The Monergism Safe House

[crimsonleaf]

Let me reiterate what I think you are saying: you believe that when God regenerates a man, that man WILL necessarily come freely to God. The grace itself is irresistible, but the choice is free, and the one who receives this regenerating grace will necessarily freely choose God and salvation. Is this what you are trying to say?

Yes, that's exactly my position.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Let me reiterate what I think you are saying: you believe that when God regenerates a man, that man WILL necessarily come freely to God. The grace itself is irresistible, but the choice is free, and the one who receives this regenerating grace will necessarily freely choose God and salvation. Is this what you are trying to say?

When I first posted here, I was looking for that fine line between God causes you to choose meaning He made you chose and on the other side of the line, man has free will to choose.
No one here has yet convince me that It isn't God that cause you to chose as the guarantee that you will chose. God knows you will chose cause He thought of it first. If God thought first that you will chose then He made you chose as if He forced you to chose. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

There something about the language here as if there are unseen forces that make us do what we do.

 

[Hammster]

When I first posted here, I was looking for that fine line between God causes you to choose meaning He made you chose and on the other side of the line, man has free will to choose.
No one here has yet convince me that It isn't God that cause you to chose as the guarantee that you will chose. God knows you will chose cause He thought of it first. If God thought first that you will chose then He made you chose as if He forced you to chose. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

There something about the language here as if there are unseen forces that make us do what we do.

If I love vanilla ice cream but hate liver, and you give me a choice between the two, I'm going to choose the ice cream every time, even if the liver is better for me. It's a free choice.

Now, if my nature was changed by someone who knew that I'd die by eating only ice cream, (and that the benefits of liver were extraordinary), to someone who loved liver more than ice cream, then I'd choose liver. The choice is just as free, but the nature has been changed.

Out nature is changed by God (regeneration). Our choice is free.

 

[crimsonleaf]

When I first posted here, I was looking for that fine line between God causes you to choose meaning He made you chose and on the other side of the line, man has free will to choose.
No one here has yet convince me that It isn't God that cause you to chose as the guarantee that you will chose. God knows you will chose cause He thought of it first. If God thought first that you will chose then He made you chose as if He forced you to chose. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

There something about the language here as if there are unseen forces that make us do what we do.

You are walking along a road and reach a fork. To the left is hell, fire, eternal damnation. To the right is heaven, eternal life and bliss. so far you have only been able to take the left hand path to destruction, but now the roadblock to the right hand path has been removed.

Which path do you think you will freely choose if you are granted a taster of both?

 

[DeaconDean]

When I first posted here, I was looking for that fine line between God causes you to choose meaning He made you chose and on the other side of the line, man has free will to choose.
No one here has yet convince me that It isn't God that cause you to chose as the guarantee that you will chose. God knows you will chose cause He thought of it first. If God thought first that you will chose then He made you chose as if He forced you to chose. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

There something about the language here as if there are unseen forces that make us do what we do.

You know, this isn't supposed to be a place to debate, but there is something wrong in this statement:

God knows you will chose cause He thought of it first. If God thought first that you will chose then He made you chose as if He forced you to chose.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[student ad x]

God's sovereign choice always intersects with the moral agent’s free choices. AMR has several blog entries pertaining to compatibilism: Divine Concurrence.

A snippet:

b. It is also a simultaneous concurrence. After the activity of the creature is begun, the efficacious will of God must accompany it at every moment, if it is to continue. There is not a single moment that the creature works independently of the will and the power of God. It is in Him that we live and move and have our being, Acts 17:28. This divine activity accompanies the action of man at every point, but without robbing man in any way of his freedom. The action remains the free act of man, an act for which he is held responsible. This simultaneous concurrence does not result in an identification of the causa prima and the causa secunda. In a very real sense the operation is the product of both causes. Man is and remains the real subject of the action. Bavinck illustrates this by pointing to the fact that wood burns, that God only causes it to burn, but that formally this burning cannot be ascribed to God but only to the wood as subject. It is evident that this simultaneous action cannot be separated from the previous and predetermining concurrence, but should be distinguished from it. Strictly speaking it, in distinction from the previous concurrence, terminates, not on the creature, but on its activity. Since it does not terminate on the creature, it can in the abstract be interpreted as having no ethical bearings. This explains that the Jesuits taught that the divine concurrence was simultaneous only, and not previous and predetermining, and that some Reformed theologians limited the previous concurrence to the good deeds of men, and for the rest satisfied themselves with teaching a simultaneous concurrence.

