Evangelize to me

[bottomofsandal]

Calvinism is the new Catholicism.

It was a humdrum day til I read this fatuous comment!

Clearly you lack understanding of Reformed teaching,

and now have included RCC brethren in your disdain.

 

[Marvin Knox]

[Staff edit]

You know non-Calvinists believe in the sovereignity of the Lord as much or more than Calvinists. They try to say they are the only ones who think God is sovereign, but that's not true. They like to think it though

Apparently thought they are the only ones who know and acknowledge the concurrent involvement of God and men in all of the actions of men.

Since they acknowledge that fact and also acknowledge the fact that men have their being in God and that He upholds everything by His Word and not the other way around ---- they seem to be the only ones who understand sovereignty in the correct Biblical sense.

We know the attributes of God enough to know that He is just and righteous.

We all do.

Reformed theologians know them so much that they don't feel the need to defend His honor by not teaching doctrines that seem to many to violate those attributes.

We (most of us) just tell it like it is whether it seems to make God less honorable than He is or not.

For what it's worth and example might be that it's a case of just believing God concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and acting like we believe it. It's a matter of not having to have answers to questions like:

"How could a good God who tempts no one orchestrate a situation where a temptation is placed before man and a powerful tempter is allowed to ply his trade in their midst."

"Surely a good God who loves us wouldn't put before us something that would kill us - now would he?"

"Surely I have the right to understand what death is before I refuse something that I'm told will bring it to me - don't I?"

I could roll on for some time I suppose. But the point is that we are to believe what God says and act like it (teach it) before we understand it fully and not refuse to so act and believe until it is explained to us.

It's no surprise to me that anti-Reformed believers lack understanding of certain "advanced" doctrines when they refuse to acknowledge the basic doctrines like the orchestrating sovereignty of God in all that happens in His creation.

Well - I'll leave this post with that.

I can't speak for every Reformed believer who may be listening in. But I will speak for myself.

The OP asked what Reformed people (like those who opened the world for evangelism in the 19th century) included and excluded in their evangelistic message to the world.

When it was found that that message did not include advanced doctrines like election and predestination -----

(or the rapture of the church, or the physical destruction of human life pictured in Is. 63, or the Millennial Kingdom, or the judgment of angels by men, or teachings about healing in the gospel provisions, or the relationship of men and women teaching in the church, or God killing billions of men women and children in the flood, or God sending bears to devour people who make fun of prophets, or God killing people on the floor of the church who lie about their financial situation, or any one of a hundred other intramural discussions which mature Christians discuss from the Word of God)

those doctrines were dragged into the discussion of the gospel preached by Reformed anyway.

We were told in no uncertain terms by the OP that we must include them in our presentation of the gospel or else we were being dishonest.

Then (based on what we did not include in the gospel to the world) we have been bashed as per what has become the tradition here in this section of the forum.

[Staff edit]

 

[ToBeLoved]

Apparently thought they are the only ones who know and acknowledge the concurrent involvement of God and men in all of the actions of men.

Since they acknowledge that fact and also acknowledge the fact that men have their being in God and that He upholds everything by His Word and not the other way around ---- they seem to be the only ones who understand sovereignty in the correct Biblical sense.

Just because some people do not believe that God is in all the actions of man, does not mean that we do not think that God upholds everything and by His Word.

That's what I mean, they act like their belief is superior. You've proven it, right here.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It's not a "catch 22." As I pointed out the receiving is their doing. It's not God's as you're indicating./QUOTE]

I've never indicated any such thing.

You believe that the natural man (the world - the strain of mankind to which we were all born) will not receive the things of God.

You believe that because he will not receive the things of God - he cannot understand the things of God.

Whether you put it in that order or the reverse order as many Calvinists do - the result is still the same.

Mankind in it's natural state will not and cannot receive and understand the things of God. That is because, as we are told, the things of God are spiritually discerned.

And (Nicodemus - anyone?) -------- men are spiritually dead.

What Reformed believers teach is that what is necessary is a new creation. It must be a creation born not of the will of men but of the will of God. Why? Because the natural man will not and cannot make it happen.

The Reformed have said as much and looked to the scriptures which give us the answer to how God rectified the dilemma.

The answer is that He extended special grace to some while passing others by and allowing them to go their natural way.

Non-Reformed don't understand or like that idea and rail against it.

