Calvinism---Why bother to evangelize

[ivdavid]

In your opinion, can a person who has trusted in Christ, been indwelt/sealed by the Holy Spirit, trusts in God's Grace, but does not buy into the Calvinist THEORY, still be saved by God's Grace??? Or is Salvation only for those who trust in Calvin's theory? I ask this in friendship not anger...

This question was not addressed to me but I hope I can take the liberty of answering it.

A simple NO would be my reply - you need not have to hold on to the calvinistic teachings to be a believer in Christ. John Wesley comes to mind. Again, calvinistic teachings didn't originate exactly with Calvin - they were around in varied forms from the recorded times of St. Augustine, I think - I may be wrong. In any case, what you "label" as calvinistic teachings is not some man-defined doctrine - they're all from the Bible. It wasn't invented out of thin air - it was interpreted out of the Bible. Of course, we may disagree over the interpretation and over whether the Biblical text says this and not that - but both parties do base their beliefs on what the Word of God says alone and not what mere man says. You did conclude well that we are all at least interested in the things of God.

W.r.t. the controversy calvinism's election creates, I have refrained from viewing it as a primary point. To me, calvinistic interpretation has to be right for us to not be under the law of works - and that's a pretty serious concern for me. I would never mind if one does believe wholly in Christ for his salvation and does not accept the calvinistic doctrines - because he has already accepted them in spirit, just not in words and logic. The issue comes where people twist faith in God itself into a meritorious work - that's where I take strong exception, only because it threatens the very foundation of Christianity as seen in Paul's unusually strong letter to the Galatians.

You may call my concern a "straw man argument", as has been called many a time in the past - but my concern is still valid and that's the only point of difference that inclines me to reject any other doctrine. Have I answered your question sufficiently?

God's offer of Grace is available to ALL who will place their faith in Christ and Him alone. That is what the scriptures teach. That is "The Good news."

I agree completely - but that's not what we're differing upon. We're going further to the question - how does one actually place his faith in Christ? Is that a self-generated act or is that itself worked in man by God? Is this act of believing itself an entire work of God's grace or is it contingent upon man's independent self-acting? That's the point of difference - whether man actively believes or passively is led to believe - not whether faith itself is required or not.

This is where I believe the doctrine of regeneration is so very important - and that's a doctrine Wesley dearly held on to. I don't think I've ever had a complete discussion with a Christian on this forum on what regeneration exactly is.

The Holy Spirit, convicts and works on the hearts of men to bring them to the "Grace of God." And He uses the "Word of God" to that end. When man hears the truth of God's Grace and puts ALL his faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior, then the Holy Spirit indwells/seals that man, and he is "Born again Spiritually."

At the point when this man "hears the truth of God's Grace", is he already regenerated or not? And what exactly do you mean by "putting ALL his faith in Jesus" - what exactly is man supposed to believe to be saved? I ask this to deal with specifics.

 

[ivdavid]

W.r.t. the OP, I'd say handy's post#45 has dealt with it adequately. The argument being raised is over why God "needs" man to evangelize when He has already predestined His people unto salvation. The flaw in the question is in assuming that God "needs" man's working to fulfill what He has predestined. God predestines every man's good work - in that, He has predestined the Gospel being evangelized too. As to why God even commands while He is the One to give what He commands, I'd ask - What if God does this to show forth His glory to His people. What if, as handy said, the process entailed proving of the hardening of man's heart against God's Word and the subsequent righteousness in His judgement or the manifesting of His grace and mercy in His salvation work.

Anyway, the underlying issue seems to be that most of us think the primary objective of the Gospel and evangelizing is the salvation of man. Isn't that a man-centric view? I'd rather like to believe that the Gospel and evangelizing has the primary objective of manifesting God's glory - both in man finding mercy before God and being saved AND in man being judged righteously and being condemned. According to this God-centric view, evangelizing has its purpose even when it doesn't result in the salvation of that person to whom it was preached.

More specifically,

No one needs to be instructed to perform an action that has been pre-destined to occur.

I'd say it was predestined that the Israelites would be delivered from Egypt into the promised land - and yet we see God instructing Moses, Pharaoh, the people etc. about what they were to do. Or did you mean something else?

If God has already saved the elect, then their salvation being contingent on hearing the gospel being preached is not predestination.

It is, if their hearing of the Gospel has also been predestined - which it is.

