Do Calvinists Speak about Predestination in Evangelistic Preaching?

Diane, this is not true. I have repeatedly mentioned passages such as Rom 11:2, where "foreknowledge" cannot mean simply knowing ahead of time. There, "foreknowledge" is what sets Israel apart from every other nation. IF foreknowledge means simply knowing ahead of time, you would be impugning the omniscience of God. He knew every nation, but Israel was his special choice. He foreknew them.

Even in Rom 8:29-30, if you follow the passage, you have to admit that foreknowledge means more than simply knowing ahead of time. In the passage, all who are foreknown are glorified. If you believe foreknowledge is simply knowing ahead of time, does not God "foreknow" those who will not believe? If he "foreknows" that they will not believe, then how are they included in teh foreknown who are glorified? They can't be. Foreknowledge has to mean more.

Don't tell me I haven't supported it when you know good and well that I have.

I didn't really offer any opinion, Diane. I simply explained what the text says.

That's not true. I did not say you called God a liar. I said that your position leads to that conclusion on some things, and I believe I specifically said I didn't think you did that. I get my conversations mixed up, but I usually add that disclaimer. I don't think anyone here intends to call God a liar. I think that many (on both sides, such as JohnP) have problems avoiding that conclusion. Some people are ignorant. That's no secret. When someone says Calvinists don't believe you have to believe to be saved, that is ignorant ... meaning "unknowing." As for integrity, you bring that up again after I explained it. I specifically said on two instances, including the original one as I recall, that I was not questioning your integrity. Why would you accuse me of somethign I specifically did not do?

You were never told that by me, and that is a dumb thing for someone to say. But there are dumb Calvinists, and dumb arminians. Neither side has a corner on stupidity and boorishness.

Diane submits: Agree. God knows ahead of time who will and will not surrender to the call to salvation made available to ALL through the death of Christ Jesus on Golgotha. </font>[/QUOTE]You didn't agree with what I said. I was pointing out that foreknowledge does not mean simply knowing ahead of time in these cases.

You are using a different definition of called. Don't get confused. There is a general call, an effectual call. There is a call to a specific function of role. We, in this debate, are talking about the effectual call as shown in Rom 8:30, 1 Cor 1:22ff., etc.

 

Do Calvinists agree with ---

"praying the sinner's prayer"?,
or "making a decision for Christ"?,
or "inviting Jesus into your heart"?
or "going forward to receive Christ."?

Or are these ARMINIAN concepts foreign to Calvinism?

 

Quoting: Originally posted by Pastor Larry: Diane, You have now been corrected on this three times I believe. Why do you keep repeating somethign that is not true? I didn't choose you to come over for dinner last night. That doesn't mean I chose you to go somewhere else. It simply means that I didn't choose you. You insist on adding to God's word.

Diane is right.

You have changed the conditions of the question Pastor Larry, and in changing it, you have invalidated your own statement.

If the choice is:
"Eat or starve," to NOT choose to eat is to CHOOSE to starve.

You have suggested, as way of justifying your position, that the choice is:
"Eat this, or don't eat this and eat something else instead." That isn't the situation with salvation.

If I had the power to "let you live" or "let you die," and I choose, "not to let you live," I have chosen for you to die.

If, as you teach, God chose NOT to offer salvation to all men, with the full knowledge that they would go to hell without salvation, then you are saying that God chose to send them to hell without offering them grace.

 

Pastor Larry,

Your interpretation of Romans 11:2 and of Romans 8:29-30 is opinion. Even biblical translators reveal in marginal notes that there are two opinions on the overall meaning of these scriptures.

And in Romans 11:2 Paul specifically refers back to 1 Kings 19:18, and it does more, in my opinion, to support Diane than it does you.

"Yet I reserve" (current tense) "seven thousand in Israel - all whose knees have not bowed" (past tense - a reaction to their actions) "down to Baal, and all whose mouths have not kissed him."

God has predestined blessings for those who accept His gift of salvation. He has "reserved" those "who have followed His commands to accept Christ.

Not, I reserved 7 thousand who will not worship Baal, but I reserved the 7 thousand who didn't.

 

No, TS, Diane is wrong. Please listen better and don't be so judgmental and unloving as to make stuff up. You blasted me in another thread for doing far less than you have done here. Please take heed.

