Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Value of Evangelism in Reformed Theology

Hospes,

You have again summarized my general understanding and perspective correctly. You are also correct that, as I said before, that this thread is not the place to venture into this topic. This said, I will respond briefly to Jn 3:19.

Agape does not necessarily mean the same thing in every context. The love of God is going to be very different than the love of any other being. But there are aspects of agape that correspond regardless of the people involved or the circumstances of the context.

I think that agape love is a love that one sacrifices his own well-being for the object of his love. The object can be anything, and it can be a proper or an improper thing. But the complete sacrificial commitment to something is agape love. The motivations behind it are what determines the godliness or positivity of the act. Men were sacrificially committed to darkness and themselves rather than light and God.


Doug
TD, I am kind of jazzed because I think on this issue we may be in agreement. I have a thought I'd like your input on:

I see agape as very close to the valuing of something. If you highly value something, you sacrifice other things of less value to gain it. In loving God above all, i.e. valuing God above all, we quite reasonably are willing to sacrifice anything to "gain" Him. (It even transforms the "sacrifice" of lesser things as not really sacrifice, but rather something we gladly give up to attain the object of higher value.) I hope you can see how I think this sounds very much akin to your "sacrificial commitment to something."

Okay, so that may have been more than "a thought"! Nonetheless, I'd welcome your feedback.
 
LOVE - an act of mind and will, the determined care for the welfare of something or someone. It might well include strong emotion, but its distinguishing characteristics were the dedication and commitment of choice.

It is not a feeling but a determined act of will, which always results in determined acts of self-giving. Love is the willing, joyful desire to put the welfare of others above our own. It leaves no place for pride, vanity, arrogance, self-seeking, or self-glory.
John MacArthur

“In every act of the will whatsoever, the soul either likes or dislikes, is either inclined or disinclined to what is in view: these are not essentially different from those affections of love and hatred: that liking or inclination of the soul to a thing, if it be a high degree, and be vigorous and lively, is the very same thing with the affection of love: and that disliking and disinclining, if in degree, is the very same with hatred.” Johnathon Edwards

Love hates moral evil and clings to righteousness. It is also an error to interpret “God is love” to mean God is only love…using love as a paring knife to cut away his power, justice, and wrath against sin, leaving only unconditional acceptance and positive regard, what Arthur Pink rightly disdained as “amiable weakness” and mere “sentiment.” Evangelical theologians do not eliminate divine justice, but they still become imbalanced if they teach that God is primarily love, as if love trumped all other attributes of God.

The goodness whereby he delights in himself, is the source of his delight in his creatures, wherein he sees the footsteps of himself. If he loves himself, he cannot but love the resemblance of himself, and the image of his own goodness. He loves himself, because he is the highest goodness and excellency; and loves everything as it resembles himself, because it is an efflux [outflowing] of his own goodness; and as he doth necessarily love himself, and his own excellency, so he doth necessarily love anything that resembles that excellency, which is the primary object of his esteem. Charnock, Stephen.

John tells us that “God is love (agape)”(1 John 4:8). "What is agape love?" The Greek word agape means goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight in the object of love. Agape love involves faithfulness, commitment, and an act of the will. It is distinguished from the other types of love by its lofty moral nature. www.gotquestions.org/agape-love.html
 
That‘s not true, because I believe that biblical believing results in salvation by faith occurring simultaneously as a person obeys the Gospel by confessing Jesus as Lord because of the Spirit of grace empowering the person to act.

So my question does not have you mentioned “unstated premise”.

My question comes from years of discussing this subject with people, who believe the teachings of Calvinism, in which they claim that a person must first be saved, in order for them to believe the Gospel.

This conclusion comes from the idea that the Holy Spirit can not influence a person unless they are already save
Thanks for correcting me. If I understand you, you are writing something along the lines of what FastFred mentioned about the sequence being more a logical sequence than a time sequence.

