|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 20, 2006 18:29:39 GMT -5
I have a very sincere question for those who hold to the doctrines of Calvinism.
When sharing the gospel do you refrain from saying, "Christ died for you"?
If you apply your theology consistently, then you can't say this because you don't know who the elect are. If this is the case, then it appears that the gospel must be presented generally and not personally. If the gospel isn't personal, then how can anyone believe that Christ died for them based on that gospel?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 20, 2006 19:06:27 GMT -5
Before I give an answer, I'm wondering if in any of the bible sermons preached to sinners, do any of the preachers say anything like, "Jesus Christ died for you"?
This is a genuine question, not being smart or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 20, 2006 19:56:21 GMT -5
That's a good question Armen. I'll have to check it out. The question I'm trying to understand is this:
Is the gospel presentation to be personal or general?
It seems to me that in Calvinism it must be general. I'll see what I can find about this in the Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Mar 21, 2006 2:41:25 GMT -5
It seems to me that in Calvinism it must be general. I'll see what I can find about this in the Scripture. I try to avoid adding, "Christ died for you." As Armen mentioned, it's not found in any of the evangelistic messages of the Bible. When I get to that part, sometimes I substitute myself in there. I'll start saying, "That's why I'm glad Christ died for me." Feels a bit awkward, dunno how to both be biblically accurate and transmit that truth. Perhaps a study on the sermons of Acts will help. Perhaps it's just "Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins" and leave it there. A misconception of those who disagree with Calvin is we don't think there is a universal call for all to believe. Not true. The universal call is clear. Hyper-calvinists disagree with the universal call. What's the difference between a calvinist and a hyper-calvinist?Does that sound contradictory? To understand Calvin, don't try to glue responsibility and ability together inseperably. Treat them as two different issues and see what the Bible says about each: Responsibility: Everyone must respond. Ability: The Bible uses words like dead, helpless, weak, blind, hardened heart, unable, slave to sin, etc. In fact, I can think of two places in the Bible where people were unable to do anything but sin and yet they were judged! Write me Chris (AT) deVidal (DOT) tv if you're curious. The regeneration found in effectual calling (irresistable grace) is what begins to break the chains and give us the ability to do what we are responsible to do. I enjoyed seeing regeneration in action just yesterday. I've been praying for years that God would open the eyes of a 16-year-old neighbor. Just last month she began thinking about eternity and last night called me up. I had the joy and priviledge of walking her very slowly through the Ten Commandments, going from sin and righteousness to judgement. She said, "This is the first Bible study I've ever been interested in," and she wasn't even a Christian yet! You know that no typical worldly 16-year-old girl cares about the Bible :-) Regeneration is such a cool thing to see. So I have a question for you: How do you pray for the lost? If you can't pray, "God, please open their eyes," what do you pray?
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Mar 22, 2006 16:41:45 GMT -5
I like telling people that they crucified Jesus, that seems to awaken people. He was bruised for our iniquities and he suffered for our transgressions. If people realize it wasnt the romans or the jews that crucified Jesus, but he went to the cross for sin. Sin nailed him to that cross.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 22, 2006 17:00:48 GMT -5
Evan,
According to your theology Jesus may not have died for those you are talking to. In that case they didn't crucify Jesus. Jesus was only crucified because of the sins of the elect.
|
|
|
Post by Evan Schaible on Mar 22, 2006 17:21:29 GMT -5
You misunderstood what I said, Jesus was crucified for sin. Anyway, we cant know who is foreordained, we can only preach the word. This is where this debate just gets unruly as we are now criticizing the way the gospel is preached. I have a sincere heartfelt question, What is the point of this thread, to prove the reformed camp wrong, or learn the truth? The word of God is the word of God. Should I stop preaching then because God's thoughts are not my thought? Should I let the lost go with no thought of telling them the gospel? What you are telling me is to stop preaching because I dont know who is predestined. What if every calvinist stopped preaching the gospel?
