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

No, the doctrines are not from the apostles. They are from supralapsarians from the Reformation to today.
Why don't you stop with the useless opinions and try to exegete the scripture? This kind of response tells me you're mind is fixed, and you're not willing to discuss it further. Do I read you correctly?
TD:)
 
Does the elect of God include anyone who believes?



JLB
1 Jn. 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (ESV).
Rom. 8:33 "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies."

Everyone who believes is God's elect, and everyone who is elect eventually believes, since God is sovereign. But of course you disagree.
TD:)
 
I would agree with you if that were biblical, but since it’s not, then I disagree.

Whosoever, or anyone who believes is what the Bible teaches.


If John 3:16 taught us that ...

For God so loved the world elect that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever those who have been predestined to be saved believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life...

Then I would agree with you. But since the Bible doesn’t say this, I disagree with you.



JLB
Let's see what the apostle Paul says about the matter of spiritual inability in regard to believing in Christ:
"Dead in sin" - Eph. 2:1
"No one seeks for God" - Rom. 3:11
"Not even able" (to submit to God's law) - Rom. 8:7
"Blinded by the god of this world" - 2 Cor. 4:4
"Held captive by the devil" - 2 Tim. 2:26
"Slaves" (to sin) - Gal. 4:8
And the apostle John:
"Under the control of the evil one" - 1 Jn. 5:19
"Slaves to sin" - John 8:34

So, what has to happen before an unbeliever can become a believer is that God has to:
Bring them to life,
Illuminate their mind and heart,
Enable them to submit,
Give them spiritual sight,
Release them from captivity by Satan,
Free them from the sinful nature,
Translate them from the kingdom of darkness to God's kingdom.

According to Peter's statement that God has caused us to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3), it is God causing it, not us. One might argue that it is through the hearing of the gospel (1 Pet. 1:23), so being born again and hearing the gospel might happen simultaneously. However, according to the above statements, spiritual rebirth is the logical precedent to becoming a believer, and that is an action done by God as a necessary precedent to the exercise of saving faith, as we see implied in these two passages from the apostle John: 1 Jn. 5:1 and Jn. 3:3.

1 Jn. 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (ESV). So if a person is believing in Christ, that person has already had spiritual birth. Notice it doesn't say "can become born of God" which would imply that believing comes first. It says "is" (most translations), which essentially means "has been." This statement implies that believing is the outward manifestation of being born again.

John 3:3 "...unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This statement implies that being born again comes first, since a person cannot have the spiritual eyes to see God's kingdom unless his eyes have been opened to see it first. It implies that anyone who believes in Christ is already seeing the kingdom of God, and already has an instilled desire to be in it. It implies that if anyone sees God's kingdom in Christ, that they are already in it. Those outside the kingdom of God can't see it because they are spiritually blind and dead, and the gospel is foolishness to those people (1 Cor. 1:23).

Therefore, the elect of God and those believing are one and the same.
TD:)
 
Do you think all men will be drawn to Him? (I think we agree this is a salvific drawing of God; let me know if not.) If so, then your position would be universalism, to be discussed as a whole different topic. If not, why not?

Hospes,

If all people are not drawn to Jesus (as per John 12:32), then how can God make this truthful statement?

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (Rom 1:18-20 NIV).​

Oz
 
Do you think all men will be drawn to Him? (I think we agree this is a salvific drawing of God; let me know if not.) If so, then your position would be universalism, to be discussed as a whole different topic. If not, why not?

It cannot refer only to 'a salvific drawing of God' because 'God is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet 3:9 NLT).

Therefore, I am left with the conclusion: God draws all. The wicked refuse to accept the truth (Rom 1) and God casts them into his destiny for those who reject Him. The main difference between your view and mine is that God does not force anyone to accept him but when the Gospel is preached, we can accept or reject Him. The Holy Spirit woos everyone but only the willing respond.

Oz
 
Last edited:
Hospes,

If all people are not drawn to Jesus (as per John 12:32), then how can God make this truthful statement?

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (Rom 1:18-20 NIV).​

Oz
I guess I can see how a person may be hateful of the light - and be without excuse for hating it - because he is drawn to the darkness. (John 3:19-20)

Is it your contention that a person must be first drawn to Jesus before being guilty of rejecting Him? (It would prove useful if you define what you mean by "drawn".)
 
