Is unconditional election inconsistent with evangelism?

[pepisteuka]

I am writing a paper on the cause and effects of unconditional election and evangelism. Basically, I am interested in reasons, from non-calvinists, for the view that predestination in inconsistent with evangelism. Should predestination cause a lack of desire to evangelise the lost?

Thanks for your help,
Pepi

[lee_merrill]

Hi Pepi,

Before the free will folks post! I would just note quickly that most objections assume free will. But this is inconsistent, like saying "If there is no free will in this area, then assuming there is free will in this area, then why etc."

Blessings,
Lee

[pepisteuka]

Thank you Lee very much.

[Tercel]

I am a non-calvinist and I was reflecting on this yesterday...

A momentary tangent for background:
I had just been criticising someone for presenting Calvinism rather than the essence of Christianity, for the reason that trying to convert people to a specific sort of Christianity presents unnecesary stumbling blocks. If Calvinism is some set X+Y, where X is normal Christianity and Y is the Calvinist-specific additions, then if the potential convert finds anything in Y difficult to believe they will therefore reject X+Y which THEY wrongly see as being "Christianity" and therefore will not accept X because they think they have to accept Y too. Thus, I believe we need to be vary careful not to add anything whatsoever to the absolute basics of Christianity when presenting it to seekers. But as I was criticising him for this, it was obvious to me that this is irrelevant to him given his Calvinist theology: If the seeker has been chosen by God, they're going to become a Christian even if we place such stumbling blocks in their way.

And now back to your question: It seems clear that according to Calvinism, the fumblings of a Christian trying to convert people who thereby puts such stumbling blocks in the way of converts doesn't matter, because God is sovereign and His will will be worked out no matter the failings of His servants. But there seems no qualitative difference between this case, and a case where the Christian deliberately and purposefully refuses to preach the gospel: God's will will be done no matter what and the people chosen for salvation will receive it.

So, yes, I quite firmly think that Calvinistic predestination definitely removes the rational foundations of desiring to try and evangelise the lost, since personal efforts can neither add nor subject to what has already been decided by God. People might still evangelise for other reasons: eg, they enjoy it, they want to obey the command to do so etc, but Calvinism is simply rationally inconsistent with evangelising in order to actually save people.

[Ormly]

Predestination is only God acting on what He foresees. It's not the other way around.


Hope that's a help.

Orm

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

[Calvinism says] God's will will be done no matter what and the people chosen for salvation will receive it.Yes.

People might still evangelise for other reasons: eg, they enjoy it, they want to obey the command to do so etc, but Calvinism is simply rationally inconsistent with evangelising in order to actually save people.But God uses means to bring about his will, including involving his people, in carrying out his will. We can even be said to "save people," Paul uses this language:

Romans 11:14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

The axeman chops the wood, and so does the axe, so I don't think unconditional election makes evangelism not have its primary purpose being to save people.

Predestination is only God acting on what He foresees.I would be surprised if Paul meant God was reacting, and calling that predestination. It implies a choice before the fact, not (in essence) after the fact:

Romans 9:11-12 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad-- in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls …

If God's choice was based here on what he saw they would do, then it is by works.

Blessings,
Lee

[Ormly]

OrmlyPredestination is only God acting on what He foresees.


I would be surprised if Paul meant God was reacting, and calling that predestination. It implies a choice before the fact, not (in essence) after the fact:

Romans 9:11-12 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad-- in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls …

If God's choice was based here on what he saw they would do, then it is by works.I would be surprised if you ever read and understood anything correctly first or even the second time through.

Where is anything of God "reacting" to man in this? In others words you probably won't grasp either is that God foresees and plans but not from being reactionary. He just foresees and makes His choices by what He foresees. A very simple thing for Him to do. And you say works? What "works" did Jacob or Esau do before they were born? How about Him just knowing the heart of one He foresees, Hmmm? I await your twist on this.

[pepisteuka]

Ormly I appreciate your criticisms very much. God Bless you. Lets get some more non-calvinists too...

[Kenny]

Well, for a Calvinist philosophical argument as to why the two are not inconsistent, see my thread here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2261

[pepisteuka]

I would be surprised if you ever read and understood anything correctly first or even the second time through.

Where is anything of God "reacting" to man in this? In others words you probably won't grasp either is that God foresees and plans but not from being reactionary. He just foresees and makes His choices by what He foresees. A very simple thing for Him to do. And you say works? What "works" did Jacob or Esau do before they were born? How about Him just knowing the heart of one He foresees, Hmmm? I await your twist on this.
Ormly,

The point Paul is making is that election is based on nothing man does. This is seen in the statement that before they had done anything "good or bad" the choice of eternal destinies was fixed. It would be silly to say that the point here "before they were born" was to demonstrate that simply God made the decision before they were born. But it is that the decision was based on no good or bad work.
If God foresaw that Jacob had the "inclined heart to Him" and had faith then election is based on a good thing. Faith is good. The angels rejoice when a sinner comes to repentence. But election was based on "nothing good or bad". Thus, to say that God's decision is based on man's good act of faith does not work.

[pepisteuka]

I am a non-calvinist and I was reflecting on this yesterday...

A momentary tangent for background:
I had just been criticising someone for presenting Calvinism rather than the essence of Christianity, for the reason that trying to convert people to a specific sort of Christianity presents unnecesary stumbling blocks. If Calvinism is some set X+Y, where X is normal Christianity and Y is the Calvinist-specific additions, then if the potential convert finds anything in Y difficult to believe they will therefore reject X+Y which THEY wrongly see as being "Christianity" and therefore will not accept X because they think they have to accept Y too. Thus, I believe we need to be vary careful not to add anything whatsoever to the absolute basics of Christianity when presenting it to seekers. But as I was criticising him for this, it was obvious to me that this is irrelevant to him given his Calvinist theology: If the seeker has been chosen by God, they're going to become a Christian even if we place such stumbling blocks in their way.

And now back to your question: It seems clear that according to Calvinism, the fumblings of a Christian trying to convert people who thereby puts such stumbling blocks in the way of converts doesn't matter, because God is sovereign and His will will be worked out no matter the failings of His servants. But there seems no qualitative difference between this case, and a case where the Christian deliberately and purposefully refuses to preach the gospel: God's will will be done no matter what and the people chosen for salvation will receive it.

So, yes, I quite firmly think that Calvinistic predestination definitely removes the rational foundations of desiring to try and evangelise the lost, since personal efforts can neither add nor subject to what has already been decided by God. People might still evangelise for other reasons: eg, they enjoy it, they want to obey the command to do so etc, but Calvinism is simply rationally inconsistent with evangelising in order to actually save people.
I find it interesting that Christ evangelized to people who he knew would not come to Him. Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."


If the fixation of the elect did not hinder Christ from evangelizing all, which would include the reprobate, then the fact that the Elect number is fixed shouldn't hinder our desires.

[GoBahnsen]

Hey, welcome back Pepis. Unless you wanted to debate this or have all kinds of interuptions, your thread fits better in Theo 101 (for future ref). This place is a little more loose and in fact I'm going to jump in and make some remarks concerning Tercel's post, because it kind of bothered me.

I am a non-calvinist and I was reflecting on this yesterday...

A momentary tangent for background:
I had just been criticising someone for presenting Calvinism rather than the essence of Christianity,
Boooo. As if Calvinism is some extra system added to the Bible. Come on Tercel. Calvinism attempts to bring out the essence of Christianity. Disagree with it, but don't make it something it is not.

for the reason that trying to convert people to a specific sort of Christianity presents unnecesary stumbling blocks. We all have a particular "sort" of Christianity. The moment we start to systematize our Theology, we have a "sort" of Christianity. I remember well my days at Calvary Chapel, where they pride themselves on "just teaching the Bible". Yet all their pastors use commentaries, and they basically teach a semi-pelagian "sort" of Christianity.

