Featured Are you producing False Converts?

Have you even read the book? I have and you are off the mark here. I don't agree with all of his methods but he certainly is no Joel Osteen.

 

You use non-Calvinist tracts and they produce false converts. [smh]

Now do you see why I stated earlier that it is typically Calvinists that bring up the subject of false converts?

I find it ironic that some Calvinists can confidently say that certain people are false converts yet many Calvinists will admit they will not know for sure if they are elect and going to Heaven until they die.

 

Its apparent you have a bias against Calvinists!:smilewinkgrin:

 

Yea.... thats Human Nature.....not God Nature.

 

Hmmmm, good point! We got enough of the other kind.

 

Then you should move to California.....lotsa fruit there. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I heard there's plenty in NJ, also.:laugh:

 

We plant and water and till the ground, but it is God alone who causes the increase in the number of born anew believers. We know that the professing visible church is made up of wheat (born anew believers) and tares ( those that profess Christ but for whatever reason, God did not credit their faith as righteousness.)

If we do not present the whole Gospel (warts and all) we increase the likelihood of producing professing believers that did not actually go "all in" for Christ. Did we tell them that all who profess the name of Jesus will be persecuted? Did we tell them many believers have suffered and died without ever receiving earthly blessings like health and wealth, long life?

 

They are everywhere, even in Texas, if the truth be known

....and they wear spurs & chaps too! :laugh:

 

After years of debates on BB, as well as other research, I understand Calvinism fairly well.

That's rich considering you posted a thread about false converts, essentially saying God can't/doesn't/won't save people via a certain method of witnessing.

 

Well said. While I know we disagree in this area to a degree, I stand four square with you about hypers. Obviously election without hearing the Word of God, shows not only arrogance, but ignorance to the point of retardation, mixed with two parts of hell. The line between Calvinism and hypers is the same line dividing Heaven and the Lake of Fire.

I guess these freaks of nature rip out Matthew and Romans for starters. Maybe the hyper version of Scripture says faith comes by election and election by election. Even the most conservative of Presbyterian churches do not hold to such nonsense.

 

Who says he doesnt understand them?

 

"Obviously election without hearing the Word of God, shows not only arrogance, but ignorance to the point of retardation,"

So what do you say to a mentally challenged individual who cant understand & process the gospel? Are they saved?

 

I could well be wrong, but I really don't think anyone on here is a hyperC.

We may just disagree on the "1-2-3, pray after me" presentation of salvation. I spend as much time as it takes when dealing with someone to make sure that they understand, and apply no high-pressure tactics to get them to make a decision.

Had the privilege of sharing the Gospel with a deaf man yesterday and he received the Lord. Nothing sweeter than that.

 

Since I work with them everyday in the job I have since retiring, I can tell you how I handle it. I explain the Gospel to them as well as I can. I try to word it to their level, which varies greatly. Some respond and some do not. I leave the rest to the Lord.

That is not what we are talking about here, is it? We are talking about a doctrine amongst well thinking individuals who can read the Bible that argue that "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" is meaningless. I cannot think of a more heretical teaching (to be nice about it) than I have ever heard.

Except for the grace of God, each and everyone of us could be like these folks.

 

Let me make sure I clarify......Are you saying that hearing the Gospel is prerequisite to being saved?

 

Arguments and ideologies aside, what do the Scriptures say? Or, do we delve into mysticism instead?