Human Merit Has No Role in God's Election, Says Pastor
Pastor Steve Lawson, speaking at the ongoing Resolved Conference in California Sunday, said the notion that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of who would choose His Son Jesus Christ on their own was flawed.
The idea that “God looked down the proverbial tunnel of time to see who would choose His Son” and then “in a reflexive manner” He chose them, is “grossly ignorant” of two views: the view of God and the view of man, Lawson, pastor of Christ Fellowship Baptist Church, Mobile, Ala., said.
“God’s knowledge is infinite; it is perfect … Whatever God does, He has already foreordained it,” the pastor said. And man, he explained, had a “moral inability to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ.”
So how could God foresee anyone accepting His Son? Lawson asked the audience at the four-day 2011 Resolved Conference in Palm Springs, which will conclude Monday....
Dopey wrote: John my dear brother, I recently took what I think was a nine day break from commenting here. I am going to take another break. How long it will last I have no idea, but I believe it is necessary. I don't wish to leave having you or anyone else thinking I left because I was upset with something you or someone else said to me or question asked me for such isn't the case.
Brother David
I truly appreciate you posting this info, as I should have been most concerned if you had taken a break without saying. And I hope it is not due to any health problem. But whatever it is, I shall be asking the Lord to sustain you and draw nigh by his Spirit.
And I also shall miss our little conversations for a while, conducted as they are with respect and brotherly kindness, and edifying (I believe) to us both. I shall look forward to your return when you are able.
Dopey wrote: 1. At 7/1/11 4:24 PM, Jacob Arminius proved from the New Testament that God counts "us which are saved" sinless.
Blimey. I didn't think anybody would believe me in that way. It was a jokepost.
Note the moniker - "Jacob Arminius" as a comedian he is into theological comedy like Self Assisted Salvation - The famous SAS
-----------
WCF.6: 5. This corruption of nature,(sin) during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated;[a] and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and all the motions thereof are truly and properly sin.[b]
[a]. Prov 20:9; Eccl 7:20; Rom 7:14, 17-18, 23; James 3:2; 1 John 1:8, 10. • [b]. Rom 7:5, 7-8, 25; Gal 5:17.
I recently took what I think was a nine day break from commenting here. I am going to take another break. How long it will last I have no idea, but I believe it is necessary.
I don't wish to leave having you or anyone else thinking I left because I was upset with something you or someone else said to me or question asked me for such isn't the case.
In regard to what you and I have been last discussing, the paradox issue, which in turn has a few things connected to it, from my perspective my belief currently stands at this:
1. I consider it theoretically possible I have it wrong.
2. I consider it theoretically possible I have it right, but have expressed certain parts of the explanation poorly and need to study it more, when time allows, so as to explain it better.
In any case, I will miss conversing with you, as I will others.
David, pardon me if I have misread you, but this is where I got that idea from:
Check out my 7/4/11 4.45pm post.
You accepted Jacob's post where he said that "if the sinner sins, he does not actually make the choice/decision. SIN does. (from Romans 7:20)
And from that, you claimed he had "proved from the New Testament that God counts 'us which are saved' sinless.
Now you can either stand by that, in which case I stand by mine, or you can explain what you meant in a different way, if I am not reading your words correctly.
Or better still, explain how it is that you believe God counts us "without sin".
I regret I have to turn in now, but do post your reply and I will see it early tomorrow morning.
John UK wrote: I see this part David...But what I cannot see is the paradox, and how you claim that something called SIN is reponsible for sin.
John will you please put the words in your next comment that show "how" I "claim that something called SIN is responsible for sin" for I believe I made no such claim and that you are actually attributing to me something that I did not say at all. If my "belief" is wrong in regard to what I used the word in relationship to in this paragraph please show that to me.
Perhaps your inability to understand the "human" paradox I see in Scripture and that I have described and you referred to is found in the principle revealed in this verse:
Matthew 19:11 But he [Jeus Christ]said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given.
