We Love God!

God: "I looked for someone to take a stand for me, and stand in the gap" (Ezekiel 22:30)

The thing that reveals character is involuntary response, not planned response. Your character isn’t manifest by what you prepare to do. It’s manifest by what you’re not prepared for and how you react to that, that involuntary reaction. That shows your character. We can all plan for those spiritual experiences, to some extent. It’s those things that catch us off guard and reveal the real weakness of our hearts that tell us who we really are.
John MacArthur

1. It is wrong to put direct pressure on the will. The will should always be approached primarily through the mind, the intellect, and then through the affections. The action of the will should be determined by those influences. 2. In the end it may produce a condition in which what has determined the response of the man who ‘comes forward’ is not so much the Truth itself as, perhaps, the personality of the evangelist, or some vague general fear, or some other kind of influence. 3. The preaching of the Word and the call for decision should not be separated in our thinking 4. This method surely carries in it the implication that sinners have an inherent power of decision and of self-conversion. 5. There is an implication here that the evangelist somehow is in a position to manipulate the Holy Spirit and His work. Some organizers today even predict the results. 6. This method tends to produce a superficial conviction of sin, if any at all. People often respond because they have the impression that by doing so they will receive certain benefits. 7. You are encouraging people to think that their act of going forward somehow saves them. 8. It raises the whole question of the doctrine of regeneration. This is the most serious thing of all. This work is the work of the Holy Spirit, and His work alone, no one else can do it. And as it is His work it is always a thorough work; and it is always a work that will show itself. 9. No sinner ever really decides for Christ.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Minority Students

Minority Students

Allan Bakke, a thirty-two-yearold American of Norwegian descent,
applied for admission to the University of California Medical School in 1973,
and again in 1974. HE WAS REJECTED BOTH TIMES. The school acknowledged that he was QUALIFIED IN EVERY WAY FOR
ADMISSION, but that he was rejected due to a special program for minority
students, and that sixteen places out of an entering class of one hundred were
reserved for minority students. THESE
MINORITY STUDENTS DID NOT HAVE TO MEET
THE MINIMUM GRADE POINT AVERAGE DEMANDED OF OTHER APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION! This “affirmative action program” reduced the number of available slots for NONMINORITY
STUDENTS to eight-four, which
had already been filled at the time of
Bakke’s application. (This is what
Jesse Jackson and Dukakis referred to as “affirmative action” or “social
justice.” What it means is, that you
have to hire a man who is UNQUALIFIED
for the job, you have to admit a student who is unqualified to attend, if he is
the RIGHT COLOR. If he’s the WRONG
COLOR, you don’t have to hire him.)
Read ’em and weep! That’s the work of a “CIVIL RIGHTS ACT” of 1964. It’s about as right and civil as Jim Jones’ Guyana settlement.