A question for Calvinists

[Reformationist]

Again, no it is not. You may be one of those who disagrees with the likes of R.C. Sproul on this, but does not God actually FOREORDAIN or DECREE all that happens in our universe, not merely FORESEE?

It's called "providence." God's providence takes many forms. Sometimes God is passive in His involvement. This means that God's actions of passivity is His providential means of ensuring that something does happen. Likewise, His active actions of providing grace ensure that something happens. You see, in God's sovereign role, doing nothing is doing something. Few Christians would argue against the idea that God could stop us from doing something. Therefore, we are forced to face the question of why God doesn't stop us from doing something bad. Understanding that God is first causal in all things that He ordains we can easily understand that if God has not stopped us from doing something then, in some way, God desired that to come to pass. Now, we may not understand His reasons but that does not mean that He has none. This very idea is expressed in Genesis 50:20 with the story of Joseph's sufferings at the hands of his brothers. Obviously God could have stopped them from selling Joseph into slavery. Joseph may have even wondered why God let that happen to him. But, it all became clear later when we see that Joseph has reached such high level of authority and his actions have saved the lives of thousands and thousands of people, to include those same brothers that had him enslaved. Did God have a plan in the enslavement of Joseph? Of course. Did God desire that Joseph be enslaved? Of course. It was His ordained method of showing His sovereign control over the actions of even those who disobey Him. Does the fact that God didn't stop Joseph's brothers make God responsible for their actions? Of course not. He didn't force them to act that way. Even though He could have stopped them it wasn't His desire that they be stopped. God is not obligated to grace us with restraint. Oftentimes our lack of restraint identifiably shows God's sovereign control of our circumstances because we see the clear results from something we initially view as unfair or bad.

This is why Paul said that he had learned to be content no matter his circumstances (Phil 4:11). It is because he recognized that the will and glory of God is often shown when it seems as if He has lost control. The problem is that we tend to focus so much on how something affects us we fail to see the amazing glory of God revealed in the godly response of others.

God bless

 

[Sola Gratia]

The Reformed view promotes evangelism. Why would we not want to take part in the great commission? We have a slight advantage. At least we know that God's elect will respond to the gospel. We know that the preached Word will have an effect on all hearers. Either it will call them to a state of life, or it will harden their dead hearts. The arminian has no such hope. If no one responds positively to the gospel the arminian will often end up blaming themselves and trying to come up with "more effective" methods. We can stick to God's simple two part plan for evangelism.
1. Preach the Word of God faithfully.
2. Pray that God will make it effectual.


Grace.

Indeed. As Spurgeon put it , If God had placed a yellow line down the back of
The elect we would run around lifting shirts to present the gospel .

I believe there are some that only view evangelization of any value if THEY save anyone .

It was Calvinists that scattered around the world with the gospel .

 

[FOMWatts<><]

Good to see you around DON, haven't talked with you in a while!

FOM<><

 

[Reformationist]

Good to see you around DON, haven't talked with you in a while!

FOM<><

As always, it is my utmost pleasure to see you my brother.

God bless,
Don

 

[CCWoody]

I believe there are some that only view evangelization of any value if THEY save anyone .

Indeed! It is to actually call the truth of Scriptures a lie. For I believe that the Lord ALWAYS leads me in victory. So, whether I am the sweet savor of life leading to live or the sweet savor of death leading to death, I am in victory, just exactly and explicitly as I am assured thereof in the Bible:

Now thankes be vnto God, which alwaies maketh vs to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the sauour of his knowledge by vs in euery place. For wee are vnto God the sweete sauour of Christ, in them that are saued, and in them which perish. To the one we are the sauour of death, vnto death, and to the other the sauour of life, vnto life: and who is sufficient for these things?

(2 Corinthians 2:14-16 GB)

​

 

[Covenant Heart]

He got kicked our of CF for 4 weeks b/c this thread. He says that he publically posted a reply to a moderator saying that everyone else was doing the same thing he was. I've no read all the posts, and some probably have been romoved, but it's seems a little drastic . He probably won't be back.

