Calvinism: more evangelistic?

also most would appear to be against calvinism of the variety that i am not aware of. the ole "straw man" version!

 

That wasn't the point Luke. Please put down the axe and try to understand without being so disagreeable. I have conceded that Calvinism, in it's pure form, is not anti-evangelistic proving that I'm not attempting to attack you regarding our soteriological differences, so the least you could do is try and understand my point.

My first point was not that they are just bigger, but that the numbers of the IMB are not a complete representation of all the SBC sends because of the many different modes of sending through various SBC supported churches and agencies; as apposed to the smaller and more easily tracked numbers of the PCA.

My next point was that level of Evangelistic fervor cannot be measured by the number of foreign missionaries alone.

That is a complete misrepresentation of the numbers on sooo many levels. Wow...

Though I could debate either of these erroneous claims with basic facts, you fail to see that a group being more focused on sending foreign missionaries is different than their level of Evangelistic fervor, Luke. You can evangelize through many various means and while one group may express that fervor more through efforts at home doesn't mean the fervor is any less and it certainly doesn't imply that their soteriological views have anything to do with it.

Then stop misrepresenting it by suggesting it has less evangelistic fervor due to it's predominate soteriological views using unfounded, unrelated and skewed stats.

Who ever made that claim? I'm not making that claim. I'm only debunking the "madness" of your claims.

I'm stubborn about correctly representing the facts about an organization for which I serve.

 

Case and point. There is a large SBC church in my area that is currently supporting 129 foreign missionaries who are not with the IMB. Some SBC missionaries don't go through the IMB because of their strict restrictions (no alcohol consumption in the last 2 years, no teenagers etc). Others don't like their views regarding the Baptist Faith and Message. The point is that the IMB is not even close to a full representation of the foreign mission efforts of the SBC as a whole.

 

Well no response yet.

Sensing something fishy, I checked the membership stats in Michael Haykin's book on Gill (p. 41):

membership stood at 151 in 1727
it was 141 in 1757, at the time of the move to Carter Lane
it was 133 at the end of his pastorate

That's growth?

Why was there a move to Carter Lane?

"Presumably the old wooden building ["could seat almost a thousand" (p. 13)] in which Keach and Stinton had ministered had now reached the end of its usefulness." (p. 39)



So, so much for this "Gill's congregation grew so MUCH they needed larger premises!" business.

 

Oh, and if the standard of evangelitude is this purported per-capita-support-of-denominational-foreign-missionary-staff figure, just how did Gill's church measure up to your "arithmetic", Luke?

 

"T"
-Eph. 2:1-3 - And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
-John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
-Romans 3:10-11 - As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.”

Thanks 12 Strings, lets delve into these three verses supposed to support total spiritual inability. Ephesians 2:1-3 simply says we in our fallen state, are "dead in our sins" but just what that means (1) separated from God and unable to redeem ourselves or (2) separated from God and unable to seek to redeem ourselves is not spelled out in that scripture. Hence, no actual support, just Calvinism rewriting the meaning of dead to mean total spiritual inability. But possible meaning number 1 is actually what is being said.

Next, John 6:44 says no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, and that is certainly true, but again this verse does not say God does not drawn everyone who hears and understands the gospel. Sure, some are drawn more than others, some respond like the second, third or fouth soil of Matthew 13, but they all respond seeking God and therefore by definition are drawn by the gospel. So again, no actual support for total spiritual inability is found in John 6:44.

Last, Romans 3:10-11 - As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. as used by Calvinism represents a verse ripped from context. Now it is ok for Paul to rip the verse out of its original context, and put it to work for another inspired point, but Calvinist cannot claim the protection of inspired ripping.

In Paul's argument, contextualy considered, he is teaching we are all under sin, we have all fallen short of the glory of God, anyone seeking God's righteousness through the law does not understand that by the Law no flesh is justified. And no one seeks God when they are sinning, so anyone seeking God through the Law is not actually seeking God.
That is the actual contextual argument Paul is making. So no support for total spiritual inability here either. But it gets worse. Look back to the OT quoted. Here those not seeking God are the wicked fools who say there is no God. But God looks down to see if any men are seeking God and finds them, so again whether considering the NT usage of Paul, or the OT usage in Psalm 14, no only is there no support, but the premise is shown by those seeking God as a refuge, or seeking God through faith, that total spiritual inability is a fiction.