Reformed don't understand everything about it either . But they praise God every day for His grace toward them.

One more time - Don't accuse me of saying things that I did not say. The fault of sins (of which nonacceptance of the things of God is one) is to be laid at the feet of man and not at the feet of God.

Neither I nor the Westminster Confession of Faith could say it more clearly.

"yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin"

With that admonition behind me - I will tell you again to stick to the question before us from the OP. If you expect me to answer questions and challenges from you - please critique what Reformed people include in the gospel message to the world when evangelizing and do not critique what is not included (such as predestination and election).

 

[Marvin Knox]

Just because some people do not believe that God is in all the actions of man, does not mean that we do not think that God upholds everything and by His Word. That's what I mean, they act like their belief is superior. You've proven it, right here.

We have examples from the scriptures of the words and actions of bad men, good men, donkeys, angels, Heaven, Hell, light, water, vegetation, the sun moon and stars, and the physical earth showing that their activities are concurrent with the Word of God.

The omnipresent Word of God that is accomplish "everything" that God intends Him to accomplish. If you think anything is happening in creation other than what He says will happen - you are mistaken. You are imagining a totally different paradigm than the one presented to us in the scriptures.

The idea of men making their own choices in such a paradigm as the Word of God presents is difficult to understand. Men and angel make choices for which they will be held responsible at the same time they are accomplishing exactly what God is commanding to be accomplished in history.

It's a difficult picture to rectify for sure. But the most simple answer to the paradox is the easiest to those of us who trust God that it will all make sense when we see through the glass more clearly. That answer is very simply that He is God and we are not.

That fact grates on the mind of Lucifer and on the mind of many people in this world. That includes (apparently) Christians as well .

[Staff edit]

But of course these consideration have nothing to do with the message preached to the world by Reformed evangelists. That is the subject of the OP.

 

[EmSw]

It was a humdrum day til I read this fatuous comment!

Clearly you lack understanding of Reformed teaching,

and now have included RCC brethren in your disdain.

You clearly lack any knowledge of Augustine.

 

[ToBeLoved]

[Staff edit]
Why don't you just explain Adam & Eve then we can move onto Genesis and Exodus.

 

[EmSw]

[Staff edit] I have heard many questions, even strange ones, when evangelizing to others. If you are not prepared to answer them, then may I suggest, to prepare yourself better before undertaking the endeavor.

If I were an unsaved person, and heard the responses I got from the Reformed on this thread, I definitely would not want anything they offered. [Staff edit].

 

[Marvin Knox]

Well then you must think that God predestined Adam & Eve to disobey in the Garden of Eden? And bring sin upon all of mankind so God could show His mercy to 'some' and send the rest to hell. That great Calvinistic doctrine? That the Bible so clearly teaches?

Not a Calvinistic doctrine at all - just the inescapable conclusion of logic combined with the teaching of the scriptures.
QUOTE="ToBeLoved, post: 70312099, member: 345030"] But then contridicts itself by saying that Jesus wants all to come to Him? Jesus died so ALL might be saved? That great Calvinistic doctrine that is so clear throughout scripture. [/QUOTE]
There is no contradiction there at all merely an acknowledgment of the fact that the Bible teaches us about a perfect and permissive will of God. That is doctrine accepted and taught by Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.
QUOTE="ToBeLoved, post: 70312099, member: 345030"]Why don't you just explain Adam & Eve then we can move onto Genesis and Exodus.[/QUOTE]
I'd be glad to (even though it isn't the subject of the thread).

Trouble is that I don't really understand the request.

Adam and Eve are in Genesis.

Regardless of what you are requesting of me - I gave a myriad of examples of concurrency from the scriptures to show that the creation is not entirely independent of God in any aspect what so ever.

You challenged the concept and I provided proof from the scriptures ranging from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation.

You were asking for insights into what I, as a Reformed person, believe and why. I have attempted to give them as clearly and politely as I am able to.

[Staff edit]

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'd be glad to (even though it isn't the subject of the thread).

Trouble is that I don't really understand the request.

Adam and Eve are in Genesis.

Regardless of what you are requesting of me - I gave a myriad of examples of concurrency from the scriptures to show that the creation is not entirely independent of God in any aspect what so ever.

You challenged the concept and I provided proof from the scriptures ranging from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation.

