Calvinism: more evangelistic?

[JesusFan]

Hyper-calvnism would be the same as fatalism. Calvinism proper rejects fatalism.

For the record, most of the arguments against Calvinism is actually against Hyper-Calvinism.

also most would appear to be against calvinism of the variety that i am not aware of. the ole "straw man" version!

 

[Skandelon]

Which is a pointless remark.

So what? They are bigger.

That wasn't the point Luke. Please put down the axe and try to understand without being so disagreeable. I have conceded that Calvinism, in it's pure form, is not anti-evangelistic proving that I'm not attempting to attack you regarding our soteriological differences, so the least you could do is try and understand my point.

My first point was not that they are just bigger, but that the numbers of the IMB are not a complete representation of all the SBC sends because of the many different modes of sending through various SBC supported churches and agencies; as apposed to the smaller and more easily tracked numbers of the PCA.

My next point was that level of Evangelistic fervor cannot be measured by the number of foreign missionaries alone.

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 complete misrepresentation of the numbers on sooo many levels. Wow...

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

Though I could debate either of these erroneous claims with basic facts, you fail to see that a group being more focused on sending foreign missionaries is different than their level of Evangelistic fervor, Luke. You can evangelize through many various means and while one group may express that fervor more through efforts at home doesn't mean the fervor is any less and it certainly doesn't imply that their soteriological views have anything to do with it.

I love the SBC and the cooperative program.

Then stop misrepresenting it by suggesting it has less evangelistic fervor due to it's predominate soteriological views using unfounded, unrelated and skewed stats.

But to say that she is more focused on missions, more Great Commission driven than the PCA is simply madness

Who ever made that claim? I'm not making that claim. I'm only debunking the "madness" of your claims.

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

I'm stubborn about correctly representing the facts about an organization for which I serve.

 

[Skandelon]

My first point was not that they are just bigger, but that the numbers of the IMB are not a complete representation of all the SBC sends because of the many different modes of sending through various SBC supported churches and agencies; as apposed to the smaller and more easily tracked numbers of the PCA.

Case and point. There is a large SBC church in my area that is currently supporting 129 foreign missionaries who are not with the IMB. Some SBC missionaries don't go through the IMB because of their strict restrictions (no alcohol consumption in the last 2 years, no teenagers etc). Others don't like their views regarding the Baptist Faith and Message. The point is that the IMB is not even close to a full representation of the foreign mission efforts of the SBC as a whole.

 

[Jerome]

also I've shown you his congregation grew, which show he was no hyper-calvinist.

How have you shown that his congregation grew?

Obviously you haven't read back far enough.

In 1757 his congregation needed larger premises and moved to a Carter Lane, St. Olave’s Street, Southwark

Is this what you are referring to?

Well no response yet.

Sensing something fishy, I checked the membership stats in Michael Haykin's book on Gill (p. 41):

membership stood at 151 in 1727
it was 141 in 1757, at the time of the move to Carter Lane
it was 133 at the end of his pastorate

That's growth?

Why was there a move to Carter Lane?

"Presumably the old wooden building ["could seat almost a thousand" (p. 13)] in which Keach and Stinton had ministered had now reached the end of its usefulness." (p. 39)



So, so much for this "Gill's congregation grew so MUCH they needed larger premises!" business.

 

[Jerome]

Oh, and if the standard of evangelitude is this purported per-capita-support-of-denominational-foreign-missionary-staff figure, just how did Gill's church measure up to your "arithmetic", Luke?

 

[Van]

"T"
-Eph. 2:1-3 - And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
-John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
-Romans 3:10-11 - As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.”

Thanks 12 Strings, lets delve into these three verses supposed to support total spiritual inability. Ephesians 2:1-3 simply says we in our fallen state, are "dead in our sins" but just what that means (1) separated from God and unable to redeem ourselves or (2) separated from God and unable to seek to redeem ourselves is not spelled out in that scripture. Hence, no actual support, just Calvinism rewriting the meaning of dead to mean total spiritual inability. But possible meaning number 1 is actually what is being said.

Next, John 6:44 says no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, and that is certainly true, but again this verse does not say God does not drawn everyone who hears and understands the gospel. Sure, some are drawn more than others, some respond like the second, third or fouth soil of Matthew 13, but they all respond seeking God and therefore by definition are drawn by the gospel. So again, no actual support for total spiritual inability is found in John 6:44.

Last, Romans 3:10-11 - As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. as used by Calvinism represents a verse ripped from context. Now it is ok for Paul to rip the verse out of its original context, and put it to work for another inspired point, but Calvinist cannot claim the protection of inspired ripping.

In Paul's argument, contextualy considered, he is teaching we are all under sin, we have all fallen short of the glory of God, anyone seeking God's righteousness through the law does not understand that by the Law no flesh is justified. And no one seeks God when they are sinning, so anyone seeking God through the Law is not actually seeking God.
That is the actual contextual argument Paul is making. So no support for total spiritual inability here either. But it gets worse. Look back to the OT quoted. Here those not seeking God are the wicked fools who say there is no God. But God looks down to see if any men are seeking God and finds them, so again whether considering the NT usage of Paul, or the OT usage in Psalm 14, no only is there no support, but the premise is shown by those seeking God as a refuge, or seeking God through faith, that total spiritual inability is a fiction.

