Do Calvinists Speak about Predestination in Evangelistic Preaching?

I love it when Arminians actually try to exegete 6.44 ! An exercise in futility!

 

And yet most do not agree with calvin's exegesis RC. YOu have to dxo a whole of igonoring and scriptural gymnastics to swallow Calvin's teachings.

Actually it is an exercise of futility to the blind and igonorant (of scriptures)!

 

That is pure nonsense, Tim. You know that. The invitation is to all who will accept. Those who won't accept are still invited. It is not dishonest in the least. God isn't keepoing them from responding.

Not at all Larry. I wouild love to put you too the test and visit your church. I doubt you are giving anything but a arminian invitation. Your God does hold them back. He does not love them, he did not die for them, he does not call them. The God of my Bible says that He died for, tasted death for, desires that none should perish and calls to all. You are the one saying these things not me. It is what your words mean.

Bad analogy. God didn't say he would save "anyone." The "all" or "any" is always qualified by belief. If you say you will pay everyone's debt, and then don't pay it, you are lying. If you say you will pay everyone's debt who will come and ask you, that is completely different. God said the latter.

A gain you misrepresent my God, He did not say I will pay everyones debt and then make it so they cannot come and recieve that payment. That is clintonese....that is dishonest. There is nothing keeping man from coming to God except his own fleshly desires. God has done the work for all mankind to believe, yet your god made a way but only for a few and the others cannot come too him.

I tell people that. Why wouldn't I? That is what the Bible says and when you come to a passage that says that, then you preach it that way. I tell them that God is calling out for himself a people, and one of the evidences you are one of htem is that you care about your soul and your eternal destiny. I tell them that it isn't up to them, and they should be thankful for a God who is gracious enough not to let them destroy themselves. You see, when you love God and his word, you preach it just like it says.

I find the whole gospel is a much more encouraging message then taking parts and igonoring others just to make out to be some kind of dishonest nut.

This is nonsense as well, and you konw it. Of hte pastors I know in this area, the most humble ones are the Calvinists. I don't know any that are puffed up or full of themselves, and I probalby know a lot more of them than you do. They don't worship knowledge in the least. This kind of argument is experiential (and wrong). It doesn't help your case. Regardless of hte rightness or wrongness of your assertion, the test of truth is not the personality of hte person who believes it. You should know that.

I disagreee and do not call it experientail only a result of following a certian doctrine that leads to that. I doubt you really know what a humbel pastor is Larry and I say that with all due respect. I see a loyal in all groups and they will defend one another regardless of the facts. I stick with my statement that calvinist are prideful people and do not or cannot reach people on their level. They have forgotten where they came from or where they were./ They were picked and to hell with everyone else.

I have no idea. My bet is that most people in the state don't know the difference.

Agreed here, when calvinist is taught people start to realize though what a horriable theology or doctrine it is. I know most people in our church don't really know what calvinism is. Luckly pastor is not the type that puts it in every message.

If you knew the teachings of both on soteriology, you wouldn't make this false dichotomy. Calvin wasn't right in everything, but on these general issues, he was more right than wrong. We follow Christ. Don't pretend like we don't.

Larry how can I say you do when we are so opposed. If he was more right I would think more would people would be calvinist. Not many calvinist churches around compared to others. I am sorry butwe do serve two different gods. Their characteristic are dynamicly opposed.

I am sure you are smart enough to figure out that 6:44 was a typo. The paragraph you quoted that from was about 12:32, where it doesn't say "all men," but rather "all."

Not at all. It is hard to type sometimes.

All what?


All men, he has drawn those that accept Him and those that reject Him.

This is a mishmash of theological ideas. You are conflating a bunch of things into one paragraph. I (and every calvinist I know) will accept everything you said here.


Where are they all at?! I have yet to meet ONE!

Yes, and they don't fit with your system.


Sure it does.....they have no relationship with the teachings of Calvin. It is not my system Larry it is God's. A loving and Just God!

I don't know that we "praise God" for someone going to hell. It is an act that demosntrates God's glory by the punishment of sin. That is certainly praiseworthy. And anyone who goes to hell only does so because that is what they deserve.

Strange sense of glory to make a way to escape then not allow people to use it!

It also has nothing to do with this conversation. It is totally irrelevant.

