The False Doctrine of Election

So there's something you just HAVE to get off your chest, and it doesn't fit into any of the above catagories? All spam, rants, and random chatter belongs in here.
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: The False Doctrine of Election

Post by iamfreeru2 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:06 pm

John Piper: Does God get more glory if people have free will?

Peaople state all the time, "God will not violate our free will" or "God will not interfere in man's will" or something like that. I have to ask did YHWH violate Pharoah's so-called "free will" when He hardened Pharoah's heart (see Exodus 7:3)? It was either Pharoah did not have "free will" or YHWH violated it. If Pharoah had a "free will" then it is not true that YHWH will not violate "free will", because He did with Pharoah. Since YHWH cannot go against His word, I contend it was not Pharoah's "free will" at all, but YHWH's will that caused Pharoah's heart to harden.

Those that claim YHWH will not violate a man's "free will" have a real problem here. I would love for any of you to show me from the Word of YHWH where He says He does not interfere or violate man's "free will". Just show me one verse is all I ask, then I will concede. There is not one verse that even states man has a "free will". Unfortunately, many here want to raise red herrings rather than show any proof of the claims being made. Instead what is shown is what man says and not YHWH. And this, coming from professed believers of the word.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: The False Doctrine of Election

Post by iamfreeru2 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:27 pm

Thomas Jeffrey wrote:Brother Michael,

I watched the videos and I really must say, with all honesty, that the man in the videos is reading things into these verses that are not there. He is not making a coherent argument that coincides with Scripture. This man is attacking an interpretation of three verses as some perfect storm of "out of context" Arminian (what is this?) theology, when he is doing the exact same thing. Are you sure it is not you who are taking things out of context?

I'm sorry, Brother, I'm not convinced.

First off, Peter writes that God is long suffering toward us,Who is the us that is spoken of here? Everyone? Or is it referring to believers? When it is put into context it is peaking to believers. YHWH is not willing that any of the believers perish. You are reading something the verse is not saying, and is the reason why I posted the video to show the correct context of what is being said. Of course, all who believe in "free will" insert their meaning rather than the texts meaning. not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. That is exactly correct. Please read "God does not DESIRE that any should perish". But unfortunately, as He knows, many will perish in the fire that He has reserved for Lawless men.

2 Peter 2:10 - The self-willed men are obviously those men who have not believed in Christ. Their will (desire) has not been conformed to the will of God. The will of God meaning: "Of what God wishes to be done by us."

God (Yhwh) may wish for all men to come to repentance, but again, He constantly appeals to our fleshly minds to repent and conform to His will, but some men won't. Not because they have been pre ordained to remain Lawless, but because they refuse to become Lawful. They would rather indulge in lustful lifestyles. God and His Son repeatedly, throughout Scripture, appeal to men to believe and to repent. This shows that God is reasoning with them to come to Him. Why would He do this if men were all predestined to believe or not. It would be a waste of time.

There is a maxim of law that states "All men know God". Romans 1:18-19 says basically the same thing. Psalm 14:1 says that the fool says in his heart there is no God. These tell me that men are shown that God exists and some simply refuse to seek Him.

1 Timothy 2:4 could not be more plain. Yes, God does desire all men to come to the knowledge of truth.

The man in the video questions whether Paul is schizo by comparing God's will that "all should repent" in 1 Timothy 2:4 to Paul's writing in Ephesians 1:5 that "having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to His will, to praise the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.

Brother, I see no contradiction here with what I've been saying. Once again, context is everything. What the verse in 1 Timothy 2:4 is stating is that YHWH wishes that all kinds of men to be saved, but again, rather than getting the meaning from the scriptural context, you have taken it out of context.

The former states that God desires all men to repent. Sure, I desire that my wife serve me breakfast in bed every morning. Will that Happen? No, and I won't force her to. God will not force men to repent either. He may force them or cause them to perform some act to fulfill His purpose, but that is different altogether.

The latter states that God willed that He would Covenant with the gentiles as well as Israelites. Why? Because He desires that all men come to repentance, not only the Israelites.

Reading anything else into these passages could only involve a misinterpretation.

Many blessings.
It is said that when a lie is repeated often enough it becomes truth to those that hear it, and that is unfortunate. I will place two other videos that explains both verses as well as Matthew 23:37, which is often misquoted. Of course, I cannot make you listen to them or even accept the truth they teach. I hope you are not afraid of the truth? I post them with the hopes you will listen attentively.

Matthew 23:37

ESV Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

This is a verse used to demonstrate the ability of man to resist God and of God’s desire to save being thwarted by the free will of man. Is that what this Scripture demonstrates? I believe yes, and no.

First, yes–fallen man can and does resist God at almost every turn. It is only a misunderstanding of Irresistible Grace (Effectual Calling) that would cause someone to think that Calvinists don’t believe in man’s ability (and propensity) to resist God. Effectual calling refers to God’s sovereign regeneration of his elect.


Whenever you want to know what a Scripture is teaching, you need to put it in its context. This verse is found in the same context with these:

ESV Matthew 23 1″Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you- but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice…
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.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides…

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!…

33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

As you can see, this passage comes in the context of a fierce rebuke of the religious leaders of the Jews. Note who the pronoun “you” refers to in verses 33-35 where the killers of the prophets are described. We see the killers of the prophets (Jerusalem) being lamented over. One would be hard pressed to make “Jerusalem, the city … your … you” be anyone other than the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus has been rebuking.

Now let’s look more closely at who was resisting and who was to be gathered. Do you see it? Here Jesus laments that the religious leaders were resisting him in his drawing of their children.

To sum up, we have a verse where the religious leaders are being lamented (after the sharpest rebuke Jesus gave anywhere) over their resistance (something no Calvinist would deny) to God’s drawing of the children of Israel.

Matthew 23 is perfectly consistent with reformed theology.

This next video is in regard to 2 Peter 3:9 only in case you do not want to listen the the entirety of the first video.

Now if you are not willing to listen to the videos, I am linking to an exposition of 1 Timothy that you can read. It is lengthy, so I will not copy and paste it here. Either way, the teaching is the same, only different teachers. ... thy2_4.htm

And here is a link to an article that teaches the correct meaning of 2 Peter 3:9 as well. ... an-anyway/

I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
Thomas Jeffrey
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 7:47 pm

Re: The False Doctrine of Election

Post by Thomas Jeffrey » Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:12 am

Brother Michael,

I understand your impassioned and often vehement position on the subject of free will and the Doctrine of Election, but man's free will to choose salvation must not be confused or entangled with divine providence.

Man has been given the choice between obeying the Law of our Lord and Savior or not. When men do not obey our Lord's Law, they form their own rules to live by. This is by freedom of choice (free will).

Divine providence is the will of Yhwh to direct the course of events, whether they be in concert with man's will or not. Both Lawful (righteous) men and unlawful (unrighteous) men are subject to divine providence.

It's foolish to think that men have total and absolute freedom to act upon their will, and it's wrong to assign this thought to those who don't believe in the Doctrine of Election. Without the intervention of divine providence, this world would be much worse off than it is. Your example of Pharoah in the book of Exodus is a good example. Even righteous men, whose wills conform to the Will of our Lord, when applied to the Law, can disrupt Yhwh's ultimate plan.

Take Jonah for instance. Jonah didn't want to go to Ninevah when called by Yhwh to do so. He even ran away trying to avoid it! Yhwh wanted him to go because He knew the men of Ninevah would repent upon hearing the warning presented by Jonah. But, Jonah didn't want to go. Divine providence, applied by Yhwh, finally caused Jonah to go. Did this contention cause Jonah to become unrighteous in the eyes of Yhwh? I think not.

There are other examples of righteous men who have contended with Yhwh in battles of will; Abraham, Jacob and Peter to name a few. In fact, Jacob won his contention with Yhwh over being blessed before meeting Esau after many years apart. He was renamed Israel, for he had struggled with Yhwh and overcame Him and men. Abraham contended over the lives of the righteous men in Sodom, Peter over the eating of unclean things.

Yhwh applies divine providence to bless and protect as well as to curse and destroy. He states many times in Scripture that He will bless and protect those who call on His Name, and curse and destroy those who don't. We don't always understand His ways or why He does things the way He does, but we are told they are always for the better good.

The point is that people have the freedom to choose salvation by accepting Jesus as King and obeying His Law, or choose death by refusing Him and His Law. We have free will toward other areas of life as well, but are sometimes limited in action. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to make poor decisions.

Yhwh keeps things in check through divine providence by directing the course of events to fulfill His plan for this world, without regard to any man's will. He thereby limits the actions of man's will upon all things except the choice of salvation which He has reserved to each man.

Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: The False Doctrine of Election

Post by iamfreeru2 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:42 pm

Bother Thomas,

You are absolutely correct, I do have a passion for people, to know the truth of the Word of YHWH, not what is false. Here is some more truth from His word.

