The Value of Evangelism in Reformed Theology

[Hospes]

No, it doesn’t give me any more pause than would a parent that gives a teenager room to make their own decisions. I certainly didn’t do everything that my parents desired me to do, but that is part of the learning process.

Isn't this a false equivalence? With salvation we are not talking about a "learning process" but rather eternity in hell/heaven. If your teenager was about to hang himself, would you give him "room to make their own decisions?"

God gave us his image and part of that image is self-determination, self-sovereignty of his on choices.

Really? We have self-determination? If there is any lesson to be learned in life is that I do not have self-determination. Do people self-determine to suffer? Our suffering screams at us that we do not have self-determination. Self-sovereignty on your choices? Similar to my note to JLB, show me a person that does not choose to follow their strongest motivation(s). We are slaves to our motives. My only hope is that God works His will on the level of my motivations because if what motivates me does not change, my behavior certainly won't follow. And I do not know how to force a change onto my motivations.

Side note: image-of-God arguments seem pretty pliable in the hands of the person arguing. May I claim to be sovereign over all creation because I am made in the image of God? Or maybe I am omniscient because I am created in the image of God? We do not get to pick and choose what God-like characteristics that make up our "being created in the image of God." Best to find other scripture to make a point.

 

[JLB]

Exibit 1 of the silly slaying of cartoonish understandings of Reformed theology. Talk of robots either shows that either you do not understand Reformed theology or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. I will assume the former.

Please don’t assume anything. I wrote what I did to give you my perspective. We all have a perspective.

My perspective is not cartoonish.


I don’t care to “understand” Reformed Theology, because it is man’s doctrine and designed to divide the body of Christ.


I only desire to study and understand Christ Jesus and His doctrine, which was Is the truth.


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9


I would encourage you to study and remain in the teachings of Christ, found in the New Testament.




JLB

 

[JLB]

JLB, I agree with this statement, but you seem to think choice is unhinged from motive. All choices are determined by motive(s). The question needing answered is "From where does motive originate?" or "What causes motive?"

Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account. Hebrews 4:11-13

• and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

This word “intents” seems to be the closest to describing the English word ”motive”.


Motive comes from the heart.


The Gospel message is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Can you tell me what Abraham’s motive was for offering his son Isaac on the altar?




JLB

 

[JLB]

Faith is a prerequisite to being Christlike, so anyone predestined to be Christlike had to be predestined to believe.

You seem to have faith mixed up with believing.

Faith is what everyone who hears the Gospel, receives from God.

Believing is what we must do to be saved.

Believing comes first then salvation, not the other way around.




JLB

 

[tdidymas]

You seem to have faith mixed up with believing.

Faith is what everyone who hears the Gospel, receives from God.

Believing is what we must do to be saved.

Believing comes first then salvation, not the other way around.




JLB

Faith and believing are the same Grk root word. "Faith" is merely the noun form of "believe." Making a distinction like you're doing is problematic.

Rom. 1:16-17: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'"

From this context it can be seen that Paul's usage of the term "believes" is equivalent to the term "faith." "Believing in Christ" is exactly the same meaning as "having saving faith."
TD

 

[TibiasDad]

Really? We have self-determination? If there is any lesson to be learned in life is that I do not have self-determination. Do people self-determine to suffer? Our suffering screams at us that we do not have self-determination. Self-sovereignty on your choices? Similar to my note to JLB, show me a person that does not choose to follow their strongest motivation(s). We are slaves to our motives. My only hope is that God works His will on the level of my motivations because if what motivates me does not change, my behavior certainly won't follow. And I do not know how to force a change onto my motivations.

We have self-determination in how we respond to any circumstance that we find ourselves in, to choose how we react to it this is evident in the commandments to act in a certain way to a particular temptation. When Joseph was tempted by Potiphar’s wife he had the choice to determine what he was going do, he chose to flee and not give in to temptation. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, it was in contrast to the choice to hit back. We determined our own actions. I can’t help what you may do or say to me, but I am the only one who determines how I act toward you!

As for self-sovereignty, Gen 2:15-22 gives two examples of independent, self-sovereign, self-determined choices given by God to man that illustrate this: he was free to choose of any tree in the garden, including the forbidden tree, at anytime for food (meaning he didn’t have to pick bananas on Monday and Kiwi on Tuesday, but whatever he wanted to eat that particular day!), and the choosing of the names of the animals. These are two clear examples of the independent sovereignty of man’s volition.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Side note: image-of-God arguments seem pretty pliable in the hands of the person arguing. May I claim to be sovereign over all creation because I am made in the image of God? Or maybe I am omniscient because I am created in the image of God? We do not get to pick and choose what God-like characteristics that make up our "being created in the image of God." Best to find other scripture to make a point.