And you are still completely ignoring the text. 6:44 draws a circle around "drawn" and "raised up." All of the drawn are raised up. There is no room in 6:44 for someone to be drawn but not raised. That is simple. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Come, I don't care (although I don't recommend people not being at their own church). I don't give an arminian invitation. In fact, I don't give much of an invitation at all. I preach the gospel and call people to respond in faith. If you think that is arminian, then you don't understand what Calvinism is. To say that God holds them back is nonsense. They are held back by their sin. To say that God doesn't love them is nonsense. He does. Sounds to me like you need to listen some more when SCripture is being taught.

This is exactly what Calvinism teaches, and I bet your church's doctrinal statement says this exact thing.

Here are some samples:

From the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (which is probably the confession of your church):

So we see quite clearly that Calvinism teaches man's sin and rejection of God is his own fault, not God's. You don't have to like it, but don't misrepresent it. You, like so many others, reject Calvinism based oon your faulty understanding of it. You make stuff up, like this, and then pretend it is true. It isn't.

 

Larry I am not confused. You state man rejects God and cannot accept Him unless God allows him too. I say God has allowed him too according to scriptures. There is notthing wrong with my exegesis and you just telling everyone they are wrong gets rather silly. Read you other post if you doubt me. You say the same thing, you are wrong, you have inaccuracies etc but then don't bring those to light. Pick one and I will show you that I am not right but scripture is right. Or I will just say that as a pastor you are wrong, you excercise poor exegesis, and your arguements are weak in the fact that they igonore much much of scripture. Is that the type of debate you prefer?

As to your asking me to change churches I am not in disagreement with our church doctrine, it was not calvinist before he came and it still is not now.

Lastly I have my Bible and the internet with many teachers and resources. Going to a seminary does not make one right. I think alot of calvinist are educated beyone their intelligence, thus just memic words of calvin and others not fully understanding them themselves. I have many books on theology, all the ones that dbts sell as a matter of fact, and I read them and refer to them. I do not have to have a teacher or man tell me what I am to believe. Although I would like to go seminary and am not against it I don't think it leaves anyone out who really wants to learn all they can about God.
I will leave the church when God tells me it is for me too do, not you. Pastor does not make an issue of it as I said earlier. He says he is not a calvinist but calvinistic. When we were looking for a pastor our attendence and offerings did not drop and even rose while we did not have a pastor. I say that only to let you know that before the pastor came the church was growing,(and still is spiritually though we are losing people, I am not blaming the pastor though) we have a group of people that actually love the Lord and are not interested in fighting every doctrinal disagreement with other churchs. As fundementalist like too do. We have not been robots but people who have a love and concern for souls. I am attractted to that church by the love people have for the Lord there. They work not out of duty or tradition but because they truly like doing the Lord's work. And they do not believe calvinism fo rthe most part.

 

Actually I would rather take a pt and discuss it with you by IM or email Larry. I feel like this is getting out of hand and I am getting disrespectful toward you. I am sorry about that. Maybe we should consider one of the two other ways of communication.

 

At what point did correct interpretation of scripture become a democratic process?

 

I think it should be considered when looking at the whole picture. If a hand full of people (compared to all churches that teach ye must be born again) are preaching a different doctrine then, I would lean towards the wisedom of many. And I am not talking about the world here.

 

Tim,

I have demonstrated many many times over the yeras in this forum, and in this discussion, that you are incorrect. I clearly demonstrated it from John 6:44 You are forced to ignore what the text says to support your position. I have not only said you were wrong; I have shown it. That doesn't mean you worship a different God. It means you overlook some things that God says. It is easy to do.

As for education, I don't mean go to seminary, though you wouldn't be hurt by it. I mean start learning. You have made repeated misrepresentations about what we believe, as well as missed some of the most basic issues of Bible interpretation. That is an easy thing to remedy without ever setting a foot in seminary.

With respect to your church, I am not asking you to change. I said if you disagree this strongly, then you should. Your church's doctrinal statement on man proclaims teh total depravity and inability you deny. Read it. Your church, I believe, is still a part of hte IFBA and subscribes to the New Hampshire Confession I stated above. The people there might not know it, or might not be well taught on it, but the church's position officiallly seems different than what you hold. But the bottom line, to me, seems to be that you cannot support your pastor doctrinally. To me, that's an issue. I don't think everyone needs to cross their Ts and dot their Is like I do, but there needs to be some basic agreement.

