The inalienable right of self-government had been violated; the POTUS (without even the constitutional requisite of Congressional approval) had declared war against sovereign States, which had only exercised their constitutional rights.

Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune was ably advocating the right of the Southern States to peaceably withdraw from the Union, and pointing out the folly of the claim that the General Government had any right to coerce them. Among other things he said: "If the Cotton States shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The Right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless." Again: "We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets." And again: "If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the British Empire of 3 million colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5 million Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861."

But what did Lee say? Lee regarded his allegiance to the sovereign State of Virginia as paramount to all others, and that he must obey her voice at whatever sacrifice of feeling, or of personal interest. He regarded any attempt to "pin the States in the Union with the bayonet" as a violation of the fundamental principles for which the fathers fought in 1776.

In his letter of resignation from his commission in the Army (after being offered the supreme command of the army that was to take the field against the seceded States) he says…

"Save in defense of my native State, I never desire again to draw my sword." –R. E. Lee

In our day we are so far removed from the foundations of freedom that it is hard of us to understand Americans like Robert E. Lee.

[Quotes from Life & Letters of General Robert E. Lee by J. W. Jones]

The darwinites are arrogantly confident that our existence is explained by macro-evolution. Those who oppose them are just uninformed, or even worse they are religious. Unconcerned as to why we exist, they are left with nothing but the impersonal, and the impersonal has nothing to say.

We are still waiting for them to address the basics like how do systems naturally become more complex without the application of intelligent, not raw energy and how the personal man evolves from the impersonal matter or energy.

But never mind this stuff they say, how can we convince ourselves and deceive others that the fossil record proves our theory when in reality the fossils testify against it. Welcome to the new and broken scientific method…the theory must be saved no matter what the data says.

Men cannot long hold to nonsense in the realm of science no matter how deep their enmity against their Creator. Macro-evolution will fall silently into obscurity as soon as science invents some credible evidence of extra-terrestrial life. Then the panspermians will have the same problems of existence only removed from the earth.

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/aliens_all_001027-1.html

Extra-terrestrial life is the answer, but autonomous man will suppress the truth in unrighteousness. What is the most reasonable source of water and organic material in the known universe? Why not consider that earth is the home planet of the comets?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html

In this day of easy believism we know that many will profess to know Christ, but are not known by Him and are identified as lawless [Matthew 7:22-23]. The definition of Christian is reduced to anyone making a profession of belief in Christ independent of the eye witness apostolic testimony that defines Him. To appeal to the New Testament to define the meaning of Christ and Christian is not acceptable to those who reject the authority of the Bible.

What do we know of Christ and how do we know the truth about Christianity except what is revealed in the Bible. Christ as the Great Shepherd of the sheep defines who are the Christians and what they believe…’My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me’ [John 10:27]. Therefore, for someone to profess Christ and yet not believe and follow His doctrine reveals himself to be deceived. The world loves to profess a Jesus made in the image of a modern liberal. The real Jesus is despised and rejected of men.

In the OT Messiah is prophesied as the messenger of the everlasting covenant. He is ‘given as a light to the Gentiles to open the blind eyes and to free the captives that sit in darkness’ [Isaiah 42:6-7]. On this side of the cross who but the blind would deny that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of the blood atonement of Christ for the sins of His people. This is the good news prophesized by Jeremiah…’[The Lord] will be merciful to their iniquities, and remember their sins no more’ [Hebrews 8:12].

We give men the impression that it is a matter of making a decision to become a Christian. We deceive them into thinking that it is within their power to be saved. Faith is their ticket to heaven, and the content of their faith is not to be questioned.

But what says the Scripture? Because we are ‘dead in trespass and sin’ men are incapable of exercising saving faith until renewed by the Holy Spirit. It was this that Jesus testified when He said ‘that no one could come unto Him except it were given unto him of the Father and except the Father draw him’ [John 6:44 & 65]. We must remember that, ‘Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ [John 3:3]. Surely seeing the kingdom of God is the act of faith and such faith is impossible apart from regeneration. The regenerate are the ones who see and enter into the kingdom. These are the New Covenant Christians who are ruled by Christ’s Word through the Spirit. These are the members of the living temple being built by God. [I Peter 2]

So the gospel message goes out…’these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead’ [Acts 17:30].

As in the days of Noah the mocking of God and His people will not stop until judgment falls. The God deniers of today believe the fossils prove the theory of evolution. They are ‘willingly ignorant’ of the plain truth that the fossil record is testimony in stone of the mass destruction of contemporary life forms. In favor of Mr. Darwin, they reject the testimony of Jesus Christ. ‘As it was in the days of Noah so it shall be at the coming of the Son of Man’ [Luke 17:26]. Let the mockers have there day of mocking for ‘whoever believes in Jesus will not be put to shame’ [II Peter 3; Romans 9:33].

In Deuteronomy 28 the principles of blessing and cursing related to the adherence to God’s Law are given to the nation of Israel. Do this and live and prosper. Disobey and fall under calamity and judgment. Why did Israel turn away from God? Israel became an apostate nation because of unbelief; they did not heed the warnings of impending judgment.

We realize that the West is not Old Testament Israel, but are there not spiritual principles to be gleaned from God’s dealings with them that apply to all nations? In the following sense the answer is yes…the nature of man does not change as a function of generation nor of national origin and the moral Law of God is constant, because He is immutable. The principles of human conduct and divine moral government are always operative.

Consider just a couple of symptoms that fall under the category of judgment leading to the destruction of nations…

‘The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail’ [Deuteronomy 28:43-44].

The increase in national debt and loss of national identity should grab our attention.

In Franklin’s autobiography, he reminisced about his experiences and conversations with George Whitefield. Here are some excerpts from Franklin's autobiography. Herein is a glimpse of Whitefield’s doctrine, his preaching and its effect on his hearers and the culture. Franklin’s reverent humor is remarkable…

In 1739 arrived among us from Ireland the Reverend Mr. Whitefield, who had made himself remarkable there as an itinerant preacher. He was at first permitted to preach in some of our churches; but the clergy, taking a dislike to him, soon refus'd him their pulpits, and he was oblig'd to preach in the fields. The multitudes of all sects and denominations that attended his sermons were enormous, and it was matter of speculation to me, who was one of the number, to observe the extraordinary influence of his oratory on his hearers, and how much they admir'd and respected him, notwithstanding his common abuse of them, by assuring them that they were naturally half beasts and half devils. It was wonderful to see the change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seem'd as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro' the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.

[Whitefield went to open air preaching because the religious establishment would not give him a forum and because there was insufficient room for the crowds to hear him. Note Franklin’s impression of Whitefield’s doctrine of man…’his common abuse of them’. Also, note the effect of his preaching…’it seem'd as if all the world were growing religious’.]

And it being found inconvenient to assemble in the open air, subject to its inclemencies, the building of a house to meet in was no sooner propos'd, and persons appointed to receive contributions, but sufficient sums were soon receiv'd to procure the ground and erect the building, which was one hundred feet long and seventy broad, about the size of Westminster Hall; and the work was carried on with such spirit as to be finished in a much shorter time than could have been expected. Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.

[Seeds of the religious freedom found in the first amendment.]

Mr. Whitefield, in leaving us, went preaching all the way thro' the colonies to Georgia. The settlement of that province had lately been begun, but, instead of being made with hardy, industrious husbandmen, accustomed to labor, the only people fit for such an enterprise, it was with families of broken shop-keepers and other insolvent debtors, many of indolent and idle habits, taken out of the jails, who, being set down in the woods, unqualified for clearing land, and unable to endure the hardships of a new settlement, perished in numbers, leaving many helpless children unprovided for. The sight of their miserable situation inspir'd the benevolent heart of Mr. Whitefield with the idea of building an Orphan House there, in which they might be supported and educated. Returning northward, he preach'd up this charity, and made large collections, for his eloquence had a wonderful power over the hearts and purses of his hearers, of which I myself was an instance.

