Calvinism---Why bother to evangelize

[savedbygrace57]

Evagelize for the Elect's sake !

For those who prescribe to "Calvinism," does it make any sense to try and evangelize, if "The Elect" were chosen before the foundation of the world, and the rest were chosen for eternal damnation?

Yes, The Apostles knew that was the main reason to evangelize, that the Elect may obtain the Salvation with Glory through Jesus Christ . 2 Tim 1:10


10Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Thats who Salvation is for, The Elect, if it was not for them, evangelizing for the main part would not be necessary..

 

[mondar]

Mondar, are you familiar with Calvinist teaching? I have heard so many bad things about Calvinism. Not that I care but often times I am left unable to comment on what Calvinism represents. In fact I detest such labels. The New Testament is for men to know God for themselves not through any other man except the Christ. Why all the division?

childeye, I am familiar with Calvinistic Theology. I would not want to count the number of Calvinistic works I have read, but have also read others.

I understand your apathy toward labels. Labels can do all sorts of things. Labels can be used in a good way when they precisely and concisely identify a theological and biblical position that a person takes. The problem comes when people try to modify what the term means, or they just kind of "blow smoke." The term Calvinism as it is commonly used speaks more the the Synod of Dort. The remonstrants were protesting certain parts of the Reformed Theology as it was being taught among the Dutch Reformed in Holland. If you go into wiki and search the Remonstrants, you should be able to find the 5 points of the Remonstrant protest. Of course the TULIP acronym is the Calvinist answer to those 5 protests. Unfortunately, even TULIP is often misunderstood and misrepresented.

You ask why the division? Well, think of it just a little bit from my perspective. Go down the threads and just see how many times Calvinists get called names or misrepresented. On the other hand, in real life, I commonly am friends and fellow Christians with many non-Calvinists. I have done street evangelism with non-Calvinists. However, I must admit to smiling down deep when I recognize their methodology of evangelism as solidly Calvinistic, and the do not realize it.

Division? There are two kins of people. Some will be respectful, others are not. Division does not depend upon your theology, but your attitude. If you feel you can serve the Lord by calling Calvinists names and all sorts of misrepresentations. Well, to me that is one scarey attitude. Thats the bottom line. Its not just the calling of names and misrepresentations, but the idea that by doing so, you are serving God that is the dividing line for me.

 

[childeye]

childeye, I am familiar with Calvinistic Theology. I would not want to count the number of Calvinistic works I have read, but have also read others.

I understand your apathy toward labels. Labels can do all sorts of things. Labels can be used in a good way when they precisely and concisely identify a theological and biblical position that a person takes. The problem comes when people try to modify what the term means, or they just kind of "blow smoke." The term Calvinism as it is commonly used speaks more the the Synod of Dort. The remonstrants were protesting certain parts of the Reformed Theology as it was being taught among the Dutch Reformed in Holland. If you go into wiki and search the Remonstrants, you should be able to find the 5 points of the Remonstrant protest. Of course the TULIP acronym is the Calvinist answer to those 5 protests. Unfortunately, even TULIP is often misunderstood and misrepresented.

You ask why the division? Well, think of it just a little bit from my perspective. Go down the threads and just see how many times Calvinists get called names or misrepresented. On the other hand, in real life, I commonly am friends and fellow Christians with many non-Calvinists. I have done street evangelism with non-Calvinists. However, I must admit to smiling down deep when I recognize their methodology of evangelism as solidly Calvinistic, and the do not realize it.

Division? There are two kins of people. Some will be respectful, others are not. Division does not depend upon your theology, but your attitude. If you feel you can serve the Lord by calling Calvinists names and all sorts of misrepresentations. Well, to me that is one scarey attitude. Thats the bottom line. Its not just the calling of names and misrepresentations, but the idea that by doing so, you are serving God that is the dividing line for me.

Thanks for the information Mondar. I always try to keep an open mind. It seems to me from what I have gleaned that God does not count flesh anymore than dirt, a body is a temporary habitat.

The idea that God would create some vessels to be destined to be destroyed seems to be the division. It seems to some to make God out to be unGodlike in their image of god. However from the standpoint of a creator we may be unfair in that we find no problem with a God making some vessels destined for eternal life. Nonetheless, it seems ungodly to me to hope I am one saved and some other guy is the one destroyed. Even Jesus as my hope became sin so others may be righteous. This is the dilemna, to be like Jesus, should I not ask God to save someone else instead of me? For I am no more worthy of eternal life than the other guy is worthy of death. I would rather hope we will all be saved for the sake of His Love for His son who prays for us. But I do believe that is why His son pleases Him. Perhaps God is just waiting to see who will standup and take the cross for someone else.