 

Are you REALLY going to try to come from the position that men like calvin/augustine/packer/hodge/erickson etc are ALL using "shoddy" work in their theologies?

Absolutely. Prove me wrong, show me a commentary where they support the TULI based on a specific bible passage. All I see is generalized "all these past scholars could not be mistaken" argument from authority.

 

Your big mistake is approaching this subject is that while you try to prove theology by "proof texting" the Bible, calvinism instead takes into account the totality of the biblical verses regarding Sotierology!

And again, you really want to say that all of that learned men, lets add those JI packer and Francis Scheafer into the mix, are all guilty of faulty misunderstanding of the biblcal texts?

 

Concerning hyper and all the various other forms of Calvinism, Wesley, though Arminian, sums it up pretty well.

Sell, in his book, "The Great Debate," quotes him:

Alan P. Sell, The Great Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), p. 4.

 

Van posted...

Agree completely :thumbs:

 

Well, I'm glad you at least admit the possibility of the other explaination. That's really all I'm going for here.

1. So are you at least admitting that Some people are given more chance to recieve Christ than others? That sound's like God making a choice to me.

2. What I don't see in the Bible is God "drawing" everyone with the gospel. I see whole groups of people not given any gospel light. So it seems god draws some people and not others.

Here is FROM pS. 14:
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good, not even one.

Here in the OT source, you see the same thing Paul says.
-God looks down at "the children of man" (doesn't say some of them)
-He looks for any who seek him.
-v.2 he finds none: "they have ALL turned aside" (After all, "All means all" right?)

 

Maykins comments don't match up to the fact they did need a larger premises which is why the congregation moved. Some on here stated he had 2000 in membership. You say 150ish.

The bottom line is they accusation he was hyper in that he was against an evangelistic Gospel message is false.

 

What is your source for this false claim?

The declining numbers noted in the Haykin book are taken from the church's own record book.

 

You're allowing this to get you twisted. Relax. :thumbsup:

Try googling the quote maybe?

What I quoted is well known about Gill. That you and Haykin don't agree? Well, to be honest, I really couldn't care less.

One more time, my entire point is that he wasn't anti-evangelistic, nor hyper-calvinistic.

 

Oh, I know the falsehood you repeated is pasted all over the internet (wikipedia, etc.) with no documentation to support it.

You couldn't care less what Gill's church's own records reveal? Bizarre.

 

You're incorrect again, and assuming again.

No, I seriously doubt your source is credible.

Here's some "documentation" to support it:

I find it of great interest the level of attack against John Gill who was well loved and whose death impacted many persons.

 

Better watch how you punctuate those sentences.

 

Well, you got me there. :thumbsup:

 

What evangelist would say that? What percent of the world are followers of Jesus?

 

Reply to 12 Strings,

Based on Ephesians 2:1-3, either of the two possible meanings are viable. However, in light of Matthew 23:13 where men are entering heaven, and Matthew 13 where 3 of the 4 soils are able to seek God, only meaning #1 is possible.

Absolutely, the Bible teaches cultivation, planting and watering which are not received by all people in the same amount. God did make the choice to use believers to spread the gospel, but there is no support in scripture for the idea He chose individuals before creation to enable to receive the gospel. That Calvinist doctrine is a fiction.

And I did not say that!! Here is what I said:

Note in John 12:32 Jesus says when people become aware He died for them, high and lifted up, they will be drawn. And by definition, Matthew 13 teaches those who understand the gospel are drawn, seeking the righteousness of God.

I think we need to look at the whole passage, Psalm 14:1-6. Here is the HCSB version:

First note the phrase, there is no one who does good, clearly applies to those who say there is no God. Second, God looks to see if someone is seeking God, but according to Calvinism no one would be seeking God because of the Fall. Third, who is in view in verse 3, all mankind or the fools who say there is no God? The answer is this refers to the fools Note the parallel from verse 1 the fools do no good, and in verse 3 those in view do no good..

But then in verses 5 and 6, we see God is with the righteous, and they have sought God has a refuge. Clearly demonstrating some spiritual ability among the sons of men. QED