You were asking for insights into what I, as a Reformed person, believe and why. I have attempted to give them as clearly and politely as I am able to. [/QUOTE]

[Staff edit]

You said that Reformed doctrine is better. So if God predestined everyone and everything, then explain why God predestined Adam & Eve to disobedience resulting in sin coming to all of the world?

How is God the author and predestinator of sin if God is holy?

Then the Reformed person has to subdivide the will of God. Into permissive will. Is permissive will in the Bible?

 

[EmSw]

Then the Reformed person has to subdivide the will of God. Into permissive will. Is permissive will in the Bible?

There is no mention of permissive will in the Bible. The Reformed have to divide His will in order to make the Bible fit their doctrine.

Since 'God is not willing that any perish' puts a death knell in their doctrine, they must find a way around this precious truth. So, they divide God's will. And instead of accepting God's truth, they will fight for their truth.

 

[Marvin Knox]

......if God predestined everyone and everything, then explain why God predestined Adam & Eve to disobedience resulting in sin coming to all of the world? How is God the author and predestinator of sin if God is holy?

Good questions.

Of course your beliefs should not rest on my ability to tell you exactly why God does anything that He does. It should only rest on whether God says or at least teaches in various ways that he does do those things.

To start with - your basic assumption concerning what I and other Reformed Christians believe about sin as related to God is wrong.

We have said time and time again from the 1500's until now that we reject the idea that God is the author or sin - and have said instead that sin proceeds only from the creation and not from God.

And yet - here you go again ignoring what you have been told and what has been written and just stating what you want Reformed believers to believe as if it were fact.

I have explained many times the relationship between predestination and the choices made by men. I can explain it once again. But I likely will not - at least in detail. Reason being that you will likely just reject it, forget it or worse misrepresent it [staff edit].

I will just say this for the one hundreth time it seems.

The predestination of all things which occur in the creation of God is totally compatible with the freedom of men to make choices and their responsibility before God for making those choices.

All of the decrees of God are altogether good and righteous even though they are at time brought to fruition by the evil actions of men and angels.

The easiest and most prominent example of this is the death of His Son.

But then you have been given many examples of this from the scriptures just as you have for concurrency.

[Staff edit]

 

[ToBeLoved]

Good questions.

Of course your beliefs should not rest on my ability to tell you exactly why God does anything that He does. It should only rest on whether God says or at least teaches in various ways that he does do those things.

To start with - your basic assumption concerning what I and other Reformed Christians believe about sin as related to God is wrong.

We have said time and time again from the 1500's until now that we reject the idea that God is the author or sin - and have said instead that sin proceeds only from the creation and not from God.

And yet - here you go again ignoring what you have been told and what has been written and just stating what you want Reformed believers to believe as if it were fact.

I have explained many times the relationship between predestination and the choices made by men. I can explain it once again. But I likely will not - at least in detail. Reason being that you will likely just reject it, forget it or worse misrepresent it [staff edit].

I will just say this for the one hundreth time it seems.

The predestination of all things which occur in the creation of God is totally compatible with the freedom of men to make choices and their responsibility before God for making those choices.

All of the decrees of God are altogether good and righteous even though they are at time brought to fruition by the evil actions of men and angels.

The easiest and most prominent example of this is the death of His Son.

But then you have been given many examples of this from the scriptures just as you have for concurrency.

You can say it 100 times but if God predestined everything then He predestined sin. Just because you guys give your little happy dance around the subject does not change that your theology doesn't reconcile with scripture.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Poof, poof, poof.

Great theology there, when you need to make up new words to explain the will of God.

Sadly, that is why the Bible is not believed today by some after listening to the latest wacky changes by Reformers.

God doesn't say He has a 'permissive will'. Who made that up?

And predestination is God predestining everything, from the butter I put on my toast this morning to my 2.33 cups of coffee out of my Kherig. There is no free will in that theology.

 

[EmSw]

We have said time and time again from the 1500's until now that we reject the idea that God is the author or sin - and have said instead that sin proceeds only from the creation and not from God.

So, if Christians, from the 1500's, have said Jesus did not walk this earth, does it make it so? You have to understand Marvin, people do not take your word just because you, or any other Reformed author, say God is not the author.

Sin started somewhere. If God predestined man to sin, then we know exactly from it originated - in God's predestination. Did sin start with man? NO! It started in God's mind. You can't get around this truth, no matter how hard you struggle.

