|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 29, 2006 17:24:55 GMT -5
I thought it would be helpful to make clear what an evangelical syergist is. This is important because the term synergism is usually associated with heresy. In fact, to most Reformed theologians it is heresy. Unfortunately the evangelical synergist is usually lumped in with Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Catholicism. Synergism is simply the belief that man must choose to respond to or reject God's grace in order to be saved. The opposite of this is monergism which holds that God is the lone actor in salvation. For the monergist man is dead because of Adam's fall and cannot respond to God unless he is first regenerated and given repentant faith as a gift. All those whom God unconditionally elects are irresitibly saved and preserved by God without fail. Thus the monergist proclaims all glory to God (Soli Deo Gloria) because he alone is responsible for who ends up in heaven. Man is totally passive in his regeneration. The evangelical synergist agrees that man is dead and unable to respond to God becaue of Adam's fall. Yet they believe that because of the atonement the universal free grace of God is extended to all people and graciously enables them to respond to or reject the gospel. All who choose to repent and believe are regenerated and become children of God. All who reject the gospel will spend eternity in hell. The evangelical synergist agrees that all glory belongs to God but at the same time affirms that man must choose to receive or reject that grace. Thus by grace man is active in his regeneraton. That regeneration is completely the work of God, but it is only applied to those who repent and believe the gospel. The evangelical synergist rejects the Semi-Pelagianism / Roman Catholicism view which teach that man is not totally dead in sin and can produce repentant faith apart from the grace of God though cannot finnish the work of salvation without it. The first evangelical (Protestant) synergist was the Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier. He was a Catholic scholar who joined the reformation in 1522 and was forced out of his position as a priest. He took the pastorate of a small Reformed church in Zurich, Switzerland and took part in the Reformation movement under Zwingli. He came to reject the monergism of his contemporaries Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. He was persecuted for his belief that only believers should be baptized and not infants and was eventually burned at the stake by Zwingli in 1528. Nonetheless I think it's quite interesting that there were clearly Reformers who rejected so called "Reformed theology." Roger E. Olson in his book The Story of Christian Theology says this about Hubmaier: "Not only was Hubmaier the first Anabaptist theologian; he was also the first evangelical synergist. That is, he was the first Protestant thinker openly to espouse belief in free will on the basis of a work of God in Christ and through the Holy Spirit. Free will, destroyed by the Fall, is restored by Christ and by the Spirit of God working through the Word of God. Only because they have free will are people rightly held responsible by God and by the church for their decisions and actions. But whatever they do, they cannot boast because any right decision they make or good action they take is enabled only by grace and is not a product of some innate good aciton of goodness or character. This is basically the same theology of salvation that the Dutch Remonstrants - followers of Jacob Arminius - later developed in the early seventeenth century. Hubmaier, then, was an 'Arminian before Arminius,' just as Augustine was a 'Calvinist before Calvin.'" Hubmaier in his opposition to monergism said: "That would be a perfidious God who would invite all people to a supper, offer his mercy to everyone with exalted earnestness, and would yet not want them to come, Luke 14:16ff; Matt. 22:2ff. That would be a false God who would say with the mouth, 'Come here,' but would think secretly in the heart, 'Stay there.'"
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 29, 2006 18:21:43 GMT -5
Interesting article Steve, but I am trying to figure out what you are trying to do here. You are either trying to divert attention from the other threads that YOU STARTED with all the "spirited" debate or you are trying to stir things up even worse.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 29, 2006 18:31:50 GMT -5
Interesting article Steve, but I am trying to figure out what you are trying to do here. You are either trying to divert attention from the other threads that YOU STARTED with all the "spirited" debate or you are trying to stir things up even worse. LOL! ;D I only started SOME of the problems! Actually, I'm still coming to a deeper understanding of these things and wanted to share them. I think it's important that we attempt to clarify where we are coming from. I don't mind the debates, but I do think they can turn sour if we're not careful. I was reading about Luther a couple of nights ago and found out that one of his favorite names for a theologian who disagreed with him was "pig-theologian". He also said of Zwingli when debating over the nature of communion: "Get out of here, you stupid fanatic, with your worthless ideas! If you cannot think in higher and other terms than this, then sit behind the stove and stew pears and apples, and leave such subjects alone." I guess we're more civilized than we know.
|
|
|
Post by manna/ E.Wallace on Mar 29, 2006 19:09:57 GMT -5
Steve...i do understand where you are coming from, and there needs to be a balance and understanding..Or are worldly philosophies and pseudo-scientific teachings brought in under the guise of "All Truth Is God's Truth"?
