Calvinism: more evangelistic?

[JesusFan]

Amen to that!! But we should continue to present the word of God for instruction, some things take time.

that is why we continue to try to be used by the Lord to bring light to the truth that Cal way of Sotierology would be best, not ONLY, but best moder to view salvation work of God!

 

[Ruiz]

Hey AIC, did you not know that if a Calvinist fails to persuade you that Calvinism is not false doctrine, you are unteachable, rather than the Calvinist is presenting falsehood.
I have been called lots of names, including ignorant and unteachable, and I see they are continuing to present fallacies, such as ad hominems, to defend their mistaken views. Go figure.

The question is why would any serious student of God's word not be able to discern the lack of context, the errors in grammar, and the outright redefinition of words that is the sum and substance of Calvinism.

The T, total spiritual inability is clearly false based on Matthew 13 and the four soils, where one soil fits the "T" due to hardening, but the other three still seek God.

The U, unconditional election is clearly false based on 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where we are chosen for salvation based on faith in the truth. Clearly a condition. Then there is James 2:5 where the poor are chosen who are rich in faith and love God, clearly conditional. Then we have 1 Corinthians 1:26-30 where folks are chosen out of the world to shame others, clearly conditional. No student of the bible could nullify all this.

The L, limited atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is clearly false doctrine. Jesus died for all mankind, He laid down His life as a ransom for all, He became the propitiation for the whole world. No serious student would accept this false doctrine.

The I, Irresistible Grace is shown to be false by Matthew 23:13 where men are entering heaven, thus having received all the revelatory grace needed, yet are turned aside by false doctrine.

Calvinism is defended by tactics such as name calling, misrepresentation, and spamming a thread with non-germane posts. That's it folks.

Van,

Disagreeing with Calvinism is expected. However, your attack on Calvinism in such a manner is more ad-hominem.

For the most part, those of us who are Calvinists have turned to this belief after years of research. While there are great men who are not Calvinistic, most of histories greatest theologians were Calvinists. You seem to question Calvinists' serious intellectual study of the Scriptures. Can you doubt the serious studies Hodge, Edwards, Owens, Whitfield, Spurgeon, Bauckus, Schaeffer, Kennedy, Warfield, and others engaged in during their lifetime? Our rich heritage can be attacked because of honest disagreements, but implying we are anti-studious is intellectually dishonest. There is not a man on this board who has the intellectual gravitas of any one of these men.

 

[JesusFan]

Van,

Disagreeing with Calvinism is expected. However, your attack on Calvinism in such a manner is more ad-hominem.

For the most part, those of us who are Calvinists have turned to this belief after years of research. While there are great men who are not Calvinistic, most of histories greatest theologians were Calvinists. You seem to question Calvinists' serious intellectual study of the Scriptures. Can you doubt the serious studies Hodge, Edwards, Owens, Whitfield, Spurgeon, Bauckus, Schaeffer, Kennedy, Warfield, and others engaged in during their lifetime? Our rich heritage can be attacked because of honest disagreements, but implying we are anti-studious is intellectually dishonest. There is not a man on this board who has the intellectual gravitas of any one of these men.

See the biggest reason why some refuse to see the truth of DoG expressed in the Bible is that they fail to see that we all died inAdam, the sheer spiritual destruction towards man wrouhgt by the fall, and that being spiritual dead in sins, MUST have it the way we express it per the scriptues...

They refuse to see that we have to explain salvation by the totality of the biblical texts, as we HAVE to see the spiritual death in our sins caused by adam before viewing the Cross of Christ and salvation!

 

[Skandelon]

Trying to measure evangelistic fervor with numbers seems to me to be a useless exercise.

:thumbsup: Exactly my point.

 

[Skandelon]

And of course the underlying point is, as Skandelon has already conceded, Calvinism most ASSUREDLY does not quell evangelistic zeal.

Well, actually history shows us that Calvinistic doctrine CAN, if it is taken to seed, become anti-evangelistic. But I do concede that the doctrine itself, in it true form, doesn't quell evangelism. I also don't think it necessarily promotes it more than non-Calvinism, which is what you seemed to be suggesting in the presentation of your skewed stats.

