LaRosa Johnson {dot} com

A few weeks ago at Austin Bible Church we finished our latest module of systematic theology, which consisted of reading through Lewis Sperry Chafer’s volume on Ecclesiology. Overall, it was a very interesting read, although the final chapter was quite a bit anticlimactic in my opinion. Even though the final chapter didn’t provide the conclusion that I was hoping for, Chafer did offer one nugget that I felt was worth sharing here on this blog. In his conclusion he writes the following (emphasis is my own):

In bringing to its end this discussion respecting the entire field of Ecclesiology, it may be restated that a true development of this great theme, if Biblical, must be built on the second Pauline revelation. As asserted at the opening of this treatise on Ecclesiology, the Reformation regained the truth of the first Pauline revelation, namely, justification by faith alone, but did not go on to restore the truth contained in the second revelation. It is altogether possible that the problems attending the restoration of the first revelation, being so far-reaching and revolutionary as a reaction from the Romish perversions of truth, were all that could be undertaken at one time or by one generation. Later studies of the New Testament developed the almost limitless theme of the second revelation. Unfortunately, however, theologians were unprepared to receive any added truth beyond that gained in the Reformation, and Protestant theology has, by a misguided loyalty to orthodoxy, never received the truth contained in the second revelation. It has been assumed that this added truth is dangerous if it was not included in the Reformation attainments and that it must be in conflict with those attainments. Early in the history of Protestantism there were individual theologians who caught the first gleams of truth contained in the second revelation, and an ever increasing light has fallen on this body of truth until today there is a great company of students of doctrine who hold and teach, along with the first revelation, the clear divine unfoldings respecting the Church which is Christ’s Body. Nevertheless, orthodox Reformed theology persists in its original, isolated, and exclusive recognition of the first revelation, and continues to reject and condemn as intrusive and disruptive the great certified findings of those theologians who have given their years of study to the second revelation. So persistent is this self-imposed loyalty to a limited Reformation theology that a complete disruption of orthodox forces has already set in. This is not a controversy between heterodox and orthodox contenders; it is wholly within the orthodox ranks and is properly analyzed as a dissension between those who without worthy investigation of all that is involved restrict their theology to the first Pauline revelation and those who, contending as earnestly for the first revelation, have, with great study and research, gone on to the understanding of the second revelation. The second revelation respecting the Church, if pursued worthily, leads with inexorable logic to such dispensational and general Biblical distinctions as have been set forth in this treatise. An attack against these distinctions cannot be sustained by recourse to the beliefs of Reformers and early theologians; for such is an assumption that there is no progress to be made in the knowledge of truth, that the very light which fell on the Reformers by which they emerged from Romish darkness could not fall upon any others in subsequent years to lead them into wider fields of the understanding of God’s inexhaustible revelation. There is an inherent weakness disclosed in this attitude. It tends to shirk all responsibility in the direction of advancement in the truth and to deify the writings of the Reformers or the writings of the founders of a sect, apparently forgetting for the moment that these worthy scholars made no claim to inspiration nor did they intend to set up a barrier past which no further investigation in the truth should advance. It is no disrespect to Reformers or church fathers to maintain an attitude of open-mindedness in the direction of new understanding of truth which was not accorded to men of earlier generations. No science would be benefited by such slavish assent to supposedly implacable teachers of the past.
Chafer, L. S. (1993). Vol. 4: Systematic theology (249–250). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

To summarize the quote, Chafer is stating that one of the problems persistent in the faith among Christians & theologians is the tendency to stop at a given era of Christian history and claiming only that progression of doctrinal understanding is orthodox. The problem with this is that it has a very natural tendency to flavor one’s understanding of Scripture and the systematizing of theology that comes along with it.

In practice, what does that look like? Let’s say you stopped with the period right before the Reformers set straight the doctrine of soteriology. If your growth & understanding stopped there, you’d likely be a Roman Catholic and all of your understanding would come from that point of view. The same is true if you stop with the Reformers like Luther or Calvin. Many people follow the Reformers, so what’s wrong with that? Honestly, nothing; I read and appreciate their works. The problem lies in the fact that their writings are not God-breathed & inspired, which means that it contains error and they didn’t get everything right. How so? Much like Chafer is saying in the above quote, the Reformers did great in claiming a proper soteriology, but their understanding of ecclesiology was still very Romish. Yet, if you look at the Church history that followed the Reformation, it was this doctrine that began to get unraveled and understood, much in the same way that soteriology was restored in the Reformation.