PC Plod reckons there's a chap in the cells called Joe Blog who, although caught in the very act, is declaring himself totally innocent, an unwitting victim of someone called SIN, who, with total control over his will, forced him into stealing a Mars Bar and an Easter Egg; therefore he himself is innocent and sinless, and ought to be set free because he's done nothing wrong of his own volition.
But what Joe doesn't understand is that he himself is responsible for (as Mike correctly stated) the presence and enslavement of a sin nature, namely his own heart, which he inherited at birth. I had to explain this to the church secretary on Sunday, when he jibbed at the doctrine of original sin, saying it was unfair. So I told him about Adam being our federal head, representing us, and that if we had been in his place (as Adam), the same result would have ensued. I don't know if he understood, but he stopped arguing anyway.
The phrase "sin that dwelleth in me" is speaking of the old man, the sin nature, if you will. Believers' struggle with sin reveals the conflict between the old man and the new. We do sin, but we have One who intercedes for us. That's why it is not counted against us. It is not that we are "sinless" but that we are forgiven sins by he who is faithful and just to forgive us... If we were counted "sinless," we would have no need of intercession.
Dopey wrote: John, There isn't one of us that knows what the total of our sins is let alone confess them all. We become a part of "us which are saved" this way: Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. We stay a part of "us which are saved" by Christ keeping us saved:
I see this part David. They are the doctrines of justification and preservation. But what I cannot see is the paradox, and how you claim that something called SIN is reponsible for sin. What is this something? Is it a part of the sinner, or separate from him?
"The heart is deceitful above all things and deperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
p.s. Was Jacob referring his quote of Romans 7 to a sinner or a saint? That is, Saul or Paul?
There isn't one of us that knows what the total of our sins is let alone confess them all. We become a part of "us which are saved" this way:
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
We stay a part of "us which are saved" by Christ keeping us saved:
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I [Jesus Christ] will in no wise cast out.
1 John 1:9 is revealing God counts "us which are saved" as committing "sins" but Scripture also reveals God counts "us which are saved" as sinless. Thus there is in fact a paradox in human terms in that there are two opposing views. But Scripture really doesn't contradict itself so there is no real paradox.
But to make the paradox disappear you have to through the ability the Holy Spirit provides explain how the two opposing views are both true!!!
Dopey wrote: John, 1. At 7/1/11 4:24 PM, Jacob Arminius proved from the New Testament that God counts "us which are saved" sinless.
And you thought he was serious?
Jacob said: Here is the solution.... "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Rom 7:18f. So if the sinner sins he does not actually make the choice/decision Sin does.
The Master's Slave wrote: Hi John, My point is this: So much is wasted here and on other blogs about man's so called free will, when truly by definition, there is no such thing. Free will says I can make decisions and have them not be influenced by any outside force. Is this Scriptural? No. God influences, guides and ordains everything that happens in the universe. Therefore we cannot make any decision on our own. This is a very good definition of slave.
1) Your definition of free will is wrong, so your criticism of it as defined is correct.
2) God does not ordain everything that happens in the universe; repeating it often will not make it true. You need to make an effort to distinguish between between permitting and ordaining, lest you make God conflict with himself.
Seaton wrote: Lurker God does not need to "make" man sin. Man is born a sinner! Note... 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. Rom 7. Yet... 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Rom 8.
Exactly!
Perhaps you can explain that to Paul (The Master's Slave) who wrote: "God influences, guides and ordains everything that happens in the universe. Therefore we cannot make any decision on our own."
Btw, thank you for posting with the name I recognize.
Lurker wrote: Your view of God's sovereignty makes Him the author of sin.
Lurker God does not need to "make" man sin.
Man is born a sinner!
Note... 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. Rom 7.
Yet... 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Rom 8.
The Master's Slave wrote: Yes John, that is one thing I have to "work on"...I get very impatient with people who fight tooth and nail over justifying their opinions rather than humbly bowing to Scripture and changing their ways. God is good, isn't He?
Ah Paul, now that, strangely enough, is one of the greatest and deepest revelations we can ever have, that GOD is GOOD. Without that enlightenment, believing in the doctrines of grace, I would have had some difficulties. ___
David, you appear to be in some real error, thinking there is a paradox where none is. Allow me, please, to say why I think that.