If Calvinism is some set X+Y, where X is normal Christianity and Y is the Calvinist-specific additions, Well it is not, so you have a false premise here. Normal Christianity? Normal? What's normal? What most folks believe? What Tercel believes? Heck, I wouldn't even call Calvinism normal. Jesus was normal. We're all, hopefully, trying to be that too and no ones doing it perfectly.

then if the potential convert finds anything in Y difficult to believe they will therefore reject X+Y which THEY wrongly see as being "Christianity" and therefore will not accept X because they think they have to accept Y too. Therefore people should hold their Bibles above the Institutes which only seek to expound the Bible. Nothing wrong with commentaries, but we don't tell people to feed on commentaries, like they are supposed to feed on the Word.

Thus, I believe we need to be vary careful not to add anything whatsoever to the absolute basics of Christianity when presenting it to seekers. Calvinism is basic Christianity. Spurgeon called it a "nickname" for the Gospel. Pretty basic.


But as I was criticising him for this, it was obvious to me that this is irrelevant to him given his Calvinist theology: If the seeker has been chosen by God, they're going to become a Christian even if we place such stumbling blocks in their way.
Christians are held accountable for what they say, so what you said does matter.



And now back to your question: It seems clear that according to Calvinism, the fumblings of a Christian trying to convert people who thereby puts such stumbling blocks in the way of converts doesn't matter, because God is sovereign and His will will be worked out no matter the failings of His servants. But there seems no qualitative difference between this case, and a case where the Christian deliberately and purposefully refuses to preach the gospel: God's will will be done no matter what and the people chosen for salvation will receive it.
Nicely put, but people are responsible for their presentations of truth.

So, yes, I quite firmly think that Calvinistic predestination definitely removes the rational foundations of desiring to try and evangelise the lost, It is irrational to obey God's command to preach the Gospel to every creature? It is piety to obey God.


since personal efforts can neither add nor subject to what has already been decided by God. People might still evangelise for other reasons: eg, they enjoy it, they want to obey the command to do so etc, but Calvinism is simply rationally inconsistent with evangelising in order to actually save people.You lump "enjoy it" with God's "commanding". In other words...to heck with God's ordained means? People might get motivated by God's command, but that's hardly worth mentioning? I find this post disturbing Tercel. I thought I had better memories of your posts.

[seer]

We are all assuming that in the Calvinist model that we have a choice whether to evangelize or not. We don't. If God ordained the means (evangelising) and ordained the ends (the salvation of the elect) then we will evangelize. Paul himself said that He did not willingly preach the Gospel:

1 Cor.9:16,17

For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I am entrusted with a commission.

[Ormly]

If God foresaw that Jacob had the "inclined heart to Him" and had faith then election is based on a good thing. Faith is good. The angels rejoice when a sinner comes to repentence. But election was based on "nothing good or bad". Thus, to say that God's decision is based on man's good act of faith does not work Indeed, it does or else you will never be able to reconcile man being justified by it. [Rom.5.1]
The point Paul is making is that election is based on nothing man does. This is seen in the statement that before they had done anything "good or bad" the choice of eternal destinies was fixed. It would be silly to say that the point here "before they were born" was to demonstrate that simply God made the decision before they were born. But it is that the decision was based on no good or bad work.I see what you are saying but that isn't what I'm saying. What Paul is stating is simply God seeing men choosing Him, and thus God choosing them by/in His foreknowledge. It is not that God sees, fixes, chooses and then sets in place before the foundation of the world. To see that way is remove man’s will from the equation before he is born.

Don’t you believe He already knows who will respond to His Grace when seen/realized and who won’t? Don’t you believe He knows this before the foundation of the world and then chooses them for His purpose? If Jacob wasn’t to be His man you can be assured his mother Rebecca wouldn’t ever have been in the picture.

As to "election": My above comment will clearly show that the righteous and the unrighteous can be seen as both being "elected" unto something; their out come is certain in the mind of God. So "election" can’t mean that which is the common definition we are fed if my proposition stands and I believe it can and does. A good question might be to ask: what is the difference between the "elect and very elect" as it may apply to salvation, which I don’t believe it does?

:smile:rm

[pepisteuka]

Indeed, it does or else you will never be able to reconcile man being justified by it. [Rom.5.1]
I see what you are saying but that isn't what I'm saying. What Paul is stating is simply God seeing men choosing Him, and thus God choosing them by/in His foreknowledge. It is not that God sees, fixes, chooses and then sets in place before the foundation of the world. To see that way is remove man’s will from the equation before he is born.

May I ask where you got "God seeing men have faith and then God Choosing them" in Romans 9:11? The fact is that this verse and the next verse rules out election being based on any action ("nothing good or bad").


Don’t you believe He already knows who will respond to His Grace when seen/realized and who won’t? Don’t you believe He knows this before the foundation of the world and then chooses them for His purpose? If Jacob wasn’t to be His man you can be assured his mother Rebecca wouldn’t ever have been in the picture.
I do believe that God sees who will respond to His grace and chooses them before the foundation of the world. But, I do not believe election is based on an action man does. Romans 9:11,12 do not support it. As a Calvinist, I believe God knows certain men will have faith because he is the one who regenerates them and gives them faith (phil 1:29).


As to "election": My above comment will clearly show that the righteous and the unrighteous can be seen as both being "elected" unto something; their out come is certain in the mind of God. So "election" can’t mean that which is the common definition we are fed if my proposition stands and I believe it can and does. A good question might be to ask: what is the difference between the "elect and very elect" as it may apply to salvation, which I don’t believe it does?
Your last question does not make sense. What do you not believe does? And where did you get "very" elect? There are not degrees of election. For election is unto salvation.
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

[Tercel]

I find it interesting that Christ evangelized to people who he knew would not come to Him. (John 6:64-65)I'm assuming you're a calvinist because you've interpreted that passage totally unecessarily in a Calvinistic way. The passage isn't even about foreknowledge for starters, and even if it was, your point wouldn't be necessitated. The passage doesn't say that Christ knew in advance how people would respond to the gospel in the future. It appears to rather be commenting that some of the disciples didn't believe and as soon as they didn't believe, Christ knew of it: From the very beginning of their lack of belief, Christ was aware. The passage is talking about Christ as having knowledge of the present, not knowledge of the future.


GoBahnsen wrote:
As if Calvinism is some extra system added to the Bible.Well it is, but that wasn't my point. By "essence of Christianity" I meant that which has been believed by all Christians everywhere, it is that which all Christians have in common. That doesn't include specifically Calvinist doctrines.

Calvinism is basic Christianity. Spurgeon called it a "nickname" for the Gospel. :lol: :ahem:

It is irrational to obey God's command to preach the Gospel to every creature?If you bother to read properly, you'll notice I specifically said that obedience to God's command is a reason for preaching the gospel. Your mud-slinging with claiming I don't have a proper place for obedience to God's command is just being silly, it was clearly listed and clearly stated. It is a reason for preaching the gospel.

What is NOT a reason for preaching the gospel, under calvinism, is a desire to obtain salvation for people that would not otherwise receive it. Calvinism is rationally inconsistent with this. Hence to answer pepisteuka's original question: Predestination indeed causes a lack of desire to evangelise the lost by removing one of the major motivations for evangelisation.

[GoBahnsen]

Well it is, but that wasn't my point. By "essence of Christianity" I meant that which has been believed by all Christians everywhere, it is that which all Christians have in common. That doesn't include specifically Calvinist doctrines.
Yeah, but you singled out Calvinism as if it is different from other views, because it "adds" to the Christian faith. Why not go after Arminianism in the same vein?


:lol: :ahem:
I wouldn't laugh at Spurgeon.



If you bother to read properly, you'll notice I specifically said that obedience to God's command is a reason for preaching the gospel. Your mud-slinging with claiming I don't have a proper place for obedience to God's command is just being silly, it was clearly listed and clearly stated. It is a reason for preaching the gospel.
Mud slinging? Where? Is your accusation that I didn't bother to read you properly...mud-slinging too? And I did read it properly, because I later dealt with your "lumping" of those supposed inferior motives of "enjoyment and command" together.


What is NOT a reason for preaching the gospel, under Calvinism, is a desire to obtain salvation for people that would not otherwise receive it. Calvinism is rationally inconsistent with this. Hence to answer pepisteuka's original question: Predestination indeed causes a lack of desire to evangelise the lost by removing one of the major motivations for evangelisation.I disagree and I think you're broad brushing. Many Calvinists have a burden for the lost. We send out missionaries. But sadly, much of Presbyterianism as well as non Reformed main line denominations, have fallen into liberalism. True Calvinism is zealous for the truth and making it known.
[/QUOTE] Tell me why the non Reformed views have a greater motivation to evangelize?
If you say that it is because they can actually affect God's future, then you're giving man way too much power. But that is what non Calvinistic views do...empower man and reduce God to an observer.

[Stephen]

As a Calvinist-leaning fence sitter (well, depending on who I'm arguing with), I've actually thought about this a lot.

Intellectually, I agree with what's been said about God using people to accomplish His plan. It isn't a matter of benefitting God's plan, as if our involvement achieves anything He could not have achieved on His own. It's more along the vein of Isaiah "Here am I, Lord, send me." It's a priviledge to serve God, even if the ends would have been met regardless of our involvement.

But emotionally, this doesn't fit for me. Maybe it's just ignorance or my humanity (is there a difference?), but the thought of witnessing when my witness did not affect the Kingdom in any way feels useless.

On the other hand, the Arminian view of evangelism places the responsibility of witnessing on the individual, while at the same time assuring that "God will use you no matter how good or bad a speaker you are." In my mind, if our witness will really make an eternity of difference for another human soul, shouldn't this "weight of glory" as C.S. Lewis called it be enough to make every Arminian spend every waking moment witnessing? Isn't the salvation of souls more important than anything?

So that's where I stand, confused with both sides.

[Ormly]

May I ask where you got "God seeing men have faith and then God Choosing them" in Romans 9:11? The fact is that this verse and the next verse rules out election being based on any action ("nothing good or bad").
Romans 1:21-24 (NASB-U)
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.


Who is Paul speaking of -- the regenerate or the unregenerate?

I do believe that God sees who will respond to His grace and chooses them before the foundation of the world. But, I do not believe election is based on an action man does. Romans 9:11,12 do not support it. As a Calvinist, I believe God knows certain men will have faith because he is the one who regenerates them and gives them faith (phil 1:29).
See the above reference and remark.
Your last question does not make sense. What do you not believe does? And where did you get "very" elect? There are not degrees of election. For election is unto salvation.
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:



Matthew 24:24 (KJV) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


:ahem:rm

</P>

[Tercel]

Yeah, but you singled out Calvinism as if it is different from other views, because it "adds" to the Christian faith. Why not go after Arminianism in the same vein?I see I wasn't too clear in this in my original post.
A friend had been trying to evangelise atheists by preaching Calvinism at them. I pointed out that he would be better to drop the Calvinist-specific beliefs from his presentation of Christianity as it put unecessary stumbling stones in the way of potential converts. What if there was someone out there that could believe Christianity but not Calvinism (like me for example!). I didn't single out Calvinism, he did by preaching it.

I disagree and I think you're broad brushing. Many Calvinists have a burden for the lost.I would consider it a real burden if I had a burden for the lost AND I knew from my calvinist beliefs that there was nothing I could do to save the lost.

It's nice these Calvinists have a burden for the lost. But they should realise that, according to Calvinism, they are totally powerless to do anything about it. It's a bit like having an unscratable itch.

Though should these Calvinists really have such a burden for the lost? God, according to Calvinism, doesn't! It therefore doesn't seem very Christ-like for Christians to have such a burden!

Tell me why the non Reformed views have a greater motivation to evangelize?Because they believe that we actually have the power to affect stuff and that it's not already set in stone. If you know you'll get a B+ for your essay no matter what, it's not really a motivation to work hard, but if you know that by hard word you can better your grade, you might well work hard.
Non-Reformed views hold that we can make a positive contribution by evangelisation, thus the motive to evangelise.

If you say that it is because they can actually affect God's future, then you're giving man way too much power.You are being totally arbitrary in your assumptions about how much power man should have. What makes something "too much power" for man to have? Why should we arbitrarily assume that man shouldn't have such power?

But that is what non Calvinistic views do...empower man and reduce God to an observer. :ahem: Virtually all non-Calvinistic views hold that man and God work together in perfect unison. Thus to claim they reduce God to an observer is just silly.


Stephen,

I can appreciate the problems you see in Arminianism and Calvinism, because I hold to neither one (I am Eastern Orthodox). I believe that everyone has a chance for eternal salvation, and it is pretty much up to them, but that this has little to do with evangelism. I believe that when we evangelise we are not "saving souls" in the standard sense, but bringing people into a relationship with God in the here and now. Consider the drug adicted wife-beating child-abusing father who hears the gospel message of Christ's love and victory over sin, death and the devil, and is inspired to turn to God and follow in Christ's footsteps, and overcomes his addiction and becomes a great saint, and through this his relationships with his family are restored and he becomes a great role-model to his kids and cares for his wife. He has come "out of the kingdom of darkness" and "into the kingdom of light".

That is the power of the gospel at work in the world. It was when Christ freed people from demons, when he healed their sickness, when they engaged in fellowship with one another that the kingdom was among them. As Paul says we are "ministers of reconcilation", healing broken relationships between man and God and between man and man. That's the point of the gospel, the afterlife isn't.

[pepisteuka]

I'm assuming you're a calvinist because you've interpreted that passage totally unecessarily in a Calvinistic way. The passage isn't even about foreknowledge for starters, and even if it was, your point wouldn't be necessitated. The passage doesn't say that Christ knew in advance how people would respond to the gospel in the future. It appears to rather be commenting that some of the disciples didn't believe and as soon as they didn't believe, Christ knew of it: From the very beginning of their lack of belief, Christ was aware. The passage is talking about Christ as having knowledge of the present, not knowledge of the future.
I still think the passage would include Christ having foreknowledge. You say that it is talking about Christ knowing the present. Yet, I see no reason to say that Christ here also doesn't have future knowledge. It seems that it is speaking about the beginning of His ministry. From the beginning he knew who would believe in him and betray him (including Judas). Even Wesley would agree:

But there are some of you who believe not - And so receive no life by them, because you take them in a gross literal sense. For Jesus knew from the beginning - Of his ministry: who would betray him - Therefore it is plain, God does foresee future contingencies: "But his foreknowledge causes not the fault, Which had no less proved certain unforeknown." (on John 6:64).

And yes, if this is speaking of foreknowledge I think my point would stand. Honestly, you have posed no reason for me to think it would not if it is true that Christ had foreknowledge at that moment. Once again, if Christ saw a reason in evangelizing those he knew would not have faith in him then we should see no conflict in witnessing.

I appreciate your time

[pepisteuka]

Romans 1:21-24 (NASB-U)
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.


Who is Paul speaking of -- the regenerate or the unregenerate?
See the above reference and remark.


