The Value of Evangelism in Reformed Theology

[JLB]

new to the conversation but the problem with getting rid of free moral agency and replacing it with predestination is that it also gets rid of our personal responsibility.

Exactly.

God enables us to do what is right in His eyes, but it is up to us to work together with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of grace to obey Him.


Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Romans 8:12-13

• but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

JLB

 

[JLB]

The fix is in, and all else is just details.

Yes, at the end of the day, most Calvinist come to the conclusion that a person is saved first, then they have the ability to believe.



JLB

 

[stovebolts]

You have in my opinion a very clear understanding of the Word Stovebolts. That is quite rare i these days. Even in Christian communities.
But God gets the glory for that.

I heard a man of God say: Repentance is really a change of mind.

I remember one thing Jesus said: "My people are destroyed due to the lack of knowledge" (of God's Word)

One of the most amazing scriptures in the Bible is this: John 8: 31

God bless!

Thank you. We all have our areas. In my Christian faith, I was told what not to do, but never taught what to do. If you clean a house and leave it empty, worse riff raff will eventually move in. That void must be filled.

Repentance, what do you think it is?

We like to use big fancy words in church, but do we really understand what they mean? In your own words, what does Repentance mean? How is it lived out? Do you know of a biblical example of what repentance looks like?

christianforums.net

 

[Moseme]

Confessing Jesus as Lord is our confession of faith that initiates salvation. It is the obedience of faith required of salvation.



For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:10

• with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

JLB

One thing that I want to point out is back then confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord was very often a death sentence back then and so there was not a lot of vain confessing. The trust needed to completely upset your life like that is astounding.

 

[TibiasDad]

Does the non-Calvinist believe that a large percentage will be saved? If so, based on what? Seems Jesus indicated few would enter when He said "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matthew 7:14)

No, but non-Cs have the legitimate perspective that everyone has the real potential to be saved, whereas the Calvinist knows that the large majority of the people they talk to about Christ are completely incapable of being saved, because they are not Elect.

I see no logical link between "Since God's redemptive plan excludes most people..." and the rest of the sentence. How does the number of people potentially being saved have any bearing on whether we share the Gospel? Maybe someone can explain the connection?

The question is not the number of people, Hospes. The question is the integrity of the message in the mind of the presenter. You cannot truthfully say "God loves you" to any particular person, because you know that the large majority of people are not Elect.


Doug

 

[Hospes]

Could it be that regeneration, belief, repentance, and obedience to the Gospel be simultaneous events?

I believe regeneration is the result of believing and therefore obeying the Gospel.


JLB

I assume I am to take this answer as a long way of saying "No"? And if the answer is no, will you direct me to scripture that clearly shows that there is a sequence?

 

[Fastfredy0]

Why Semi-pelagianism contradicts the Attributes of the God of the Bible

God's Freedom
1. God’s freedom is that attribute of God whereby he does whatever he pleases. This definition implies that nothing in all creation can hinder God from doing his will. Suppose God’s love were regulated by anything else than His will: in such a case He would love by rule, and loving by rule He would be under a law of love, and then so far from being free, God would Himself be ruled by law
2. God ought to be allowed the free disposal of his own goodness. Is not God the Lord of his own gifts; and will you not allow him the privilege of having some more peculiar objects of his love and pleasure

God's Glory
Can God be pleased/glorified with anything which does not have its origin in Himself? If “free will” be an actuality, then God is not glorified by the salvation of individuals that He foreknew for He had no purpose for that individual’s decision. Ephesians 1:11, Isaiah 42:8b My glory I will not give to another

God's Goodness
Luke 18:19 Jesus asked him. “No one is good except God alone. -goodness" in other things can only be derived; thus faith which is a goodness must come from God; because a creature being made of nothing, cannot be good, or essentially good, but by participation from another.

God's Grace
1. Arminianism denies that salvation is by grace alone with its synergistic teaching concerning the sovereignty of the human will; that God’s will is not free in this matter..
2. Grace is sovereign, because God exercises it toward and bestows it upon whom He pleases: “Even so might grace reign“ (Romans 5:21). If grace “reigns” then it is on the throne, and the occupant of the throne is sovereign. Hence “the throne of grace” (Hebrews 4:16).

