SOL Editor declares "Calvinism leaves a dearth"

[webdog]

Would one of the non-calvinists please tell me what is the Permissive Will of God in relation to His sovereignty?

Thank you.

Cheers,

Jim

Sin. Do you even need more?

 

[Allan]

I'll toss my nickle in I guess:

Originally Posted by Jim1999
Would one of the non-calvinists please tell me what is the Permissive Will of God in relation to His sovereignty?

It is much like Calvinists and their view of Gods hidden or secret will verses God will (revealed will).
God commands all men to repent (revealed will) but that God will only select some to do it (secret will - no one who but God) - this is just an example.

Permissive is much the same:
God commands all men to repent (revealed will) but not every man will (permissive will - He allows man to sin against Him for a time) But some men wont.
Yet God is soveriegn in both Cases as it is God initiating, men choosing from the choice before them that God has given, and God saving those He knows who will come to Him.

God is soveriegn at all times even when man has been given of God the ability to choose in light of revealed truth. That man can choose and God is sovereign even in mans free choice for or against truth is biblical to the root.

Most Calvinists misunderstand that the Non-C's term (non Arminian as well) free-will and that it is not the same view as being able to choose without influence. We use the same name just different meanings, much like the American term bad means - (1. not good) AND it can mean (2. good).

Clear as mud??

 

[reformedbeliever]

I'll toss my nickle in I guess:


It is much like Calvinists and their view of Gods hidden or secret will verses God will (revealed will).
God commands all men to repent (revealed will) but that God will only select some to do it (secret will - no one who but God) - this is just an example.

Permissive is much the same:
God commands all men to repent (revealed will) but not every man will (permissive will - He allows man to sin against Him for a time) But some men wont.
Yet God is soveriegn in both Cases as it is God initiating, men choosing from the choice before them that God has given, and God saving those He knows who will come to Him.

God is soveriegn at all times even when man has been given of God the ability to choose in light of revealed truth. That man can choose and God is sovereign even in mans free choice for or against truth is biblical to the root.

Most Calvinists misunderstand that the Non-C's term (non Arminian as well) free-will and that it is not the same view as being able to choose without influence. We use the same name just different meanings, much like the American term bad means - (1. not good) AND it can mean (2. good).

Clear as mud??

Hello again Allan. Maybe you can help me here. If God's election of people to salvation is based upon foreknowledge of who will believe, doesn't that make God having to learn something? Such as who will believe? I thought God was all knowing.

 

[webdog]

Hello again Allan. Maybe you can help me here. If God's election of people to salvation is based upon foreknowledge of who will believe, doesn't that make God having to learn something? Such as who will believe? I thought God was all knowing.

Foreknowledge doesn't have to be based on learning. Omniscience ties in perfectly with His omnipresence.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Foreknowledge doesn't have to be based on learning. Omniscience ties in perfectly with His omnipresence.

Exactly webdog... if it is not merely prescience.

 

[Jim1999]

What makes God sovereign?

IF God is eternal, doesn't that make foreknowledge a natural attribute rather than a causative agent? This God existed before creation, which precludes prior knowledge and a divine plan for the universe.

Did man plan the crucifixion of Jesus, or was it the plan of God from the very beginning? Hence, the so-called free acts of man were predetermined by God in eternity. Even the so-called free will of man lies under the sovereignty of God, and is therefore controlled by divine purpose, else God is not sovereign at all, but merely sitting in a chair giving orders that may or may not be observed. Hence, we may never have had the crucifixion, and our salvation is based on accident, and not by design.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[webdog]

Hence, the so-called free acts of man were predetermined by God in eternity.

This is limiting God's omnipresence. True omnipresence includes being omnitemporal, and is not apart from His omniscience and omnipotence.