Sir,
If you read in my original post I asked in Romans 9:11 for you to please show me where you see God electing men based on faith. And you haven't answered. In regards to Rom. 1 I think he is speaking about the unregenerate but I honestly do not see your point.


Matthew 24:24 (KJV) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


:ahem:rm

</P>


I do not think that "very elect" is a type of elect. In the esv it says "even the elect". Hope that helps your misunderstanding.</P>

[Tercel]

Pepisteuka,

John 6:60-66 (NRSV)
When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?" But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father." Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

This literally says:
1. Jesus taught something that was hard.
2. Some of his disciples found it hard to believe.
3. Jesus immediately knew of their unbelief.
4. he knew Judas had the intention to betray him, OR: that he knew Judas would do so, or would likely do so, in the future.
5. Those disciples who could not believe left.

The only foreknowledge Jesus is depicted as having here (if indeed he is depicted as having any at all) is that of Judas' betrayal. His knowledge of some of his follower's unbelief is not depicted as foreknowledge but as present knowledge.

Incidentally, I hold the Open View and do not believe God knows the future exhaustively (though he may certainly know individual events he has foreordained or that are certain).

Be all that as it may, let us assume that Jesus preached to people whom he knew for certain would not believe. Should we therefore follow his example? No. Look at why Jesus did this, according to this passage: It was purely and simply to teach his disciples a lesson. The lesson he was teaching is that God choose the disciples by his will according to his plan. (This is certainly not necessarily the same as saying God predestined them to heaven or hell: Choosing who would be Jesus' disciples on earth is a far cry from choosing eternal salvation/damnation) But if Jesus did this only in order to teach a lesson to his disciples, it is silly to conclude that there is some inherent value in preaching to the reprobate and that we should all go out and do it.


This whole conversation is getting silly though: I don't believe in certain foreknowledge, I don't believe there are any predefined reprobate, I don't believe the Gospel is directly relevant to eternal salvation etc. Your argument from beginning to end is predicated on calvinist assumptions that I just don't share.

[Kenny]

What is NOT a reason for preaching the gospel, under calvinism, is a desire to obtain salvation for people that would not otherwise receive it. Calvinism is rationally inconsistent with this.

Actually, it's not. The following two propositions are logically consistent with one another.

1.) If I hadn't witnessed to "Bob," Bob would not have been saved.

2.) Since Bob is elect, it was certain and inevitable Bob would have been saved.

Of course, these two propositions jointly entail that it was certain and inevitable that I would witness to Bob (presumably, because God ordained that too). Nevertheless, it remains true in the above scenario that Bob would not have received salvation had I not witnessed to him. I deal with this in some more detail in the thread I linked to above.

I would also like to point out that many Arminian systems share the same problem; actually, some of them have it worse than Calvinism.

Some Molinists believe, for example, that God insures that all who can possibly be saved (in the sense that there is a feasible world in which they are saved) are saved. If I don't witness to Bob and it is possible for Bob to be saved, then God will insure that Bob receives the Gospel by some other means which are sufficient for Bob to be saved. Thus, on this scenario, my witnessing to Bob truly is counterfactually irrelevant toward the outcome of Bob's salvation. At least Calvinism, unlike this form of Molinism, can consistently maintain a genuine counterfactual dependence between someone's being saved and their being evangelized.

Other Arminians, many open theists included, believe that God insures that everyone has a suitable opportunity to respond to the Gospel. If one Christian won't witness to that person, God does His best to motivate others to do so. If other Christians won't do it, then some sort of inclusivism kicks in and this person is only responsible for the light they were given. So, when it all comes out in the wash, causally speaking, evangelism doesn't make that much of a difference to people's salvation on these systems either.

Last I heard, you yourself hold to a post-mortem opportunity view. People who weren't properly evangelized in this life, according to this view, will get a second opportunity after death. Many Arminians hold to this view as well. But, if God will make sure these people get their chance after death, then what difference (qua outcome of salvation) does evangelism in the here and now make?

Interestingly enough, out of all these Arminian views, Calvinism allows for the strongest and most consistent assertion that the outcome of someone's salvation may indeed be counterfactually dependent on whether or not we evangelize them.

You also said in another post that according to Calvinism God does not care about saving the lost. That is most certainly not true! According to Calvinism, many among the lost are elect, beloved of God, those for whom Christ died, those for whom God would literally move Heaven and Earth in order make certain their future redemption. One of God's all consuming passions, according to Calvinism, is to gather all of the elect among the lost to Himself and to lose none of them. When we faithfully evangelize, we participate in one of the most dearest activities to God's heart, that of reconciling those who are lost among his children back to Himself.

In Christ,
Kenny

[pepisteuka]

Thank you

[GoBahnsen]

Yeah, thanks Kenny. You make some good points.

Tercel, Ok that info helped me to understand your concern better. You pointed out that the Calvinist was witnessing under the banner of Calvinism. I agree, that's not a good way to go. Calvinism as a label can be explained later, it doesn't need to be mentioned in evangelism. Christ is the center of evangelism, not Calvin's commentary.

But I think Kenny makes some good points about motives for witnessing. The non Calvinistic models are also open to a lack of motivation. That is if we have to be motivated by our success or failure actually costing a person to lose or gain their soul.

It is exciting to think that we might hold the very power, in and of ourselves, to determine where another soul spends eternity. Exciting, but a false excitment, because in either scheme, Calvinistic or non...God holds the keys to the heart. We're just messenger boys/girls. We don't save anybody, we point people to Christ who alone has the power to convert the soul.

And as Kenny pointed out, God isn't short on resources to bring the Gospel to whomsoever He wishes. And after that, God's arm is not too short, that it cannot save. God changes hearts, not us... even our own hearts are outside of our own ability to renew.

[GoBahnsen]

As a Calvinist-leaning fence sitter (well, depending on who I'm arguing with), I've actually thought about this a lot.

Intellectually, I agree with what's been said about God using people to accomplish His plan. It isn't a matter of benefitting God's plan, as if our involvement achieves anything He could not have achieved on His own. It's more along the vein of Isaiah "Here am I, Lord, send me." It's a priviledge to serve God, even if the ends would have been met regardless of our involvement.
Amen! A privilege and a command, both. What motivation!!


But emotionally, this doesn't fit for me. Maybe it's just ignorance or my humanity (is there a difference?), but the thought of witnessing when my witness did not affect the Kingdom in any way feels useless.
But it did. God used you. It mattered. Just because God is sooooo huge that we can't wrap our peanut brains around Him, doesn't mean we need to be motivated by "our involvement" making or breaking the deal.


On the other hand, the Arminian view of evangelism places the responsibility of witnessing on the individual So does the Calvinistic model. I haven't seen Jesus out on the pier handing out tracts, but He is in His servants. I haven't seen angels witnessing in the work place, but rather ordinary Christians serving Christ.


, while at the same time assuring that "God will use you no matter how good or bad a speaker you are." Same with Calvinism, but often the Calvinist is better taught in doctrine. Arminians tend to downplay doctrine in exchange for "being led by the Spirit" As if Calvinists are so stupid as to not know that it is the Spirit that converts the soul.



In my mind, if our witness will really make an eternity of difference for another human soul, shouldn't this "weight of glory" as C.S. Lewis called it be enough to make every Arminian spend every waking moment witnessing? Isn't the salvation of souls more important than anything?
No. God's glory is more important. And yes, if "our efforts" are what makes it or breaks it for other people, then yes...maybe we should just eat and sleep and witness. My wife and I are planning a second honeymoon in about two weeks. Maybe we should just cancel it and go street witnessing instead? What justification do we have to enjoy ourselves while people are perishing, that we could have prevented.