God's Knowledge
1. In regards to God’s knowledge not arising from His decrees at all, but rather from his knowledge of the nature of the man and that he knows that he will act in a particular way (semi-pelagianism) … if it be so, then God has left the world entirely to itself, without influence from him. Many things have come to pass, not because of his will and action, but because he has left the general laws, under which he has placed the world, to work out their results without action or influence on His part; this idea makes a God that lacks purpose (Deism) and a power that God did not create (Dualism).
4. Were it in anywise possible for something to occur apart from either the direct agency (or permission?) of God, then that something would be independent of Him, and He would at once cease to be Supreme in all things.
5. Since knowledge is a perfection, if God's knowledge of the creatures depended upon the creatures, he would derive an excellency from them, they would derive no excellency from any idea in the Divine mind; he would not be infinitely perfect in himself; if his perfection in knowledge were gained from anything without himself and below himself, he would not be sufficient of himself, but be under an indigence, which wanted a supply from the things he had made, and could not be eternally perfect till he had created and seen the effects of his own power, goodness, and wisdom, to render him more wise and knowing in time than he was from eternity.
6. The knowledge of God cannot arise from the things themselves, for then the knowledge of God would have a cause without him; and knowledge, which is an eminent perfection, would be conferred upon him by his creatures. “for known unto God are all his works, from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18).
7. By understanding his essence, he eminently understands all things. And therefore he hath not one knowledge of himself, and another knowledge of the creatures; but by knowing himself as the original and exemplary cause of all things, he cannot be ignorant of any creature which he is the cause of; so that he knows all things, not by an understanding of them, but by an understanding of himself
8. Job 21:22 “Can anyone teach God knowledge, Seeing that He judges those on high?
9. Isaiah 40:13 Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, Or has taught Him as His counselor? 14 With whom did He consult and who enlightened Him? Who taught Him the path of justice and taught Him knowledge And informed Him of the way of understanding?

God's Immutability
1. God cannot be eternally what he was; that is, he cannot have a true eternity, if he had a new knowledge, a new purpose, a new essence which semi-pelagianism contends come from man in regards to an individual's salvation
2. Foreknowledge implies immutability, and immutability implies decree (a plan). From eternity God foresaw all the events of the universe as fixed and certain. This fixity and certainty could not have had its ground either in blind fate or in the variable wills of men, since neither of these had an existence.
3. Arminians affirm no decree of Almighty God concerning men is so unalterable but that all those who are now in rest or misery might have had contrary lots; -- that those which are damned, as Pharaoh, Judas, etc., might have been saved; and those which are saved as Peter, John, might have been damned: which must needs reflect with a strong charge of no immutability on Almighty God, who knoweth who are his. "Known unto God, are all his works from the beginning," Acts 15:18

God's Independence/Impassibility
1. Impassibility means that “no created being can inflict pain, suffering, change or distress on Him at their own will.” God is independent of His creatures and His Creation. If an individual can contribute to his salvation by a will not controlled by God then God is dependent on His creature to determine whether or not he will be part of the body of Christ and an adopted son by God. Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand? 8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign]”


God's Mercy
One of the greatest misconceptions about biblical truth is the idea that God is somehow obligated to be equally merciful to everyone. If He were obligated to be merciful, then it would be justice, not mercy; it would be what He must do if He is righteous. The whole point of mercy is that it is free and voluntary. God is so loving that He gives mercy far beyond anything we could ever hope or imagine. R.C. Sproul Truths We Confess Romans 11:32 “God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.”

God's Omnipotence
1. Arminianism denies the absolute power and effectualness of Christ's death on the cross by teaching that “Christ died for all” it teaches that His death, in and of itself, actually saves no one; that His death was in vain for many.
2. Omnipotence means that God can do all things consistent with His nature and purpose. “Free will” implies God limited himself to unpredictable free acts of man. Thus, either God is not omnipotent or He has no purpose in matter pertaining to the salvation of individuals. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence.
3. Acts 17:28a For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being], Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. We are completely dependent upon God’s power to continue to exist both physically and spiritually.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Why semi-pelagianism contradicts the Attributes of the God of the Bible (Part 2)

God's Partiality
Romans 2:11 "God does not show favoritism" God is independent of His creation and therefore they have no effect upon Him. He alone predetermines the destiny of all people and things thus His judgement is according to His design and not according to specious “free will” argumentation. Partiality should be looked at from God’s point of view.