What I am saying is that 300,000 people supporting 600 foreign missionaries is more impressive than 16,000,000 supporting 5,000 foreign missionaries.

And what I'm saying is that the structure and sending institutions of the PCA are much smaller and defined than that of the massively larger SBC, which has countless arms and fingers than what is represented by the IMB alone. It is comparing apples and oranges in order to prove a totally unrelated point. Since when is evangelistic fervor measured only by the number FOREIGN missionaries (which is much higher for the SBC than what has been presented)? How does evangelistic efforts at home not factor into this? I would think the number of baptisms/POFs per church, which is what I presented in my stats, would be a much more accurate gage if one was trying to prove their point using stats (which again, is RIDICULOUS).

Both groups have Evangelistic fervor, and are actively involved in reaching the lost world, period. There effectiveness in accomplishing the great commission has NOTHING to do with their soteriology, or at least it can't be measured by the type of subjective, incomplete, surface level stats you have presented.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Well, actually history shows us that Calvinistic doctrine CAN, if it is taken to seed, become anti-evangelistic. But I do concede that the doctrine itself, in it true form, doesn't quell evangelism. I also don't think it necessarily promotes it more than non-Calvinism, which is what you seemed to be suggesting in the presentation of your skewed stats.


And what I'm saying is that the structure and sending institutions of the PCA are much smaller and defined than that of the massively larger SBC, which has countless arms and fingers than what is represented by the IMB alone. It is comparing apples and oranges in order to prove a totally unrelated point. Since when is evangelistic fervor measured only by the number FOREIGN missionaries (which is much higher for the SBC than what has been presented)? How does evangelistic efforts at home not factor into this? I would think the number of baptisms/POFs per church, which is what I presented in my stats, would be a much more accurate gage if one was trying to prove their point using stats (which again, is RIDICULOUS).

Both groups have Evangelistic fervor, and are actively involved in reaching the lost world, period. There effectiveness in accomplishing the great commission has NOTHING to do with their soteriology, or at least it can't be measured by the type of subjective, incomplete, surface level stats you have presented.

Can someone share what these abreviations..:BangHead:...are?

PCA IMB POF's

 

[Amy.G]

Can someone share what these abreviations..:BangHead:...are?

PCA IMB POF's

Presbyterian Church in America
International Mission Board
Profession of faith

 

[Alive in Christ]

Presbyterian Church in America
International Mission Board
Profession of faith

Thank you Amy. :wavey:

 

[Luke2427]

And what I'm saying is that the structure and sending institutions of the PCA are much smaller and defined than that of the massively larger SBC,

Which is a pointless remark.

So what? They are bigger.

If they are fifty times bigger they ought to be sending fifty times more missionaries- but they are not.

The fact is that they are about 53 times bigger and support only about 8 times more missionaries.

That is a huge plus for PCA versus SBC.

SBC 53 times bigger and only supports 8 times more missionaries.


Sorry,Skan, anybody can see that that means the PCA is more focused on missions than the SBC at this point in history.

I love the SBC and the cooperative program.

I BECAME a Southern Baptist because she has historically been a Great Commission movement.

But to say that she is more focused on missions, more Great Commission driven than the PCA is simply madness and, it seems to me, an unscrupulous spinning of the facts.

The point of this thread, you've already conceded, so I don't know why you keep stubbornly posting in opposition.

Calvinism, REAL Calvinism, does not dampen evangelistic zeal.

History shows it strengthens it.

 

[matt wade]

That is a huge plus for PCA versus SBC.

Oh for goodness sake, please hurry up and convert to PCA so we can stop hearing from you in the Baptist section of this board.

 

[Robert Snow]

Oh for goodness sake, please hurry up and convert to PCA so we can stop hearing from you in the Baptist section of this board.

I second that motion!

 

[David Lamb]

Presbyterian Church in America
International Mission Board
Profession of faith

Thanks, Amy. I think we all need to be careful in our use of abbreviations/acronyms; even if they are well-known and understood in the country where the poster is, that may not be the case elsewhere in the world. For instance, I had never heard of the "POFs" before, and when I looked the acronym up, I found things like: Proof of Funds, Pakistan Ordnance Factories, Plastic Optical Fibre, and Premature Ovarian Failure. :laugh: The only one that might have fitted was "Pillar of Fire Church"!

 

[DHK]

If you want a point from history, John Gill, one of the more staunch Calvinists pastored in a church that seated 2,000, and when he took the church the attendance was well up in numbers. When he left the church it was down to a paltry 153.

 

[preacher4truth]

If you want a point from history, John Gill, one of the more staunch Calvinists pastored in a church that seated 2,000, and when he took the church the attendance was well up in numbers. When he left the church it was down to a paltry 153.

You mean the church he pastored for 51 years, that he brought to a place where they had to expand? The Horsleydown Church in London? This is the only church he pastored. His influence upon Christians was of great positive impact. Your attempt to belittle and caste a negative light upon such a man of God is more a commentary of your character than his.

"His first pastoral work was as an intern assisting John Davis at Higham Ferrers in 1718 at age 21. He became pastor at the Strict Baptist church at Goat Yard Chapel, Horsleydown, Southwark in 1719. His pastorate lasted 51 years. In 1757 his congregation needed larger premises and moved to a Carter Lane, St. Olave’s Street, Southwark."

It is argued that all this alleged heresy forced Gill and his flock, to lose their evangelistic impulse resulting in declining vigour in the churches under his influence. However, Gill was no Hyper-Calvinist but a great Reformed 18th century defender of orthodoxy and a Baptist apologist, although he is still being displayed in modern British evangelical circles as a Hyper-Calvinist heretic with not an ounce of evangelical acumen in him. One contributor writing on this subject on the Puritan Board web site posed the question: “Would a hyper-Calvinist urge his church members to support the preaching of George Whitefield at the park down the road?” which evidentially he did.

People like John Gill will forever be bathed in controversy, especially if those reading him find what he has to say collides with their own viewpoint, however, to many of us Dr John Gill will remain a source of vital information, stimulation and guidance. Gill passed into the fuller presence of his Lord on the 14th October 1771."

He collides with your viewpoint, and schools you theologically by the way, but the fact is, he was evangelistic and the church he pastored grew. The accusations of being hyper and a diminishing congregation are false rumors.

The truth is that Gill foresaw the disastrous effects of Arminianism and Unitarianism and sought to protect God's people from them. Timothy George notes: "If Gill erred in overstressing God's initiative in salvation, it was because he believed the foundational fact was being undermined by the inroads of deism, rationalism, and the misdirected message of Arminianism." In spite of any criticisms which may justly or unjustly be applied to Dr. Gill, he was a staunch defender of the orthodox faith. He wrote extensively against those who denied the Trinity and rightly saw the growing influence and danger of Unitarianism. The historian Carl L. Becker said that Gill lived in a time when "God was on trial." On every side the Enlightenment was devaluing God and elevating man. To read Gill without recognizing the dangers he saw facing evangelical Christianity is a sad mistake and a disservice to that great man of God.

Stressing Gods initiative in Salvation is Biblical truth. He would preach against easy-believism, hocus-pocus "evangelism" of our day, as he did then. I agree with this preaching by the way.

Not too many can handle hearing this truth, i.e., that it is all God in salvation, and none of man, and the reaction of the easy-believism preachers is to become angry and go off in a huff.

 

[DHK]

You mean the church he pastored for 51 years, that he brought to a place where they had to expand? The Horsleydown Church in London? This is the only church he pastored. His influence upon Christians was of great positive impact. Your attempt to belittle and caste a negative light upon such a man of God is more a commentary of your character than his.

It was not a "deliberate" attempt. It was a quote from another source:

The great writer and preacher John Gill is highly revered and quoted often, although it is never mentioned that during the time he ministered in London (1719-1771) the church dwindled down to 153 people by 1753 in a place where seating was 2000. (Alan P. Sell, The Great Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), p.83).

If his information is wrong, and it could be, then history will tell the story, not me.

He collides with your viewpoint, and schools you theologically by the way, but the fact is, he was evangelistic and the church he pastored grew. The accusations of being hyper and a diminishing congregation are false rumors.

Upon further research the accusation of his congregation being one that was diminishing may be false, but as to being a hyper Calvinist, I doubt it. That he collides with my viewpoint theologically, of course he does. I, by no means, am a Calvinist.