Think about it. The Arminian scheme lays a heavy trip on us all. What right do have to watch a ball game? What right do we have to sit around after Church and eat together and fellowship? What right do we have to be here on Tweb, dialoguing? We should be out pounding on doors, day and night. We have no right to any kind of normalacy of life, if we indeed hold the real power to save souls. Thanks be to God that He hasn't burdened us with that which we would not be able to bear.

And, quite honestly, practically all people who hold Non Reformed views and criticize Calvinism for it's supposed lack of motivation, these very people live pretty normal lives themselves. They sleep in sometimes. They blow opportunities to witness. They often burn out, like I did when I was an Arminian.

I got tired of being out on the street in Huntington Beach late at night trying to cram the Gospel down some party animal's throat, who didn't want to hear it. I remember one guy saw me coming and he told me to back off right away. So what did I do? I had to save him right? It was my responsibility I thought. So I pressed him. He finally told me to shut up and he walked away. How glad I am now to know that I have other responsibilities as well. Like my Church, my wife, my kids. God will make opportunities, but I also can be free in Christ and live a normal life.



So that's where I stand, confused with both sides.
I'll pray for ya right now, at least this once. I also do not find your tag line very amusing friend. I guess I don't get the funny part.

[Tercel]

Kenny,
I have to say that I think, when it comes to Calvinism, you seem to play endless semantic games. (This is an observation based on past experiences, not just this thread) You seem to be always trying to escape particular instances of arguments on a logical triviality using continually shifting terminology while you ignore the fact that the major problems that beset Calvinism from start to finish are still there no matter how you twist your terms.

The following two propositions are logically consistent with one another.
1.) If I hadn't witnessed to "Bob," Bob would not have been saved.
2.) Since Bob is elect, it was certain and inevitable Bob would have been saved.~Yawn~, obviously (1) is not particularly meaningful in light of (2) as the counterfactual cannot possibly hold. The occurance of meaningless theses in arguments is usually a good indication the person's engaging in metaphysical double-talk...

I would also like to point out that many Arminian systems share the same problem; actually, some of them have it worse than Calvinism.Quite probably. Arminianism is wrong anyway. So what?

Other Arminians, many open theists included, believe that God insures that everyone has a suitable opportunity to respond to the Gospel. If one Christian won't witness to that person, God does His best to motivate others to do so. If other Christians won't do it, then some sort of inclusivism kicks in and this person is only responsible for the light they were given. So, when it all comes out in the wash, causally speaking, evangelism doesn't make that much of a difference to people's salvation on these systems either.Yes and no. Yes, you are quite right if you are talking about eternal salvation. But that's not the motive for evangelism anyway - the idea that it is is simply a Protestant theological mistake. So no, you are wrong in asserting that evangelism doesn't make a difference to people's salvation. Consider the example I gave in an earlier post of the man living a life that is basically hell-on-earth for himself and those around him, who receives the message of Christ and changes his life completely. Under the open view, I firmly hold that the one who had told him this life-changing message could have chosen not to do so.

Last I heard, you yourself hold to a post-mortem opportunity view. People who weren't properly evangelized in this life, according to this view, will get a second opportunity after death.I think whether anyone is "properly" evangelized in this life is quite irrelevant to eternal salvation. God will welcome all in love, and they will have all eternity to grow into His likeness, or they will have all eternity to grow more dislike Him. That's up to them.

Many Arminians hold to this view as well. But, if God will make sure these people get their chance after death, then what difference (qua outcome of salvation) does evangelism in the here and now make?It changes peoples lives Kenny. I've actually been studying this in depth the last week (so it's my pet peeve at the moment) but it is in this way that the Protestants have totally missed the plot with Christianity. It's not about heaven and hell. Heck the Jews of Jesus' time barely even believed in heaven and hell as we know it. It's about Christ's defeat of sin and death and the devil and a renewed relationship with God, it's about copying Christ and his devotion to God. We are "ministers of reconciliation", reaching out to a world that is in bondage in the here and now, and proclaiming the good news of Christ, of his casting out of demons, of his healing of the sick, of his devotion to God to the point of death, of his resurrection from death, of the relationship with God available to all in Him. Christianity is about the here and now, about changed lives in this world. Sure, there's an afterlife, but that's fairly incidental and totally not the point.

Evangelism was never intended to be about the afterlife, but about the here and now. The fact that so many Christians think otherwise today is because Anselm and Calvin together screwed the relevant doctrines up real good. (The main relevant problem is atonement theory: The Christian atonement theory in the bible and the first millennia of Christianity is Christus Victor, whereas post-Anselmian Christianity has a tendency to follow the contrived and false Satisfaction/Penal Substitution)

You also said in another post that according to Calvinism God does not care about saving the lost.In any sane terminology "lost" = "reprobate". Don't cheat by twisting definitions. Under Calvinism, those who are truly lost are truly lost because God decreed from all eternity that they would be so. Clearly He doesn't care about saving them.

[Ormly]

Sir,
If you read in my original post I asked in Romans 9:11 for you to please show me where you see God electing men based on faith. And you haven't answered. In regards to Rom. 1 I think he is speaking about the unregenerate but I honestly do not see your point. I don't. I see God acting on what He foreknew about who would have faith and who wouldn't. In hindsight we know that Jacob did. So I believe I've answered your question.
As to Rom.1 My point is everyone knew/knows about God since He has given grace to everyone that they might believe in Him. All this before regeneration and what we would deemed "election" because He foreknows/knew who would and who wouldn't respond. [Jn 1.9; Titus 2.11]




I do not think that "very elect" is a type of elect. In the esv it says "even the elect". Hope that helps your misunderstandingSo you say but that's what the KJV says and that trans. fits better with the rest of scripture pertaining to the severity of the end times. If you are going to consider your assumptions in this all you have to is look around at current events to believe it is possible that the KJV is more accurate.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Orm

[Ormly]

The Rational Mind Depraved


Romans 1:24-32



April 28, 1996
by J. David Hoke


Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
(Romans 1:24-32 NIV)


Without God, the human race is in serious trouble. The evidence is all around us. Most of what is wrong with our society today could be fixed if people chose to live according to God's standards. Crime would cease because people would not steal, assault, and murder one another. The poor would be cared for because people would have compassion in their hearts. People would be reconciled to one another instead of forever fighting and arguing. Wars would cease as people laid down their selfishness and their arms. Think of what would happen if people lived by the two Great Commandments that teach that we are to love God with all of our being and love one another as we love ourselves. The results would be incredible.


In fact, this is what has happened in times past during great revivals. The great Welch Revival that began in 1904 is a fine example of this. Peoples lives were changed to such an extent that businesses supporting the more carnal desires of the populous had to close for lack of interest in their services. J. Edwin Orr, in his book The Flaming Tongue, gives us these reports:


Many were the evidences of the Spirit of God working in Wales. Long standing debts were paid, and stolen goods returned, while striking cases of restitution were made. In Maesteg, a tradesman received a live pig in payment of a debt which had been outstanding since 1898. Other notable instances of open restitution were reported.

Stocks of Welch and English Bibles were sold out. Prayer meetings were held in coal mines, in trains and trams and places of business. The works managers bore testimony of the change of conduct of their employees. The magistrates in several places were presented with white gloves, signifying that there were utterly no cases to try.

The police rejoiced in the revival. One day in Holyhead, in the island county of Anglesey, the solemnity of court proceedings was broken by songs of praise in Welch. The police guard outside hurried in, but stayed to add his bass to the jury's choir of praise over a sinner repenting.

Cursing and profanity were so diminished that several slowdowns were reported in the coal mines, for so many men gave up using foul language that the pit ponies dragging the coal trucks in the mine tunnels did not understand what was being said to them and stood still, confused.


When people choose to follow the Lord, society is changed. But, where people choose to live without God, everyone suffers. You see, because we choose to live without God, He abandons us to our own desires as we continue to descend into greater and greater depravity.


Years ago there was the presentation of a series of programs by Jacob Bronowski on the Public Broadcasting System called "The Ascent of Man." There is this notion that somehow our society is evolving into a more civilized and more humane culture. This idea was much more popular before the Second World War. Hitler did a great deal to burst that popular bubble. He showed that we are still capable of inconceivable inhumanity. And since that time we have, unfortunately, had a constant series of reminders of our own depravity. Stalen, Idi Amin, Sadam Hussein, just to name a few. It really doesn't seem as if we are ascending at all. Perhaps another series should be done entitled "The Descent of Man."


That could certainly be the title of today's message. The text before us catalogs the continuing downward spiral of sinful unbelief and reveals its horrible consequences for humankind. What we see is the full force of God's wrath revealed against people who choose to reject Him. What we see is a revelation of the results of sin. And what we should hear is a challenge to realize that sin is no game - it has real consequences, both now and for the future.


Do you really see the results of continual sin? We must, for it can have devastating consequences for our lives.


In the last message we looked at the steps in the downward spiral of sinful unbelief. We saw that this unbelief results in deceit, as we suppress the truth about God, denial, as we ignore the evidence for God, darkness, as our minds and hearts become unable to apprehend God, and delusion, as we actually come to believe that we are right in dismissing God. Let's turn our attention now to the consequences of this downward spiral of sinful unbelief.


Degraded


Oscar Wilde said, "When the gods wished to punish us they answer our prayers." While Wilde certainly did not have our passage in Romans in mind when he wrote these words, he may have stumbled on a truth contained in these verses. It is as if God is answering the prayers of unbelievers who desire for Him to leave them alone. They choose to reject God and desire that God leave them alone therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to their foolish endeavor to live without Him. So God has answered their prayer, but it is not an answer that will help them.


Since their desire was to be rid of God, God abandoned them. This is what the word in Greek connotes. It could be literally translated as "given up" or "given over." Since they did not want to deal with God, He has given them over to their own sinful ways. He has left them to become degraded and distorted.


The first consequence of this downward spiral of sinful unbelief is that they become degraded. Paul talks about the degrading of their bodies with one another. Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the creator, their sinful desires lead them to sexual impurity. And the result of this lifestyle leads to the degrading of their bodies.


What is in view here is a casual approach to sex. And the fact that sex is treated as a casual thing is evident everywhere around us today. The mentality of our day accepts casual sex as the preferred way of life. Indeed, when someone suggests that casual sex leads to undesirable consequences, that person is dismissed as being "old-fashioned" or a "religious prude." But there is nothing "new-fashioned" about sexual sin. It has been around since the beginning of time.


The problem with indulging a promiscuous lifestyle is that it tends to open up the heart to further self-indulgence. This is, you see, the central issue. Sexual promiscuity is merely indulging our desires. And the problem with indulging our desires is that our desires are never satisfied. So we move from self-indulgence to greater self-indulgence in an effort to find something that fulfills us.


Paul next deals with the next downward step in depravity, which is homosexuality. They move from degrading their body to a distorted view of sexuality itself. Here again it says that God gave them over. This time He abandoned them to shameful lusts. Look closely at what these lusts are: Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


There can be no doubt as to what this means. He is talking about the perversion and unnatural character of the homosexual lifestyle. And the words "unnatural" and "perversion" stand as clear reminders that God's opinion of lesbianism and male homosexuality is that they are a distortion of the way God created sex to be used. And because of this, people who indulge in this lifestyle have received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


Now Paul was certainly not thinking of AIDS when he wrote this, although he may have been thinking of other sexually transmitted diseases. Indeed, some who work with homosexuals have suggested that the real penalty is the loss of self-identity and self-worth. The reality is that there are real penalties, real consequences for continuing to do our own thing. When God lets us go, we are in trouble.


James Boyce, speaking of this very thing, said:


It is like releasing the porcelain pitcher on earth rather than in space. When you let go of the pitcher it does not drift off into nowhere. You release it from your hand to the law of gravity, and when you do that it falls downward and breaks - if the fall is far enough and the ground hard.

When we run away from God we think our way will be uphill, because we want it to be so. But the way is actually downhill. We are pulled down by the law of moral gravity - when God lets go.


Depraved


Finally, people who refuse to live under God's standards experience a full fledged depravity. Paul says, "Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."


Here he catalogs a long list of what he calls every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. He speaks of people being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. This is quite a description of people without God. It is a description that deals primarily with the sins of the spirit. These are sins that are much worse than any other kind of sin, including sexual sin. C. S. Lewis, in his book, Mere Christianity, says,


If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual. The pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me competing with the human self which I must try to become: they are the animal self, and the diabolical self; and the diabolical self is the worst of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig, who goes regularly to church, may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But of course, it's better to be neither.


The end of the downward cycle is a depraved mind. Here is a picture of someone who has been totally abandoned by God. What we see here is the picture of where we would be without the grace and mercy of a loving God. We become degraded, distorted, and finally depraved. But this is a frighteningly accurate picture of our contemporary culture. We have come to the point where we call right wrong and wrong right. And the real tragedy is that many people, if not most, believe that they can continue to sin with impunity. But there are real and tragic consequences to sin.


Damned


Paul says about them that although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they do not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. It is clear that the judgment is death. This is what the Bible speaks of as the "second death" of eternal damnation.


The final consequence of those who choose to live without God is that they are damned. What a tragic end for any life. Sadly, it is the way many have chosen for themselves.


What if it could be different? Pastor Kent Hughes said that as he was studying this passage in Romans, he took a few minutes to write out a positive alternative rendering. In other words, he wanted to see what it would look like if everything were reversed. This is what he wrote:


Therefore, God gave them over in their hearts to self-control and purity, that their bodies might be honored among them. For they kept and cherished the truth of God and worshipped and served the Creator, who is blessed forever, rather than the creature.

For this reason God gave them over to pure and wholesome lives, lived with carefree ease even in the most intimate relations so that all received in their own persons the due reward of their fidelity.

And just as they saw fit to acknowledge God in all things, God gave them over to a sound mind, to do those things which are proper, being filled with all righteousness, goodness, generosity, kindness; full of selflessness, life, healing, openness, kindliness; they are gentle in speech, always building others up, lovers of God, respectful, humble, self-effacing, inventors of good, obedient to parents, understanding, trustworthy, loving, merciful; and as they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are possessors of life, they do the same, and give hearty approval to all who do likewise.


One way leads to death, and the other leads to life. One way leads to the wrath and judgment of God, and the other leads to the approval and acceptance of God. The question is: which do you prefer?

[Kenny]

Kenny,
I have to say that I think, when it comes to Calvinism, you seem to play endless semantic games. (This is an observation based on past experiences, not just this thread) You seem to be always trying to escape particular instances of arguments on a logical triviality using continually shifting terminology while you ignore the fact that the major problems that beset Calvinism from start to finish are still there no matter how you twist your terms.

Well, there isn't much to say to the above vague charge except that I disagree.

~Yawn~,

Tired? Maybe you need to get some more sleep?

obviously (1) is not particularly meaningful in light of (2) as the counterfactual cannot possibly hold.

Nonsense. All that is required for the counterfactual to hold is that there is a least one logically possible world in which God did not elect Bob. Since Calvinism holds that election was a free act on God's part, that's no problem for our system.

Quite probably. Arminianism is wrong anyway. So what?

Well, at least we agree about something :wink:

Yes and no. Yes, you are quite right if you are talking about eternal salvation.

Well, we were, and you knew that, so who exactly is shifting the terms? I agree that the term "salvation" itself covers much broader and richer ground.

But that's not the motive for evangelism anyway - the idea that it is is simply a Protestant theological mistake.

So you believe that evangelism makes no difference as far as people's eternal destinies are concerned. Thanks for the candid admission.

So no, you are wrong in asserting that evangelism doesn't make a difference to people's salvation. Consider the example I gave in an earlier post of the man living a life that is basically hell-on-earth for himself and those around him, who receives the message of Christ and changes his life completely.

Well, there's nothing for me to argue with in the above. I agree that evangelism makes a huge difference for people's present circumstances as well, and the sooner someone receives salvation, the better. As a Calvinist, I have no difficulty affirming this.

Under the open view, I firmly hold that the one who had told him this life-changing message could have chosen not to do so.

Under a determinist view, I hold that the one who told him this life-changing message could have chosen not to do also. Of course, since I am a compatibilist and you are a libertarian, we disagree on what the relevant sense of "could have," as it pertains to choice, involves, but if you accuse me of "shifting the terms" on that basis you are just begging the question by assuming from the outset that your particular philosophical system defines the terms correctly and the ones opposed to you do not.

I think whether anyone is "properly" evangelized in this life is quite irrelevant to eternal salvation.

Again, thanks for being candid in that respect. As a Calvinist, I could not disagree more. So who's system makes for the stronger motivator when it comes to evangelism? Of course, which one makes for the stronger evangelistic motivator does not tell us which one is true, but that whether or not either is true was not the initial question.

It changes peoples lives Kenny.

Agreed; I've seen it myself. This is a strong motive for evangelism in any orthodox Christian system (Calvinism included).

I've actually been studying this in depth the last week (so it's my pet peeve at the moment) but it is in this way that the Protestants have totally missed the plot with Christianity. It's not about heaven and hell. Heck the Jews of Jesus' time barely even believed in heaven and hell as we know it. It's about Christ's defeat of sin and death and the devil and a renewed relationship with God, it's about copying Christ and his devotion to God. We are "ministers of reconciliation", reaching out to a world that is in bondage in the here and now, and proclaiming the good news of Christ, of his casting out of demons, of his healing of the sick, of his devotion to God to the point of death, of his resurrection from death, of the relationship with God available to all in Him. Christianity is about the here and now, about changed lives in this world.

Actually, there's nothing in the above which I disagree with. I have offered similar correctives to some of my fellow Protestants in this regard.

Sure, there's an afterlife, but that's fairly incidental and totally not the point.

Well, I disagree that it's incidental. That's overcompensation, exchanging one error for its opposite. The afterlife is the fulfillment, continuation and ultimate vindication of God's salvation which, happily granted, has already begun and is present with us in the here and now.

Evangelism was never intended to be about the afterlife, but about the here and now.

It's not an either/or but a both/and. I think Romans 8 (and the chapters which follow) contradicts the idea that evangelism has nothing to do with the afterlife.

The fact that so many Christians think otherwise today is because Anselm and Calvin together screwed the relevant doctrines up real good.

I think you have the Orthodox version of Jack Chick's Catholic-o-phobia. According to Chick, the RC is responsible for everything from Islam to the holocaust. You seem to blame every problem in Western theology on Anselm and Calvin. That's seems a bit historically simplistic, don't you think?

(The main relevant problem is atonement theory: The Christian atonement theory in the bible and the first millennia of Christianity is Christus Victor, whereas post-Anselmian Christianity has a tendency to follow the contrived and false Satisfaction/Penal Substitution)

Resisting the urge to get on this off topic tangent…

In any sane terminology "lost" = "reprobate". Don't cheat by twisting definitions.

Is "sane terminology" defined by Tercel's own personal lexicon? Who's really twisting the definitions here. By standard Protestant definitions, both Arminian and Calvinist, the reprobate are those who are hopelessly lost. So, by the standard definition of the term, if the lost were restricted to the reprobate, then there would be no hope for any of them on either a Calvinist or an Arminian system. But, that's silly. Again, in common Protestant parlance, both Calvinist and Arminian, the lost are those who have not yet been regenerated, not yet repented, not yet confessed Christ, not yet received the Holy Spirit, etc. Some among these are reprobate, but many are not.

Perhaps your definitions differ from the way Protestants use them, but then (since your audience consists mostly of Protestants) you should be careful to define your terms; otherwise, you are the one who is equivocating.

In Christ,
Kenny

[Tercel]

So you believe that evangelism makes no difference as far as people's eternal destinies are concerned.I would be extremely hesistant to phrase it like that. I believe evangelism can change people's lives. Since people in the afterlife are still the same people as they are in this life, it is going to be the case that if you change the people now they remain changed in the afterlife... their eternal state has been changed because they've changed it thanks to your evangelism.
But yes, I firmly believe evangelism doesn't "save people from hell" in the Protestant conception of the words. I've held this believe for the vast majority of the time you've known me.

Thanks for the candid admission.I'm not sure what you mean by this... it's not a belief I would ever want to hide or be ashamed of. It seems a bit like thanking me for candidly admitting to a belief in God.

I'm making what I believe quite clear here because I don't want to feel hypocritical: If I am pointing out that Calvinism is logically inconsistent with the idea of "going out and trying to save people from hell", then it is only fair to point out that I do not believe in the idea of "going out and trying to save people from hell" and that I think the very notion is unbiblical and a late distortion of Christian theology.

However, that said, it is fair to say that the Calvinist does fare worse than me in terms of motive for evangelism. As I have pointed out, I have the motive that I really believe that by evangelising or not evangelising I actually myself have the power to change peoples lives or not change people's lives. Now of course, Calvinists would agree you have the power to help people socially (eg to alleviate poverty through programs etc), but you do not believe you can renew the lives of any of the reprobate by leading them to God and introducing them to a relationship with Him. To you there are two classes of people out there: Those you cannot save (by this word I mean: Introducing them to a real and life-changing relationship with God) no matter what you do, and those who will be saved no matter what you do. Thus at best, you can find one of those who will be saved and save them earlier than they would have been saved had you not done this. Whereas I hold that if you did not save that person, they would never be saved in their life.

I think whether anyone is "properly" evangelized in this life is quite irrelevant to eternal salvation.

Again, thanks for being candid in that respect. As a Calvinist, I could not disagree more. So who's system makes for the stronger motivator when it comes to evangelism?Let me be more candid, and point out that as a studier of the history of theology I think it is beyond reasonable dispute that the Calvinist idea that it does matter is a late distortion of Christianity.
My system has the stronger motivation when it comes to evangelism as I laid out above. Just because you think that someone needs to be properly evangelised to receive eternal salvation doesn't entail you have that as a motivation when it comes to evangelism because the predestination thesis wipes out that motivation.

You seem to blame every problem in Western theology on Anselm and Calvin. That's seems a bit historically simplistic, don't you think?It would certainly be too historically simplistic. Certainly it wasn't just Anselm and Calvin who erred, they were merely pointed out because they are most clear points of discontinuity of doctrine, being clearly involved in making up the new satisfaction/penal substitution theories of the atonement which pretty much completed the western rewriting of Christianity. If you don't won't to drag this thread off topic, you are welcome to reply to these suggestions in a new thread. But seriously, I have no doubt whatsoever that Calvinism is a totally invented system that has no relationship to original Christianity, and even a semi-decent knowledge of theological history should be enough to see that the doctrines that would eventually become Calvinism were made up one-by-one by theologians across the centuries. I really have not the slightest inkling how anyone could even begin to argue to the contrary.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

This thread has gone a long way...

Where is anything of God "reacting" to man in this?
God sees what Jacob and Esau will do, and plans accordingly. That's reacting.