While studing Neo-Evangelicalism and today, i had made some Biblical references to a certain groups, and was told that i was close to bearing false witness against those who drafted the(?) this i rather not say, at this point.. and reading what Ernest Pickering, had written..Separation from evil is the necessary first principle of communion with Him ... Separation from evil is His principle of unity" (Separation of Evil: God's Principle of Unity, as cited in Biblical Separation, by Ernest Pickering, p. 116).
Ernest Pickering -- "It lacks moral courage in the face of the great conflict with apostasy. It lacks doctrinal clarity in important areas of theology. It makes unwarranted concessions to the enemies of the cross of Christ." Charles Woodbridge -- "A movement with a new mood (toleration of false teachers, ridicule of fundamentalists), with a new method ('the end justifies the means'), a new theology (questioning the canon of the Bible, its inerrant authority, and the nature of its content), and a new ethic (repudiation of personal separation for interaction with the culture). ... following the downward path of toleration of error, accommodation to error, cooperation with error, contamination by error, and capitulation to error."
A.W. Tozer "The constantly recurring question must be: What shall we unite with and from what shall we separate? The question of coexistence does not enter here, but the question of union and fellowship does. The wheat grows in the same field as the tares, but shall the two cross-pollinate? The sheep graze near the goats, but shall they seek to interbreed? The unjust and the just enjoy the same rain and sunshine, but shall they forget their deep moral differences and intermarry? ... The Spirit-illuminated church will have none of this" (The Best of A.W. Tozer, p. 72).
The question was what do we want unity in? Look around at the world today, and look at all the confusion ..inerrancy of Scripture ? But i do like and agree with what you had written and understand, please people do some study on this, you will come to a greater understanding..Rather than persuading sinners to live like saints, are producing false conversion. We and them must call them to "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ) Acts 20:21. Joining forces with other religions and non-christians ( look into all of their advisors on these boards, and their backgrounds), who will agree on traditional values, as the norm.. who wouldn't the world has been conditioned... To a value system, look at the schools, colleges, goverment, and now the church, the faith has not been guarded, what was to be defended with everything.. Those who promote a social gospel, is another gospel, a false gospel.. And not the Gospel of Christ Jesus.. How can the church protest of the World's Sin, while honoring and tolerating a false gospel, are the enemies of the cross of Christ.
Be Blessed..
|
|
|
Post by Juli on Mar 29, 2006 19:17:10 GMT -5
Steve, thank you for this post. I don't think you are starting trouble! It certainly is a new approach and less extremist than I had previously thought. So what would you call those people who do think man isn't really dead in sins and ca revive himself, etc.? Just curious, because I gotta have a term for them! just kidding of course.... the definition of monergism from their site anyway is: Monergism: The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians. It is in contrast with synergism, the view that there is a cooperation between the divine and the human in the regeneration process. Monergism is a redemptive blessing purchased by Christ for those the Father has given Him (1 Pet 1:3, John 3:5,6, 6:37, 39). This grace works independently of any human cooperation and conveys that power into the fallen soul whereby the person who is to be saved is effectually enabled to respond to the gospel call (John 1:13; Acts 2:39, 13:48; Rom 9:16). It is that supernatural power of God alone whereby we are granted the spiritual ability to comply with the conditions of the covenant of grace; that is, to apprehend the Redeemer by a living faith, to come up to the terms of salvation, to repent of idols and to love God and the Mediator supremely. (plus there's more on the site but it is too long) thanks again for the insight...it is helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 29, 2006 19:36:41 GMT -5
Juli,
Thanks for the definition of monergism. I was hoping somone who believes in monergism would define it. By the way, I'm not an expert in any of this so my explanations may need some refining yet. The quesiton you asked is basically what would I call those who don't believe in total depravity. I'm not sure. That's difficult because there are those who don't believe in original sin but still basically believe in total depravity. Charles Finney is an example of someone like that. I disagree with Finney in this, but I'm convinced that Finney was a man of God. I think those in the Arminian tradition are more sympathetic of people like Finney than those in the Reformed tradition. For now I'll have to leave you hanging. The church clearly condemned Pelagianism, but I'm not sure that I agree that it makes one a heretic. Sorry if that's no help.
