Preaching the Sovereignty of God in Salvation

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation

OH.....you are decidedly more confused than I might have thought. Who is mentioning "Mega-Church" Pastors???

I mentioned them:thumbs: Is that okay with you Hos?

Skan is not referencing "Mega-Church" in any way....he is merely referring to the average Bible-believing non-Calvinist Church member in the bulk of the Western World

.

Did I post that skan mentioned them???

Where are they found?? Anywhere where there is a confessionally "Bible-believing" Church...The truth is...most of them are no more Calvinistic than the man in the moon is. What do you mean with:

What confession do you know of that is non cal.?

Everywhere dude...every frikkin where...they are too numerous to mention...Go to the average Baptist Church anywhere your truck will take you, and there is a 90% chance they do not hold to determinist dogma as you do. It isn't an issue of "Mega-Churchism" it's an issue of "average Baptist Church-ism".

Many churches I visit are a mix...that is sad.I see alot of decline and it makes me sad. I look for signs of spiritual life and service primarily, but I have to say I am always listening to what is being offered

This may be immaterial to you, as you are an adherent of the confessions of infant-baptizers, Presbyterians and Anglicans....but to actual "Baptists" around here (which you are not)...It matters

These personal attacks do not help your credibility.I am closer to many a good presbyterian, or biblical anglican....than many of the foul ideas you look into:wavey: At least the padeos have a substantial biblical worldview even if we differ on their view of covenant continuity/discontinuity.
I know pareos who would tie you up in knots and spit you out before you knew what hit you. What would you do, make these silly personal attacks on them also.?

No...it isn't actually...You must stop helping yourself to any definition of any word at will. You do this with your "self-will" vs. "free-will" distinction which does not exist.

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Are you sure about that:laugh:

By creating a "guilt by association" by throwing Skan in with the likes of Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, Robert Tilton...et. al. You are engaged in slanderous and pathetic attacks on a fellow brother and Bible-believer...It is, as I said..."LOW" like, you know, worms are low.[/

QUOTE]

The thing is i did not do that as you once again falsely accuse...like saying I lied.....I know you meant to apologise for that slander:laugh:

HOS.....if this is all you have got....why don't you just save it. Nobody wants to read this childish kind of tirade. If you have some scriptural imput offer it.
If not save your energy for your middle knowledge speculations and seeking to oppose what many have historically believed.

 

[Iconoclast]

:thumbs::wavey:

One must also acknowledge the historic hostility and overt aggressive behavior against anyone who did not hold to their kind of .. theology. It wasn't that such views were not in our country, nor that those who did not hold to Calvinistic view did not stand in both agreement and opposition to our countries enemies.. why we see this religious view as a prominent part of American history is because those who weren't Calvinistic in their theology were run out of town and sometimes killed. You can find this even with many of Reformed Baptist pastors, as Baptist was seen by many then as a cult or false religious view.

Deleted.. there is no real point to the rest of what I wrote.

Hello Allan,
This whole topic is another thread all by itself. Sadly there is some truth to some of this that is regretable.
Today's RB pastors look to simplify it . Anyone can come in and visit. Anyone can take time to examine the confession of faith. If they do not like it,they can make known where they differ. I have a few points I differ on, but there is a degree of flexibility.
Two cannot walk together unless they be agreed.Either that....or just keep it shallow....do not really open things up.....That is what I have seen.

What some proudly trumpet as tolerance...is many times sanctimonious compromise. This is worse i think:wavey:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Are you sure about that

Yes, I am still pretty sure...You seem to have failed to distinguish the direct object from the indirect object of my statement...I repost here:

You do this with your "self-will" vs. "free-will" distinction which does not exist.

You must think that I was attempting to suggest that you were incapable of possessing a Strong's concordance and thus demonstrating that the word "self-willed" itself does, in fact, exist....That, I am already aware of...The direct object in my statement is distinction....I was claiming that the distinction you like to make has little or no meaning. I have in fact, perused the verses you posted before...I've run across them....Israel is spoken of as being "stiff-necked" too!!! Isn't that exciting. You have demonstrated the existence of a certain word.

 

[Skandelon]

Sin has made them like that.

Sin that was determined/planned/control by God.

Do you always have to find a way to blame God for mans sin?

I'm only pointing out how your view, if viewed consistently, makes God culpable for man's rejection of truth. The reason I reject your view is precisely because I refuse to blame God for man's sin.

 

[Luke2427]

Icon, I think you missed the point, which is becoming all too typical and thus causing me to suspect your diversions are intentional.

I was merely pointing out that any fall off from the popularity of Calvinism must have been according to God's design if Luke's premise is correct, which is something he doesn't seem to accept in his OP. It has nothing to do with the Benny Hinns and Joel Olsteens of the world, except to say, "Why did God make them like that, He should have done better work, huh?"

I said that you ought to consider that you might be missing out on doctrines that God has repeatedly used to bring nations to himself.

And I think everyone should consider this.

Whether or not you do is immediately up to you.

Yet, it is ultimately up to God.

Both Calvinists and Arminians acknowledge the tension between the two.

Neither of us fully understands how that works.

But, if I may, respectfully, dear brother- and I mean that sincerely- compatabalism vs contra-causal free will is not the theme of this thread. We have wonderful discussions about that subject on other threads.

I'd like you to consider for a moment that you might be slipping into the tendency to take any thread promoting Calvinism and by pass the immediate issue discussed in the OP and highjack it to force it to only discuss compatabalism vs contra-causal free will.