Sometime you should ask your pastor what he means by "not Calvinist but rather Calvinistic." I would imagine it is different than what you think it means.

But in the end, doctrine is not decided by what a person or church says, but by what God's word says. On that standard, The Bible plainly declares that God chose us to salvation. That is Calvinism and that is why Calvinism teaches what it does. You don't have to like it, but realize that we didn't make it up. God said it and that should settle it.

 

First, I would dispute your claim that most churches are not Calvinistic. Historically, I don't think that has been the case.

Secondly, it is irrelevant. Truth is not measured by majority vote. There is value in the corporate affirmation of scriptural teaching, and by that standard, Calvinism cannot be considered a minor or fringe doctrine. It never has been.

Thirdly, you imply that Calvinistic churches do not teach "ye must be born again." That is pure nonsense, if that is your implication. We do.

As for disrespect, just don't do it.

 

Timtoolman,

Jesus said, "Ye Must Be Born Again."

Why would any Christian deny that?

I certainly do not, and I am a 5 point Calvinist.

 

That is your (or should I say Calvin's) interpretation of what God's Word says. Your's or any calvinist's interpretation doesn't "settle it". God's Word says He died for the world. You limit that. God's Word says He wishes NONE perish. You limit that. God's Word says Jesus's death was the atonement "not only for us, but for the whole world". You limit that. I wonder how many calvinists will be in Heaven some day ashamed that they believed in such false doctrine and limited Christ's work on the cross.

 

I have repeated many times that there are legitimate points of discussion. But about much of it, Scripture is clear.

Where do I limit that? I have been very clear, as most Calvinists are, that Christ's death was sufficient for all sins for all time.

But there are problems for you in this. If you believe that Christ paid the penalty for all sin, then you have to explain why people go to hell in punishment for sins that we already paid for. You have made God unjust by exacting the punishment for sins from Christ, and then later from the individual.

How do I limit that? I believe God does not desire any to perish and go to hell. Ezekiel is clear that he finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

But you have problems here. If God wishes none to perish, then why do some perish? The Bible is clear that God's will is always carried out. If his will was for all to be saved, then all would be saved.

You already addressed the objection in point 1, and the answer remains the same. You have problems with this. You must first decide what "for us" means, and who "the world" is. You lightly blow over these question because you haven't been taught to properly handle the word. It is not as easy as you make it out to be. I don't limit that verse at all. I completely believe it.

Several problems. First, you assert this is false doctrine, but have never showed that to be the case. If it were false, then you should be able to take God's word and show it to be false. So far, every attempt has fallen flat on its face.

Second, you would have to assert that Christ's death was limited. I don't believe it was. I, and most Calvinists, believe that his death accomplished every single thing it intended to accomplish. It is you who believe that his death failed in some respects.

Third, you assume that someone will care in heaven. I don't believe that to be the case. We will be worshipping God, not haggling over theology.

So in the end, you have accomplished nothing but show that you are unfamiliar with the issues, or at least unwilling to be honest about what the issues really are.

 

WEll then I rest my case Larry. I cannot say you are right just because you declare so. Many men much smarter then you or I have debated this issue of the teachings of calvinism and it is still not settled. I have been in chruch in church all my life. Father is a preacher, attended and visit many christian college and would bet you that lest then 25% wouild declare themselves calvinist. I hardly run into a calvinist except on the internet spreading thier special revelation that most KNOW is unscriptural. The arguemet that I am right and you are wrong, which you use so freely on this BB is the weakest of all arguements. Many on here have taken, including myself, calvinism head on and answered over and over most questions. NOt all and calvinst can't answer all either. But the weight of scriptures and godly men fall on the side of scriptures that show the teachings of J. Calvin to be wrong. I am not so proud , not many calvinst can claim that, as to say I am right but I do not this! I know J. Christ and John Calvin ain't no Jesus. I will beileive Christ for what He says. For why He came and to who He calls.

Bottom line we are in disagreement we can leave it at that or you can ask me other questions and we can continue.