It's actually encouraging to me in that I think we are closer in thinking than I had originally thought. (A lot of thinking in that sentence!) We both agree that various aspects are part of salvation: belief, obedience, repentence, etc. We both believe they do not necessarily happen in a specific sequence. (Again, always feel free to correct me if I misstate your position: I want to understand it accurately.)

I am wondering if where you and I may see differently is not on sequencing, but rather in identifying who takes the determinative actions to cause the various aspects of salvation. If I understand you, you believe a person, with God's help, causes belief. Then God responds by giving the person the Holy Spirit, regeneration, obedience to the Gospel, etc. Whereas, I would see all the aspects of salvation being casued by God.

Is that a fair summary of the crux of our difference?
 
I would tend to agree! The meticulous predetermination of Reformed thought means that we will do exactly what we are predetermined to do, good or bad. There is no real need, for God has already fixed the outcome and the means to that end. Philosophically, it's logical end is pessimistic and unmotivating. There is no reason to do anything but assume that what you do is exactly what God intended for you to do.


Doug
Agreed. (for Doug)
Sounds like Islam.
Everything is the will of God.....which of course it is. Nothing happens that God does not ALLOW.
However, to say that God CAUSES all to happen is a different matter.

Muslims are not motivated beyond a certain point because they feel that God will do whtever it is HE has to do to bring about His will.

This indeed is unmotivating and pessimistic and makes God responsible even for our misfortunes.
 
If I understand you, you believe a person, with God's help, causes belief. Then God responds by giving the person the Holy Spirit, regeneration, obedience to the Gospel, etc. Whereas, I would see all the aspects of salvation being casued by God.

Is that a fair summary of the crux of our difference?

God’s help is His grace; the Spirit of grace.


The Spirit enables or empowers us to confess Jesus as Lord.

  • ....no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3

Nevertheless it is our action of obedience, with the empowering work of the Spirit, that brings the reality of what was accomplished 2000 years ago on the cross, to be applied to our life that results in salvation by faith; ie regeneration.


Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 1 Peter 1:22-23


Key Phrase:

  • Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit...



JLB
 
Whereas, I would see all the aspects of salvation being casued by God.
Agreed, putting forward some scripture as proof:

John 1:12 But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name— 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh [the flesh is carnal and flesh always lusteth against the Spirit], nor of the will of man, but of GOD.

John 6:29 Jesus answered, “This is the work of God: that you believe [adhere to, trust in, rely on, and have faith] in the One whom He has sent.” Clearly this verse defines faith as a work. Thus faith must originate from God since God’s grace does not include man works (Galatians 5:2).

Romans 12:3b as God has apportioned to each a degree of faith [and a purpose designed for service]. Note: It is God doing the apportioning

1 Corinthians 12:3b And no one can [really] say, Jesus is [my] Lord, except by and under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit. [The confession of the Lordship of Christ in saving faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Tom Constable: no one would sincerely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, Savior and or Sovereign, unless the Holy Spirit had some influence over him or her

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this [referring to salvation through faith] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works (not founded upon anything in the believer himself), so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
“And this is not your own doing.” The word “this” must have an antecedent, which would normally be the closest preceding noun. In this case, “this” would refer back to “faith.” Paul is not saying that grace is not our own doing. That would be redundant, because if it were our own doing, it would not be gracious at all. Rather, he says that faith is not our own doing. That does not mean that faith is not found in us; it is found in us. It does not mean that it is someone else’s faith by which we are justified. It is, properly speaking, our faith, for we are the ones who have it, the ones who are exercising it. But it is not our own doing, meaning that we are not the origin of it. It is not something that we have generated by our own power, nor does it originate in our flesh. R.C. Sproul Truths We Confess

Philippians 1:29 For you have been granted [from the Greek term charizomai, “to give as a gift] [the privilege] for Christ’s sake not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer in His behalf.