I did not disapprove of the design, but, as Georgia was then destitute of materials and workmen, and it was proposed to send them from Philadelphia at a great expense, I thought it would have been better to have built the house here, and brought the children to it. This I advis'd; but he was resolute in his first project, rejected my counsel, and I therefore refus'd to contribute. I happened soon after to attend one of his sermons, in the course of which I perceived he intended to finish with a collection, and I silently resolved he should get nothing from me, I had in my pocket a handful of copper money, three or four silver dollars, and five pistoles in gold. As he proceeded I began to soften, and concluded to give the coppers. Another stroke of his oratory made me asham'd of that, and determin'd me to give the silver; and he finish'd so admirably, that I empty'd my pocket wholly into the collector's dish, gold and all. At this sermon there was also one of our club, who, being of my sentiments respecting the building in Georgia, and suspecting a collection might be intended, had, by precaution, emptied his pockets before he came from home. Towards the conclusion of the discourse, however, he felt a strong desire to give, and apply'd to a neighbour, who stood near him, to borrow some money for the purpose. The application was unfortunately [made] to perhaps the only man in the company who had the firmness not to be affected by the preacher. His answer was, “At any other time, Friend Hopkinson, I would lend to thee freely; but not now, for thee seems to be out of thy right senses.”

Some of Mr. Whitefield's enemies affected to suppose that he would apply these collections to his own private emolument; but I who was intimately acquainted with him (being employed in printing his Sermons and Journals, etc.), never had the least suspicion of his integrity, but am to this day decidedly of opinion that he was in all his conduct a perfectly honest man, and methinks my testimony in his favour ought to have the more weight, as we had no religious connection. He us'd, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard. Ours was a mere civil friendship, sincere on both sides, and lasted to his death.

[Does Franklin here confess that he became a believer after Whitefield’s death?]

The following instance will show something of the terms on which we stood. Upon one of his arrivals from England at Boston, he wrote to me that he should come soon to Philadelphia, but knew not where he could lodge when there, as he understood his old friend and host, Mr. Benezet, was removed to Germantown. My answer was, “You know my house; if you can make shift with its scanty accommodations, you will be most heartily welcome.” He reply'd, that if I made that kind offer for Christ's sake, I should not miss of a reward. And I returned, “Don't let me be mistaken; it was not for Christ's sake, but for your sake.” One of our common acquaintance jocosely remark'd, that, knowing it to be the custom of the saints, when they received any favour, to shift the burden of the obligation from off their own shoulders, and place it in heaven, I had contriv'd to fix it on earth.

We have spent some time supporting the claim that Calvinism didn’t originate with Calvin. The doctrines of grace are readily found in the writings of Augustine, who is rightly called the theologian of grace. Other than the apostle of grace, Augustine is the most quoted source of the Reformers.

Is the controversy over sovereign grace and free will just a matter of theological debate with no practical applications in faith and practice? Did Augustine contend for the faith in his controversy with the Pelagians and the semi-Pelagians? Did the Reformers contend for the faith in their rediscovery of the doctrines of grace? Yes! And what doctrine is it that they contended against? Men are not ruined and helpless sinners totally dependent on the grace of God. He is not dead in sin, rather he can cooperate with God in his spiritual rebirth.

We will demonstrate from church history that this controversy is not merely a matter of theological debate, but has very practical implications in the area of evangelism. These systems of thought produce a distinctive method of evangelism that is characterized by distinctively different results.

We plan to start with Whitefield and Wesley from the era of the Great Awakening and then cover Nettleton and Finney from the Second Great Awakening.

In our day more is known of Wesley and Finney. Whitefield and Nettleton are the forgotten evangelists from forgotten revivals. They have much to teach us since they preached a message that produced much lasting fruit. Their theology did not keep them from the work of the evangelist, rather it encouraged them in their labors, knowing that God had a people that would respond to the preaching of revealed truth.

In their day there were no need for the extra-Biblical doctrine of a ‘carnal Christian’ to explain why the churches had no power and the rolls didn’t match attendance. The gospel went forth with power and men fell under the conviction of sin and pleaded with God for mercy.

