Very good illustration - I will have to "adapt" it. Let me, a la Apostle Paul, be the imaginary objector:
But if God does reach out and take the unregenerate one out of traffic, then why does He not do that for everyone? (see Rom 9:14-18).
But if that girl is just doing what she wants to do, what comes natural to her by virtue of being born a sinner, then how can God hold her accountable for that? (see Rom 9:19-24).
I find it interesting that the question Driscoll addressed from the texter is exactly the same objections that Paul imagined people would raise to his teaching. This is very encouraging to me because people ask me similar questions all the time. That means that my theology matches up with Paul's.
If people never object to your "plan of salvation" because it seems quite fair and easy to swallow, perhaps your theology does not square with Paul's though it matches up well with many others.
IN DRISCOLLS ILLUSTRATION I SEE NO REPENTANCE.HIS LITTLE GIRL NEVER TURNED AND CAME BACK TO HER FATHER.GODS SOVEREIGNTY IS A BIBLICAL TRUTH.GOD IS THE SOURCE OF MERCY AND GRACE IS A BIBLICAL TRUTH.PAULS PLAN OF SALVATION THOUGH INCLUDES A CALL TO REPENTANCE AND FAITH ON THE PART OF THE REBEL.DRISCOLLS ILLUSTRATION WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF HIS LITTLE GIRL HAD TURNED AND CAME BACK TO HER FATHER BASED ON HER TRUSTING HIM.
Lynne, you have managed to find the Achilles heel in Driscoll's illustration. Unfortunately, there is one in almost every illustration of biblical doctrine.
However, to have the girl simply turn around on her own would not suffice either. That just does not happen. It might look that way in our understanding of what we see taking place before our eyes but the Bible says something is happening out of our sight that is very real nonetheless.
Therefore, I guess an even better illustration of the salvific process is this:
The daughter runs towards traffic. That means death but that is what she wants and that is what she is going to get. Driscoll, in calling out to her to turn around (repent), supernaturally changes that girl's heart while she is still dead in her sins, still actively disobedient, and still going after her own desires.
Suddenly, because her heart of stone has been exchanged for a heart of flesh and because she has been born again / regenerated / made into a new creature, the girl "hears" the call of her father and turns to him. To paraphrase the words of Christ, "My daughters hear my voice and she knows me and she follows me."
In all seriousness, what holes can you find in that one?
I have been reading your posts and find them interesting, dealing with the Calvinist/Arminian debate in salvation.
Driscoll's analogy of election with regards his little girl breaks down in comparison with another "analogy" of a parent-child relationship in scripture, the Parable of the Progigal Son. The parable does not tell of the father going and snatching the son out of the swine slop, but that the son came to his senses and returned to his father.
Second, the problem with Calvinism is that it fails to say convincingly that God loves the whole world. To paraphrase my prof at Beeson, Fisher Humphreys, to say that God loves unconditionally those he foreordained to be damned is not a mystery, but a flat contradiction.
Third, Romans 9-11 is Paul's lengthy response to Israel's rejection of Jesus as a whole. We must not stop at 9:23, as does John Piper (or is it JI Packer?), but read 9-11 as a whole. Paul's strategy in the argument is to get his readers who are unconvinced of Gentile inclusion to agree with God's principle in election, to form a people not based on ethnic identity or possession of Torah, but on the basis of his will, which, according to God's sovereignty can and very well should include the Gentiles (9:25-26). The objects of wrath is a metaphor not for those eternally damned, but for those whom Paul's opponants considered damned - the Gentiles.
Finally, I know that those who are convinced that the Calvinist or Arminian "systems" are gospel truth, I think that the best Spirit was modeled at Beeson Divinity School, where Fisher Humphreys and Timothy George (a Calvinist) were close friends as well as colleagues, even though they disagreed with one another on this issue. It is not worth further dividing Baptists.
Sorry, the last paragraph meant to read that those who are convinced on this issue will not be easily swayed, no matter the arguments presented. This issue is not worth dividing Baptists at the local or national levels.
