because He fulfilled the Plan as laid out in eternity (Mat.28, Ps.2). So, we have no disagreement on that, but those things were also created by Him and for him.

The writer declares and affirms the legitimacy of Christ as King and Messiah and affirms his role in creation and that the purpose of creation is to glorify Him, the Son of Man. Some might argue that this verse applies to the Father, not the Son. I think that it refers to Christ because it is difficult to make sense of Revelations 5:8 otherwise.

The entire Trinity will be glorified (1Cor.15:24-28) as well as the Son. The issue is not glorfication but why will they be glorfied?

Let's just deal with your insinuation that Calvinists have some kind of fetish over the glory of God as it relates to the sovereignty of God in salvation as revealed by the light of the Word.

Again, why the language? I did not insinuate anything. Glory is stated very clearly in the Scriptures as an result of God Plan. What I brought up was that the Calvinistic view was simplistic. There is far more to what God has achieved then just picking some and letting (or sending if one holds to double-predestination) most to the Lake of Fire.

Naturally, no Calvinist thread can be considered complete without some quotes of Romans 9:

you got that right! Since, these chapters are dealing with future of Israel and not individual salvation, we will move on.

I find it interesting that you never seem to get to vs.29-33 which deal with what the chapter is discussing, why Israel has been set aside and the Gentile accepted,

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith.

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousnes, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith,but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbled at that stumbingstone;

For as it is written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumlingstone and rock of offense and whoseover believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Did God want Israel to fall? No!

But to Israel he saith, All day long have I stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.(Rom10:21)

I don't see where God is indicating that He has any regard for your pro-choice philosophy of salvation in this passage.

You just do not want to see. You must stop at those verses and not read any more of the chapter.

Look at verse 17 where Paul describes that Pharoah was lifted up in order that God's power should be known throughout the earth. That was God's purpose in Pharoah's life. And because of God's action here, the story of Pharoah survives to this day. Where was Pharoah's "choice"? Pharoah was damned from all eternity but God's purpose in even allowing him life and temporal power was in fulfilling His plan for Israel. And God glorified Himself throughout the earth in the damnation of Pharoah. That was not His primary purpose. But it was His purpose for Pharoah.

God knew what Pharoah's free decision would be and still gave him time to repent, but instead he hardened. In fact, it states that Pharoah even hardened himself also! (Ex.8:32)

God will spend a spirit a strong delusion on those who resist His will giving them the 'fruit'of their own decisions (2 Thes.2:12,1Ki.22:22)

Let's look at Paul's question in verse 21: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?". I ask you the same question. Does God have the right and the power to make a man either for salvation or for damnation? We already know that Pharaoh (among many others) was created to be damned in the process of God's purpose with the nation of Israel. Can you answer Paul? Where was Pharaoh's choice?

Pharoah's choice was already foreseen by God, and all God did to harden Pharoah's heart was place His power before Him which forced a decision, a reaction on the part of Pharoah, hence Pharoah's heart to harden. In Ex.9:35 it states that Pharoah's heart was hardened with no 'agent' mentioned. The truth of God will either cause softening or hardening. Since, Egypt represented the greatest power of the world, God was showing to the world through Pharoah, by giving him that truth, that no one could resist Him (Ex 11:9). This carried into the other lands (Josh.2:9-10)

Bullinger, a Calvinist (although not Covenant, but HyperDispensationist) has this note: It was in each case God's clemency and forbearing goodness which produced the hardening.That goodness which 'leadeth to repentance' (Rom.2:4) just as the same sun which softens the wax hardens the clay.(Companion bible,p.78,n.21)

Moving ahead, notice that colon at the end of verse 22. The KJV translators obviously felt that the proper rendering here was to indicate that one of the ways in which God makes known His glory and His mercy (and His love) to the Elect was His forbearance toward the evil of the Reprobate.

leaving out the Calvinistic implications of how you phrased it, I see no problem in agreeing that God gets glory from those on whom He show mercy, as well as those who reject Him (Ps,76:10)

You might ask what purpose is served in God tolerating evil to glorify Himself for the sake of the Elect. And Paul answers you directly in verse 23. Since I would expect you'll still cling to idol of man's "choice" as the ultimate object of all Creation (since you don't find the glory of God adequate), I'll give my own answer, one for which you can find innumerable examples of this very principle of which Paul writes here. All of the Gentiles of the early church became members of Christ's flock under the New Covenant. And yet, they sprang from the heathen evil of dozens or hundreds of generations of evil and unsaved ancestors who committed grievous offences against God, even against the revelation of His natural law as we well know. God tolerated the evil of those ancestors in order to bring forth that one single sheep for Christ's own flock. To apply this to modern times, ask yourself how many generations of heathen evil God has tolerated to bring forth the modern Christians of the African or Asian churches. God has indeed "endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:". And why did He do this? "And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" Paul was a missionary to Gentiles, absolutely dedicated and passionate in his calling. He knew that this is the reason why we are commanded to preach the Gospel of Christ to all the nations. Poor and unworthy vessels that we are, God has chosen, for His own glory, to use us to call forth the Elect from all nations. He doesn't need us and more than He actually needed Pharaoh. But it pleases Him to glorify Himself through our frail actions in obedience to Him. And people still wonder why Calvinist denominations have such a strong record of missionary work given their theology. Calvinists took Paul seriously. Perhaps you can understand as well why OPie and I so strongly affirm the necessity of Preaching To Obey.

Frankly, I do not know what the above has to do with anything? The Gentiles were always intended to be brought in to God's mercy. Witness Jonah,also, Rom.15:9-16,Is.11:10,49:6. The issue that Paul was addressing was a third group-Church, which is a combination of Jew and Gentile (1Cor.10:32) the Body of Christ (Eph.1:23) His Bride (Eph.5).

What you stated above does not answer the key question on why some and not all if God could save all.

It is to this question that the Calvinist have no answer. It is to them an inscrutable mystery

[fortheDeclaration]

D, the blind can not see..you want to attribute it to some superhuman effort on your part...that somehow a blind man can see if he tries hard enough

Where do you get that idea? If God shines the Light into the heart, will not man see? (2Cor.4:6)

John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

About whom was the Lord speaking? Wasn't it Israel (quoting Isa.6,9-10) And what does it say in vs.42?Nevertheless among the Chief rulers also many believe on him

Ephesians 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

This time Paul is speaking to the saved telling them not to go back to way they were as Gentiles. They are blind because they have given themselves over unto lasciviousness,...choosing to stay in that blind state by rejecting the light. (Rom.1:20,Jn.9:39-41)

2 Corinthians 4 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

So, why are they lost? Because they believe not! God knows who will believe and who will not (foreknowledge)

Ephesians 1 8 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

Do not see any issue here. God reveals Himself to those who believe.

1Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

And why are you called? To whom He foreknow, He also did predestinate,...moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called:...(Rom 8:28-29)

Ezekiel 11 19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

this is speaking of the New Coveant with Israel.See Heb.8:8

2 Corinthians 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Yes, now Paul is saying to saved people that they no longer have dealing with the Law (tables of stone) but with Christ in them (1Cor.3:16). Again, Paul speaks of the 'hardness' of the Jew (2Cor.3:15,Rom 11:28-32), and the superority of grace over the Law (2Cor.3:7-11).

D, you know all this..The blind see and the lame walk..not on their own effort..

Where did I ever say effort was involved? (Rom.4:4-5) However,if you want ot use those analogies did not the blind cry out

And behold two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.(Matt.20:30).

The Father about to lose his child cried out, I believe, help my unbelief'(Mk.9:24). Did the lame, blind, dumb, maimed do a work because they were brought to the Lord to be healed?

How about leprosy?

And they lifted up their voices and said Jesus, Master, have mercy on us(Lk.17:13)did they do a 'work' because they besought him? Did they have any part of the cleansing? Could they claim some credit for it? The only thing they could do is what one did-give thanks(Lk.17:16)

Faith is not a work, it is the acceptance of the free gift(Rom.4:4-5,6:23)

[fortheDeclaration]

To ALL:

A considerable problem to Arminians is that they have often been misrepresented. Some scholars have said that Arminianism is Pelagian, is a form of theological liberalism, and is syncretistic. It is true that one wing of Arminianism picked up Arminius's stress on human freedom and tolerance toward differing theologies, becoming latitudinarian and liberal. Indeed the two denominations in Holland that issued from Arminius are largely such today.

But Arminians who promote Arminius's actual teachings and those of the great Arminian John Wesley, whose view and movement have sometimes been called "Arminianism of fire," have disclaimed all those theologically left associations. Such Arminians largely comprise the eight million or so Christians who today constitute the Christian Holiness Association (the Salvation Army, the Church of the Nazarene, the Wesleyan Church, etc.).

This kind of Arminianism strongly defends Christ's virgin birth, miracles, bodily resurrection, and substitutionary atonement (his suffering for the punishment believers would have received); the dynamic inspiration and infallibility of Scripture; justification by grace alone through faith alone; and the final destinies of heaven and hell. It is therefore evangelical, but an evangelicalism which is at certain important points different from evangelical Calvinism.