 

[twin1954]

When I first posted here, I was looking for that fine line between God causes you to choose meaning He made you chose and on the other side of the line, man has free will to choose.
No one here has yet convince me that It isn't God that cause you to chose as the guarantee that you will chose. God knows you will chose cause He thought of it first. If God thought first that you will chose then He made you chose as if He forced you to chose. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

There something about the language here as if there are unseen forces that make us do what we do.

First of all let me say that I have absolutely no problem being God's robot. But that isn't what we are. If you want to use the word force it is fine with me as long as you explain that the force is love. I willingly chose Christ because God gave me no other choice. Faith is the gift of God but God doesn't believe for us. All men do exactly as God has ordained and purposed but that doesn't mean that they go against their wills. The language of the Scriptures is "you meant it for evil but God meant it for good." Gen. 50:20 And Acts 2:23, " Him being delivered by the determinate council and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:" We do exactly as God has purposed and ordained and do it willingly.

Free will isn't a necessity for there to be responsibility. We are responsible to God because He is our Creator. Everything belongs to Him as Creator. He created man, though, lower than the angels but higher than the rest of creation. The thing that separates us from brute beasts is we are created moral creatures, with a knowledge of right and wrong and a conscience. A cat can eat her young and have absolutely no remorse for it. A hyena can steal its food and not have the slightest pang of regret or sting of conscience. But God created us as moral creatures who know that we ought to serve our Creator wholly but choose not to.

Adam wasn't decieved. 1Tim. 2:14 He sinned against all the knowledge and experience he had. He was not a babe but a brilliant man. He was smart enough for God to bring all the animals to him and give them names. He walked with God in the cool of the day and communed with God. Yet when the woman was decived and sinned he knew she must die as God said. He chose her over God. He chose what he wanted over what he knew was right.

Now to try to tie this all together:
Given our understanding that we make choices and that those choices are exactly according to what God has purposed and ordained we can say He forces us. But why use language that immediately puts up a wall of resistance in the mind of men? If you want to say He lovingly forces us you have hit the nail on the head. God has purposed to glorify His name in the Lord Jesus Christ and do good to His people. Everything He does is to that end. Rom. 11:36, 2Cor. 4:15. He makes us willing in the day of His power Psa. 110:3. He does it to make His great love to His elect known in us and through us. Rom. 5:5, Eph. 3:10.

Hope that helps a little.

 

[Jack Terrence]

First of all let me say that I have absolutely no problem being God's robot.

Paul said that God is the potter and we are the clay. The potter may do with the clay whatsoever he wills.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Paul said that God is the potter and we are the clay. The potter may do with the clay whatsoever he wills.

No one wants to say we're robots but they still say we're robots. Those that deny we're robots but they say it in a way that we're robots.

So Is "robots" the answer or not. I'm not afraid to say it if it's true but who else are saying that we are really robots for sure and has been forced to accept Jesus? Love is forcing a child off the highway to prevent death and thats real love to me. Leaving the child to get off the road based on free will isn't love to me.

 

[twin1954]

Robots act without will. Robots have no will of their own. We are under the absolute control of God but in such a way that we act according to our own wills. God controls who we are born to, who we are influenced by, all our experience and education, where we live and every circumstance that we find ourselves in. All of these things shape us into who we are and how we think and act. He even controls our thoughts. An example of this is when the people in the Old Testament had to go up to Jerusalem three times a year God promised that their enemies wouldn't even think about taking their cities. Ex. 34:23-24.

We are not robots in that we do exactly as we want and exactly as God has determined.

 

[student ad x]

No one wants to say we're robots but they still say we're robots. Those that deny we're robots but they say it in a way that we're robots.

