Should We then Teach/Preach Christ And let God "handle" How He saves Them?

[JesusFan]

What would happen if the Modern Church, among those who are evangelical/conservative...

Would agree to go back to teaching and preaching the things of God from the Bible, especially the Gospel message...

And let God decide if He saves sinners thru being either a Calvinist or an Arminian?

Just asking, as sometimes feel that IF someone came to preach/teach on the risen Christ...

If he was not of "our camp" we would keep him outside the gates!

 

[Aaron]

That's basically how Calvinists approach evangelism. God knows them that are His, and we preach Christ. Those that are God's know His voice and respond, and those that are not do not.

It's the noncalvinists that have methods that are constantly in flux.

 

[Siberian]

What would happen if the Modern Church, among those who are evangelical/conservative...

Would agree to go back to teaching and preaching the things of God from the Bible, especially the Gospel message...

And let God decide if He saves sinners thru being either a Calvinist or an Arminian?

Just asking, as sometimes feel that IF someone came to preach/teach on the risen Christ...

If he was not of "our camp" we would keep him outside the gates!

The question assumes that the discussion is extra biblical, and to a great extent that is not true. On both sides of the table, you have people who are trying to be faithful to the Scriptures in their theology. And both sides think theology - even the complex and controversial stuff - is worth pondering.

Besides, I would not trade the deep thinking (on both sides) that accompanies this controversy for a unity that is shallow.

 

[JesusFan]

The question assumes that the discussion is extra biblical, and to a great extent that is not true. On both sides of the table, you have people who are trying to be faithful to the Scriptures in their theology. And both sides think theology - even the complex and controversial stuff - is worth pondering.

Besides, I would not trade the deep thinking (on both sides) that accompanies this controversy for a unity that is shallow.

Agree with all that you said, just was referring that at times appears to that are more "cal/arm" than are Christians, that our "systems" given more weight than the Holy bible.... Quoting our sides theologians instead of Aposles!

just concerned that we threatened to brek unity of the Body at times by getting so "into" our own side!

Who was it that respected John wesley as a brother in Christ, admired him, and still was deeply against his Arminian theology?

 

[Thousand Hills]

John 12:32 - KJV "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me"

I Corinithians 3:1-11 'And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. "

Maybe I misunderstand these verses, but if we focus on preaching Christ and him crucified, that is our responsibility. God will add the increase. While I think its important to know and understand the different views of how God works, we can't focus on it to the point we neglect our responsiblity.

 

[humblethinker]

What would happen if the Modern Church, among those who are evangelical/conservative...

Would agree to go back to teaching and preaching the things of God from the Bible, especially the Gospel message...

And let God decide if He saves sinners thru being either a Calvinist or an Arminian?

Just asking, as sometimes feel that IF someone came to preach/teach on the risen Christ...

If he was not of "our camp" we would keep him outside the gates!

I am sympathetic toward your point of view here. And it is one reason why I came to the conclusion that if I were a member of a church and the preacher we called to be our pastor was of a 'Reformed' persuasion, that this would not be a deal-breaker for me. It would be possible for me to still be a member and in good faith serve and love my pastor, church and community as I should. There would obviously be some issues to address but it could work.

 

[Skandelon]

That's basically how Calvinists approach evangelism. God knows them that are His, and we preach Christ. Those that are God's know His voice and respond, and those that are not do not.

It's the noncalvinists that have methods that are constantly in flux.

This remark seems to naively project all Calvinistic believers as being one harmonious group who all approach evangelism with one common method and theological perspective, while the non-Calvinists just can't get it together.

The reality is that there are as many differing methods and theological explanations for evangelism among the Calvinistic brethren as their are among non-Calvinists.

Personally, I believe the tendency for non-Calvinists to be more persuasive and creative in their methods is a closer reflection of Paul's model (i.e. his preaching day and night to "persuade" men, and his willingness to "become all things to all men to win some.") But, even if we happen to be wrong on this point and Calvinists are right, what harm is done? The same number of "elect" will be saved regardless of how "creative" or "persuasive" our methods happen to be. On the other hand, consider the implications of the possibilities if the Calvinists are wrong.