To accept the fact that God created some people to be damned, with no voice, no choice, no will involved......
"Sorry you will suffer eternally, because you didn't win the Lotto"

Betrays the very nature of God. That is not God!

Mondar did deal with this in post#19.

I'd like to again stress on this - when I state that man is saved because of God's grace and mercy alone, it does not imply the converse as a causative too - that man is condemned because of the lack of God's grace and mercy. Man is condemned because of his own sins. This does not violate the nature of God in any way.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

This question was not addressed to me but I hope I can take the liberty of answering it.

A simple NO would be my reply - you need not have to hold on to the calvinistic teachings to be a believer in Christ. John Wesley comes to mind. Again, calvinistic teachings didn't originate exactly with Calvin - they were around in varied forms from the recorded times of St. Augustine, I think - I may be wrong. In any case, what you "label" as calvinistic teachings is not some man-defined doctrine - they're all from the Bible. It wasn't invented out of thin air - it was interpreted out of the Bible. Of course, we may disagree over the interpretation and over whether the Biblical text says this and not that - but both parties do base their beliefs on what the Word of God says alone and not what mere man says. You did conclude well that we are all at least interested in the things of God.

W.r.t. the controversy calvinism's election creates, I have refrained from viewing it as a primary point. To me, calvinistic interpretation has to be right for us to not be under the law of works - and that's a pretty serious concern for me. I would never mind if one does believe wholly in Christ for his salvation and does not accept the calvinistic doctrines - because he has already accepted them in spirit, just not in words and logic. The issue comes where people twist faith in God itself into a meritorious work - that's where I take strong exception, only because it threatens the very foundation of Christianity as seen in Paul's unusually strong letter to the Galatians.

You may call my concern a "straw man argument", as has been called many a time in the past - but my concern is still valid and that's the only point of difference that inclines me to reject any other doctrine. Have I answered your question sufficiently?


I agree completely - but that's not what we're differing upon. We're going further to the question - how does one actually place his faith in Christ? Is that a self-generated act or is that itself worked in man by God? Is this act of believing itself an entire work of God's grace or is it contingent upon man's independent self-acting? That's the point of difference - whether man actively believes or passively is led to believe - not whether faith itself is required or not.

This is where I believe the doctrine of regeneration is so very important - and that's a doctrine Wesley dearly held on to. I don't think I've ever had a complete discussion with a Christian on this forum on what regeneration exactly is.


At the point when this man "hears the truth of God's Grace", is he already regenerated or not? And what exactly do you mean by "putting ALL his faith in Jesus" - what exactly is man supposed to believe to be saved? I ask this to deal with specifics.

You said,"because he has already accepted them in spirit, just not in words and logic." To me, Calvinism is NOT logical whatsoever. When I read and study the Word (I try to do this, every day) Calvinism IS "man-made interpretation," of this I have NO doubt. And I totally reject ALL aspects of it.

You said,"what exactly is man supposed to believe to be saved? The Bible says,"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." Faith comes be hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The Bible says,"we must be "born again" and this is a work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible says," you must be born of water and Spirit. When we are born physically we come by the "WATER" of our Mother's womb. When we receive Christ as Lord and Savior,we become "born again" "SPIRITUALLY" through the work of the Holy Spirit. Grace plus faith plus nothing. God's Grace offered to ALL who will believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The entire Salvation process is of God and offered as an "unmerited" gift of love from God...Not of our good works...

 

[ivdavid]

You said,"because he has already accepted them in spirit, just not in words and logic." To me, Calvinism is NOT logical whatsoever.

You state this as if you're disagreeing with me. But isn't that what I'm saying - that a person who believes wholly on Christ alone for his salvation has already accepted the calvinistic doctrines in spirit even though he may not yet agree to the semantic and logical presentation of it.

When I read and study the Word (I try to do this, every day) Calvinism IS "man-made interpretation," of this I have NO doubt. And I totally reject ALL aspects of it.

Fair enough. I read and study the Word too and I too have NO doubt that the reformed view is a true reflection of God's nature. Now that we're done stating our respective stances, are we to respectfully inquire upon what each one's grounds for his beliefs are or are we to walk away in mutual disagreement? I did mention a few concerns of mine against rejecting the reformed view - for instance, the implication that we are under the law of works and apart from grace for our salvation. I'd be interested to know what your concerns would be in accepting the reformed view.

The Bible says,"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."

Yes, but what does "believe on Christ" actually mean? How would you describe "believing on Christ" to an unbeliever? What are the practical implications of such believing? I mean, I've heard people tell me that we are to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for our sins and that He rose again on the third day from the grave - and that one is to believe in all this and believe sincerely at that, to be saved. While I do agree that all these are necessary for one to "believe in Christ", I'm asking if these are all that one needs to believe to be saved?

The entire Salvation process is of God and offered as an "unmerited" gift of love from God...Not of our good works...

We read that those who reject the Gospel and do not believe in Christ are evil in doing so - would that then not imply that those who do believe in Christ are indeed doing a good act?

 

[savedbygrace57]

salt

"

How can a spiritually dead man hear ?"

He cannot. Jesus said one must be of God to hear God's words Jn 8:47

He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

He that is of God ! The greek prep of is ek and means out of ! One is out of God when they are Born of His Seed, the Word of God. 1 Pet 1:23

23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

So unless one is born of God, they cannot hear spiritually. Sure they can hear perhaps with the natural ear, but that is not the hearing that responds to God Spiritually.

 

[savedbygrace57]

grub

Your correct when you say, "A spiritually dead man can hear by the convicting presence of the Holy Spirit when the Gospel is preached."

Actually he is more wrong than three left shoes. The convicting presence of the Holy Spirit must be inwardly, that is the Holy Spirit must dwell in One in order for them to hear spirtually..One must be born of the Spirit to hear !

 

[Saltwater]

Good day Sbg57,

I'm having trouble finding this teaching of yours in my Bible, "The convicting presence of the Holy Spirit must be inwardly, that is the Holy Spirit must dwell in One in order for them to hear spirtually..One must be born of the Spirit to hear", especially when compared with the following which contradicts your premise:

Acts 26:25-28 25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, 26 saying, ‘Go to this people and say:
“Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; And seeing you will see, and not perceive; 27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.†28 “Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!â€

Take note of v27 which tells us why they could not hear/see/understand the gospel.

1Thess1:5 cf. John16:8 shows how the v27 seeing/hearing problem is overcome by the convicting presence of the Holy Spirit (re the Biblical truth about righteousness,sin & judgement) accompanying the preaching of the gospel.

Looking forward to you providing the verses which back up your statement.

 

[Eventide]

AMEN.. there's nothing in the scriptures which teaches that God regenerates a person so that they believe, but rather that God convicts men so that they can believe..

He's that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world.

 

[savedbygrace57]

salt

I'm having trouble finding this teaching of yours in my Bible, "The convicting presence of the Holy Spirit must be inwardly, that is the Holy Spirit must dwell in One in order for them to hear spirtually.

Thats not my problem, and I cannot find any verse that says the convicting presence of the Holy Spirit must not be inwardly, that He does not have to dwell in one in order for them to hear spiritually.

 

[Eventide]

Well.. think about it for a second..

If God sent the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.. do people actually think that He needs to reside IN THEM in order to do that ?

Look at the account given at Pentecost.. the Holy Spirit was poured out upon all flesh.. people heard the gospel message and they were pricked in their hearts.. and THEN Peter told them to be baptized in order to RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Clearly in this case.. conviction comes first.. and for the Jews there in Jerusalem.. they were commanded to be baptized in order to receive it. Seems pretty redundant to receive the Holy Ghost if He's already indwelling them..

 

[Grubal Muruch]

grub



Actually he is more wrong than three left shoes. The convicting presence of the Holy Spirit must be inwardly, that is the Holy Spirit must dwell in One in order for them to hear spirtually..One must be born of the Spirit to hear !

Until one has placed their faith In Christ, he will not begin the process of regeneration. Grace+faith+nothing. Know there's a formula...The Holy Spirit does not indwell until faith has begun the process...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

AMEN.. there's nothing in the scriptures which teaches that God regenerates a person so that they believe, but rather that God convicts men so that they can believe..

He's that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world.

Again, AMEN!!!

 

[Grubal Muruch]

salt

"



He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.


Here Jesus was speaking to and of the Jewish unbeleivers...

 

[Gazelle]

I 'm unsure how this topic of whether the Spirit indwells someone so that they may believe or waits until they believe relates ONLY to Calvinism and evangelism.

I think you have hit a non sequitur.

On the one hand is the generally accepted theology that one does not receive the Holy Spirit's indwelling and sealing until the day of redemption until he accepts Christ's redemptive work on the cross.