Hebrews 12:2 a Looking away [from all that will distract] to Jesus, Who is the Leader and the Source of our faith [giving the first incentive for our belief] and is also its Finisher [bringing it to maturity and perfection]. [AMP]

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle (special messenger, personally chosen representative) of Jesus Christ, To those who have received and possess [by God’s will] a precious faith of the same kind as ours, AMP

1 John 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born [regenerated] of God" ...The verb tense make's John's intention unmistakable: Everyone who goes on believing [present, continuous action] that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God [perfect, completed action with abiding effects]. " Faith is the evidence of new birth, not the cause of it." “has been born” is a passive verb; they are caused to be born by another, that being God. Some Arminian exegetes might object to this interpretation. A means of testing the consistency of the exegesis offered of this passage would be to ask how such a person interprets these words: 1 John 2:29 If you know that he is righteous, you also know that everyone who practices righteousness has been fathered by him. Every consistent Protestant would say, “the reason one practices righteousness is because they have already been born of Him.
 
TD, I am kind of jazzed because I think on this issue we may be in agreement. I have a thought I'd like your input on:

I see agape as very close to the valuing of something. If you highly value something, you sacrifice other things of less value to gain it. In loving God above all, i.e. valuing God above all, we quite reasonably are willing to sacrifice anything to "gain" Him. (It even transforms the "sacrifice" of lesser things as not really sacrifice, but rather something we gladly give up to attain the object of higher value.) I hope you can see how I think this sounds very much akin to your "sacrificial commitment to something."

Okay, so that may have been more than "a thought"! Nonetheless, I'd welcome your feedback.

I have no problem with your statement, and could have very easily written those thoughts myself. In marriage, we forsake all others to commit to one, to sacrifice all to gain the one, and commit our entire being to meet their needs. Agape is a love of totality, and we are capable of totally committing ourselves to both good and bad things. In either case, it is agape!


Doug
 
TibiasDad Hospes
If I may quickly add something. Hopes is correct in stating that love is no more encompassing characteristic of God then his other attributes, like justice, mercy, perfection, etc. However, these attributes do not define God. He is the one who gives the definition to these attributes as he is the standard by which we truly know these attributes. Another thing is that we like to separate these attributes and think of justice as a different thing than love. But in reality there is no separating God's love from his justice or mercy because they are the same thing, they are who God is. And we cannot talk about how God redeems humanity without also bringing up how he loves and how he judges. Because God's love is the same as his judgement.
I understand, and to some point, agree with you, however, biblically speaking, it is the agape love of God that is the distinguishing mark of his being and character. It is impossible to conceive of justice, fairness, mercy, and patience without love. Being slow to anger and long suffering, or self-sacrificing instead of self-seeking is impossible without love. Goodness is inconceivable sans love! In many things in life there is a "first among equals" kind of reality. That is what love is in relation to all the other things God is! I like to think of it in these terms: In eternity past, when the Trinity was all that existed, there was no need for justice, mercy, or patience, but there was the need for love for there had always been relationship between the three. Love is the most essential and long-term activity of God.


Doug
 
I understand, and to some point, agree with you, however, biblically speaking, it is the agape love of God that is the distinguishing mark of his being and character. It is impossible to conceive of justice, fairness, mercy, and patience without love. Being slow to anger and long suffering, or self-sacrificing instead of self-seeking is impossible without love. Goodness is inconceivable sans love! In many things in life there is a "first among equals" kind of reality. That is what love is in relation to all the other things God is! I like to think of it in these terms: In eternity past, when the Trinity was all that existed, there was no need for justice, mercy, or patience, but there was the need for love for there had always been relationship between the three. Love is the most essential and long-term activity of God.


Doug
I see what you are saying. There might not have been a need for justice, mercy, and longsuffering back before creation. But nevertheless it was there because God is a God that does not change. He didnt just become merciful when he created other life it had to have been there. That is why I say that his love, mercy, perfection, longsuffering, is all the same thing. And id also say that if we had to give a name to this all encompassing attribute of God, love would be a very good name indeed.
 