God's Perfection
1. How can God know the future if it is determined by the “will” of man? Does an all knowing God learn by looking into the future as has been suggested by Arminians who support the idea of events being determined by “will” of man? In other words, the concept of man’s “free will” is also opposed to his perfection, for that perfection forbids the idea of increase or addition from without; yet, according to the “free will” view, his knowledge increased by the decisions of his creatures.
2. Nothing that includes any imperfection is to be assigned to Almighty God: he is God all-sufficient; his work is perfect. But a supposed natural affection/love in God to the good and salvation of the unelect, being never completed, carries along with it a great deal of imperfection; it must also need be exceedingly prejudicial to the absolute blessedness and happiness of Almighty God.
3. “Beauty (perfection)“ means that God has everything desirable. It is not possible to have that which would be most desired if it is not determined by God. Example: How could it be most desired if the people that make up the “bride of Christ” is derived by the “free will” of men.

God's Sovereignty
1. God’s liberty of action (sovereignty) would be limited by the assumed powers and prerogatives of man’s “free will”. Does it not seem to represent the blessed God, as a Being of vast understanding, as well as power, and efficiency, but still to leave him without a Will to choose among all the objects within his view? In short, it seems to make the blessed God a sort of Almighty Minister of Fate, under its universal and supreme influence; as it was the professed sentiment of some of the ancients, that Fate was above the gods.
2. Election applies to God’s sovereign purpose for individuals and nations. The alternative—that human volition is equal to or is, in some meaningful sense, greater than the divine will … that when God created human beings with volitional freedom He accordingly divested Himself of absolute sovereignty.
3. Arminianism denies the sovereignty of God in salvation. If God's will is steadily and surely determined in everything by supreme wisdom, then it is in everything necessarily determined to that which is most wise. And, certainly, it would be a disadvantage and indignity, to be otherwise. For if the Divine Will was not necessarily determined to what in every case is wisest and best, it must be subject to some degree of undesigning contingence; and so in the same degree liable to evil. To suppose the Divine Will liable to be carried hither and thither at random, by the uncertain wind of blind contingence, which is guided by no wisdom, no motive, no intelligent dictate whatsoever, (if any such thing were possible,) would certainly argue a great degree of imperfection and meanness, infinitely unworthy of the Deity. If it be a disadvantage, for the Divine Will to be attended with this moral Necessity, then the more free from it, and the more left at random, the greater dignity and advantage. And, consequently, to be perfectly free from the direction of understanding, and universally and entirely left to senseless unmeaning continence, to act absolutely at random, would be the supreme glory!
4. God’s love must he traced back to His sovereignty or, otherwise, He would love by rule; and if He loved by rule, then is He under a law of love, and if He is under a law of love then is He not supreme, but is Himself ruled by law.
5. His sovereignty is manifest in disposing the means of grace to some, not to all. Why was the gospel published in Rome so soon, and not in Tartary? Why hath it been extinguished in some places, as soon almost as it had been kindled in them? Why hath one place been honored with the beams of it in one age, and been covered with darkness the next? One country hath been made a sphere for this star, that directs to Christ, to move in; and afterwards it hath been taken away, and placed in another; sometimes more clearly it hath shone, sometimes more darkly, in the same place; what is the reason of this? It is true something of it may be referred to the justice of God, but much more to the sovereignty of God. That the gospel is published later, and not sooner, the apostle tell us is "according to the commandment of the everlasting God" (Romans 16:26).
6. The time of every man's death is decided by a sovereign Providence. But by determining this sovereignly, God very often practically decides the man's eternal destiny. Much more obvious is this in the case of infants. According to Arminians, all that die in infancy are saved. So, then, God's purpose to end their mortal life in infancy is His purpose to save them. But this purpose cannot be formed from any foresight of their faith or repentance, because they have none to foresee, being saved without them. Dabney, Robert L.. Systematic Theology. Kindle Edition.
7. That any purposes of God should depend on the acts of a creature having an indeterminate, contingent will, such as the Arminian describes, is incompatible with God’s immutability and eternity. But all His decrees are such. In a word, this doctrine places the sovereignty in the creature, instead of God, and makes Him wait on His own servant. It is disparaging to God.
9. If God be not sovereign in regards to salvation then believers would have no sufficient warrant to pray to God for salvation.
10. If God be not sovereign then we should degrade God's almighty work of grace, into an equal contention between Him and His doomed rebel slave, Satan, in which the latter succeeds at least as often as God!