|
|
|
Post by Juli on Mar 29, 2006 19:55:42 GMT -5
well,I don't know that I like that definition of monergism all that well, although I have never seen synergism defined the way you do - I feel like Whitefield when he wrote Wesley asking him about why thay had differences of doctrines, and as it ends up, when they just ask some basic questions about what they believed, turns out, they both believed foundationally the same. Maybe most of us on here do to, one can only pray
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 29, 2006 20:49:28 GMT -5
I've had a hard time finding a good definition for the kind of synergism I believe in as well. Usually it's defined by those who reject it and isn't defined accurately. As I said I'm not an expert so this may not accurately represent this point of view. I basically compiled it from two sources. 1. H. Orton Wiley's Christian Theology2. Roger E. Olson's The Story of Christian TheologyWiley is a Nazarene theologian who has written a very good systematic theology. He's the one who helped me to understand how the weslyean - holiness people view this. This is what Arminius and later Wesley called preventive or previenient grace. It means grace that goes before. They saw this as the free gift of God to all men. The early Arminians were agreed on total depravity and the need for this grace, but many contemporary Arminians are not so that may cause some confusion. A helpful short article on prevenient grace can be read at: www.fwponline.cc/v18n2witzki.htmlOlson is not Wesleyan. I've recently discovered that there are Arminians that are not in the Wesleyan - Holiness - Pentecostal tradition. There are Baptists that are Arminians. The General (for a general atonement as opposed to a limited atonement) Baptists and the Free Will Baptists are both Arminian but not Wesleyan. There are others that are Arminian and not Wesleyan as well. I'm not certain, but I think Olson may have coined the phrase "evangelical synergism". I think the term is simply an attempt to distinguish it from semi-pelagianism / Roman Catholicism.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 29, 2006 21:10:59 GMT -5
I just came across this article and think it would serve us all well to read it. It's a conversation between Monergist Michael Horton and Synergist Roger E. Olson. They really cover alot of what we're talking about on this board and I think if we all read it we'll have a better understanding of what we're debating. www.modernreformation.org/mhro03dialog.htmIt is long, but well worth it. They are discussing how both groups fit in evangelicalism. If anyone reads this tell me what you think. I've just skimmed over it so far. I'm printing it out to read later. EDIT: After reading this article I found that it wasn't as in depth in these topics as I had originally thought. It's still pretty good though.
|
|
|
Post by Juli on Mar 30, 2006 17:27:02 GMT -5
Steve,
All Baptists, except for reformed Baptists, are Arminian for the most part, because htey don't believe in all five points. All Baptists do hold to the 5th point (perserverence) but call is once saved always saved, which is an accurate description of why they believe it - of the past, implies you can't "do" anything to lose your salvation, itis a done deal etc as opposed to the reformed teaching of perserverance of the saints based on God's faihtfulness to his children as a result of their calling and election. I would assume that those holiness or Weslyan disciples perhaps adhere to this last point if they do believe in any type of eternal security, otherwise they would have to abadon it altogether. In order to attain holiness they would have to believe that it is a work of God and not of man. If they believe it is a work of man, they are self-righteous and heretics.
I will read the article - thanks for providing it. There is a movement, by the way, in the Southern Baptist Convention to return to the traditional Baptist views which were more Calviistic and not Arminian. Unfortunately, most SBC churches are extreme Arminians, meaning they pretty much put God in a box and leave all the work (and subsequent glory) to man. This is why I left that denomination. They would adhere to an extreme view of synergism as well, although I think they call it a cooperative effort between man and GOd, in effect, they focus more on themselves than the ability, drawing and power of the Spirit when it comes to salvation.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 30, 2006 18:40:57 GMT -5
Juli, I believe the two Baptist groups I mentioned (Free Will and General) both believe you can lose your salvation. They are both completely Arminian as far as I can tell. From what I've studied most Baptists are a hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism. As far as Wesleyan / Arminians they definitely reject the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. They don't believe it's all God or all man but rather man cooperating with God. Arminians believe in conditional security. Robert Picirilli, a Free Will Baptist theologian, has written a book on all the topics we've been discussing called: Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism You can check it out at: www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892656484/sr=8-2/qid=1143762543/ref=sr_1_2/104-0174976-9960745?%5Fencoding=UTF8I just received this in the mail today so I haven't read it yet. By the way are Juli and Jules the same person?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 1, 2006 18:02:44 GMT -5
To a synergist,
I would like to hear, if I may, why you take the time to pray for others' souls? If God cannot actually go in a change their hearts' disposition, then what are you, in fact, praying for? If all fallen men already have prevenient grace to believe, and God can do nothing more, then what use is there in praying? The Bible takes for granted that we should pray because it teaches that God can save people and deliver them from their rebellion. Are you claiming that God has no such right?. Then why do you pray at all?
Either God does something in answer to your prayer for that person's soul or He does not. You certainly are not praying to the individual ... you are praying to God because you believe He can do something to change them. Otherwise your prayer is meaningless babble. We don't say "Oh God, may they independently make the right decision, etc.!", for such a prayer would be tantamount to having God do nothing but stand on the sidelines with folded arms. Instead we pray, "God, turn their hearts toward You; open their blind eyes open their deaf ears, and save them,." But if everyone has the same amount of grace (at some point in their life), as synergists claim, then why pray?
Of course the real reason the Scriptures teach us to pray is because we believe that God can overcome an individuals resistance and hostility when we preach the gospel to him/her. It is grace that makes us to differ with others, not faith. Even the very desire for faith itself, and the willingness to accept the humbling terms of the gospel are a gift of God's grace (John 1:13, Eph 2:5, 8). What do we have that we did not receive? If you do not believe God does anything to the persons we pray for then all the passages in the Bible which command us to pray for men are really quite useless. Take some time to think about this ... don't just pass it over.
We (monergists) pray for those in darkness because we believe only God can lift the dark mist that covers their eyes and save them. They cannot save themselves. We pray for God to illumine their darkened and convoluted understanding so that they would believe. God ordains both the means (prayer/gospel preaching) and the ends (for the salvation of His elect) in order to accomplish His sovereign purposes. Yet it is only the Holy Spirit who sovereignly determines to whom these means will be effectual. God's ultimate end is to bring glory to Himself in the restoration of all things. It is the work of the Holy Spirit sovereignly dispensing grace (John 3:8), quickening the heart through the gospel and prayer to bring forth life. So the written word and prayer is not the material of the spiritual new birth, but rather its means or medium. It is because the Spirit of God accompanies it that the Word carries in it the germ of life. The life is in God, yet it is communicated to us through the word. Our prayers, therefore, ultimately play a role in bringing about the salvation of God's elect. God not only ordained the salvation of those he chose before time, but also ordained the prayers of the saints which would be used in conjunction with their salvation.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 2, 2006 1:40:15 GMT -5
Armen,
I'm not sure where one might place me in all this, but I can expound on some things that might help you understand different views.
First, if someone doesn't believe your view, it doesn't automatically place them in some extreme opposite, which is how you relate to differing views many times. As an example, you say if someone doesn't believe GOD does all the work then they must believe GOD does none of the work. That isn't a logical conclusion since they might believe GOD's role isn't that of mechanically forcing action but instead guides and persuades options and alternatives. This view would then be stating man's role is important in that he must take action, but GOD is key in drawing the man to Him, guiding and influencing his decisions, and shining light in the darkness the man lives in due to his lifestyle of sin.
And with this example, there are others, some might sway more towards GOD being more pronounced in His process of drawing the man, others less.