Stressing Gods initiative in Salvation is Biblical truth. He would preach against easy-believism, hocus-pocus "evangelism" of our day, as he did then. I agree with this preaching by the way.

I agree with you. I don't believe in easy-believism; never did. And as for hocus pocus whateverism, you can have all you want of it.

Not too many can handle hearing this truth, i.e., that it is all God in salvation, and none of man, and the reaction of the easy-believism preachers is to become angry and go off in a huff.

You know not of what you speak. You assume too much.

 

[sag38]

When will this incessant calvinist -vs- everyone else junk that has dominated the Baptist Board. I for one am sick of it. I'm with Matt. Why doesn't Luke and his little yapper move on somewhere else?

 

[preacher4truth]

It was not a "deliberate" attempt. It was a quote from another source:

If his information is wrong, and it could be, then history will tell the story, not me.


Upon further research the accusation of his congregation being one that was diminishing may be false, but as to being a hyper Calvinist, I doubt it. That he collides with my viewpoint theologically, of course he does. I, by no means, am a Calvinist.

I agree with you. I don't believe in easy-believism; never did. And as for hocus pocus whateverism, you can have all you want of it.

You know not of what you speak. You assume too much.

Yes, as you agree, you've given false information. It was actually deliberate, you posted it and it is false. It wasn't "accidental." Thus this passage for your consideration in the future: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." Proverbs 14:15


But now you want to adhere to another point where you've garnered your false information and cling to it, that is, that your incorrect source calls him an "hyper-calvinist." The fact that his church grew in number refutes your accusations, as they were certainly evangelistic.

He's no hype-calvinist. You misrepresent him, and as I said, this is more a commentary on you than on him.

The hocus-pocus "whateverism" centers and hovers around those who tell others getting saved is like sitting on a chair. As far as having all of it I want, no, I'll pass, you can keep it for yourself as I reject it as false teaching.

I find it interesting that you assume I assume too much, when you've darted off unwisely to lay a claim against a minister of God that is purely falsehood.

Let's look into your false accusation with Scriptures:

What I stated is true, not many can handle the preaching of the truth. It's actually supported by Scriptures, so you're incorrect saying I've "assumed" when I've actually stated a Biblical truth: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." 2 Timothy 4:2-3

Part of these myths is the easy-believism nonsense being propagated in Baptist churches, among others. "Say this prayer if you want to go to heaven." "Would you like to know for sure you're going to heaven, say this prayer and you will." That's the hocus-pocus nonsense I will have no part of. But then the preacher assures them they are on their way to heaven now, and tell them that going to heaven is as easy and similar to exercising faith in the same way that you would exercise faith in walking on a platform and trusting it to support you, and sitting in a chair believing it will not break. There is nothing of this in Scriptures anywhere.

All of this is false teaching and is easy-believism nonsense. It is not preaching the Gospel at all. It is sugar-coated false teaching, it does not even touch upon the Gospel, or truth in any manner, and skips over the power of the Gospel to a deluded falsehood named easy-believism.

Oh, btw, having done evangelistic work in churches, many persons who have been led to believe that their prayer saved them do the following: they lay all their faith in that they've said a prayer (when asked of their salvation experience, they go back to "I said that prayer back then..."); they cannot state what the Gospel is; they have a long laundry list of what they must do to gain eternal life. They're as lost as they were before they said a prayer. It's hocus-pocus false teaching that doesn't regenerate anyone. When presented with the Gospel, the actual true Gospel of Scriptures, it is the power of God, not this nonsense that others preach "all you have to do is exercise your faith just like you would on getting on a bike and trusting it" (or some other ludicrous illustration that is similar and is not the Gospel message.)

 

[DHK]

Yes, as you agree, you've given false information. It was actually deliberate, you posted it and it is false. It wasn't "accidental." Thus this passage for your consideration in the future: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." Proverbs 14:15

I do not deliberately post false information. To say that I do is to call my integrity into question which is against the bb rules. It is an infraction worth calling another mod's attention to.

But now you want to adhere to another point where you've garnered your false information and cling to it, that is, that your incorrect source calls him an "hyper-calvinist." The fact that his church grew in number refutes your accusations, as they were certainly evangelistic.