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Mar 22, 2006 18:08:39 GMT -5
It is the Holy Spirit who makes ANY message personal. Bottom line is, they are either sheep or goats. The sheep HEAR the voice of the Lord and follow Him. The goats don't. So those who hear, the message is VERY personal. They are convicted, humbled, repent, and are born again. To those who reject - they are either goats, or they are sheep who are not being "sought after" by the Lord yet. Lost sheep. So we tell everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 22, 2006 18:51:40 GMT -5
Evan,
The point was simply to find out if our theology transfers into real life or not. I was simply trying to understand how someone who adheres to limited atonement can present the gospel without be dishonest to their theology. You did say that you "like telling people that they crucified Jesus". Yet you believe that Jesus only died for the elect. If you tell a non-elect person that they crucified Jesus, then according to your theology, you're not telling the truth. The preaching of the gospel is not isolated from our theology, but should flow out of our theology. If our theology doesn't work on the street, then maybe we should question our theology.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 22, 2006 20:02:58 GMT -5
SEVEN REASONS WHY CALVINISTS BELIEVE IN EVANGELISM by Colin Maxwell
1) Because God has commanded it. The gospel is to preached to every creature (Mark 16:15) This is why Calvinists have been to the forefront of missionary endeavour. The man acknowledged as "the Father of Modern Missions" was William Carey… and William Carey was a Calvinist. If a missionary (strictly speaking) is someone who leaves his homeland to preach the gospel elsewhere, then John Calvin qualifies as a missionary. Spurgeon said of him: " John Calvin…is looked upon now, of course, a theologian only, but he was really one of the greatest of gospel preachers. When Calvin opened the Book and took a text, you might be sure that he was about to preach "Through grace are ye saved, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." (MTP 14:216) Even if we had no other reason, we would still evangelise…because it is a clear command from God.
2) Because we believe that God has ordained the means of bringing many sons to glory as well as the end. Hyper Calvinists believe He has ordained the end but not the means, non Calvinists/Arminians believe that He has ordained the means but not the end… Calvinists alone consistently take the balanced view that He has ordained both. If we don't evangelise…someone else rightly will. Calvinists believe as much in man's responsibility as they do in God's sovereignty.
3) Evangelism gives Calvinists the glorious opportunity to praise the God whom they believe unconditionally elected them to salvation. We love to preach the gospel in all its fullness. Just to recount the old, old story of Jesus and His love thrills our soul and leads us to praise His name. We glorify God when we proclaim the gospel.
4) Evangelism gives us the opportunity to unburden our souls for the lost. We cannot be silent while souls around us are bound for hell. We believe the gospel ourselves and therefore we speak (2 Corinthians 4:13) Many of us were brought savingly to Christ because someone else was burdened for us and prayed for us and witnessed to us. Any man who names the name of Christ, Calvinist or not, should have the burden to win others. It is an evidence of grace when we want others to experience it for themselves. If there is no burden for the lost, we are left to wonder does the professing Christian (of whatever school) believe there is a Day of Judgement…an immortal soul and an eternal hell?
5) Evangelism gives us an opportunity to serve God. The fields are white unto harvest and yet the labourers are few. There is a great reward awaiting for soul winners (Daniel 12:3) …but even if there wasn't, we would still labour just for the sheer joy of being in God's work and spreading His word.
6) Evangelism gives us an opportunity to bear reproach for the name of Christ. Paul witnessed to the gospel with much contention (1 Thessalonians 2:2) and whilst such is irksome to the flesh, yet the spiritual man rejoices every whit. Such were the Apostles (Acts 5:41) Obviously we do not set out to annoy, but we recognise that the natural heart is going to kick hard against the message of Christ. If we have to bear reproach in our evangelism…then amen! "So be it"
7) Far down our list, but there nevertheless, we evangelise because it nails the lie often uttered against us that Calvinism kills evangelistic endeavour. Why should it? The doctrine of predestination is the only grounds of evangelism. If God did not predestine folk out of their sins to be saved, then no one would be saved. The non Calvinist says that if there were no faith, then there would be no predestination because the latter (which is God's work) is totally and absolutely dependent on the former which is due ultimately to man's decision. The Calvinist says that if there were no predestination, then there would be no faith because the latter (which is man's responsibility) flows from the former. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17) and the word of God comes to sinners through gospel preachers (Romans 10;13-16) With the exception of the last point, every Christian (Calvinist or not) has a reason for evangelism. Evangelism is the common lot of every child of God, no matter what his understanding of the outworking of the decree of God may be. Both Whitefield (Calvinist) and Wesley (Arminian) preached together and rejoiced in each others great work. This is the way it ever should be.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 23, 2006 2:39:43 GMT -5
Armen, don't take this wrong but that sounded like it came from a LDS manual. But don't grit your teeth, I mean that in jest.
Humor aside, please tell me how you can have any care for the lost if you don't know whom GOD loves and has 'elected'? For example, those whom are not 'elected' are mere meat in the grinding wheel of life, destined for GOD's anger, waiting for all His wrath to be poured onto them. Do you love that person? Should you love that person? If not, how do you love anyone since you don't know whom the 'elect' are until they're saved?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Fuller on Mar 23, 2006 10:34:28 GMT -5
Humor aside, please tell me how you can have any care for the lost if you don't know whom GOD loves and has 'elected'? For example, those whom are not 'elected' are mere meat in the grinding wheel of life, destined for GOD's anger, waiting for all His wrath to be poured onto them. Do you love that person? Should you love that person? If not, how do you love anyone since you don't know whom the 'elect' are until they're saved? That's a very good question which isn't much different than when hecklers ask us, "What about the people who have never heard the gospel? Those people over in India who never gre up in a Christian culture and have never heard about Jesus... how can God judge them?" It's similar to that question only because the answer is the same. God is love yet He is also just. When we question God's love we are really just telling others that we misunderstand His nature. Here's a quote that provides an analogy that I like to use when answering this objection: On a final thought, you asked how we are to love others? We are commanded to love our neighbors regardless of whether they are elect or not! I don't see where God put a requirement on us to only love elect people. Do you only love other Christians? Of course not, because you only have a general assumption of who is and isn't a Christian... it truly is an issue for God to decide. We are simply instructed to love others...period.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 23, 2006 11:54:01 GMT -5
I agree with you, Jeff, that we are to love them. But my question was geared towards those who've stated on the MB that GOD only loves the elect, not the rest, that He only loves those who love Him, which also excludes the 'elect' before they've repented. But I've probably misunderstood them so I wanted clarification. So from your stand point, it sounds like you love them because you're commanded to, and only for that reason? Do you believe GOD loves the 'non-elect'? Thanks for your response GOD bless brothers and sisters...
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Fuller on Mar 23, 2006 14:11:23 GMT -5
I love all people because I have been born again. Before I was a Christian I lived for my selfish desires and I hated most people (afterall, I was a neo-nazi skinhead before coming to Christ): Love one another: for love is of God; and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." (I John 4:7, 8) In plain language, God loves all mankind. But He does not love mankind all in the same way. I am amazed that God loves any of us, for we all have been lawbreakers and criminals and none of us deserve to be loved by Him! Here is a link that might give you a more educated answer: www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/category/th/file/99737.qna
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 23, 2006 17:11:38 GMT -5
Jeff,
How can you honestly say that God "loves" the non-elect? Jesus asked, "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" (MT 16:26) It makes no sense to say God loves people if he gives them the whole world while withholding the grace they need to save their eternal soul. The non-elect are not loved in the only way that really matters. The ultimate context for evaluating any good from a Christian perspective is eternity. As Dave Hunt entitled his book - "What Love Is This?".
You should frankly admit to the unconverted that you don't know if God loves them in this crucial sense. Is this the "good news" that Christ sent us into the world to proclaim?
I apologize if I word this too strongly, but this is where the Arminian believes they are defending the very character of the God we love. If it was possible to do this without passion, then I question if it's real.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Mar 23, 2006 19:50:07 GMT -5
Dave Hunt? Yikes! That guy freaks me out.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 23, 2006 19:56:09 GMT -5
Dave Hunt? Yikes! That guy freaks me out. I'm not a big fan of Hunt's either and have never actually read any of his books (Other than Debating Calvinism by Hunt and James White), but I think the title of his book against Calvinism is appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 24, 2006 10:26:28 GMT -5
The Bible says ( i think it's Psalm 7) that God is angry with the wicked every day. Note, that it doesn't say he's angry at his 'wickedness' but with the wicked. Therefore, by this we can unite the truth that God hated Esau and loved Jacob. God loves His people. To say God loves everyone, does it not fly in the face of both these passages?
I'm not an authority on the issue, but I feel it is consistant with scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 24, 2006 11:42:46 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong but Scripture also says GOD hates those who do iniquity [Ps 5:5]... so are the 'elect' now sinless?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 24, 2006 12:29:03 GMT -5
"workers of iniquity", giving the sense of those that continue in iniquity, which the child of God will not do.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 24, 2006 14:53:45 GMT -5
I believe the Hebrew word is "pa'al" which means "to do, make", regardless how one might translate KJV's translation of the word.
But I'm not too concerned about that as much as this: Does GOD hate all the 'elect' who have yet to believe and repent?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 24, 2006 15:21:41 GMT -5
Grant, you make a good point. The problem is that the Bible doesn't know the concept of the pre-conversion "elect". That would mean God hates the non-elect workers of iniquity, but loves the elect workers of iniquity who haven't been saved yet.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Fuller on Mar 24, 2006 15:34:48 GMT -5
The "Calvinism" you guys keep describing in most of these posts sounds much like Hyper-Calvinism to me.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 24, 2006 15:45:26 GMT -5
Jeff,
From your perspective what is the difference between the Calvinism you hold to and hyper-Calvinism? It is definitely important that we clarify where we stand otherwise we're just beating the air. Also, if you know, could you list some authors, theologians, preachers, etc. in each camp so that we're not confused or misrepresenting our Calvinist brothers / sisters?
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Mar 28, 2006 19:41:13 GMT -5
Steve, the pre-conversion elect (what a term!) is spoken about in the Bible - they are the LOST SHEEP! What else would they be? Certainly not goats. Paul said he was chosen FROM BIRTH, yet he was the chief of sinners and persecuted believers. How do you think God felt about Paul before the road to Damascus?
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Mar 28, 2006 19:42:36 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of Hunt's either and have never actually read any of his books (Other than Debating Calvinism by Hunt and James White), but I think the title of his book against Calvinism is appropriate. James White has a great book called Drawn By the Father, about John chapter 6. It is excellent, and never mentions Calvinism, etc. It is simply Biblical. I challenge any "Arminian" to read it and counter it.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Mar 28, 2006 19:46:48 GMT -5
Anyone who holds any extreme view within Arminian or Calvinist circles certainly doesn't think of themselves as being that way - just that everyon else does. Just like the sinner doesn't think they are a sinner until the law hits them. So it should be with us - by constant comparison to the Word we avoid these extremes and find truth. Balance isn't always the best term to use, but I use it myself just as a means of saying we should avoid extremes. Balance implies though there may be some truth in both extremes, as well as some false teachings. by the way - when is another woman going to jump in on these doctrinal discussions - the testosterone is overwhelming me here!!! just kidding
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 28, 2006 19:50:00 GMT -5
Jules, In regards to your statement "Paul said he was chosen FROM BIRTH", I haven't looked at the passage, but: 1) Can't we safely say Paul was of the Chosen People, the Jews, which one becomes at birth if your parents are Jewish? (perhaps I should look at the passage first though) 2) correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those who believe Calvin's teaching on predestination and election state they are 'elected' before creation itself? If so, why then wouldn't Paul make it clear here instead of belittling the 'election process'? If my questions are retarded, be kind...
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 28, 2006 19:51:52 GMT -5
Steve, the pre-conversion elect (what a term!) is spoken about in the Bible - they are the LOST SHEEP! What else would they be? Certainly not goats. Paul said he was chosen FROM BIRTH, yet he was the chief of sinners and persecuted believers. How do you think God felt about Paul before the road to Damascus? Could you please give me some specific Scripture references for what you're talking about here. Not concerning Paul, but the "lost sheep". I think God felt the same about Paul before his conversion as he does about every person who ends up in hell. Paul said in Ephesians 2:3 "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath."
|
|
|
Post by Juli on Mar 29, 2006 19:39:09 GMT -5
Jules, In regards to your statement "Paul said he was chosen FROM BIRTH", I haven't looked at the passage, but: 1) Can't we safely say Paul was of the Chosen People, the Jews, which one becomes at birth if your parents are Jewish? (perhaps I should look at the passage first though) 2) correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those who believe Calvin's teaching on predestination and election state they are 'elected' before creation itself? If so, why then wouldn't Paul make it clear here instead of belittling the 'election process'? If my questions are retarded, be kind... Grant, you crack me up! (I think my questions and comments are more reatrded than anyone else's on this board, so it is refreshing to know I'm not the only wacknut here:) I'm not sure about the Jewish part. Even though they were chosen, Romans says they - the natural branches - were broken off because of unbelief, right? I don't have my Bible in front of me so I can't give reference. I will look it up later. But so any Jew if they are in unbelief will not be chosen. It really is referring to the remnant of ISrael, or at least that has always been my understanding. The verse that says that "all" Isreal will be saved (will find it later too) if you reference back to OT verse it quotes and read in contect it is actually referring to "all" of the remnant of Israel, not all of Isreal across the board. I don't hold to all of Calvin's teachings actually - I just use the term because it is easier on this board. I go by what scripture says concerning it, chosen from birth it says and chosen IN CHRIST before the foundations of the world. There are some other verses of course, but again, no Bible in front of me and have to go to little league game in about ten minutes. I hate to admit this, but I wonder if the word for "elect" (the noun) and the word for the "chosen" is the same word in the greek? Anyone know? Any similarities to the verbs? Just struck me as something I should know - wow, that list is REALLY getting long now
|
|