Why bother?

[convicted1]

I agree with you that is the gospel. Regeneration before faith is not the Gospel. Saving the saved. No one is saved until they eat His flesh and drink His blood. in other words it takes us esting the Lamb and leaving not a crumb left it is His word and the life He lived in us that gives us life there was nothing in us before Him that could save us.All means all if the Holy Spirit meant something else He would of said that. Inability is not taught in every verse the word of God through Jesus Christ is life for the sinner. If they turn away from Jesus it is not the will of God but their own will.

I agree with this. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Can we change that to a pork roast.....I dont like lamb!

Seriously though, our faith has nothing to do with our eternal destiny but everything to do with the benefits to be had from obedience to the gospel here, now, in this realm.

God Himself has settled all eternal aspects of our salvation. It's up to us to believe that, rest in it, trust Him, adhere to Him, rely on Him, love Him, love our neighbor, and enjoy the table He has set before us. Thats what I believe anyway.

 

[Skandelon]

You reject the Biblical basis for TULI; why do you accept the Biblical basis for P?

1. I reject the Calvinistic interpretation of the bible for their basis of TULI.

2. I accept the biblical basis for Original Sin, Corporate Election, Provisional atonement, Grace which appears to all man, and the promise of the Holy Spirit which seals all who believe (Eph. 1).

3. One is able to affirm and agree with Calvinism about the effects of regeneration without affirming the unbiblical concept that regeneration precedes faith or supersedes moral free will.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, I understand your intent and I don't think your intention is to create a caricature, but your premise leads there.

Or does the logic of your system lead there?

The Calvinist preacher should take great care that he doesn't seek to be "interesting" at the expense of the Gospel. It's not about the man, it's about God's glory.

But as long as he doesn't water down or neglect the gospel why would he seek in any way to be interesting? Wouldn't that only undermine the Calvinistic premise? That is my question here.

Let ask a question in return. Since the preacher is handling God's holy word, should he not desire to proclaim it well? The preacher is a herald of a heavenly message. How he executes his duty says a lot about his love for God.

But what does "proclaim it well" mean in a system where persuasiveness, interest, and appeal have no effect? Any level of emotive appeal, interest, excitement, persuasive intent would appear to undermine the premise that only a supernatural predetermined work of the Holy Spirit will change their hearts.

In fact, in your system, the more boring and uninteresting the preacher is the more obvious that God worked if someone where to come to faith, right?

Another thing, what of the Arminian preacher? Does he actually believe the manner in which he preaches improves the Gospel message? If so, then he denies Romans 1:16.

How so? We believe the gospel is an APPEAL to be reconciled, so to make it as APPEALING as possible is consistent with what we believe it is intended to do. The gospel enables an enemy of God to respond and be reconciled in our system, but in your system it only informs the pre-reconciled of their reconciliation...you don't appear to leave any room for an appeal.

In short, God will call His elect no matter how much, or how little, passion is displayed by the preacher. It is the Gospel that is power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).

That is my point. So, it only reasons to suggest that you leave the passion/excitement/appeal out so as not to take away any glory from the effectual working of regeneration done by the Holy Spirit. Your preaching classes should be much different than ours.

Preaching the Gospel well glorifies God, and is there any downside to that?

Again, you need to define 'well' from your system's perspective, because from my understanding 'well' means accurate, not interesting.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

1. I reject the Calvinistic interpretation of the bible for their basis of TULI.

2. I accept the biblical basis for Original Sin, Corporate Election, Provisional atonement, Grace which appears to all man, and the promise of the Holy Spirit which seals all who believe (Eph. 1).

3. One is able to affirm and agree with Calvinism about the effects of regeneration without affirming the unbiblical concept that regeneration precedes faith or supersedes moral free will.

Pertaining to point 3. You do not see that in Ephesians 1-2?

Again for my edification...what is Provisional atonement?

 

[12strings]

Calvinism teaches we were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity and nothing we do will alter that outcome for ourselves or our loved ones. But what if the future is not fixed, what if there is an actual opportunity to help increase the flock, i.e. we plant, water, cultivate but trust in God to cause the increase - He puts those whose faith He credits as righteousness in Christ.

With that radically different view of the gospel, then we should pray for God to use us to reach the lost, hastening the day of our Lord's return.

In other words, what if we actually accepted what the Bible actually says. Just saying...