DR JEFF---WHO DESIRES DEATH?ROMANS 8 DOES SAY THOSE WHO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE SINFUL NATURE HAVE THEIR MINDS SET ON WHAT THEIR NATURE DESIRES.FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I CAN VOUCH FOR THOSE EVIL DESIRES BUT ITS NOT BECAUSE I DESIRE DEATH BUT IS MORE LIKELY BECAUSE OF THE TEMPORAL PLEASURES THAT COME FROM THE FULFILLMENT OF THOSE DESIRES.I DONT BELIEVE DRISCOLLS DAUGHTER WAS RUNNING TOWARD THE STREET BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO DIE BUT BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF REBELLIOUS BEHAVIOR . THEN TOO SHE WAS ENJOYING A TEMPORAL PLEASURE. YOU DO SAY THOUGH THAT THE GIRL IS REGENERATED, HEARS THE CALL OF HER FATHER AND TURNS TO HIM IS A BETTER ILLUSTRATION OF THE SALVIFIC PROCESS AND IT DOES SATISFY MY OBJECTION REGARDING FAITH AND REPENTANCE. WE PROBABLY DISAGREE ON THE ORDER OF THE SALVIFIC ORDER THOUGH.I SENSE YOU BELIEVE THAT REGENERATION(BEING BORN AGAIN,MADE INTO A NEW CREATURE)PRECEDES FAITH OR BELIEVING.ROMANS 10 REFERING TO THE JEWS IN YOUR EXAMPLE DOES SAY THAT HE GOES ON AHEAD OF THEM AND HIS SHEEP FOLLOW HIM.BUT HOW DID THEY QUALIFY TO BE HIS SHEEP. VERSE9 SAYS WHOEVER ENTERS THROUGH ME(CHRIST)WILL BE SAVED.I BELIEVE ENTERING IS AN ACT OF THE SHEEP BASED ON FAITH NOT ON A SUPERNATURAL CHANGE THAT MAKES FAITH POSSIBLE.GRANTED THERE IS A DRAWING BY THE HOLY SPIRIT BUT THIS DRAWING ALLOWS FOR CHOICE BY THOSE CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.JESUS IS THE WAY AND TO CHOOSE TO ENTER THROUGH HIM MAKES US A FAMILY MEMBER(SON OR DAUGHTER)BEING A DAUGHTER WE HEAR HIS VOICE AND KNOW HIM AND FOLLOW HIM AND HE AFFORDS US ABUNDANT LIFE. THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER ASKED(ACTS 16:30) WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?PAUL AND SILAS ANSWER WAS BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS AND YOU WILL BE SAVED.I SEE NO REFERENCE TO A SPECIAL ABILITY YOU HAVE TO HAVE TO BELIEVE.ONLY BECAUSE OF THE GRACE 0F OUR SOVEREIGN GOD ARE WE ALLOWED A ROLE IN THE SALVIFIC PROCESS. I BELIEVE THOUGH THAT WITHIN HIS SOVEREIGN WILL IS HIS DESIRE THAT WE REPENT, COME TO HIM IN FAITH AND BECOME AN ABODE FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO DOES A SUPERNATURAL WORK IN US.
It is always a treat to discuss theology with you. You are a good linear thinker and a gracious debater. I hope no one sees our interaction as fractious but as two Christian brothers discussing the finer points of God's revelation.
I asked you to find a hole and you did. Good job. It is probably not good to say that people (let's get away from Driscoll's little girl) actually "desire" death. However, the Bible is clear that they do desire estrangement from God. People are born at enmity with God and desirous of ungodly (sinful) acts. Of course, there are also very moral people in the world (compared to other humans, at least) and others who seek to be seeking God (or at least some kind of good-ness). Your critique of the "death-seeker" equally applies to the "God-seeker" - they want the temporal pleasures involved in such a search (joy, peace, happiness, comfort, acceptance, etc.).
I am thankful for your awareness of all of salvation into its biblical aspects. Regeneration is part of salvation but not all of it (same with conversion, justification, calling, etc.). In this area, you correctly discern that I believe the Bible teaches us that regeneration precedes faith.To say otherwise is to have a person dead in the sins suddenly become alive to God. How does that happen? I believe the Lord's words to a skeptical audience in John 6 is pivotal here.