On the other hand, without the allowance of the Holy Spirit to enlighten a person to their need of Christ, and of His faith for salvation, that the Holy Spirit encounters the mind (and thus fills the mind with such impressions?) how does one know to accept Christ?

The latter does clarify how some, having tasted and actually professed to know Christ, could later walk away without salvation. Having been "enlightened" yet never fully accepting Christ's payment and repenting of sin, all being revealed by the Spirit, they rejected it all and went their own way. Thus the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, the full rejection (after knowledge) of God.

But still, whether this topic has boiled down totally to semantics or not, I personally declare an impasse. What say you?

 

[childeye]

Gazelle. I say you are right about semantics but not an impasse. It is clear to me that the scriptures must be preached to people destined to hear and believe or they were never destined to hear and believe. The semantics occur because some people do not believe in destiny. But how many of those who do not believe in destiny, realize that believing in the Christ is believing that Truth is destined to overcome lies? Their reasoning is a contradiction.

 

[savedbygrace57]

salt

"



He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.


Here Jesus was speaking to and of the Jewish unbeleivers...

That does not matter who He was speaking to, it is what He said you better pay attention to, for it was truth..

 

[savedbygrace57]

grub:

Until one has placed their faith In Christ, he will not begin the process of regeneration.

Thats in your religion, not scripture..

 

[Grubal Muruch]

That does not matter who He was speaking to, it is what He said you better pay attention to, for it was truth..

savedbygrace57--- He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Grubal---To bring this in to today's perspective, The first half of this verse states,"He that is of God heareth God's words:" That would be speaking about a "Born again" Christian who has had his sins paid for at the cross and through faith The Holy Spirit has not only indwelt and sealed him, but also put that man into the body of Christ. So, that man will hear God's words. And the reverse of that is, the unregenerate unbeliever who has not received Christ as Lord and Savior...We cannot be privy and open to the things of God until we have been Saved...Not before...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

You state this as if you're disagreeing with me. But isn't that what I'm saying - that a person who believes wholly on Christ alone for his salvation has already accepted the calvinistic doctrines in spirit even though he may not yet agree to the semantic and logical presentation of it.


Fair enough. I read and study the Word too and I too have NO doubt that the reformed view is a true reflection of God's nature. Now that we're done stating our respective stances, are we to respectfully inquire upon what each one's grounds for his beliefs are or are we to walk away in mutual disagreement? I did mention a few concerns of mine against rejecting the reformed view - for instance, the implication that we are under the law of works and apart from grace for our salvation. I'd be interested to know what your concerns would be in accepting the reformed view.


Yes, but what does "believe on Christ" actually mean? How would you describe "believing on Christ" to an unbeliever? What are the practical implications of such believing? I mean, I've heard people tell me that we are to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for our sins and that He rose again on the third day from the grave - and that one is to believe in all this and believe sincerely at that, to be saved. While I do agree that all these are necessary for one to "believe in Christ", I'm asking if these are all that one needs to believe to be saved?



We read that those who reject the Gospel and do not believe in Christ are evil in doing so - would that then not imply that those who do believe in Christ are indeed doing a good act?

ivdavid says---We read that those who reject the Gospel and do not believe in Christ are evil in doing so - would that then not imply that those who do believe in Christ are indeed doing a good act?[/QUOTE]

Grubal---The one's who reject Christ, are lost in their sins and without a Savior. They are simply headed for eternal separation from God and punishment,

ivdavid says--- I'd be interested to know what your concerns would be in accepting the reformed view.

Grubal---I believe in "free-will" as taught in the Bible. I do not accept the doctrine of "predestination," as pertaining to "election." The people of Israel were the "Chosen" of God and those who have placed their faith in Christ can be considered the "elect." Christ can be considered the "ultimate" elect of God. And as Christians we are considered "in Christ...God has not created a race of puppets or chess board pieces that have no will of their own. We were not created to be "inanimate objects" that are moved to and fro. Now there are times when God has intervened or caused certain directions to be taken, etc. This has happened throughout the course of history. But God has given us "free-will when it comes to many things, including His Grace...to receive or reject...

ivdavid says---While I do agree that all these are necessary for one to "believe in Christ", I'm asking if these are all that one needs to believe to be saved?

Grubal---Our part in the Salvation process is to, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." The rest is the work of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit...Grace+faith+nothing...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

grub:



Thats in your religion, not scripture..

I respectfully, disagree with your assertion...