2 Timothy 1:9
King James Version (KJV)
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
2 Thessalonians 2:13
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
I have copied and pasted quotes from the following article for you consideration: ... pter20.htm
By this we mean that election is without actual origin. It always has been, just as God always has been.
(1) The Immutability of God.
"By this we mean that the nature, attributes, and will of God are exempt from all change . . . All change must be to better or worse. But God is absolute perfection, and no change to better is possible. Change to worse would be equally inconsistent with perfection" (Strong, Systematic Theology). Because God has ever possessed all knowledge and all power there can be no occasion of change in Him.
For scriptural proof and further discussion of Gods immutability see chapter on "The Nature and Attributes of God."
The immutability of Cod teaches us that whatever God wills at any time, He always has willed. "There can be no more a new thought, a new intent, or a new purpose in God, than there can be a new God" (Ness). Consequently when God saves a man, He must always have intended and purposed to save him. That purpose and intent to save him involves an election of him to salvation. Hence election is eternal. To affirm otherwise is to deny the immutability of God.
(2) The Foreknowledge of God.
Rom. 8:29 asserts that God foreknew those whom He saves. This foreknowledge involved a purpose to save these. And this purpose to save them involved election. Did this foreknowledge have a beginning? If so, then there was a time when God was not omniscient and, hence, not perfect and infinite. Without perfection and infinity there can be no God. Therefore the foreknowledge of God is eternal, and, consequently, election is eternal; because election is involved in foreknowledge, as pointed out above.
Thus we see how deleterious is the teaching that election takes place in time. Any denier of the eternity of election is logically an atheist. He really has no God; for having logically denied the immutability, perfection, and infinity of God, he has theoretically robbed him of His divinity. Yet those who teach the eternity of election are accused of raising new tests of fellowship.
(3) Plain Scripture Statements.
We appeal here to the two following passages:
"Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4).
"God chose you from the beginning" (2 Thess. 2:13).
That which took place before the foundation of the world, took place before the beginning of time: for in the beginning of time the world was created (Gen. 1:1). The first passage above, then, definitely puts election in eternity. The second passage means that ever since the beginning our election has been a completed act. Thus it took place before the beginning, and, since in eternity there is no before or after, there never was a time when election had not taken place. This is the meaning of eternal.
To the eternity of election it is objected by some—
(1) That election takes place when we are saved because we are elected "in" Christ.
This is stated in Eph. 1:4, which we have just quoted. But note that this same passage makes election eternal. Why will men thus array a single passage of Scripture against itself?
The statement that we were elected "in" Christ means no more than that Christ was the ground of our election (election being on the basis of His saving work), and that we were foreknown as being in Christ in the purpose of God. The language here is the language of Him who, in His purpose, "calleth things that are not, as though they were" (Rom. 4:17). We have another example of this in Rom. 8:29,30, where the calling, justification, and glorification of all the elect are put in the past tense. We were not actually and experientially in Christ in eternity, nor were we actually and experientially called, justified, and glorified in eternity; but we were in the purpose of God, and this is the meaning of the passage just cited.
(2) That we are elected when we are saved on the ground that the Scripture never applies the term "elect" to any except the saved.
It is true that the term "elect," in some places in the Scripture, has exclusive reference to saved persons. Such a use of the term may be seen in Matt. 22:24; Luke 18:7; Rom. 8:23; 1 Peter 1:2. These passages refer only to those in whom election has been applied and made experiential. But it is not to these only that the term "elect" and its equivalents are applied. In Eph. 1:4 and 2 Thess. 2:13, as we have seen, the elect are said to have been such from eternity. Then the term "sheep" is equivalent to the term "elect," and in John 10:16 we have Christ’s application of the term "sheep" to the lost Gentiles that were yet to be saved. This passage reads:
"Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold (the Jewish nation): them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd."
But, to the further discomfiture of Arminians, we find that 2 Tim. 1:10 applies the term "elect" in its possessive form to those who were not yet saved. The passage reads.
"I endure all things for the elect’s sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."
(3) That we are elected when we are saved on the ground that the Scripture puts calling before election.
