The Value of Evangelism in Reformed Theology

[TibiasDad]

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.

When one posits the "greatest desire" argument, they are saying that selfishness is the overwhelming motivation and that we cannot ever do anything without being selfish. That since we are always selfish that we cannot truly do anything contrary to that selfishness. That if I have a selfish desire for X that I will follow that desire necessarily, and can never do something different than X if that is my strongest desire. There is no argument for "greatest desire" without static behavioral actions. If you have a different definition or explanation, I welcome your thoughts!


Doug

 

[JLB]

Faith and believing are the same Grk root word.

Faith is a noun. It is what we receive from God when He speaks to us, whether directly as in the examples of Noah, Abraham and others mentioned in Hebrews 11, or indirectly through prophets or apostles whom He sends to preach the Gospel, as in Romans 10:9-17.


Believing, which conveys the principle of obeying is what we do, and is a verb, an action word, the obedience required to activate faith, in which faith is made complete and ”alive”, able to produce the intended divine result.


Faith, without the corresponding “work” or action is incomplete, dead, dormant and unable to function, just as a body without the spirit is dead and incomplete, unable to function.



“Faith alone” can not save, and is an unbiblical principle.




JLB

 

[TibiasDad]

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.

For my part, for I can only accurately speak for myself, I have no doubt as to your sincerity and motivation to share the gospel. I do, however, and I suspect that Smelley and others would agree with me to one degree or another, believe that what you have said is true of you is better than your theology permits. (I once had a professor that used to say that the Calvinist tends to live better than their
theology allows, and the Wesleyan too often lives beneath theirs! Something that has always stuck with me.)

From my point of view, and again, I think I'm reading this in Smelley, you cannot preach or share the gospel with any certainty that it is actually meant for them. That is only an after the fact of belief knowledge at the earliest, and even then, it isn't certain, because the only actual certainty will only come after all is said and done and those who have persevered to the end will be revealed.

The fact that you know that the odds for any given person to be Elect is negative is something that you have to suppress in your thinking as if seeing someone saved is not the primary objective, just the preaching of the gospel. Philosophically, there is not a real personal concern for the lost, because the Elect will be saved, whoever they are, and all you are to be concerned with is getting the gospel out so that the Elect can hear and God can then regenerate them to begin the process of salvation.

For me, it is difficult to see how Paul's supposed belief in what we call "Calvinism" can produce such a personal longing for the salvation of all his fellow Jews as he does in the opening verses of Rom 9, 10, and 11. The tenor of opinions that I've given by other Calvinists here has not been focused on the sinner but rather the obedience of preaching the gospel itself for the sake of preaching itself. There is no real need for concern for anyone because if they are Elect they will necessarily believe and if not, then why worry about it.

My motivation, in contrast, is that I know that God loves everyone the way that he loved me, and desires the same thing for them as he does for me. I can tell everyone that God desires to save them and is not very far from any one of them. You cannot! And to me, this is an important distinction that effects the sincerity of the gospel message and the confidence that you can have in any given presentation.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Faith is a noun. It is what we receive from God when He speaks to us, whether directly as in the examples of Noah, Abraham and others mentioned in Hebrews 11, or indirectly through prophets or apostles whom He sends to preach the Gospel, as in Romans 10:9-17.


Believing, which conveys the principle of obeying is what we do, and is a verb, an action word, the obedience required to activate faith, in which faith is made complete and ”alive”, able to produce the intended divine result.


Faith, without the corresponding “work” or action is incomplete, dead, dormant and unable to function, just as a body without the spirit is dead and incomplete, unable to function.



“Faith alone” can not save, and is an unbiblical principle.




JLB

Faith without obedience is not true faith, and thus does not result in salvation. Obedience is the evidence of true faith/belief, and will necessarily follow. I don't see any distinguishable difference between placing faith and having belief. The reason we know Abraham believed God was because he packed up his belongings and moved to where God led, and remained intimate with his wife into their 80s and 90s because God said they would have a son!

Doug

 

[Seasoned by Grace]

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

TibiasDad

I don't know who Smelley is, or for that fact Calvin and so many others, that apparently many follow, but I have read, studied and researched the bible and studied church history, and the history of the bible from a long time ago, and I do believe that "FEW" church goers will enter God's kingdom, because GOD SAYS SO in Matthew 7:14, Luke 13:23-24, and Matthew 7:21.
I don't call any of that Calvinism, I call it what it should be called - GODISM, or if you like, we can just call it what it is, - THE TRUTH !!

People get so caught up in what they want to hear, that the TRUTH has no power in their lives, just like in the days of NOAH.

OK, last thing.
Did God give us a number of how many is in the "few"? How many people were born in 2000 years, and how many of them are the "FEW or the CHOSEN? Do they have a tag on them of a certain color or a plate that says CHOSEN"??
Could be millions or billions.
So why decide that sharing the bible with non-believers is a "CRAP SHOOT", when we haven't a clue who the chosen are, or how many of them there are in todays world.

Pretty weak argument for Violating Gods word in Matthew 28 about going into all the world to share Christ?

Besides, GODS ELECT, if you study the topic, are those that GOD ALREADY KNOWS WILL CHOOSE HIM because God is all knowing, OMNISCIENT, from since before the beginning of time, that God created, until the end of time that God causes to happen.

Gods ELECT or CHOSEN, or FEW, or HIS REMNANT, or HIS CALLED, or HIS APPOINTED, OR HIS FOREKNEW are all those things not because they were Gods CHOICE but because THEY CHOSE TO BE WHO THEY ARE and endure, and GOD SIMPLY KNEW OF THEIR CHOICES AHEAD OF TIME - FREE WILL CHOICES by how they lived - JUST NO SURPRISE TO GOD

Maybe a different topic needs to be started, where people don't sound so ignorant of Gods word.

My name is OLIGOS
and we need to quit twisting Gods word around to sound so righteous.

 

[JLB]

if you like, we can just call it what it is, - THE TRUTH !!

I personally prefer the truth.

Now is the time for all of us, who are Christians, to develop a healthy love and respect for the truth if we expect to endure to the end, and keep the faith.


This scripture is just one of the reasons why.


The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

• because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

• for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

JLB

 

[Hospes]

When one posits the "greatest desire" argument, they are saying that selfishness is the overwhelming motivation and that we cannot ever do anything without being selfish. That since we are always selfish that we cannot truly do anything contrary to that selfishness. That if I have a selfish desire for X that I will follow that desire necessarily, and can never do something different than X if that is my strongest desire. There is no argument for "greatest desire" without static behavioral actions. If you have a different definition or explanation, I welcome your thoughts!


Doug

If you mean by selfish something done for one's own benefit without regard to others, then you misunderstand what I am saying. If you mean by selfish that our choices always align with our own personal desires then you understand, though you're using the word selfish in an odd way. If a Marine chooses to belly flop on a grenade to save his buddies, he made the choice based upon his highest motivation or greatest desires. It'd be odd to say he was selfish, though.

Maybe it would help if you can give me an example of a person choosing something and it not be the something for which they had the strongest desire.

This assertion that we always follow our greatest desires I did not realize would be quite so controversial and it is but a premise toward my main point.

Finally, would you define what you mean by "static behavioral actions"? Thanks.

 

[Hospes]

From my point of view, and again, I think I'm reading this in Smelley, you cannot preach or share the gospel with any certainty that it is actually meant for them. That is only an after the fact of belief knowledge at the earliest, and even then, it isn't certain, because the only actual certainty will only come after all is said and done and those who have persevered to the end will be revealed.

You are right, I cannot look at a person and say the Gospel will save them. And you can? Seems to me you hope they will make an autonomous choice to respond to the Gospel, but you do not know if they will. (I do not get the value of knowing that the Gospel was "meant for them" if they end in hell. Seems small comfort.)

Don't you see: I am uncertain of the impact of the Gospel on an individual because I do not know if the person is chosen by God, whereas you are uncertain of the impact of the Gospel on an individual because you do not know if God is chosen by the person.

You are also right in that I leave God as the final judge of who is saved. And you don't? You seem to imply you have more "certainty" before "all is said and done and those who have persevered to the end will be revealed." Really?

The fact that you know that the odds for any given person to be Elect is negative is something that you have to suppress in your thinking as if seeing someone saved is not the primary objective, just the preaching of the gospel. Philosophically, there is not a real personal concern for the lost, because the Elect will be saved, whoever they are, and all you are to be concerned with is getting the gospel out so that the Elect can hear and God can then regenerate them to begin the process of salvation.

I do not understand the talk of "odds". Who plays the odds on desiring that the lost are saved? If I rescue one starfish by tossing it from shore back into the sea, I don't do it because the odds are favorable. I don't need to "suppress" the distasteful idea that the "odds" somehow should be considered in declaring the Gospel; at the taste of the idea I spit it out.

Only a person who has no love for their Lord and no desire to please Him would have no "real personal concern for the lost, because the Elect will be saved, whoever they are..." Do you listen to yourself? My Lord Jesus, who chose to save me in spite of my foul sin, chose to make me a son of God, chose me to know Him and be known by Him, has given me the privilege to carry the treasure of the Gospel to others I love. I would have to be the lowest form of ingrate and a hater of God to have no "real personal concern for the lost." Seriously, do you ever really listen to the implications of what you easily attribute to others. We shouldn't do such to an unbeliever, much less members of Christ's bride. Please do not patronize me suggesting I may be a better person than my theology would lead me to be. My theology is the reason for my love of the Gospel and desire to see it spread to the salvation of many and ultimately to the praise of His glorious grace. You may not see it, but do not be so sure it's not there.

For me, it is difficult to see how Paul's supposed belief in what we call "Calvinism" can produce such a personal longing for the salvation of all his fellow Jews as he does in the opening verses of Rom 9, 10, and 11. The tenor of opinions that I've given by other Calvinists here has not been focused on the sinner but rather the obedience of preaching the gospel itself for the sake of preaching itself. There is no real need for concern for anyone because if they are Elect they will necessarily believe and if not, then why worry about it.

It may be difficult to see, and obviously you don't. The love for God, the love for the lost, the desire to see God glorified, the joy of proclaiming the Gospel, and the desire to share with others the great joy of delighting in God is enough to give a "real concern" and "personal longing" for others' salvation. If this is somehow insufficient in your view, then I do not know where to go from here.

 

[JLB]

Only a person who has no love for their Lord and no desire to please Him would have no "real personal concern for the lost, because the Elect will be saved, whoever they are..." Do you listen to yourself? My Lord Jesus, who chose to save me in spite of my foul sin, chose to make me a son of God, chose me to know Him and be known by Him, has given me the privilege to carry the treasure of the Gospel to others I love. I would have to be the lowest form of ingrate and a hater of God to have no "real personal concern for the lost." Seriously, do you ever really listen to the implications of what you easily attribute to others. We shouldn't do such to an unbeliever, much less members of Christ's bride. Please do not patronize me suggesting I may be a better person than my theology would lead me to be. My theology is the reason for my love of the Gospel and desire to see it spread to the salvation of many and ultimately to the praise of His glorious grace. You may not see it, but do not be so sure it's not there.

Very inspiring.

When does this love for God and the lost happen in the life of a born again Christian?


I only ask, because some Calvinists believe a person must be
saved first then they have the ability to believe.





JLB

 

[Hospes]

When does this love for God and the lost happen in the life of a born again Christian?

I only ask, because some Calvinists believe a person must be
saved first then they have the ability to believe.

I do not know if there is a chronology for the way I see God causing salvation,belief and faith to spring up in a person born again in Christ. Though I would never solely base my theology on my own experience, I do find God's work in my becoming His son a bit informative.

I was raised in a "church-centered" environment and it was a good environment. On the whole my family attended Bible-honoring churches. From my youngest age I was taught the story of Christ's salvation. I always believed the story. (As a child you believe what your taught by your parents.) The churches had a strong evangelical bent; as a child multiple times I was "led to Christ" via the "sinners prayer" and was assured I was now a Christian. During my whole life I do not remember not believing, but it was the type of belief that means you mentally accent to the truth of propositions. The evening I was born of God, something beyond mental accent happened to me. In an instant I knew I was truly saved. I have no idea if I first had faith or belief or was saved and then beleived. I can discern no chronology in what happened. I do know 45 years ago I rose up from my knees a new creature and free from the crush of my sin-debt.

I may not be sure about a chronology of what happens in the moment God saves a person, but I am convinced all of it is a gift from Him. I truly was not the cause of what happened to me. I am the effect of what God chose to do in me.
"For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen."

Hope my experience gives some insight to my thinking, though I don't think it answers the question of salvific chronology. If you'll note, I don't jump into the debate over that point. Now you know why.

PS - I love the opportunity to tell of what God has done in me. Thanks for giving me the excuse for doing so.

 

[tdidymas]

Faith is a noun. It is what we receive from God when He speaks to us, whether directly as in the examples of Noah, Abraham and others mentioned in Hebrews 11, or indirectly through prophets or apostles whom He sends to preach the Gospel, as in Romans 10:9-17.


Believing, which conveys the principle of obeying is what we do, and is a verb, an action word, the obedience required to activate faith, in which faith is made complete and ”alive”, able to produce the intended divine result.


Faith, without the corresponding “work” or action is incomplete, dead, dormant and unable to function, just as a body without the spirit is dead and incomplete, unable to function.



“Faith alone” can not save, and is an unbiblical principle.