I have just begun reading the book Deconstructing Calvinism, by Hudson Smelley, and in the prologue found this statement:

Calvinism completely compasses God's redemptive plan and teaches that God saves a small percentage of humanity based on His elective determination before creation and passes over the rest. Since God's redemptive plan excludes most people, there is no basis for us to tell a lost person that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they should believe in Christ for salvation, or that there is hope beyond the grave. If the lost person is not elect, we would be misleading them if we said any of those things. Indeed, it is difficult to see how we could make any honest gospel presentation knowing most people are by God's purposes not savable. Not only that, since salvation hangs on God's elective determination before creation and not on a present decision for Christ, we must make this TULIP reality personal. We must come to grips with the fact that many of those we know, and perhaps some of those closest to us, have no possibility of being reconciled to God because they are not elect.

What caught my eye is the idea that "there is no basis for us to tell a lost person that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they should believe in Christ for salvation, or that there is hope beyond the grave. If the lost person is not elect, we would be misleading them if we said any of those things."

I had always thought the Calvinistic evangelism was like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack,, the rare Elect person in the mass of reprobates, but had never thought of the effect of the presentation of the gospel to those who would never be able to experience it. Smelley terms it "misleading" them to think that they might be savable, when in fact, there isn't a sliver of hope that this would happen.

What are your thoughts, either pro or con to Smelley's thought?


Doug
Regarding the opening post, I am thinking if I were wanting to understand a group's beliefs regarding a topic, I would not ask a person antagonistic to the group.

If I asked Joe - who has very little esteem of Jill - what he thought or Jill, I think I could predict his report on her. Certainly, Joe's opinion of Jill would probably not be very useful for getting an unbiased understanding of Jill. If you want to know about Jill, at least be fair enough to ask a Jill fan also. Otherwise, I question if understanding her is the real goal.

If you want to truly desire to understand the Reformed position on evangelism, go read Jonathan Edwards, CH Spurgeon, or Willaim Carey. (Good gracious, Carey was either an idiot or he understood something about Reformed theology re. evangelism of which Mr. Smelley is clueless!)

An aside: most of what I read of non-Calvinist debunking Reformed theology is the Quiotic slaying of comical caricatures of Reformed theology. It becomes pretty humorous to have non-Calvinists explain to me what I believe and then explain why I am wrong. Sometimes, I'm not sure if I am even part of the conversation! Thus I view the Hudson Smelley passage above.
 
Regarding the opening post, I am thinking if I were wanting to understand a group's beliefs regarding a topic, I would not ask a person antagonistic to the group.

If I asked Joe - who has very little esteem of Jill - what he thought or Jill, I think I could predict his report on her. Certainly, Joe's opinion of Jill would probably not be very useful for getting an unbiased understanding of Jill. If you want to know about Jill, at least be fair enough to ask a Jill fan also. Otherwise, I question if understanding her is the real goal.

If you want to truly desire to understand the Reformed position on evangelism, go read Jonathan Edwards, CH Spurgeon, or Willaim Carey. (Good gracious, Carey was either an idiot or he understood something about Reformed theology re. evangelism of which Mr. Smelley is clueless!)

An aside: most of what I read of non-Calvinist debunking Reformed theology is the Quiotic slaying of comical caricatures of Reformed theology. It becomes pretty humorous to have non-Calvinists explain to me what I believe and then explain why I am wrong. Sometimes, I'm not sure if I am even part of the conversation! Thus I view the Hudson Smelley passage above.

Hospes,

With all due respect, most of us, like Smelley, who have had formal biblical training have read these sources, as well as more modern sources such as Piper, Sproul, White, Macarthur ,etc, etc. Plus, at least in my personal experience with and in forums such as this, we converse with Calvinists directly as we are now doing, and get it straight from the proverbial horses mouth!

Smelley has dissected Reformed theology into it's smallest and most base structures and has arrived at the same conclusions that many, such as Arminius himself, have concluded.

We know what you believe, and seek to demonstrate the scriptural, philosophical, and common sense logical errors we find in this system of thought.