 

[Drew]

ICalvinists believe that evangelism is God's method of gathering in the elect.

The following argument “A†is often advanced to justify preaching the gospel in a world where some have been pre-destined by God unto ultimate salvation (in the strong “determinative†sense, not in the “pre-destined in virtue of foreknowledge†sense):

1. Some people are pre-destined to salvation;

2. We do not know who has been pre-destined to salvation;

3. We know that even those who have been pre-destined must hear the gospel in order for that salvation to be actualized;

4. Therefore we need to preach the gospel to all people.

Here is why A fails. Let's speculate about a person "Fred" who has been pre-destined by God unto salvation. By the very meaning of the concept of pre-destination, there is nothing that human beings can do (or fail to do) that will cause Fred to not end up in Heaven.

But note term 3 of A - even the pre-destined must hear the gospel in order to be ultimately saved. There are two possibilities in respect to term 3:

a. God has not pre-destined that someone will tell Fred the gospel;
b. God has pre-destined that someone will tell Fred the gospel.

Consider (a). If God has not pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then the possibility exists that no one will tell Fred the gospel. But this cannot be, since we know Fred is pre-destined to salvation and that he must, in virtue of item 3, hear the gospel to have that destiny actualized.

Now consider (b). If God has pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then there is no necessity to instruct us to tell the gospel - the gospel will most certainly be told to Fred. No one needs to be instructed to perform an action that has been pre-destined to occur. Does God "tell" somebody to tell the apple to fall to ground at 32 feet per second per second? Probably not, precisely because the apple is "pre-destined" to fall at that rate through the action of the laws of physics.

This argument that we still need to tell pre-destined people the gospel therefore fails.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Re: Evagelize for the Elect's sake !

Yes, The Apostles knew that was the main reason to evangelize, that the Elect may obtain the Salvation with Glory through Jesus Christ . 2 Tim 1:10


10Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Thats who Salvation is for, The Elect, if it was not for them, evangelizing for the main part would not be necessary..[/QUOTE"
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Gospel (Good news) was and is delivered to an "unsaved" world and not just a few "elect." personally I believe Calvinism is a heresy that causes anger and division among fellow believers...No offence to those who disagree. This is my own opinion based upon Scripture...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

The following argument “A†is often advanced to justify preaching the gospel in a world where some have been pre-destined by God unto ultimate salvation (in the strong “determinative†sense, not in the “pre-destined in virtue of foreknowledge†sense):

1. Some people are pre-destined to salvation;

2. We do not know who has been pre-destined to salvation;

3. We know that even those who have been pre-destined must hear the gospel in order for that salvation to be actualized;

4. Therefore we need to preach the gospel to all people.

Here is why A fails. Let's speculate about a person "Fred" who has been pre-destined by God unto salvation. By the very meaning of the concept of pre-destination, there is nothing that human beings can do (or fail to do) that will cause Fred to not end up in Heaven.

But note term 3 of A - even the pre-destined must hear the gospel in order to be ultimately saved. There are two possibilities in respect to term 3:

a. God has not pre-destined that someone will tell Fred the gospel;
b. God has pre-destined that someone will tell Fred the gospel.

Consider (a). If God has not pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then the possibility exists that no one will tell Fred the gospel. But this cannot be, since we know Fred is pre-destined to salvation and that he must, in virtue of item 3, hear the gospel to have that destiny actualized.

Now consider (b). If God has pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then there is no necessity to instruct us to tell the gospel - the gospel will most certainly be told to Fred. No one needs to be instructed to perform an action that has been pre-destined to occur. Does God "tell" somebody to tell the apple to fall to ground at 32 feet per second per second? Probably not, precisely because the apple is "pre-destined" to fall at that rate through the action of the laws of physics.

This argument that we still need to tell pre-destined people the gospel therefore fails.

Excellent examination of this subject. Well thought out and executed. Excellent !!!

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Re: Evagelize for the Elect's sake !

Yes, The Apostles knew that was the main reason to evangelize, that the Elect may obtain the Salvation with Glory through Jesus Christ . 2 Tim 1:10


10Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Thats who Salvation is for, The Elect, if it was not for them, evangelizing for the main part would not be necessary..