Speaking only for myself, I’ve tried to keep discussion on an elevated plane–believing that so long as I don’t, no one can say that "everyone else is." As to where Folkster is, I have this from one of his private messages, which I duplicate by "copy and paste" command–replete with his original typos and bold, italicized text. Some things just defy explanation. Blessings!

Covenant Heart

"If it makes you feel better, I'm mostly pulling out of the theological discussions, taking myself off of auto-notify, etc & will only be on CF for other things. I don't have a lot of time to devote to this, and I'm moving over to another discussion site fot theology, one that I think I'll find more mature & reasonable. CF seems to be full of Catholics & Calvinists who can't handle opposition."

 

[Sola Gratia]

Seedy:


The knowledgeably reformed can admit that no–we have not always served the Great Commission faithfully. Saying that, I can acknowledge that other branches of the church have their sins also. But others’ sins are not our problem. We are answerable for our own. So we confess our sins as is Christ’s way. No, we have not always been as good as our theology–and pre-millennial, dispensational brothers are sometimes better than their theology. But granting that we could always do better, I suggest that the cause of our flagging devotion is not our soteriology but our confusion about eschatology.

The amillennial eschatological perspective is enormously important for the gospel! The strong man (Satan) has been bound! God’s reign of grace has begun. Yes, darkness is real and persists. But by his glorious resurrection, Jesus Christ has brought life and immortality to light. So we go into the world proclaiming God’s promise to forgive, cleanse and receive all who trust in Christ! Because Satan’s power is broken and God’s kingdom has come–we don’t have to live in his bondage!

This means that we don’t need to second-guess whether our soteriology allows us to obey the Great Commission! God’s kingdom has come! THAT is the context in which we do ministry. As kingdom heralds, we proclaim with joy that Satan will deceive the nations never again. Never again will he hold sway over the earth! What dispensationalist can say that?

What we reformed people need is NOT to jettison our soteriology. What we need to do is to shake off the morbid pessimism spawned by end-time curiosities that have for too long sapped our wits and led us into unbelieving defeatism. We need to confess again with the church of the ages that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power that brings the increase of God’s kingdom on earth. Let the church do this and we may see such evangelical fervor as makes the world shake.

Our problem is that at present, we lack the faith to believe that the gospel can do this. Blessings!

Covenant Heart

My dear sister , may I lovingly disagree with you?

I, like you happen to be A mil but I do not believe it impedes the preaching of the gospel .

Calvinists were there from the beginning. Without believers in predestination and election there would still only be one church.
It is now as it has always been a zeal for the sovereignty of God that fires our actions.

Even today there are missions all over the world proclaiming the gospel , building schools and meeting the needs of people as we are commanded to by scripture.

Non reform believers need to consider the following history of what we now call Calvinism

Some of the men whom God has used to stir revival fires. Calvinism and Revival are as synonymous as the Calvinists and the martyrs. In fact, C. H. Spurgeon says that he never heard of a revival apart from Calvinistic truth. Even the Wesleyan Revival had the flaming Calvinist George Whitefield (1714 -1770) , and a historian has said that Wesley's success was due to what Calvinism he had obtained and retained. As England was the chief field for Mr. Whitefield's labors, so was it for John Bunyan 's (1628 -1688) , the author of "The Pilgrim's Progress ,"which, except for the Holy Bible, is the most popular book EVER written. Spurgeon admirers should note that his favorite author was Bunyan, claiming of John's greatest works, he had read this book more than 100 times, often having his wife read it to him. Another Bunyan monumental work "The Holy War ,"is the EQUAL of "The Pilgrim's Progress ."Bunyan was totally devoted to God and His Sovereign will.

Also, Rowland Hill (1745 -1833) , preached to Englishmen the great truths of grace.*Certainly, Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834 -1892) , can be considered under this head; for in a very real way revival characterized his ministry. In Scotland, the preaching of Robert Murray M'Cheyne (1813 -1842) was annointed with blessings, too. In America, the ardent Calvinist, Jonathan Edwards (1703 -1758) , was used of God in a mighty way. So was the missionary to the Indians, David Brainerd (1718 -1747) . We might also mention that it was William Carey (1761 -1834) , a Calvinist, who labored long on the mission field in India, and became the most well -known missionary of recent years. And many might not know that the great American evangelist D.L.Moody (1837 -1899) was indeed a Calvinist!


