Do Calvinists Speak about Predestination in Evangelistic Preaching?

I don't. as some have said, predestination is a 'family secret.' How can we expect the natural man to understand the things of the spirit of God...things such as predestination that even some believers reject!?

I recently led a man to Christ who is now a faithful member of our church. I told him about Christ's atoning sacrifice, but made it clear that he would experience no redemption unless he repented and accepted Christ. We went through the Romans road, and he said he wanted to pray with me. I did not need to make sweeping generalizations or alter calls. The Holy Spirit worked through a stumbling weak 23 year old artist to save a soul He had set out to save. I was merely an instrument in that.

Election is ever the stronger to me when I see the results of it firsthand!

 

I recently led a man to Christ who is now a faithful member of our church. ]

According to Calvinism - you didn't.

 

There is no reason to. The classic NT passages that speak to this topic, Eph. 1 and Romans 8-11, were written to believers explaining how it was that they came to be believers. I don't think we can be faulted for following that example.


TexasSky - where in Calvinism does it say that God does not use believers to lead unbelievers to Christ?

 

I am using modern 'baptist terminology.' If you want me to use technical definitions for everything I say rather than what is simple then so be it:

"I was recently used to lead a man in the sinners prayer. The Holy Spirit convicted him and he repented of his sins and accepted the blood atonement."

Happy?

 

When it's in the passage under consideration I do.

 

According to Calvinism - If God wanted the man saved - he didn't need to "accept" Christ. If God wanted the man to go to hell - he couldn't accept Christ.

So why do you evangelize?

I asked many Calvinists on this board why they proclaim the message of Christ since they believe it really was all pre-determined. Over and over and over they said, "Because God told me to."

And by the way - If you have to "hide what you really believe" from people "until after" they are hooked - you are NOT standing on Holy Ground.
You're standing on Mormon ground.

 

Completely untrue.

Isn't that reason enough to do something?

God did not tell the Roman or the Ephesian Christians about His sovereign choice of them until after they had already believed. I guess you would say that God is Mormon too?

 

Whatever,

It is NOT completely untrue. There are entire threads on this board with Calvinists saying that man has no free will, that man has no choice, that God pre-determined who would or would not go to hell, and that He only offers His message of grace to a few.

 

You originally said this:

Please show me these threads where Calvinists have claimed that the elect do not need to believe to be saved. Also, what does this have to do with the topic?

 

If God pre-determined that you will be saved, and you have no free-will, no choice - "accepting" is just lip service.

 

That's not according to Calvinism. Why do you make stuff up? That's not very loving or kind.

Because God said to evangelize. What's wrong with obedience?

So? Unless you are an open theist, it is all determined anyway. Obedience to God sounds like a great reason to evangelize. As Paul says in 1 Cor 3, some plant and some water, but God gives the increase. It is God's job to save people. We are simply workers in his field.

Sad method of argumentation, to try to equate the other side with a false religion. Very very inappropriate and totally off base anyway. I don't think anyone is "hiding" what they believe. There are some things unbelievers don't understand. You don't teach everyone everything there is to know when they get saved. There is a lot that you still don't understand, even after however many years you have been following Christ, isn't there? Was someone "hiding" something from you because they didn't tell you everything there is to know at the beginning?

 

I think this SHOULD have said:
According to Calvinism - If God had pre-elected the man to be saved - he would accept Christ. If God wanted the man to go to hell - he couldn't accept Christ.

 

You would be hard pressed to find many Calvinists who say God "wanted man to go to hell." The Bible says that God does not delight in the death of the wicked. Hell the result of sin and rejection of God. That is man's fault not God's. There are some double predestinationists, but I don't think there are many. Most Calvinists are willing to let the tension stand without forcing logical solutions on it. Most arminians are not.

BTW, "pre election" is a redundancy. "Election" by definition, is "pre."

 

Pre-election, before creation, elected to be one of the chosen.

From your Calvinistic teachings, how can you claim that a reprobate refuses to love the truth and be saved, when, according to Calvinist, God determines that the reprobate can't love the truth, can't be saved.... Since this reprobate is not one of the elect, he doesn't refuse God at all! It's God's choice.

Romans 11:32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

 

Yes, but "pre" "election" is saying the same thing twice. It is impossible to have a "post election." "Election" by definition is a choice beforehand. That was actually a minor point.

Several points to be made.

1. You are attempting to force the issue into a logical construct that fits your own ability to comprehend. Reason and logic must always be subject to Scripture. You say it has to be a certain way, not because SCripture says that, but because you can't reconcile it any other way. I, and most Calvinists, are willing to let that stand as a testimony to our own ignorance.

2. God didn't determine that man couldn't believe. That is the result of man's own sinfulness. Again, please find out what Calvinism actually teaches before making these comments.

3. Sinners don't choose God. That is not God's fault. Their own sin is keeping them from doing that, and God is perfectly just to let them go.

Did you study this passage to figure out who the "them" and "all" are? The "them" is Israel, and the "all" are Gentiles and Israel. God has committed Israel the nation to disobedience to bring his gospel to all nations. Be careful with teh verses you use to prooftext. I have found that most verses arminians quote don't actually support their position when you read them in their context.

 

[ July 10, 2005, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

You can, if you are using Scripture as I am. There are mysteries in theology, things that God has not revealed. That has never been the issue. When Scripture speaks, we believe it. We don't change it to fit our logical schemes.

[qutoe]Last night it was the non Calvinists who are ignorant, according to several other Calvinists. [/quote]I didn't see that.

The key word there is "in your opinion." My position is based on what Scripture says, and if that is different than your opinion, then I think we know which needs to change. You are incorrect in your assumption that IF God elected those whom would accept Him, he elected those who would not. Election is never used in such a way. You fail to realize that man is on his way to hell if God does nothing. God doestn' elect anyone to go to hell. That is where they are naturally going because of their sin nature. Your subsequent conclusion that Man's inability to accept Christ then, according to this teaching, IS NOT MAN'S FAULT is wrong on two fronts. First, it is wrong because it is a conclusion drawn from a faulty foundation (your first conclusion was dead wrong). Second, it is wrong because Scripture teaches the opposite, that man's inability is his own fault, not God's.

Again, this is a prime exampele of the fact that you are unwilling to let Scripture say what it says. You are forcing into a logical grid that makes sense to you. But Diane, your mind cannot be the test of truth.

Yes, that is right. But when you "dont' choose" someone, you are not choosing them for the other team. Again, this insistence on your own mind's authority is wrong headed, no pun intended. Your mind and your thinking cannot take precedence over Scripture. God made no choice about those whom he did not choose. "Election" is never used of those going to hell.

Regardless of your acceptance, you are arminian by virtue of your denial of unconditional election. Saying you aren't either is like saying you aren't a woman. You can claim it, but the evidence shows otherwise. And there is nothing wrong with that. Arminian is simply the title that historical theology has attached to the position you hold. It doesn't do a lot of good to deny it.

 

And there it is again, you don't evangelize because you really believe that man must accept Christ, you do it "because God said to." You don't really think it matters. "Its a mystery."

Well, I am not Calvinist or Armenian.

I am a Christian.

Christ said, "Believe on the Lord with all your heart and thou shalt be saved." Belief is a personal thing. It requires a choice.

He offers His love. He doesn't commit some kind of spiritual rape.

 

Pastor Larry said:

To not choose for salvation is to select for hell! There's only two options; heaven or hell. Foreknowledge is used of those going to hell in your aforementioned verse in Revelation on another thread.

I'm sorry, Larry and other Calvinists, but nothing any of you have said has proven anything to me.

Diane replied: IF God elected those whom would accept Him, he elected those who would not. Man's inability to accept Christ then, according to this teaching, IS NOT MAN'S FAULT.

Of course there's no scripture to back this us because God DID NOT prechoose whom He would save and whom He would eternally damn.

Larry replied: But Diane, your mind cannot be the test of truth.

Diane replies: The Holy Spirit and God's word is quite clear on this issue.

As far as my being Arminian because Calvinists think so, I'm sure a full Arminian would be demanding that I'm a Calvinist because I disagree with their stance on eternal security.

I'm with TexasSky. Just call me a Christian. Why oh Why would we want some man's name attached to our beliefs when all that really matters is that I'm a child of the KING!