You are correct that "entering" is an act of the sheep but from where does that faith originate? Does a man muster it up on his own? Does it originate "ex nihilo" in his spirit/mind/soul/heart?
In your second paragraph, you ask "How did [the sheep] qualify to be his sheep?" You seem to say that their faith/belief qualified them. However, consider the words of Christ in John 10:26. Jesus is addressing the unbelieving Pharisees and tells them WHY they do not believe. Read carefully: "You do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." Did you catch that? We usually get it backwards, saying "You are not part of my flock because you do not believe." Jesus has a different perspective on the cause&effect. He clearly says that the reason you don't believe (the qualification you posit) is BECAUSE you are not a sheep. Only the sheep believe and you have to be a sheep TO believe. Am I reading that correctly? Reading too much into it? I think the context and the focus/direction of Christ's discourse aligns well with that understanding.
The option of "believe first, then become a sheep" might seem fine at first glance but it provides a problem. That problem is seen in considering two hypothetical twins. Suppose one is saved and one is not. Same family, same culture, same life experiences (go with me here), even brought to the same church services by their parents for 18 years. Yet one is saved and the other is not. What made the difference between the two?
As for the Philippian jailer, Paul and Silas did say what you say. However, the "believe" is an imperative. It is a command to be obeyed or disobeyed. It is not so much a request to be weighed and considered. Who can obey the commands of God? You referred earlier to Romans 8:6. I refer to Romans 8:7, which says, "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot."
Finally, can I ask you a favor? Can you turn off your CAPS LOCK key? I feel like you are shouting at me. I hope you are not.
Welcome to the area. Perhaps Jamie, you, and I can get together sometime. I really like the baked spaghetti at Giovanni's.
I grew up at FBC Taylorsville - way back in the 1970s. We left there when my father left his position at Sugar Loaf to be principal at Hiddenite. I was in the fifth grade. I still have friends there and actually preached in your pulpit back in August 2007. I will add your blog to my Google Reader. Here's mine:
http://jaspry.blogspot.com/
I say "amen" to your desire for charity in discussing theology. I also think that is what is going on here. It is sad that some are not able to talk about this particular issue without the verbal histrionics but the failings of a few do not necessitate the removal of all such discussion from the public forum. As you wrote in your initial blog post, "Theology is best when it happens in conversation." So, you can be Humphreys and I will be George and we will mimic their relationship in polemics and model the two in their irenic interaction.
Now, down to business: Please unpack your understanding of Romans 9.
jeff, i promise to turn off the cap locks key if you'll promise to spell my name lynn instead of lynne.lynne sounds feminine to me. seriously though i wasn't shouting at you .chalk the capitals up to ignorance of blog etiquette.
can we agree that death is seperation from god?the question then is how can we come alive? how can we be reconciled to god?can we agree that the work to accomplish that has already been done?christ now offers life to those who who will accept it and we acceopt it by repentance and faith. the bible says faith is not a work.thats why identical twins can have different destinies.one repents and accepts christs free gift by faith the other doesn't.one accepts,one rejects.but then i understand that you too believe faith plays a role in the salvific process but that god first gives us life and then the faith to believe that he gave it to us.you reference romans 8:7 to show that believe is a command, a command we can't obey unless god makes us obey.but then why doesn't god make it where everybody can obey his command?am i correct in assuming that you believe its because prior to creation god selected certain people for salvation and others for condemnation?if thats the case what i hear you saying is at the great white throne judgement the condemned will have to account for their rejection of christ.god selected them for condemnation so what other choice did they have?he commanded them to have faith in him but didn' give them the ability to do so.they were dead from the beginning they couldn't come to live on thir own and god chose not to give them life so again why are they being held accountable?to use your words theres a problem here.i believe god found greater joy in his creation of humankind then he did with animals. we were created in his image seems to indicate that we can respond to god in a close and personal way. and its his desire that we do so as we repent and exercise faith . he didn't have to create mankind but he did. he didn't have to give us the ability to respond to his offer of salvation but he did. god is so great he can allow certain abilities to humankind and still be totally sovereign.i've told you what you believe now i'm sure you'll tell me what you believe.