 

[JesusFan]

This remark seems to naively project all Calvinistic believers as being one harmonious group who all approach evangelism with one common method and theological perspective, while the non-Calvinists just can't get it together.

The reality is that there are as many differing methods and theological explanations for evangelism among the Calvinistic brethren as their are among non-Calvinists.

Personally, I believe the tendency for non-Calvinists to be more persuasive and creative in their methods is a closer reflection of Paul's model (i.e. his preaching day and night to "persuade" men, and his willingness to "become all things to all men to win some.") But, even if we happen to be wrong on this point and Calvinists are right, what harm is done? The same number of "elect" will be saved regardless of how "creative" or "persuasive" our methods happen to be. On the other hand, consider the implications of the possibilities if the Calvinists are wrong.

from MY understanding of what being a Christian Is, What the Bible commands us to do and be...

WHY would there be ANY difference between how a Cal and Arm approach preaching and proclaiming Christ?

BOTH should agree that Jesus is the ONLY way to get saved, and Cal can boldly preach Him, in order to have God 'wake up" His elect

Arminians can also boldly preach Him, as he is Only way Men can become forgiven of sins and redeemed..

Again, we on both sides can agree to disagree just HOW God saves them , but shouldn't we both preach same way?

 

[MamaCW]

what "camp" you are from does not save you...ultimately all that matters is this..

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise -prov 11:30
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
-Mark 16:15

If they are hearing His word, for what it is and unaltered, untwisted, and unchanged, that's all that matters...

 

[MamaCW]

btw..since you guys are emphasizing Cal/arm ways


instead of focusing on John Calvin's theology
or Jacobus Arminius' theology

why not preach according to God's theology from HIS word....straight from the bible for what it says.. not for Calvin's TULIPS or whatever Arminius created...

 

[Skandelon]

from MY understanding of what being a Christian Is, What the Bible commands us to do and be...

WHY would there be ANY difference between how a Cal and Arm approach preaching and proclaiming Christ?

BOTH should agree that Jesus is the ONLY way to get saved, and Cal can boldly preach Him, in order to have God 'wake up" His elect

Arminians can also boldly preach Him, as he is Only way Men can become forgiven of sins and redeemed..

Again, we on both sides can agree to disagree just HOW God saves them , but shouldn't we both preach same way?

And in most modern situations this is the case. I've heard some great Calvinistic evangelists. Some on both sides, however, can fall into a ditch. Calvinists can lean toward hyperism or maybe just "give up" too easily on reaching someone because they figure I've done my part now let God do the rest. They may not even try to persuade or "become all things to all men" for this reason. On the other hand, some on the non-Cal side can fall into the ditch of manipulation and easy believism. Frankly, the later turns me off more than the former which is probably why I have so many Calvinistic friends.

 

[Skandelon]

btw..since you guys are emphasizing Cal/arm ways


instead of focusing on John Calvin's theology
or Jacobus Arminius' theology

why not preach according to God's theology from HIS word....straight from the bible for what it says.. not for Calvin's TULIPS or whatever Arminius created...

I think we would all agree with this sentiment, but our discussion is in regard to our differing perspectives and interpretations of what we read "straight from the bible." Either God has preselected a particular number of people He will certainly save, or He has made salvation possible for all mankind desiring all to repent and believe, but making them responsible to freely accept or reject His gift. It really has little to do with the men whose names are attached to the various beliefs.

 

[Tom Butler]

Who was it that respected John wesley as a brother in Christ, admired him, and still was deeply against his Arminian theology?

It was George Whitefield.

For the story, go here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/wesley/murray.htm

 

[Aaron]

WHY would there be ANY difference between how a Cal and Arm approach preaching and proclaiming Christ?

Because Calvinists and noncalvinists have fundamentally opposing views on the the condition of man, and the work of Christ.

BOTH should agree that Jesus is the ONLY way to get saved, and Cal can boldly preach Him, in order to have God 'wake up" His elect

Arminians can also boldly preach Him, as he is Only way Men can become forgiven of sins and redeemed..

A Calvinist may plead with men to repent of the their sins, but a noncalvinist pleads with men to accept Christ. The Calvinist will contrast God's righteousness with the unrighteousness of men that sin will appear exceedingly sinful, the noncalvinist will in many more instances than a Calvinist try to present Christ as acceptable.

Again, we on both sides can agree to disagree just HOW God saves them , but shouldn't we both preach same way?

You can't preach the same way, because, as said, of the opposing views on the condition of man and the work of Christ. Calvinists and noncalvinists may use the same terminology, but they mean fundamentally different things. They preach a different message. They preach different gospels.

Calvinism is the Gospel, anything else is not.

 

[Aaron]

Who was it that respected John wesley as a brother in Christ, admired him, and still was deeply against his Arminian theology?

It was George Whitefield.

For the story, go here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/wesley/murray.htm

From the link:

The truth is that Whitefield rightly made a distinction between a difference in judgement and a difference in affection; it was in the former sense that he differed from the Wesleys, and that difference was such that, as Tyerman writes, it "led them to build separate chapels, form separate societies, and pursue, to the end of life, separate lines of action . . . the gulf between Wesley and Whitefield was immense." But while their public cooperation was thus seriously disturbed, his personal affection for the Wesleys as Christians was preserved to the last. (Emphasis mine.)
​

Calvinists and noncalvinists are prevented from working together because of the "immense gulf" between their doctrines. They cannot be said to be the same Gospel.

 

[MamaCW]

I think we would all agree with this sentiment, but our discussion is in regard to our differing perspectives and interpretations of what we read "straight from the bible." Either God has preselected a particular number of people He will certainly save, or He has made salvation possible for all mankind desiring all to repent and believe, but making them responsible to freely accept or reject His gift. It really has little to do with the men whose names are attached to the various beliefs.

15And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Josh. 24:15)

37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.(John. 7:37)
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30)

Revelation 22:17 (King James Version)

17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev. 22:17)

it doesn't say whosoever HE wills to come, let him come..and also keep in mind that the bible says he will not return until EVERYONE has heard of JEsus (And let him that heareth say, Come.)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

From the link:

The truth is that Whitefield rightly made a distinction between a difference in judgement and a difference in affection; it was in the former sense that he differed from the Wesleys, and that difference was such that, as Tyerman writes, it "led them to build separate chapels, form separate societies, and pursue, to the end of life, separate lines of action . . . the gulf between Wesley and Whitefield was immense." But while their public cooperation was thus seriously disturbed, his personal affection for the Wesleys as Christians was preserved to the last. (Emphasis mine.)
​

Calvinists and noncalvinists are prevented from working together because of the "immense gulf" between their doctrines. They cannot be said to be the same Gospel.

So from this testimony, blended churches dont work! :tonofbricks:

 

[Skandelon]

A Calvinist may plead with men to repent of the their sins, but a noncalvinist pleads with men to accept Christ. The Calvinist will contrast God's righteousness with the unrighteousness of men that sin will appear exceedingly sinful, the noncalvinist will in many more instances than a Calvinist try to present Christ as acceptable.

This is a complete caricature of noncalvinistic preachers and would be tantamount to me saying something absurd like, "A Non-Cal strives to reach all people with the gospel, but a Calvinist says 'what's the point, God will save them if he wants them.'" Aaron knows better.

Calvinism is the Gospel, anything else is not.

Good thing God sent the apostles Augustine (and later Calvin) to complete the revelation of scripture for us. I guess before they came along during those first 5 centuries when all those martyrs where being killed for preaching Christ and him crucified they could have just kept quite because they weren't preaching the "real" gospel anyway.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

but a Calvinist says 'what's the point, God will save them if he wants them.'" Aaron knows better.

I dont think he is saying that. How can you draw that conclusion?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Good thing God sent the apostles Augustine (and later Calvin) to complete the revelation of scripture for us. I guess before they came along during those first 5 centuries when all those martyrs where being killed for preaching Christ and him crucified they could have just kept quite because they weren't preaching the "real" gospel anyway.

Again, how do you even draw such broad conclusions? As a moderator your supposed to be fair & impartial.....or am I wrong in my assumption?