The Lord forces no one against his will. He renews the heart so that men can see their lost condition and see the glory of Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and King. A renewed man will not long be separated from the One that gave him life. He will repent and believe the gospel not only at his conversion, but whenever he falls into sin, he learns again that the grace of God is greater than our sin.

There is a case to be made for slavery in the Bible from Genesis 9:20-27, but why make the case among those who already hold the Bible in contempt.

Much in the Bible in the physical realm speaks a deeper message in the spiritual. The sons of Israel went into slavery in Egypt and suffered a cruel bondage under an evil taskmaster. What are we to glean from the Exodus narrative?

How are men to escape their captivity? Imagine Moses going to Pharaoh declaring that the people had decided to be free. If you can imagine that, then can you imagine that they had the power to make it happen? The power of God was revealed to liberate the children of Israel.

In Romans 6 the apostle picks up the gospel message given to him by Christ. Men are bound and enslaved to their sin. But unlike slavery in the physical realm, in the spiritual realm men do not realize that they are in bondage; they are deceived, thinking that they are free. How are men to escape a captivity of which they are ignorant? Herein is the power of the gospel; the same power that raised Christ from the dead raises every believer from their spiritual deadness. A deadness that reveals itself as slavery to sin. [Ephesians 1&2]

Consider the story of Joseph. He was sold into slavery, but learned the eternal truth that the sovereignty of God overrules the sins of men. In doing so he became a great encouragement for those who suffer unjustly and a picture of the seed of Abraham who would come with great power in the sword of the Spirit. He would suffer persecution, but keep entrusting Himself to the One who justifies. [Isaiah 50:4-9]

The great preacher of the New Covenant said these words to the Church fulfilling the promise made to Abraham that all nations would be blessed in his seed…

‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise’ [Galatians 3:28-29].

It is the good news of grace that ends slavery; first in the spiritual realm, then in the physical.

by Charles Wesley, 1739

A sermon preached during The Great Awakening by Jonathan Edwards

The main subject of the doctrinal part of this epistle, is the free grace of God in the salvation of men by Christ Jesus; especially as it appears in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And the more clearly to evince this doctrine, and show the reason of it, the apostle, in the first place, establishes that point, that no flesh living can be justified by the deeds of the law. And to prove it, he is very large and particular in showing, that all mankind, not only the Gentiles, but Jews, are under sin, and so under the condemnation of the law; which is what he insists upon from the beginning of the epistle to this place.

He first begins with the Gentiles; and in the first chapter shows that they are under sin, by setting forth the exceeding corruptions and horrid wickedness that overspread the Gentile world: and then through the second chapter, and the former part of this third chapter, to the text and following verse, he shows the same of the Jews, that they also are in the same circumstances with the Gentiles in this regard. They had a high thought of themselves, because they were God's covenant people, and circumcised, and the children of Abraham. They despised the Gentiles as polluted, condemned, and accursed; but looked on themselves, on account of their external privileges, and ceremonial and moral righteousness, as a pure and holy people, and the children of God; as the apostle observes in the second chapter.

It was therefore strange doctrine to them, that they also were unclean and guilty in God's sight, and under the condemnation and curse of the law. The apostle does therefore, on account of their strong prejudices against such doctrine, the more particularly insists upon it, and shows that they are no better than the Gentiles; and as in the 9th verse of this chapter, "What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise; for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." And, to convince them of it, he then produces certain passages out of their own law, or the Old Testament, (to whose authority they pretend a great regard,) from the ninth verse to our text.

And it may be observed, that the apostle, first, cites certain passages to prove that all mankind are corrupt, (verses 10-12.) "As it is written, there is none righteous, no not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God: They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no not one." Secondly, the passages he cites next, are to prove, that not only all are corrupt, but each one wholly corrupt, as it were all over unclean, from the crown of the head to the soles of his feet; and therefore several particular parts of the body are mentioned, the throat, the tongue, the lips, the mouth, the feet, (verses 13-15.) "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood." And, Thirdly, he quotes other passages to show, that each one is not only all over corrupt, but corrupt to a desperate degree, by affirming the most pernicious tendency of their wickedness; "Destruction and misery are in their ways." And then by denying all goodness or godliness in them; "And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes."

