1. Humility
2. Exaltation of God
3. Prayer
4. Increased Desire for Holiness
5. More Fervent Spirit of Evangelism
“Before this period [when I came to prize the Bible alone as my standard of judgment] I had been much opposed to the doctrines of election, particular redemption (i.e. limited atonement), and final persevering grace. But now I was brought to examine these precious truths by the Word of God. Being made willing to have no glory of my own in the conversion of sinners, but to consider myself merely an instrument; and being made willing to receive what the Scriptures said, I went to the Word, reading the New Testament from the beginning, with a particular reference to these truths.
To my great astonishment I found that the passages which speak decidedly for election and persevering grace, were about four times as many as those which speak apparently against these truths; and even those few, shortly after, when I had examined and understood them, served to confirm me in the above doctrines.
As to the effect which my belief in these doctrines had on me, I am constrained to state for God's glory, that though I am still exceedingly weak, and by no means so dead to the lusts of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, as I might be, and as I ought to be, yet, by the grace of God, I have walked more closely with Him since that period. My life has not been so variable, and I may say that I have lived much more for God than before.”
These words from the autobiography of George Mueller express my own experience as well. I set my heart and mind to study these truths nearly three years ago when my dad died. Now, as I try to put into words what I have learned, I am once again brought to tears of joy in contemplation of the beauty, and mercy, and holiness of God. Were I a theologian, I would explain it in crystal-clear terms to illuminate your mind. Were I a song-writer, I would create a masterpiece of music and words to fill your heart. Were I a painter, I would imagine art to overwhelm your senses. But I am me: flawed and needy and ordinary. So I pray that grace is given me to invest all of my view of the glorious worth of the Savior into each word that I speak throughout my day, into each touch as I hold wrinkled hands in comfort, into each choice I make that demonstrates my life’s priorities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Are you saying that Jesus'sacrifice on the cross was only intended for those who he had already chosen would be saved? Why would His sacrifice be intended for some and not for others?
Sorry that I didn't get to this comment earlier, but I was under the weather yesterday and unable to check the internet. I'll give a shortened answer here, but you and I can talk about this more any time by phone or email.
The answer to your question is yes, "intention" being a key word. The perfect blood of Christ was sufficient to pay the sins of the entire world, but I do not believe that the Bible teaches that it was intended to be applied for each and every human being that ever lived or ever sinned. Had Christ hung on the cross intending to save every one, he then would be a failure because the Bible clearly teaches that not all will be saved. Since I cannot phrase it any better than this, I quote from Charles Spurgeon on this one.
"Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!"
Truly the call of salvation goes out to the world. Truly a great host will be saved from every "kindred, tribe, tongue, and nation" and we must publish the Gospel to those who have never heard. And yet, Jesus told the Pharisees, "Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." Do I understand all of this with my finite mind? No. But I do believe that this is what the Scripture teaches over and over again. Once again, I quote from Spurgeon.
"The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, 'The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.' Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that 'it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.' I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring."
So, are you insinuating that the Lord "chose" our father to go to hell (because I know you believe he wasn't saved)?
Ms. K,
I do not envy your position. Being under the weather is such a dreadful thing. I find being above the weather so much nicer. There is a distinct lack of atmosphere, but one cannot have everything, I suppose. By the by, did you take any photo’s while you were there? I would love to see how it looks under there. (I’ve already seen too many pictures from around, beyond, and below the weather; none from under. Please forward them at your earliest convenience.)
Now with respect to your answer, and Leah’s question: you both err. (It means you’re both wrong, Leah.) Leah is wrong in asking so confoundedly complex a question. She misunderstands the divine purpose of a question: Questions are meant to simplify, not confuse. She would do better to ask, as I think she intended, “Did Jesus die for all men?” (I beg you to forgive me the use of that word.) In reality, however, Leah did ask this question. But she also asked a further question if her first proved false. “If Jesus did not die for all men, did he die only for the elect?”
Now as it has never been my way to quibble, I absolutely refuse to argue that this is not what Leah intended. I realize that she worded her question in such a way that the intention of the sacrifice is in question. But so have I. For in saying “did Jesus die for all men” one is merely saying “is Jesus death intended to wash away the sins of all men?” And the obvious answer is yes. The death of Jesus is intended, or willed, or meant, for all men.
Will all men accept this? No. Emphatically no. Does this detract from the intention, or motive, or will, involved in the offering of the gift? Not at all. I may purchase, wrap, and offer a gift to some arbitrary person named Karyn. If she refuses the gift, is my intention diminished? No.
Please observe that Leah did not ask: “Was Christ’s blood sufficient to pay for the sins of the whole world?” As you rightly note, it is. Notice also that she does not ask: “Is it Christ’s intention to save all men?” As Spurgeon rightly observes, it is not. But finally observe your error—error, if I understand you rightly—and see that Leah does not ask: “Is Christ’s blood intended to be applied to every person who ever lived?” She does not ask this, I say, though it is certainly true.
Christ intends to save everyone; not everyone will be saved; this, however, does not diminish his intention one bit. Although I could argue this using logic, I shall not. I shall instead use the scripture.
Christ said, “whosever will may come.” He said that the free gift is for all men; Rom. 5:8. He desires the salvation of all men; I Tim. 2:4. He is the Saviour of all men; I Tim. 4:10. He brought salvation to all men; Titus 2:11. These few verses should be sufficient to show that, though some might reject the gift, it is intended for all men.
But consider Christ’s words: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” If the Son came not also for those who perish, the conditional promise is unnecessary. If the Son came only for those who believe, the conditional promise is a lie. But the if the Son came for all, as the scripture clearly teaches, the conditional promise is full of grace and mercy.
Spurgeon rightly notes that this is a seeming paradox. But it only seems so. Perhaps the better question is “Who are the elect?” To which I answer: “Those who are saved.”
Adieu.
Post a Comment