Second, why would I pray to GOD? I could ask you the same question, if its all GOD, then it wouldn't matter about your prayers at all... He already "predestined" the ones he's 'elected' and your prayers mean nothing, in that case. You can't believe you actually change His election process, do you?
So I pray exactly how you said you pray, for GOD to draw them to Him, open their eyes to the truth, convict them unto repentance! But note, GOD can bring them to a point of conviction, but repentance is the responsibility of the person, the action, the final step. As someone said once, GOD takes 9 steps toward us, but He's not going to force you to take the 10th step...
If GOD did everything and man had no role whatsoever, then GOD is "pushing" man by force, forcing the person to be saved. That comes across to me as GOD creating robots... what enjoyment would He have creating robots?
Do you have children? I believe GOD's given us an incredible revelation as who He is by use of family, children, and our experiences/emotions with them. I learn more of His character when scripture is confirmed through my days as a dad. Which is why I often relate my examples with my children... would I elect only one or two of my sons to be with me or would I want all three to have the opportunity? would I force them to be with me against their will? of course not, I entice them with knowledge, wisdom and experiences, and show them by example which draws them into the men I hope and pray they will grow to be.
blessings...
|
|
|
Post by Juli on Apr 2, 2006 8:48:48 GMT -5
Grant, you might be more Calvinistic than Arminian after all! Just kidding! Good post, thanks for the balance. I am like Steve I think, "officially" a monergist but don't truly care for the formal definition I posted. I think the aspect of human responsibility is downplayed, and while the work of God is first and foremost there is a responsibility of man. Yes Steve, Juli and Jules are the same, i just get lazy sometimes and sign in as a guest (another of my many many sins (laziness) I still struggle with I suppose - oh, wait, that is for another thread I am currently avoiding, so never mind:) haha I hope this won't segue too badly, but there is a topic that sort of started on another thread I could use some "help" on. SOme say repentance is our part, others say it is still GOd's part. Can both sides offer some scriptures to support and can we discuss? I am really confused about this aspect of salvation, I hate to admit. It is something I have not studied too in depth as of yet. I guess regeneration (when and what it is and when it happens) would be another topic as well....
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 2, 2006 18:27:01 GMT -5
Grant, you might be more Calvinistic than Arminian after all! You trying to give me a heart attack? LOL amen to your post, though.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 3, 2006 12:52:18 GMT -5
Armen, I'm not sure where one might place me in all this, but I can expound on some things that might help you understand different views. First, if someone doesn't believe your view, it doesn't automatically place them in some extreme opposite, which is how you relate to differing views many times. As an example, you say if someone doesn't believe GOD does all the work then they must believe GOD does none of the work. That isn't a logical conclusion since they might believe GOD's role isn't that of mechanically forcing action but instead guides and persuades options and alternatives. This view would then be stating man's role is important in that he must take action, but GOD is key in drawing the man to Him, guiding and influencing his decisions, and shining light in the darkness the man lives in due to his lifestyle of sin. And with this example, there are others, some might sway more towards GOD being more pronounced in His process of drawing the man, others less. Second, why would I pray to GOD? I could ask you the same question, if its all GOD, then it wouldn't matter about your prayers at all... He already "predestined" the ones he's 'elected' and your prayers mean nothing, in that case. You can't believe you actually change His election process, do you? So I pray exactly how you said you pray, for GOD to draw them to Him, open their eyes to the truth, convict them unto repentance! But note, GOD can bring them to a point of conviction, but repentance is the responsibility of the person, the action, the final step. As someone said once, GOD takes 9 steps toward us, but He's not going to force you to take the 10th step... If GOD did everything and man had no role whatsoever, then GOD is "pushing" man by force, forcing the person to be saved. That comes across to me as GOD creating robots... what enjoyment would He have creating robots? Do you have children? I believe GOD's given us an incredible revelation as who He is by use of family, children, and our experiences/emotions with them. I learn more of His character when scripture is confirmed through my days as a dad. Which is why I often relate my examples with my children... would I elect only one or two of my sons to be with me or would I want all three to have the opportunity? would I force them to be with me against their will? of course not, I entice them with knowledge, wisdom and experiences, and show them by example which draws them into the men I hope and pray they will grow to be. blessings... Brother, I don't know where you get the idea that I think the arminian believes that God does 'none' of the work. I don't think that I have ever said that. You also said that my prayers mean nothing, but I had already said that the prayers of the saints are ordained of God. I noticed that with some of your comments though, that they would indicate that you believe it takes more than the Arminian view of Prevenient Grace to convert a man, am I right in saying this? One of the other problems I have with the synergist view of salvation is that it makes man seem more powerful than God. Think about it...a sinner can walk around and say to himself, "Yeah, God is so powerful that he can do ANYTHING, but he can't do one thing....he can't MAKE me a Christian!!" This is the view of God the synergist teaches. But if God can't do EVERYTHING (including convert a man) then he cannot be God. Every blessing brethren!
