Can a non-Calvinist explain the doctrine Irresistable Grace to me?

[skypair]

... and this is the reason in general why Calvinists on the whole aren't concerned with preaching the Gospel (so others can be saved), because they reckon God's grace is "irresistible".

It seems to be more a practice of their faith and the meaning of the practice is, as you comment, hidden from them.

I also find that many of them emphaisize the "teaching" and "discipling" aspects of the Great Commission for the very reason of attaching meaning to their practice/ministry.

But I could be wrong.

skypair

 

[Rippon]

... and this is the reason in general why Calvinists on the whole aren't concerned with preaching the Gospel (so others can be saved), because they reckon God's grace is "irresistible".

Okay,go to the corner of the room.You can come back when you do a lot more reading.Have you ever read any book on Church History for instance?It would do you are world of good to actually examine things for yourself before saying such utterly false things.

Remember your untruth: Calvinists do not believe in preaching the Gospel.

You think that since its a done-deal -- the Lord has already determined to save whom He wants -- we can't do a thing about it -- so there's no point in preaching/teaching the Gospel. Does that summarize your thoughts on the matter?If so -- you need to remain in that corner for a rather long time.No recess for you young lady.

 

[jcjordan]

It seems to be more a practice of their faith and the meaning of the practice is, as you comment, hidden from them.

I also find that many of them emphaisize the "teaching" and "discipling" aspects of the Great Commission for the very reason of attaching meaning to their practice/ministry.

But I could be wrong.

skypair

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

 

[skypair]

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

Sorta "irresistibly" comes out. That is why Goldie commented as she did. That was my answer to her.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Okay,go to the corner of the room.You can come back when you do a lot more reading.Have you ever read any book on Church History for instance?It would do you are world of good to actually examine things for yourself before saying such utterly false things.

Remember your untruth: Calvinists do not believe in preaching the Gospel.

You think that since its a done-deal -- the Lord has already determined to save whom He wants -- we can't do a thing about it -- so there's no point in preaching/teaching the Gospel. Does that summarize your thoughts on the matter?If so -- you need to remain in that corner for a rather long time.No recess for you young lady.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :applause:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It seems to be more a practice of their faith and the meaning of the practice is, as you comment, hidden from them.

I also find that many of them emphaisize the "teaching" and "discipling" aspects of the Great Commission for the very reason of attaching meaning to their practice/ministry.

But I could be wrong.

skypair

Your wrong. I have no idea what your talking about. lol

 

[jcjordan]

Sorta "irresistibly" comes out. That is why Goldie commented as she did. That was my answer to her.

skypair

I think both you and Goldie need to back further in this thread and read Allan's responses. He's not a calvinist, yet his responses were well thought out and he seems to have a decent grasp on what calvinists actually believe about Irresistable Grace.

 

[Salamander]

I'm wondering if any non-calvinists can actually fully explain in their own words what the calvinist doctrine of Irresistable Grace teaches. I'm not intersted in hearing why it is wrong. Just tell me what the doctrine teaches.

Not interested in what the Bible says about those who resisted the Holy Ghost?

 

[JDale]

well, o.k. I'm not even sure how to reply to this.

Hmmm...While goldie is absolutely right about how irresistible grace and limited atonement are necessary as part of the Calvinist system of soteriology, he's not entirely accurate with regard to Calvinists being "uninterested" in preaching the Gospel.

The fact is, some of the greatest preachers in history have been Calvinists. Some of the greatest Evangelists as well. C.H. Spurgeon was a Calvinist, as was Jonathan Edwards. And don't forget George Whitefield! Whitefield was a "Calvinist Methodist" who essentially became the catalyst for the first Great Awakening in the American Colonies. Yet, he and John Wesley were lifelong friends who prayed for and supported each other.

Certainly there ARE hyper-Calvinists that believe preaching the Gospel is unnecessary as God knows His elect and will save them irresistibly. The Primitive Baptist Churches in my home state of North Carolina are examples of this belief -- and so are their empty, shut down, old church buildings. Other Calvinists, however, have allowed their soteriology to run smack dab into reality -- if they don't go out LOOKING for the elect, then the "elect" will find their way to Arminian churches!

JDale

 

[jcjordan]

Hmmm...While goldie is absolutely right about how irresistible grace and limited atonement are necessary as part of the Calvinist system of soteriology, he's not entirely accurate with regard to Calvinists being "uninterested" in preaching the Gospel.

The fact is, some of the greatest preachers in history have been Calvinists. Some of the greatest Evangelists as well. C.H. Spurgeon was a Calvinist, as was Jonathan Edwards. And don't forget George Whitefield! Whitefield was a "Calvinist Methodist" who essentially became the catalyst for the first Great Awakening in the American Colonies. Yet, he and John Wesley were lifelong friends who prayed for and supported each other.

