......"In conslusion, it is an awful error to say that chastisement is a mark of the Lord's displeasure. When visited upon the reprobate wicked, it is a mark of his anger; but upon his elect, it proves to them his fatherly watchcare over his people whom he loves. Just suppose that chastisement is a sign of disobedience in the one chastised, then it would follow that the way to avoid chastisement would be to obey and to stop disobeying. If correct, the chastisement would cease the very moment the child obeyed. If the chastisement ceased, then that child would be a ******* and not a son. Do you not see what a terrible conclusion such false reasoning would bring us? It cannot be. If disobedience brings chastisement, then the very worst thing we can do is to obey; since obedience would then bring exemption from chastisement, it would also prove our illegitimacy and not our right to the promise as real sons of God."H.H.L
Elder Lefferts
Signs of the Times - Vol. 99, No. 3 - March 1931
I can't quite put my mind around the above paragraph.
Discuss ?
Also, keep in mind that Elder Lefferts is an "absolute predestinarian"
Elder Lefferts
Signs of the Times - Vol. 99, No. 3 - March 1931
I can't quite put my mind around the above paragraph.
Discuss ?
Also, keep in mind that Elder Lefferts is an "absolute predestinarian"