Salvation is a Gift....now what?

[Oscar]

You and Verne are the Calvinist "big guns" here.  So I am asking you guys, "How do they arrive at this conclusion?"

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom this is clearly a case of double-speak and logically flawed. Why? They are sacrificning God's omnipotence on the altar of His omniscience. There is no good human explanation for how the two attributes relate in God's sovereign election of the redeemed in my view.
Much of our difficluty comes from our inability ot admit some things are too wonderful for us...
Verne

Verne,

I am not clear as to what you are referring to in your comments.  Do you mean what I said, or what I quoted?

Tom

[M2]

2Peter 3:9  "For God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance".

Some might say the "any" and "all" referred to is just those that Jesus died for in a limited atonement. But can those who he died for in a limited atonement perish?  Are these not the elect, forever predestined to be saved and go to heaven? But it says that God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Does this not argue for the fact that Jesus died for ALL men, and God has no desire that they perish, but wants them to come to repentance?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believes on him should not perish, but have everlasting life".-------

"But ye are not of the world...."(referring to those who have accepted him).  "Therefore the world hateth you..."      Yet--it says "God so loved the world"---does this not argue for an atonement that is not limited? God loves the world and is not willing that any in it persih, but that ALL might come to repentance. Of course, we realize that many will ultimately reject him--but can we legitimately say that the Lord did not die for them, but only for the elect?
I don't believe so--but it's just my opinion.

--Joe

This argument was brought to you by "ALL" laundry detergent. The laundry soap that works for all, not just a few".

Joe, I agree with you.

Going back again to the original post. Re. preaching the gospel.
The model presented was faulty because it presented salvation as a work rather that a gift. correct??
What approach should one take to present the gospel?
Also, to those who hold to the selected-ones-will-get-saved point of view, why even preach the gospel?

Marcia

[Scott McCumber]

 . . . Going back again to the original post. Re. preaching the gospel.
The model presented was faulty because it presented salvation as a work rather that a gift. correct??
What approach should one take to present the gospel?
Also, to those who hold to the selected-ones-will-get-saved point of view, why even preach the gospel?

Marcia

Something practical! That's refreshing.

Verne, H, Tom, Brent, why is it important to understand and discuss a topic like election? I have an answer in mind but I'm curious as to what makes you guys spend so much time on the issue.

Thanks,

S

[editor]

Joe, I agree with you.

Going back again to the original post. Re. preaching the gospel.
The model presented was faulty because it presented salvation as a work rather that a gift. correct??
What approach should one take to present the gospel?
Also, to those who hold to the selected-ones-will-get-saved point of view, why even preach the gospel?

Marcia

A common fallacy is that people who believe in God's sovereignty, and pre-destination don't believe in sharing the gospel.  

Nothing could be further from the truth.  I know plenty of people who are burdened for the lost, who are five pointers.  One of the things that is so great about reformed preachers, is that when they preach the gospel, they don't focus on what the sinner needs to do, they don't try to guilt or scare people into the kingdom, instead, they focus on Christ.

You will never hear a more blessed gospel than when a really great reformed preacher shares it.  
 
There may be plenty to criticize about Calvinists, but saying there is no point in preaching the gospel is similiar to saying that republicans want to poison children, because they don't believe in killing American business with draconian environmental regulations.

5-pointers are our friends!

Brent

[M2]

Joe, I agree with you.

Going back again to the original post. Re. preaching the gospel.
The model presented was faulty because it presented salvation as a work rather that a gift. correct??
What approach should one take to present the gospel?
Also, to those who hold to the selected-ones-will-get-saved point of view, why even preach the gospel?

Marcia

A common fallacy is that people who believe in God's sovereignty, and pre-destination don't believe in sharing the gospel.  

Nothing could be further from the truth.  I know plenty of people who are burdened for the lost, who are five pointers.  One of the things that is so great about reformed preachers, is that when they preach the gospel, they don't focus on what the sinner needs to do, they don't try to guilt or scare people into the kingdom, instead, they focus on Christ.

You will never hear a more blessed gospel than when a really great reformed preacher shares it.  
 
There may be plenty to criticize about Calvinists, but saying there is no point in preaching the gospel is similiar to saying that republicans want to poison children, because they don't believe in killing American business with draconian environmental regulations.

5-pointers are our friends!

Brent

I guess, the fact that they believe that God will do the saving removes the burden from them to 'lead the person to Christ'. That does definitely liberate one from a works-based gospel. Interestingly enough, it was the love of God that brought me to salvation. And it was my co-worker Armand Cossette who preached the gospel to me. I have some reservations re. Ray Comfort's method ie preach the law, people need to be convicted of sin etc.

Marcia

[Scott McCumber]

[quote author=Scott McCumber

Verne, H, Tom, Brent, why is it important to understand and discuss a topic like election? I have an answer in mind but I'm curious as to what makes you guys spend so much time on the issue.

Thanks,

S

Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

[Scott McCumber]

[quote author=Scott McCumber

Verne, H, Tom, Brent, why is it important to understand and discuss a topic like election? I have an answer in mind but I'm curious as to what makes you guys spend so much time on the issue.

Thanks,

S

Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

There are two great dangers...

1. Some use the doctrine of election to justify disobedence to God's command to preach the gospel to every creature.

2. Others fail to recognize the wonder is not that some are lost, but that any are saved!; the result is a compromise of both God's holiness and His soverignty.

Wtihout the doctrine of election, we cannot possibly understand a man like George Geftakys, and God's tolerance of evil in the world.
Without the doctrine of election, we have no basis for a confident proclamation of the gospel message to those we meet:Because of election, we expect God to command the light to shine...!

Without the doctrine of  election, we have no criteria for avoiding falling prey to the "convincing counterfeit"...

Just my two cents Scott...I hope others chime in
Verne

Thank you kindly, sir! That helps.

S

[H]

[quote author=Scott McCumber

Verne, H, Tom, Brent, why is it important to understand and discuss a topic like election? I have an answer in mind but I'm curious as to what makes you guys spend so much time on the issue.

Thanks,

S

Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Scott,
I'm actually not as interested in discussing election as I am interested in discussing the atonement, but when others bring up the subject, I join in. I agree with Verne that it is important, and would perhaps add that unconditional election promotes humility (God didn't choose the elect because of any goodness in them but simply because of His own goodness). It seems to me that conditional election (the idea that God chooses people because He foresees that they will be smart enough or good enough to believe in Christ) would tend to promote pride.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
H

[Scott McCumber]

Verne, H, Tom, Brent, why is it important to understand and discuss a topic like election? I have an answer in mind but I'm curious as to what makes you guys spend so much time on the issue.

Thanks,

S

Just my two cents Scott...I hope others chime in
Verne

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
H

Tom, Brent,

Due to several factors including inflation, late fees and a high demand for bb space, I will now require a full five cents worth of your opinions.

S

[Joe Sperling]

This thread truly interests me, in fact, so much so that I went and spoke with one of the elders about this subject last night. He explained, and of course he is correct, that the 144,000 who will ultimately enter Heaven are classified as "saved". The rest of us "Jonadabs" will live forever on a restored earth after the evil people are annihilated. This is why none of us receive the "emblems" at communion. Only a Heavenly "spirit-born" member of the 144,000 would dare to eat the bread or drink the wine.

We know this because the Golden plates have revealed it all to us. Thanks be to Joseph for deciphering them for all of us. We also learn from them that there is no such thing as pain or suffering. These are deceptions, and not associated with the "Spirit Mind". That's why we do not eat pork and only worship on Saturday.

For more information on the above you can attend a service this Saturday AT:

The Church of Latter Day Christian Scientific Jehovah's Witnesses of the Seventh Day.
1112 W. Lomar St.
Los Angeles, Ca., 90045

Head Coverings required for 1/4 of the service please.