God's Wisdom
1. That his Wisdom, which determines his Will, is supreme, perfect, underived, self-sufficient, and independent; so that it may be said, as in Isaiah 40:14 "With whom took he counsel? And who instructed him and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?" . It is the glory and greatness of the Divine Sovereign, that his Will is determined by his own infinite, all-sufficient wisdom in everything; and is in nothing at all directed either by inferior wisdom, or by no wisdom; whereby it would become senseless arbitrariness, determining and acting without reason, design, or end.
2. It is part of wisdom to proceed in every undertaking according to a plan. The greater the undertaking, the more needful a plan. Wisdom, moreover, shows itself in a careful provision for all possible circumstances and emergencies that can arise in the execution of its plan. It belongs to infinite wisdom, therefore, not only to have a plan, but to embrace all, even the minutest details, in the plan of the universe. Given that God has a plan (Acts 15:18; Psalm 33:11), which is all-inclusive (Ephesians 1:11) and because of God’s nature the plan must be the “best plan” … how is it possible to have the “best plan” when it is dependent upon the will of men who by nature are sinful. Why would an all knowing, perfect, rational God leave any part of His plan to evil, irrational beings?
3. Omnisapience (God is all wise) … how can the supposed “free will” of man with all it ancillary consequences be of superior wisdom to the decisions of God?

 

[Hospes]

No, but non-Cs have the legitimate perspective that everyone has the real potential to be saved, whereas the Calvinist knows that the large majority of the people they talk to about Christ are completely incapable of being saved, because they are not Elect.


The question is not the number of people, Hospes. The question is the integrity of the message in the mind of the presenter. You cannot truthfully say "God loves you" to any particular person, because you know that the large majority of people are not Elect.


Doug

So you know a large majority of the people to whom you present the Gospel will be saved? What is the advantage of knowing everyone has the real potential to be saved all the while knowing that a large majority won't accept your message?

Is it essential to the "integrity of the message" that we say to individuals "God loves you and desires to save you?" (BTW, even Calvinists such as myself have no theological problem acknowledging the loving-kindness of God shed on even those who are his enemies and reject His salvation.) If so, maybe you can direct me to the part where the message of "God loves you and desires to save you?" is included in:

• Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:14-40) or
• when he spoke to the people at Soloman's Portico (Acts 3:12-26) or
• when he addressed the Temple Council (Acts 4:8-12) or
• when he speaks to the council again (Acts 5:27-33) or
• in Stephen's speech (Acts 7:1-53) or
• in Phillip's discussion with the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-39) or
• when Jesus saves Paul (Acts 9:3-19) or
• when Peter addresses the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:34-48) or
• in Paul's message to those in Antioch (Acts13:13-52) or
• in Paul and Barnabas' words in Lystra (Acts 14:15-17) or
• in the message to the Phillipian jailer (Acts16:29-32) or
• Paul and Silas' preaching to the Thessalonicans (Acts 17:1-4) or
• when Paul spoke in Athens (Acts 17:22-31) or
• when Paul speaks to the people in Jerusalem (Acts 22:1-21) or
• Paul's message to Felix (Acts 24:25) or
• Paul speaking to Agrippa (Acts 26:1-29) or
• in Paul's message in Rome (Acts 28:23-28).

It seems in these passages there is a proclamation of salvation for any who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. It also seems to me that "God loves you and desires to save you?" is not found in any presentation in Acts, at least not without reading into the text what is not explicitly there. In fact, what is clearly presented in many of the presentations is a call to repentance and a warning of judgment. Wonder what that says about the God-loves-you-and-has-a-wonderful-plan-for-your-life message?

Even Jesus' message was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand", not "God loves you and desires to save you."

 

[JLB]

I assume I am to take this answer as a long way of saying "No"? And if the answer is no, will you direct me to scripture that clearly shows that there is a sequence?

I tried to give you an honest answer, to a statement that has some non biblical ideas mixed with biblical.


“Simultaneous” would tend to be speculation, as we don’t know exactly the moment of spiritual conception.




JLB

 

[Hospes]

Searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack has no place in Calvinistic soteriology. There is no NEED to search for the needle because the person God determines to save will be saved whether or not he is found in the "haystack".

1. The desire to obey my Lord's commands in presenting the Gospel.
2. The joy of having my Lord use me as His means to accomplish His will in the world.
3. My love for those that are without Christ.
4. My joy in seeing a person given joyous new life in Christ.
5. To have the pleasure of seeing God's glorious grace on display in the salvation of another person.

Tell me how this is inadequate for being motivated to spread the Gospel? Which of these are in conflict with my Calvinistic soteriology?

The accusation that Calvinists have no theological framework for being motivated to spread the Gospel I find baseless.

 

[tdidymas]

Then it is the intentions of the one asking that is stupid. The person.. not necessarily the question he asked..
Or?....

As Forrest Gump says "stupid is as stupid does." And Prov. 12:1 "...he who hates reproof is stupid."

So, yes.
TD

 

[TibiasDad]

So you know a large majority of the people to whom you present the Gospel will be saved?

Did I say that?

If so, maybe you can direct me to the part where the message of "God loves you and desires to save you?" is included in:

• Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:14-40) or
• when he spoke to the people at Soloman's Portico (Acts 3:12-26) or
• when he addressed the Temple Council (Acts 4:8-12) or
• when he speaks to the council again (Acts 5:27-33) or
• in Stephen's speech (Acts 7:1-53) or
• in Phillip's discussion with the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-39) or
• when Jesus saves Paul (Acts 9:3-19) or
• when Peter addresses the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:34-48) or
• in Paul's message to those in Antioch (Acts13:13-52) or
• in Paul and Barnabas' words in Lystra (Acts 14:15-17) or
• in the message to the Phillipian jailer (Acts16:29-32) or
• Paul and Silas' preaching to the Thessalonicans (Acts 17:1-4) or
• when Paul spoke in Athens (Acts 17:22-31) or
• when Paul speaks to the people in Jerusalem (Acts 22:1-21) or
• Paul's message to Felix (Acts 24:25) or
• Paul speaking to Agrippa (Acts 26:1-29) or
• in Paul's message in Rome (Acts 28:23-28).

What kind of an idiot do you think I am? Both Paul and John say that it was the love of God that sent the Son for our salvation. There is no Gospel sans the love of God. God is love, and cannot but act in love. Even the act of condemnation of sinners is an act of love toward his Son and his children in vindicating their sacrifices of their life for the gospel.

Are you so foolish as to think that because there is no specific mention of God's love by the Acts sermon accounts that it isn't a part of the message. Is not John's writing, his preaching of the Gospel, just as valid as a preachable gospel? Is John 3:16 not a valid text to preach the gospel because Acts never cites the love of God as a part of the early sermonizing of the apostles?

Rom 5:8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

John 3:16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

1John 4:9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Perhaps even Jesus's words are now stricken from the gospel message,

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Doug

 

[JLB]

1. The desire to obey my Lord's commands in presenting the Gospel.
2. The joy of having my Lord use me as His means to accomplish His will in the world.
3. My love for those that are without Christ.
4. My joy in seeing a person given joyous new life in Christ.
5. To have the pleasure of seeing God's glorious grace on display in the salvation of another person.

Tell me how this is inadequate for being motivated to spread the Gospel? Which of these are in conflict with my Calvinistic soteriology?

The accusation that Calvinists have no theological framework for being motivated to spread the Gospel I find baseless.

How do you personally determine who needs to hear the gospel?



JLB

 

[Hospes]

TD, that's quite a barage of questions and statements! Let me try to address them one at a time. (Please let me know if I miss any of your points.)

What kind of an idiot do you think I am?

I do not think you are an idiot. I am wondering if you are so committed to your doctrine that you are unwilling to examine another person's viewpoint and honestly ask yourself if its exegesis is sound and reasonable. I am willing to state that the way you see John 3:16 is reasonable given your exegesis of other scriptures. I am doubting if you are capable of returning the favor, given a seeming unwillingness to see any other perspective but the one you currently have. Glad you asked the question.

There is no Gospel sans the love of God.

Agreed.