It’s not a new idea (see James Orr’s The Progress of Dogma), but when you look at Church history as a whole, it’s very interesting to note how closely it lines up with the table of contents for most systematic theologies. In looking at the early church fathers, a lot of what they wrote about and discussed was the matter of canonicity and setting straight some of the core understanding of who God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is, which align with bibliology and theology proper. As you move on you get the Reformers correcting soteriology, followed by the next era tackling ecclesiology, and so on.

Studying Church history makes it pretty obvious that our understanding of Scripture and theology has only expanded with time. Simply stated, we know a lot more now about the Bible and doctrine than previous generations did. What’s more, our current understanding didn’t come from thin air; instead, it was built upon the foundation that our forefathers laid before us. We recognize that Scripture is the source, we evaluate the teachings of those who came before us, accepting & keeping what they got right, and recognizing those areas where they didn’t fully develop some areas of teaching or just altogether missed the mark. This is how we grow and continue to progress in our understanding of Scripture. But, let’s be clear in understanding that I’m not saying that there is new revelation of Scripture (because the canon is closed), but our knowledge of what we do have in Scripture is growing. It’s much like science in many respects. We know & can do things now in science & medicine that couldn’t be done in times past, but only because of the foundation & study that was laid prior and subsequently building upon that foundation. The same is true of theology.

Admittedly, a lot of this requires an open mind. As a said above, if your understanding of Scripture stops at a certain era, then you will undoubtedly have your understanding flavored by that. I would dare say that this is the reason why different schools of theology constantly take issue with one another (i.e. covenant theology vs. dispensationalism).

I could say more, but I think the Chafer quote says it well enough. I’ll close by saying let’s have an open mind when studying the Scriptures and let’s not simply enslave ourselves to the understanding that we’re given by men who came before us. Let’s use them to lay the foundation and then let’s build upon it as we study to show ourselves approved and only holding to what we find true in Scripture. And most importantly, let’s walk in grace toward one another as we do this!

You remember those times when your mom told you to do something because it was for your own good, but you don’t listen because it’s coming from your mom and you know how moms can be about stuff? Now, what do you do when your friends start telling you the same thing? You start listening, right? It starts to sink in, make sense, and you adjust because it’s coming from a different perspective, not just from someone whose advice you’ve learned to ignore.

The other day I had one of those moments. I had previously been told by someone about something I was doing that could be perceived in the wrong way. Because of who it was coming from, I didn’t pay it much mind and brushed it aside thinking that I knew better because they didn’t know the “whole picture.” Well, just the other day I had one of my “boys” come alongside and tell me the exact same thing and that it’d be wise if I knocked it off. Unlike the first time I heard it, this time it struck a chord and almost felt like a dagger making its way into my abdomen. Did this person really just tell me that?! Could they be right?! After much thought, I came to the conclusion that they were right, and that I should have listened to that first person when they advised me.

Needless to say, this series of events has caused me to eat a big slice of humble pie. The blinders are now off and things are looking a lot clearer & making sense. So, stuff will change in regard to the situation. Big ups to the brother who brought it all to my attention!

If I were to be honest, I would have to admit that the past couple of weeks have been really interesting and a true test of my resolve to have patience & rest in Jesus Christ.

Without going into details, there are some matters in my life that are leaving me with a couple of directions to be taken, one of which could completely change things around like nothing else possibly could. That’s fine because any direction I take can be deemed as “good,” at least when looking at it from a distance. The problem lies in the fact that I know only one of them is what God wants, and I want to be one hundred percent sure that I’m lining up with what He wants, and not what may seem best for me at the given time.

Figuring out what God wants isn’t the problem, because I’m sure that I’ll have no doubt what direction to go in when the time is right. The issue right now is that I’m personally ready to make a decision one way or the other to simply get it all over with, but I can’t do that. The circumstances surrounding the decisions to be made demand that I wait before I can move forward. God has chosen to withhold some details in the matter and I’m forced to pray and wait until those details are revealed. I have no qualms with waiting, except for the fact that waiting is giving my imagination an opportunity to run wild with all of the “what if” scenarios that I can possibly come up with, knowing that it only adds to the excitement/frustration.

