Which of the 5 points was the hardest to grasp?

[Larry Hughes]

Josh,

Yep, I'd agree John 6 was biggest hammer for me. My first "greeny" shock when I learned of election and all its implications regarding free will was the reaction against it. I was honestly innocently shocked. I was pretty green that it was a lightening rod and at that point didn't know much about the church in general. I use to think, what's so hard to believe about it the total depravity of man, I've seen my inward heart thinking - seems quite reasonable to me...get over yourself. Early on for myself outward sins bothered me much less than what I felt and knew my heart was churning out that no one else could see. So, that helped a lot.

Plus, the whole idea, and the was early on, of God looking down the very cooridoors of time to see faith seemed a bit contradictory to me.

The definitive atheist Fredrick N. even saw it in Romans 9 and he thought it repugnant. I found that fascinating, that a raw atheist could clearly read that passage and see it, in terms of the clear language - yet many Christians deny it and bend the words to the point of unrecognizability.

Benjamin Franklin once set out to be more humble. To do this he decided to track his progress. After a couple of weeks of practicing humility he observed his good track record, then something occurred to him. The more humility he practiced the more prideful with his progress he got. He never could get past it. Yet, another proof of total depravity and all being tainted by sin.

Larry

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
The definitive atheist Fredrick N. even saw it in Romans 9 and he thought it repugnant. I found that fascinating, that a raw atheist could clearly read that passage and see it, in terms of the clear language - yet many Christians deny it and bend the words to the point of unrecognizability.

Actually, with the doctrine of election, that actually makes sense to me, and I see and hear of it often as well: The text is so plain and clear on what it is saying about God's absolute sovereign election of some to light and others to darkness, that it seems nearly everyone who reads it must *know* to one degree or another what it's really saying, since it could hardly be more blunt...the thing is, of course atheists aren't afraid to admit that that really is what Romans 9 claims, because admitting that doesn't make a difference in their view on election...but a Bible-believing Christian who's not ready to let go of his or her comfortable autonomy has a lot more at stake in admitting the plain meaning of that text, since for them that would mean they actually have to embrace it! So they try to do anything they can to explain it away to themselves and others, covering up the obvious true meaning because of what they know it would force them to believe, unlike the unregenerate heathen who couldn't care less what the Bible claims about election.

 

[turmeric]

Because of the way in which I was converted I had no trouble with Total Depravity or irresistible Grace, Limited Atonement was hard because it went against everything I had been taught, but The Death of Death in The Death of Christ by John Owen helped me understand it. Still don't understand, though I believe, Unconditional Election. i know there's nothing good in us, but I'm sure God isn't just being random.

 

[a mere housewife]

My dad taught us reformed theology every evening when we were little: I didn't struggle too seriously with any of it, though I did sometimes wonder why God would choose some people and not others-- wasn't that unfair? When I was a teenager I still didn't doubt any of it, I just didn't like the idea that God was infringing on my rights: what an egotistical God. I (the non-egotist, of course) was going to abuse whatever freedom I had in protest, and I decided "Not God-- not that kind of God." But God decided, "Yes, you," and I came running. I've never had any problems with any of it since-- I have no right to have any problem with it.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

The L.

Arthur Custance's book 'The Sovereignty of Grace' and James White's 'The Potters' Freedom' nailed it for me. Custance's book (chapter 8) is the best treatment of LA I've seen to date (I do still have other books to read, though.....).

Custance's book is online at www.custance.org, by the way.

Over time, I've come to 'grow stronger' on the L. Once you realize WHAT the atonement is and WHO the entire process of redemption was intended for, it's kinda hard not to hold the L. Otherwise, you end up with a God who punishes sins twice - once in Christ and twice in the unbeliever.

 

[Ianterrell]

So true Kerry. That's why the doctrine is so clear.

 

[Augusta]

But God decided, "Yes, you," and I came running. I've never had any problems with any of it since-- I have no right to have any problem with it.

Heidi this is what I have told myself when I start to get namby pamby about election. I know that I should love God's decrees because they are perfectly righteous and perfectly just.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
So true Kerry. That's why the doctrine is so clear.

The other biggie on the 'L' for me is that it is intimately linked to the other four points - the blessings and benefits bestowed upon the believer via relationship with Christ are directly benefits of the atonement. So those who are elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son (Rom. 8:29-30) - these are the ones He redeemed. If you apply universal redemption to that, you have EVERYONE being predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son.... which is ludicrous .............
(not to be confused with Ludacris , who dislikes Bill O'Reilly)

[Edited on 1-2-2005 by OS_X]

 

[bigheavyq]

mine is election. once you agree with that everything else fits into place. My wife agrees with the first four but has a hard time with the P.