Calvinists' Conversions

[Tom Butler]

Calvinists present the gospel call to all who will hear, and leave the results to God. They are assured that God will save some through the "foolishness of preaching.

Non-Calvinists present the gospel call to all who will hear, and leave the results to the human will. They have no assurance that anyone will ever be saved or desire to be.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I am not hung up on numbers either.

That is not the question. The question is how can a Calvinist say, "whosoever will may take the water of life freely" when they do not believe whosoever can?

I showed you where Spurgeon himself had a problem with this, it created a contradiction within himself, and he said that many other ministers had this same problem.

Now, for us non-Cals it is not a problem whatsoever. We believe any man can freely choose to accept Christ if he so desires. When we say "whosoever will", we mean it whole-heartedly. There is no contradiction in our doctrine, no anxiety created.

Calvinists believe the "whosoever" to be those whom the Spirit has already quickened and have a hunger and thirst for the word, therefore with no prick of the conscience they are able to present the word as they are led and say "whosoever will may take the water of life freely".

They don't know who the elect are, but not knowing doesn't make the majority of them sit down and just shrug their shoulders.

In your case, do you know who will respond to your "altar call" ?

 

[Skandelon]

Calvinists present the gospel call to all who will hear, and leave the results to God. They are assured that God will save some through the "foolishness of preaching.

Non-Calvinists present the gospel call to all who will hear, and leave the results to the human will. They have no assurance that anyone will ever be saved or desire to be.

Thanks for providing the perfect example of the fallacy referred to as a "false dichotomy." :thumbs:

 

[Jerome]

Has God saved any Calvinist here through the "foolishness of preaching"/ministry of another Calvinist?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Has God saved any Calvinist here through the "foolishness of preaching"/ministry of another Calvinist?

The salivating, Bible-thumping, totally caffeinated Bible Baptist preacher I first heard the true gospel from was Calvinist at that time, but he didn't save me, and nobody got saved from the preaching of anyone, Calvinist or Arminian.

Everybody who is saved is saved because of the work of Christ.

Any saving resulting from the preaching of anyone else about the finished work of Christ is a saving from timely sins, errors and ungodly living.

 

[quantumfaith]

Thanks for the candid honesty. BTW, love your posts on your personal blog.

 

[quantumfaith]

God has given me more of that passion to "become all things to all men that I may win one." I am less likely to think, "Aww, he must not be elect"...or... "if he is elect God will get Him eventually anyway, so I can go on my way." I wouldn't have admitted thinking that as a Calvinist and I really didn't even recognize that I was doing it until I "converted" back. That is not to imply that all Calvinists made that mistake, I'm just testifying to my own experience.


Thanks so much for the candid honesty. BTW, really enjoy reading your posts in your personal blog.

 

[Skandelon]

Everybody who is saved is saved because of the work of Christ.

Of all people, a Calvinist should acknowledge that even the preaching ministry of any minister is a "work of Christ."

 

[Skandelon]

Thanks for the candid honesty. BTW, love your posts on your personal blog.

Thanks, and I see you are relatively new, welcome to the forum!

 

[Tom Butler]

Thanks for providing the perfect example of the fallacy referred to as a "false dichotomy." :thumbs:

Here's the "fallacy" you referred to:

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Calvinists present the gospel call to all who will hear, and leave the results to God. They are assured that God will save some through the "foolishness of preaching.

Non-Calvinists present the gospel call to all who will hear, and leave the results to the human will. They have no assurance that anyone will ever be saved or desire to be.

As a rhetorical tool. it may very well be wrongly stated.

But now I must ask:
Do non-Calvinists present the gospel call to all who will hear? I think the answer is yes.

Do Calvinists do the same thing? Yes.

Do non-Calvinists believe that the response to the gospel call is an exercise of the human will? I think the answer is yes, since they hold that all humans have the power to say yes or no.