Doug
 
Do you think all men will be drawn to Him? (I think we agree this is a salvific drawing of God; let me know if not.) If so, then your position would be universalism, to be discussed as a whole different topic. If not, why not?

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
John 12:32


Jesus statement is clear. He says He will draw all men.


Drawing all men does not somehow mean that all who are drawn will follow Him and obey Him, throughout their life on earth.


Some will indeed follow for awhile, then fall away.

Some will not believe.

Some will follow and become lost.

Some will bear fruit; thirty, sixty, and even a hundredfold.



Being drawn to Christ, certainly does not guarantee one will receive the salvation of their soul, on that Day.



JLB
 
1 Jn. 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (ESV).
Rom. 8:33 "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies."

Everyone who believes is God's elect, and everyone who is elect eventually believes, since God is sovereign. But of course you disagree.
TD:)

Do you believe the elect are saved, then they eventually believe?
 
Hospes,

With all due respect, most of us, like Smelley, who have had formal biblical training have read these sources, as well as more modern sources such as Piper, Sproul, White, Macarthur ,etc, etc. Plus, at least in my personal experience with and in forums such as this, we converse with Calvinists directly as we are now doing, and get it straight from the proverbial horses mouth!

Smelley has dissected Reformed theology into it's smallest and most base structures and has arrived at the same conclusions that many, such as Arminius himself, have concluded.

We know what you believe, and seek to demonstrate the scriptural, philosophical, and common sense logical errors we find in this system of thought.

Doug
TD,

First, I can't think of any reason I am due any respect! :)

Given that Smelley and most of you have read Edwards, Piper, Sproul, Spurgeon, Macarthur, and White (Not sure who White is...), can I assume that you'd agree that none of those Calvinist would agree Smelley has fairly described their beleifs?
 
Not sure if I got my question answered. You wrote,

"You imply that Arminian thought thinks that Lydia had anything to do with salvation of her own accord; we do not."​

Was this a misstatement?

I understand that from an Arminian perspective how Lydia could not come to salvation without God's help. But doesn't Arminian theology also teach that God cannot bring salvation to a person unless He gets their help, i.e. the exercise of the saved person's independent autonomous will?
God does not require "help", he requires response. Thus the use of commands to believe, repent, confess, etc. God could do it without any such requirements, but he chose not to. God, as sovereign, sets the rules of the game, and he set conditions on himself and us for him to save. We cannot demand anything of God because we do a certain thing, but God can demand of himself to act in response o something he has established as a required action.

He has made it possible by the death of Christ, condemning sin and all it's powers by abolishing the law as the standard of judgement and establishing grace in its stead. So doing something has no positive value under grace, it is just a conditional element that he requires. And the doing of it is only accomplished by means of his Spirit giving us the light to see and make the darkness flee.

So again, Arminian thought does not say that we can do anything spiritually valuable in and of ourselves by ourselves. Nor do we have any capacity to initiate the movement toward God and reconciliation with him. We say and teach unequivocally that God's movement and action is always first and always the effectual power of bringing about the spiritual change of life.

Man broke the covenant and harmony of relationship with God, and God, as the offended party, has the final say regarding any possible reconciliation of the relationship. Even if we could, which we cannot, naturally understand our broken relationship with God and go to him to plead for forgiveness, God has no obligation to act positively toward us. This is why human action is meaningless; even if we could, as some errantly teach, naturally understand the truth and reach out for God, God is not ever obligated to respond to us! God is first and last in the accomplishment of salvation, even though man has an active part in the equation.

Doug
 
TD,

First, I can't think of any reason I am due any respect! :)

Given that Smelley and most of you have read Edwards, Piper, Sproul, Spurgeon, Macarthur, and White (Not sure who White is...), can I assume that you'd agree that none of those Calvinist would agree Smelley has fairly described their beleifs?

In the first place, at this place in his book, Smelley is just surmising his own thinking as a whole. He will beging to maticulously break the belief system down and show why he feels it wrong.

James White is a popular speaker and apologist for Reformed thought. Just Google Dr. James White and you'll find a lot about him.