JLB

It doesn't matter that faith is a noun and believe is a verb. If one has faith of the kind that Paul mentions in Rom. 5:1, it is the same thing as the action of believing. Are you suggesting that everywhere the scripture has the term "faith" that it means the same thing as James was talking about in Jam. 2:24?
TD

 

[Pipiripi]

They don't have understand the book of Romans 11:11-36.

 

[jerry63935]

Firstly, thank you for your considered response. I appreciate your chiming in with your perspective.

Secondly, one might perceive your thoughts as attacking a strawman as well. You imply that Arminian thought thinks that Lydia had anything to do with salvation of her own accord; we do not.
You have neglected the fact that Lydia was already "a worshiper of God", already had an open heart to the truth of God. For instance, in Acts 19, Paul found a group who had been baptized by John the Baptist, but had not heard of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, but as soon as they did, they recognized the truth and we're baptized in Jesus' name. Their hearts were all ready open, that's why the truth of Jesus was a natural extension of the truth they had already believed.

I think this is the same kind of scenario in John 10, where he tells the Pharisees that they are not his sheep, while other faithful Jewish people were. Jesus is not saying that they are unelected, he is saying that they had not been truly following the law in their hearts and thus were not loving God, for if they had been, like these other Jewish people who were following Jesus, they too would have recognized the truth he had been teaching. Thus, Jesus said that if they won't believe his words, then at least they ashould believe his works, the miracles he had been performing just as the many of the Jews who were following him had. This leads to another thought...

There is certainly a sense in which "no one understands, no one seeks for God", but this does not mean that is impossible to do so, or that men are totally incapable of understanding the truth when confronted by it. It's not a matter of inability, it is matter of being unwilling as an overt act to accept the truth. (Rom 1:21
2 Pet 3:5 Exodus 32:9 Acts 7:51) It is quite obvious that there are people who are unconverted, yet religious and have a desire for God. They may not have surrendered in full to the truth, but they are actively listening and searching. They know they have a problem and are trying to find the solution. (I say this only in the context of real desire to be righteous; I am not suggesting that we save ourselves in any way. The implications of the hyperbolic "no one understands, no one seeks God" understanding which you appear to be asserting is unsustainable both in scripture and in real time application and experience.

Lastly, if you think that Smelley is in the same boat with atheists and evolutionists, concluding as they do by means of their biased axioms, but Calvinists do not, I suggest that your head has been stuck too deep and for too long in the sand!

Yes, we all have our biases. Part of the reason I started habitating debate forums was to challenge my own thinking to see where the weaknesses are in my thinking. To have my biases exposed and challenged. I am not saying that Smelley, or anyone else doesn't have biases, I only say that I don't find your assertions to that effect credible or successful in refuting his propositions.


Doug

honestly i have no desire to even try to discuss this mess. i have discussed this in carm forum.. its like beating a dead horse. i would suggest you loosen up on your hard core reformed/ calvinist stance. you might find that those out side your circle. knows a few things

 

[jerry63935]

I honestly don't assume to know what you think.

your wasting your time he is taught with reformed theology . its compared to trying convince a J.W there not wrong

 

[Hospes]

honestly i have no desire to even try to discuss this mess. i have discussed this in carm forum.

Ummm....so why are you joining the discussion?

 

[jerry63935]

Ummm....so why are you joining the discussion?

ummm i didn't know i needed your permission ..a thousand pardons

 

[Hospes]

ummm i didn't know i needed your permission ..a thousand pardons

Granted!

 

[JLB]

It doesn't matter that faith is a noun and believe is a verb.

Faith is something we receive from God, when He speaks to us.


Believing and therefore obeying is what we must do with what God speaks to us.



Huge difference.

 

[JLB]

If one has faith of the kind that Paul mentions in Rom. 5:1, it is the same thing as the action of believing.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1


Everyone who hears God has faith.


Only those who do what He says, that is to say, obeys Him, will benefit from what He says.


Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? James 2:21-22


Abraham was justified by the “work”, or action of obedience, when he offered Isaac his son on the altar.


Not when he first received faith, but when he acted in obedience to the word God spoke to him.


This is why Paul calls it the “obedience of faith”, in Romans.

The entire book of Romans is contextually bracketed with this principle. It begins and ends with this very principle.


But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Romans 16:26 KJV

• according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

JLB

 

[JLB]

honestly i have no desire to even try to discuss this mess. i have discussed this in carm forum.. its like beating a dead horse. i would suggest you loosen up on your hard core reformed/ calvinist stance. you might find that those out side your circle. knows a few things

Then please, find another thread to discuss in.



JLB