To Non Cals here:Does Man Need Prevenient Grace or Not To Accept Jesus ?

[Skandelon]

You just stated that being cal or non cal will change nothing in light of eternity,

Only if Calvinists are correct. If Calvinists are incorrect, I do believe it makes a difference because it can negatively affect the work of the church.

What if YOU ARE WRONG? Any "implications" there?

Not eternal ones, no. The same number of people will be in heaven and it will all happen according to God's sovereign decree, even if I'm wrong.

And by the way what are the "implications" you suggest if cals are wrong? Please elaborate. Describe what you refer to specifically by "implcations to consider."

I already did. Please refer back to my previous post.

It seems you are suggesting our theology somehow will affect eternity negatively for us.

I'm not suggesting that those who hold to a Calvinistic soteriology are unsaved, if that is what you are implying. I'm suggesting that the ERROR of Calvinism (assuming Calvinists are wrong) could affect the decision of those impacted by that false teaching.

For example, a person visits a reformed congregation and hears the difficult doctrine and thinks, "If that is what God does, I don't want to have anything to do with Him." And they leave because they are turned off by Calvinism (a false teaching presumably).

And what are the implications if you are wrong? Or is this only applicable just for cals?

As I said, if I'm wrong, there would be no eternal consequences. If Calvinism is right, no elect person is going to go without hearing the gospel or getting saved because I'm an Arminian.

 

[webdog]

Originally Posted by Scandaling (posted by glfrederick)

Maybe the lack of maturity is another reason for TCG's defection.

 

[JesusFan]

Only if Calvinists are correct. If Calvinists are incorrect, I do believe it makes a difference because it can negatively affect the work of the church.

Not eternal ones, no. The same number of people will be in heaven and it will all happen according to God's sovereign decree, even if I'm wrong.

I already did. Please refer back to my previous post.

I'm not suggesting that those who hold to a Calvinistic soteriology are unsaved, if that is what you are implying. I'm suggesting that the ERROR of Calvinism (assuming Calvinists are wrong) could affect the decision of those impacted by that false teaching.

For example, a person visits a reformed congregation and hears the difficult doctrine and thinks, "If that is what God does, I don't want to have anything to do with Him." And they leave because they are turned off by Calvinism (a false teaching presumably).


As I said, if I'm wrong, there would be no eternal consequences. If Calvinism is right, no elect person is going to go without hearing the gospel or getting saved because I'm an Arminian.

Think that you have to seperate also in the camp of cal that there are reformed cals and baptist cals...

reformed would be those who tend who hold to "whole" scope of cal theology, including holding to creeds/confessions/Covenant theology etc

baptist Cals tend to see Sotierology alone as a Cal thing, while rest including end times etc from a distinctly Baptist perspective!

Either cals would strongly though endorse hearty evangelism, UNLESS they were of the "high " Cal that sees God regenerating His elect. period...

 

[Skandelon]

Maybe the lack of maturity is another reason for TCG's defection.

:laugh: I hadn't even noticed that. Is it immature that it made me laugh?

Now when my wife asks what I'm doing when I'm posting here I have a verb form of the word. "Honey, I'll be there in a minute, I'm Skandaling." :laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

Only if Calvinists are correct. If Calvinists are incorrect, I do believe it makes a difference because it can negatively affect the work of the church.

Not eternal ones, no. The same number of people will be in heaven and it will all happen according to God's sovereign decree, even if I'm wrong.

I already did. Please refer back to my previous post.

I'm not suggesting that those who hold to a Calvinistic soteriology are unsaved, if that is what you are implying. I'm suggesting that the ERROR of Calvinism (assuming Calvinists are wrong) could affect the decision of those impacted by that false teaching.

For example, a person visits a reformed congregation and hears the difficult doctrine and thinks, "If that is what God does, I don't want to have anything to do with Him." And they leave because they are turned off by Calvinism (a false teaching presumably).


As I said, if I'm wrong, there would be no eternal consequences. If Calvinism is right, no elect person is going to go without hearing the gospel or getting saved because I'm an Arminian.

There is no negative effect on my church due to my theological stance. There is no need to suggest that. Ever. In general, specifically, or otherwise.