So you accept some measure of mystery here...that Jesus tells us to pray for God to do something that God already knows is needed in order to bring the Gospel message to some for salvation?

 

[Skandelon]

So you accept some measure of mystery here...that Jesus tells us to pray for God to do something that God already knows is needed in order to bring the Gospel message to some for salvation?

We don't believe the prayer is meant to inform God, but to beseech Him. You seem to equate God's knowing of what needs to be done with your view of God predetermining what needs to be done. Any parent here can tell you the difference in knowing what your child needs to do and your willingness to intervene before they ask for help or fail.

I believe Van's argument is to say that Jesus would not have said this if he was a determinist. Jesus appears to believe that prayer can actually change things...that God listens and responds to his people when they beseech him in earnest. Jesus seems to promote a real 'give and take' relationship with our heavenly Father where we 'synergistically' play a role in the redemption of the world.

 

[Skandelon]

Pertaining to point 3. You do not see that in Ephesians 1-2?

In Eph. 1-2, I see that God has predestined to adopt all believers regardless of their nationality. I don't see that God has predestined which individual from each nation will or will not believe.

Again for my edification...what is Provisional atonement?

See HERE>>>>>>

 

[Aaron]

Ok, follow up question... the bible speaks of 'persuading,' 'pleading' and 'making an appeal,' in regard to the gospel presentation. How does this fit in a doctrine where a dry, boring reading of the facts would be sufficient to fulfill the necessary means?

It might seem dry to a carnal mind. Might smell like sun-baked roadkill, too. But I would cite the account of Paul on Mars Hill. Did he somehow neglect the persuasion, pleading and making of an appeal?

No, it just doesn't look like what you think it does.

By the logic of Calvinism, wouldn't it make more since for the gospel to be presented as non-persuasive and boring as possible so as to ensure it was a complete 'work of the Spirit' and not an emotional, appealing messenger?

Again, I would cite the account of Paul on Mars Hill.

 

[Van]

Pitchback

Sorry Van, but you are wrong. I don't know if you are ignorant of Calvinism or if you are deliberately misrepresenting the doctrine but I don't know any Calvinist who will tell you "nothing you do will alter the outcome" The point being that what you do is exactly what God uses to bring about his divine plan. To say the outcome is fixed no matter what you do clearly represents that you do not understand what Calvinists believe. I think you have a caricature in your mind about what Calvinists believe, either that or you want others to have that caricature. We ALL believe that what we do matters. We all pray earnestly that God would use us to reach the lost. If you continue to say this then I have no choice to conclude that you are deliberately misrepresenting what Calvinism teaches. How is that in anyway helpful or edifying in the debate?

Your misrepresentation is no better than if I said that Arminians believe God is up there anxiously and helplessly wringing his hands hoping somebody will believe so that he can save them, or that free will is their god and the LORD God is subject to it.

Your post is total fiction, representing the behavior of many Calvinists who simply run away from their doctrine.

 

[Skandelon]

But I would cite the account of Paul on Mars Hill. Did he somehow neglect the persuasion, pleading and making of an appeal?

Kind of begs the question to presume Paul believes as you do, don't you think?

His use of persuasion only goes to support our premise, not yours. You have yet to explain where the persuasiveness of an appeal fits in your system logically.

 

[Van]

The above seems to confirm the conclusions I have been coming to about the differences between Calvinism and Non-Calvinism. Both believe basically the same thing; They just use different definitions and terminolgy. They misrepresent each other and then argue against those misrepresentations.

Your post is total fiction. I believe Jesus died for all mankind, Calvinism believes Jesus died for the elect. I believe unregenerate people can seek God and trust in Christ such that God credits their faith in Christ as righteousness and places them in Christ. Calvinism believes unregenerates never at any time seek God, and only after a person is "quickened" do they seek God and trust in Christ. I believe in conditional election, God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth, Calvinism teaches God chose people for salvation without regard to any aspect of their character. I believe the call of the gospel is resistible, thus we are invited rather than compelled (dragged irresistibly) to be reconciled to God.

 

[Van]

So you accept some measure of mystery here...that Jesus tells us to pray for God to do something that God already knows is needed in order to bring the Gospel message to some for salvation?

This is what I said: We should pray for God to use us to reach the lost, hastening the day of our Lord's return.


Your complete and total misrepresentations of my view is amazing to behold. Ever hear anyone say at the end of a prayer, "we pray this in the name of Jesus?" Please explain how your rewritten prayer is in the name of Jesus. Just saying...