 

Larry I don't know how else to ask this but do you have a comprehension problem or you purposely again over and over, it seems, to misrepresent those that disagree with you! It is very frustrating and yet you claim to be the more learned one?! I have not disagreed with man's inability....in fact I have stated more then ANYTHING on this BB that salvation is all of God. He has done the work for us to believe, for the millionth time! Man did not make God, will Him to do or could he. HOwever God in His mercy and grace could and has reached out to man so that he may believe. These words undoubtly will be overlooked as you and others will look for other strawmen to attack. Just because I cannot redefine terms such as recieveing a gift as work does not make me wrong. NO honest person would ever claim such a thing. Only calvinist twist recieving to be a work...ONLY them, go figure. When you have to use twisting of scripure, reasoning and truth to keep you belief in calvin alive then don't you think you could, just maybe, be a little wrong. You have misrepresented many non calvinist on here as you build your strawmen and ignore the real answers.

 

I don't have the problem with atonement, it is you. PL, you know why people are suffering in hell, and so do I. I'm not stupid. They are there because they failed to believe, something God's Word tells us. Atonement for sin is not the same as faith; it does not save. You know that, but you need the former to justify your doctrine.

If you really believe that, why then does God exclude some (if not most) from the atonement? He doesn't.

You have the problem here, not I. By "wishing" none perish does not mean God has no control over. He enables ALL men to be drawn by the Holy Spirit. It is God's grace through man's faith we are saved. It is God's will that all men have faith in Him. You limit the will of God.

LOL, I do not know how to handle the word's "world" and "for us"? I think these were covered back in 2nd or 3rd grade. It is your problem of twisting the meanings of such simple phrases to fit your doctrine that is the problem.

I believe God loves the "world" and "whoever" believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
You believe God loves the "elect" and whoever of the elect believes in him will not perish but have eternal life (as if the elect cannot believe in Him). You = Christ died for some...Me = Christ died for ALL. One's false, and I know which one.

That is the most circled argument I have heard and blatantly false. I don't limit Christ's death, meaning ALL MANKIND were died for. You claim only the "elect" were atoned for. Who's limiting whom? To you Christ accomplished every single thing IN YOUR EYES, meaning He died only for the elect.

I take it then that you are not expecting to receive any rewards in Heaven. I believe that there will be PLENTY of people who care, as we will have to give an account for the way we lived our lives here on earth.

So in the end the arrogance flows forth as normal. Man, it must be wonderful to be so full of knowledge! I'm surprised you left off the patented PL "start learning" phrase.

 

Nor should you. My plea in here from day one has been to look at what God says. You would like us to ignore that in favor of what you declare to be so. Just as you should not believe that I am right simply because I declare it, neither should we believe you. We should be examining Scripture.

Many men much smarter than you and I have debated the deity of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, etc. The number of people debating something, or their intelligence, is not the issue. However, you are right, and I have said before that there are legitimate points of disagreement.

So?

I hardly run into an arminian except here.

I have never made that argument. I have argued solely from Scripture, which you should know.

Where? I have yet to see any of these answers. Your side has constantly refused to address Scripture, like John 6:44 and other passages. You won’t talk about what they actually say. I can understand why not … because you can’t without changing your view.

You are right. I have said that many times, and in fact, some on your side have mocked me for saying that.

That is simply wrong. I guarantee you that you cannot deal with the Scriptures justly. I know because I tried and that is why I switched.

I think we all agree with this. You guys are the ones who hold Calvin up to be more than he is. We certainly don’t do that. In fact, some on your side have mocked me as well for not reading Calvin. My Calvinism came from the Scriptures. I haven’t read John Calvin outside of a very few paragraphs, most of which were posted on here.

Welcome to the group. We have already been doing that.

Nope.

Nope. I have never done that to my knowledge. I have been charged with that, but no one has ever shown that to be the case. On occasion I have misunderstood what someone has said. I do not misrepresent. I detest it when it is done.

Ok. I have never seen you say that, to my knowledge. I don’t read most of what you say, so that may explain it.

I think you have consistency problems with this. I don’t think you would stand up under the pressure of having to sustain this.

Why would I overlook that or make a straw man out of it? I believe that. Calvinism doesn’t disagree with that. Why do you think we do?

I haven’t claimed that. But there is a problem with your position, no matter how you define faith. Your position ultimately puts salvation in the hands of man. In a word picture, God has provided a pile of atonement from which one can take if he chooses. In that picture, God is no longer sovereign in salvation, as to who gets saved and who doesn’t. Man is. In that, faith becomes meritorious, and I think that is problematic.

If I had to do that, then yes, I would be wrong. Fortunately, we don’t have to do that. I won’t defend all the ways people argue for Calvinism. Some of them I reject as bad exegesis, or at best, unnecessary. The whole “faith is a work” thing is one of those argument.