 

[Marvin Knox]

You can say it 100 times but if God predestined everything then He predestined sin.

No one said He didn't predestine sin.

The trouble is that you will not accept the idea that He can predestine something sinful (like the evil killing of His Son) and not be "responsible" for the evil because He meant it for good and not evil while the men who will be judged for it meant it for evil.

Or how He could predestine the selling of Joseph into slavery meaning it for good while using the evil intents of sinners - resulting in God doing good and getting glory for it while men do evil and receive just judgment for it.

God doesn't say He has a 'permissive will'. Who made that up?

So - you believe that God permitting the sin of Adam was not His permissive will but His absolute or perfect will? Think of what you are saying.

You've up and gone hyper-Calvinist on me.

This doctrine is the common doctrine of Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics, and Orthodox. Quite likely your pastor whomever he may be will subscribe to it as well.

It is the inescapable conclusion of the scriptures considering the holiness of God in juxtaposition with the evil which exists in His creation.

[Staff edit]

........ predestination is God predestining everything, from the butter I put on my toast this morning to my 2.33 cups of coffee out of my Kherig. There is no free will in that theology.

You had it right according to scripture and logic with the first sentence and you got it wrong according to scripture and logic with the second sentence.

You are infusing scriptural understanding and good logic with your emotions.

We'll probably end it here. You cannot separate the two and I cannot make you separate them.

I've got to go away for a while. If the thread dies while I'm gone as I suspect that it will - it's at least been interesting.

 

[ToBeLoved]

So - you believe that God permitting the sin of Adam was not His permissive will but His absolute or perfect will? Think of what you are saying.

I think God is smart enough to write somewhere that He has a permissive will if that is what He has. But He doesn't because He didn't tell us that.

Reformed cannot just make up words to justify their arguments. Or make up different 'types' of the will of God.

Jesus prayed to the Father that "Thy will be done".

Nothing about a permissive will there. Just a simple 'thy will be done'.

So they cannot make up what is not in the Bible. [Staff edit]

 

[Butch5]

I've never indicated any such thing.

You believe that the natural man (the world - the strain of mankind to which we were all born) will not receive the things of God.

You believe that because he will not receive the things of God - he cannot understand the things of God.

Whether you put it in that order or the reverse order as many Calvinists do - the result is still the same.

Mankind in it's natural state will not and cannot receive and understand the things of God. That is because, as we are told, the things of God are spiritually discerned.

And (Nicodemus - anyone?) -------- men are spiritually dead.

What Reformed believers teach is that what is necessary is a new creation. It must be a creation born not of the will of men but of the will of God. Why? Because the natural man will not and cannot make it happen.

The Reformed have said as much and looked to the scriptures which give us the answer to how God rectified the dilemma.

The answer is that He extended special grace to some while passing others by and allowing them to go their natural way.

Non-Reformed don't understand or like that idea and rail against it.

Reformed don't understand everything about it either . But they praise God every day for His grace toward them.

One more time - Don't accuse me of saying things that I did not say. The fault of sins (of which nonacceptance of the things of God is one) is to be laid at the feet of man and not at the feet of God.

Neither I nor the Westminster Confession of Faith could say it more clearly.

"yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin"

With that admonition behind me - I will tell you again to stick to the question before us from the OP. If you expect me to answer questions and challenges from you - please critique what Reformed people include in the gospel message to the world when evangelizing and do not critique what is not included (such as predestination and election).

Firstly, the indication is there. If as you say, the natural man cannot accept the things of God then only God can change him. There is the indication.

Having said that, I am well aware of what Reformed doctrine is and teaches. I used to be Reformed. Just as I'm aware of the passage you posted from the Westminster Confession. It's a logical contradiction.

When I replied to you post I wasn't addressing the OP. I was simply pointing out that the passage you were using to make your point didn't actually make your point. If you don't want to discuss it that's find with me. However, remember you're the one who brought up predestination and election in the post that I originally replied to.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I think God is smart enough to write somewhere that He has a permissive will if that is what He has. But He doesn't because He didn't tell us that. Reformed cannot just make up words to justify their arguments. Or make up different 'types' of the will of God.
Jesus prayed to the Father that "Thy will be done".
Nothing about a permissive will there. Just a simple 'thy will be done'.
So they cannot make up what is not in the Bible. And you said their theology is superior?