Do Calvinists believe that the response to the gospel is an exercise of the human will? The answer is yes, but by those to whom that ability is given as a result of regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

Do non-Calvinists have any assurance that their gospel preaching will ever result in the salvation of a soul? I will not put words in your mouth, but leave the answer to you. If the answer is yes, please show the basis for your view.

Do Calvinists have any assurance that their gospel preaching will ever result in the salvation of a soul? The answer is yes, since those whom Paul describes as "the called" are always justified. (Romans 8:28-29 "...the called according to his purpose." and "..whom he calls he justifies.")

My post may be a false dichotomy in rhetorical terms, and I trust you will show how it is. But I don't think I made any false statements in the original post above.

 

[quantumfaith]

Tom

Honest question, from a non-calvinist. With respect to salvation in the calvinist tradition, are those 'who' experience salvation as such, able to live out their believers journey never having "doubts" as to the "reality" of their salvation?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Of all people, a Calvinist should acknowledge that even the preaching ministry of any minister is a "work of Christ."

No, I do not see that as such.
To me it is a work FOR Christ.

 

[Rippon]

If a man must be regenerated by God to have the ability to believe to be saved, then it is God's fault when a man is not saved. You have God punishing a man for something he is unable to do, and it was God's curse (by your doctrine) that caused this inability.

How can it be God's fault (the very words are blasphemous) when someone is not saved? The responsibility is all on the sinner who is entirely responsible for their sin. You remind me of Paul's objectors in Romans 9.

You can twist logic and argue any way you want, but if God cursed man so that he cannot believe, then God is the cause and author of unbelief and sin.

Pure drivel.

 

[Cypress]

Pure drivel
Rippon, are you calling this drivel because you don't like it, or because you feel it is not logical?

 

[Winman]

How can it be God's fault (the very words are blasphemous) when someone is not saved? The responsibility is all on the sinner who is entirely responsible for their sin. You remind me of Paul's objectors in Romans 9.

Pure drivel.

It would be 100% God's fault if your doctrine is true. You believe Adam and Eve had the ability to believe. When they sinned you believe God cursed them so that they no longer had the ability to believe. This makes God 100% responsible. The man did not change himself, God did.

I used this example several times now. Let's say I build a robot that can walk forward and backward. Then one day I go in and rewire and reprogram this robot so now it can only walk backwards. Who is responsible for this change?

Even a 5 year old kid could easily answer this question, but it completely stumps a Calvinist.

If God changed Adam and Eve so that they no longer had the ability to believe, and also caused this inability to pass down to all of us, then God is 100% percent responsible for unbelief which is a sin.

If you can't figure this one out I can't help you.

 

[quantumfaith]

How can it be God's fault (the very words are blasphemous) when someone is not saved? The responsibility is all on the sinner who is entirely responsible for their sin. You remind me of Paul's objectors in Romans 9.

Pure drivel.

Exactly the kind of judgmental and "spirtually arrogant" response that continues to foster the great divide between the calvinist and non-calvinist.

 

[Rippon]

How can it be God's fault (the very words are blasphemous) when someone is not saved? The responsibility is all on the sinner who is entirely responsible for their sin. You remind me of Paul's objectors in Romans 9.

I guess you disagree with the above. May the Lord have pity on you.

Exactly the kind of judgmental and "spirtually arrogant" response that continues to foster the great divide between the calvinist and non-calvinist.

The divide here is between a scriptural view vs. a sentimental view. You and Winman share the latter.

 

[quantumfaith]

Rippon

Go ahead and blather away.

Mercy, peace and Love in abundance.

 

[Rippon]

Pure drivel
Rippon, are you calling this drivel because you don't like it, or because you feel it is not logical?

I said it because it is utterly false and he knows it.

 

[Cypress]

I said it because it is utterly false and he knows it.

Let me ask it another way. Do you feel it is illogical? I will ask no further questions if given a yea or nay. Thanks