God sees my life from A - Z and sees many sins.
God sees Jesus life from A - Z and sees no sins.
God sees me justified by faith in Jesus and sees no sins, because I am imputed with the perfect life of Jesus. This is what justification means. I am clothed with the righteousness of Christ.
God sees Christ crucified, and upon him is the sin of the world, and he takes it away, paying the price for it. He was clothed with my sins and bore them.
Therefore God's justice is satisfied, and yet sinners can be saved when God has mercy upon them.
The Master's Slave wrote: So much is wasted here and on other blogs about man's so called free will, when truly by definition, there is no such thing. Free will says I can make decisions and have them not be influenced by any outside force. Is this Scriptural? No. God influences, guides and ordains everything that happens in the universe. Therefore we cannot make any decision on our own. This is a very good definition of slave.
Your view of God's sovereignty makes Him the author of sin. Your view was fatally flawed the last time we talked and it's still wrong.
Dopey wrote: What was Paul blaming Peter for, if it wasn't Peter not keeping commandments that God required kept, what was it?
Peter withdrew from fellowship with the Gentiles out of fear of the concision. Are you suggesting that "Thou shalt not respect persons" is a NT command written on the hearts of Christians?
John, in his first letter, spoke of an old and a new commandment. Bear in mind that these first century converts had no bibles. What they had were faithful preachers, sent by God, who preached Christ crucified; God's means to fulfill His promise to circumcise the hearts of His people (Deut 30:6) and write His laws on their hearts. (Jer 31:31-33, Ez 36:25-27)
John UK wrote: Paul, now I see what you mean, yes it is a very good point well made, and although we may say, "Why can't others see that?", it behoves us to show patience and hope that God peradventure will reveal that awesome truth to many more, that pride may be bowed down and more grace given to the humble. For even our own understanding of that is by the grace of God showing it to us. Praise God!
Yes John, that is one thing I have to "work on"...I get very impatient with people who fight tooth and nail over justifying their opinions rather than humbly bowing to Scripture and changing their ways. God is good, isn't He?
I believe one paradox in Scripture is that God counts "us which are saved" as committing sins plural and that He also counts "us which are saved" as sinless.
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all [his] (Paul the Apostle's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
The "unlearned" and "unstable" stumble seriously over a Scripture paradox as they were appointed to do. But the "us which are saved" if exercising faith press on looking to God for a solution for they know there are no real contradictions in Scripture, just imaginary ones set by God so certain people "all might be damned" (2 Thessalonians 2:12) by God. Or, receive serious "chastisement".
I believe that if God allows us to solve the paradox I stated that I believe exists in Scripture then we might well go on to have greater understanding in regard to things like: 1. "election" 2. Was God willing to "elect" everyone before He created this world? 3. Did Christ really die for everyone or was it a limited atonement? 4. Does man have a free will to any degree at all? 5.etc.
The Master's Slave wrote: Hi John, My point is this: So much is wasted here and on other blogs about man's so called free will, when truly by definition, there is no such thing. Free will says I can make decisions and have them not be influenced by any outside force. Is this Scriptural? No. God influences, guides and ordains everything that happens in the universe. Therefore we cannot make any decision on our own. This is a very good definition of slave.
Paul, now I see what you mean, yes it is a very good point well made, and although we may say, "Why can't others see that?", it behoves us to show patience and hope that God peradventure will reveal that awesome truth to many more, that pride may be bowed down and more grace given to the humble. For even our own understanding of that is by the grace of God showing it to us. Praise God!
My point is this: So much is wasted here and on other blogs about man's so called free will, when truly by definition, there is no such thing. Free will says I can make decisions and have them not be influenced by any outside force. Is this Scriptural? No. God influences, guides and ordains everything that happens in the universe. Therefore we cannot make any decision on our own. This is a very good definition of slave.
124
There are a total of 143 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
unprofitable servant from georgia: "psalm 71:6
(nkjv)
'by you i have been..."
