-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wrong Take On Romans 12:3c
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
Jarthur001
Active Member
Your strawman, is that you use the strawman when you cannot reply.webdog said:
A strawman is something easy to debunk. Why not just debunk it and not use the ever posted word... "strawman"? This should be easy.
O.k., then what's your take on 10:15?webdog said:
"And how shall they preach unless they are sent?"
Why do we need to send angels? They just go on God's command. Obviously, this is talking about people sending people.
What is your exegetical support that angels are fulfilling the Great Commission?
Jarthur001
Active Member
Yes..Paul was talking to humans and telling them to Go. Paul had no way to control angels. This is about by far the most silly thing I have heard. Come now webdog..I know you know better. You must admit that the word of God tells us to preach the word...for they have not heard. I'm sure you can drop your doctrine on this one point. Tell me your not that blind to your logic.webdog said:
webdog said:
Maybe I should be worried because we've been agreeing on a lot of stuff lately.
God uses whatever means He chooses at any given moment to communicate the Gospel. God uses angels, Paul had the Damascus encounter with Jesus, and preachers preach the Gospel. Maybe God uses other means of revelation, too. But just because we know God can and does communicate the Gospel by means other than preachers doesn't negate the fact that we're commanded to spread the Gospel. I have a feeling you'll agree with that. At least I hope so!
Paul was a chosen Apostle. The risen Christ appeared to him just as He did to the other Apostles, but since Paul was born out of due time, Christ appeared to him on the Road to Damascus.npetreley said:Maybe I should be worried because we've been agreeing on a lot of stuff lately.
God uses whatever means He chooses at any given moment to communicate the Gospel. God uses angels, Paul had the Damascus encounter with Jesus, and preachers preach the Gospel. Maybe God uses other means of revelation, too. But just because we know God can and does communicate the Gospel by means other than preachers doesn't negate the fact that we're commanded to spread the Gospel. I have a feeling you'll agree with that. At least I hope so!
Everything we gather from the New Testamant is that God uses the preaching of the Word by people to fulfill the GC.
Andy T. said:
Why do you do it?
Is it because God told you to, and every once in awhile the word of God that you preach may fall on the ears of an elect individual? Do you see every individual as someone who is potentially elect?
I'm probably not as "good" as you. But, I have gone on visitation several times, and, while I was the bus driver, I went every Saturday with the Bus Captain to visit all the kids we could find. (Every door)
It is because God told me to, and I believe that, every once in awhile, one of these kids is going to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. I see every individual as someone who Christ died for, and He wants them to be saved. The work is done, the Door is open, and all who go in through the Door shall be saved, those who refuse to go through the Door shall be damned. God is not weak, God has not failed, His plan works perfectly. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Blammo,
My point in giving my 'resume' was not to make myself look good, but rather as a defense against your uncharitable remark that Calvinists do not care about missions. It was an attempt to clear you of your prejudice.
Why do I do it? In obedience to the command of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And I want to be apart of what God is doing on Earth in bringing salvation to all peoples. So my obedience is not drudgery, rather it is joyous.
Are those reasons good enough for you?
My point in giving my 'resume' was not to make myself look good, but rather as a defense against your uncharitable remark that Calvinists do not care about missions. It was an attempt to clear you of your prejudice.
Why do I do it? In obedience to the command of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And I want to be apart of what God is doing on Earth in bringing salvation to all peoples. So my obedience is not drudgery, rather it is joyous.
Are those reasons good enough for you?
Andy T. said:
Yes, those reasons are great. Don't get so defensive.
I don't doubt Calvinists care about missions. But, our motives are different. You do it because God told you to, and you want to be a part of what God is doing on Earth. That's great!! Nothing wrong with that. Maybe you think it's silly that my motives are the same, but, I would add, I don't want anyone to go to hell, and I don't believe anyone has to. If they would only hear and believe.
I would actually rather believe what you believe. Then I wouldn't have to avoid thinking about all those people who are on their way to hell. It is agonizing to think about. For you it can't be too bad. "God will save EVERYONE He chose to save, and the rest can go to hell." (No biggie)
Andy T. said:
It's not prejudice, I base my views on my conversations with calvinists on this board. Before I came to Baptist Board, I knew very little about calvinism. I have been trying to learn more, because I find myself in agreement with calvinists to a point. I, however, would not ever want to be associated with a man who believes in infant baptism, burning heriticks to death, and other such garbage.
I agree, "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked". So, if I were a calvinist, I would wonder why God doesn't give everyone the ability to hear, understand, and believe the gospel.
Romans 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
It was just a matter of time till this subject became a hot issue. It just so happens that it was the topic of overtime discussion in my church last Sunday. Both Calvinists and non-C's are divided over the issue as you can see here on BB. So I've asked my self if the synergistic system is so radically different from the monergist how do we get some monergists agreeing with synergists and visa versa on this topic?
I find it spilling out this way:
1. The monergists (calvinists):
(a) The monergists that believe that the Gospel must be preached (witnessed to) believe that God will infallibly send the Gospel to the elect. I believe this is the majority, orthodox, calvinist postion.
(b) The monergists that believe that God may save the elect without the preached Gospel (some, without any means whatsoever) believe that God will send the Gospel where He sends it for His own purposes, but in no case will any of the elect perish in Hell, with or without the Gospel.
2. The synergists (non-calvinists)
(a) The synergists that believe the Gospel must be preached in order for the lost to be saved are left to explain why God would send people to hell that had no chance to be saved by the hearing of the Gospel. These are the "blood on our hands" people that will have people going to hell, not because they are sinners, but because "we" are sinners in not spreading the Gospel (although very few of THEM are on the foreign field).
(b) The synergists that believe the Gospel does not have to be preached in order for people to get saved, also believe that people everywhere have the Gospel already throught some kind of general revelation or religious folklore.
So what is the difference in the views? Well, for one thing, and I think most importantly, the calvinists see the end, whether they are in 1(a) or 1(b), as belonging to God, and the salvation of the elect is sure, either way. (that's not to minimize the historical in-house fighting over the issue among calvinists).
In the non-calvinists system, if you follow 2(a) then you can not answer a multitude of simple questions - most of important may be "Why does God leave the most important matter - salvation from eternal hell - in the hands of sinful men? If you follow 2(b) then you must answer the so-called hyper-calvinists' question: "Why bother sending the Gospel at all if they already have it?"
Personally, I'm leaning toward 1(b) but I have a lot more studying to do on the issue.
I find it spilling out this way:
1. The monergists (calvinists):
(a) The monergists that believe that the Gospel must be preached (witnessed to) believe that God will infallibly send the Gospel to the elect. I believe this is the majority, orthodox, calvinist postion.
(b) The monergists that believe that God may save the elect without the preached Gospel (some, without any means whatsoever) believe that God will send the Gospel where He sends it for His own purposes, but in no case will any of the elect perish in Hell, with or without the Gospel.
2. The synergists (non-calvinists)
(a) The synergists that believe the Gospel must be preached in order for the lost to be saved are left to explain why God would send people to hell that had no chance to be saved by the hearing of the Gospel. These are the "blood on our hands" people that will have people going to hell, not because they are sinners, but because "we" are sinners in not spreading the Gospel (although very few of THEM are on the foreign field).
(b) The synergists that believe the Gospel does not have to be preached in order for people to get saved, also believe that people everywhere have the Gospel already throught some kind of general revelation or religious folklore.
So what is the difference in the views? Well, for one thing, and I think most importantly, the calvinists see the end, whether they are in 1(a) or 1(b), as belonging to God, and the salvation of the elect is sure, either way. (that's not to minimize the historical in-house fighting over the issue among calvinists).
In the non-calvinists system, if you follow 2(a) then you can not answer a multitude of simple questions - most of important may be "Why does God leave the most important matter - salvation from eternal hell - in the hands of sinful men? If you follow 2(b) then you must answer the so-called hyper-calvinists' question: "Why bother sending the Gospel at all if they already have it?"
Personally, I'm leaning toward 1(b) but I have a lot more studying to do on the issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
If I were a non-Calvinist, I would ask the same thing - why doesn't God save everyone? Oh, I know the cookie-cutter response is that he doesn't want to violate man's free will. What? You're telling me that God has the power to save someone, but because of some lofty ideal about not violating free will, God simply just lets that guy go to hell? Talk about unloving! Talk about lack of compassion! God says, "I could have saved you if I wanted to, but your free will is soooooooo important, that I would rather let you go to hell. See ya."
You see, the table turns both ways, unless you deny God's omnipotence...or you are an atheist.
You see, the table turns both ways, unless you deny God's omnipotence...or you are an atheist.
Excellent point, but you forgot to add the part about "Yeah, I allowed you all to be crippled by a sin nature which adversely affected your free will, but even your crippled free will was still more important than saving you. That how important free will is to me, that even crippled it's more important than saving you."Andy T. said:
(I don't believe our free will is "crippled' but that we're spiritually dead. I'm speaking from a free-willer's perspective.)
- Status