It is a fact that sometimes the Scripture, in referring to both the calling and election of believers, or in alluding to the called and elected, mentions the former first. See Matt. 22:14; 2 Pet. 1:10; Rev. 17:14. The "called" of Matt. 22:14 (the Greek word being an adjective used substantively) are those to whom only the general, external, and, for the most part, ineffectual call, through the preaching of the gospel, is sounded. This class is composed of many. But of these only a few, comparatively speaking, belong to the chosen, elect, as evidenced by the fact that only the few believe the gospel. "Thee other two passages cited mention calling and election in the order in which they are realized in the experience. One knows his election only by the calling (quickening) that he has received of the Holy Spirit. That the passages given above do not fix the chronological or even the logical, order of calling and election is evident from the proofs that have been given of the eternity of election, and from Rom. 8:29,30, where the order is manifestly the true logical order. There foreknowledge and predestination, which involve election, are placed before calling. Then Rom. 8:28 asserts that we are called (particularly, internally, and effectually) "according to his (God’s) purpose." And this purpose involves election. Thus election must precede calling, just as the purpose to call must precede the actual call since the calling is according to the divine purpose.
Those who urge this objection against the eternity of election need to note that the Scripture does not always name things in either their logical or chronological order. For instance, 2 Tim. 1:9 puts salvation before calling.
(4) That election takes place when we are saved on the ground that we are elected through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
This objection is based on the King James translation of 2 Thess. 2:13 and 1 Pet. 1:2. This first passage says, in the King James version, that we were elected "to salvation through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." The second passage says, according to the same version, that we are "elect . . . through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." The Greek preposition translated "through" by the King James translators is "en." And it is rather disconcerting to Arminians to note that the Revised Version translates this preposition "in" instead of "through." But it is ruining to them to note that N. M. Williams says of this preposition: "It expresses a state, not an act; not ‘through,’ but ‘in.’ The Greek preposition seldom expresses instrumentality" (An American [Baptist] Commentary on the New Testament).
The Greek preposition alludes to the state the people addressed were in at the time they were addressed, and does not signify the means by which they became the elect of God.
Before passing we wish to point out a few other passages which are as a death knell to the infidel theory that election and salvation take place at the same time.
(1) "All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me" (John 6:37). [In the article this was a typo that I corrected.]
It is manifest that this passage represents the Father’s giving of people to the Son as preceding their coming to the Son. The Father’s act of giving people to the Son (by which is here meant the divine efficacy in bringing them into the actual possession of the Son through repentance and faith, the verb "giveth" being in the present tense) involves an election of those thus given, inasmuch as all are not given. And since this giving precedes salvation, then election must precede salvation. This giving, of course, proves the eternity of election in the light of the immutability of God. But we are here concerned only with showing that election precedes salvation. The divine efficacy in bringing men to Christ is alluded to in John 6:44, 65, and Eph. 1:19, 20.
(2) "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).
This passage puts ordination to eternal life before faith, and, consequently, before salvation. This ordination to eternal life involves election on the same grounds that the giving of the former passage involves election.
So far as the form of the Greek word is concerned, it could be either middle or passive; but the preponderance of scholarly opinion considers it as being definitely passive. Thus Hackett gives the translation: "As many as were appointed unto eternal life believed," and then adds: "This is the only translation the philology of the passage allows." Further Hackett says: "Some translate the Greek participle (tetagmenoi) disposed, inclined; but this term as passive, though it may signify disposed externally—as e. g., drawn up in military order- was not used of an act of the mind." Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s commentary makes this significant comment on the words under consideration: " . . . cannot . . . be interpreted of anything lower than this, that a divine ordination to eternal life is the cause, not the effect, of any man’s believing."
Some have tried to turn the passage around and make it read: "As many as believed were ordained to eternal life," which is the way it would have to read in order to even permit the interpretation that election and salvation take place at the same time. But the Greek construction will not allow this transposition. Thayer says the passage refers to "as many as were appointed to obtain eternal life, or to, whom God had decreed eternal life."
(3) "God chose you . . . unto salvation’ (2 Thess. 2:13).
Since men are chosen or elected "unto salvation, their election must precede salvation. This is manifest to all except a certain class of Arminians who are incapable of understanding plain English.
Why is it Arminians are unwilling to put the texts in their proper context so as to get the real meaning of scriptural passages? Why is it that no Arminian is willing to address the texts head on but instead want to talk about the providence of YHWH?