All people deserve my respect, even if I disagree with them. I don't mean to belittle a person who thinks differently than me simply because they disagree. I respect your right to believe anything you find compelling, and appreciate the opportunity to discuss our points of view and the reasons we think as we do!

Doug
 
The main point is that being born again (and our subsequent faith) is caused by God. It would be contrary to these verses of scripture to claim that we cause our spiritual birth by choosing to believe first. I'm saying that our choice to believe (or rather, our choice to continue believing) is a result of God's work in us.

The result of salvation is the combination of God‘s grace and our believing (obeying) what we hear; hearing is how we receive faith.

Obeying what we hear is how faith is activated, or made alive, and able to function to produce the intended divine result.


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


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


It’s not those who, receive faith who are saved, but those who obey the word by which they receive faith.


Faith without the corresponding action of obedience is dead.





JLB
 
God does not require "help", he requires response. Thus the use of commands to believe, repent, confess, etc. God could do it without any such requirements, but he chose not to. God, as sovereign, sets the rules of the game, and he set conditions on himself and us for him to save. We cannot demand anything of God because we do a certain thing, but God can demand of himself to act in response o something he has established as a required action.

He has made it possible by the death of Christ, condemning sin and all it's powers by abolishing the law as the standard of judgement and establishing grace in its stead. So doing something has no positive value under grace, it is just a conditional element that he requires. And the doing of it is only accomplished by means of his Spirit giving us the light to see and make the darkness flee.

So again, Arminian thought does not say that we can do anything spiritually valuable in and of ourselves by ourselves. Nor do we have any capacity to initiate the movement toward God and reconciliation with him. We say and teach unequivocally that God's movement and action is always first and always the effectual power of bringing about the spiritual change of life.

Man broke the covenant and harmony of relationship with God, and God, as the offended party, has the final say regarding any possible reconciliation of the relationship. Even if we could, which we cannot, naturally understand our broken relationship with God and go to him to plead for forgiveness, God has no obligation to act positively toward us. This is why human action is meaningless; even if we could, as some errantly teach, naturally understand the truth and reach out for God, God is not ever obligated to respond to us! God is first and last in the accomplishment of salvation, even though man has an active part in the equation.

Doug
Thank you, Doug, for getting back to my earlier question. I truly do appreciate it.

The word "help" was not a good choice on my part and I am glad to use your word "response." If I understand Arminianism, it posits a person's response to God's prevenient grace is something that God has chosen not to cause. In other words, the person has to - independently and of their own free will - respond. Furthermore, this response is absolutely necessary for their salvation; without the response, God will not save them. Given your understanding of Arminianism, am I correct?
 
Thank you, Doug, for getting back to my earlier question. I truly do appreciate it.

The word "help" was not a good choice on my part and I am glad to use your word "response." If I understand Arminianism, it posits a person's response to God's prevenient grace is something that God has chosen not to cause. In other words, the person has to - independently and of their own free will - respond. Furthermore, this response is absolutely necessary for their salvation; without the response, God will not save them. Given your understanding of Arminianism, am I correct?

Correct! And it is important to understand that Go’s is still the causative force, not man!



Doug
 
Correct! And it is important to understand that Go’s is still the causative force, not man!



Doug
I am struggling with how you reconcile that God provides the causative force and yet, to quote myself, "a person's response to God's prevenient grace is something that God has chosen not to cause." Is it that God causes much of salvation and the person adds that last bit of causation by responding?
 
Do you believe the elect are saved, then they eventually believe?
I believe what the Bible says:
We all began in wickedness:
Eph. 2:1-3 "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."

And then God graciously caused us to hear the gospel and obey it:
Eph. 2:4-6 "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

It's all the work of God, just as Eph. 2:8 tells us it is:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."

If you are looking for a chronology, then Eph. 1:4 must be included:
"He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world..."

So the chronology is: God elected some to be in Christ before anyone existed, then the human race came into existence with a fallen nature, in which we all started out that way (and in which many continue), then God converts those elected before they existed through the gospel at various times, and those people believe and are saved. Then in the end at the 2nd advent, all the elect, both dead and living, through the resurrection and translation of the physical nature, will be gathered "from the four winds" to be with Christ forever.
TD:)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top