So Is "robots" the answer or not. I'm not afraid to say it if it's true but who else are saying that we are really robots for sure and has been forced to accept Jesus? Love is forcing a child off the highway to prevent death and thats real love to me. Leaving the child to get off the road based on free will isn't love to me.

God’s decree of election originates in compassion, not complacency; in pity for the sinner’s soul, not delight in the sinner’s character and conduct. Election does not spring out of the divine love (agape) spoken of in John 14:23, but out of the divine goodness and kindness (chrēstotēs) spoken of in Rom. 11:22. God sees no holiness in either the elect or the nonelect and hence feels no complacent love toward either, yet compassion toward both. He has a benevolent and merciful feeling toward the fallen human spirit because it is his own handiwork: “You will have a desire to the work of your hands” (Job 14:15); “should I not spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand?” (Jon. 4:11); “as I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezek. 33:11); “the Lord is full of compassion; slow to anger and of great mercy” (Ps. 145:8; 103:8; 86:15); “God delights in mercy” (Mic. 7:18); “the Lord passed by and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exod. 34:6); and because of its capacity for holiness and worship toward the nonelect; this compassionate feeling exists in the divine mind, because they, like the elect, are the creatures of God and have the same capacities; but the expression of this compassion is restrained for reasons sufficient for God and unknown to the creature. It appears strange that God should feel benevolent compassion toward the souls of all men alike and yet not manifest saving compassion to all of them, that he should convert Paul and leave Judas in sin. Yet there is no contradiction or impossibility in it. We can conceive of the existence of pity, without its actual exercise in some instances. We can conceive that there may be some men whose persistence in sin and obstinate resistance of common grace God decides for reasons sufficient to him not to overcome by the internal operation of his Spirit, while yet his feeling toward them as his creatures is that of profound and infinite compassion. Why he does not overcome their self-will by the actual exercise of his compassion, as he does that of others equally or perhaps even more impenitent and obstinate, is unknown and perhaps unknowable. “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in your sight” (Matt. 11:26) is all the reason that our Lord assigns. - William Shedd

 

[Jack Terrence]

No one wants to say we're robots but they still say we're robots. Those that deny we're robots but they say it in a way that we're robots.

So Is "robots" the answer or not. I'm not afraid to say it if it's true but who else are saying that we are really robots for sure and has been forced to accept Jesus? Love is forcing a child off the highway to prevent death and thats real love to me. Leaving the child to get off the road based on free will isn't love to me.

We are clay in the potter's hands. They didn't have robots then.

God can do whatever He wants with a lump of clay. He may prepare you for glory or He may prepare you for destruction. Just thank Him for preparing you for glory.

 

[crimsonleaf]

No one wants to say we're robots but they still say we're robots. Those that deny we're robots but they say it in a way that we're robots.

So Is "robots" the answer or not. I'm not afraid to say it if it's true but who else are saying that we are really robots for sure and has been forced to accept Jesus? Love is forcing a child off the highway to prevent death and thats real love to me. Leaving the child to get off the road based on free will isn't love to me.

Hammster and I have both given responses which answer your question. Have you read them?

 

[RisingSpirit]

Hammster and I have both given responses which answer your question. Have you read them?

I re-read Hammster's last post. I love ice cream but really hate livers too. I chose ice cream every time and never touched liver. I guess I have pure free will to stick with ice cream. I'm even typing this with my daily morning coffee with frozen yogurt. I still believe the Holy Spirit is guiding me to keep drinking my coffee and forget livers as it happened and is happening and more like will happen again tomorrow morning. If it happens and is happening then God was there and is there with me guiding me to do what I do. Now Hammster was saying that if God changed my nature for better life then it shall be done. I did enjoy some older writings where if you feed a lion hay and a horse steak, they won't like it and might even starve themselves not eating them. The lion has free will to eat hay and the horse has free will to eat steak but it's their nature for the lion to eat steak and the horse eat hay. I'm not sure is this is a good example for this reply on the ice cream and liver. If I changed my wills to eat liver instead, then I did it on my free will but God was and is there as if He approves it and He let it be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Rg0j1YD0w

Tea is just tea. Free will is just free will. It's really choosing without choosing but it don't make any sense to a common man. Man don't really know why they do the things they do or how they came to the choices they make. The choices they make is just as it is and even God is there along with them. Man don't understand what "Past, Present and Future" all happening at once in God's world at all. Personally, I believe everything has already happened and I'm just an hologram or a reflection of something elsewhere that has already happened. We have elements faster than the speed of light but the faster any elements go the more that element is at two places at two different times or two differnt times at the same place. Man just not smart enough to ponder on the speed of God but rather man wants to place God over there as an object and not here. Man wants to say God is over there and not here or not here but over there. The choices we make are not really choices, There are just plain events in time. The past don't exist, the future don't exist. Man talk as as if the past and the future are real but it's all an illusion. Man always talk about one breath in the past or one breath in the future and never really observe God as being in the present. I believe God is the creator of the present and we live it in the present but don't realize the reality of "NOW" until one breath/slit second too late. Man don't really know where their thoughts comes from so they create man made garbage and junk philosophy based on silly illusions of the past or the future being as real as the present.
As much as I like all the philosophies and religions, I find the most Christians hate the Eastern terminology of the word. "Tao". Most ignorant Christians view that as from the Devil. The Orientals view the Tao as something that they can't describe in any human language. Man has no clue what 'void' is. If an idiot can describe, "Tao" then he doesn't know what he is talking about. It can't be describe in normal everyday human language. That is the same as "God" man can't describe what "Past, present and future means. To me, I'm already dead and I'm already born. To me, I believe certain individuals should be crippled as if God isn't answering their begging prayers cause the deserve to be crippled due to what happened before birth as if God knew them before birth and before the world.
So, my babbles, here, can only understood as free will being just free will as it is without the fancy names of green tea, black tea, jasmine tea. We don't need all those descriptions of free wills by multiple denominations and lies of man. everyone here on CF disagrees with one another in some form even if it's unconscious.
So to me, No one here is convinced me God isn't there during any or all of man's choices. If God is there then He is the Creator of all choices ever made forever as if it has always been. I believe it's ignorant for man to even say "I have free will !" apart from where ever and however free will comes from. They have no slightest clue that God is before the makings of man's choices. even if it's evil.

So far, here on CF, everyone treats God as an object, something moveable that can be pushed around.

I'll re read yours on my next ice cream coffee time if I haven't been booted from this safe house.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I re-read Hammster's last post. I love ice cream but really hate livers too. I chose ice cream every time and never touched liver. I guess I have pure free will to stick with ice cream. I'm even typing this with my daily morning coffee with frozen yogurt. I still believe the Holy Spirit is guiding me to keep drinking my coffee and forget livers as it happened and is happening and more like will happen again tomorrow morning. If it happens and is happening then God was there and is there with me guiding me to do what I do. Now Hammster was saying that if God changed my nature for better life then it shall be done. I did enjoy some older writings where if you feed a lion hay and a horse steak, they won't like it and might even starve themselves not eating them. The lion has free will to eat hay and the horse has free will to eat steak but it's their nature for the lion to eat steak and the horse eat hay. I'm not sure is this is a good example for this reply on the ice cream and liver. If I changed my wills to eat liver instead, then I did it on my free will but God was and is there as if He approves it and He let it be.

Tea is just tea. Free will is just free will. It's really choosing without choosing but it don't make any sense to a common man. Man don't really know why they do the things they do or how they came to the choices they make. The choices they make is just as it is and even God is there along with them. Man don't understand what "Past, Present and Future" all happening at once in God's world at all. Personally, I believe everything has already happened and I'm just an hologram or a reflection of something elsewhere that has already happened. We have elements faster than the speed of light but the faster any elements go the more that element is at two places at two different times or two differnt times at the same place. Man just not smart enough to ponder on the speed of God but rather man wants to place God over there as an object and not here. Man wants to say God is over there and not here or not here but over there. The choices we make are not really choices, There are just plain events in time. The past don't exist, the future don't exist. Man talk as as if the past and the future are real but it's all an illusion. Man always talk about one breath in the past or one breath in the future and never really observe God as being in the present. I believe God is the creator of the present and we live it in the present but don't realize the reality of "NOW" until one breath/slit second too late. Man don't really know where their thoughts comes from so they create man made garbage and junk philosophy based on silly illusions of the past or the future being as real as the present.
As much as I like all the philosophies and religions, I find the most Christians hate the Eastern terminology of the word. "Tao". Most ignorant Christians view that as from the Devil. The Orientals view the Tao as something that they can't describe in any human language. Man has no clue what 'void' is. If an idiot can describe, "Tao" then he doesn't know what he is talking about. It can't be describe in normal everyday human language. That is the same as "God" man can't describe what "Past, present and future means. To me, I'm already dead and I'm already born. To me, I believe certain individuals should be crippled as if God isn't answering their begging prayers cause the deserve to be crippled due to what happened before birth as if God knew them before birth and before the world.
So, my babbles, here, can only understood as free will being just free will as it is without the fancy names of green tea, black tea, jasmine tea. We don't need all those descriptions of free wills by multiple denominations and lies of man. everyone here on CF disagrees with one another in some form even if it's unconscious.
So to me, No one here is convinced me God isn't there during any or all of man's choices. If God is there then He is the Creator of all choices ever made forever as if it has always been. I believe it's ignorant for man to even say "I have free will !" apart from where ever and however free will comes from. They have no slightest clue that God is before the makings of man's choices. even if it's evil.

So far, here on CF, everyone treats God as an object, something moveable that can be pushed around.

I'll re read yours on my next ice cream coffee time if I haven't been booted from this safe house.

Tea may be tea, but green tea, jasmine tea and black tea have different properties, and man's definitions of free will have different properties. For example, libertarian free will means what it says: the will is free without restraint. Limited free will describes a will that is free within certain parameters. Most Christians believe that man's nature is "fallen" ie not as originally created by God. We believe that we are free to act within our nature, and that our nature is to resist God unless and until God does something to change that.

When we talk about God making a change in us, it is (to use your lion analogy) like enabling a lion to eat both meat and hay, rather than switching from one to the other. The hay the lion may now eat may be tastier, better for him and more plentiful. So the lion may choose to eat that which is better for him.

When God changes our will, He changes it from one which naturally rejects Him to one which is free to receive Him. Because He offers so much more than the previous "meat" of our lives we now naturally choose Him.

Instead of seeing it as "once having free will but now having our will forcibly changed", we would be better to recognise it as we "once had bound will, now it is truly free". God never forces our will; He just enables it.

 

[student ad x]

A quote from Ursinus on God's Permission of Sin

[T]hat the wicked are punished by the wicked, and the good chastised and exercised, is the just and holy work of the divine will; but that the wicked execute the judgment of God by sinning, is not the fault of God, but comes to pass by the corruption of the wicked, which they have brought upon themselves, God neither willing, nor approving, nor accomplishing, nor furthering their sins, but only permitting them in his just judgment, when accomplishing his work and purpose through them, he either does not reveal his will to them, or does not influence their wills to regard his revealed will as the end and rule of their actions.

This distinction between the works of God, and those of the devil, and of God’s accomplishing his just work through the devil, and of his permitting the sin of the devil, is evidently confirmed by the history of Job, whom God designed to try, whilst the devil attempted to destroy him.

The same thing is also proven by the history of Ahab, and by the prophecy respecting antichrist, where the devil deceives men that he may destroy them, whilst God permits them to be deceived that he may in this way punish them, and suffers the devil to execute his will and purpose.

 

[student ad x]

Charles Hodge on sin:

And while it is not ours to explain how God in His secret counsel rules and overrules the sinful acts of men, it is ours to know that whatever God does He never deviates from His own perfect justice. In all the manifestations of His character He shows Himself pre-eminently the Holy One. These deep workings of God are mysteries which are to be adored, but not to be inquired into; and were it not for the fact that some persons persist in declaring that the doctrine of Predestination makes God the author of sin, we could let the matter rest here.


