Paul's Relentless "Calvinism" Drove His Evangelical Effort

[Iconoclast]

Personally, I think it was love that motivated Paul's evangelical efforts, not his soteriological perspective in regard to the Cal/Arm distinction. If it wasn't then it was "a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."

Skan,
love no doubt...but a scripturally informed love;

9Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

11Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
12For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.

13For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.

14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Skan,
it is a two edged sword

 

[Skandelon]

Skan,
love no doubt...but a scripturally informed love;
[/B]

Skan,
it is a two edged sword

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Skandelon]

What?!? Scan, & what Calvinist told you this...... In my eyes he would be a very shabby one. Besides, weren't you one at one time & didnt you say your brother is still one. So tell my, what do you & your brother believe.

When I was a Calvinist I didn't believe this nor does my brother. But I've seen it argued here several times. It is a very widely accepted view.

Men like A.W. Pink teach this: "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody."

 

[Skandelon]

I just see Paul saying by paraphrase "Man, there are a lot of Gods elect waiting to hear, they are His chosen and they are out there, I don't care if they beat me, imprison me, they are out there, and I am going to preach them the message of the Gospel, and they will be saved!"

He is speaking about Israel, who is being judicially hardened (cut off). Just as Pharaoh was hardened to bring about the first passover, the Jews were hardened to bring about the real Passover. This is what Romans 9 is teaching.

I've heard too many times calvinists are not evangelistic because of their views on the election. I beg to differ, though some would help facilitate this notion, and if they do, they are wrong. But, not here.

I was a Calvinist for about a decade and went on many mission trips and lead many to the Lord as a five pointer. In fact, my brother is a missionary on the field in a dangerous closed country and is still Calvinistic, so I understand that and don't accuse Calvinists of being anti-evangelistic. I believe some are, but so are some non-Calvinists for that matter. I know that the respected Calvinistic scholars/preachers don't believe or teach anti-evangelism.

 

[preacher4truth]

I understand. But both the Jews and Gentiles are elect so this is applicable to all.

I wouldn't use this to only motivate winning Jews to Christ. It's applicable to all.

To restrict its application to only Jews would cause some problems and one would be in saying that the Jews are elect, but no one else. All of this was written for us all, OT and NT.

I wish your brother to win many to Him, and you.

 

[TomVols]

We're way off topic, but the good Mr. Skandelon wrote:

Men like A.W. Pink teach this: "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody."

Could you cite this? I'm more familiar with Pink saying that salvation is God's choice from God's side, and ours from our side (to summarize). Some Calvinists reject him for saying that.

While I contributed to being off topic, I would like to get an answer. But everyone: let's get back on topic or we'll close the thread. It is open by a "thread" (Get it?)

 

[Skandelon]

I understand. But both the Jews and Gentiles are elect so this is applicable to all.

I understand that perspective, but consider our perspective with an objective mind. In other words, don't try to debate me, just try to really understand why I and others don't believe the way you did. Really understand why we believe what we believe.

If you consider the historical context of that day you will see that the Jews, as a people, were being hardened in their rebellion, but the Gentiles were listening and believing. Consider Paul's words in Acts 28:

23 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. 24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

See what is happening? Paul takes the gospel first to the Jews, but their hearts have gone hardened, "otherwise they might see." So, Paul takes the message to the Gentiles because they haven't grown hardened, "they will listen."

Paul further explains this in Romans 9-11, in that the Jews are being "cut off" from the tree while the Gentiles are being "grafted in." Make sense? I'm not asking for agreement. I'm just wanting to you understand why we believe what we believe.

 

[Skandelon]

Could you cite this?

Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930), 29-30.

While I contributed to being off topic, I would like to get an answer. But everyone: let's get back on topic or we'll close the thread. It is open by a "thread" (Get it?)

I will submit to whatever is decided, but I think this is on topic in that we are discussing the differing views of Calvinism and their effect on believers drive to share with others.

 

[preacher4truth]

I understand that perspective, but consider our perspective with an objective mind. In other words, don't try to debate me, just try to really understand why I and others don't believe the way you did. Really understand why we believe what we believe.

If you consider the historical context of that day you will see that the Jews, as a people, were being hardened in their rebellion, but the Gentiles were listening and believing. Consider Paul's words in Acts 28:

23 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. 24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

See what is happening? Paul takes the gospel first to the Jews, but their hearts have gone hardened, "otherwise they might see." So, Paul takes the message to the Gentiles because they haven't grown hardened, "they will listen."

Paul further explains this in Romans 9-11, in that the Jews are being "cut off" from the tree while the Gentiles are being "grafted in." Make sense? I'm not asking for agreement. I'm just wanting to you understand why we believe what we believe.