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...

 

[childeye]

The following argument “A†is often advanced to justify preaching the gospel in a world where some have been pre-destined by God unto ultimate salvation (in the strong “determinative†sense, not in the “pre-destined in virtue of foreknowledge†sense):

1. Some people are pre-destined to salvation;

2. We do not know who has been pre-destined to salvation;

3. We know that even those who have been pre-destined must hear the gospel in order for that salvation to be actualized;

4. Therefore we need to preach the gospel to all people.

Here is why A fails. Let's speculate about a person "Fred" who has been pre-destined by God unto salvation. By the very meaning of the concept of pre-destination, there is nothing that human beings can do (or fail to do) that will cause Fred to not end up in Heaven.

But note term 3 of A - even the pre-destined must hear the gospel in order to be ultimately saved. There are two possibilities in respect to term 3:

a. God has not pre-destined that someone will tell Fred the gospel;
b. God has pre-destined that someone will tell Fred the gospel.

Consider (a). If God has not pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then the possibility exists that no one will tell Fred the gospel. But this cannot be, since we know Fred is pre-destined to salvation and that he must, in virtue of item 3, hear the gospel to have that destiny actualized.

Now consider (b). If God has pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then there is no necessity to instruct us to tell the gospel - the gospel will most certainly be told to Fred. No one needs to be instructed to perform an action that has been pre-destined to occur. Does God "tell" somebody to tell the apple to fall to ground at 32 feet per second per second? Probably not, precisely because the apple is "pre-destined" to fall at that rate through the action of the laws of physics.

This argument that we still need to tell pre-destined people the gospel therefore fails.

I don't get it. God sent people to preach the Gospel. That was predestined to happen for we have prophecy concerning this. We are here discussing this Gospel even now and this is self-evident. There therefore are also those pre-destined to hear and believe. I am one of them who believed and I assure you I needed to hear it to believe it. Why would God send people to preach a Gospel that need not be preached? Pardon my lack of brainpower but it seems to me that you are trying to assess the workings that are infinite in a temporal frame of thinking.

 

[mondar]

The idea that God would create some vessels to be destined to be destroyed seems to be the division. It seems to some to make God out to be unGodlike in their image of god. However from the standpoint of a creator we may be unfair in that we find no problem with a God making some vessels destined for eternal life.

I cannot help but suspect you are thinking of the common error of representing the decree of God for evil as equal to the decree of God for good. Calvinists do agree that God is directly responsible for the good. When a man gets saved, it is because God intervened and regenerated the persons nature to draw him to faith when the man hears the gospel. On the other hand, the decree of God that evil will happen is very different. In the decree that evil will exist, God does not intervene and make men evil. In fact what God does is the exact opposite. He stops restraining evil If you remember Romans 1 where it says twice... "and God gave them up."
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
When the text speaks of "God gave them up" I assume that you would agree that God intended for evil to happen. God stopped restraining evil for a purpose. That is what Calvinists are talking about when we say God decree's evil. God intends for evil to happen. But he does not join men in their evil, he merely stops restraining the evil.
How would you read those texts? Did evil happen in Romans 1 and God did not want it to happen? Was evil an accident that somehow caught God off guard? God did not really expect men to become more evil when he stop restraining their evil? Would you say God had no purpose at all in evil? So in Romans 1, God stop restraining evil, but still hoped that it would all work out anyway? Evil just accidentally came into existence? No, obviously God gave them over to something... He "gave them up unto vile passions." Does not that text imply that when God stopped restraining their sin, that he intended these people to have vile passions? Or would you read the text that he stopped restraining sin, and then was surprised at the vile passions? No, hopefully you can see God intended to give evil men over to their own evil nature so that he might judge them and show the glory of his wrath (see verse 18) and his justice in his judgment.

First, I would say that the whole story of Gods predestination of evil is not told. Rather the Calvinist view is twisted and presented that God somehow participates in evil when he makes a decree that evil should happen. Yet of God did not decree evil, then there would be no salvation. Evil had to exist for Christ to die for sin. So was Christs death kind of plan B? God never really wanted sin to happen, but when it happened God came up with plan B to take care of this unforeseen problem? May it never be. God all along wanted sin to happen. Then he can show his grace in the cross, and he can show his righteous judgment in judging evil men. How could God show his righteous judgment if evil never existed?

