Does a Pastor HAVE to take a stand on election/predestination in sermons?

HOWEVER, in regard to the OP.

I think if a man will answer the Call of God on his life to preach and take up the mantle of a Preacher. This man must preach the whole counsil of God (no matter your theological bent) and should at some time expound on this as it is apart of Gods Holy Word. So it does not neccesitate that one must immediately deal with the issue for this is but one of many things that God wants His people to grow in and understand, yet is something that one WILL inevitably deal with and should do so when and as the Lord leads.

 

You see, that's the thing. What if the Lord wants to regard us as just hood ornaments, can you stand up and speak out and talk back to Him ?
Remember the laborers hired late and done very little work but paid the same amount as those who've been in the field hours ahead before them ?
God is Sovereign.
Nebuchadnezzar found that out the hard way, after he surveyed "his" kingdom and gloated at how much he has accomplished.

Well, what do we have to add to what has been done ? Can we save more than those whose numbers have already been determined ? Can we make Christ's atonement and finished work more effectual than it already is ?
Not that we're just waiting to die. We all will die one time or another. In the end, what counts is not what we have done for Christ, but what Christ has done for us, contrary to that popular saying.
But with all due respects to the OP, I think these discussions are better off started as another thread.

 

Good post Allen!

Pinoy, I just do not understand your position. We must be on different theological planets.

Maybe we can take it up on another thread...

 

EXACTLY!!!

If I were to say the name "Arminius" to my church or the name "Calvin"----they'd say

"Who the heck are those guys????!!!"

But if I were to take scripture that deals with election and deal with it---they'd say----"Election???!!! Sure, why not!! God is in control!!"

Some guys go on like Calvin is God!!! Gracious alive---get a life!!!

 

Sure.. let's.

 

MNW

To give you a better understanding of Pinoy's position of witnessing or preaching salvation go here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36486
Posts 45 and 46


TO PINOY:
I didn't mean to interupt your conversation Pinoy nor do I wish to speak for you but it will give him a better back ground when speaking with you on what your doctrinal standing is on the issue. That way you wont have to go into the matter and discuss it with better clarity of your views.

If I have mispoke for you Pinoy then I appolgise.

 

No offense taken, Allan.

 

Amen. This is what I call a true reverence for God, vs. the idea that "God must be this or that way because that's how I envision a [fill in the blank - loving, righteous, etc.] God."

 

This link could take you closer to the posts, depending on your settings.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36486&page=5

I think Pinoy makes excellent points in these 2 posts. I would add only one thing. If Jesus came to seek and save the lost, then how does that jibe with the concept that all men are "the lost"? There's no seeking to be done if "the lost" includes all mankind who ever lived, lives or will live. Be careful here. He doesn't say "seek for those who will respond", He says, "seek and save the lost".

Obviously there are those who are lost, and those who aren't. The question becomes, who are "those who aren't lost"? Are they not lost because they are already saved/righteous, and therefore there is no need to seek them? Or are they not lost because they don't belong to Him? Are they the ones to whom Jesus refers when He says "I never knew you"?

 

When Jesus stated he came to seek and save that which was lost it was a direct reference to Israel and the fulfillment of prophesy concerning the messiah unto His own. God people had gone astray (lost).

 

The problem with limiting it to this interpretation is that Jesus is talking about spiritual salvation vs. the way the Jews had interpreted the prophecy of the Messiah. In fact, the context of this verse in Luke contrasts the two.

Even more interesting is the fact that Jesus did not SEEK Zacchaeus in the literal sense, at all. Zacchaeus sought Jesus and even had to climb a tree to locate Him because he was short. Jesus looked up and saw Zacchaeus and said He was going to stay at his house. Zacchaeus repents and Jesus says salvation has come to the house. The natural conclusion of this doesn't seem to be "therefore I have come to seek and save that which was lost" because that isn't how the story went.

It just strikes me that "seek and save that which is lost" is not only meant for more than just the Jews, but must mean there is a larger set that includes the "not lost". If your interpretation is the only one, that would mean the Gentiles. They are "not lost" NOT because they are saved, but because they weren't Jews. But if that was the only meaning, the context and the parable that follows (and plainly seems to be connected) wouldn't make as much sense.

 

Just another reminder for Allan to pay attention to what he has previously denied saying .

 

Again, does it state there is no scope to this AFTER the resurrection. No. But again, no context.
... What's the point, you pick and choose and then distort, and lie. It has become your trade mark.

I feel sorry for you and your hate.

 

Response to 1st paragraph

So True!!! BUT equally as true---even more so equal---the average church member who comes on Sunday morning to hear---doesn't know "diddilly" about it(election) either!!! And probably wouldn't remember anything the preacher has to say about it---even if it were a little bit---five minutes after the preaching service is over!!!

Response to 2nd paragraph

Took the words right out of my mouth!!!!

 

Haven't been on the BB for months, then for some reason I got an e-mail through saying this thread had been used...

So you guys haven't put an end to the whole Calvinism/non-Calvinism argument yet?

 

Didn't you get the memo ? Calvinism has been declared the winner . Of course it has been scriptural all along -- but a brand new Synod of Dort was convened and the biblicists have been charged with heresy .

 

I agree...that hate is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Should see some of the PM's I have :tear:

The fact one has to resort to resurrecting threads shows the depth and time put into this hate mongering.

 

What is the saying about a black pot?

 

You're one to talk. You should know, huh?

 

Can'tcha' feel the love webdoggie is spreading around ?:laugh: