Calvinism: more evangelistic?

that is why we continue to try to be used by the Lord to bring light to the truth that Cal way of Sotierology would be best, not ONLY, but best moder to view salvation work of God!

 

Van,

Disagreeing with Calvinism is expected. However, your attack on Calvinism in such a manner is more ad-hominem.

For the most part, those of us who are Calvinists have turned to this belief after years of research. While there are great men who are not Calvinistic, most of histories greatest theologians were Calvinists. You seem to question Calvinists' serious intellectual study of the Scriptures. Can you doubt the serious studies Hodge, Edwards, Owens, Whitfield, Spurgeon, Bauckus, Schaeffer, Kennedy, Warfield, and others engaged in during their lifetime? Our rich heritage can be attacked because of honest disagreements, but implying we are anti-studious is intellectually dishonest. There is not a man on this board who has the intellectual gravitas of any one of these men.

 

See the biggest reason why some refuse to see the truth of DoG expressed in the Bible is that they fail to see that we all died inAdam, the sheer spiritual destruction towards man wrouhgt by the fall, and that being spiritual dead in sins, MUST have it the way we express it per the scriptues...

They refuse to see that we have to explain salvation by the totality of the biblical texts, as we HAVE to see the spiritual death in our sins caused by adam before viewing the Cross of Christ and salvation!

 

:thumbsup: Exactly my point.

 

Well, actually history shows us that Calvinistic doctrine CAN, if it is taken to seed, become anti-evangelistic. But I do concede that the doctrine itself, in it true form, doesn't quell evangelism. I also don't think it necessarily promotes it more than non-Calvinism, which is what you seemed to be suggesting in the presentation of your skewed stats.

And what I'm saying is that the structure and sending institutions of the PCA are much smaller and defined than that of the massively larger SBC, which has countless arms and fingers than what is represented by the IMB alone. It is comparing apples and oranges in order to prove a totally unrelated point. Since when is evangelistic fervor measured only by the number FOREIGN missionaries (which is much higher for the SBC than what has been presented)? How does evangelistic efforts at home not factor into this? I would think the number of baptisms/POFs per church, which is what I presented in my stats, would be a much more accurate gage if one was trying to prove their point using stats (which again, is RIDICULOUS).

Both groups have Evangelistic fervor, and are actively involved in reaching the lost world, period. There effectiveness in accomplishing the great commission has NOTHING to do with their soteriology, or at least it can't be measured by the type of subjective, incomplete, surface level stats you have presented.

 

Can someone share what these abreviations..:BangHead:...are?

PCA IMB POF's

 

Presbyterian Church in America
International Mission Board
Profession of faith

 

Thank you Amy. :wavey:

 

Oh for goodness sake, please hurry up and convert to PCA so we can stop hearing from you in the Baptist section of this board.

 

I second that motion!

 

Thanks, Amy. I think we all need to be careful in our use of abbreviations/acronyms; even if they are well-known and understood in the country where the poster is, that may not be the case elsewhere in the world. For instance, I had never heard of the "POFs" before, and when I looked the acronym up, I found things like: Proof of Funds, Pakistan Ordnance Factories, Plastic Optical Fibre, and Premature Ovarian Failure. :laugh: The only one that might have fitted was "Pillar of Fire Church"!

 

If you want a point from history, John Gill, one of the more staunch Calvinists pastored in a church that seated 2,000, and when he took the church the attendance was well up in numbers. When he left the church it was down to a paltry 153.

 

You mean the church he pastored for 51 years, that he brought to a place where they had to expand? The Horsleydown Church in London? This is the only church he pastored. His influence upon Christians was of great positive impact. Your attempt to belittle and caste a negative light upon such a man of God is more a commentary of your character than his.

He collides with your viewpoint, and schools you theologically by the way, but the fact is, he was evangelistic and the church he pastored grew. The accusations of being hyper and a diminishing congregation are false rumors.

Stressing Gods initiative in Salvation is Biblical truth. He would preach against easy-believism, hocus-pocus "evangelism" of our day, as he did then. I agree with this preaching by the way.

Not too many can handle hearing this truth, i.e., that it is all God in salvation, and none of man, and the reaction of the easy-believism preachers is to become angry and go off in a huff.

 

It was not a "deliberate" attempt. It was a quote from another source:

If his information is wrong, and it could be, then history will tell the story, not me.

Upon further research the accusation of his congregation being one that was diminishing may be false, but as to being a hyper Calvinist, I doubt it. That he collides with my viewpoint theologically, of course he does. I, by no means, am a Calvinist.

I agree with you. I don't believe in easy-believism; never did. And as for hocus pocus whateverism, you can have all you want of it.

You know not of what you speak. You assume too much.