[Oscar]

Joe, I agree with you.

Going back again to the original post. Re. preaching the gospel.
The model presented was faulty because it presented salvation as a work rather that a gift. correct??
What approach should one take to present the gospel?
Also, to those who hold to the selected-ones-will-get-saved point of view, why even preach the gospel?

Marcia

A common fallacy is that people who believe in God's sovereignty, and pre-destination don't believe in sharing the gospel.  

Nothing could be further from the truth.  I know plenty of people who are burdened for the lost, who are five pointers.  One of the things that is so great about reformed preachers, is that when they preach the gospel, they don't focus on what the sinner needs to do, they don't try to guilt or scare people into the kingdom, instead, they focus on Christ.

You will never hear a more blessed gospel than when a really great reformed preacher shares it.  
 
There may be plenty to criticize about Calvinists, but saying there is no point in preaching the gospel is similiar to saying that republicans want to poison children, because they don't believe in killing American business with draconian environmental regulations.

5-pointers are our friends!

Brent

Brent,

You are quite mistaken here.

Back at the beginning of the 19th Century the Church of Scotland split over this very issue.  This was the beginning of the great missionary outreaches by Western Christians.  The Wesleyian movement had revolutionized English Christianity, as the Moravians had influenced the Continent. They had popularized the idea of unlimited atonement and grace for all men.

Many, like Adoniram Judson in the US,  were told that "God didn't care about the heathen, since he had never sent the gospel to them".  In this, they were following the teaching of Calvin.  He says this specifically in his Institutes.  (Please don't ask for the reference, I find digging through Calvin tedious...have mercy!)  I assure you I have read this.

Judson and others had to set up independent mission boards in order to support foreign missions.  That is where they originated!  The churches that were influenced by Calvinism were reluctant to do anything.  Eventually, Judson changed from Presbyterian to Baptist.

In the case of the Church of Scotland, the ones that left became "Seceder Presbyterians", and began foreign mission activity.  Some of them, now that they were questioning Calvinism, moved on from Presbyterian churches and went into other groups.

Two of these guys, Alexander Campbell and his dad Thomas, were the founders of the Church of Christ and Christian Churches here in the USA.

Two others, the Haldane brothers, became influential teachers and leaders in the early Plymouth Bretheren movement.

In early America there were a series of revivals that swept through various areas.  They believed in preaching that Christ died for all men and offered salvation to all men as a result.  Many Calvinist groups were thrown into turmoil by this.  The ones who rejected this type of gospel preaching were referred to as "old light", and the ones who accepted it were called "new light", as in "New Light Presbyterians".

There have always been Calvinists, like Whitfield, who preached the gospel as if Christ died for all men.  As Pascal said, "The heart has reasons the head knows nothing of...".

The reason American Christianity is so , "Arminian", is that they went out and offered the Love of Christ to all men, and many responded.  The Calvinists were content to be "right".

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

That's my .05

[Oscar]

Hi folks,

I just re-read my post, and it brought something to mind.

The reason most Calvinist churches tend to be small is, IMHO, that they tend to give the memebers an cold and exclusive attitude toward people.

After all, if God doesn't love the world, why should I?

Another reason is that Calvinists traditionally believed in Church/State alliances.  The Church taught morals to the magistrates, and they passed laws accordingly.  Early Massachussets is an example of this.

What this had usually produced is one of two things: Either a dead state Church led by "professionals" who are quite educated but not necessarily born again; or liberal churches whose people, in rejecting the "Horrific Decree" of God for emotional reasons, have rejected the book they believed taught it.  They end up with homosexual pastors and marriage being ok.

There are some healthy Calvinists churches of course, usually led by great preachers who preach as if they believed differently.

The truly faithful Calvinist churches tend to be small, as with the OPC.

Most Evangelicals reject Unconditional election and limited atonement in part or wholly.  I believe that this is a key to their evangelistic success in this country, and in others.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux 3.5 pointer

[Kimberley Tobin]

You debaters sometimes bore me................