It never crossed my mind that you are suggesting cals unsaved.

There is no "error of Calvinism."

What "false teaching" are you referring to specifically?

Are you saying calvinists are false teachers, as I am not certain your meaning?

Perhaps, then, since you've gone there, so will I: Perhaps Armininian and non-cal theologies have negative effects upon the work of the church? Is that fair, or, filled with grace or charity? I don't believe so. Neither do I believe it to be a necessary thing to say whatsoever, against cals or otherwise.

 

[webdog]

:laugh: I hadn't even noticed that. Is it immature that it made me laugh?

Well...you are an ex c... :laugh:

 

[JesusFan]

There is no negative effect on my church due to my theological stance. There is no need to suggest that. Ever. In general, specifically, or otherwise.

It never crossed my mind that you are suggesting cals unsaved.

There is no "error of Calvinism."

What "false teaching" are you referring to specifically?

Are you saying calvinists are false teachers, as I am not certain your meaning?

Perhaps, then, since you've gone there, so will I: Perhaps Armininian and non-cal theologies have negative effects upon the work of the church? Is that fair, or, filled with grace or charity? I don't believe so. Neither do I believe it to be a necessary thing to say whatsoever, against cals or otherwise.

perhaps he thinks that because we DO believe in the Grace of God, and that it is HIS work to save fallen sinnerslike you and me...

That we will just 'take it easy' and not worry about teaching/preaching Jesus saves?

 

[Skandelon]

perhaps he thinks that because we DO believe in the Grace of God, and that it is HIS work to save fallen sinnerslike you and me...

That we will just 'take it easy' and not worry about teaching/preaching Jesus saves?

<sigh> P4T and Jesusfan, please re-read my posts carefully. You are not following. I'm supposing on the one hand what the eternal affect would be IF Arminianism is incorrect versus if Calvinism is incorrect.

If Arminians is incorrect and Calvinism is true then my being an Arminian is NOT going to have any eternal ramifications, because God will save his elect regardless of my error.

On the other hand, IF Calvinism is incorrect and Arminianism is true then your being a Calvinists could indeed impact the eternal condition of those who might otherwise choose to follow Christ.

I don't know how I can state that any more clearly. I don't mind if you disagree with that assessment, but at least address that actual argument rather than just making new unrelated points, ok?

 

[preacher4truth]

<sigh> P4T and Jesusfan, please re-read my posts carefully. You are not following. I'm supposing on the one hand what the eternal affect would be IF Arminianism is incorrect versus if Calvinism is incorrect.

If Arminians is incorrect and Calvinism is true then my being an Arminian is NOT going to have any eternal ramifications, because God will save his elect regardless of my error.

On the other hand, IF Calvinism is incorrect and Arminianism is true then your being a Calvinists could indeed impact the eternal condition of those who might otherwise choose to follow Christ.

I don't know how I can state that any more clearly. I don't mind if you disagree with that assessment, but at least address that actual argument rather than just making new unrelated points, ok?

Really no need for "read me slow" as I believe we are both competent men of God? Agreed? Can we treat one another graciously without this?

I addressed you in post 85 and request this be answered, instead of being seemingly dismissed by the post to which I am replying. Thank you.

 

[quantumfaith]

I read your post Skan, slowly enough that I was able to precisely understand you were setting up a hypothetical. Very clear to me, and "I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed".

 

[Skandelon]

P4T, post 88 was a reply to your post #85. I didn't say read "slowly" in a demeaning tone, as you implied. I asked you to read it more carefully because I've explained my point several times yet your reply reveals that you haven't clearly understood me. I meant to express frustration, not contempt. Please forgive me if it came across wrongly, and also please re-read my post more carefully so as to understand my argument. Thank you.

 

[JesusFan]

<sigh> P4T and Jesusfan, please re-read my posts carefully. You are not following. I'm supposing on the one hand what the eternal affect would be IF Arminianism is incorrect versus if Calvinism is incorrect.

If Arminians is incorrect and Calvinism is true then my being an Arminian is NOT going to have any eternal ramifications, because God will save his elect regardless of my error.

On the other hand, IF Calvinism is incorrect and Arminianism is true then your being a Calvinists could indeed impact the eternal condition of those who might otherwise choose to follow Christ.