Much has been posted on the topic, but rather that trying to understand the contextual meaning, Arminians make unsupported statements that have nothing to do with any meaningful dialog regarding the topic of election.

You have stated the man in the video I posted has taken out of context what 2 Peter 3:9 actually means, yet you refuse to state how. You only want to talk about the providence of YHWH. You remind me of attorneys that never give a responsive response. LOL!!! I have posted two other videos on the topic of 2 Peter 3:9 as well as Matthew 23:37 and 1 Timothy 2:4. I have also posted additional articles on all three. If you are truly interested in the truth, why do you continue in your refusal to seek to learn the truth?

In my 28 year walk the first 24 years were as a staunch Arminian. I too refused to listen, until I started searching and studying for myself. That is when the Holy Spirit changed the way I looked at Scripture. I realized that I was being taught lies by false teachers. I pray that YHWH remove the scales from your eyes that you might be able to see His truth.

I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
Thomas Jeffrey
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 7:47 pm

Re: The False Doctrine of Election

Post by Thomas Jeffrey » Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:58 pm

I'll take this to mean that we agree to disagree.

Although I stand by every word, I had a sneaking suspicion that I would somehow regret posting that last piece.

I am repsectfully bowing out of any further discussion with you on this topic, Michael.

I wish you the best and may the Lord richly bless you,
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: The False Doctrine of Election

Post by iamfreeru2 » Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:06 am

I still love you brother, and will pray for YHWH to reveal His truth to you because I believe you to be one of His elect.

I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am

Re: The False Doctrine of Election

Post by editor » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:10 am

I have not had the time to follow this thread closely, and don't expect that will change in the near future. Luckily, I'm not afraid to step on toes, and I'm not easily offended myself, so I'd like to offer this perspective.

It seems that what is at issue is whether man is empowered by God with freedom of choice.

On the surface it seems this would be easily answered, since we make choices every day. If God looks over our shoulder while we make those choices, and if He influences our selections, we are seldom if ever aware of it.

The problem arises when we realize there are other unanswered questions which may affect the answer to this one.

For example, the issue of pre-determined fate versus uncertain future. This has long been a hotly contested division among learned men. Each camp has its pet Scriptures which can be trotted out in an instant to justify the favored perspective. Pre-determinism seemed to be winning the debate until the relatively recent discovery of quantum physics.

Scientists discovered that while it may be possible to predict the behavior of the vast majority of sub-atomic particles, it is nevertheless impossible to predict the behavior of any single particle. This discovery moved the marker squarely into the uncertainty camp.

Someday scientists may learn they simply didn't have enough information, and that given more knowledge, every single particle can be relied upon to fulfill its pre-ordained destiny. Until if and when this happens, men will continue to speculate, and the divided camps will, as ever, rely upon faith.

Another source of divided perspective, is the "chosen People" doctrine. Nearly every religion believes that their's is the only true religion, and that only their People are the chosen few. One of them may be right, in which case everyone else is screwed. The People of each of these religions, when asked for proof that theirs is the only true one, trot out as evidence Scriptures from their own Holy manuscripts. If you point out this is the same as using a word to define itself, you will be told you must have faith.

Oddly enough, many groups who routinely hate one another use Scriptures which are nearly identical.

As I said, I've only skimmed this thread. But unless I'm mistaken, I've read this perspective, paraphrased for brevity:

"People who believe they choose to not follow God's laws did not really choose. These people were never really God's chosen people to start with, and never really had the choice. Just as with everyone else, they are following their destiny. Their names are not written in God's Book."

This view neatly packages together both the perspectives of pre-determination and chosen-people, in a very tidy bundle. It is also a circular argument. The problem being, of course, that you cannot prove a negative unless, in this case, you can actually produce the Book. That's okay, because faith will fill in the holes.

The way I see it, none of this makes any difference.

I believe that the one great gift God gave me, other than my life, is my freedom of choice. I may choose to live my life, or to squander it as I see fit, just as I may choose to follow or reject Him. I further believe those two gifts are very closely bound together. I have been given this life so that I may be better equipped to make the choice of whom to follow.

My belief I have freedom of choice may be an illusion. God may know who will make which choice, or He may not. I don't know if He does, and whoever you are you don't know either, no matter how much you believe you do.

But, you say, God is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can do anything. I assert that He cannot, as shown by His keeping of His covenant with Abraham. You will say I have just trotted out my own Scripture to prove my point, and you will be correct. This is the difference between me believing as I choose (there's that word again), as opposed to telling you how you should believe. You may also say that God could have chosen to break his covenant with Abraham, but that He chooses to keep his promises. By my way of thinking, this amounts to the same.

And I'm back to my point: None of this makes any difference.

Most of us serve the same God, in very similar ways. We are one People, who share many similarities, and many small differences. We are all being assaulted on a grand scale, by a large and powerful enemy. This enemy makes it his business to know and exploit our differences so that we waste all our time and effort fighting with one another, instead of joining forces against him.

Petty arguments about unprovable points of Scripture are some of his favorites. Racism, tribalism, politics. They all amount to the same strategy of "divide and conquer."

That having been said, I applaud the major participants in this discussion, for keeping a civil tone. I appreciate everyone's participation in this Forum. I am simply urging you to see the big picture.

If you read this far, thanks for helping me vent.
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 6:22 pm

Re: The False Doctrine of Election

Post by LEC » Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:03 am

People do commit suicide. That seems to pointe to an ultimate self ownership.
Post Reply