I have given you, in my previous post, the Gen 2 foundation of my thinking. Secondly, do not presume that I have overstepped the scope of the Imago Dei, for I have not asserted anything such as you have suggested so as to discount my argument. But doing so, you erase the Imago Dei from the equation and negate the very foundation and distinction of the creation of man!

Man is made to reflect God's creativity, his being relational, rational, and volitional, all of which incorporate independent choice and stylistic uniqueness. Our sovereignty in matters of our own expression of these aspects of God are an indespesible necessity for us to be in relationship with God. Our sovereignty is not equal to his in any way, but it certainly reflects his sovereignty if only weakly and imperfectly. To any this is to devalue God's creativity and creation.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

You seem to have faith mixed up with believing.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with TD at this point. They are interchangeable ideas.

Doug

 

[WIP]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with TD at this point. They are interchangeable ideas.

Doug

Do you think demons put their faith in God?

 

[TibiasDad]

Do you think demons put their faith in God?

In reference to believers they are interchangeable.

Doug

 

[Hospes]

Doug and JBL,

I have mentioned to you both the idea that our greatest motive(s) are the genesis of our choices. Let me give an imperfect analogy as to what I mean.

If I offered to pay you $10 dollars for going without food for a full week, my guess is you'd make your free-will choice and tell me to pound sand. But if I subsequently tired to motivate you by offereing $1,000,000 to go without food for a week, my guess is you'd make a choice to go hungry and then collect your $$. Did I force you to take my second offer? Were you a robot because I opened your eyes to an adequate motivation for you to forego food? Did I violate your moral agency? I think not. I could even say that my second offer overcame your initial resistance to going hungry, i.e. the offer was "irresistible".

When it comes to evangelism, I - as an awful Calvinist (insert tongue-in-cheek emoji here) - am highly motivated to try to bring to someone's attention the pearl of immense worth and the buried treasure (Matthew 13:44-45) that is valuable enough to joyfully sell everything in order to obtain the pearl/treasure. In my theology, I believe I and other Christians are the means by which God has ordained to spread the Gospel. I have no idea as to who God has elected to salvation, so I give a call for anyone willing to listen, for them to see the glory and beauty of God and believe the Gospel. As a Calvinist, I am motivated to share the Gospel by my love for God, my pleasure in my Lord, my desire to please my Lord via obedience, and my love for people. If Smelley et al find my theology lacking in support for spreading the Good News, then from my own experience, they are very mistaken.

 

[Hospes]

Can you tell me what Abraham’s motive was for offering his son Isaac on the altar?

His desire to obey the commands of God. Why do you ask? (Maybe I am being a bit slow, but I am not getting your point in asking.)

 

[OzSpen]

Do you have any value to add to the conversation?
TD

Yes, exegesis of the biblical text, but it seems that this is the end to which I come:

 

[TibiasDad]

If I offered to pay you $10 dollars for going without food for a full week, my guess is you'd make your free-will choice and tell me to pound sand. But if I subsequently tired to motivate you by offereing $1,000,000 to go without food for a week, my guess is you'd make a choice to go hungry and then collect your $$. Did I force you to take my second offer? Were you a robot because I opened your eyes to an adequate motivation for you to forego food? Did I violate your moral agency? I think not. I could even say that my second offer overcame your initial resistance to going hungry, i.e. the offer was "irresistible".

Frankly, I would not take it because my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that would not be healthy. Moreover, I have MS and that would be even less healthy for me to fast for 168 hours. So the choice is still mine and the greatest desire is not necessarily true. For I may indeed desire the million dollars, and it maybe the temporal "answer" to my needs and desires, but it doesn't mean I will necessarily take it.

Doug

 

[Hospes]

Frankly, I would not take it because my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that would not be healthy. Moreover, I have MS and that would be even less healthy for me to fast for 168 hours. So the choice is still mine and the greatest desire is not necessarily true. For I may indeed desire the million dollars, and it maybe the temporal "answer" to my needs and desires, but it doesn't mean I will necessarily take it.

Doug

Did you really miss the intent of the post? I refuse to believe you are that obtuse.