With all due respect, this does not diminish from anything I said brother, and I am aware of the background. I am seriously not thinking of our discussion as debate, more like conversation.

I wold however like to get back to how this knowledge Paul had added to his confidence level, and to his motivation level.

That is really the point of this thread.

 

[HankD]

Hank,


yes ..agreed Hank.... I have tried this in times past and then people claim that we are avoiding a label and being deceitful...
I agree with discussing primarily on biblical merit...but have found that labels and terms say alot in a few words.....

If we say trinity.....people get it instead of having to explain in great length that each divine person constitues the Godhead.

I am equally comfortable using D.O.Grace etc....but would prefer to get to scripture.

I just think we are stuck using labels.

I disagree.

They could be minimized at very least, especially labels which contain the names of mortal men.

It grates a nerve to see people using calvin's/arminus' name and the derivatives thereof over and over again in a thread and even overshadowing the name of Christ.

HankD

 

[Skandelon]

With all due respect, this does not diminish from anything I said brother

I wasn't attempting to "diminish" what you said, which is why I said not to view my response as an attempt to debate. I was attempting to help you see our perspective with regard to God's cutting off the elect nation of Israel while grafting in the Gentile people. Paul is expressing his love for Israel, who is being cut off or hardened in their rebellion. He is not expressing his love for certain elect individuals as you seemed to presume upon the text.

I wold however like to get back to how this knowledge Paul had added to his confidence level, and to his motivation level.

We don't need to "get back" to something we never left. I'm attempting to show you the non-Calvinistic understanding of Paul's motivation to win the lost as revealed in Romans 9.

 

[preacher4truth]

I wasn't attempting to "diminish" what you said, which is why I said not to view my response as an attempt to debate. I was attempting to help you see our perspective with regard to God's cutting off the elect nation of Israel while grafting in the Gentile people. Paul is expressing his love for Israel, who is being cut off or hardened in their rebellion. He is not expressing his love for certain elect individuals as you seemed to presume upon the text.

I totally disagree that he only has Israel, from another passage and context altogether, in his mind, in the context of the passage I've given. Obviously he was doing what he did, for the elect. It's clear. So yes, he is clearly expressing his desire to win specifically Gods elect. I think people are afraid to use Gods term here. I am not. Paul, is apostle to the Gentiles by the way, is he not? I think Romans 9 is straining the text to make it fit here. I think the thing that is trying to be escaped from here is his direct reference to doing this thing with the elect in mind, suffering for it, his objective and motivation to this end was facilitated by knowledge of the elect.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When I was a Calvinist I didn't believe this nor does my brother. But I've seen it argued here several times. It is a very widely accepted view.

Men like A.W. Pink teach this: "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody."

Huh....Well all I can say is that Pink was an Island to himself.

 

[JesusFan]

Robert Snow...

You posted...



I dont either.



I view it as error as well.



Yep. Its so very clear that the scriptures support "free will" regarding salvation.

Think that ALl of us can "proof text" the Bible and come to the conclusion jesus and paul were/ were not Cal/Arms etc!

Think best to label this as under "pauline Theology"

 

[JesusFan]

I wasn't attempting to "diminish" what you said, which is why I said not to view my response as an attempt to debate. I was attempting to help you see our perspective with regard to God's cutting off the elect nation of Israel while grafting in the Gentile people. Paul is expressing his love for Israel, who is being cut off or hardened in their rebellion. He is not expressing his love for certain elect individuals as you seemed to presume upon the text.

We don't need to "get back" to something we never left. I'm attempting to show you the non-Calvinistic understanding of Paul's motivation to win the lost as revealed in Romans 9.

What is seen though in the Biblical text is that God did/does establish a personal relationship/individual election with people such as Moses/Abraham etc, and that he also had a corporate relationship with nation of Isreal and HIs Church!

So its Both going on, not either/or !

 

[JesusFan]

I totally disagree that he only has Israel, from another passage and context altogether, in his mind, in the context of the passage I've given. Obviously he was doing what he did, for the elect. It's clear. So yes, he is clearly expressing his desire to win specifically Gods elect. I think people are afraid to use Gods term here. I am not. Paul, is apostle to the Gentiles by the way, is he not? I think Romans 9 is straining the text to make it fit here. I think the thing that is trying to be escaped from here is his direct reference to doing this thing with the elect in mind, suffering for it, his objective and motivation to this end was facilitated by knowledge of the elect.

What IS clear from this passage are 2 things:

paul did NOT see the Church replacing isreal/ but as an addition to plan of God, both co existing moving forward

Paul saw it as imperitive that individual jews place faith in Christ and be saved, individual call to election!

