Shifting the Blame

[Van]

A long time ago, about 400 years, great Biblical thinkers like John Calvin pondered the question of why some folks accept the gospel and some folks reject the gospel. Some said the reason is the message was not well presented. Others said no it can't be our fault; it must be God's fault.

John Calvin and others hit upon an idea. The folks that accept the gospel are the ones God individually chose before the foundation of the world and they were predestined to salvation, while the others not chosen were prevented by God from accepting the gospel. Having a working hypothesis, they manufactured support for the doctrine and attempted to address the many paradoxes the doctrine creates. God wants all men to come to salvation - nope, God wants all [kinds] of men to come to salvation. Over the years the reformed theology was developed. And over the years a sizeable group of folks rejected the manufactured support.

In parallel with this development process, Jacob Arminius, an objector developed his alternate view, desperately trying to put faith back into the equation. The Calvinist's had taken it out, and then attempted to address the scriptural weakness by manufacturing the gift of faith and asserting regeneration before belief.

Now four hundred years or so later, here we sit pridefully asserting Calvinism is either true or false and presenting a range of opposing views including those of Jacob Arminius.

Some believe the dark ages, as characterized by Religion being ensconced in government, was brought on by Augustine, who misinterpreted the parable of the feast (Luke 14:16-24). Augustine’s erroneous idea was that compel them (verse 23) meant use force to bring about God’s will and thus the foundation was laid for government compulsion enforcing the decrees of church leaders. Luther and other leaders of the Reformation realized folks should have religious freedom from the corrupted traditions of the Church and its leaders, and thus the foundation for church-state separation was laid.

I have said many times that Calvinism is not only a mistaken doctrine; it is an obviously mistaken doctrine. Despite numerous verses indicating total depravity is a mistaken doctrine, folks say no they mean the exact opposite of what they say. Nobody can find the narrow door unless God regenerates them supernaturally. Nobody can seek God even though Jesus said to seek the kingdom of God. God wants only the elect to be saved even though scripture says God wants all men to be saved. Salvation or damnation has nothing to do with trusting in Christ or being a sinner, God decreed before mankind fell who would be saved and who would be damned and then just brings about His predestined will. In other words, the exact opposite of what scripture says.

I believe the Church is still partly bogged down in the dark age of Calvinism, with folks implying flawed evangelism is worse than no evangelism, or worse yet (Hypers), God will save the elect in China, no need to send missionaries there! How does Calvinism hinder evangelism: two ways, it undercuts persistence (all I need do is present the gospel and God will do the rest) and it sidetracks believers (they spend much time debating the paradoxes of Calvinism and bashing opponents.)

 

[agedman]

I believe the Church is still partly bogged down in the dark age of Calvinism, with folks implying flawed evangelism is worse than no evangelism, or worse yet (Hypers), God will save the elect in China, no need to send missionaries there!

You would make your case established from fringe statements in which even the main stream refutes.

That makes for really good balance and strengthens the support of what you are trying to get across.

Isn't that sort of like bait and switch?

How does Calvinism hinder evangelism: two ways, it undercuts persistence (all I need do is present the gospel and God will do the rest) and it sidetracks believers (they spend much time debating the paradoxes of Calvinism and bashing opponents.)

You are assuming that because you consider something to be true, then it must be true.

But, historically your "two ways" statement is without foundation.

1st - Most of the greatest mission endeavors of the past 400 years have been by calvinistic thinking folks.

2nd - Most calvinistic preaching doesn't spend time "bashing opponents" other than when there is doctrinal error.

Look carefully at the sermons by Spurgeon. Why are they referenced by BOTH cals and non-cals? He is called by both groups, "the prince of preachers." Absolutely, he attacked without mercy the thinking of those modernists of his day who were not preaching the gospel, but he spent very little time "bashing" those preached Christ as the only salvation.

Look carefully at Issac Watts and John Newton. Why are there sermons and music still used in the modern Baptist non-cal church (those that sing hymns anyway)? They didn't have time to "bash" except against those univeralists and modernists of their day who didn't preach the Gospel of Christ being the only way.

Certainly there are modern calvinists who have "debated" with various non-cal folks and I am not certain it was a wise decision of either party. To that principle, I even question my own involvement on the BB at times. However, I more often am encouraging edification and do hope that the banter of views brings some reader points in which to ponder.

However, BOTH non-cal and cal debates against the world heathen is a worthy endeavor and I applaud those who have skill enough, education enough, and intellect enough to bring the Gospel in even that situation. I find Paul would agree when he would bring the Gospel to the synagogue, the streets, and the palaces.

 

[salzer mtn]

A long time ago, about 400 years, great Biblical thinkers like John Calvin pondered the question of why some folks accept the gospel and some folks reject the gospel. Some said the reason is the message was not well presented. Others said no it can't be our fault; it must be God's fault.

John Calvin and others hit upon an idea. The folks that accept the gospel are the ones God individually chose before the foundation of the world and they were predestined to salvation, while the others not chosen were prevented by God from accepting the gospel. Having a working hypothesis, they manufactured support for the doctrine and attempted to address the many paradoxes the doctrine creates. God wants all men to come to salvation - nope, God wants all [kinds] of men to come to salvation. Over the years the reformed theology was developed. And over the years a sizeable group of folks rejected the manufactured support.

In parallel with this development process, Jacob Arminius, an objector developed his alternate view, desperately trying to put faith back into the equation. The Calvinist's had taken it out, and then attempted to address the scriptural weakness by manufacturing the gift of faith and asserting regeneration before belief.

Now four hundred years or so later, here we sit pridefully asserting Calvinism is either true or false and presenting a range of opposing views including those of Jacob Arminius.

Some believe the dark ages, as characterized by Religion being ensconced in government, was brought on by Augustine, who misinterpreted the parable of the feast (Luke 14:16-24). Augustine’s erroneous idea was that compel them (verse 23) meant use force to bring about God’s will and thus the foundation was laid for government compulsion enforcing the decrees of church leaders. Luther and other leaders of the Reformation realized folks should have religious freedom from the corrupted traditions of the Church and its leaders, and thus the foundation for church-state separation was laid.

I have said many times that Calvinism is not only a mistaken doctrine; it is an obviously mistaken doctrine. Despite numerous verses indicating total depravity is a mistaken doctrine, folks say no they mean the exact opposite of what they say. Nobody can find the narrow door unless God regenerates them supernaturally. Nobody can seek God even though Jesus said to seek the kingdom of God. God wants only the elect to be saved even though scripture says God wants all men to be saved. Salvation or damnation has nothing to do with trusting in Christ or being a sinner, God decreed before mankind fell who would be saved and who would be damned and then just brings about His predestined will. In other words, the exact opposite of what scripture says.

I believe the Church is still partly bogged down in the dark age of Calvinism, with folks implying flawed evangelism is worse than no evangelism, or worse yet (Hypers), God will save the elect in China, no need to send missionaries there! How does Calvinism hinder evangelism: two ways, it undercuts persistence (all I need do is present the gospel and God will do the rest) and it sidetracks believers (they spend much time debating the paradoxes of Calvinism and bashing opponents.)

God does not prevent anyone from receiving the gospel, as you stated. God does enable some to receive the gospel or none would receive it. Calvinism, if you want to call it that put's God on the throne as a ruler and a king. Arminius put's God down below the level of man and makes a begger out of God and makes man sovereign. The doctrines of sovereign grace exalts God and abases man. Just because the bible say's for man to repent doesn't mean that man has the ability to repent. God commandeth all men everywhere to repent, not begging them to repent. Free will thinking has God waiting on man, free grace thinking reveals to man he has nothing to offer God but is at Gods mercy for salvation. A sovereign God over all things is the God I will serve, not a god that has no power but what man gives him. Either God is God or he is not.

 

[HisWitness]

A long time ago, about 400 years, great Biblical thinkers like John Calvin pondered the question of why some folks accept the gospel and some folks reject the gospel. Some said the reason is the message was not well presented. Others said no it can't be our fault; it must be God's fault.

John Calvin and others hit upon an idea. The folks that accept the gospel are the ones God individually chose before the foundation of the world and they were predestined to salvation, while the others not chosen were prevented by God from accepting the gospel. Having a working hypothesis, they manufactured support for the doctrine and attempted to address the many paradoxes the doctrine creates. God wants all men to come to salvation - nope, God wants all [kinds] of men to come to salvation. Over the years the reformed theology was developed. And over the years a sizeable group of folks rejected the manufactured support.

In parallel with this development process, Jacob Arminius, an objector developed his alternate view, desperately trying to put faith back into the equation. The Calvinist's had taken it out, and then attempted to address the scriptural weakness by manufacturing the gift of faith and asserting regeneration before belief.

Now four hundred years or so later, here we sit pridefully asserting Calvinism is either true or false and presenting a range of opposing views including those of Jacob Arminius.

Some believe the dark ages, as characterized by Religion being ensconced in government, was brought on by Augustine, who misinterpreted the parable of the feast (Luke 14:16-24). Augustine’s erroneous idea was that compel them (verse 23) meant use force to bring about God’s will and thus the foundation was laid for government compulsion enforcing the decrees of church leaders. Luther and other leaders of the Reformation realized folks should have religious freedom from the corrupted traditions of the Church and its leaders, and thus the foundation for church-state separation was laid.

I have said many times that Calvinism is not only a mistaken doctrine; it is an obviously mistaken doctrine. Despite numerous verses indicating total depravity is a mistaken doctrine, folks say no they mean the exact opposite of what they say. Nobody can find the narrow door unless God regenerates them supernaturally. Nobody can seek God even though Jesus said to seek the kingdom of God. God wants only the elect to be saved even though scripture says God wants all men to be saved. Salvation or damnation has nothing to do with trusting in Christ or being a sinner, God decreed before mankind fell who would be saved and who would be damned and then just brings about His predestined will. In other words, the exact opposite of what scripture says.

I believe the Church is still partly bogged down in the dark age of Calvinism, with folks implying flawed evangelism is worse than no evangelism, or worse yet (Hypers), God will save the elect in China, no need to send missionaries there! How does Calvinism hinder evangelism: two ways, it undercuts persistence (all I need do is present the gospel and God will do the rest) and it sidetracks believers (they spend much time debating the paradoxes of Calvinism and bashing opponents.)

One thing is for sure !!! with Calvinism(not saying I agree with everything about it) at least the Glory goes to YAH in the Salvation of man.

where as the opposite gives Man the Glory.

 

[jonathanD]

This doesn't even fit with the prior propaganda. I thought Calvin was an Augustine worshipping papist?!

Y'all keep moving the target...it's getting hard to keep up. :tonofbricks:

 

[Rippon]

God wants all [kinds] of people to come to salvation.

AMEN!

I have said many times that Calvinism is not only a mistaken doctrine; it is an obviously mistaken doctrine.

You have stated many mistaken things;many obviously mistaken doctrines flow without letup from your keystrokes.

I believe the Church is still partly bogged down in the dark age of Calvinism,

LOL! The Reformation was known as "After Darkness --Light." And yet you turn things on their head... How typical of you.

with folks implying flawed evangelism is worse than no evangelism,

How you twist things Chubby Checker.

 

[DrJamesAch]

You would make your case established from fringe statements in which even the main stream refutes.

That makes for really good balance and strengthens the support of what you are trying to get across.

Isn't that sort of like bait and switch?





You are assuming that because you consider something to be true, then it must be true.

But, historically your "two ways" statement is without foundation.

1st - Most of the greatest mission endeavors of the past 400 years have been by calvinistic thinking folks.

2nd - Most calvinistic preaching doesn't spend time "bashing opponents" other than when there is doctrinal error.

Look carefully at the sermons by Spurgeon. Why are they referenced by BOTH cals and non-cals? He is called by both groups, "the prince of preachers." Absolutely, he attacked without mercy the thinking of those modernists of his day who were not preaching the gospel, but he spent very little time "bashing" those preached Christ as the only salvation.

Look carefully at Issac Watts and John Newton. Why are there sermons and music still used in the modern Baptist non-cal church (those that sing hymns anyway)? They didn't have time to "bash" except against those univeralists and modernists of their day who didn't preach the Gospel of Christ being the only way.

Certainly there are modern calvinists who have "debated" with various non-cal folks and I am not certain it was a wise decision of either party. To that principle, I even question my own involvement on the BB at times. However, I more often am encouraging edification and do hope that the banter of views brings some reader points in which to ponder.

However, BOTH non-cal and cal debates against the world heathen is a worthy endeavor and I applaud those who have skill enough, education enough, and intellect enough to bring the Gospel in even that situation. I find Paul would agree when he would bring the Gospel to the synagogue, the streets, and the palaces.

Do you understand the difference between a DEBATE and a SERMON? A FORUM and a CHURCH?

Why do you keep reverting to what Calvinists PREACH in CHURCH as a defense to what is said about a DEBATE in a FORUM?

And why is it that you call what Non Cals do "bashing" but don't apply that same logic to your own arguments? You have started 2 threads with the title "A Passage Many Struggle With" and the entire thread is about the Calvinist understanding the passage, and the Non Calvinist NOT understanding it. So why isn't that considered Non Calvinist or Arminian bashing?

 

[Yeshua1]

A long time ago, about 400 years, great Biblical thinkers like John Calvin pondered the question of why some folks accept the gospel and some folks reject the gospel. Some said the reason is the message was not well presented. Others said no it can't be our fault; it must be God's fault.

John Calvin and others hit upon an idea. The folks that accept the gospel are the ones God individually chose before the foundation of the world and they were predestined to salvation, while the others not chosen were prevented by God from accepting the gospel. Having a working hypothesis, they manufactured support for the doctrine and attempted to address the many paradoxes the doctrine creates. God wants all men to come to salvation - nope, God wants all [kinds] of men to come to salvation. Over the years the reformed theology was developed. And over the years a sizeable group of folks rejected the manufactured support.

In parallel with this development process, Jacob Arminius, an objector developed his alternate view, desperately trying to put faith back into the equation. The Calvinist's had taken it out, and then attempted to address the scriptural weakness by manufacturing the gift of faith and asserting regeneration before belief.

Now four hundred years or so later, here we sit pridefully asserting Calvinism is either true or false and presenting a range of opposing views including those of Jacob Arminius.

Some believe the dark ages, as characterized by Religion being ensconced in government, was brought on by Augustine, who misinterpreted the parable of the feast (Luke 14:16-24). Augustine’s erroneous idea was that compel them (verse 23) meant use force to bring about God’s will and thus the foundation was laid for government compulsion enforcing the decrees of church leaders. Luther and other leaders of the Reformation realized folks should have religious freedom from the corrupted traditions of the Church and its leaders, and thus the foundation for church-state separation was laid.

I have said many times that Calvinism is not only a mistaken doctrine; it is an obviously mistaken doctrine. Despite numerous verses indicating total depravity is a mistaken doctrine, folks say no they mean the exact opposite of what they say. Nobody can find the narrow door unless God regenerates them supernaturally. Nobody can seek God even though Jesus said to seek the kingdom of God. God wants only the elect to be saved even though scripture says God wants all men to be saved. Salvation or damnation has nothing to do with trusting in Christ or being a sinner, God decreed before mankind fell who would be saved and who would be damned and then just brings about His predestined will. In other words, the exact opposite of what scripture says.

I believe the Church is still partly bogged down in the dark age of Calvinism, with folks implying flawed evangelism is worse than no evangelism, or worse yet (Hypers), God will save the elect in China, no need to send missionaries there! How does Calvinism hinder evangelism: two ways, it undercuts persistence (all I need do is present the gospel and God will do the rest) and it sidetracks believers (they spend much time debating the paradoxes of Calvinism and bashing opponents.)

good night time story for the kiddis, BUT the truth actually is that God Himself revealed those truths to the Apostles, especially Paul!

Jesu taught the seed of those truths, His Apsotles expanded on them and give them "flesh!"

 

[Van]

LOL, the combined response is "Tain't so and your evil for saying so."

God does not prevent anyone from receiving the gospel, as you stated. God does enable some to receive the gospel or none would receive it. Calvinism, if you want to call it that put's God on the throne as a ruler and a king. Arminius put's God down below the level of man and makes a begger out of God and makes man sovereign. The doctrines of sovereign grace exalts God and abases man. Just because the bible say's for man to repent doesn't mean that man has the ability to repent. God commandeth all men everywhere to repent, not begging them to repent. Free will thinking has God waiting on man, free grace thinking reveals to man he has nothing to offer God but is at Gods mercy for salvation. A sovereign God over all things is the God I will serve, not a god that has no power but what man gives him. Either God is God or he is not.

1) God does prevent those He hardens, i.e. Romans 11, but now that the New Covenant has been established, we have no "fresh" examples of God hardening. OTOH, we have plenty of fresh samples of self hardening.

2) God does provide the means of salvation, via the gospel of Christ, which is the power of God to salvation. Not all hear, and no all that hear understand, and not all that understand, receive, and not all that receive do so from the heart, and not all that accept Christ from the heart expel from their heart the inhibiting treasures of this world.

3) Calvinism does not put God on the throne, they say God does not mean what He says, i.e. God really does not desire all men to be saved. They put a man-made doctrine, the TULIP, on the throne.

4) As Ambassadors of Christ, we are to beg, beseech, plead with the lost, "be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:20). Again to deny this is to put man-made doctrine on the throne.