 

[saturneptune]

Amen. God commanded us to, we are obedient and what a great blessing it is to be a tool that God uses to bring others to Himself!!

Could not have said it better. We are commanded to go. The next step is for the Lord. It is time we let the Lord be the Lord, and stop with the endless Calvin threads. Very good answer.

 

[Aaron]

Kind of begs the question to presume Paul believes as you do, don't you think?

His use of persuasion only goes to support our premise, not yours.

Where is the pleading? Where is the persuasion? There were some that believed and followed, but you don't see Paul jumping through hoops to plead and beg.

He made his case, some believed, others didn't and that was that. Exactly as you said logic would dictate the decorum of the Calvinist message. The only thing amiss is your judgment of it as dry and boring.

 

[12strings]

We don't believe the prayer is meant to inform God, but to beseech Him. You seem to equate God's knowing of what needs to be done with your view of God predetermining what needs to be done. Any parent here can tell you the difference in knowing what your child needs to do and your willingness to intervene before they ask for help or fail.

I believe Van's argument is to say that Jesus would not have said this if he was a determinist. Jesus appears to believe that prayer can actually change things...that God listens and responds to his people when they beseech him in earnest. Jesus seems to promote a real 'give and take' relationship with our heavenly Father where we 'synergistically' play a role in the redemption of the world.

So would you equate God asking us to ask him to a parent telling their child to ask politely for something?

My point in bringing up the harvest illustration is this: God knows what we need, what the lost world needs, but asks that we pray for it, and actually tells us in James that there are things we don't have because we don't ask for them...The harvest illustration seems to further imply that there are those lost who would not be lost if we would just pray that God would send laborors. Now, as a (mostly) calvinist, I would say that it is not necessary for God to wait for me to pray before he sends out a missonary...but also that our prayers are effective...just like our witness. How does that work? I don't know.

 

[Van]

Could not have said it better. We are commanded to go. The next step is for the Lord. It is time we let the Lord be the Lord, and stop with the endless Calvin threads. Very good answer.

According to Calvinism the unregenerate will not be open to the gospel. How come you do not cite the "command" to shake the dust off? Just saying smorgasbord theology is fun, anyone can play!

 

[12strings]

This is what I said: We should pray for God to use us to reach the lost, hastening the day of our Lord's return.

You're right, that's exactly what we should pray for.

Your complete and total misrepresentations of my view is amazing to behold.

Not really sure what you are talking about here, I was just asking a question for clarification. I was actually saying that is generally my view, and asking if you agreed. Not everyone who asks you questions is intentionally misrepresenting you.

Ever hear anyone say at the end of a prayer, "we pray this in the name of Jesus?" Please explain how your rewritten prayer is in the name of Jesus. Just saying...

Simple, here's an example: "God, There are lost people in New England, I pray that you would send missionaries and church-planters into that dark place with the Gospel. You know better than me who they are, and where these missionaries are most needed, so please do it. Show me how I may support them... In Jesus' Name, Amen."

 

[Van]

Simple, here's an example: "God, There are lost people in New England, I pray that you would send missionaries and church-planters into that dark place with the Gospel. You know better than me who they are, and where these missionaries are most needed, so please do it. Show me how I may support them... In Jesus' Name, Amen."

If you think that prayer is in the name of Jesus I have a covered bridge in New England to sell you. Ever hear Jesus teaching on testing God, doing things that depend on God for a good result? Just saying

Jesus tells us to pray for God to do something that God already knows is needed in order to bring the Gospel message to some for salvation? When you rewrote the rewrite you added a valid prayer, show me how I may support [other workers in the harvest.]

 

[12strings]

Simple, here's an example: "God, There are lost people in New England, I pray that you would send missionaries and church-planters into that dark place with the Gospel. You know better than me who they are, and where these missionaries are most needed, so please do it. Show me how I may support them... In Jesus' Name, Amen."

If you think that prayer is in the name of Jesus I have a covered bridge in New England to sell you. Ever hear Jesus teaching on testing God, doing things that depend on God for a good result? Just saying

Jesus tells us to pray for God to do something that God already knows is needed in order to bring the Gospel message to some for salvation? When you rewrote the rewrite you added a valid prayer, show me how I may support [other workers in the harvest.]

Sorry, I don't really know what you're trying to say here.