A partial explanation of sin is found in the fact that while man is constantly commanded in Scripture not to commit it, he is, nevertheless, permitted to commit it if he chooses to do so. No compulsion is laid on the person; he is simply left to the free exercise of his own nature, and he alone is responsible. This, however, is never a bare permission, for with full knowledge of the nature of the person and of his tendency to sin, God allows him or allows him to be in a certain environment, knowing perfectly well that the particular sin will be committed. But while God permits sin, His connection with it is purely negative and it is the abominable thing which he hates with perfect hatred. The motive which God has in permitting it and the motive which man has in committing it are radically different. Many persons are deceived in these matters because they fail to consider that God wills righteously those things which men do wickedly. Furthermore, every person's conscience after he has committed a sin tells him that he alone is responsible and that he need not have committed it if he had not voluntarily chosen to do so.


The Reformers recognized the fact that sin, both in its entrance into the world and in all its subsequent appearances, was involved in the divine plan; that the explanation of its existence, so far as any explanation could be given, was to be found in the fact that sin was completely under the control of God; and that it would be overruled for a higher manifestation of His glory. We may rest assured that God would never have permitted sin to have entered at all unless, through His secret and overruling providence, He was able to exert a directing influence on the minds of wicked men so that good is made to result from their intended evil. He works not only all the good and holy affections which are found in the hearts of His people, but He also perfectly controls all the depraved and impious affections of the wicked, and turns them as He pleases, so that they have a desire to accomplish that which He has planned to accomplish by their means. The wicked so often glory in themselves at some accomplishment of their purposes; but as Calvin says, "the event at length proves that they were only fulfilling all the while that which had been ordained of God, and that too, against their own will, while they knew nothing of it." But while God does overrule the depraved affections of men for the accomplishment of His own purposes, He nevertheless punishes them for their sin and makes them to stand condemned in their own consciences.

 

[student ad x]

A quote from John Newton:

.......... There will be likewise many who pay too little regard to religion, to have any settled system of their own, and yet are pre-engaged in favor of those sentiments which are at least repugnant to the good opinion men naturally have of themselves. These are very incompetent judges of doctrine; but they can form a tolerable judgment of a writer’s spirit. They know that meekness, humility and love are the characteristics of a Christian temper; and though they affect to treat the doctrines of grace as mere notions and speculations, which, supposing they adopted them, would have no salutary influence upon their conduct; yet from us, who profess these principles, they always expect such dispositions as correspond with the precepts of the gospel. They are quick-sighted to discern when we deviate from such a spirit, and avail themselves of it to justify their contempt of our arguments. The Scriptural maxim, that “the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God,” is verified by daily observation. If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service of the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address, as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth’s sake; if we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.

 

[cygnusx1]

"I had been much opposed to the doctrines of election, particular redemption, and final persevering grace; so much so that . . . I called election a devilish doctrine . . .. But now I was brought to examine these precious truths by the word of God. . . . 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 . . . by the grace of God, I have walked more closely with Him since that period. . . . Thus, I say, the electing love of God in Christ (when I have been able to realize it) has often been the means of producing holiness, instead of leading me into sin." ( Narratives and Addresses , Vol. 1, pp. 46, 40)


George Muller



...



Pastor George Mueller was born in Germany in 1805, spent most of his life in Bristol , England , preached nine times in Minneapolis in 1880, traveled to 42 countries between the ages of 70 and 87, and died at the age of 92, the most famous Orphanage founder in the world. He built 5 orphan houses, cared for 10,024 orphans in his lifetime, pastored the same church for 66 years, never incurred debt, never asked anyone for money, didn't take a salary for 68 years, and never went hungry. He lost three children in infancy, his first wife Mary after 39 years, his second wife Susannah after 23 years, and his daughter Lydia when she was 58. In response to the new teaching that Christ snatches the church out of the world before the Tribulation, Mueller reportedly said, “If you can show me a trumpet after the last and a resurrection before the first, then I can believe this new doctrine.” He was a Baptist who admitted people to his church as members who had only been sprinkled as infants. He served the Lord's Supper weekly. He rejected life insurance and retirement accounts, preached for Charles Spurgeon, inspired Hudson Taylor, and did follow up for D. L. Moody.

 

[student ad x]

This thread is dead.

Heidelberg Catechism (Live) - YouTube