heymikey80
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Kinda clear. It's the general or external call in Calvinism. It's always there. The only groups I know of who deny the external call are hypercalvinistic.
Both are supported in Scripture. Paul's sermon in Athens declares the general call. Paul's statement in Rom 8:28-30&ff describes the effectual call.
And I note from your later comments: Romans 8 is talking to Christians; while the Acts passage is talking to those who've never heard of Christ Jesus. Both are held-to by this one Apostle, even.
Jesus quickly qualified this with, "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Jn 3:18
Also note where this started: "You must be born again." Without the Spirit giving birth to your spirit, not much is going to happen. John 3:3-5 says what's necessary: spiritual birth. John 3:16, powerful as it is, states who may not perish -- all those who believe. So we can identify those who may not perish: all those who believe. But we can also conclude how they got there: through spiritual birth.
As I've observed it, though, I've noticed the problem emerges from the same argument for post-conversion predestination. I think both are poor arguments concluded from what predestination is.
It is not a deterrence to our own action. Our own actions are involved in predestination, resulting from the Spirit's moving in our own lives, results from God's initiation.
Yes. The gospel causes controversy ("A stone of stumbling; a rock of offense"). People don't like scandal. Go and spread the Gospel.
Keep in mind that plans like Evangelism Explosion and World Harvest Mission come straight out of Calvinistic churches. And there's a reason for that, described below.
I agree. My point is simply that the message is one -- the one Gospel of faith in Christ for forgiveness of sins, outside which there is no salvation. I would say that you have found Christ Jesus our Lord, and I am overjoyed for that! It pains me no end when something calling itself a church interferes with the Gospel call. Because that is flatly anti-Calvinistic.
What ground, then, had Paul for recognizing a Church at Corinth? It was this: that he saw among them the doctrine of the gospel, baptism, the Lord’s Supper — tokens by which a Church ought to be judged of. For although some had begun to have doubts as to the resurrection, the error not having spread over the entire body, the name of the Church and its reality are not thereby affected. Some faults had crept in among them in the administration of the Supper, discipline and propriety of conduct had very much declined: despising the simplicity of the gospel, they had given themselves up to show and pomp; and in consequence of the ambition of their ministers, they were split into various parties. Notwithstanding of this, however, inasmuch as they retained fundamental doctrine: as the one God was adored among them, and was invoked in the name of Christ: as they placed their dependence for salvation upon Christ, and, had a ministry not altogether corrupted: there was, on these accounts, a Church still existing among them. Accordingly, wherever the worship of God is preserved uninfringed, and that fundamental doctrine, of which I have spoken, remains, we must without hesitation conclude that in that case a Church exists. Calvin, Commentaries, 1 Corinthians 1:2
Yes, I would agree.
Some facts tend to deter people from accepting them. Calvin himself pointed out these doctrines are particularly sensitive in this way. In our day with everything out in public, it's difficult to point this out without the doctrines being tarred in general controversy.
Confusion about election tends to deter people, too. "Elect enough" doesn't make any sense in Calvinism. "Elect" is not some attribute of the person -- we're no more distinguishable from any other sinner, there's nothing about us that caused God to choose us. So I'm mystified how "elect enough" could come up.
And frankly you and I likely agree on the fundamentals. (The Essentials on http://www.epc.org might help you with my point of view there.)
Upvote
0
because you come in here being exactly what you condemn Calvinist's of being. And your theology is really the one being the judgemental pharisee who says that "because you ain't good enough you ain't goin to Heaven!" 
Apparantly not. But you really should be, regardless of what you think about me as a person.
and say...I am sorry, but our God, God of the bible, saves by Grace, not by anything YOU DID! or had to do! (works righteousness!) 