I agree God does use evil and turn it into good. The difference between what you were saying and what the Calvinists are saying is that in Calvinism God is the one choosing the evil because he is the only one with a choice. What really happens is we choose evil and God then turns our choices into good. And even though God can use our evil, his will is for us to do good. As Paul said if the falling of Israel be the riches of the world how much more their fullness?
In regard to what the Calvinists say in regard to evil, I am unclear. But this I am fairly certain of.

God told Abraham that his people would be in Egypt for 4 generations so that the sin of the Amorites would come to its full measure . (Genesis 15) and then they would return to the Land God promised Abram.

When the 4th generation came about, a new Pharaoh came on the scene, and he did many evil deeds. It caused the Israelites to cry out to God, and God answered them. In Exodus14 God destroys Pharaoh and his Army ( God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked Ezekiel 18 and 24) and after Israel rejoices, they wander for three days without water. When water is found, it is bitter. Moses cries out with repentance and God leads them to 12 pools of sweet water and 70 palms. The 12 tribes are to be wells of sweetness and the 70 Elders are to be flexible in ruling Israel. Often, victory is bitter sweet.

Yet they grumbled and wished to return to Egypt to the best land Egypt had to offer. Remember, Egypt pushed them out. They were no longer accepted. You see, they got comfortable in Egypt. All of their needs were met until a new Pharaoh came about. They had no desire to go to the promise land. Test God uses Pharaoh to drive them on their way.

Without this new Pharaoh, Israel would have stayed in the comfort of Egypt.

We see something similar with the church. Jesus commissioned them to go to all the nation's, yet they stayed in Israel. That is until persecution (evil) hit the church and scattered (drove) them into the nation's.

Often, we do not bring this evil upon ourselves. But God uses evil to move us on our way to a better place God has planned for us. In Jobs case, he uses Evil to draw Job out of a lifestyle of religion and into a relationship with God.
 
God’s help is His grace; the Spirit of grace.

The Spirit enables or empowers us to confess Jesus as Lord.
  • ....no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3
Nevertheless it is our action of obedience, with the empowering work of the Spirit, that brings the reality of what was accomplished 2000 years ago on the cross, to be applied to our life that results in salvation by faith; ie regeneration.

Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 1 Peter 1:22-23

Key Phrase:
  • Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit...
Not as an argument for or against anything you wrote in your response, but rather as an attempt to make something clear, here is a C. H. Spurgeon quote:

One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much​
about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, "How did​
you come to be a Christian?" I sought the Lord. "But how did you come to seek the​
Lord?" The truth flashed across my mind in a moment I should not have sought Him​
unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I​
prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by​
reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led​
me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He​
was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and​
from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant​
confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."​

I totally reject the caricature that to hold to Reformed theology necessarily means that one must believe people are robots, having no free moral agency. You can see in Spurgeon's thinking he attributed causation to himself for actions and kept asking what motivated was behind each action. In the end, he determined "God was at the bottom of it all."

I want you to understand this line of thinking in order for you to see how I see the various passages you provide. For example when you quote "Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit...", I agree that it speaks of human moral agency, but I ask myself "What motivated that agency?" and eventually I see "God was at the bottom of it all." I see Him as the "first cause" for any of our righteous actions, including the ones we exercise in our path to regeneration.

Again, I am not trying to convince you as much as trying to get you to understand there is a reasonable way of seeing what I see and thus believing what I believe. Of course, I'd love for you to come to agree with me, but I will settle for you at least understand me. :)
 
Last edited:
You should create a thread to discuss true love. I'd like to take part in that discussion.
Done! It's titled

Agape Love is the Type Used to Love the Darkness?​

Hoping the title is provocative enough to draw interest...

Thanks for pushing for it.
 
