We choose. We chose. You choose. You chose. You will choose.

[praise_yeshua]

I've made this point to friends a number of times when they say we are responsible for preaching the Gospel to the whole world in order for the full measure to be saved.

No, we preach the Gospel and tell the truth out of obedience. God doesn't need us to do that or else he'd lose some of his elect. While it is an extreme example, Paul was converted by special revelation. And I agree with Spurgeon on this point:

"But suppose it should be one of those [elect] who are living in the interior of Africa, and he does not hear the gospel; what then?" He shall hear the gospel; either he shall come to the gospel, or the gospel shall go to him. Even if no minister should go to such a chosen one, he would have the gospel specially revealed to him rather than that the promise of the Almighty God should be broken.

Again, I'm not making light of our duty to preach and say the truth. But God doesn't need to depend on it in order to bring about His good purpose.

There is not a single person that has been converted apart from the Gospel. Not one. Yet, you are trying your best to disconnect the Gospel from election. I've seen Calvinist do this my entire life. You insist that the Gospel is not necessary and we know you're wrong....

1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Who should we believe. Spurgeon or God?

It amazes how self centered Spurgeon is. He actually believes that God would send someone specifically to HIM.... because He is so important to God.

To believe what Spurgeon claims, you must ignore what Jesus clearly said.

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Jesus told the Pharisees that they were preventing people from entering the Kingdom of God. Notice the grammar here. Those "entering" are being prevented.

Added the ESV.

Mat 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

 

[Rockson]

Ha. That sounds like you think God depends on our obedience to accomplish what he from the beginning set out to do.

Yes I do that is with many things. God from the beginning wanted Israel to be a lighthouse nation to the earth, and they missed out on what God wanted them to be. I can give many other examples as well.

And because of your position on free will, it sounds like you think that therefore it is necessary that we be motivated, in order for God's work to be accomplished.

Why shouldn't I believe that. Josh 1:9 states, Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.

 

[Rockson]

No doubt that is how you see me. But my entire confidence relies on God's love and mercy.

Let's put down a quote to you from before,

I mean that God is not like us. Not at all. We are like him, a little bit, in some ways. But we can't define and judge God according to what we know, and consider it a complete definition, and not misleading.

Not quite sure how it can be. You've said you cannot define God by what you think you know. So you think you know something of God's love but you're open to it not being true at all. It seems you're saying it can be something totally different.

The fact you can't abide the notion that God predetermines all things does not negate that it is so.

And the fact that you can't abide the notion that God doesn't predetermine all things doesn't mean you're right either.

I don't claim he WANTED them to commit evil, but that he intended it is shown logically by him creating them anyway, knowing all along what they were going to do.

Well sorry but this is just double talk. You run from him wanting evil but you try to smooth it over and make it plateable by saying he intended it. How can there be any difference between wanting or intending? There can't be! What really occurred is God allowed evil but he had no desire for it to come forth.

Man chose to learn the hard way in regard to the effects of sin. God intended that mankind did not have to learn that way. You tell a kid to keep your hands off a hot stove. You intend that they listen to your instruction. When they don't and they burn their hand a kid would be totally out of line to say my parent intended that I burn my hand. We would call the ridiculous.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

There is not a single person that has been converted apart from the Gospel. Not one. Yet, you are trying your best to disconnect the Gospel from election. I've seen Calvinist do this my entire life. You insist that the Gospel is not necessary and we know you're wrong....

1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Who should we believe. Spurgeon or God?

It amazes how self centered Spurgeon is. He actually believes that God would send someone specifically to HIM.... because He is so important to God.

To believe what Spurgeon claims, you must ignore what Jesus clearly said.

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Jesus told the Pharisees that they were preventing people from entering the Kingdom of God. Notice the grammar here. Those "entering" are being prevented.

Added the ESV.

Mat 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

Please re-read my Spurgeon quote and explain to me how that is about being converted apart from the Gospel.

 

[Diserner]

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yep. The same argument being made here. Man is making the Gospel to serve them instead of the Gospel serving God.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Yep. The same argument being made here. Man is making the Gospel to serve them instead of the Gospel serving God.

You're the one who made the claim. YOU explain it to me, using Spurgeon's text.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Please re-read my Spurgeon quote and explain to me how that is about being converted apart from the Gospel.

I've read after Spurgeon for many years ago. I wasn't just introduced to his comments above. Calvinists/Arminians have argued over him for years. His comments are often contradictory to one another. He was really nothing like John Gill.

Spurgeon is claiming that the Gospel serves HIM.

It really not anything different than when the Pharisees claimed privileges they insisted were given them in Abraham,.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You're the one who made the claim. YOU explain it to me, using Spurgeon's text.

"either he shall come to the gospel, or the gospel shall go to him. Even if no minister should go to such a chosen one, he would have the gospel specially revealed to him"

Notice the contradiction to Scripture.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I've read after Spurgeon for many years ago. I wasn't just introduced to his comments above. Calvinists/Arminians have argued over him for years. His comments are often contradictory to one another. He was really nothing like John Gill.

Spurgeon is claiming that the Gospel serves HIM.

It really not anything different than when the Pharisees claimed privileges they insisted were given them in Abraham,.

You must be forgetting the text, so I'll post it here again. Please, USING THIS TEXT, explain how it says the Gospel is not necessary.

"But suppose it should be one of those [elect] who are living in the interior of Africa, and he does not hear the gospel; what then?" He shall hear the gospel; either he shall come to the gospel, or the gospel shall go to him. Even if no minister should go to such a chosen one, he would have the gospel specially revealed to him rather than that the promise of the Almighty God should be broken.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

"either he shall come to the gospel, or the gospel shall go to him. Even if no minister should go to such a chosen one, he would have the gospel specially revealed to him"

Notice the contradiction to Scripture.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Okay, so you're not claiming he says the Gospel is not necessary, you're claiming he says a preacher is not necessary. So, apologize and take back your initial claim.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Okay, so you're not claiming he says the Gospel is not necessary, you're claiming he says a preacher is not necessary. So, apologize and take back your initial claim.

I'm not obligated to apologize to you when I've done nothing wrong. We've had many of these conversations before. This is nothing new to either of us.
I tried to tell you that he is often contradictory. I could spend significent time posting various quotes from him that prove my point. If you're going to quote a principled Calvinist you would be better served to reference John Gill. John Gill would have never said something so wreckless. I have no idea why any Calvinist would quote Spurgeon.

Are you going to ignore his false Gospel that a preacher isn't needed? .... and just how do you have a Gospel without a preacher. You can't. It is impossible. Exclude the preacher and you exclude the Gospel. I have no need to apologize. This is the problem you get into when you follow men's arguments.

 

[makesends]

I've made this point to friends a number of times when they say we are responsible for preaching the Gospel to the whole world in order for the full measure to be saved.

No, we preach the Gospel and tell the truth out of obedience. God doesn't need us to do that or else he'd lose some of his elect. While it is an extreme example, Paul was converted by special revelation. And I agree with Spurgeon on this point:

"But suppose it should be one of those [elect] who are living in the interior of Africa, and he does not hear the gospel; what then?" He shall hear the gospel; either he shall come to the gospel, or the gospel shall go to him. Even if no minister should go to such a chosen one, he would have the gospel specially revealed to him rather than that the promise of the Almighty God should be broken.

Again, I'm not making light of our duty to preach and say the truth. But God doesn't need to depend on it in order to bring about His good purpose.

That, and there is something to idea of General Revelation, wherefore they are without excuse. (Romans 1)

 

[makesends]

Yes I do that is with many things. God from the beginning wanted Israel to be a lighthouse nation to the earth, and they missed out on what God wanted them to be. I can give many other examples as well.

No doubt, but how does that prove that God needed them to help him accomplish his plans? Let me ask it another way: Could God have done what he did without them?

Why shouldn't I believe that. Josh 1:9 states, Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.

Same question. Do we have to obey, for God to accomplish what he set out from the beginning to accomplish?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'm not obligated to apologize to you when I've done nothing wrong. We've had many of these conversations before. This is nothing new to either of us.
I tried to tell you that he is often contradictory. I could spend significent time posting various quotes from him that prove my point. If you're going to quote a principled Calvinist you would be better served to reference John Gill. John Gill would have never said something so wreckless. I have no idea why any Calvinist would quote Spurgeon.

Are you going to ignore his false Gospel that a preacher isn't needed? .... and just how do you have a Gospel without a preacher. You can't. It is impossible. Exclude the preacher and you exclude the Gospel. I have no need to apologize. This is the problem you get into when you follow men's arguments.

A preacher is needed? Tell that to Paul. At least you admitted that what Spurgeon said was wreckless.

 

[makesends]

Let's put down a quote to you from before,

I mean that God is not like us. Not at all. We are like him, a little bit, in some ways. But we can't define and judge God according to what we know, and consider it a complete definition, and not misleading.

Not quite sure how it can be. You've said you cannot define God by what you think you know. So you think you know something of God's love but you're open to it not being true at all. It seems you're saying it can be something totally different.

I'm not trying to say that any of us is completely wrong, but that we are necessarily partly wrong, and incomplete in knowledge and understanding.

And the fact that you can't abide the notion that God doesn't predetermine all things doesn't mean you're right either.

Obviously. Your point? Does that mean to you that neither of our notions is more valid than the other?

Well sorry but this is just double talk. You run from him wanting evil but you try to smooth it over and make it plateable by saying he intended it. How can there be any difference between wanting or intending? There can't be! What really occurred is God allowed evil but he had no desire for it to come forth.

You can't know there is no difference. I intend to spank my child when he does wrong. That doesn't mean I WANT to spank him.

Man chose to learn the hard way in regard to the effects of sin. God intended that mankind did not have to learn that way. You tell a kid to keep your hands off a hot stove. You intend that they listen to your instruction. When they don't and they burn their hand a kid would be totally out of line to say my parent intended that I burn my hand. We would call the ridiculous.

Christ intended to die. Does that mean that he wanted to die? Look at the implications. Do you think he wanted to be forsaken by his God, or, maybe, rather, that for the joy that was before him, intended to go through with it, in spite of wishing it could be otherwise. You might say that he wanted to die, because of the joy that was before him, and you would have a point, but do you not see how the term is too easily anthropomorphic? God is not like us.

 

[Rockson]

No doubt, but how does that prove that God needed them to help him accomplish his plans?

Those particular plans of being a Lighthouse Nation yes. That's what Israel was meant to be. Here's another example from Eze 3: 17

Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. 18When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

 

[Rockson]

Obviously. Your point?

Merely that anyone can say what you had said that just because you believe something doesn't mean it's so. So what was your point in saying it to begin with?

You can't know there is no difference.

I'd say I can by the context of what we're talking about.

I intend to spank my child when he does wrong. That doesn't mean I WANT to spank him.

But when you're saying God intended for sin to take place that would have to be within the scope that he wanted it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

A preacher is needed? Tell that to Paul. At least you admitted that what Spurgeon said was wreckless.

Paul said himself that it did. Did you not read his own words?

Paul heard Stephen. Do you want take Acts 7 out of the Scriptures?

 

[praise_yeshua]

A preacher is needed? Tell that to Paul. At least you admitted that what Spurgeon said was wreckless.

Then you are wreckless with him. You said you believed just like him.