Prove it.

Where?

Tim, I guarantee you that your position is unworkable. I have been around this barn enough times to see straight through it. I don’t often comment, and especially not in long conversations, because it isn’t worth my time when people aren’t interested in anything other than fighting. But to be honest, some of the things people say make me laugh.

In the end, this discussion will be settled by Scripture. The Scripture says that God chose you to salvation from the beginning. I believe that. I could take you to passage after passage if you were willing to sit down and listen to Scripture. We could go as deep as you want to go. But I am not going to do it on here. I have done it before and I just don’t have the time.

 

I am going to try to avoid the personal stuff here and focus on the issues.

Read Rev 20:11-15 and Rev 21:8 to see why people are in hell. They are in hell because of sin. In those sins are certainly the lack of belief. But here is the question, if Christ paid for all the sins of the world (including the sin of unbelief), then why are people in hell? Why is God punishing them for something Christ paid for?

If you really believe that, why then does God exclude some (if not most) from the atonement? He doesn't.</font>[/QUOTE]He doesn't exclude anyone. They are kept from the atonement by their own willful sin. Remember, we are talking about what Calvinism teaches, not what you wish we believed.

The Bible tells us that God does whatever he pleases, that all of his purposes will be accomplished. Do you believe that?

If you believe that he does whatever he pleases, and he is pleased to save all men, and if you believe that all his will will be accomplished, and it isn't his will for any to go to hell, then why do some go to hell?

I haven't limited the will of God at all. If you think seriously through teh conundrum you have put yourself in, you will see that. Here it is, simply put, as I understand your position.

1. God is not willing that any should perish.
2. Some perish.
3. God's will fails.

You can see the obvious problems, can't you?

LOL, I do not know how to handle the word's "world" and "for us"? I think these were covered back in 2nd or 3rd grade. It is your problem of twisting the meanings of such simple phrases to fit your doctrine that is the problem.</font>[/QUOTE]Nice ridicule tactic. But try to get past your personal attack and think.

Does "for us" mean "in our place as a substitute"? In other words, is it a provision, or a guarantee?

Does "world" mean "all without exception" or "all without distinction"? If you have been in school since 2nd or 3rd grade, then you probably know that words have meaning in context. A word like "world" can mean different things. The question is, What did John mean?

Simply put, if "atonement" is "actual propitiation" (and I think it is), then "world" does not mean "all without exception" because not all are saved. Some still go to hell. While I believe the Christ died for the sins of all men for all time, this is not a good verse to prove it.

Your flippant response indicates that you are not well versed on the interpretative issues.

So do Calvinists.

You know better. See, you have stooped to misrepresentation rather than address what we believe. There are some here who say God loves only the elect. Most Calvinists do not say that. They say he loves the elect in a special way. I love my neighbors children. But not as if they are my own.

Again, simply false. You have stooped to misrepresentation to try to make your case. Don't do that.

So you are a universalist? I doubt that. The truth is that you limit the work of Christ's death to those who believe. The rest go to hell. You see, both sides limit the atonement. They do so on different bases.

Yes, because of what "atonement" means. Atonement is not a possibility. It is an actuality.

In my eyes? Not at all. My eyes are irrelevant. Scripture is the test. And Christ died for all.

No and yes (respectively) but irrelevant to the point at hand.

So in the end the arrogance flows forth as normal. Man, it must be wonderful to be so full of knowledge! I'm surprised you left off the patented PL "start learning" phrase. </font>[/QUOTE]Where was any arrogance? Why is it that those who know what they are talking about are regarded as arrogant? It is very hard to carry on a conversation with people who think they konw it all. Those who have taken the time to learn things should not have to take a back seat at the table. You have shown that you don't know what Calvinism really believes. You shouldn't act like you do. Virtually everything you say is problemmatic. Why is that?

Why are people on your side so unwilling to deal with what we actually believe? In fact, ditch everything I said above, if you wish, and just answer me that. Why won't you address what we actually believe?

 

I will ditch answering the above, only because you are the type that has to have the last word in a discussion.

Why are we unwilling to deal with what you "actually" believe, or what you perceive calvinism actually believes? You can say "we don't believe that" all you want to the differences between calvinism and non calvinism that we point out, it doesn't mean it is honest response.