In regard to what the Calvinists say in regard to evil, I am unclear. But this I am fairly certain of.

God told Abraham that his people would be in Egypt for 4 generations so that the sin of the Amorites would come to its full measure . (Genesis 15) and then they would return to the Land God promised Abram.

When the 4th generation came about, a new Pharaoh came on the scene, and he did many evil deeds. It caused the Israelites to cry out to God, and God answered them. In Exodus14 God destroys Pharaoh and his Army ( God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked Ezekiel 18 and 24) and after Israel rejoices, they wander for three days without water. When water is found, it is bitter. Moses cries out with repentance and God leads them to 12 pools of sweet water and 70 palms. The 12 tribes are to be wells of sweetness and the 70 Elders are to be flexible in ruling Israel. Often, victory is bitter sweet.

Yet they grumbled and wished to return to Egypt to the best land Egypt had to offer. Remember, Egypt pushed them out. They were no longer accepted. You see, they got comfortable in Egypt. All of their needs were met until a new Pharaoh came about. They had no desire to go to the promise land. Test God uses Pharaoh to drive them on their way.

Without this new Pharaoh, Israel would have stayed in the comfort of Egypt.

We see something similar with the church. Jesus commissioned them to go to all the nation's, yet they stayed in Israel. That is until persecution (evil) hit the church and scattered (drove) them into the nation's.

Often, we do not bring this evil upon ourselves. But God uses evil to move us on our way to a better place God has planned for us. In Jobs case, he uses Evil to draw Job out of a lifestyle of religion and into a relationship with God.
I liked your post. Using your example of pharoh and the Israelites. God had a plan for Israel to be a great nation, but the problem as you said is that israel was comfortable in Egypt and most likely some would worship Egyptian gods. So God used an evil pharoh and plagues to put Israel in a state where they could leave. We acknowledge that this evil was the direct results of people's choices. Ideally pharoh would have continued to be friendly and Israel would not have become comfortable and idolatrous and the land of canaan would not have been full of evil nations. But that's not the case when people choose to do evil. You are completely rigut and I agree with you 100%

The evil that God transforms into good is created by our choices. According to the Calvinists view people have no free moral agency and can only "choose" what God has preprogramed them to choose. There is no real choice because while we might have the illusion of choice we only have one real option and that's the one God decided we would take. So in this belief God is the sole person responsible for evil because he is the only one with real choices. Their God could have decided that everyone decide to do nothing but good. Instead according to their belief God has decided that a man would "choose" to abduct a young woman, lock her in his basement for several years where he would rape her daily and force her to miscarry once she became pregnant. You see in a belief where we have no choices of our own accord I cannot blame a person for this anymore than I can blame my vacuum from sucking up my quarter that was on the floor.

A good God gives us the freedom to choose good or evil freely and then makes the best of each of our choices. An evil God chooses some people to do good things but then chooses that the vast majority of us left do evil.
 
I liked your post. Using your example of pharoh and the Israelites. God had a plan for Israel to be a great nation, but the problem as you said is that israel was comfortable in Egypt and most likely some would worship Egyptian gods. So God used an evil pharoh and plagues to put Israel in a state where they could leave. We acknowledge that this evil was the direct results of people's choices. Ideally pharoh would have continued to be friendly and Israel would not have become comfortable and idolatrous and the land of canaan would not have been full of evil nations. But that's not the case when people choose to do evil. You are completely rigut and I agree with you 100%

The evil that God transforms into good is created by our choices. According to the Calvinists view people have no free moral agency and can only "choose" what God has preprogramed them to choose. There is no real choice because while we might have the illusion of choice we only have one real option and that's the one God decided we would take. So in this belief God is the sole person responsible for evil because he is the only one with real choices. Their God could have decided that everyone decide to do nothing but good. Instead according to their belief God has decided that a man would "choose" to abduct a young woman, lock her in his basement for several years where he would rape her daily and force her to miscarry once she became pregnant. You see in a belief where we have no choices of our own accord I cannot blame a person for this anymore than I can blame my vacuum from sucking up my quarter that was on the floor.