11 comments:
Very good illustration - I will have to "adapt" it. Let me, a la Apostle Paul, be the imaginary objector:
But if God does reach out and take the unregenerate one out of traffic, then why does He not do that for everyone? (see Rom 9:14-18).
But if that girl is just doing what she wants to do, what comes natural to her by virtue of being born a sinner, then how can God hold her accountable for that? (see Rom 9:19-24).
I find it interesting that the question Driscoll addressed from the texter is exactly the same objections that Paul imagined people would raise to his teaching. This is very encouraging to me because people ask me similar questions all the time. That means that my theology matches up with Paul's.
If people never object to your "plan of salvation" because it seems quite fair and easy to swallow, perhaps your theology does not square with Paul's though it matches up well with many others.
Very good point Dr. Spry
IN DRISCOLLS ILLUSTRATION I SEE NO REPENTANCE.HIS LITTLE GIRL NEVER TURNED AND CAME BACK TO HER FATHER.GODS SOVEREIGNTY IS A BIBLICAL TRUTH.GOD IS THE SOURCE OF MERCY AND GRACE IS A BIBLICAL TRUTH.PAULS PLAN OF SALVATION THOUGH INCLUDES A CALL TO REPENTANCE AND FAITH ON THE PART OF THE REBEL.DRISCOLLS ILLUSTRATION WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF HIS LITTLE GIRL HAD TURNED AND CAME BACK TO HER FATHER BASED ON HER TRUSTING HIM.
Good point Lynn.
Lynne, you have managed to find the Achilles heel in Driscoll's illustration. Unfortunately, there is one in almost every illustration of biblical doctrine.
However, to have the girl simply turn around on her own would not suffice either. That just does not happen. It might look that way in our understanding of what we see taking place before our eyes but the Bible says something is happening out of our sight that is very real nonetheless.
Therefore, I guess an even better illustration of the salvific process is this:
The daughter runs towards traffic. That means death but that is what she wants and that is what she is going to get. Driscoll, in calling out to her to turn around (repent), supernaturally changes that girl's heart while she is still dead in her sins, still actively disobedient, and still going after her own desires.
Suddenly, because her heart of stone has been exchanged for a heart of flesh and because she has been born again / regenerated / made into a new creature, the girl "hears" the call of her father and turns to him. To paraphrase the words of Christ, "My daughters hear my voice and she knows me and she follows me."
In all seriousness, what holes can you find in that one?
Jamie,
I have been reading your posts and find them interesting, dealing with the Calvinist/Arminian debate in salvation.
Driscoll's analogy of election with regards his little girl breaks down in comparison with another "analogy" of a parent-child relationship in scripture, the Parable of the Progigal Son. The parable does not tell of the father going and snatching the son out of the swine slop, but that the son came to his senses and returned to his father.
Second, the problem with Calvinism is that it fails to say convincingly that God loves the whole world. To paraphrase my prof at Beeson, Fisher Humphreys, to say that God loves unconditionally those he foreordained to be damned is not a mystery, but a flat contradiction.
Third, Romans 9-11 is Paul's lengthy response to Israel's rejection of Jesus as a whole. We must not stop at 9:23, as does John Piper (or is it JI Packer?), but read 9-11 as a whole. Paul's strategy in the argument is to get his readers who are unconvinced of Gentile inclusion to agree with God's principle in election, to form a people not based on ethnic identity or possession of Torah, but on the basis of his will, which, according to God's sovereignty can and very well should include the Gentiles (9:25-26). The objects of wrath is a metaphor not for those eternally damned, but for those whom Paul's opponants considered damned - the Gentiles.
Finally, I know that those who are convinced that the Calvinist or Arminian "systems" are gospel truth, I think that the best Spirit was modeled at Beeson Divinity School, where Fisher Humphreys and Timothy George (a Calvinist) were close friends as well as colleagues, even though they disagreed with one another on this issue. It is not worth further dividing Baptists.
Thanks for interesting posts.
Tim Marsh
Sorry, the last paragraph meant to read that those who are convinced on this issue will not be easily swayed, no matter the arguments presented. This issue is not worth dividing Baptists at the local or national levels.
Blessings,
Tim
DR JEFF---WHO DESIRES DEATH?ROMANS 8 DOES SAY THOSE WHO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE SINFUL NATURE HAVE THEIR MINDS SET ON WHAT THEIR NATURE DESIRES.FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I CAN VOUCH FOR THOSE EVIL DESIRES BUT ITS NOT BECAUSE I DESIRE DEATH BUT IS MORE LIKELY BECAUSE OF THE TEMPORAL PLEASURES THAT COME FROM THE FULFILLMENT OF THOSE DESIRES.I DONT BELIEVE DRISCOLLS DAUGHTER WAS RUNNING TOWARD THE STREET BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO DIE BUT BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF REBELLIOUS BEHAVIOR . THEN TOO SHE WAS ENJOYING A TEMPORAL PLEASURE.
YOU DO SAY THOUGH THAT THE GIRL IS REGENERATED, HEARS THE CALL OF HER FATHER AND TURNS TO HIM IS A BETTER ILLUSTRATION OF THE SALVIFIC PROCESS AND IT DOES SATISFY MY OBJECTION REGARDING FAITH AND REPENTANCE.
WE PROBABLY DISAGREE ON THE ORDER OF THE SALVIFIC ORDER THOUGH.I SENSE YOU BELIEVE THAT REGENERATION(BEING BORN AGAIN,MADE INTO A NEW CREATURE)PRECEDES FAITH OR BELIEVING.ROMANS 10 REFERING TO THE JEWS IN YOUR EXAMPLE DOES SAY THAT HE GOES ON AHEAD OF THEM AND HIS SHEEP FOLLOW HIM.BUT HOW DID THEY QUALIFY TO BE HIS SHEEP. VERSE9 SAYS WHOEVER ENTERS THROUGH ME(CHRIST)WILL BE SAVED.I BELIEVE ENTERING IS AN ACT OF THE SHEEP BASED ON FAITH NOT ON A SUPERNATURAL CHANGE THAT MAKES FAITH POSSIBLE.GRANTED THERE IS A DRAWING BY THE HOLY SPIRIT BUT THIS DRAWING ALLOWS FOR CHOICE BY THOSE CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.JESUS IS THE WAY AND TO CHOOSE TO ENTER THROUGH HIM MAKES US A FAMILY MEMBER(SON OR DAUGHTER)BEING A DAUGHTER WE HEAR HIS VOICE AND KNOW HIM AND FOLLOW HIM AND HE AFFORDS US ABUNDANT LIFE.
THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER ASKED(ACTS 16:30) WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?PAUL AND SILAS ANSWER WAS BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS AND YOU WILL BE SAVED.I SEE NO REFERENCE TO A SPECIAL ABILITY YOU HAVE TO HAVE TO BELIEVE.ONLY BECAUSE OF THE GRACE 0F OUR SOVEREIGN GOD ARE WE ALLOWED A ROLE IN THE SALVIFIC PROCESS. I BELIEVE THOUGH THAT WITHIN HIS SOVEREIGN WILL IS HIS DESIRE THAT WE REPENT, COME TO HIM IN FAITH AND BECOME AN ABODE FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO DOES A SUPERNATURAL WORK IN US.
Lynne,
It is always a treat to discuss theology with you. You are a good linear thinker and a gracious debater. I hope no one sees our interaction as fractious but as two Christian brothers discussing the finer points of God's revelation.
I asked you to find a hole and you did. Good job. It is probably not good to say that people (let's get away from Driscoll's little girl) actually "desire" death. However, the Bible is clear that they do desire estrangement from God. People are born at enmity with God and desirous of ungodly (sinful) acts. Of course, there are also very moral people in the world (compared to other humans, at least) and others who seek to be seeking God (or at least some kind of good-ness). Your critique of the "death-seeker" equally applies to the "God-seeker" - they want the temporal pleasures involved in such a search (joy, peace, happiness, comfort, acceptance, etc.).
I am thankful for your awareness of all of salvation into its biblical aspects. Regeneration is part of salvation but not all of it (same with conversion, justification, calling, etc.). In this area, you correctly discern that I believe the Bible teaches us that regeneration precedes faith.To say otherwise is to have a person dead in the sins suddenly become alive to God. How does that happen? I believe the Lord's words to a skeptical audience in John 6 is pivotal here.