Would that be due to them either
NOT feeling that they were one of the "Elect?"
cals not feeling urge to witness/evangelise?
That they would get "turned off" by what some see as cal Smugness/arrogance?"

Just looking for what would hinder others in not accepting the Lord!

I don't know how I can state that any more clearly. I don't mind if you disagree with that assessment, but at least address that actual argument rather than just making new unrelated points, ok?

Again, BOTh cals and Arms would be out there witnessin/teaching on jesus and Gospel, so wouldn't it basically be same results among the lost coming to Christ?

 

[glfredrick]

These were some of my same concerns when I left Calvinism as well. I was pleasantly surprised to find so many strong non-Calvinistic scholars who affirm these biblical positions.

You sometimes claim "so many strong non-Calvinistic scholars" but then point us to an ancient like Arminius, or a person like Adam Clarke, who was born in the late 1700sl Where are the modern scholars in the Arminian school who are on a par with the Mohlers, Pipers, MacArthur's, Wares, Schreiners, etc.?

 

[glfredrick]

Maybe the lack of maturity is another reason for TCG's defection.

Huh?

I didn't type that. Which post? If I used the quote function and it set Skandelon's name in that fashion, that is not me doing it for some reason.

 

[glfredrick]

Think that you have to seperate also in the camp of cal that there are reformed Cal's and baptist cals...

reformed would be those who tend who hold to "whole" scope of cal theology, including holding to creeds/confessions/Covenant theology etc

baptist Cal's tend to see Soteriology alone as a Cal thing, while rest including end times etc from a distinctly Baptist perspective!

Either Cal's would strongly though endorse hearty evangelism, UNLESS they were of the "high " Cal that sees God regenerating His elect. period...

Error in thinking here, as "Calvinism" deals only with soteriology, not the whole of Reformed doctrine. You are describing a broader category such as Presbyterianism, Methodism, etc., instead of one category within any of those sects. It is this sort of wrong thinking that leads so many to wrong conclusions about the doctrines of grace!

It would be correct to say that a Baptist holds a Calvinistic soteriology, or a Presbyterian holds a Calvinistic soteriology.

 

[glfredrick]

No I didn't. That has nothing to do with the point being made in my post.
When did I make that claim? I'm a nobody. :saint:

Okay, I'll play along with you as you seek to draw out theological nuances and inferences on a daily basis... :laugh:

I simply meant the complexity and the admitted difficulty of swallowing the idea that God decided that all mankind would be hopelessly damned to an eternity in hell due to the Fall except a few chosen ones. Go ask the average Joe if that is not a difficult belief to accept? In fact ask authors like Sproul and others who talk about how hard it was for them to accept these doctrines at first.

So, you would advocate making the gospel something that it isn't so that it is more palatable to those who are perishing without it, right? That is, in essence, what you are suggesting, and that was also the point that Arminius and his later followers inserted into the debate.

I prefer the true gospel of the Scriptures, whereby God is the sole author and finisher of salvation, and where God alone has the power, authority, and ability to elect whomever He (alone) chooses based on criteria known only to Him. Any other gospel is ultimately a false gospel, albeit (according to Paul) that the gospel is shared, even with wrong motives, at least it is shared, and a God who elects to salvation can indeed elect some, even out of a false gospel.

Again, you are missing the point. I'm not arguing any of those points with you. Please re-read my post and deal with the point being discussed.

I am dealing with the points we are discussing. If it is okay for you to jump off into some other topic not completely pertinent to the OP in order to make a case (as you just did on another thread, where you took to task the man who called you out for doing so) then I can as well.

You say that as if these things happened apart from God's sovereign control??? As if you believe that we have been given the freedom to make error in our doctrine? That is what we believe too. Good.

Gods permissive will allows for sin...

We find examples of this in the Scripture, both in the Judiazers who came against the authentic church, attempting to draw it back into the Jewish standards and also with gnosticism, which sought to "add to" the revealed Scriptures in order to both create a new class of person -- a priest who had authority -- and also to cope with some of the difficulties with the true gospel, which is solely God-oriented and God-ordained, to be enacted by God alone apart from human sycretism.