Diane is wrong. When I choose something, I am not "not choosing" everything else. That is so simple it is remarkable that it is so easily missed. Your argument is a logical one, not a biblical one. The Bible records God making choice with respect to the non-elect. He lets them do what they want to do.

You say the choice is eat or starve. Did it cross your mind that some people want to starve? They don't want to eat. And so God lets them not eat. There is nothing wrong with that.

Then you flat out tell a whopper when you say that If, as you teach, God chose NOT to offer salvation to all men, . That is not "what I teach." God offers salvation to all and gives it to all who will believe. That is Calvinistic doctrine.

Please take the time to 1) find out what others believe, and 2) be truthful when you talk about what others believe. We should not be so desperate as to misrepresent others positions in order to make our own look good.

 

No it's not. Saying it time and time again won't make it so. There are interpretive issues in this discussion. Rom 11:2 and Rom 8:29-30 isn't one of them, unless you have an agenda to defend. I don't, so I have no problem with what it says.

Now, you are offering opinion. I did no such thing. The Bible disinguishes God's people whom he foreknew. To say that "foreknew" refers only to knowing something beforehand makes the passage absurd. God knoww everything beforehand. But these were his people because of his foreknowledge.

Now, here's an interpretation. You are arguing a temporal relationship that the text does not state. You may be right, you may be wrong. In this case, the text is unclear and so interpretation is an issue. In the previous case that I cited, the text is clear.

 

Do Calvinists Speak about Predestination in Evangelistic Preaching?

Actually some preach choosing Christ just like Arminians. (The late J.Vernon, Mcgee, for instance.) What I can't figure is how they justify preaching this concept when they don't believe it them selves.
Just seems to me if you are predestined to Salvation as they claim then men don't need to hear the gospel. They don't need to worship God. They don't do any thing, after all, didn't the Bible say that He does it all? If this is so then even the efforts of man in spreading the gospel are worthless. According to Calvinism Man wasn't worth dying for. Imagine that, as a creation of God, men are worthless. Some how I don't believe God, being the perfect being that He is. Would create something so worthless.

Predestination as taught by Calvinist robs us all of purpose. Our purpose in this life is to choose to follow Christ of our own freewill. Helping others to do the same is my only purpose after this.

Those who have never made that choice to surrender completely to Christ are not saved. You can't give just part of yourself. He wants all of you. I'd rather surrender willingly like a child who trust, than be made to surrender. Greater love comes from the willing.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

Funny, PL, God says you are wrong. Those who believe are not condemned, those who don't believe are condemned already (John 3:18). By doing nothing, you are making a choice to not believe, something you deny can't be a choice.

If you are standing at the edge of a cliff and I tell you that there are two choices: Jump, or do not jump, but I am taking away the option of not jumping, what alternative do you have?

 

I didn't deny that failing to believe is as choice. It is. You are on a totally different subject. STart your own thread if you want to discuss it.

The option of "not jumping" was not taken away by anyone but the sinner. For some reason, you guys just don't get it. Man is a sinner by nature and choice. He goes to hell because of who he is and what he does, not because of some choice God makes about him. God doesn't have to make a choice for him to go to hell. He sins willfully and is kept from God only by his own sinfulness.

Can we please start making progress rather than rehashing this same old stuff time and time again? Please start learning.

 

For good reason ... the Arminians borrow from Calvinistic theology to preach their gospel. They just don't do it consistently. They use Calvinistic theology when it suits them.

Mike, you have been gone all this time and haven't improved any. You know good and well that Calvinists believe that men need to hear the gospel to be saved. Why do you persist in this unethical and untrue argument?

False, false, false. All three statements are false.

Calvinism totally agrees. God doesn't save many against his will. AGain, it is not clear why you would say differently. You know better. You have been told what we believe. Yet for some inexplicable reason, you continue to attribute beliefs to us that we do not hold. It is still shameful, just like it was when you did it last time.

If you want to discuss what we believe, then discuss what we believe, not what you think we should believe, or wish we did believe. Please cease this nonsense of yours and start being ethical in your posts.

 

Larry, I am on subject, this is what you said:
"Diane is wrong. When I choose something, I am not "not choosing" everything else.." You are too pompous, arrogant, and rude to realize it. I don't appreciate your little snippets "please start learning", "please cease this nonsense", "you haven't improved any". You are not the authority on God's Word, GET OVER YOURSELF! I can honestly say I am glad you are not my pastor. It is scary when someone believes they know every truth in the Bible.

 

You were off subject by switching to a subject we weren't talking about.

You are also out of line for personal attacks. If you said this about someone else, I would edit it. So as not to appear to be defensive and protecting myself, I will simply say you are wrong. I am none of those things. Being informed about a subject, and able to talk intelligently about it is not the same as being arrogant, pompouse, and rude.

As you should know, the objections you are raising have been answered many many times. We have expressly addressed your claims, shown why they are false, and shown the biblical support for the truth. You don't have to agree with us, but you should stop making the false charges. That can only be attributed to either not learning, or willful dishonesty. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by attributing it to not learning. You should know better than what you have posted.

I know that far better than you do.

I can tell you there is no one in this world I take less seriously than myself. I would have no idea as to how to "get over myself."

That's fine. This church is not for everyone. We are very big on the systematic (and usually long) exposition of the Scriptures, book by book. I have been in Hebrews now for 43 weeks, preaching messages that average around fifty minutes. This has been one of my quicker series, in terms of "verses per message." It will probably last 6-8 more weeks.

We don't hesitate to tackle the tough issues in public, and let the chips fall where they do. We don't shy away from questions. I am not afraid to be challenged, or to admit I don't know something. Many people are uncomfortable with a pastor who says "I don't know," or "I can't explain it" (like I did last night).

I am very concerned that the people in this church know what God says, and can study it for themselves. I routinely tell them not to take my word for anything, but to be daily in the word studying and holding me accountable. I am more concerned about "how" they think than "what" they think. And I don't hesitate to challenge people on attitudes or actions that are ungodly. Had a church member here called someone "pompous, arrogant, and rude," we would have had a conversation.

You might not fit in well to this kind of church, and that is fine. Besides, it's a long commute anyway. I would encourage you to attend a local church.

But who knows, if you are ever in this area, you should come by. You might be surprised.

Yes it is. I have never labored under the misconception that I know every truth. In fact, the more I study the more I realize I don't know.

But I would encourage you along these lines.

1. Listen and try to understand when people tell you what they believe. Don't make up things about their position that aren't true. When they tell you they don't believe something, then accept it.

2. Be more immersed in the word. It is distressing to me that in this forum the Word does not get more attention than it does. The whole "choice to not choose" argument is not an argument that is Word driven. As I have pointed out to Diane and othesr, that is a logic argument that involves something the Bible does not say. That is why I reject it. It is not a biblical argument.

3. Avoid any personal attacks or appearance of personal attacks. I will let these current ones stand, but the next will be edited without notice. Please help to lift the conversation rather than to drag it down.

 

When I began to realize that the doctrines of grace are trully biblical it gave me purpose.

The Bible is pretty clear about what mans purpose is.

1 Cor. 10:31...Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Psal. 73:25, 26...Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. My flesh and my heart faileth; but God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever.

To glorify God and enjoy Him forever is the man's chief purpose as the Westminster confession and almost all of the important Baptist confessions of faith state.

 

"Sad method of argumentation, to try to equate the other side with a false religion. Very very inappropriate and totally off base anyway."

Kind of what some of you Calvinists on this site do eh Larry? Like the one who called me a hell bound heretic because I believed differently in regards to soteriology? Hmmm?

Whetstone, when TS said "no you didn't"...she was referring to what Calvinists always say about us, I believe. When we say "we lead someone to the Lord" Calvinists are quick to jump down our throats and point out that "no, (we) didn't"...so I believe that was the exact same thing she was doing to you.

 

I haven't seen anyone here call you a hell bound hereetic. If I had seen it, it would have been edited and the person warned. We will not tolerate that here.

 

That's good to know Larry. The fact is it happened.

 

When it does, send me a PM and I will address it. I can't address something I don't know anything about. I won't let people on either side make those kinds of charges.

 

I just did a search of the C vs A forum, and found quite a number of instances where the words "hell" and "bound" are found in the body of a single post, but it seems King James that the recent post on this topic made by you is the only occurence of the phrase "hell bound Heretic".

By the way, searches are easy to do, look for the word "search" under the buttons at the top of the forum. Type in you "search word or phrase" and initiate the search. Every topic that has any of the words or the exact phrase in it is listed and you can look at all of them.

 

Maybe they're afraid for their job?

 

If I had to lump them all together in one category I would say that they are manmade concepts foreign to scripture.

But then in Bobby's World I'm sure I'd be wrong!