Featured Did a Calvinist say this?

No Sir, I do not by any Calvinist definition thereof. That word "sovereign" isn't even in the King James Bible . The Bible says... Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps. It's pretty simple brother, God allows us to choose but He alone holds the consequences of our choice. Faith is not something man "Helps" God with: it is OBEYING His Almighty command to believe with your heart. John 6:29 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

 

Good thing I am neither a cal nor arm because I believe none of those things.

 

First, consider the scope of God's will in 2 Peter 3:9. Leading up to verse 9, Peter is telling his readers that those who reject the imminent coming of the Lord forget that is the same Lord who created all there is, and the physical world is being maintained (by God) for the coming day of judgment. But it is also being maintained for another purpose. In 2 Peter 3:8 the Apostle writes, "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The Apostle is putting things in perspective for the reader. God is not constrained by time. What may seem as an inordinate amount of time to us is a mere tick of the second hand to God. But why did the Apostle write those words? Because in the often quoted verse 9 he writes, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." So, does God, indeed, will that "any" should not perish? Yes. That is what the text says. But does "any" mean every person who ever lived or ever will live? I think the answer to that question is a qualified no.

Because of the context of the entire chapter, I believe the "any" in verse 9 is the entirety of the Elect, i.e. all those God has predestined for salvation. I also believe the text makes an unspoken appeal to the nature of God. God accomplishes everything He decrees. For God to decree something, and being unable to accomplish the thing He decrees, makes God less than omnipotent. At this point those on the Synergist side will say that God gave man free will, so therefore God desires that all come to Him, but He must allow them to make a choice. Where that view fails is that it creates a huge hole in God's nature. Is man's will greater than the desire of God? Is man's free will actually a self-autonomous free will that can act independent of God? Or could it be that man's free will (if that term is even accurate) is subservient to his nature; if dead in sin a distorted will that is in bondage to sin (Romans 6:6), or a will that has been liberated and free to serve God (Romans 6:18)? I believe scripture teaches it is the latter. God is having patience with this sinful, corrupt world until all of his Elect (the "any") are brought into the fold.

 

It's common knowledge that Adam and Eve spoke in King James English...

 

Rev, we just refer to you as pagan.

 

If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Reynolds,

Let me add a P.S. to post #73.

You stated that you started this thread to discuss evangelism. So, let me address that topic within a Monergist vs. Synergist context.

If Charles Spurgeon was alive today, he would plead with those in his audience to throw themselves upon the mercy of God, and the forgiveness of sins offered through faith in Jesus Christ. Spurgeon wrote:

Here was as rabid a Calvinist as ever was preaching about "earnest endeavors to bring sinners to the Savior". While Spurgeon understood the necessity of evangelism, he also understood that the Great Commission had more in mind than just a evangelistic transaction. What good is it to buy healthy food at the supermarket unless you take it home, prepare it, and then eat it. Until you have consumed it, there is nothing it can do for you. The same can be said about any evangelism method that concentrates on decision more than discipleship. We must not just tell people about the Savior, we must call them to a life-long commitment to follow Him. I am not saying that Synergists disagree with my last statement. Indeed, very few Synergists will argue that discipleship is unnecessary. But no honest person will disagree that there are stark methodological differences between the two theologies. Spurgeon was not afraid to teach theology and doctrine in his evangelistic services. If the Spirit of God can illumine a dead sinner, why can he not illumine him into all truth (1 John 2:27)? We know that man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). God's word is the fuel of discipleship. It is through knowing God's word that we grow as Christians, and how we lead others to Christ.

 

Well the way you described those doctrines I hold to none of them. Further, I reject being labeled by men (i.e. calvinist, arminian) I see it as contrary to scripture. Paul was very clear on this.

 

...pagan...