And then, lest the Jews should think these passages of their law do not concern them, and only the Gentiles are intended in them, the apostle shows in the text, not only that they are not exempt, but that they especially must be understood: "Now we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." By those that are under the law is meant the Jews; and the Gentiles by those that are without law; as appears by the 12th verse of the preceding chapter. There is a special reason to understand the law, as speaking to and of them, to whom it was immediately given. And therefore the Jews would be unreasonable in exempting themselves. And if we examine the places of the Old Testament whence these passages are taken, we shall see plainly that special respect is had to the wickedness of the people of that nation, in every one of them.

So that the law shuts all up in universal and desperate wickedness, that every mouth may be stopped; the mouths of the Jews, as well as of the Gentiles, notwithstanding all those privileges by which they were distinguished from the Gentiles.
The things that the law says, are sufficient to stop the mouths of all mankind, in two respects.

1.To stop them from boasting of their righteousness, as the Jews were wont to do; as the apostle observes in the 23rd verse of the preceding chapter.- That the apostle has respect to stopping their mouths in this respect, appears by the 27th verse of the context, "Where is boasting then? It is excluded." The law stops our mouths from making any plea for life, or the favor of God, or any positive good, from our own righteousness.

2.To stop them from making any excuse for ourselves, or objection against the execution of the sentence of the law, or the infliction of the punishment that it threatens. That it is intended, appears by the words immediately following, "That all the world may become guilty before God." That is, that they may appear to be guilty, and stand convicted before God, and justly liable to the condemnation of his law, as guilty of death, according to the Jewish way of speaking.

And thus the apostle proves, that no flesh can be justified in God's sight by the deeds of the law; as he draws the conclusion in the following verse; and so prepares the way for establishing of the great doctrine of justification by faith alone, which he proceeds to do in the following part of the chapter, and of the epistle.

DOCTRINE

"It is just with God eternally to cast off and destroy sinners."- For this is the punishment which the law condemns to- The truth of this doctrine may appear by the joint consideration of two things, viz. Man's sinfulness, and God's sovereignty…

http://www.jonathan-edwards.org/

Excerpt for Whitefield's letter to Wesley regarding the justice of God.

 
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/wesley.htm

Fourth, I shall now proceed to another head. Says the dear Mr. Wesley, "How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings?"

But who ever asserted, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings? Do not they who believe God's dooming men to everlasting burnings, also believe, that God looked upon them as men fallen in Adam? And that the decree which ordained the punishment first regarded the crime by which it was deserved? How then are they doomed without any preceding fault?

Surely Mr. Wesley will own God's justice in imputing Adam's sin to his posterity. And also, after Adam fell, and his posterity in him, God might justly have passed them all by, without sending his own Son to be a saviour for any one. Unless you heartily agree to both these points, you do not believe original sin aright. If you do own them, then you must acknowledge the doctrine of election and reprobation to be highly just and reasonable. For if God might justly impute Adam's sin to all, and afterwards have passed by all, then he might justly pass by some.

Turn on the right hand, or on the left; you are reduced to an inextricable dilemma. And, if you would be consistent, you must either give up the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin, or receive the amiable doctrine of election, with a holy and righteous reprobation as its consequent. For whether you can believe it or not, the Word of God abides faithful: "The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded" (Rom. 11:7).

This article is a reply to the Catholic defender of Holy Writ who is confident that he is defending the ‘Church founded by Christ’ against the horrors of Augustinianism, better known as Calvinism.

You say...'I am defending the bible and the Church founded by Christ.' Dear sir this statement fills up the cup of my patience with you.

No sir! You are defending the RCC and its false doctrine. You deny that it is the Scriptures that resulted in the great Protestant Reformation of the Church of Christ. The doctrines of Augustine were rediscovered by an Augustinian monk and could not be denied. As in the days of Christ, the Reformers loved truth more than life.

The RCC is like Old Testament Israel. Because it rejected the words of Christ its house is left desolate. As the Jewish man, the man of the RCC is hardened against the grace of God. Your forefathers in the faith are the Pharisees, not the apostles. God raised up men to testify of the truth like Augustine. After nearly 1000 years of wandering in the wilderness of heresy and corruption God raised up another voice of truth. He was a student of Augustine and found the grace of God in his work of translating the Latin Bible into English. God raised up another to translate the Bible’s original language into English.

Now what did the RCC do to these men. The first was exhumed and his bones were burned and the ashes scattered as if this would prevent God from raising his body on the Last Day; the second was burned alive.

You like to say that the RCC gave us the Bible. No sir! The RCC chained the Bible and restricted the people’s access to it. The RCC resisted the work of translation into the common tongues. It is the Reformers that gave us an open Bible. Those that loved Augustine’s doctrine of grace loved their Lord and His Word more than their life. They followed the Lord in sealing their testimony with their own blood to give us the Word of life.

Now you say you are defending the Bible? There would be no Bible to defend if it weren’t for the blood of the martyrs. Will you defend the Bible they gave us by denying their doctrine? God forbid! The Bible needs no defense from the RCC. As in centuries past it is the Bible that condemns the apostasy of the RCC and the Jews.

And before I am condemned as anti-Semitic and anti-RCC, the Scriptures also condemn the same apostasy in today’s Protestant churches. In most cases there is nothing Reformed about them. They are given over to Arminianism and Scofieldism in their faith and practice.

We thank God for the many faithful preachers of grace He has given to His Church. These men are precious gifts of the Lord. If you are privileged to know one, then give thanks for him and esteem him highly. Is there to be a mighty Reformer raised up from within the Protestant church? The Lord knows what is best for His Church. He purchased her with His own blood and has given her many precious promises. Let us be about the work, knowing that in the Lord our labor is not in vain.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.chapter25.html

Now, after the apostle had commended God's mercy in saying, "So then, there is no question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God's showing mercy," next in order he intends to speak also of his judgment—for where his mercy is not shown, it is not unfairness but justice. For with God there is no injustice. Thus, he immediately added, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, that I may show through you my power, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." [Romans 9:17; Exodus 9:16]

Then, having said this, he draws a conclusion that looks both ways, that is, toward mercy and toward judgment: "Therefore," he says, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom he willeth he hardeneth." He showeth mercy out of his great goodness; he hardeneth out of no unfairness at all. In this way, neither does he who is saved have a basis for glorying in any merit of his own; nor does the man who is damned have a basis for complaining of anything except what he has fully merited. For grace alone separates the redeemed from the lost, all having been mingled together in the one mass of perdition, arising from a common cause which leads back to their common origin.

But if any man hears this in such a way as to say: "Why then does he find fault? For who resists his will?" [Romans 9:19]—as if to make it seem that man should not therefore be blamed for being evil because God "hath mercy on whom he willeth and whom he willeth he hardeneth"—God forbid that we should be ashamed to give the same reply as we see the apostle giving: "O man, who are you to reply to God? Does the molded object say to the molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Or is not the potter master of his clay, to make from the same mass one vessel for honorable, another for ignoble, use?" [Romans 9:20-21]

There are some stupid men who think that in this part of the argument the apostle had no answer to give; and, for lack of a reasonable rejoinder, simply rebuked the audacity of his gainsayer. But what he said—"O man, who are you?"—has actually great weight and in an argument like this recalls man, in a single word, to consider the limits of his capacity and, at the same time, supplies an important explanation.