So then, evil God did not merely foresee Evil and then react, but he intended for evil to happen (decreed it) but he did not participate in it in any way.

In Romans 9, God hardened Pharaoh's heart.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
Rom 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.

John quotes Isaiah when speaking of the hardening of the heart as the reason the Jews did not believe in John 12....
Joh 12:39 For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again,
Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them.

God hardens hearts by withdrawing his hand of restraint. He could have had Pharaoh born in some rural tribal land, but he had Pharaoh born as prince of all Egypt. He gave Pharaoh power. Was God surprised by how that power puffed up the Pharaoh? Then when Pharaoh got all puffed up, God judged him. He did that so that the nations might know his name.

sorry for the long post, but I suspect that you misrepresent Calvinists as seeing God's decree for evil and his decree for God as the same thing. Thats not exactly Calvinism. God is the only mover in making righteousness happen. We are merely 2ndary. Where as God does not participate in evil, but decrees that it will happen and then does not restrain some men from the evil that they desire to do.

Nonetheless, it seems ungodly to me to hope I am one saved and some other guy is the one destroyed. Even Jesus as my hope became sin so others may be righteous. This is the dilemna, to be like Jesus, should I not ask God to save someone else instead of me? For I am no more worthy of eternal life than the other guy is worthy of death. I would rather hope we will all be saved for the sake of His Love for His son who prays for us. But I do believe that is why His son pleases Him. Perhaps God is just waiting to see who will standup and take the cross for someone else.

Tough paragraph to completely understand what you are saying. One of the differences that I would note... you say... "I would rather hope we will all be saved for the sake of His Love for His son who prays for us."
I think this is the real rub of Calvinism. Calvinism sees all men as exceedingly sinful and undeserving. I often hear things from those who dislike Calvinism about all men deserving an equal chance. That is where Calvinism gives offense. We think no one deserves a chance. It is totally by grace. If anyone deserves a chance, then it is not really all grace, is it? I can just see it in eternity when the undeserving sinner says:
"well all men deserved a chance, and by my own intelligence, I thought it best to take you up and to stand up and take the cross. So hey, I deserved to be here in heaven because we all deserved that chance. Oh, yeah, Jesus shed blood helps just a little bit too."

No, none of us really did deserve that chance. God would still be God even if he sent every single one of us to hell. There is nothing that obligates God to save anyone. There is nothing that obligates God to even restrain anyone from evil. He can judge us all if he chooses. Those who are saved, should recognize his mercy and grace for we deserved none of it.

 

[childeye]

I cannot help but suspect you are thinking of the common error of representing the decree of God for evil as equal to the decree of God for good. Calvinists do agree that God is directly responsible for the good. When a man gets saved, it is because God intervened and regenerated the persons nature to draw him to faith when the man hears the gospel. On the other hand, the decree of God that evil will happen is very different. In the decree that evil will exist, God does not intervene and make men evil. In fact what God does is the exact opposite. He stops restraining evil If you remember Romans 1 where it says twice... "and God gave them up."
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
When the text speaks of "God gave them up" I assume that you would agree that God intended for evil to happen. God stopped restraining evil for a purpose. That is what Calvinists are talking about when we say God decree's evil. God intends for evil to happen. But he does not join men in their evil, he merely stops restraining the evil.
How would you read those texts? Did evil happen in Romans 1 and God did not want it to happen? Was evil an accident that somehow caught God off guard? God did not really expect men to become more evil when he stop restraining their evil? Would you say God had no purpose at all in evil? So in Romans 1, God stop restraining evil, but still hoped that it would all work out anyway? Evil just accidentally came into existence? No, obviously God gave them over to something... He "gave them up unto vile passions." Does not that text imply that when God stopped restraining their sin, that he intended these people to have vile passions? Or would you read the text that he stopped restraining sin, and then was surprised at the vile passions? No, hopefully you can see God intended to give evil men over to their own evil nature so that he might judge them and show the glory of his wrath (see verse 18) and his justice in his judgment.

First, I would say that the whole story of Gods predestination of evil is not told. Rather the Calvinist view is twisted and presented that God somehow participates in evil when he makes a decree that evil should happen. Yet of God did not decree evil, then there would be no salvation. Evil had to exist for Christ to die for sin. So was Christs death kind of plan B? God never really wanted sin to happen, but when it happened God came up with plan B to take care of this unforeseen problem? May it never be. God all along wanted sin to happen. Then he can show his grace in the cross, and he can show his righteous judgment in judging evil men. How could God show his righteous judgment if evil never existed?