 

[Skandelon]

What is seen though in the Biblical text is that God did/does establish a personal relationship/individual election with people such as Moses/Abraham etc, and that he also had a corporate relationship with nation of Isreal and HIs Church!

So its Both going on, not either/or !

Never said their was either/or. I've explained many times that God also selects individuals for noble purposes such as apostles, prophets, kings etc.

Proof that God has individually selected his divine messengers is not proof that God individually selects those who will believe their message.

 

[Skandelon]

I totally disagree that he only has Israel, from another passage and context altogether, in his mind, in the context of the passage I've given.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying that in the passage in Romans 9:1-4, Paul is not speaking of "his fellow countryman" as meaning Israel?

Obviously he was doing what he did, for the elect. It's clear. So yes, he is clearly expressing his desire to win specifically Gods elect. I think people are afraid to use Gods term here. I am not. Paul, is apostle to the Gentiles by the way, is he not? I think Romans 9 is straining the text to make it fit here. I think the thing that is trying to be escaped from here is his direct reference to doing this thing with the elect in mind, suffering for it, his objective and motivation to this end was facilitated by knowledge of the elect.

I read this 5 times and cannot decipher it. Can you reword your argument or make it more clear as to what you are referring to??

 

[Skandelon]

Huh....Well all I can say is that Pink was an Island to himself.

Apparently it was an island with internet access because it has spread.

 

[preacher4truth]

Steve Lemke also has it wrong:

Lemke doubts that Calvinism has yet reached its high-water mark in the SBC. But he is no fan of this trend. Baptism and membership figures, he said, show that the Calvinist churches of the SBC's Founders Ministries lack commitment to evangelism. According to Lemke, the problem only makes sense, given their emphasis on God's sovereign election.

"For many people, if they're convinced that God has already elected those who will be elect … I don't see how humanly speaking that can't temper your passion, because you know you're not that crucial to the process," Lemke explained.*

(*quoted from this article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html?start=5)

Oh, but we are crucial to the process. What a massive misnomer here.

Lemke doesn't understand something here. Knowing God's Sovereign election, that His elect are out there, should drive our efforts, not cause them to wane. He is looking at this in the same old apathetic view and presupposed and erroneous view as many Cavinists do themselves, allowing the glorious truth of election to abate our evangelistic efforts. It should do the opposite. Anything other than the opposite is sinful pride, misunderstanding and apathy.

To be fair, any calvinist that allows their own efforts also to dwindle is missing the point; that is that God leads us in our evangelistic efforts, and He can lead us to His chosen ones with His message. These will be divinely appointed meetings, as with Paul and his preaching, and as true of all of the apostles who preached the Gospel.

If we who adhere to the truth of Scriptures are going to get all of it right that we can, we need to lose any passivity, grasp what Paul says here in 2 Timothy 2:10; (For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.) and live a life not just talking about God's Sovereignty in election, but actually seek after Him and His using us for His glory.

Let's face facts; Paul suffered persecution for the sake of Gods elect. In the text it is what motivated him to continue to preach and to continue to endure sufferings. I realize that those who are at enmity with the truths of DoG don't want to see this and want to run to other Scriptures and point out other things that drove him as though it dilutes this apparent truth. It doesn't.

Another fact; Even though God has Sovereignly chosen, unconditionally, all His people, He uses people to reach them. Those firmly planted on their back side who speak almost arrogantly of His doing it all, while they themselves do nothing, don't get the point. That is, that His elect are out there and we need to get with the program (His) and reach them.

One more fact; Neither do most of us "get it." Arminian or Calvinistic, whichever we may be, we need to start getting it, that God is in charge and we need to seek Him and allow Him to insert us into His plan to reach others where He is working.

We fail when we try to pick green fruit, to attempt to lead someone to the Lord via a tract with a sinners prayer, and we, not God affirm their salvation, and rarely do we see these darken a church door. Only God can lead His to Himself by using His people to do so. How about God leading us to them? How about actually presenting the pure Gospel (That Jesus died, was buried and rose again) versus a "would you like to know you will die and go to heaven?" That is not the Gospel message regardless of our thoughts. There is only power in one message, Romans 1:16 and we should pray God lead us to His with it and it alone.

Only He can lead us in that direction when we see the error of our ways and repent. When we do this He will choose to use us to reach His elect. Many churches are seeking Gods will but they have forgotten to seek Him. Let's not forget this; God has more of a passion to win His than we do, and we won't share this desire until we seek Him in it. I'd say its time we get ourselves available so He can take over and lead us in His great plan.

- Peace