For if one does not understand these matters, who is he to talk back to God? And if one does understand, he finds no better ground even then for talking back. For if he understands, he sees that the whole human race was condemned in its apostate head by a divine judgment so just that not even if a single member of the race were ever saved from it, no one could rail against God's justice. And he also sees that those who are saved had to be saved on such terms that it would show—by contrast with the greater number of those not saved but simply abandoned to their wholly just damnation—what the whole mass deserved and to what end God's merited judgment would have brought them, had not his undeserved mercy interposed. Thus every mouth of those disposed to glory in their own merits should be stopped, so that "he that glories may glory in the Lord." [I Corinthians 1:31]

God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
A reply to WorldlyWiseMan...Why is Calvinism so hated?

Men like to think more highly of themselves than they ought, as evidenced by the recent posts of Mr. Thomas under the article ‘A Brief History of Pelagianism 2.'

‘Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.’ [I Corinthians 8:2]

We are grieved that anyone would disparage the preachers of grace given to the church like Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Edwards. Augustine identifies Paul as the ‘great preacher of grace’ whom he wished to follow. So it is the Gospel that is being disparaged.

However, we thank Mr. Thomas for revealing his mind. He is honest about the offensive nature of the doctrines of grace. Most men are more reserved in their offense. The doctrines of total depravity of men and an absolute Sovereign God who works all things after the counsel of His own will, including the salvation of lost and helpless men is distasteful; we do not deny this. It lays our pride in the dust. Rather than bow to such a God, we will devise schemes that deny the plain meaning of the Scriptures. As finite men our attempts to magnify the atonement actually weaken it. Our attempts to make sure that God remains just results in His injustice.

Consider that our pride must be conquered before we can begin to come to God. Jesus said, ‘I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ Is grace not the most effective principle for putting our pride to death? And which doctrine elevates the grace of God?

Nothing exalts grace more than the apostles’ doctrine of grace. It is Augustine’s doctrine of grace. It is Calvin’s doctrine of grace in a systematic theology. It is the Gospel that God saves sinners.

Will you stand with the preachers of grace who preached the revivals of grace? There are many in church history. Let’s look at them closer…

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.chapter25.html

98. Furthermore, who would be so impiously foolish as to say that God cannot turn the evil wills of men—as he willeth, when he willeth, and where he willeth—toward the good? But, when he acteth, he acteth through mercy; when he doth not act, it is through justice. For, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth; and whom he willeth, he hardeneth." [Romans 9:18]

Now when the apostle said this, he was commending grace, of which he had just spoken in connection with the twin children in Rebecca's womb: “Before they had yet been born, or had done anything good or bad, in order that the electing purpose of God might continue—not through works but through the divine calling—it was said of them, 'The elder shall serve the younger.'“ [Romans 9:11-12] Accordingly, he refers to another prophetic witness, where it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau have I hated." [Malachi 1:2-3; Romans 9:13] Then, realizing how what he said could disturb those whose understanding could not penetrate to this depth of grace, he adds: "What therefore shall we say to this? Is there unrighteousness in God? God forbid!" [Romans 9:14]

Yet it does seem unfair that, without any merit derived from good works or bad, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good deeds of the one, and evil deeds of the other—which God, of course, foreknew—he would never have said "not of good works" but rather "of future works." Thus he would have solved the difficulty; or, rather, he would have left no difficulty to be solved. As it is, however, when he went on to exclaim, "God forbid!"—that is, "God forbid that there should be unfairness in God"—he proceeds immediately to add (to prove that no unfairness in God is involved here), "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will show pity to whom I will show pity.'" [Romans 9:15]

Now, who but a fool would think God unfair either when he imposes penal judgment on the deserving or when he shows mercy to the undeserving? Finally, the apostle concludes and says, "Therefore, it is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs but of God's showing mercy." [Romans 9:15]

Thus, both the twins were "by nature children of wrath," [Ephesians 2:3] not because of any works of their own, but because they were both bound in the fetters of damnation originally forged by Adam. But He who said, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," loved Jacob in unmerited mercy, yet hated Esau with merited justice. Since this judgment [of wrath] was due them both, the former learned from what happened to the other that the fact that he had not, with equal merit, incurred the same penalty gave him no ground to boast of his own distinctive merits—but, instead, that he should glory in the abundance of divine grace, because "it is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God's showing mercy." [Romans 9:16]