But IF Calvinism is true, does my or anyone's being a non-Calvinist change anything regarding eternity? Nope. The same elected ones are saved and everything happens according to God's plan. But just consider the implications IF YOU ARE WRONG.

There are no implications if I am wrong, for God is still (and ALWAYS) God. And, you are right to agree with me concerning the implications of your position being incorrect. God is still (and ALWAYS) God.

We simply cannot "elect" ourselves to salvation no matter how one cuts it.

 

[JesusFan]

Error in thinking here, as "Calvinism" deals only with soteriology, not the whole of Reformed doctrine. You are describing a broader category such as Presbyterianism, Methodism, etc., instead of one category within any of those sects. It is this sort of wrong thinking that leads so many to wrong conclusions about the doctrines of grace!

It would be correct to say that a Baptist holds a Calvinistic soteriology, or a Presbyterian holds a Calvinistic soteriology.

Gotcha!

that is why there are within baptist circles those who espouse and hold to totality of Calvinism, in its Covenant theolgy, eschatology etc

While others hold to its Sotierology views, but tend to hold still to Dispy/pre mil? "baptist theology?"

 

[JesusFan]

You sometimes claim "so many strong non-Calvinistic scholars" but then point us to an ancient like Arminius, or a person like Adam Clarke, who was born in the late 1700sl Where are the modern scholars in the Arminian school who are on a par with the Mohlers, Pipers, MacArthur's, Wares, Schreiners, etc.?

Would those be like Norman Geisler/Clark Pinnock/ Roger olsen?

 

[JesusFan]

Okay, I'll play along with you as you seek to draw out theological nuances and inferences on a daily basis... :laugh:



So, you would advocate making the gospel something that it isn't so that it is more palatable to those who are perishing without it, right? That is, in essence, what you are suggesting, and that was also the point that Arminius and his later followers inserted into the debate.

I prefer the true gospel of the Scriptures, whereby God is the sole author and finisher of salvation, and where God alone has the power, authority, and ability to elect whomever He (alone) chooses based on criteria known only to Him. Any other gospel is ultimately a false gospel, albeit (according to Paul) that the gospel is shared, even with wrong motives, at least it is shared, and a God who elects to salvation can indeed elect some, even out of a false gospel.



I am dealing with the points we are discussing. If it is okay for you to jump off into some other topic not completely pertinent to the OP in order to make a case (as you just did on another thread, where you took to task the man who called you out for doing so) then I can as well.



Gods permissive will allows for sin...

We find examples of this in the Scripture, both in the Judiazers who came against the authentic church, attempting to draw it back into the Jewish standards and also with gnosticism, which sought to "add to" the revealed Scriptures in order to both create a new class of person -- a priest who had authority -- and also to cope with some of the difficulties with the true gospel, which is solely God-oriented and God-ordained, to be enacted by God alone apart from human sycretism.



There are no implications if I am wrong, for God is still (and ALWAYS) God. And, you are right to agree with me concerning the implications of your position being incorrect. God is still (and ALWAYS) God.

We simply cannot "elect" ourselves to salvation no matter how one cuts it.

is that due to us being spiritually dead, depraived, and found to be 'In Adam?"

 

[glfredrick]

Gotcha!

that is why there are within baptist circles those who espouse and hold to totality of Calvinism, in its Covenant theolgy, eschatology etc

While others hold to its Sotierology views, but tend to hold still to Dispy/pre mil? "baptist theology?"

Again, you are yet mixing theological doctrines. Covenant theology is its own doctrine, and one may hold covenant theology while also holding Calvinism or not.

We are talking soteriology (salvation), eschatology (last things), ecclesiology (the church), Christology (Christ), theology (study of God), etc. Each is its own category and using a term like Calvinism to describe another category is an error that crosses into another theological discipline.

The attempt to make "Calvinism" equate to "follower of Calvin" is the error, and one widely held by almost everyone on this board. The two are not necessarily related, but they could be IF the person who is a follower of all that Calvin taught were also "Calvinistic" in his or her soteriology. "All that Calvin taught" (i.e., disciple of Calvin) does not equal "Calvinism" which is a particular soteriology that bears his name.