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 3, 2006 13:00:37 GMT -5
The question is notcan God but will God...
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 3, 2006 13:03:39 GMT -5
By the way, who said God can do "anything"?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 3, 2006 13:08:42 GMT -5
The scriptures, "but with God all things are possible." Matt 19:26
(except sin)
Not quite sure I understand you here bro...(sorry if it's obvious and i'm a bit daft)
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 3, 2006 13:12:18 GMT -5
There are a few things the Bible says God cannot do.
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Tts 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
It seems that God cannot do anything outside of his character (maybe it's cannot because He will not?). That is really the whole calvinist/arminian debate. Is it outside of God's character to 'pick and choose' or 'force someone to be a Christian?'
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 3, 2006 13:26:17 GMT -5
There are a few things the Bible says God cannot do. Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: Tts 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; It seems that God cannot do anything outside of his character (maybe it's cannot because He will not?). That is really the whole calvinist/arminian debate. Is it outside of God's character to 'pick and choose' or 'force someone to be a Christian?' Thanks for putting verses to that, my statement was a bit general. Well he chose one nation out of all the nations of the world, so I would say that it isn't outside of God's character. "maybe it's cannot because He will not?" Good point, but difficult to know for sure I think.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 3, 2006 13:29:14 GMT -5
Were they the only ones who could be saved? Or could Gentiles come and worship God be saved? Was there ever a person "saved" that was not a Jew in the OT?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 3, 2006 13:35:34 GMT -5
Were they the only ones who could be saved? Or could Gentiles come and worship God be saved? Was there ever a person "saved" that was not a Jew in the OT? No, yes and yes. But that still doesn't take away from the fact that God chose Israel out of all the nations of the world to have his divine favour, blessing and covenants that no other nation ever experienced.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 3, 2006 13:56:53 GMT -5
How could someone be saved if they were not in the chosen people?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 3, 2006 13:58:59 GMT -5
I think it's interesting that God called Jonah to tell a whole city of pagans to repent and they did! I guess what confuses me about calvinist is that God called men to repentance (and they did) that were not the "chosen people." You said men were saved the same way in the OT as now, right?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 3, 2006 14:53:35 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about the people as individuals bro, just the nation. Just as their were gentiles saved, there were individual Jews that weren't.
yeah, I believe they were saved the same way (by faith in the merits of Christ).
The ministry Jonah was called is interesting, as always, God's ways are not our ways.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Apr 3, 2006 17:30:41 GMT -5
Armen, You asked, "Why do you take the time to pray for others' souls?" For the same reason you do: Love! You also asked, "If God cannot actually go in a change their hearts' disposition, then what are you, in fact, praying for?" First, I would say that "cannot" should be changed to "will not". I certainly agree that God can do this, but I believe that he has sovereignly chosen not to. In answer to the question I pray that God would bring about circumstances to influence or persuade them. The Arminain believes that God works on the lost through influence or persuasion rather than through coercion or compulsion. I pray that God would send people their way to share the gospel. I pray that he would let their life fall apart. I pray that he would turn up the heat of conviction on them. etc. I believe God's primary means of persuasion in the anointed preaching of the gospel by the servants of God. In Acts 26 Paul relates what Jesus said to him on the road to Damascus, "But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." The way that God was going to do these things was through Paul preaching the gospel. We agree with Paul when he wrote in Romans 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." I hope this helps. Steve
|
|