The idea of this thread is that God has greatly blessed the preaching of exhaustive sovereignty over the years. I site Jonathan Edwards testimony as support of this fact.

That should be what we discuss. If we wish to discuss the core issue behind the two theological positions, let's do that in a thread designed to do so.

But it seems that perhaps you tend to take any statement by a Calvinist and say- "Well in your system nothing we do matters and we have no power over it, etc, etc, etc..." And then we are forced to talk about that instead of the merit of the OP.

I'm sure we do the same, but the point still stands. :thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

I said that you ought to consider that you might be missing out on doctrines that God has repeatedly used to bring nations to himself.

And I think everyone should consider this.

Whether or not you do is immediately up to you.

Yet, it is ultimately up to God.

Both Calvinists and Arminians acknowledge the tension between the two.

Neither of us fully understands how that works.

This is not where our tension is. We are not the ones who dogmatically conclude that all things depend on God, as you do. We affirm man's freedom and appeal to mystery as to exactly how men make those free choices. The only reason I or other believers don't affirm Calvinistic soteriology (if your view is correct) is because God so ordained it. I'm 'missing' nothing that God hasn't sovereignty decreed for me to miss, and you have not caught anything they God hasn't sovereignty decreed for you to catch, thus you warning is virtually meaningless.

Now, you can speculate that your appeal to 'consider these things' could be the means that God uses to bring one of us to a 'correct' understanding of your doctrine, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter...which are that what we do in this regard is totally dependent upon God and thus your rebuke would be more accurately aimed at Him, not us. Beg him to change us, for that is really your only hope of us changing. It's just like when Cals tell Arminians they can't pray to God for their friend to be saved...the same logic applies in reverse...you can't appeal to men to change either.

I'd like you to consider for a moment that you might be slipping into the tendency to take any thread promoting Calvinism and by pass the immediate issue discussed in the OP and highjack it to force it to only discuss compatabalism vs contra-causal free will.

The idea of this thread is that God has greatly blessed the preaching of exhaustive sovereignty over the years. I site Jonathan Edwards testimony as support of this fact.

That should be what we discuss. If we wish to discuss the core issue behind the two theological positions, let's do that in a thread designed to do so.

But it seems that perhaps you tend to take any statement by a Calvinist and say- "Well in your system nothing we do matters and we have no power over it, etc, etc, etc..." And then we are forced to talk about that instead of the merit of the OP.

I'm sure we do the same, but the point still stands. :thumbs:

At your wish I will allow the thread to continue without further interruption... Sorry.

 

[Luke2427]

This is not where our tension is. We are not the ones who dogmatically conclude that all things depend on God, as you do. We affirm man's freedom and appeal to mystery as to exactly how men make those free choices. The only reason I or other believers don't affirm Calvinistic soteriology (if your view is correct) is because God so ordained it. I'm 'missing' nothing that God hasn't sovereignty decreed for me to miss, and you have not caught anything they God hasn't sovereignty decreed for you to catch, thus you warning is virtually meaningless.

It is no less meaningless than Jeremiah's warnings when God told him beforehand that they would not listen.

Our duty, yours and mine, is to speak the truth as we have opportunity and trust God with the results.

Therefore, whether Arminian or Calvinist, doing your duty is never meaningless.

Now, you can speculate that your appeal to 'consider these things' could be the means that God uses to bring one of us to a 'correct' understanding of your doctrine, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter...which are that what we do in this regard is totally dependent upon God and thus your rebuke would be more accurately aimed at Him, not us.

I think the first half of this statement actually corrects the error in the second half.

Beg him to change us, for that is really your only hope of us changing.

That is really anyone's only hope PERIOD, is it not?

Is our hope somewhere other than God?

But it does not change the fact that God uses means.

 

[Skandelon]

That is really anyone's only hope PERIOD, is it not?

It man's only hope for a response, but a response is still needed. I can't go to the wedding banquet unless I'm invited. Without the invitation I'm hopeless. I won't be selected to enter unless I'm clothed in righteousness by Grace through faith. Without Christ's provision I'm hopeless, but with it we ALL have hope and THAT is the GOSPEL (Good-NEWS for all)

But it does not change the fact that God uses means.

True, but in my system the "means" actually "mean" something.

 

[Aaron]

Sin that was determined/planned/control by God.

You would say forseen, yet not prevented.

I'm only pointing out how your view, if viewed consistently, makes God culpable for man's rejection of truth. The reason I reject your view is precisely because I refuse to blame God for man's sin.

You don't escape it. If one digs a hole, and fails to cover it, he is liable for the damages if one falls in.

Ex. 21:33

Are you more righteous than God, Who said He created the wicked for the Day of Judgment?

 

[Skandelon]

You would say forseen, yet not prevented.

No, actually I wouldn't. Even that perspective puts God on a finite linear time line. The idea of God merely foreseeing something yet to come is a finite way of looking at God...as if he is in time waiting along with the rest of us for what is yet to be experienced. He is the great I AM, not the great I WILL BE and His ways are much greater than our ways. I don't draw hard and fast conclusions about such infinite matters of God's knowledge and creation. I simply affirm his omniscience and man's freedom.

Are you more righteous than God, Who said He created the wicked for the Day of Judgment?

God desires that no one perishes, but if they refuse to accept the clearly revealed truth of His revelation he certainly will fit them for judgement and wrath. God is patient, merciful and loving, not wishing anyone to perish. No man has any excuse for not being saved for God, in gracious love, has provided all men everywhere the means to be saved. That is the GOODNEWS!