So then, evil God did not merely foresee Evil and then react, but he intended for evil to happen (decreed it) but he did not participate in it in any way.

In Romans 9, God hardened Pharaoh's heart.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
Rom 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.

John quotes Isaiah when speaking of the hardening of the heart as the reason the Jews did not believe in John 12....
Joh 12:39 For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again,
Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them.

God hardens hearts by withdrawing his hand of restraint. He could have had Pharaoh born in some rural tribal land, but he had Pharaoh born as prince of all Egypt. He gave Pharaoh power. Was God surprised by how that power puffed up the Pharaoh? Then when Pharaoh got all puffed up, God judged him. He did that so that the nations might know his name.

sorry for the long post, but I suspect that you misrepresent Calvinists as seeing God's decree for evil and his decree for God as the same thing. Thats not exactly Calvinism. God is the only mover in making righteousness happen. We are merely 2ndary. Where as God does not participate in evil, but decrees that it will happen and then does not restrain some men from the evil that they desire to do.


Tough paragraph to completely understand what you are saying. One of the differences that I would note... you say... "I would rather hope we will all be saved for the sake of His Love for His son who prays for us."
I think this is the real rub of Calvinism. Calvinism sees all men as exceedingly sinful and undeserving. I often hear things from those who dislike Calvinism about all men deserving an equal chance. That is where Calvinism gives offense. We think no one deserves a chance. It is totally by grace. If anyone deserves a chance, then it is not really all grace, is it? I can just see it in eternity when the undeserving sinner says:
"well all men deserved a chance, and by my own intelligence, I thought it best to take you up and to stand up and take the cross. So hey, I deserved to be here in heaven because we all deserved that chance. Oh, yeah, Jesus shed blood helps just a little bit too."

No, none of us really did deserve that chance. God would still be God even if he sent every single one of us to hell. There is nothing that obligates God to save anyone. There is nothing that obligates God to even restrain anyone from evil. He can judge us all if he chooses. Those who are saved, should recognize his mercy and grace for we deserved none of it.

Great post Mondar. I thank you for the time it took to write it for me. You addressed my issues right on point. Just so you know, I do not think God participates in evil, but it happens as you said, refering to Romans 1, God gives men over to the flesh.

But deeper still, I consider why. It says because we did not esteem God as God. And I take this to mean a Holy Love. The eternal Spirit that lights the soul.

Hence He was to show us His righteousness against the backdrop of unrighteousness. And also that He would humble men who hold a false image of god likened to man with a carnal self serving nature. He chooses the lowly to put to naught the high things through revelation so that He establishes a man's station unto His glory as the Eternal Spirit.

However therefore, I do not see giving man over to the lust of the flesh as evil. As such it is a righteous act of God who is the Godhead and above reproach. For God should be esteemed as God. It is the only way to be led by Truth. Moreover, the unrighteousness of man is witness to His righteousness, which we have been ever so blessed to see and even take that for granted by loving darkness more than the Light, even though this light is forgivness and Love. Consequently, we become in us what God is by how we esteem this Light and how we regard it. Let it be given according to each man's faith. Consequently, at the same time God can see a little boy digging in a dump and rejoicing and thanking God for finding a crust of bread while another man elsewhere is cursing God for finding a scratch in his new Ferrari. It's how we receive it according to God's sifting. For He exhault those who humble themselves and humbles those who exhault themselves.

It is in this above scenario where I believe the lowly are rich and water is turned into wine. We need be ever so thankful for water. For God has not deserted us to our flesh utterly, and there is yet much to be thankful for. For this reason I believe I must join Jesus on his cross and accept in the same uprightness as Job all that befalls me. To forgive others what they do because they are under a carnal blindness even as I was once them and slave to sin. This is being like Christ to me. Although he is innocent and I am not, I may yet be found innocent by forgiving others and practicing all manner of charity. Works of repentance are there at the cross. My cross is no comparison to his, but I expect God to resurrect me not because I deserve it but because I believed in mercy and understanding even as I counted it His righteousness revealed in sending Jesus. And so I walked in it even as I value it. If the same Love is in me I will escape death. And even my believing is due to the Holy Spirit who witnessed of Him wherein I rejoiced to see God in Jesus.

