Paul's Relentless "Calvinism" Drove His Evangelical Effort

[HankD]

Debate; to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly:

It's called a synonym.

OK point taken.

No. You assume all the above. I never once mentioned Paul knew the Institutes. You're getting way off track here. I smell straw. Don't pretend you know my intentions. My intentions were to draw attention to the fact that when one uses the word "elect" one is automatically believed to be Calvinistic, thus for whom (the elect) Paul suffered persecution, it's right there in the text I've used. Thus the OP title with Calvinism in parentheses.

Yes Paul suffered persecution but not because of his "calvinism".

Now onto the text at hand, or do you stay only with your ad hominem attack on my title, and continue to miss the point altogether, which involves a text associated with Paul and his driving zeal and knowledge of the elect?

OK, now I feel better and yes, Paul indeed was called to suffer for the sake of the elect.

I agree with everything you said down to but not including your next sentence below...

"So, let's not say calvinism is purely non-evangelistic, nor generally, as we can see in Scripture that the knowledge that there are elect remaining to hear and be saved, drove the effort and zeal to preach".

The fact is that there are different brands of "calvinism" e.g. such as held by the Primitive Baptist who do not support missions nor do they believe that the children of God necessarily need to hear the gospel to ultimately be saved so they would not use your phrase "hear and be saved" in the manner in which you have.

Secondly, most Christians of the "arminius" persuasion would not have a problem at all with your analysis of 2 Timothy 2:8-10 without your mention of calvinism.

Their problem if any would be how God's elect came to be God's elect whether by foreknowledge election or unconditional election.

Perhaps you should do this and elaborate on your belief here? I don't happen to believe this.

Neither do I and that's one more reason why I don't identify with calvin or calvinism.

Because I can? I've read little from him, but much about him. Do you go study about Calvin Klein before you wear his clothes with his name on them? Ralph Lauren? How dare you. Same reasoning, same straw man.

I don't wear either of these brands but even if I did there is a significant difference in putting my stamp of approval as a Christian on the products of a clothes marketeer and the doctrines of a 16th century paedo-baptist theologian!

HankD

 

[preacher4truth]

OK point taken. Yes Paul suffered persecution but not because of his "calvinism".

You are getting closer here. Keep in mind I've never stated he suffered for "calvinism" but obviously he suffered for his zeal to preach the Gospel, for the sake of the elect.

Stating it as you have is putting words in my mouth. I've specifically and only stated he's done so for the elect. Let's not turn it anyway other than what is factually stated? If I wanted to say he did so for "calvinism" I'd had stated it with specificity, no hold-barred. Instead, I stuck to the Scriptural context and wording "the chosen" or "the elect."

OK, now I feel better and yes, Paul indeed was called to suffer for the sake of the elect.

OK. I am glad you're feeling better!

I agree with everything you said down to but not including your next sentence below...

"So, let's not say calvinism is purely non-evangelistic, nor generally, as we can see in Scripture that the knowledge that there are elect remaining to hear and be saved, drove the effort and zeal to preach".

Oh no, you don't agree with me? :laugh: You're not getting what I mean here. We can't say all calvinism is non-evangelistic. I equate it (calvinism) with the doctrine of election, as do many people typically assume that speaking of "the elect" makes one automatically a Calvinist and then non-evangelistic. I find it of great interest that Paul preached, suffered, preached, suffered, and on and on, and kept on preaching obviously for the sake of a certain group, i.e. "the chosen, or elect." Not for Calvinism.

The fact is that there are different brands of "calvinism" e.g. such as held by the Primitive Baptist who do not support missions nor do they believe that the children of God necessarily need to hear the gospel to ultimately be saved so they would not use your phrase "hear and be saved" in the manner in which you have.

I'm aware of this. I don't agree with them.

Secondly, most Christians of the "arminius" persuasion would not have a problem at all with your analysis of 2 Timothy 2:8-10 without your mention of calvinism.

It's a sensitive issue. It's all in how you state it publicly. One could probably get them to chuckle about it if said correctly, then get them to consider it, the elect, and perhaps enlighten them and lighten them up some.

Their problem if any would be how God's elect came to be God's elect whether by foreknowledge election or unconditional election.

This is a given. I believe it is unconditional. But this OP isn't about this issue.

I don't wear either of these brands but even if I did there is a significant difference in putting my stamp of approval as a Christian on the products of a clothes marketeer and the doctrines of a 16th century paedo-baptist theologian!

It's the same principle: Straw! :thumbsup:

By the way, try as we might, when we accept DoG we can hardly miss the lable of Calvinist. Mention election? "Calvinist." Thus my OP.

- Peace

 

[HankD]

You are getting closer here. Keep in mind I've never stated he suffered for "calvinism" but obviously he suffered for his zeal to preach the Gospel, for the sake of the elect.

Stating it as you have is putting words in my mouth. I've specifically and only stated he's done so for the elect. Let's not turn it anyway other than what is factually stated? If I wanted to say he did so for "calvinism" I'd had stated it with specificity, no hold-barred. Instead, I stuck to the Scriptural context and wording "the chosen" or "the elect."

OK. I am glad you're feeling better!

Oh no, you don't agree with me? :laugh: You're not getting what I mean here. We can't say all calvinism is non-evangelistic. I equate it (calvinism) with the doctrine of election, as do many people typically assume that speaking of "the elect" makes one automatically a Calvinist and then non-evangelistic. I find it of great interest that Paul preached, suffered, preached, suffered, and on and on, and kept on preaching obviously for the sake of a certain group, i.e. "the chosen, or elect." Not for Calvinism.

I'm aware of this. I don't agree with them.

It's a sensitive issue. It's all in how you state it publicly. One could probably get them to chuckle about it if said correctly, then get them to consider it, the elect, and perhaps enlighten them and lighten them up some.

This is a given. I believe it is unconditional. But this OP isn't about this issue.

It's the same principle: Straw! :thumbsup:

By the way, try as we might, when we accept DoG we can hardly miss the lable of Calvinist. Mention election? "Calvinist." Thus my OP.

- Peace

Yes I am aware of that and I think we are in sufficient accord.

HankD

 

[Robert Snow]

"That exalted system of Pauline truth which is tecnically called Calvinism." (John Broadus)

Wow! You found a Calvinists who supports Calvinism. I'm impressed!