My 5 cents (for Scott )

Right after we left the assembly, we ended up at a wonderful Calvinist preaching and believing church.  Preaching wonderful grace sermons, an evangelical zeal, a love for one another and the community at large and the unsaved as a whole, welcoming us with open arms and teaching us with great love and care (particularly considering what we had just come out from.)

I was thankful for a Calvinist leaning teaching (based on grace and no merit of myself) as opposed to finding an Arminian style of ministry (of which I have had WAY too much of since I've been saved.)

Without having all the correct doctrine and citing this biblical scholar or that biblical scholar, blah, blah, blah, blah............here is my response............

I am saved, I know I'm saved, I pray for those I love to be saved, it doesn't keep me up nights.......my trust is in God.........being at a church like I mentioned above was more liberating and more profitable than what Tom cites as the "norm".  btw - they had approximately 3-400 in attendance any given Sunday, quite a good showing for a "dead" Calvinist church.

When we begin looking again for a church, I will be looking for the same kind of church.

my 5 cents

[Scott McCumber]

You debaters sometimes bore me................

My 5 cents (for Scott )

Right after we left the assembly, we ended up at a wonderful Calvinist preaching and believing church.  Preaching wonderful grace sermons, an evangelical zeal, a love for one another and the community at large and the unsaved as a whole, welcoming us with open arms and teaching us with great love and care (particularly considering what we had just come out from.)

I was thankful for a Calvinist leaning teaching (based on grace and no merit of myself) as opposed to finding an Arminian style of ministry (of which I have had WAY too much of since I've been saved.)

Without having all the correct doctrine and citing this biblical scholar or that biblical scholar, blah, blah, blah, blah............here is my response............

I am saved, I know I'm saved, I pray for those I love to be saved, it doesn't keep me up nights.......my trust is in God.........being at a church like I mentioned above was more liberating and more profitable than what Tom cites as the "norm".  btw - they had approximately 3-400 in attendance any given Sunday, quite a good showing for a "dead" Calvinist church.

When we begin looking again for a church, I will be looking for the same kind of church.

my 5 cents

I enjoy the debates for the most part. I've learned a lot and more importantly UNlearned a lot.

I do however think the debaters often get so caught up in it they forget their audience and thereby miss a great opportunity to teach and witness.

There are a million bulletin boards where you can find debates about Calvinism and Arminianism. There are only two   boards where former victims and adherents of Geftakysism can go to find answers to their questions and help with their new lives from other former members.

Mark C understands this. Brent tries to keep it focused. Al is pretty good about it.

Verne, Thomas and H are uniquely qualified for the purposes of this board. I just think that sometimes they miss the chance to contribute their best stuff.

But hey, that's just me and my opinion ain't even worth a nickel!

Scott

[Mark C.]

Thanks be to Joseph for deciphering them for all of us. The Church of Latter Day Christian Scientific Jehovah's Witnesses of the Seventh Day.
1112 W. Lomar St.
Los Angeles, Ca., 90045

Head Coverings required for 1/4 of the service please.

   I am indeed thankful to Joseph for his very informative post, but I must strongly disagree with the last sentence quoted as anybody that knows anything knows that head coverings should be worn at any meeting where Angels are present and observing the gathering, as they will immediately fly away if they see the glory of man in the meeting. It is clearly heretical to not follow the full pattern of compliance by wearing the covering for the full term of the meeting.  Of course the women have the option of shaving their heads and thus forgoing the head covering.
  I learned this from my great-great grandaddy, Thomas Campbell, (the same one Tom Maddox mentioned) the great founder of the Campbellite church.  The Campbell's had a Scottish heritage and the true hidden meaning of their name is very instructive.  The name "Campbell" came from the Scottish military where an individual was assigned to ring the Camp Bell, much liike the Buglar in our army.  This explains a lot about us Campbell's as we come from a long line of ding-a-lings!
                               God Bless,  Mark C.