God is love, and cannot but act in love. Even the act of condemnation of sinners is an act of love toward his Son and his children in vindicating their sacrifices of their life for the gospel.

We are discussing the nature of the love of God toward those not regenerated. God is love, but love is not God. God is the very wellspring of love and without Him there is no love. But He is also the wellspring of justice, mercy, peace, etc. I see no way of wrapping my head around God in His justice sending John Doe to hell for eternity and maintaining that God's act is done in love toward John Doe. Looks like divine righteous wrath to me.

I define vidication as clearing someone of an accusation or blame. Given this, I'm having a hard time understanding how John Doe going to hell vindicates Jesus and Christians' sacrifices. What is the accusation against their sacrifices? Maybe you mean something else by vindication?

Are you so foolish as to think that because there is no specific mention of God's love by the Acts sermon accounts that it isn't a part of the message.

If being a wise means I must assume things are in Biblical passages, then I will accept the charge of being a fool.

Is not John's writing, his preaching of the Gospel, just as valid as a preachable gospel? Is John 3:16 not a valid text to preach the gospel because Acts never cites the love of God as a part of the early sermonizing of the apostles?

John 3:16 is an excellent verse for preaching the Gospel. It's just that you and I see the verse differently. I figure you understand it as a message of God's love and desire that every individual be saved AND no other desire He has is higher than His desire that every individual be saved. (Let me know if I misunderstand your position.)

Is John 3:16 not a valid text to preach the gospel because Acts never cites the love of God as a part of the early sermonizing of the apostles?

Under no circumstances do I want to invalidate John 3:16.

Rom 5:8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

I totally believe this passage to be true. Who is Paul's audience, believer or non-believers?

1John 4:9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

I totally believe this passage to be true. Who is Paul's audience, believer or non-believers? If it includes non-beleivers, then wouldn't it be stating that everyone's sin has been atoned for by Christ's sacrifice, i.e. everyone goes to heaven?

Perhaps even Jesus's words are now stricken from the gospel message,

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

I completely agree and love this passage, I just don't see every individual as Jesus' friend and Jesus sending His friends to Hell if they reject His salvation. Again, who was His audience?

 

[Hospes]

How do you personally determine who needs to hear the gospel?



JLB

I don't. I am not called to share the Gospel with only the elect, but rather everyone. Especially since I do not know who the elect are.

 

[Hospes]

new to the conversation but the problem with getting rid of free moral agency and replacing it with predestination is that it also gets rid of our personal responsibility.

Say God has predestined me to be a sinner and I sin by rounding up as many eastern European Jews and shoving them into camps and slaughtering them like animals. And say I never repent because that is just what I was predestined to do. How could I then be held responsible for anything that God predestined for me to do before I was ever born. How could any judgment against me be moral when I had no choice?

If you believe we are all born with the natural desire to sin, couldn't it be that in essence we are all predestined to be sinners? Let's say you, loving the darkness and hating the light, rounded up as many eastern European Jews and shoved them into camps and slaughtered them like animals. Would you be personally responsible for your actions or is God at fault for allowing you to be born with a natural desire to sin?

 

[Hospes]

I tried to give you an honest answer, to a statement that has some non biblical ideas mixed with biblical.

“Simultaneous” would tend to be speculation, as we don’t know exactly the moment of spiritual conception.

I do not doubt you are being honest.

I guess my root question is where in scripture are we directed to see the various aspects, the ones we agree happen as part of being born-again, being simultaneous or sequential? If we can find no definitive guidance, then it is best we not assume one or the other, but rather be willing to explore the possibility of either.

 

[JLB]

I don't. I am not called to share the Gospel with only the elect, but rather everyone. Especially since I do not know who the elect are.

Ok.

 

[JLB]

I guess my root question is where in scripture are we directed to see the various aspects, the ones we agree happen as part of being born-again, being simultaneous or sequential? If we can find no definitive guidance, then it is best we not assume one or the other, but rather be willing to explore the possibility of either.

I don't see any direction in scripture to see the various aspects of being born-again, being simultaneous or sequential.

I just read the scripture, and quote what it says.


So where does this leave you as a Calvinist in the question regarding salvation?


Does believing result in salvation or does salvation result in believing?


Many of the Calvinist’s that I have had discussions with, say that salvation comes first, then the ability to believe.




JLB