And, indeed, the whole visage of Scripture and, if I may speak so, the lineaments of its countenance, are found to exhibit a mystery, most profound and salutary, to admonish all who carefully look thereupon "that he who glories, should glory in the Lord." [I Corinthians 1:31; quote from Jeremiah 9:24]

Original Sin and Free Will

Pelagius’ position on Original Sin is stated in this way, "Adam was created mortal and would have died even if he had never sinned." Augustine said, "Adam was created good and upright, he was happy and in communion with God…Adam would not have died if he had not sinned but that he was on trial, and when he failed his depravity was communicated to his offspring throughout history so that the Old and New Testaments speak of man's depravity from Genesis to Revelation." [Genesis 6; Psalm 51; Jeremiah 17:9; John 6:44; Matthew 15; Ephesians 1; Romans 3:11-23].

Augustine argued to Pelagius that Adam had the ability to sin and the ability to not sin before the fall, but since the fall in his disobedience, death came through Adam in his sin [Genesis 3; Romans 5:12-21]. Adam was on trial and chosen by God to represent the human race, therefore because of his failure and disobedience to God, Adam's offspring are born in sin with inability to not sin.

Augustine taught that man still has freewill, but his will is in bondage to the sinful nature and he cannot do what is godly, only that which fallen man desires, which is never focused godward [Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 2; John 6:44].

Augustine wrote, "Adam fell into a state of total and hopeless ruin, of which the proper ending is eternal death." Many Church theologians would agree with this doctrine articulated by Augustine, and these Augustinian doctrines would be repeated in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, Luther's Bondage of the Will, and John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Pelagius argued with Augustine that God would not command us in the Law to live a particular way if he did not also give us this ability. He wrote to Augustine that Adam represented Adam only and that man cannot be placed on trial because of someone else. "Adam's sin merely set an ill example, which [man] has been quick to follow. Hence they almost all need to be set right…but after baptism man has full power and duty to keep the divine law."

Man is responsible for the keeping of the law and his resistance to sin by himself. The obvious sinfulness in man in the fallen creation must have an ability to not sin, it is only that they tend to sin because we are born in a society where evil prevails. Men are born innocent, but the society that is evil seems to prevail upon them causing them to be bad. Augustine asked him, "How can society be evil when made up of men that are not fallen, because society should not be evil, but good if men are born good."

Pelagius was much like Socrates in his teaching of education and knowledge being the foundation of righteousness. Moral problems can be solved and evil can be done away with merely through education, Pelagius would say. Augustine responded that we would only end with sophisticated, educated crooks and that man is by nature sinful and fallen and only God's Grace can make the evil heart of man good. Augustine defined evil, rather than ignorance, as the absence of the good.

Pelagius said that Christ came to educate man and bring him knowledge of God and his condition. His death was only an example of the evil of sin, rather than a vicarious atonement where Christ's righteousness is applied to His people.

Augustine clearly articulated that God does command what man cannot do because of the fall of man into sin and misery. Augustine taught that because of this inborn nature and freewill to do only that which is evil and not godly, then man was by nature an object of wrath, as Paul had taught in Ephesians 2, and in Romans 3 and 8.

The gospel taught all sinners that Christ came to "set the captives free" by living a perfect life in sinful man's stead, and dying, taking the wrath of God upon himself although innocent, and applying his righteousness to a particular people. Augustine wrote: "…man's good deserts are themselves the gift of God, so that when these obtain the recompense of eternal life, it is simply grace given for grace."

According to Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, a tree is either good or evil at root. You know the tree by the fruit it bears, or to make this a human analogy: that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Paul wrote that man is at enmity with God, fallen and under the wrath of God, children of the devil. Augustine concludes his arguments for his statement "Command what thou desirest; and give what thou commandest," by stressing that if Pelagius disagrees with him, he has to disagree with the teachings of Christ. Christ taught that "no man can come to him unless it is given by the father," and "The Spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing…without me you can do nothing" [John 6; Matthew 5].

[Credits: Pastor C. R. Biggs]