Limited atonement is another issue, for I have hope that all men will come to the knowledge of the Truth if perhaps we all intercede for one another. Here I regard God's mercy as allowing sight.

In closing, we deserve nothing since we are created. It's all for His Names sake for we were made in God's image. And in that we have the hope He is obligated to us even as He always ever was. For if the sons of Light are like Jesus, then all who are counted servants under their rule will reap the benefits. For Jesus and God are a servant to all. In this way, all men are equal, for the Light is God's.

 

[Drew]

I don't get it. God sent people to preach the Gospel. That was predestined to happen for we have prophecy concerning this.

OK, with you so far.

We are here discussing this Gospel even now and this is self-evident. There therefore are also those pre-destined to hear and believe.

I do not agree that this a Biblical position.

IWhy would God send people to preach a Gospel that need not be preached?

Exactly. As per my argument, the notion that a person pre-destined to believe needs to have to the gospel preached to them in order to actualize that belief is logically incoherent.

Please tell me where the flaw in my argument is, if you can find one. And please read carefully in order to know exactly what my premises are and specifically what I am saying (and not saying). I am not, in my argument, saying you are wrong to believe in pre-destination (I believe that you are wrong about that, but that, again, is another issue). I am simply showing that if you believe that people are pre-destined, and yet need to have the gospel preached to them in order to believe, you are holding two logically incompatible positions.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

OK, with you so far.


I do not agree that this a Biblical position.


Exactly. As per my argument, the notion that a person pre-destined to believe needs to have to the gospel preached to them in order to actualize that belief is logically incoherent.

Please tell me where the flaw in my argument is, if you can find one. And please read carefully in order to know exactly what my premises are and specifically what I am saying (and not saying). I am not, in my argument, saying you are wrong to believe in pre-destination (I believe that you are wrong about that, but that, again, is another issue). I am simply showing that if you believe that people are pre-destined, and yet need to have the gospel preached to them in order to believe, you are holding two logically incompatible positions.

The Bible say's, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

 

[childeye]

=Drew;575600]OK, with you so far.


I do not agree that this a Biblical position.

We must have some disconnect. In the bible, that is where we find the prophecy that the good news will be preached and there will be people who will believe. This is twenty twenty hindsight and I just know we must have some disconnect caused by some context of time, past tense and future tense.

Exactly. As per my argument, the notion that a person pre-destined to believe needs to have to the gospel preached to them in order to actualize that belief is logically incoherent.

Then why say this? This argument that we still need to tell pre-destined people the gospel therefore fails.

Please tell me where the flaw in my argument is, if you can find one.

I don't even understand your argument for me to discuss where it is flawed. To me you've at once claimed that men who are predestined to hear and believe and be saved do not need to hear and believe and be saved which is not logical.
You seem to be making an assertion through asking what's the point?

I am not, in my argument, saying you are wrong to believe in pre-destination (I believe that you are wrong about that, but that, again, is another issue). I am simply showing that if you believe that people are pre-destined, and yet need to have the gospel preached to them in order to believe, you are holding two logically incompatible positions.

Again I do not comprehend your intentions. First you say pre-destination is another issue, then apply pre-destination as a qualifier for a certain scenario of belief upon which you assert incompatibility. I would simply say. We are in time. This has been proven since time and space are relative to the speed of Light. I know today that the sun was pre-destined to rise yesterday. All things in time are intertwined from the beginning to the end or from God's vantage even from the end to the beginning.

 

[Drew]

The Bible say's, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

True, but I am not disputing this. My argument is what it is - it addresses a very specific claim that some Chrstians make.

 

[Drew]

Then why say this? This argument that we still need to tell pre-destined people the gospel therefore fails.

I am simply making a counter-argument to a certain argument that some Christians use. I believe the counter-argument is correct. Therefore, I conclude that the original argument is flawed.

I don't even understand your argument for me to discuss where it is flawed. To me you've at once claimed that men who are predestined to hear and believe and be saved do not need to hear and believe and be saved which is not logical.

I am certainly not intending to claim this. I believe my post is clear (of course I could be mistaken), and I cannot think of how to make it more clear. Please remember as you read my post - parts of my argument include characterizing other people's positions. But I believe I have been clear about what I believe and what beliefs other people seem to hold.

