Featured Calvinism and the SBC (a 2013 discussion between Hankings and Mohler)

I can point you to an SBC pastor who teaches such a view. He has a church full of people who are bound in their sins and keep sinning openly whom he declares that they are saved because he heard them say the prayer and the prayer saves.

That's just viewing the prayer as your means of salvation. It's an incantation. A magic set of words. Many preachers teach this method of salvation with the most prominent person being Billy Graham.

 

That is an instance of bad theology. He is not a good Armenian or Calvinist. If he was a good Armenian, he would be teaching they lose their salvation when they sin. What he is, is a mixed up greasy grace preacher.

Billy Graham does not teach what you say. He teaches repentance and turning from sin. Maybe in his very old age he said something like what you say, but it is not what he taught.

 

I've seen it as a mixed bag - not necessarily from one church to another, but in each church.

Somebody will give an invitation, a 1 minute elevator pitch, and it almost always culminates in "if you say this prayer, God will hear and you'll have eternal life forever"

But if you accuse him of this incantation, and force him to explain, he'll usually concede that the prayer doesn't make God forgive.

But how many hear his elevator pitch, and how many hear the full version?

 

Those who are elect hear the true message. Those who are destined to remain in sin hear the elevator music.

 

The Spirit can use an Armenian preacher to lead the elect to salvation, yet you complain constantly about him. I don't get it.

 

God can use a donkey. The means by which God adopts a person is myriad. This is why Paul rejoices that the gospel is preached...even if the motives are faulty.
You seem to be teaching the end justifies the means. The end may still be a person being adopted by God, but the means can lead to years of faulty theology causing much struggles that could have been avoided by properly understanding God's word.

 

And what about those who aren't destined to remain in sin, yet aren't among the elect?

 

I had in mind those I've met personally, whether through online discussion or face-to-face encounters.

I also amended that later, to say I've met a handful of Calvinists here who are definitely theologians. You are one who seems bent on being molded by scripture, rather than having a philosophy drive your theology.

And though I haven't read him extensively, I have been genuinely impressed by Wright's willingness to re-evaluate suppositions

That's an interesting conclusion, well worth mulling over for a while.

Brother, i say this in all sincerity. Every believer in every camp would be wise to sit under your critiques.

 

Your question doesn't make sense. Please explain.

Are you referring to those for whom God has not yet chosen to save, but will in the future?

God tells us that not one person whom God has chosen will be left outside of the Kingdom.

Those who are adopted are elected to that adoption by God. Sovereignty and Grace combined. It's a beautiful thing.

 

I like doing that to people

chosen happened already, so this question is a bit off-the-wall

correct

correct

For the sake of brevity, I'll offer a very brief explanation...without scripture proofs
Mind you, it's just a brief look.
And I won't debate it in this thread.

Predestination and Election in the NT cannot be understood apart from the OT concept of Salvation, which is eschatological. However, there are some distinctions.

Predestination and election relate primarily to the end, not the beginning. It's not a matter of being chosen to be saved from hell.

They also are not referring to our destination, but our destiny. They relate not to gping to heaven, but an inheritance once we're there.

Also, they are not only individual, but corporate - also with distinction. Though WE are the elect, you may not be and I may not be.

Salvation not only refers to where someone is coming from AND where they're going AND quality of life there, but every step of the process.

 

It made sense to me at the time... Must be all that July 4th root beer I was drinking.

 

You have a passage of Scripture that says that???

My point is, whenever Scripture DIRECTLY speaks to God's sovereignty, it is an active sovereignty, not just having authority but using that authority.

 

Shows how little theology you have read.

 

Shows you may not know what "met" means

 

I have to say it since it has gone on for so many posts now...

The misspelling matters. Aremenians are people from Armenia. Arminians are people espousing a theology from ole Jacob.

 

The entire Bible speaks to Gods sovereignty. A Sovereign need not constly exercise his authority in every miniscule detail to be sovereign.