OK fine. Have it your way. God has only one will. It is wrong for theologians of any stripe to talk about two different wills - or anything but God's one and only will.

Everything is simply God's will - period. To try to nuance God's will is going beyond what is written and teaching the doctrines of men.

It is God's will that puppies be cute. It is God's will that Hitler killed 6,000,000 Jews. It is God's will that Adam and Eve eat from the tree. It is God's will that a man and a woman be united in marriage. It is God's will that homosexuals rut in the parks of San Francisco. It is the will of God that Jeffrey Dahmer kill and eat men. It is God's will that men crucify their fellow man. It is God's will that little children play in the park. It is God's will that predatory men kidnap, rape and kill them. It is God's will that children be born without arms. It is God's will that wild flowers are beautiful. It is God's will that men go to the moon. It is God's will that space ships blow up and kill school teachers. It is God's will that the earth should be populated before the flood by men who's every thought and deed is evil. It is God's will that the first man name all of the animals. It is God's will that men and women engage in inappropriate behavior with animals.

Shall I go on to name everything in the history of the world? I think I won't do that.

I think that - according to your theology (and that of EmSw) - anyone who attempts to nuance in a systematic way indicated by the scriptures anything concerning the one and only simple will of God is teaching man made doctrine.

The Calvinists according to you guys are examples of man going beyond what is written when talking about the will of God.

You guys have it your way if you wish.

What we see developed here on this subject is a prime example of people who will deny any doctrine (even commonly held and necessary doctrines) if that doctrine corroborates in the slightest way the dreaded and hated "Calvinism".

Truly what the Lord told us is true concerning those who fight against what God says. To him who does not have - even what he thinks he has will be taken away.

EmSw - I am convince - takes these ridiculous positions because it provides for him a platform to preach his doctrine of works salvation.

You on the other hand - IMO - take them simply because you cannot admit that the dreaded Calvinists may be onto truth in any way that has escaped you before now.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

 

[Marvin Knox]

...........When I replied to you post I wasn't addressing the OP. I was simply pointing out that the passage you were using to make your point didn't actually make your point. If you don't want to discuss it that's find with me. However, remember you're the one who brought up predestination and election in the post that I originally replied to.

I just don't have the energy to go back and review how this all started between you and me - in order to ascertain where I may have gone wrong in my posts to you on this thread.

It all gets so convoluted when talking to several people at once without any other people on my side. Sometimes a person tends to lump everyone into the same category and that can be wrong to do.

[Staff edit]

If I have assumed, wrongly, something about what you believe or have been saying --- I apologize for my mistake.

If you would like to continue one bite at a time - we can start with this.

You and I were both natural men at one time. We agree that natural men will not come to God in order to receive the Spirit of God.. We agree that it takes the Spirit of God to understand the things of God.

Therefore it is necessary for God to move on us to provide the Spirit which we will not come to Him to receive.

Since not all natural men receive the Spirit of God - then logic dictates that God chooses to provide Him without first being sought by any natural men (which everyone born into the world is).

Therefore we both believe in unconditional election.

Is that right? If you agree then I have had your position all wrong from the beginning and I apologize for that as well.

 

[Butch5]

I just don't have the energy to go back and review how this all started between you and me - in order to ascertain where I may have gone wrong in my posts to you on this thread.

It all gets so convoluted when talking to several people at once without any other people on my side. Sometimes a person tends to lump everyone into the same category and that can be wrong to do.

[Staff edit]

If I have assumed, wrongly, something about what you believe or have been saying --- I apologize for my mistake.

If you would like to continue one bite at a time - we can start with this.

You and I were both natural men at one time. We agree that natural men will not come to God in order to receive the Spirit of God.. We agree that it takes the Spirit of God to understand the things of God.

Therefore it is necessary for God to move on us to provide the Spirit which we will not come to Him to receive.

Since not all natural men receive the Spirit of God - then logic dictates that God chooses to provide Him without first being sought by any natural men (which everyone born into the world is).

Therefore we both believe in unconditional election.

Is that right? If you agree then I have had your position all wrong from the beginning and I apologize for that as well.

We can start here if you like. However, let's first define "natural man" according to what Paul means by natural man, not what we might think it means.

In context Paul is addressing Christians. He tells them that he preaches the deep things of God to those who are mature. Later he tells them that they are carnal.

What does that say about the natural man?