I know today that the sun was pre-destined to rise yesterday. All things in time are intertwined from the beginning to the end or from God's vantage even from the end to the beginning.

That's quite a statement. I suspect I fundamentally disagree with it, although more explanation is probably needed from my quarter as well as from yours. I do not have the time now.

But thanks for reading my argument and being willing to engage it.

 

[childeye]

=Drew;575645]I am simply making a counter-argument to a certain argument that some Christians use. I believe the counter-argument is correct. Therefore, I conclude that the original argument is flawed.

From what I understand you seem to be saying the Gospel does not need to be preached, or else you are countering that position and saying it must be preached implying that others are saying it need not be preached. What I am sure of is scripture says it needs to be preached.

That's quite a statement. I suspect I fundamentally disagree with it, although more explanation is probably needed from my quarter as well as from yours. I do not have the time now.

From my point of view it seems to me that there is a Kingdom of God that will one day be ruling in all earth and in the hearts of all men. All darkness will be eliminated. This is not yet been apprehended but as faith is the evidence of things not yet seen, this is wherein I put my hope. I therefore must conclude that upon seeing at the end of time all that has come to pass, that it all was meant to be so as to arrive at this end from the beginning.

 

[Drew]

From what I understand you seem to be saying the Gospel does not need to be preached,...

No. I am not saying this and I believe I have been as clear as I can in my post that I am not saying this.

I have re-checked my post and believe I have been clear. Please try re-reading it.

.....or else you are countering that position and saying it must be preached implying that others are saying it need not be preached.

No. I am not saying this and I believe I have been as clear as I can in my post that I am not saying this.

.....What I am sure of is scripture says it needs to be preached.

I agree.

.....From my point of view it seems to me that there is a Kingdom of God that will one day be ruling in all earth and in the hearts of all men.

I believe that the Bible is quite clear - that kingdom is already here. But that's another debate.

 

[childeye]

=Drew;575667]No. I am not saying this and I believe I have been as clear as I can in my post that I am not saying this.

I have re-checked my post and believe I have been clear. Please try re-reading it.


No. I am not saying this and I believe I have been as clear as I can in my post that I am not saying this.


I agree.

I give up. It is enough to know you think the Gospel should be preached.

I believe that the Bible is quite clear - that kingdom is already here. But that's another debate.

There is no need to debate. Of course it is here. Please note I said, "that will one day be ruling in all earth and in the hearts of all men". As God is still preparing the enemies of Jesus to be his footstool this has not yet come to pass.

 

[guibox]

Hey Drew! Good to see you again. It's been a long time! : )

The Bible say's, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

Yes, but for what purpose? So that free will can be exercised and through faith, decisions made. The Calvinist tries to use phrases and concepts that only make sense from an Arminianist perspective.

Calvinism tries to make God sovereign and yet dependent on others preaching the word to what...awaken? ...the soul that is already saved? The Calvinist says, 'This is the avenue that God has chosen to draw the elect to Himself.' That all sounds fine and dandy but it makes no sense and it basically removes the very sovereignty they argue for God: that God is dependent on the Word being preached.

So what happens if the Word is not preached? By definition, they cannot be saved for they do not have the power of choice and only with the preaching of the Word, can they 'hear' and thus come to a pre-existing knowledge of their pre-determined salvation.

Doesn't make much sense or logic to me.

 

[childeye]

Hey Drew! Good to see you again. It's been a long time! : )



Yes, but for what purpose? So that free will can be exercised and through faith, decisions made. The Calvinist tries to use phrases and concepts that only make sense from an Arminianist perspective.

Calvinism tries to make God sovereign and yet dependent on others preaching the word to what...awaken? ...the soul that is already saved? The Calvinist says, 'This is the avenue that God has chosen to draw the elect to Himself.' That all sounds fine and dandy but it makes no sense and it basically removes the very sovereignty they argue for God: that God is dependent on the Word being preached.

So what happens if the Word is not preached? By definition, they cannot be saved for they do not have the power of choice and only with the preaching of the Word, can they 'hear' and thus come to a pre-existing knowledge of their pre-determined salvation.

Doesn't make much sense or logic to me.

Actually what you have said makes perfect sense although I would equate a freewill as you used it, to rather making a choice, not necessarily a free choice. For faith would be a prerequisate to choosing to believe. Knowledge of God cannot come to one who cannot even acknowledge His existence without some prompting.