Even though I hate having to wait, I know that it’s for the best and it’s another object lesson in my spiritual maturity. Will I find rest in the midst of the “storm” that’s surrounding me by leaving it all in His hands? I think I can; I think I am. I can’t help but to think of my friend Pastor Cliff Beveridge and the patience that he & his wife had to endure while waiting to be placed in ministry after his ordination. It took a year before he got an answer, but he was still resting in faith and working faithfully where the Lord had him at that time. I’m hoping that I can live out that same example, finding rest while also being patient, knowing that I have no choice but to wait on the Lord and recognizing that He will make it all clear in His perfect timing. I’m thankful for the fact that I have enough on my plate to keep me busy/distracted because it makes waiting & resting that much easier.

But, I will be glad when all is made clear and a decision can be made.

The last few weeks have been mentally taxing. It’s a rare thing for opportunity to come knocking at the door; and, it’s even rarer for an opportunity to literally knock the door down and place itself in your hand. Well, this is a situation I’ve found myself dealing with.

Now, most people, given the opportunity would jump on it without a second thought. Quite honestly, I would do the exact same thing, and would love nothing more than to take this opportunity up on its offer. But, there’s a catch. You see, the current circumstances surrounding my life are preventing me from accepting the offer, at least for the time being. More than anything, the one thing that’s keeping me from jumping all over this offer is the fact that I’ve committed myself to training my spiritual gift of pastor-teacher, which is something that I am absolutely not willing to abandon, especially not after having put in two years of work. I’m not willing to abandon what I know to be God’s will for my life right now, not even for what may be the opportunity of a lifetime.

In many ways, I know this is nothing more than a test of my resolve to see what’s more important to me. Well, the answer is quite obvious and it was easy to make, although it leaves me mentally taxed with “what ifs” and monkeying with scenarios. The fact of the matter is that I know where God wants me to be right here & right now, which is training my gift, and that’s where I’m going to stay.

Even though it’s not remotely related, I can’t help but to think of Saul when he was given orders to destroy the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15). He followed Samuel’s instructions except for the fact that he kept back some of the choice livestock, instead of destroying it all as the Lord had commanded. It was at this point that God rejected Saul and his line as king over Israel. Although it doesn’t completely relate to my circumstance, it has taught me the importance of complete obedience to the Lord, and not just following His instruction partly. The words of Samuel in 1 Samuel 15:22 still ring in my ears, “to obey is better than sacrifice.” The rest of what he says hits pretty hard too.

I feel that if I took this opportunity right now, I’d be putting myself in the same situation as Saul when he didn’t completely obey the Lord. I have my instructions (finish my training), and I have to see that through, and not just do it halfway, even if I think this opportunity may benefit me & still be honoring to God. The fact is that this is most honoring to God, so that’s where I need to be. If the Lord wills, the door of opportunity will remain open until my training is complete and the Lord allows for me to take hold of it; otherwise, I will view this as a matter of testing to see where my heart and focus are. I will say that I appreciate the opportunity set before me, but it’s not worth squandering what God has placed before me.

I’ve been thinking about this topic lately, and I thought about it some tonight while I was driving to my Hebrew class. Am I too nonchalant about things?

For the most part, I’m a calm guy and it takes a lot to get me riled up (my kids are another story, LOL). Life is stressful & busy, but even that doesn’t bother me or make me lose my cool. I roll with the punches and keep on going. Sometimes, though, I wonder if this is such a good thing. A perfect example would be my finances. My money is tight, sometimes in the red. Does that bother me? Not really. Sure, it concerns me and I do what I can to better manage my money, but I don’t let it get to me or bend me out of shape. I remain cool about it all. I’ll find out about stuff that’s going on with my family, like when my grandfather passed away from cancer. Was I sad to lose him? Yes, but I was still calm about it, almost too calm if you ask me.

The more I think about it, I realize that it’s probably the way I should be. The more I study Scripture, it makes sense. If I’m focused on my Father’s business and heavenly things, then the rest of what happens in my life is an afterthought. The bad things? Momentary light afflictions that pale in comparison to what God has in store for me. The good things? Highlights that give me opportunity to thank the Lord for His kindness. I sometimes wonder if this is how Jesus was while walking the earth. Stuff was happening around Him, but He didn’t let it phase Him.

Whether it’s good or bad, I’ll keep walking this way because it keeps me from being anxious (a command from Scripture) and from fearing. My faith is in the Lord, and I’ll keep rolling with whatever comes my way because I realize that it’s all part of God’s design for me & my family. Maybe being nonchalant in a Christian way can be a good thing…

Right now, I’m up to my eyeballs in the training of my pastor-teacher gift. In the process of training my gift, I’ve been doing a lot of study and have grown quite a bit. One of the things that I’ve been really getting firm on is my understanding of the Bible and keeping a literal hermeneutic when studying Scripture. This has really been beneficial and I’m grateful for all the studies I’ve undertaken thus far.