 

[Jim1999]

Quote:

This is limiting God's omnipresence.
---------------------------------------------

How, pray God, is what I said limiting God in any way? J'nes pas comprehend! I do not understand. In fact, what I said leaves God in charge at all times. He is eternal and that transcends time and space.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[webdog]

By stating God pre-determined acts of man limits Him to a time in the past to do so. God doesn't "pre" or "fore" anything, as He is omnitemporal.

 

[Jim1999]

When did creation happen?

Cheers,

Jim:tonofbricks:

 

[webdog]

To us bound by time? In the past. To an omnipresent / omnitemporal God? That's like asking what does the color purple smell like

 

[Jim1999]

Sorry, the answer makes no sense to me...........

Cheers,

Jim

 

[webdog]

What doesn't make sense, that God is omnipresent? Omnitemporal? We can't smell purple?

 

[Jim1999]

Well, purple doesn't make any sense at all. The other references, I don't understand the relationship to God's sovereign will........we all acknowledge that God is omniscient, omnipresent and eternal.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Humblesmith]

11/3/2006 Sword Editor: Calvinism leaves a dearth in its wake.



From the 3 Nov 06 edition of the Sword of the Lord, Shelton Smith, Editor, Murfreesboro TN, page 20, "Noteworthy News Notes", "Ten Percent of SBC Pastors Call Themselves Five-Point Calvinists", Editor's Comments:

It is our studied opinion that given room to flourish, Calvinism leaves a dearth in its wake. It is virtually impossible for evangelism to flourish where Calvinism is promoted strongly.​

I guess somebody forgot to tell Edwards, Keach, Gill, Spurgeon, Bunyan, Kennedy, Knox, Calvin, Luther, Hus, Wycliff, Tyndale, Whitefield, Carey, Fuller, Judson, and any historically significant Baptist before 1900 that can be named.

My question is - can ANY evangelism flourish without the blessing of the current or former editors of the Sword of the Lord?

Back to the OP:

An inconvenient historical point, made to our strident Calvinist brethren, is that the modern protestant missions movement is almost universally held to begin with William Carey in 1792. For up to that year, Carey was connected with what was then called the Particular Baptists, who were strong Calvinists. So much were they against sending foreign missionaries that Carey had to write a booklet titled An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, This is old language that could today be written "The Obligation of Christians to Use Human Effort for Evangelism." The sad fact is that Carey had to write a tract that convinced the Particular Baptists that it was possible to use human effort for evangelism, for up to that point, the general belief was a rather nationalistic connection between countries and religions, to the point that the common belief was that 'if God wanted them saved, he would have saved them.' Through William Carey's efforts, the resistance to missions was overcome, and modern missions was born. Carey founded a society called "Particular Baptist Society for Propagating the Gospel" which was later called the Baptist Missionary Society.

A sad fact of history is that the reason that much of Central and South America are Roman Catholic is that the Catholics believed in missions, and the Calvinist-influenced protestants didn't.

Of course, this is past, and very few Calvinists would hold to this today, although I've heard rumors that a few Primitive Baptists would hold to this. Most everyone today has a correct biblical view of missions and evangelism.

One of the great ironies, to me, comes from a man I greatly respect, D. James Kennedy. I heard one of his radio sermons where he said flatly and clearly, that men do not have free will. Yet he started one of the most successful evangelism efforts of all history, Evangelism Explosion. Praise God for James Kennedy.

 

[Martin]

An inconvenient historical point, made to our strident Calvinist brethren, is that the modern protestant missions movement is almost universally held to begin with William Carey in 1792. For up to that year, Carey was connected with what was then called the Particular Baptists, who were strong Calvinists. So much were they against sending foreign missionaries that Carey had to write a booklet titled An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, This is old language that could today be written "The Obligation of Christians to Use Human Effort for Evangelism." The sad fact is that Carey had to write a tract that convinced the Particular Baptists that it was possible to use human effort for evangelism, for up to that point, the general belief was a rather nationalistic connection between countries and religions, to the point that the common belief was that 'if God wanted them saved, he would have saved them.'

==Of course you are leaving out earlier events where those who were Calvinistic were very evangelistic. You stated that your point was a "inconvenient historical point" to the "Calvinist brethren". Yet anyone familiar with American Church History will know that, even before William Carey, there were Calvinists in America who were evangelistic. So "if" you are trying to say that Calvinists were not evangelistic until the time of William Carey you are clearly wrong. If that is not what you are trying to say please clearify your point.

A sad fact of history is that the reason that much of Central and South America are Roman Catholic is that the Catholics believed in missions, and the Calvinist-influenced protestants didn't.

==That sounds more like a subjective opinion than a historical fact. I believe, from a historical point of view, the reasons those areas are Catholic is a bit more complex than that.

Of course, this is past, and very few Calvinists would hold to this today, although I've heard rumors that a few Primitive Baptists would hold to this. Most everyone today has a correct biblical view of missions and evangelism.

==Many Calvinists of that day did as well. However you have just swept them under the rug to make your "inconvenient historical point".

 

[Humblesmith]

No doubt there were isolated individuals prior to Carey. But if evangelism was widespread prior to him, he would not be noted as "the father of modern missions," as almost every church history calls him. He clearly changed something, or he would not have been noted as such. What he changed was the church's views on evangelism.

Again, the fact that he had to write a booklet trying to convince the church to use human effort shows that most people of that day didn't believe you should.

If missions and evangelism were viewed then as they are today, Carey would not be noted as starting a movement, and he would not have needed to write the book, and it would never have been remembered as historically significant.

 

[Allan]

Hello again Allan. Maybe you can help me here. If God's election of people to salvation is based upon foreknowledge of who will believe, doesn't that make God having to learn something? Such as who will believe? I thought God was all knowing.

No it does not mean God has to learn something. What we through scripture understand is that God 'knows' or 'knew' what will be (thus 'fore') and even how it will be when He decided that it WILL be. Everything from this point on in ANY and ALL theology is guess work, hypothetical, and assumption as to the order, how, and when of the things in the mind of God.

Unless of course you can explain the mind of God and how it works according to scripture. All we know from scripture is that God 'Foreknew' and THEN He 'Predestined'... When was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World before God knew man would fall or after. All we know is that before God created the physical universe, Jesus was to be that 'chosen' Lamb though we do not know when it was a decided fact. Was it before God knew Man would fall or after??

All and what we are sure of is that it was a decided fact in the mind of God before He created and not to any order given us in scripture. Logic is a poor substitute for understanding the mind of God who is higher in thought than we could ever reach.

 

[Martin]

No doubt there were isolated individuals prior to Carey. But if evangelism was widespread prior to him, he would not be noted as "the father of modern missions," as almost every church history calls him. He clearly changed something, or he would not have been noted as such. What he changed was the church's views on evangelism.

==He is the father of modern missions (foreign). That does not mean that he is the father of evangelism.

Isolated individuals? My word, do I have to list all of the evangelical believers who held to Calvinistic theology before William Carey?

Again, the fact that he had to write a booklet trying to convince the church to use human effort shows that most people of that day didn't believe you should.

==I think that is over-stating your case. Saying that "most people" did not believe in evangelism seems to be a very broad statement. Does this "most people" include everyone or just Calvinists?

If missions and evangelism were viewed then as they are today, Carey would not be noted as starting a movement, and he would not have needed to write the book, and it would never have been remembered as historically significant.

==Really not sure what this has to do with Calvinism since there were non-Calvinists around at the time as well.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I am a non-calvinist who is presently reading "Calvins Institutes", and listening to a 26 lesson tape series. Right now I am reading about free will and must admit that Calvin seemed to wrestle with it a bit more than todays "Calvinist", and he was certainly more gracious than most "Calvinists" I read on this board.So far much of Calvins writings come through in a clear devotional tone rather than dogmatic. Just my humble opinion.:godisgood: