Chosen But Free

In Norman Geisler’s book “Chosen But Free,” there is one concept that I wish to address. It is the concept of forgiveness and what Geisler says about this topic. First, on page 75 Geisler is referring to an extreme Calvinist view of the atonement. He makes this statement in regards to Calvinism: “Christ paid for our sins does not mean we must accept the forgiveness bought by His blood.” This is a completely skewed viewpoint of what forgiveness is supposed to look like in the realm of Christianity. Because of the blood that Christ shed on the cross we should be willing to forgive others and ourselves for the wrong things we might have committed. This is because Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice on the cross where and forgave all of our sins by giving up His life.

                Later in the book (page 108-109), Geisler discusses the Arminian view. This view sacrifices sovereignty on the altar of free choice. In other words, they had a belief system in extreme free will. One of their points or premises is this: “Christ died for all men and for very man, so that he has obtained for them…redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer.” I believe that this view about forgiveness is correct, proved that it is referring to the sacrifice made on the cross. A nonbeliever does not even know the concept of forgiveness so there is no way they could possibly enjoy it. Christ’s sacrifice was made for all men; however, not everyone will choose to receive/accept His word. This is why the Arminian viewpoint on forgiveness is correct in stating that only a believer can fully understand how our sins were forgive. I do want to point out that just because I believe in one point of Arminianism does not mean that I place my faith in that doctrine.

                Finally, Geisler speaks about whether certain gifts, such as faith, is only given to elect people. (page 228-237) However, specifically speaking about forgiveness on page 232-233; Geisler notes that forgiveness is a gift. This is solely because Christ died on the cross. Because of His death and forgave us of all of our sins, which in my opinion is a pretty nice gift to receive. Geisler also mentions that the gift of forgiveness is not just for elect people. The gift of forgiveness is meant for all of believe; Acts 13:38-39. I completely agree with Geisler on this view point. Mainly because if forgiveness was only for elect people, then what would our faith really be based on? John 3:16 states that “For God so loved the WORLD…”, not “For God so loved the riches people in the nation.” It completely invalidates the claim that Christ came into this world to forgive us, but yet only a handful of people will actually be allowed to receive his forgiveness. This is why I approve of Geisler’s response to the concept of forgiveness.

How to Handle the Disruption of Worship

Worship in the church should be something that is glorifying to the Lord. However, there are those in the church that may cause problems and it’s how the pastor and others in leadership deal with this issue that could ultimately destroy the church or not disturb the worship within the church. I do not believe that those who like to gossip and start rumors should be allowed to remain within the church. My soul purpose for believing this is because it disrupts the glorification of the Lord. I do believe that those who do participate in such actions should be “politely” removed from the church. I believe that the head pastor should personally, face to face confront him or her about what they are doing. I also believe that they should receive a second chance once confronted to see if their actions change. If change occurs then the church should accept them back with love. However, if no change occurs I believe that they should be asked by the pastor to go somewhere else for worship. I do not believe in allowing them back into the church once they’ve been asked to leave. I would like to give an example from my home church that I thought was handled inappropriately. There was a family, husband, wife and two kids. The woman got caught cheating with another woman by the husband. So the husband ran to the pastor and the pastor immediately removed of only the wife from fellowship. Also, the pastor said she could return only if she would stand in front of the congregation and confess her sin. However, the pastor was also informed that the husband had a pornography issue, but it was never addressed. I feel like family counseling or something should’ve taken place. I don’t believe in making someone stand in front of the church and confessing sin….EVERYONE has fallen short and NO sin is greater than another so why should someone be singled out? The family should have been asked to leave if need be. I don’t think causing drama within the church is appropriate or needed. So I believe that certain situations should be handled with care in order for the main purpose of a church fellowship to remain stable.