A good God gives us the freedom to choose good or evil freely and then makes the best of each of our choices. An evil God chooses some people to do good things but then chooses that the vast majority of us left do evil.
Again, I do not follow hyper calvinism. But I do agree that what was meant for evil, God uses for good.

As far as choice, I believe our choices are always limited, and that's not a bad thing lol.

God gave Adam a choice, and Adam willfully disobeyed. What is typical, is we try and shift blame. Instead of owning up to his disobedience with humility, Adam pushes the responsibility back on God.

Prior to the fall, she was known as "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh". The two were as one in perfect harmony with one another, their surroundings within the Garden and God who walked freely among them. However, after the fall Adam speaks of her as , "the woman you gave me" and names her Eve, the mother of all living. ( For death came through Adam)

Blame gets shifted and the relationship is cracked and Eve is reduced to an object of ownership.

Why? All because of choice. We see what happened to Adam and Eve, but can we apply it to our own relationships? Do we choose the way of Adam and cast blame to God or do we come before God with a humble soul and seek reconcilliation?

I agree with you. Freewill is about choice, regardless of how limited those choices are because for me, it comes down to this. Do we seek God's ways or our ways and when we are found guilty, how do we respond? Do we take accountability, or do we shift blame?
 
Again, I do not follow hyper calvinism. But I do agree that what was meant for evil, God uses for good.

As far as choice, I believe our choices are always limited, and that's not a bad thing lol.

God gave Adam a choice, and Adam willfully disobeyed. What is typical, is we try and shift blame. Instead of owning up to his disobedience with humility, Adam pushes the responsibility back on God.

Prior to the fall, she was known as "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh". The two were as one in perfect harmony with one another, their surroundings within the Garden and God who walked freely among them. However, after the fall Adam speaks of her as , "the woman you gave me" and names her Eve, the mother of all living. ( For death came through Adam)

Blame gets shifted and the relationship is cracked and Eve is reduced to an object of ownership.

Why? All because of choice. We see what happened to Adam and Eve, but can we apply it to our own relationships? Do we choose the way of Adam and cast blame to God or do we come before God with a humble soul and seek reconcilliation?

I agree with you. Freewill is about choice, regardless of how limited those choices are because for me, it comes down to this. Do we seek God's ways or our ways and when we are found guilty, how do we respond? Do we take accountability, or do we shift blame?
Sure there are limitations. Like when faced with a bully a kid does not have the option to use laser vision or fly away in the sky. But the kid still has more options than he could calculate. Also even if there were only two options that would still be more than what hypercalvinism tells us we have.
 
Again, I do not follow hyper calvinism. But I do agree that what was meant for evil, God uses for good.

As far as choice, I believe our choices are always limited, and that's not a bad thing lol.

God gave Adam a choice, and Adam willfully disobeyed. What is typical, is we try and shift blame. Instead of owning up to his disobedience with humility, Adam pushes the responsibility back on God.

Prior to the fall, she was known as "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh". The two were as one in perfect harmony with one another, their surroundings within the Garden and God who walked freely among them. However, after the fall Adam speaks of her as , "the woman you gave me" and names her Eve, the mother of all living. ( For death came through Adam)

Blame gets shifted and the relationship is cracked and Eve is reduced to an object of ownership.

Why? All because of choice. We see what happened to Adam and Eve, but can we apply it to our own relationships? Do we choose the way of Adam and cast blame to God or do we come before God with a humble soul and seek reconcilliation?

I agree with you. Freewill is about choice, regardless of how limited those choices are because for me, it comes down to this. Do we seek God's ways or our ways and when we are found guilty, how do we respond? Do we take accountability, or do we shift blame?
ish and Chava.
 
Back
Top