Certainly there ARE hyper-Calvinists that believe preaching the Gospel is unnecessary as God knows His elect and will save them irresistibly. The Primitive Baptist Churches in my home state of North Carolina are examples of this belief -- and so are their empty, shut down, old church buildings. Other Calvinists, however, have allowed their soteriology to run smack dab into reality -- if they don't go out LOOKING for the elect, then the "elect" will find their way to Arminian churches!

JDale

JDale, thanks for saying this. It means a lot coming from a non-calvinist. I wanted to say the same thing but I knew it would mean nothing coming from me. FYI, I hate the hyper-calvinism that you describe. I think it's heresy. In fact, I would much rather serve and worship with a bunch of semi-pelagians than with a group of hyper-calvinists (rightly defined that is). Since embracing the doctrines of grace, I've become much more fervant for missions. That's not to say that a non-calvinist can't be. My view of missions has changed though. I no longer believe the chief end of missions is for men to be saved but rather for God's name to get glory among the nations. If knowing that just preaching God's Word to the lost brings Him much glory, there is so much pressure taken off in getting results. Oh, but I want people to be saved too...because "God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him" (a quote from my favorite preacher). Anyway, thanks for setting the record straight.

 

[skypair]

I think both you and Goldie need to back further in this thread and read Allan's responses. He's not a calvinist, yet his responses were well thought out and he seems to have a decent grasp on what calvinists actually believe about Irresistable Grace.

I did, too. In fact, I had nothing to add until I see where you are taking the discussion. :thumbs:

skypair

 

[skypair]

FYI, I hate [???] the hyper-calvinism that you describe.

How does one distinguish a hyper from not hyper? Is the hyper a 'fundamentalist-literalist Calvinist' and the non-hyper not? Is there some distinction regarding "Irresistible Grace" between them?

I no longer believe the chief end of missions is for men to be saved but rather for God's name to get glory among the nations.

That's kinda what I said, isn't it?

skypair

 

[jcjordan]

I did, too. In fact, I had nothing to add until I see where you are taking the discussion. :thumbs:

skypair

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[jcjordan]

How does one distinguish a hyper from not hyper? Is the hyper a 'fundamentalist-literalist Calvinist' and the non-hyper not? Is there some distinction regarding "Irresistible Grace" between them?

That's kinda what I said, isn't it?

skypair

Please quote me fully. I took your comments to mean that calvinists didn't care about winning the lost. If that's not what you meant, please explain. For clarification, we do care, but that's not the chief end or aim.

 

[skypair]

Please quote me fully.

You said you HATE hyperCalvinists. Sounds complete to me. Is it not "caring about winning the lost" that is the "object of you hate?" Or are there other issues?

skykpair

 

[TCGreek]

Is the "effectual call" as seen in classic calvinism biblical?

 

[jcjordan]

You said you HATE hyperCalvinists. Sounds complete to me. Is it not "caring about winning the lost" that is the "object of you hate?" Or are there other issues?

skykpair

First, please show me where I said I hate someone. I also hate it when someone misquotes me.

 

[JDale]

How does one distinguish a hyper from not hyper? Is the hyper a 'fundamentalist-literalist Calvinist' and the non-hyper not? Is there some distinction regarding "Irresistible Grace" between them?

That's kinda what I said, isn't it?

skypair

Oh I can answer this. When I was in Seminary, I went to a school (CIU) where most of the students were Calvinists. The few Arminians on the campus had a sort of code identifying the two groups and distinguishing between them.

The "Calvinists" who affirmed 5 pts. and one or more of the various Confessions, but who could be talked to and reasoned with, we called them "SR's" [Sufficiently Reformed].

The "Hyper-Calvinists" affirmed the 5 pts., at least one of the various Confessions, but who would not talk to those not Calvinist, nor be reasoned with about...pretty much anything -- these we called "OR's" [Obnoxiously Reformed].

SO the difference isn't mainly the theology (though some slight shades of difference may exist), the main difference is attitude.

JDale

 

[JDale]

Is the "effectual call" as seen in classic calvinism biblical?

No.

Blessings,

JDale

 

[Rippon]

You said you HATE hyperCalvinists. Sounds complete to me. Is it not "caring about winning the lost" that is the "object of you hate?" Or are there other issues?

skykpair

Sp, you are being deliberately dishonest.In post #30 jcjordon said he hated the kind of hyper-Calvinism;not hyper-Calvinists that JDale was discussing.There is a big distinction there between the ism and ists. Can you please try to get it right?