You are correct that "entering" is an act of the sheep but from where does that faith originate? Does a man muster it up on his own? Does it originate "ex nihilo" in his spirit/mind/soul/heart?
In your second paragraph, you ask "How did [the sheep] qualify to be his sheep?" You seem to say that their faith/belief qualified them. However, consider the words of Christ in John 10:26. Jesus is addressing the unbelieving Pharisees and tells them WHY they do not believe. Read carefully: "You do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." Did you catch that? We usually get it backwards, saying "You are not part of my flock because you do not believe." Jesus has a different perspective on the cause&effect. He clearly says that the reason you don't believe (the qualification you posit) is BECAUSE you are not a sheep. Only the sheep believe and you have to be a sheep TO believe. Am I reading that correctly? Reading too much into it? I think the context and the focus/direction of Christ's discourse aligns well with that understanding.
The option of "believe first, then become a sheep" might seem fine at first glance but it provides a problem. That problem is seen in considering two hypothetical twins. Suppose one is saved and one is not. Same family, same culture, same life experiences (go with me here), even brought to the same church services by their parents for 18 years. Yet one is saved and the other is not. What made the difference between the two?
As for the Philippian jailer, Paul and Silas did say what you say. However, the "believe" is an imperative. It is a command to be obeyed or disobeyed. It is not so much a request to be weighed and considered. Who can obey the commands of God? You referred earlier to Romans 8:6. I refer to Romans 8:7, which says, "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot."
Finally, can I ask you a favor? Can you turn off your CAPS LOCK key? I feel like you are shouting at me. I hope you are not.
Hello, Tim.
Welcome to the area. Perhaps Jamie, you, and I can get together sometime. I really like the baked spaghetti at Giovanni's.
I grew up at FBC Taylorsville - way back in the 1970s. We left there when my father left his position at Sugar Loaf to be principal at Hiddenite. I was in the fifth grade. I still have friends there and actually preached in your pulpit back in August 2007. I will add your blog to my Google Reader. Here's mine:
http://jaspry.blogspot.com/
I say "amen" to your desire for charity in discussing theology. I also think that is what is going on here. It is sad that some are not able to talk about this particular issue without the verbal histrionics but the failings of a few do not necessitate the removal of all such discussion from the public forum. As you wrote in your initial blog post, "Theology is best when it happens in conversation." So, you can be Humphreys and I will be George and we will mimic their relationship in polemics and model the two in their irenic interaction.
Now, down to business: Please unpack your understanding of Romans 9.
jeff, i promise to turn off the cap locks key if you'll promise to spell my name lynn instead of lynne.lynne sounds feminine to me. seriously though i wasn't shouting at you .chalk the capitals up to ignorance of blog etiquette.
can we agree that death is seperation from god?the question then is how can we come alive? how can we be reconciled to god?can we agree that the work to accomplish that has already been done?christ now offers life to those who who will accept it and we acceopt it by repentance and faith. the bible says faith is not a work.thats why identical twins can have different destinies.one repents and accepts christs free gift by faith the other doesn't.one accepts,one rejects.but then i understand that you too believe faith plays a role in the salvific process but that god first gives us life and then the faith to believe that he gave it to us.you reference romans 8:7 to show that believe is a command, a command we can't obey unless god makes us obey.but then why doesn't god make it where everybody can obey his command?am i correct in assuming that you believe its because prior to creation god selected certain people for salvation and others for condemnation?if thats the case what i hear you saying is at the great white throne judgement the condemned will have to account for their rejection of christ.god selected them for condemnation so what other choice did they have?he commanded them to have faith in him but didn' give them the ability to do so.they were dead from the beginning they couldn't come to live on thir own and god chose not to give them life so again why are they being held accountable?to use your words theres a problem here.i believe god found greater joy in his creation of humankind then he did with animals. we were created in his image seems to indicate that we can respond to god in a close and personal way. and its his desire that we do so as we repent and exercise faith . he didn't have to create
mankind but he did. he didn't have to give us the ability to respond to his offer of salvation but he did. god is so great he can allow certain abilities to humankind and still be totally sovereign.i've told you what you believe now i'm sure you'll tell me what you believe.
Post a Comment