 

[Van]

Are you REALLY going to try to come from the position that men like calvin/augustine/packer/hodge/erickson etc are ALL using "shoddy" work in their theologies?

Absolutely. Prove me wrong, show me a commentary where they support the TULI based on a specific bible passage. All I see is generalized "all these past scholars could not be mistaken" argument from authority.

 

[JesusFan]

Are you REALLY going to try to come from the position that men like calvin/augustine/packer/hodge/erickson etc are ALL using "shoddy" work in their theologies?

Absolutely. Prove me wrong, show me a commentary where they support the TULI based on a specific bible passage. All I see is generalized "all these past scholars could not be mistaken" argument from authority.

Your big mistake is approaching this subject is that while you try to prove theology by "proof texting" the Bible, calvinism instead takes into account the totality of the biblical verses regarding Sotierology!

And again, you really want to say that all of that learned men, lets add those JI packer and Francis Scheafer into the mix, are all guilty of faulty misunderstanding of the biblcal texts?

 

[DHK]

Concerning hyper and all the various other forms of Calvinism, Wesley, though Arminian, sums it up pretty well.

Sell, in his book, "The Great Debate," quotes him:

Concerning all the senseless rhetoric that is passed off for Bible doctrine, John Wesley, although an ardent Arminian, had enough sense to comprehend the real issue:

Call it therefore by whatever name you please, Election, Preterition, Predestination, or Reprobation, it comes in the end to the same thing. The sense of all is plainly this: By virtue of an eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, one part of mankind are infallibly saved and the rest infallibly damned; it being impossible that any of the former should be damned, or that any of the latter should be saved. But if this be so, then is all preaching vain.

Alan P. Sell, The Great Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), p. 4.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Van posted...

Men of "intellectual gravitas" do not defend their views with logical fallacies like an argument from authority. I have said, repeatedly, that Calvinism is based on shoddy bible study. Show me a verse where any Calvinist presents support for the T,U,L, or I, including any of these listed men. But to speak in generalities, that is just more sand being thrown up to hide the truth.

Did they rightly understand that choice means choice, or did they add to scripture that choice can mean non-choice? Did they understand foreknowledge to refer to knowledge of the past or of the future? I could go on, but Calvinism is a fiction and until or unless you defend your views based on scripture rather than logical fallacies like an argument from authority, I will continue to consider your bible study shoddy.

Agree completely :thumbs:

 

[12strings]

Thanks 12 Strings, lets delve into these three verses supposed to support total spiritual inability. Ephesians 2:1-3 simply says we in our fallen state, are "dead in our sins" but just what that means (1) separated from God and unable to redeem ourselves or (2) separated from God and unable to seek to redeem ourselves is not spelled out in that scripture. Hence, no actual support, just Calvinism rewriting the meaning of dead to mean total spiritual inability. But possible meaning number 1 is actually what is being said.

Well, I'm glad you at least admit the possibility of the other explaination. That's really all I'm going for here.

Next, John 6:44 says no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, and that is certainly true, but again this verse does not say God does not drawn everyone who hears and understands the gospel. Sure, some are drawn more than others, some respond like the second, third or fouth soil of Matthew 13, but they all respond seeking God and therefore by definition are drawn by the gospel. So again, no actual support for total spiritual inability is found in John 6:44.

1. So are you at least admitting that Some people are given more chance to recieve Christ than others? That sound's like God making a choice to me.

2. What I don't see in the Bible is God "drawing" everyone with the gospel. I see whole groups of people not given any gospel light. So it seems god draws some people and not others.

Last, Romans 3:10-11 - As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. as used by Calvinism represents a verse ripped from context. Now it is ok for Paul to rip the verse out of its original context, and put it to work for another inspired point, but Calvinist cannot claim the protection of inspired ripping.

In Paul's argument, contextualy considered, he is teaching we are all under sin, we have all fallen short of the glory of God, anyone seeking God's righteousness through the law does not understand that by the Law no flesh is justified. And no one seeks God when they are sinning, so anyone seeking God through the Law is not actually seeking God.
That is the actual contextual argument Paul is making. So no support for total spiritual inability here either. But it gets worse. Look back to the OT quoted. Here those not seeking God are the wicked fools who say there is no God. But God looks down to see if any men are seeking God and finds them, so again whether considering the NT usage of Paul, or the OT usage in Psalm 14, no only is there no support, but the premise is shown by those seeking God as a refuge, or seeking God through faith, that total spiritual inability is a fiction.

Here is FROM pS. 14:
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good, not even one.

Here in the OT source, you see the same thing Paul says.
-God looks down at "the children of man" (doesn't say some of them)
-He looks for any who seek him.
-v.2 he finds none: "they have ALL turned aside" (After all, "All means all" right?)

 

[preacher4truth]

Well no response yet.

Sensing something fishy, I checked the membership stats in Michael Haykin's book on Gill (p. 41):

membership stood at 151 in 1727
it was 141 in 1757, at the time of the move to Carter Lane
it was 133 at the end of his pastorate

That's growth?

Why was there a move to Carter Lane?

"Presumably the old wooden building ["could seat almost a thousand" (p. 13)] in which Keach and Stinton had ministered had now reached the end of its usefulness." (p. 39)

So, so much for this "Gill's congregation grew so MUCH they needed larger premises!" business.

Maykins comments don't match up to the fact they did need a larger premises which is why the congregation moved. Some on here stated he had 2000 in membership. You say 150ish.

The bottom line is they accusation he was hyper in that he was against an evangelistic Gospel message is false.

 

[Jerome]

they did need a larger premises which is why the congregation moved.

What is your source for this false claim?

The declining numbers noted in the Haykin book are taken from the church's own record book.

 

[preacher4truth]

What is your source for this false claim?

The declining numbers noted in the Haykin book are taken from the church's own record book.

You're allowing this to get you twisted. Relax. :thumbsup:

Try googling the quote maybe?

What I quoted is well known about Gill. That you and Haykin don't agree? Well, to be honest, I really couldn't care less.

One more time, my entire point is that he wasn't anti-evangelistic, nor hyper-calvinistic.

 

[Jerome]

Oh, I know the falsehood you repeated is pasted all over the internet (wikipedia, etc.) with no documentation to support it.

You couldn't care less what Gill's church's own records reveal? Bizarre.

 

[preacher4truth]

Oh, I know the falsehood you repeated is pasted all over the internet (wikipedia, etc.) with no documentation to support it.

You couldn't care less what Gill's church's own records reveal? Bizarre.

You're incorrect again, and assuming again.

No, I seriously doubt your source is credible.

Here's some "documentation" to support it:

Mr. Gill’s ‘preaching had been very acceptable from the beginning,’ and his ‘auditory became so numerous, that the place of worship, though a large one, could hardly contain them.’ And now being settled, ‘his people were very zealous in manifesting their affections towards him, and, to the utmost of their abilities, raised him a suitable maintenance.’ 1723. - John Rippon (from the biography Rev. John Gill, D.D.)

I find it of great interest the level of attack against John Gill who was well loved and whose death impacted many persons.

 

[DHK]

Well, I really couldn't care less to be honest.

Better watch how you punctuate those sentences.

 

[preacher4truth]

Better watch how you punctuate those sentences.

Well, you got me there. :thumbsup:

 

[gb93433]

I think we do a pretty fair job of evangelising, even though some may say we are in "darkness"

What evangelist would say that? What percent of the world are followers of Jesus?

 

[Van]

Reply to 12 Strings,

Well, I'm glad you at least admit the possibility of the other explaination. That's really all I'm going for here.

Based on Ephesians 2:1-3, either of the two possible meanings are viable. However, in light of Matthew 23:13 where men are entering heaven, and Matthew 13 where 3 of the 4 soils are able to seek God, only meaning #1 is possible.

1. So are you at least admitting that Some people are given more chance to receive Christ than others? That sound's like God making a choice to me.

Absolutely, the Bible teaches cultivation, planting and watering which are not received by all people in the same amount. God did make the choice to use believers to spread the gospel, but there is no support in scripture for the idea He chose individuals before creation to enable to receive the gospel. That Calvinist doctrine is a fiction.

2. What I don't see in the Bible is God "drawing" everyone with the gospel. I see whole groups of people not given any gospel light. So it seems god draws some people and not others.

And I did not say that!! Here is what I said:

this verse does not say God does not drawn everyone who hears and understands the gospel.

Note in John 12:32 Jesus says when people become aware He died for them, high and lifted up, they will be drawn. And by definition, Matthew 13 teaches those who understand the gospel are drawn, seeking the righteousness of God.

Here is FROM pS. 14:
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good, not even one.

Here in the OT source, you see the same thing Paul says.
-God looks down at "the children of man" (doesn't say some of them)
-He looks for any who seek him.
-v.2 he finds none: "they have ALL turned aside" (After all, "All means all" right?)

I think we need to look at the whole passage, Psalm 14:1-6. Here is the HCSB version:

1 The fool says in his heart, "God does not exist."
They are corrupt; their actions are revolting.
There is no one who does good.

2 The LORD looks down from heaven on the human race
to see if there is one who is wise,
one who seeks God.

3 All have turned away;
all alike have become corrupt.
There is no one who does good,
not even one.

4 Will evildoers never understand?
They consume my people as they consume bread;
they do not call on the LORD.

5 Then they will be filled with terror,
for God is with those who are righteous.

6 You [sinners] frustrate the plans of the afflicted,
but the LORD is his refuge.

First note the phrase, there is no one who does good, clearly applies to those who say there is no God. Second, God looks to see if someone is seeking God, but according to Calvinism no one would be seeking God because of the Fall. Third, who is in view in verse 3, all mankind or the fools who say there is no God? The answer is this refers to the fools Note the parallel from verse 1 the fools do no good, and in verse 3 those in view do no good..

But then in verses 5 and 6, we see God is with the righteous, and they have sought God has a refuge. Clearly demonstrating some spiritual ability among the sons of men. QED