Follow up post - the reason I ask this is that many of the 'great evangelists' of the 17/1800's were, to my knowledge, Calvinists?? (Spurgeon, Edwards, etc.)
Actually, J4J, TULIP has long been the easy way to remember those points. But it is catchy!
Question, if I may?
How would strict Calvinist teaching deal with Personal Evangelism? If God is sovereign (in their definition) then how can we "choose life" - if we have no influence, how can we 'decide' to repent and follow Jesus??
Ken
The few I know do NOT evangalize for that very reason ,because they think GOD decides not us.
There are extremists on both sides of the Calvinist/Arminian fence. The extreme Calvinist says that God absolutely predestines who is going to be saved or lost; and the extreme Arminian says that a person can make a decision for Christ today and then walk away from Christ tomorrow and be lost.
Both extremes take the ideas on both sides to ridiculous extremes. Like not evangelising people because those who are going to be saved regardless of what we do to try and get them into the kingdom; and the poor Arminian Christian who has to make a fresh decision for Christ every day of his life because he has committed some sin that has made him lost again.
It is interesting that the strict Holiness movements (Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal), tend toward the Arminian side of the fence. Of course, this makes an excellent control strategy to keep the plebs in line. Of course, there are the 'sanctified' ones (usually the ruling body of the church) who impose their standards on the rest, and keep their own shortcomings well hidden. Using the fear of apostacy is an excellent strategy of keeping backsides on seats if the pastor is a boring preacher. Stops them going down the road to another church where the preacher is more interesting and spiritually upbuilding.
Of course, extreme Calvinism breeds complacency in that people think they are automatically protected from losing their salvation no matter how they decide to live. This has caused a set of what we would identify as nominal Christians who roll up to church on Sunday, warm a pew but take no real or meaningful part in the life of the church. Many traditional churches suffer from this.
I think that most healthy Christians are somewhere in the middle between the two, because both sides has strengths as well as weaknesses, and we can learn from both positions and live fruitful Christian lives as a result.
__________________ I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all (ICor14:18), and I love every minute of it.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Oscarr; 11th November 2005 at 05:08 AM.
How would strict Calvinist teaching deal with Personal Evangelism? If God is sovereign (in their definition) then how can we "choose life" - if we have no influence, how can we 'decide' to repent and follow Jesus??
Ken
As a former Calvanist I used to be so excited about evangelism...I thought... imagine there are millions of people out there that are already predestined for salvation and they just don't know it yet, I need to find them and tell them...
I also remember the old preachers saying...preach like an arminian and pray like a calvanist...
...preach like it all depends on man and pray like it all depends on God...
God bless, Mike.
__________________
faith-forums.com
Psa. 3:3 But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.
The problem with Calvinists who are NOT hyper is that they hold to an inconsistent theology. They believe one thing theologically but practice something different entirely. When we see an avowed Calvinist who is passionate for soul winning we often give compliments like "at least he does not let his Calvinism get in the way" but still, this is rather silly. Is God this inconsistent that He would ask us to embrace a theology but practice something that is seemingly opposed to our theology?
Furthermore, Calvinism from a theological viewpoint is still an attack on God's true character. To say that God would save some and damn others by nothing more than an eternal decree which He made even BEFORE the world was ever created is a blight on God's love, justice, and mercy. This teaching claims that God went so far as to even ordain the fall of Adam and Eve for this very purpose. This makes God even worse than the devil by default.
This also makes God the author of sin since Calvinism teaches that nothing happens outside the will of God (though they use a lot of word gymnastics to make the claim that God is not responsible for what He supposedly foreordained man to do).
This eternal decree also puts a blight on the sacrifice of Jesus. It no longer becomes salvation by the blood but rather salvation by an eternal decree.
One other thing I want to point out (as I can point out many things) is that this teaching is that regardless of what some may claim, one's theology REALLY does have an effect on the fervency of what they do. I may believe that God wants me to evangelize and pray for the lost, but if I fail to do that on any given day I can always comfort myself with the belief that my lack of witnessing or intercession had no real effect in the first since if it is the will of God for someone to be saved, they will be. Sometimes, embracing this theology could take away the FERVENCY and desperate desire to intercede for the lost even when we believe that it is the right thing.
Personally, IF I must embrace a particular type of theological system, I would rather embrace one that is consistent with what is practical. I do not want to be inconsistent in what I believe and what I practice and I certainly don't my God portrayed in an inconsistent manner. Calvinism does that.
I am not too crazy with a number of aspects of Arminianism either, but I have more in common with them than I do with Calvinism. However, I see no middle gorund. I think they both should be rejected and we should stick with the BIBLE.
__________________ Let the Scriptures Determine Your Theology, Do Not Read Your Theology into Scripture.
Follow up post - the reason I ask this is that many of the 'great evangelists' of the 17/1800's were, to my knowledge, Calvinists?? (Spurgeon, Edwards, etc.)
Ken
God uses people IN SPITE of (and not because of) themselves. Spurgeon, though an avowed Calvinist, was definitely a passionate soul winner. The funny thing is that both Calvinists and non calvinists alike like to quote Spurgeon in the debates with one another. You can find excerpts in Spurgeon's sermons to support both sides.
To me, this only demonstrates Spurgeon's inconsistency. I happen to love a lot of Spurgeon's teachings but I have also had to reject many things he taught as well due to this inconsistent pattern as a result of having his foot in Calvinism and at the same time refuting the hyper-calvinists.
I don't know that much about Edwards though I have read some things.
But some of the greatest Evangelist in recent years were men such as Charles G. Finney and D. L. Moody. Finney certainly found Calvinism to be offensive and was not afraid to say so. It is significantly inmportant to note that in Finney's revivals, sometimes whole towns and citeies were converted and bars would close for years. They also say that 80 percent of Finney's converts stayed true to the Lord. Moody also seemed opposed to Calvinism.
__________________ Let the Scriptures Determine Your Theology, Do Not Read Your Theology into Scripture.
If you really want to know the truth about the reformed faith, in Semper Reformanda there is a section entitled "Ask a Calvinist". I would suggest taking your questions there.
Many of the ideas that are being put forth as being reformed doctrine are not quite accurate. Come on over and ask us directly, we won't bite. We're not all like that one poster.....
__________________
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures 1 Cor 15:3-4
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yep. You can add that guy's post to the many reasons why I could never embrace Calvinism. The main reason, of course, is that nearly all Calvinist concepts are lacking any real Scriptural support. They do a lot of "prooftexting" and re-interpretting but when their theology is examined in the context of God's full revelation, it definitely comes up short.
But from my internet discussions with a number of the "Reformed" people, the fruit is also lacking. The intellectualism inherent within this theology seems to give its adherents an air of arrogance. And look at that post. This Calvinist is using curse words. So much for "meekness". We should all be thanking him for showing us why we should reject the Calvinist system of theology.
Victoryword--I notice that you don't have many from the Reformed camp responding to these Arminian posts. I notice also that there are two things about the fellow with the foul tongue that make me wonder if he is really a Calvinist, or someone trying to defame Calvinist people. First, being one of the Reformed people, I spend quite a bit of time on threads which specialize in Reformed doctrine and in that time I have never seen anyone using profanity. Also, Reformed people prefer to cite Scripture to back up their statements concerning doctrine and I notice that he didn't use any Scripture. These two differences indicate that perhaps he is someone just trying to entertain the people posting here.
I admit that it is unfair for us to be discussing Calvinist issues on the Word-faith forum where our Reformed brethren are unable to respond in full. I also apologize for having allowed one person to cloud my feelings about the Reformed doctrine. It is the doctrine I am opposed to and not those who embrace it, so my reaction was not a right one.
My apologies to all REformed folks reading this.
__________________ Let the Scriptures Determine Your Theology, Do Not Read Your Theology into Scripture.
1) Calvin did not murder or have anything to do with Michael Servetus' death. Michael Servetus had been declared a heretic due to his denial of the trinity amoung other basic tenets of the Christian faith. He had been banished from the city of Geneva and told not to show his face again on the punishment of death. Calvin, though in disagreement with Servetus, asked Servetus to obey the order for the sake of his life. Servetus came back into the city anyway. The Council of Geneva ordered Servetus burned at the stake. Calvin took no part in this, if anything, he had tried to encourage Servetus to save his own life.
2) to the person that felt TULIP was funny...it was created as a response to the five points of Armianism that preceded it.
3) as stated from another above...not all reformed ppl are like the one who posted in anger and terrible language. I know many charismatics/WoF that speak that way...however, I don't hold it against all charismatics/WoF.
Linear Mode