 

[tdidymas]

Yes, exegesis of the biblical text, but it seems that this is the end to which I come:

And:

You don't read me correctly. I've come to my conclusions through exegesis of Scripture. I have a BA in NT Greek, have taught Greek (now retired), and have a PhD in NT.

I am more than willing to discuss but I refuse to accept a Reformed imposition on Scripture.

And:

No, the doctrines are not from the apostles. They are from supralapsarians from the Reformation to today.

And all this to my response here: https://christianforums.net/Fellows...elism-in-reformed-theology.84003/post-1590668

So how is any of this exegesis? All I see is opinions based on your bias, in contrast to real and reasonable explanation of what the scripture means in context.

Quite frankly, I care nothing about your credentials. If your interpretation of scripture is wrong, no amount of credentials will compensate. This is how it was in the 1st Century, and how it is today. I get that you are angry, perhaps because my response clearly refutes your opinion on the matter at hand. But Paul wrote "he who thinks he knows something doesn't yet know as he ought to know."

So rather than merely respond with weak and unfounded opinion, you should be trying to refute what I write with serious exegesis, if indeed you want to communicate why you believe what you believe. Otherwise, I might deem your posts as unworthy of response, and just abandon the conversation with you. Is that what you want?
TD

 

[TibiasDad]

Did you really miss the intent of the post? I refuse to believe you are that obtuse.

I understand exactly what you said and meant by it, but it is a non sequitur question. It does not follow that the strongest desire is always the same. Edwards, if I remember correctly, is the one who first put forth the "strongest desire" argument, and that was to negate the notion that man could naturally desire and seek God. He said, because we are sold as a slave to sin, we can only desire what our master desires and that will always be what we do.

Now, I don't contend that man has a natural desire and ability to seek God, but I do believe that grace overshadows all mankind, and that truth can be known by means of that grace. Statistics show that the older one gets, the less likely they will respond positively to the gospel, which is why children's and youth ministry is so important, and why we seek to "train up a child in the way that he should go"! (Prov 22:6)

This, I think, demonstrates why many believers of my era (I'm 60) who grew up in church always seemed to have a more natural desire for the things of God than those who weren't exposed to it early. Now I'm not saying that I, or anyone else who was raised like me, were flawless or didn't have bad and painful habits, I certainly did, but but I was aware from an early age that I was a sinner and that Christ died that I might live and that made a huge difference in how I lived and looked at life, even before I became a believer. I heard and understood the truth of the gospel all of my life, and this is because the young heart, like young Samuel, isn't calloused by the years of sin and is more sensitive to the voice of God. I have known people who, like me, were always aware of God's voice, even when they didn't follow and obey it, and always felt his calling to them and his presence. The point is, the young heart of man, not yet completely corrupted by sin is more sensitive and can more readily hear and respond to the gospel. The older one gets, the more control sin gains on the heart, the more and more likely he will not be able to hear and understand the truth of the gospel, and will follow the desires of the sinful nature.

So I don't think the "greatest desire" argument is valuable as an argument for your side because while it makes sense in the case of an older and more sinfully habitual heart, that cannot be said of those raised up in the faith from an early age. This is why Jesus said "suffer the little children to come to me, for such is the kingdom of heaven". (Mark 10:14) They hear and gravitate to the gospel and want to be with Jesus!



Doug

 

[Hospes]

It does not follow that the strongest desire is always the same.

I am perplexed by your post in that you seem to be answering something I did not mean to ask or assert. Were you thinking I was making a case for a desire/motivation being possibly static?

I get the sense I am not being clear, so please feel free to ask me clarifying questions if I am not.

Again, thanks for the discourse.

 

[OzSpen]

And:

And:

And all this to my response here: https://christianforums.net/Fellows...elism-in-reformed-theology.84003/post-1590668

So how is any of this exegesis? All I see is opinions based on your bias, in contrast to real and reasonable explanation of what the scripture means in context.

Quite frankly, I care nothing about your credentials. If your interpretation of scripture is wrong, no amount of credentials will compensate. This is how it was in the 1st Century, and how it is today. I get that you are angry, perhaps because my response clearly refutes your opinion on the matter at hand. But Paul wrote "he who thinks he knows something doesn't yet know as he ought to know."

So rather than merely respond with weak and unfounded opinion, you should be trying to refute what I write with serious exegesis, if indeed you want to communicate why you believe what you believe. Otherwise, I might deem your posts as unworthy of response, and just abandon the conversation with you. Is that what you want?
TD

 

[tdidymas]

I take this communication as you really don't want to talk about it, so goodbye and God bless.
TD