J K Grider

[CCWoody]

I am telling you, the Adam-God Theory is not a teaching of the LDS Church, and is not true. Interesting that you quote me saying that and then immediately proclaim the Adam-God Theory in big bold letters.

I will readily concede that the LDS no longer teaches the Adam-God doctrine. Your twelth "President and Prophet" Spincer W. Kmball denounced it as false in 1976. However, this does bring up a problem for you for your "prophets" have taught it.

The words of your "prophet" Young:

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them and which God revealed to me--namely that Adam is our Father and our God...

Now, the burning question I have is your prophet telling the truth or is he not. If your prophet is telling the truth, then you are not embraching your faith. If he is not telling the truth, then he is a "false prophet" who is today looking forward to the Lake of Fire. Which is it? His words are there in black and white for all to see, easily verifiable for one willing to go to the trouble to find out.

And Brigham Young is not the only one to have taught it. Joseph Smith (August 1830 D&C 27:11):

And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

This, I dare to point out is 20 years before Brigham Young's revelation. Now, is Joseph Smith right or is he wrong? These are the words of your "prophets".

And even though this doctrine was officially denounced in 1976, D&C 138:38 was added in 1982:

Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,

So, which of your prophets are real and which of your prophets are heading for the Lake of Fire? Since you claim to be a brother in the faith, I do have a right to inquire. Your words: You asked if God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are of one mind. I answer, Yes of course, the Bible says so. They are One God. Now, the first thing I notice is that RnMomof7 asked you wrong thing. It is easy for you to concede that your gods are of one mind. The LDS does teach this. I'm simply asking the more difficult questions concerning the LDS definition of "One God" and your particular beliefs. So, will you dare to answer these simple questions?

[fortheDeclaration]

To All:FYI this is my theological position. There is third way.

Calvinism? Arminianism? There IS another choice The term volitional theology is used to designate the view that both the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man function together in the universe, with neither being compromised. In His sovereignty, God has CHOSEN to give to His creatures the capacity and the responsibility to make MENTAL decisions concerning the standards of right and wrong as revealed by God. This capacity was not altered through the fall and remains the basis for entering into a relationship with God. God provides the plan of salvation for the entire human race, and individuals relate to that plan through a personal choice of either accepting or rejecting it. Sovereignty does not affect that choice by either "causing" or "preventing" any particular thought expression. But once an indiviudal makes the choice to accept God's plan of salvation, then God's sovereignty seals and secures that person in the plan.

All throughout a person's life, he will make both good and bad "mental" decisions; this is the expression of volition or free will. Whether he is ABLE to physically follow through with those decisions is an entirely different issue, for he is finite and may indeed be impotent in "causing" something to happen. Furthermore, God may Himself, choose to prevent the ACTION that is decided upon, but in such cases, the normal function of human volition is still unimpeded.

There are several major bible doctrines that are affectd by one's view of the sovereignty of God and the volition of man. Calvinism distorts these doctrines by holding to an unbiblical definition of divine sovereignty, Arminianism distorts them by having an inordinate focus on man's free will. In the various articles that follow, both sovereignty and human volition will be biblically defined, and all of the pertinant doctrines will be discussed.

[CCWoody]

Your God is too small to be the God depicted in the Bible.

You are being disengenuous for you first stated that it was according to Calvinism and now you are conceding that it is according to the Bible. Nevertheless, I am at this time preparing a post to explain my Biblical position.

[CCWoody]

However, that is not the real problem with the verse for the Calvinist, the real problem is should seek Him, which shows He has made possible

Read whatever you want into the verse. It just means that you are pitting scripture against scripture. See Romans 7! I will respond no further in this particular matter to you.

[RnMomof7]

His plan is what the Bible reveals that plan to be....and our Bible is God's inspired Word.

So did God's plan end there or does the Book of Revelation say it is ongoing?

You still have not answered my question...Is God not still God?

In a couple months we are going to put new cupboards and floor in our kitchen..I am busy looking and thinking and planning..lots of things to consider and all decisions will be made before the first nail goes in.Would God do less with His creation?

My pastor will say such silliness.. "God Chose you".....He does not mean that (even though the Bible says it) because he believes it is my "job "to choose Him.

He says "God has a plan for your life" . What he really means is there is a few things God would like you to accomplish ..but it is all up to you. He says if you are not obedient that God has an alternative plan......to that I say what kind of plan is that? And what if the alternative plan doesn't pan out? God must do nothing all day but fine tune MY pathetic life..

Read the scripture..show me were the word says you are free to choose me? Quite the opposite it says "I have chosen YOU"