With all of this comes the temptation to get proud and go spouting off everything I’ve learned. To a point, I think we all get that way when we learn something new; but, I think it has helped me that I’m an introvert and not a very confrontational kind of person. It’s very tempting to get into debates and heated theological discussions, but I hate arguing, so it hasn’t become an issue. I mean, a lot of times I’ll get involved in a discussion and quickly bow out when it turns into debate mode.

To get to my point, I’m glad that being a pastor-teacher doesn’t mean that I have to be someone who constantly debates over theology and doctrine. I’m glad because that’s really not who I am, and I’d rather just spend my time teaching the Bible.

One of the things I’ve really noticed in the course of my studies is how averse some people are towards certain theological views. Sadly enough, a lot of this comes from a particular branch of theology and their seeming dislike for anyone that isn’t of their camp. For instance, I was watching a youtube video last night of a pastor answering a question about the beliefs of another theological system of interpretation and he was pretty harsh in his comments, and in many areas off in his assessment of them; in many ways, his comments weren’t fair to that view and were spun in such a way to make his beliefs look superior. What’s worse, it seemed as if he even questioned the salvation of some of the proponents of this theological view.

I hope that if the time ever comes for me to have to do the same that I can be more gracious, loving, & fair in my statements. I don’t ever want to come off as a know-it-all or someone who bashes others’ theological points of view. Although I believe that I have a better hermeneutic & understanding in some areas of Scripture because of my theological background, I pray that it never comes off rude or arrogant. I want to be fair to each side when I discuss an issue, which is something I’ve come to appreciate in reading Chafer’s Systematic Theology. So, if you could, keep that as a matter of prayer, as I press on in my studies, that I would remain humble & teachable as I search & study the Bible and firm up my theological beliefs.

As I’ve been working on a series of articles for Trailblazin Ministries, there’s a thought that has remained in the back of my mind that keeps tugging at me. In many ways, I think it’s part of the reason why I’m working on this current series of articles. I don’t want to give the article away, but I do want to share that thought that’s been in my mind.

It’s pretty obvious that I frequent message boards, especially those that are a part of the Christian hip-hop community. One of the things that I’ve noticed, at least that I’ve finally started noticing, is that people listen to a lot of Bible teaching online. They are watching YouTube clips of sermons, downloading sermon podcasts & listening to them, or purchasing them from all different kinds of ministries. I’m not going to knock that because it’s a great thing and I do it myself; I’m actually an advocate of taking advantage of technology in this way.

Here comes the disconnect: these preachers are typically the only ones that we ever hear about. “Did you check out this latest Paul Washer clip?!” “Have you heard that Mark Driscoll sermon?” “Man, that MacArthur sermon was on point!” And the comments go on. I’m glad that these people are getting fed by these ministries and great men of God; but, how often do they talk about the teaching that they’re getting from their local church & pastor? I don’t hear enough about that. I’d love to read and hear about what people are getting fed from their own pastor, instead of someone they’re simply listening to online. I think this should especially be the case if they’re at a church where people can get access to the teachings online to share it with others. Personally, I love sharing what I’m learning at my local church and would love it if other people took the opportunity to listen from time to time.

I can’t help but wonder if some of this is a form of “sanctified idol/star worship.” Because our pastors aren’t preaching to thousands a week, we think lesser of them, and would rather talk about the big name preachers that everyone knows about & follows. Of course, I can’t judge people’s motives & intents, nor do I want to; all I’m saying is that I’d like to see more balance and people giving their own pastors some love, instead of always talking about the “big names.”

…or do I?

Just a real quick blog tonight. I want to share a thought I’ve had on my mind recently.

I know without a doubt that I have the pastor-teacher gift, I’m thoroughly convicted of that. With that comes an innate desire and passion to want to study the Word of God and take it to the deepest depths that I can possibly take it to. I enjoy studying the Scriptures, breaking down the Greek and Hebrew, reading reference works, and so on. In a lot of ways, because of the gift that the Spirit has given me, it’s a given that I should have such passion. I honestly can’t think of anything else I’d rather be doing than studying; it’s the only thing that satisfies me.

