Ruminations From Rice

I will be quoting from a book by N.L.Rice :God Sovereign and Man Free, or the Doctrine of Divine Foreordination and Man's Free Agency,Stated,Illustrated and Proved From the Scriptures.

But Arminianism rejects the doctrine of "effectual calling." God gave to A. and B.the same call. A.obeyed the call and came to Christ, and B. refused. Now, if Paul should ask A.,as he asked the Corinthian believers, "Who maketh thee to differ from another?and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" he might answer, 'I make myself to differ from B. He had the same call that I had. He chose to reject it;I chose to accept it. I have,therefore, something which I did not receive.' And indeed upon this thing which he did not receive,his salvation depended. It is impossible that this view of the subject can produce humility so deep,or such a degree of gratitude,as that which ascribes the work to the Holy Spirit.

 

Continuing On Page 163

Only he who believes the doctrine we are defending,can adopt the Scriptural sentiment of those beautiful verses of Watts:
"Why was I made to hear thy voice,
And enter while there's room,
When thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?
'Twas the same love that spread the feast,
That sweetly forced us in;
Else we had still refused to taste,
And perished in our sin."

 

In the natural people always choose that which is not pleasing to the Lord.That's a wretched choice especially when they reject the only One who is able to save them.

 

Isn't the witness of the Scripture enough for you?Do I have to spell-out the multitude of times where the Bible says that many turned away from the Lord Himself.

 

From Chapter 2

Objections To The Doctrine Of Election Stated,And The Errores And Inconsistencies Of Arminianism Exposed

Now,let us suppose,that God had passed by the whole human race,leaving them in their fallen,depraved,and condemned condition,as he passed by the fallen angels,would he have been chargeable with injustice toward them?If not,he would simply have left them to a just doom,and to a just punishment.But if he might justly pass by all,how is he chargeable with injustice toward those whom he does pass by?Does the injustice consist in saving some?Will it be pretended,that his bestowing on some a gracious salvation,deprives others of what they had a just claim to?Those who are saved,receive blessings to which they have no claim, -- are saved by grace,not merit.Does the bestowing upon some men blessings to which they had no claim,give others a just claim to those blessings?If so,it would follow that but one sinner could be saved by grace;for so soon as saving grace was bestowed on one,all others would have a just claim to the same blessings,and would consequently receive them as debt,not as grace.But the idea is too absurd.If it be admitted that God might justly have passed by all men and left them to perish,it follows inevitably that in saving some he does no injustice to others whom he does not save.In other words,if God might justly leave all to perish,he is not in justice bound to save any;and if he is not bound to save any,he does no injustice to those whom he does not save.(Pages 98,99)

 

Now the doctrine of Election teaches that all the human race are fallen,depraved,and exposed to the wrath of God,none of them having any claims upon God;and that some of them he,for his own glory,bestows gifts and blessings which he does not bestow upon others.Is this doctrine liable to the objection,that it makes God a respecter of persons?The objection is based upon the principle,that God is bound to give every individual of the human family precisely the same or equal gifts;and,consequently,if in any one instance he fails to do this,he is a respecter of persons.Or if it be admitted that he may bestow upon some gifts which he grants not to others no more undeserving,those who press this objection must tell us precisely how far he may proceed in making a difference before he becomes chargeable with respecting persons.One individual,for example,is born blind,and another is blessed with vision.God in his providence bestows upon the latter an inestimable blessing,which he withholds from the former;and this difference,existing before either could do good or evil,is not founded on difference of character.Is God,then,a respecter of persons?The Arminian will agree with us that he is not. (page 114)

 

...God certainly does withhold from one of his creratures a blessing of incalculable value,which he bestows upon another;and,as before remarked,this difference is made before either of them has done good or evil...all are compelled to admit that God does make just such differences,and even greater,in his treatment of his creatures in ten thousand instances;and still he is not a respecter of persons.Why such differences are made,it is impossible for us to know;but certain it is,that God has the best reasons for making them.(pages114,115)

 

And are not all the blessings of salvation through Christ mere favors to men?Do not even Arminians hold that they are all of grace? If so,there is confessedly room for the exercise of sovereignty.If men have just claim to any of these blessings,they are not gracious.If they are gracious,and men consequently have no claim to them,it is clear beyond dispute that no injustice is done by withholding them. (pages 115,116)

 

Ed,you really need to qualify things more (sometimes you overdo it--this time not at all).I detest the content of certain writings whether they are of a certain Rice or someone with a different last name.I don't detest the person -- big difference.

Speaking of the surname of Rice -- in the future I will (D.V.) feature some things from the pen of Luther Rice.

Yes,his full name was Nathan Lewis Rice (1807-1877).I didn't know anything of his grandfather.

 

Now the plain truth is,that grace,from its very nature,must be free;and,therefore,God may bestow or withhold it as in his infinite wisdom he chooses.and so long as he withholds from no one of his creatures anything to which he has a just claim,and inflicts upon no more punishment than his sin deserves,and so long as he rejects no righteous man;no one has the right to find fault,or charge him with respecting persons.The doctrine of Election does not represent him as doing either of these things,and consequently the objection we are considering is of no force whatsoever.(p.117)

 

What,then,we ask,do Arminians mean by the declaration that Christ died for all men? Do they mean that he really intended to save no one individual,but to offer salvation alike to all,and to give all equal opportunities to accept it? They cannot mean this;for,in the first place,it is an undeniable fact that Christ has not made the offer of salvation to all.Multitudes have lived and died without ever so much as hearing his name. If it be said,the heathen are responsible only for the light they have,we cheerfully admit it;but they are deeply depraved and under condemnation,and the question is not whether they will be chargeable with the additional sin of rejecting the gospel,but whether they have light and divine influence enough to save them without the gospel. If it be said that the heathen are all saved without means,then are they in a better condition than if they had the gospel,and it would be cruel to send it to them.(pages 118,119)

 

The doctrine of the Methodist Church is,that the sinner first exercises true faith, and afterward is regenerated; but the Scriptures do plainly teach the converse; that is,that the sinner is regenerated, and,as an effect of regeneration, immediately exercises faith; just as when our Saviour raised Lazarus from the dead, he was first made alive, and then began to breathe and perform other living acts. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God."(1 John 5:1) It is not said that he who believes shall be regenerated, quickened, or born again. Regeneration is never promised on condition of believing, but the exercise of faith is declared to be conclusive evidence that regeneration has already taken place; just as the fact that a man who has been hurt,breathes, is clear evidence that he is alive. (Pages 131,132)

 

...God from eternity purposed to renew,sanctify,and save a certain portion of the human race for the glory of his sovereign grace...Will it be asserted that God regenerates only those in whom he sees something morally good,as repentance and faith? Then you have moral goodness or holiness before regeneration, -- life before quickening, -- or living acts before life. This is too absurd to be maintained for a moment. Will it be denied that the purpose to regenerate is eternal?But is not Election in time just as objectionable as Election in eternity? Beside, if God forms new purposes, he must gain new knowledge, and is, consequently,an imperfect,mutable Being! There is no way of escape from the doctrine without running into the most serious, if not fundamental error. (134)