 

When will this incessant calvinist -vs- everyone else junk that has dominated the Baptist Board. I for one am sick of it. I'm with Matt. Why doesn't Luke and his little yapper move on somewhere else?

 

Yes, as you agree, you've given false information. It was actually deliberate, you posted it and it is false. It wasn't "accidental." Thus this passage for your consideration in the future: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." Proverbs 14:15


But now you want to adhere to another point where you've garnered your false information and cling to it, that is, that your incorrect source calls him an "hyper-calvinist." The fact that his church grew in number refutes your accusations, as they were certainly evangelistic.

He's no hype-calvinist. You misrepresent him, and as I said, this is more a commentary on you than on him.

The hocus-pocus "whateverism" centers and hovers around those who tell others getting saved is like sitting on a chair. As far as having all of it I want, no, I'll pass, you can keep it for yourself as I reject it as false teaching.

I find it interesting that you assume I assume too much, when you've darted off unwisely to lay a claim against a minister of God that is purely falsehood.

Let's look into your false accusation with Scriptures:

What I stated is true, not many can handle the preaching of the truth. It's actually supported by Scriptures, so you're incorrect saying I've "assumed" when I've actually stated a Biblical truth: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." 2 Timothy 4:2-3

Part of these myths is the easy-believism nonsense being propagated in Baptist churches, among others. "Say this prayer if you want to go to heaven." "Would you like to know for sure you're going to heaven, say this prayer and you will." That's the hocus-pocus nonsense I will have no part of. But then the preacher assures them they are on their way to heaven now, and tell them that going to heaven is as easy and similar to exercising faith in the same way that you would exercise faith in walking on a platform and trusting it to support you, and sitting in a chair believing it will not break. There is nothing of this in Scriptures anywhere.

All of this is false teaching and is easy-believism nonsense. It is not preaching the Gospel at all. It is sugar-coated false teaching, it does not even touch upon the Gospel, or truth in any manner, and skips over the power of the Gospel to a deluded falsehood named easy-believism.

Oh, btw, having done evangelistic work in churches, many persons who have been led to believe that their prayer saved them do the following: they lay all their faith in that they've said a prayer (when asked of their salvation experience, they go back to "I said that prayer back then..."); they cannot state what the Gospel is; they have a long laundry list of what they must do to gain eternal life. They're as lost as they were before they said a prayer. It's hocus-pocus false teaching that doesn't regenerate anyone. When presented with the Gospel, the actual true Gospel of Scriptures, it is the power of God, not this nonsense that others preach "all you have to do is exercise your faith just like you would on getting on a bike and trusting it" (or some other ludicrous illustration that is similar and is not the Gospel message.)

 

I do not deliberately post false information. To say that I do is to call my integrity into question which is against the bb rules. It is an infraction worth calling another mod's attention to.

My research led me to many who put him in the "hyper-cal" camp. In this I do not believe I am wrong. Even Spurgeon believed he was hyper-calvinistic. If numbers are everything why isn't Joel Oesteen a Calvinist then? Or, why aren't you part of his flock, since the numbers indicate he must be right. That is your reasoning isn't it?

The misrepresentation is a figment of your imagination.
And you are misrepresenting Joe Oesteen by the same logic??
Even if you don't say anything about him, you should be a follower of him, because he has the numbers to prove it??
Or is it Spurgeon that you misrepresent who also stated that he was hyper-Calvinist? You can't have it both ways.

Good. But I imagine you hold on to quite a bit also.

But I didn't. In my last post I didn't lay such a charge. I retracted anything that was false, but let the truth stand. And yet your thin skin is still hurt and offended so easily.

Then don't make false accusations; infer false accusations; or accuse others of such. This conversation was between you and I. I told you outright that I do not believe in easy-believism. So why are you bringing it up inferring that I do believe in it, accusing me falsely so. I don't believe that, nor does our church practice it. I made that point clearly. You are preaching to the wind.

And just pray tell, who does this?

And who are you talking about??

I really don't know who or what you are talking about. You are not specific. You are making up stories. What you are doing is simply hear-say. According to the Bible that is wrong. Unless you have a specific accusation to make, keep quiet.

A fool opens his mouth and lets everything out of it.
You have done a good job.

 

I wish all of those arguing these points would read J.I. Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, especially the chapter on Divine Sovereignty & Human Responsibility.

That little chapter alone is worth the price of the book.

 

You have indeed posted false information before DHK. And you have not retracted it. You said that Calvin plagiarized Augustine. That was a totally bogus claim that you didn't want to admit was a total fabrication.

C.H.S. did not call John Gill a hyper-Calvinist. The closest he came to that was saying that some followers of John Gill (in Spurgeon's time) were hyper-Calvinistic. Spurgeon adored John Gill. That's why he gave his twin sons Gill's Body of Divinity.