It is that satisfaction that brings me to my thought. Is it wrong of me to think that others should have that same passion? Of course, I know that the answer is yes, at least on some level; it’s wrong for me to think that all believers should have that desire for the Word. Not everyone will have a desire to delve into the original languages and read church history, and that’s fine. Sure, they should have some level of passion for studying the Word, but I doubt for most it’ll be anywhere near the level of desire that I or other pastor-teachers have. But what about those that really don’t have a desire for the Word at all, to the point where they rarely read their Bible? What’s up with that?

I think a lot of this thinking, for me, stems for the article I wrote over @ TM about holy hip-hop music. Because of my gift, am I looking “too deeply” at the music and expecting too much for other listeners to do the same thing? I mean, I can listen to an album and tear it apart (i.e. Excelsius’ album Liberation that I’m doing the study guide for), but I wonder if others are even interested or equipped to do the same. For me, it comes easy and is second nature almost. But am I wrong to think it should be for others? Maybe so.

I don’t really have an answer other than that; but it’s some food for thought that I’ve been chewing on. At the very least, I gotta stay focused on grace and exhibiting that in my life.

Sometimes I feel like I’m a man on an island all by myself. I’m not speaking of the traditional sense in not having friends; instead, I am referring to being alone theologically, at least online.

For the most part, just about all of the people I know and “hang out” with online are Calvinists, many of whom are pretty hardcore. Most days that isn’t a problem for me because they’re my brethren. But, there are other days where I feel totally alone because I don’t have anyone online who shares my same theological views. So, a lot of times I end up getting into a theological discussion and find myself trying to discuss Scripture with my many Calvinist friends who are able to back each other up (and quite frequently I might add), while I have no one in my corner who shares my theological views to help me out. Many times it leaves me feeling overwhelmed and out of place, leaving me wondering why I started or joined a discussion in the first place.

It is definitely frustrating, but I try not to let it get me down. The only thing that ends up happening is that I become pretty quiet online and choose not to discuss theology as in-depth as I would like to. I do wonder, though, what it’d be like to not be on this island all alone and to have a tag team partner of sorts.

In the meantime, I will just keep praying, studying, and learning, while I man my island.

Over the past few weeks and months I’ve noticed quite a bit of discussion and controversy over the doctrines of grace (i.e. Calvinism) versus practically everything else. There have been countless discussions & debates on message boards and forums, as well as a number of bloggers who have chosen to write about the subject, I guess with myself included now that I’m writing this. It’s been a topic on my mind of late because it has hit particularly close to home, or sorts.

A few weeks ago, in December sometime, a friend of mine was having a discussion after church with one of the ordained pastors over this very topic. Since it was getting late, they agreed to discuss it over email, which I happened to be CC’ed on, and got to watch the entire discourse. Well, around the same time one of the TM forum members was posting a topic discussing Calvinism versus Arminianism, a carryover from a debate he had had elsewhere. So, it has been pretty close to home, so I figured I’d briefly share some thoughts concerning the subject (hoping to not start a debate in the process).

In gauging the discussions that I’ve seen online, it seems that one of the major hot button issues is the sovereignty of God. From the Reformed (Calvinist) side of things, there is a major push that God is completely in control of the salvific experience, to the point of choosing some for salvation and dooming others to hell, with them having no say in the matter. On the other hand, the opposing view tries to take God’s sovereignty completely out of the picture, saying that salvation is all about man’s free will and that God’s sovereignty doesn’t play much part at all. The more I study it, I have a hard time believing that either side is balanced in its view. On both sides, each is able to find Bible passages that fit into their view, but from what I’ve seen, neither handles the other’s passages very well.

As I grew up in church, this was never much of a discussion. We were taught to get saved, live like a Christian, that we couldn’t lose our salvation, and that was the extent of it; there really wasn’t a depth to theology and studying the Bible. So, when I left my church back in North Carolina, one of the first things I studied was the doctrine of salvation. I almost immediately rejected Arminianism because I knew that I didn’t agree with their beliefs. So, that left Calvinism for me to study. I bought several books on the subject and read them cover to cover, and I even discussed the subject with many who held to these doctrines. All of that went well, but there were passages that I was never able to adequately resolve in studying that point of view. The idea of Limited Atonement was one of them because it ignored the plain reading of texts like John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:3-6 to name a couple. It was things like that, as well as passages showing man’s role in salvation that led me to believe that there had to be something more biblically balanced than what the doctrines of grace teach.

