To Non Cals here:Does Man Need Prevenient Grace or Not To Accept Jesus ?

This may be the goal, but it surely isn't always the result. Some of this Calvinistic doctrine run amok has produced a system of theology that makes God responsible for sin and death. It makes God into a deceitful salesman who offers salvation to people He has already chosen for destruction.

No, I don't think God is actually like this, nor do I think that all Calvinist believe such an extreme doctrine, but some do.

 

Some -- rightly called "hyper-Calvinists" -- would see things the way you describe. The vast majority of Calvinists, however, do not. You need to stop conflating the two groups just because the "C" word is used in both instances. The differences are as distinct as Arminianism and Pelagianism and you've been in enough debates now to well know the difference.

 

That is an interesting take... I see it the other way. If I have to make a mistake, I'll choose to err on the side of God's ultimate sovereignty, for to go in the more human direction ends up placing man on the throne instead of the Rightful Lord and King.

I expect that your reasoning for so doing is similar to that of others, i.e., that you greatly wish for the maximum number of people to come to salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. But is that great desire (which is mine as well!) met most by turning over the choice to humans to reason out and accept Christ (which may or may not be authentic salvation) or praying that the God of salvation would work so as to reap the entire harvest of the elect, then getting busy doing what He asked us to do to accomplish that task?

 

Welcome to the club :thumbs:

It's growing

 

False dichotomy, the kind of reasoning that probably contributed to TCG's defection.

Won't speak for TCG, buy your take on this non cal's reasoning is flat out wrong.

 

Pray tell, do share then!

 

Or consider another perspective. If Calvinism is right, the same number of people will be saved and in fact everything will happen according to all that God has ordained, so no real eternal harm done if you err as a non-Calvinists.

On the other hand, if Calvinism is wrong, consider the number of people you may have turned off to the gospel because of its difficulty. Consider the number of churches split, efforts thwarted, and resources diverted for this false teaching when more could have been won. Even Calvinists have been known to say "preach like an Arminian" or "work like an Arminian" or I think I once heard, "Work as if you have something to do with it, but sleep knowing everything in really in His hands." The point being, is that if you work and believe like an Arminian no eternal harm is done regardless of which system happens to be correct.

So, I if its going to be a "gamble" on which side to err I think the choice is pretty clear.

 

No such assumption was made. I didn't even infer any anti-evangelistic tendency in that post. I said, "consider the number of churches split, efforts thwarted, and resources diverted for this false teaching." Calvinists could be the most evangelistic people on the planet, but if they are wrong then no one could deny that churches had been split, efforts thwarted and resources diverted because of that false teaching.

My brother is a Calvinistic missionary in a closed country. As a Calvinist I was actively involved in evangelism and mission. I know they aren't typically anti-evangelistic, but that doesn't change the point of the post regarding which side does more eternal harm if they are wrong in the end.

 

You, once again, have failed to realize that "election" does not equal "salvation." That is the most common error that I have seen that those opposed to Calvinism make. You should know better, you claim to be a theologian of some repute. Salvation is not a singular event, it is made of several components, election being but one of them. I'll not further lecture you on the subject.

How so? What is the "difficulty" of Calvinism? We pray, ask God to grant salvation in an individual. We speak forth the gospel, the same as does an Arminian. True Calvinists do not limit who it is that hears the gospel, for the Scriptures COMMAND that we preach to all men! We don't number the elect (that is what those opposed to Calvinism do in order to defeat the doctrine!), we don't know who is and is not elect! So, we pray, preach, teach, lead, and disciple those whom God has foreordained and whom we "discover" in the same evangelistic fashion as any Arminian or "no-name" theology might.

The answer to this might be just the opposite of what you desire! Had not a very "human-centered" approach to the gospel been introduced into the life of the church circa AD 420 (Pelagius) and again circa AD 1600 (Remonstrance, later carried forward by Wesley and others) we might have had no difference of view in the doctrine of God's sovereignty and grace. Because some men felt it wrong to fully trust that God would accomplish all that God intended to accomplish, they felt it right to introduce into the doctrines of the church a new theology, whereby those who "choose" to be with God might feel that they are indeed saved and with Christ by efforts other than that of God's biblical means of salvation whereby He elects, He justifies, He adopts, He regenerates, He gives faith and repentance as gifts to be exercised by us, He gives us the ability to lead sanctified lives through the power of the Holy Spirit, and He seals us for eternity, glorified in Christ.

I would submit to you that false teaching is what "splits" God's people and God's church, not the truth of Scripture. I would also submit to you that since the advent of anthropologically-centered salvation, the church has been split numerous times in numerous ways that did not happen prior to the advance of the anthropologically-centered doctrine.

That is because the Bible says for us to do so in that fashion. Where the Arminian has it wrong is where they decide or choose God's business for Him. Arminians preach like there is no tomorrow because for most (who are true to their doctrines) there is not a tomorrow unless they are consistent with their very human-centered efforts to remain "right with God." In a sense, the liberalizing of the sovereignty of God has caused a return to the very OT view that we are saved by acts of serving the Law instead of by God's grace through no efforts of our own. And, for what it is worth, some of the most effective missionaries and pastors down through the ages have indeed been Calvinists. Wesley is one example of an effective Arminian, but that largely because he was on the tail of a movement of God started by Calvinists. Where is Wesley today? His churches are gone over to radical liberalism, the end result of an anthropologically-centered doctrine carried out to a logical end. Meanwhile, Calvinistic churches are growing, the gospel is shared, people are saved, and the kingdom is built!

As for the "no harm" clause that you invoke, might I suggest that that too is the other way around. Those who come to Christ, whether through Calvinist or Arminian doctrine do so because God has decreed that they come and has elected them to salvation. Arminian doctrine works "in spite of" what it stands for because God is at work behind the scenes, as always. Everyone who has the ability to "choose Christ" does so because God has so decreed -- period.

Clear indeed... I choose God. You choose your own choice.

When stacked up before the very throne of God I believe the evidence will weigh in my favor, but I am not conceited about that. I cannot be! It is all God's grace and my sole task is to continue to teach and preach what His Word says because that is what HE commanded and what HE has graced me to do.

It will be very interesting on the day that we all stand before God's throne. I expect that those who were so centered on their ability to "choose" will tremble before the throne when presented with a full view of God and God's ultimate sovereignty, power, insight, wisdom, and control.

I can't even fathom how it would feel to stand before God and TELL HIM that I had something to do with my own salvation...

Matt 7:21-27 (NASB)
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles ?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
The Two Foundations

24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall."

I, and other persons so-called "Calvinists" are building our house on the "Rock" that is God instead of the "sand" that is human choice.

We are not doing so because there is anything to gain from being a Calvinist. We do so because that is what the Scriptures show us about God. In fact, a definite lack of human-centered action tends to remove any earthly "gain" from being the one that dispenses the wisdom of God, for it is God who moves as God sees fit in order to accomplish God's purpose through sinful humans.

When the rain of God comes against the human-centered doctrines, they will all wash away, and on that day, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God! That is the ultimate statement of God's divine sovereignty, no choice in the matter whatsoever! Sadly, those who have so advocated for "choice" will discover that they have no choice as they are being herded apart from God (unless they are truly saved in a manner consistent with the Scriptures, which indicate that GOD alone is the author and finisher of our salvation). I only pray that many are included in that camp!

 

I like the welcome.:thumbsup:

 

What I've emphasized is nothing but a caricature from some Calvinists.

Keep in mind that "Salvation comes from the Lord (Jonah 2:9), no matter how we slice and dice it. :thumbs:

 

What does Eph. 2:8-9 say?

 

I'd encourage you to read some of the more scholarly Arminians such as Adam Clarke or even Arminius himself. I know they both would agree with you in regard of salvation being "of the Lord." Just because people can reject a gift doesn't make the giver any less worthy of praise for the gift he has given.

Also, I think you might be surprised at their description of fallen man. I don't ever recall the word "marred" being used. They believe, as do I, that men are depraved and hopeless from birth without God's intervention.

These were some of my same concerns when I left Calvinism as well. I was pleasantly surprised to find so many strong non-Calvinistic scholars who affirm these biblical positions.

 

No I didn't. That has nothing to do with the point being made in my post.

When did I make that claim? I'm a nobody. :saint:

I simply meant the complexity and the admitted difficulty of swallowing the idea that God decided that all mankind would be hopelessly damned to an eternity in hell due to the Fall except a few chosen ones. Go ask the average Joe if that is not a difficult belief to accept? In fact ask authors like Sproul and others who talk about how hard it was for them to accept these doctrines at first.

Again, you are missing the point. I'm not arguing any of those points with you. Please re-read my post and deal with the point being discussed.

You say that as if these things happened apart from God's sovereign control??? As if you believe that we have been given the freedom to make error in our doctrine? That is what we believe too. Good.

But IF Calvinism is true, does my or anyone's being a non-Calvinist change anything regarding eternity? Nope. The same elected ones are saved and everything happens according to God's plan. But just consider the implications IF YOU ARE WRONG.

 

Then we are in agreement.

 

You just stated that being cal or non cal will change nothing in light of eternity, but then you charge cals with there are "implications" to consider if they are wrong?

That seems to be an oxymoron and a double standard, and a little unrefined to be honest. What is implied is that there is an insinuated jeopardy to be faced for cals, and that other views seem to be excluded from your "implications."

What if YOU ARE WRONG? Any "implications" there?

And by the way what are the "implications" you suggest if cals are wrong? Please elaborate. Describe what you refer to specifically by "implcations to consider."

I'd like to know as would others I'm sure, especially since we know Jesus alone as the only way. It seems you are suggesting our theology somehow will affect eternity negatively for us.

And what are the implications if you are wrong? Or is this only applicable just for cals?