5) Since God created man for His glory, Isaiah 47:3, and it brings glory to God to repent (Revelation 16:9), then to claim man cannot repent is absurd.

6) God's purpose and plan of choosing those whose faith He credits as righteousness in no way puts man in the drivers seat. Salvation does not depend on the man that will, but upon God who has mercy. Romans 9:16

 

[Rippon]

A long time ago, about 400 years, great Biblical thinkers like John Calvin...

Actually,John Calvin would have been 504 years old yesterday. He started most of his serious theological thinking around 479 years ago.

 

[quantumfaith]

God does not prevent anyone from receiving the gospel, as you stated. God does enable some to receive the gospel or none would receive it. Calvinism, if you want to call it that put's God on the throne as a ruler and a king. Arminius put's God down below the level of man and makes a begger out of God and makes man sovereign. The doctrines of sovereign grace exalts God and abases man. Just because the bible say's for man to repent doesn't mean that man has the ability to repent. God commandeth all men everywhere to repent, not begging them to repent. Free will thinking has God waiting on man, free grace thinking reveals to man he has nothing to offer God but is at Gods mercy for salvation. A sovereign God over all things is the God I will serve, not a god that has no power but what man gives him. Either God is God or he is not.

Goodness, this deserves no less than a FACEPALM

 

[Alive in Christ]

This was posted...

John Calvin and others hit upon an idea. The folks that accept the gospel are the ones God individually chose before the foundation of the world and they were predestined to salvation, while the others not chosen were prevented by God from accepting the gospel.

...and the herese still is still infecting the christian world all these many decades later...:tear:

 

[agedman]

This was posted...




...and the herese still is still infecting the christian world all these many decades later...:tear:

Actually, the calvinist thinking is that God elects some to salvation and leaves the others to enjoy their natural fallen state. That God is under no obligation to offer salvation to anyone, but shows mercy to whom He will. (my own statement of the typical calvinist)

The quote you cited would place God as responsible for sending folks to hell.

That is in violation of John 3 - "...are condemned already..." not will be condemned, not might be condemned, not have the alternative to be condemned or not, but "are condemned already."

Folks, below is a bit on bias that I trust will help all to do some introspection and construct certain internal mechanism(s) that there be no deceitful distortion overtake the believer.

The bias point of view obliges one to grasp at any extreme and assign it in general to all who have that view, further the evil of the bias is compounded by publishing the untruth.

Such is also the case of bias from the other extremist (for instance the bias of the extreme cal toward the non-cal). The bias will demand that,the non-cal cannot faithfully hold to OSAS and eternal punishment for the lost. The bias demands that if Christ truly died for all, then all are saved and that includes all evil satanic forces and the arch evil - Satan, too. The bias will distort the persception seeking evidence in certain modernist teachers and preachers who actually do hold to this herecy and then the bias will be applied generally and compounding the evil by publishing the untruth.

Of course, extremes are never accurate, and are used only with the intent of providing fodder for the over zealous and to ridicule anyone who might hold a view not in agreement.

Bias comes from a lack of maturity, political expediency, desire for popularity, narcissism (expressed as everyone is wrong but me, all views are wrong except my view, and obliges blind loyalty to me of all who are in "my camp"), one sided education, trauma of some personal experience, and the list could go on.

Rarely is the bias God glorifying, and hardly is there any actual edification that is provided because bias refuses to express balance and draw the audience into agreement. Rather, bias generally being self centered and self serving ultimately only compels toward a cult-like following in which the members will rarely if ever challenge the bias nor the propagator of that bias.

Bias abounds in the human nature, and the believer must be ever vigilant to guard their mind.

Scriptures that compel the believer to walk humbly and demand of their conversation a love of the brethren help in this endeavor.

 

[quantumfaith]

Actually, the calvinist thinking is that God elects some to salvation and leaves the others to enjoy their natural fallen state. That God is under no obligation to offer salvation to anyone, but shows mercy to whom He will. (my own statement of the typical calvinist)

The quote you cited would place God as responsible for sending folks to hell.

That is in violation of John 3 - "...are condemned already..." not will be condemned, not might be condemned, not have the alternative to be condemned or not, but "are condemned already."

Folks, below is a bit on bias that I trust will help all to do some introspection and construct certain internal mechanism(s) that there be no deceitful distortion overtake the believer.

The bias point of view obliges one to grasp at any extreme and assign it in general to all who have that view, further the evil of the bias is compounded by publishing the untruth.

Such is also the case of bias from the other extremist (for instance the bias of the extreme cal toward the non-cal). The bias will demand that,the non-cal cannot faithfully hold to OSAS and eternal punishment for the lost. The bias demands that if Christ truly died for all, then all are saved and that includes all evil satanic forces and the arch evil - Satan, too. The bias will distort the persception seeking evidence in certain modernist teachers and preachers who actually do hold to this herecy and then the bias will be applied generally and compounding the evil by publishing the untruth.

Of course, extremes are never accurate, and are used only with the intent of providing fodder for the over zealous and to ridicule anyone who might hold a view not in agreement.

Bias comes from a lack of maturity, political expediency, desire for popularity, narcissism (expressed as everyone is wrong but me, all views are wrong except my view, and obliges blind loyalty to me of all who are in "my camp"), one sided education, trauma of some personal experience, and the list could go on.

Rarely is the bias God glorifying, and hardly is there any actual edification that is provided because bias refuses to express balance and draw the audience into agreement. Rather, bias generally being self centered and self serving ultimately only compels toward a cult-like following in which the members will rarely if ever challenge the bias nor the propagator of that bias.

Bias abounds in the human nature, and the believer must be ever vigilant to guard their mind.

Scriptures that compel the believer to walk humbly and demand of their conversation a love of the brethren help in this endeavor.

Nice post agedman. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Van]

Hi QF, what is nice about fiction?

Did God impose the consequence of the Fall? Yes. Was part of that "you will surely die?" Yes. Therefore if being spiritually dead, separated from God also means (the Calvinist fiction) fallen men have no ability to seek God and trust in Christ, then they are "prevented" from obtaining mercy.

This argument, about 400 years old, that God can predestine folks to damnation but not be responsible is irrational fiction.

So being condemned "already" means they were condemned as a consequence of the Fall, and that consequence was imposed by God.

Next, rather than address the obvious truth, a sly implication of bias and distortion is made. Utter fiction, with no evidence.

What was demonstrated is Calvinists use fictional strawman arguments. Well Duh. The fictional implication, something in the OP was biased. But the innuendo if fiction.

Calvinism is splitting the body of Christ, and one of the chief weapons is the utterly false claim, "well the non-Cals are just as bad as the Cals." Two wrongs do not make a right, and do not deserve a thumb's up.

 

[Van]

Dragging in the strawmen, dragging in the strawmen

This doesn't even fit with the prior propaganda. I thought Calvin was an Augustine worshipping papist?!

Y'all keep moving the target...it's getting hard to keep up. :tonofbricks:

Note this addresses "prior propaganda" from the unreferenced past, made by who knows who, and is tossed in the muddy the water.

 

[Van]

Actually,John Calvin would have been 504 years old yesterday. He started most of his serious theological thinking around 479 years ago.

Yes, but it took some time before the conflicting views jelled, and so the Synod of Dordt, 1618-9, reflects the "about 400 years ago" dating.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Calvinism is splitting the body of Christ,

I prefer to look at it as excising the cancer of easy-believism and Finneyism from the body. Although some may be truly saved through those evangelism methods, many more are mislead to believe that they will go to Heaven because they followed some sort of man-made plan of salvation tract, said a prayer "after" someone, went to the "altar", or raised their hand during an invitation.


("Shuck and jive" comment coming in three... two... one...)

 

[Tom Bryant]

I prefer to look at it as excising the cancer of easy-believism and Finneyism from the body. Although some may be truly saved through those evangelism methods, many more are mislead to believe that they will go to Heaven because they followed some sort of man-made plan of salvation tract, said a prayer "after" someone, went to the "altar", or raised their hand during an invitation.


("Shuck and jive" comment coming in three... two... one...)

Not sure if this is a shuck and jive comment, but i think you are somewhat correct.

I think we have had too much easy believism preached. People begin to react against that. I don't agree with Calvinism, but i do think it can help restore a proper balance to presenting the Gospel.

I don't think the answer is "Come to Calvinism" (that's not meant as a slam) but to come back to a Biblical balance of making disciples. I know you believe that the Biblical balance is calvinism. I don't, but I appreciate how that Calvinism has been used by God to make us re-examine what the Bible says about salvation.

 

[Yeshua1]

This was posted...




...and the herese still is still infecting the christian world all these many decades later...:tear:

well, calvin and others saw the truth of the plan of salvation of God towards lost sinners, so are you disagreeing with also the Apostles themselves?