The more I studied things, I couldn’t help but notice a difference between total depravity and total inability. In just about everything I studied from the Calvinist side of things, everything was taken to the point that man is unable to respond to the grace of God, unable to do anything related to the gospel unless God first makes it happen, including man’s belief in the gospel. Hence total inability, there is absolutely nothing that man can do to save himself. Though, this is not the same as total depravity which is the fact that man’s nature and faculties are corrupted by the sin nature. As a result, there’s nothing we can do to earn or deserve eternal life on our own merit. With that, God does indeed draw all men (John 12:32; Titus 2:11), and man is able to receive and respond to the grace of God (Matthew 23:37; John 5:24-25; Ephesians 2:8-9). The main difference is that man is a free moral agent that is vested with the responsibility to respond to God’s grace when it is presented to Him (John 1:1-9; 3:16-17). Even though man is depraved, he can still respond to God’s grace and come to Christ and is called to do so (Revelation 22:17). This is a very important distinction to make because Reformed theology hinges on this point. If man is completely unable to do anything, then of course God is forced to do everything concerning salvation, therefore you end up with the extreme view of God’s sovereignty.

But man having a responsibility in salvific experience does not negate God’s sovereignty, not in any way. God was still sovereign when He allowed Satan to fall & rebel, was He not? That’s beside the point, so let’s continue. With total depravity in view, it’s obvious that man cannot merit eternal life, nor can he merit God’s grace. So, yes, election is totally an act of God’s grace (Ephesians 1:4-6), but man is still given a responsibility. Man’s response to God’s grace is to simply believe. The Bible teaches both God’s sovereignty in choosing men for salvation and man’s responsibility to believe. The Bible tells us that God desires for all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9). Furthermore, the gospel is a whosoever message, stating that whoever believes in Jesus can have eternal life (John 3:16). Also, with the whole issue of predestination & foreknowledge, the Bible places foreknowledge before predestination (Romans 8:28-30). Nevertheless, those that go to hell go because they chose to reject God’s grace, not because of an inability to respond to it. You see, the problem with total inability is that it says that man is unable to do anything, including believe; yet, the imperative when the gospel is given is always "believe." In other words, the person has the choice whether to believe or deny the offer of salvation. If this were not the case, why would the god of this world be working to blind the minds of the unbelieving if they couldn’t believe anyway without the help of God (2 Corinthians 4:4)? Furthermore, in Paul’s speech at the Areopagus, he even states that God desires for man to seek after God, even to the point of groping Him out and finding Him (Acts 17:27); if we couldn’t seek God, then why are we told that it’s part of God’s reason for making us?

What makes this all the more reasonable is God’s common grace. God gives us everything we need in order to seek after Him, but it’s our choice whether we choose to do so. Passages like Matthew 5:45; Titus 2:11; and Romans 1 all give us a glimpse at the common grace of God, showing how He is impartial to all men. Although circumstances may be different, all receive an equal opportunity at receiving salvation. Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus Christ came to die for all men, not just a specific few; one passage to support this is 1 John 2:2, which is written to believers, and states that He didn’t just die for Christians only, but for the whole world. Other passages would include 1 Timothy 2:3-6 and Hebrews 2:9. The problem is that some choose
not to believe (John 5:40), but those that do believe are saved by grace through their faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8, 9) and are immediately made alive spiritually. Yes, Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but only efficient or effective for those who choose to take advantage of it.

From what I see in Scripture, I see God’s sovereignty in that He has executed a perfect plan from Alpha to Omega that includes sinful man and all of his decisions for good or bad, and I also see man’s responsibility to respond to the grace offered by God. Nowhere in Scripture do I see someone who is "made" to believe in Christ; instead, I always see people who are confronted with the truth and then choose to believe. All throughout the gospels we see examples of those who followed Jesus and witnessed His miracles and still chose to not believe in Him as Messiah, while there were others who believed wholeheartedly. The same holds true in Acts and the rest of Scripture. You have some who deny the truth while others accept it, but for each individual the choice was wholly theirs.

That’s what I believe and what I teach. I’m not here to debate it with anyone, although I will examine the Scriptures with my brethren. Indeed iron does sharpen iron, and we can all stand to learn from the Word of Truth, myself included. In terms of this discussion, I will keep comments moderated because, as I stated, this is not something I choose to debate, at least not at this time; I just wanted to share my observations on a prevalent topic. If you desire to debate the topic, there are many other avenues where that can take place and is better suited.

Grace and peace.