Taken from Calvinists In History

by BOB L. ROSS

 

[CCWoody]

the great American evangelist D.L.Moody (1837 -1899) was indeed a Calvinist!

Well, that is new by me. Would you happen to have some more information about that?

 

[Covenant Heart]

I, like you happen to be A mil but I do not believe it impedes the preaching of the gospel.

I am a little confused by your post. Seedy has declared against the a-millennial view. I posted my "Missionary-Millennial" # 104 exactly to say that reformed eschatology does offer a very powerful basis for mission. I wanted to make the point that our doctrine of the kingdom is the real context for mission, and that we don’t need to second guess if our doctrine of election is really compatible with mission activity. You agree with the a-mill view. You agree that we reformed folk are a mission minded people. Exactly my point.

To say that some who claim reformed faith have at times failed to embody evangelical fervency is only fair. But that does not weaken our position one iota. It strengthens us. The lesson here is that by being own worst critics, we rob others of any case against us. I am reformed, and I have not always been as evangelical as I should be. But God works and is changing me, for which I give thanks. Now note with this my qualifications:

1) Where missionary zeal has been lacking, we departed from the spirit of reformed faith. The Canons of Dort teach that the gospel is to be published promiscuously in all places. So where we have fallen down, we did so because we lacked devotion to the best of our reformed tradition. Woody perceived rightly that this vindicates our track record.

2) As I said before, there have always been among us those who embodied the very best of missionary tradition. Bob Ross’ words document that. And again, Woody is very right to point out that ours is a martyr’s faith.

Together, these points leave our critics little room in which to maneuver. On one hand, we rob their grievances against us by confessing our failings on our own terms. Then we reply to their sweeping statements against us by pointing to the best of our tradition. But I’m not content to leave the claim that election hinders mission there. If others venture to question whether reformed doctrine supports missions, let them be ready to reply in kind.

Those who say that election harms missionary zeal miss the mark. Missionary zeal does not derive from the Canons per se. The Canons under-gird our mission as they clarify our doctrine of salvation in reply to the Remonstrants’ charges, yes. And without election, no mission could be. But reformed faith derives her mission more directly from the vision of the kingdom of God. Indeed, covenant-kingdom is the centerpiece of reformed theology.

So which theology better supports mission–reformed or non-reformed eschatology? First, look at our vision. Then look at the leading, non-reformed alternative to a-millennialism.

The proclamation of the gospel (the issues of which the Canons set forth) brings the increase of the kingdom. Christ’s powerful, efficacious work on the cross disarmed the powers of this age, defeated and bound Satan. Already, the gospel is bringing the blessing of heaven down to earth. Gospel proclamation makes God’s Kingdom and Christ’s rule among us ever more visible. The more we preach and work, the more his rule is seen.

In contrast, dispensational pre-millennialism makes the kingdom purely future! With no present kingdom, everything goes to hell in a handcart–as we fixate on the tribulation, the beast, famine and war. They’re coming, and no one can do a thing to stop any of it! Like Israel before it (and the millennium after it) the church will end in abysmal failure. As life goes from bad to worse, all we can do is snatch a few brands from the burning!

Which offers a more potent basis for rigorous, missionary task? Yes, some dispensational premillennialists may exceed some of our number in missionary fervor. But that is not the question. The question is, "can dispensational, premillennial theology NOT tend to eorde confidence in the gospel as the power of God to bring kingdom salvation." Now no believer will flatly deny Paul’s opening words in Romans (1:16). But that's not the point. The point is that such lip service is a far cry from the expectation with which he closes (16:20)! I think that reformed eschatology is a far more compelling missionary catalyst!

In sum, our critics forever point to the least evangelical among us. Then they blame that on our doctrine of election. In reply, we can point to our best missionary efforts. We can explain that in reference to kingdom vision. And then, we can ask "what has dispensational pre-millennial theology that compares to our gospel-age millennial-kingdom vision as a basis for mission." Blessings!

Covenant Heart