My research led me to many who put him in the "hyper-cal" camp. In this I do not believe I am wrong. Even Spurgeon believed he was hyper-calvinistic. If numbers are everything why isn't Joel Oesteen a Calvinist then? Or, why aren't you part of his flock, since the numbers indicate he must be right. That is your reasoning isn't it?

He's no hype-calvinist. You misrepresent him, and as I said, this is more a commentary on you than on him.

The misrepresentation is a figment of your imagination.
And you are misrepresenting Joe Oesteen by the same logic??
Even if you don't say anything about him, you should be a follower of him, because he has the numbers to prove it??
Or is it Spurgeon that you misrepresent who also stated that he was hyper-Calvinist? You can't have it both ways.

The hocus-pocus "whateverism" centers and hovers around those who tell others getting saved is like sitting on a chair. As far as having all of it I want, no, I'll pass, you can keep it for yourself as I reject it as false teaching.

Good. But I imagine you hold on to quite a bit also.

I find it interesting that you assume I assume too much, when you've darted off unwisely to lay a claim against a minister of God that is purely falsehood.

But I didn't. In my last post I didn't lay such a charge. I retracted anything that was false, but let the truth stand. And yet your thin skin is still hurt and offended so easily.

Let's look into your false accusation with Scriptures:

What I stated is true, not many can handle the preaching of the truth. It's actually supported by Scriptures, so you're incorrect saying I've "assumed" when I've actually stated a Biblical truth: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." 2 Timothy 4:2-3

Part of these myths is the easy-believism nonsense being propagated in Baptist churches, among others. "Say this prayer if you want to go to heaven." "Would you like to know for sure you're going to heaven, say this prayer and you will." That's the hocus-pocus nonsense I will have no part of.

Then don't make false accusations; infer false accusations; or accuse others of such. This conversation was between you and I. I told you outright that I do not believe in easy-believism. So why are you bringing it up inferring that I do believe in it, accusing me falsely so. I don't believe that, nor does our church practice it. I made that point clearly. You are preaching to the wind.

But then the preacher assures them they are on their way to heaven now, and tell them that going to heaven is as easy and similar to exercising faith in the same way that you would exercise faith in walking on a platform and trusting it to support you, and sitting in a chair believing it will not break. There is nothing of this in Scriptures anywhere.

And just pray tell, who does this?

All of this is false teaching and is easy-believism nonsense. It is not preaching the Gospel at all. It is sugar-coated false teaching, it does not even touch upon the Gospel, or truth in any manner, and skips over the power of the Gospel to a deluded falsehood named easy-believism.

And who are you talking about??

Oh, btw, having done evangelistic work in churches, many persons who have been led to believe that their prayer saved them do the following: they lay all their faith in that they've said a prayer (when asked of their salvation experience, they go back to "I said that prayer back then..."); they cannot state what the Gospel is; they have a long laundry list of what they must do to gain eternal life. They're as lost as they were before they said a prayer. It's hocus-pocus false teaching that doesn't regenerate anyone. When presented with the Gospel, the actual true Gospel of Scriptures, it is the power of God, not this nonsense that others preach "all you have to do is exercise your faith just like you would on getting on a bike and trusting it" (or some other ludicrous illustration that is similar and is not the Gospel message.)

I really don't know who or what you are talking about. You are not specific. You are making up stories. What you are doing is simply hear-say. According to the Bible that is wrong. Unless you have a specific accusation to make, keep quiet.

A fool opens his mouth and lets everything out of it.
You have done a good job.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I wish all of those arguing these points would read J.I. Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, especially the chapter on Divine Sovereignty & Human Responsibility.

That little chapter alone is worth the price of the book.

 

[Rippon]

I do not deliberately post false information. To say that I do is to call my integrity into question which is against the bb rules. It is an infraction worth calling another mod's attention to.

You have indeed posted false information before DHK. And you have not retracted it. You said that Calvin plagiarized Augustine. That was a totally bogus claim that you didn't want to admit was a total fabrication.

Even Spurgeon believed he was hyper-calvinistic.

C.H.S. did not call John Gill a hyper-Calvinist. The closest he came to that was saying that some followers of John Gill (in Spurgeon's time) were hyper-Calvinistic. Spurgeon adored John Gill. That's why he gave his twin sons Gill's Body of Divinity.