And you say works? What "works" did Jacob or Esau do before they were born? How about Him just knowing the heart of one He foresees, Hmmm?
Well, if he knows their hearts well enough to know what they would do, then that's the same as knowing what they would do! And a work is something you do, I don't mean a meritorious work, just a deed, plain and simple.

Blessings,
Lee

[Stephen]

Amen! A privilege and a command, both. What motivation!! And I know it to be true. The difficulty is in feeling its truth.

But it did. God used you. It mattered. Just because God is sooooo huge that we can't wrap our peanut brains around Him, doesn't mean we need to be motivated by "our involvement" making or breaking the deal. True, that's why I'm distinguishing with what I believe is firm Biblical teaching, and my own human bias. The former, of course, overrides the other.

So does the Calvinistic model. I haven't seen Jesus out on the pier handing out tracts, but He is in His servants. I haven't seen angels witnessing in the work place, but rather ordinary Christians serving Christ. I should have been more clear. Naturally it is our responsibility to witness. The point I intended to make was whether or not the listener's reaction to our witness is our responsibility. That is, in the Arminian model, if God does not call some to respond positively and some to respond negatively to the same circumstance, it seems to assume (if not state) that the number of converts must have some relation to the quality of the message/speaker who gives it.

No. God's glory is more important. But the salvation of others brings glory to God, so God's glory and the weight of out neighbor's glory don't necessarily need to be two seperate things.

And yes, if "our efforts" are what makes it or breaks it for other people, then yes...maybe we should just eat and sleep and witness. My wife and I are planning a second honeymoon in about two weeks. Maybe we should just cancel it and go street witnessing instead? What justification do we have to enjoy ourselves while people are perishing, that we could have prevented.

Think about it. The Arminian scheme lays a heavy trip on us all. What right do have to watch a ball game? What right do we have to sit around after Church and eat together and fellowship? What right do we have to be here on Tweb, dialoguing? We should be out pounding on doors, day and night. We have no right to any kind of normalacy of life, if we indeed hold the real power to save souls. Thanks be to God that He hasn't burdened us with that which we would not be able to bear.

And, quite honestly, practically all people who hold Non Reformed views and criticize Calvinism for it's supposed lack of motivation, these very people live pretty normal lives themselves. They sleep in sometimes. They blow opportunities to witness. They often burn out, like I did when I was an Arminian.

I got tired of being out on the street in Huntington Beach late at night trying to cram the Gospel down some party animal's throat, who didn't want to hear it. I remember one guy saw me coming and he told me to back off right away. So what did I do? I had to save him right? It was my responsibility I thought. So I pressed him. He finally told me to shut up and he walked away. How glad I am now to know that I have other responsibilities as well. Like my Church, my wife, my kids. God will make opportunities, but I also can be free in Christ and live a normal life. I agree, which is one of the larger problems I have with Arminianism.

I'll pray for ya right now, at least this once. I also do not find your tag line very amusing friend. I guess I don't get the funny part. Your prayers are welcome, but my confusion on the issue does not change how I feel about evangelism one way or another. Evangelism is incredibly important; that is Biblically clear, and regardless of what position I take, that will hold true. My only problem is realistically reconciling Calvinism or Arminianism to this view.

As for the tagline, since I basically consider myself a Calvinist, it wasn't intended to be offensive. If I remember right (which might be completely wrong), Fear No Evil was supporting Calvinism, and this quote was a joke about how so many criticize Calvinism by pointing out the flaws in Calvin. Or maybe my memory is completely wrong. Either way, it wasn't meant to be anti-calvinistic.

-Stephen

[Ormly]

Hi everyone,

This thread has gone a long way...


God sees what Jacob and Esau will do, and plans accordingly. That's reacting.


Well, if he knows their hearts well enough to know what they would do, then that's the same as knowing what they would do! And a work is something you do, I don't mean a meritorious work, just a deed, plain and simple.

Blessings,
LeeOK -- I'll take it any way you wish to explain away but the fact still remains that it was the foreknowledge of God that determined their destiny. ---- I'd be real curious to see what God fixed in Jacob before he was born and then choose him because it was His good pleasure to do so.

Anything you say will only support my argument so may I suggest you admit your error?

[Stephen]

OK -- I'll take it any way you wish to explain away but the fact still remains that it was the foreknowledge of God that determined their destiny. ---- I'd be real curious to see what God fixed in Jacob before he was born and then choose him because it was His good pleasure to do so.

Anything you say will only support my argument so may I suggest you admit your error? Starting with a conclusion then challenging the other to prove it wrong or else admit defeat isn't exactly fair. Something isn't judged true by whether or not it can be proven wrong, but if it can be proven right to begin with.

[GoBahnsen]

And I know it to be true. The difficulty is in feeling its truth.

True, that's why I'm distinguishing with what I believe is firm Biblical teaching, and my own human bias. The former, of course, overrides the other.

I should have been more clear. Naturally it is our responsibility to witness. The point I intended to make was whether or not the listener's reaction to our witness is our responsibility. That is, in the Arminian model, if God does not call some to respond positively and some to respond negatively to the same circumstance, it seems to assume (if not state) that the number of converts must have some relation to the quality of the message/speaker who gives it.

But the salvation of others brings glory to God, so God's glory and the weight of out neighbor's glory don't necessarily need to be two seperate things.

I agree, which is one of the larger problems I have with Arminianism.

Your prayers are welcome, but my confusion on the issue does not change how I feel about evangelism one way or another. Evangelism is incredibly important; that is Biblically clear, and regardless of what position I take, that will hold true. My only problem is realistically reconciling Calvinism or Arminianism to this view.

As for the tagline, since I basically consider myself a Calvinist, it wasn't intended to be offensive. If I remember right (which might be completely wrong), Fear No Evil was supporting Calvinism, and this quote was a joke about how so many criticize Calvinism by pointing out the flaws in Calvin. Or maybe my memory is completely wrong. Either way, it wasn't meant to be anti-calvinistic.

-StephenYou have passed the "GoBahnsen test". You are free to go. :cheers:

[Ormly]

I should have been more clear. Naturally it is our responsibility to witness. The point I intended to make was whether or not the listener's reaction to our witness is our responsibility. That is, in the Arminian model, if God does not call some to respond positively and some to respond negatively to the same circumstance, it seems to assume (if not state) that the number of converts must have some relation to the quality of the message/speaker who gives it.
No it's not! You've willfully posted a gross distortion. If not willful then may I suggest you study a little more. :eek:

[Stephen]

No it's not! You've willfully posted a gross distortion. If not willful then may I suggest you study a little more.
I was not suggesting that Arminians believe this, but it seems like the next logical implication. If God does not choose some to respond positively and others to respond negatively, then why is it that at any given evangelism event, some will be saved and others not. But then at a larger event, such as a Billy Graham Crusade, those same people that earlier resisted are now coming to salvation?

Of course I have never met an Arminian who actually believed this. But what else can explain it? If it is not up to the quality of the message and instead God opens some hearts and not others, wouldn't that be the same "election" of sorts that Arminianism opposes?

[Ormly]

I was not suggesting that Arminians believe this, but it seems like the next logical implication. If God does not choose some to respond positively and others to respond negatively, then why is it that at any given evangelism event, some will be saved and others not. But then at a larger event, such as a Billy Graham Crusade, those same people that earlier resisted are now coming to salvation?He doesn't EVER choose for some to respond and some not. He desires all to be saved and gives His grace to all that all MIGHT BE saved and come into the knowledge of Him. [Titus 2.11] [I'm wearing out that verse] Man makes choices because he can.

Of course I have never met an Arminian who actually believed this. But what else can explain it? If it is not up to the quality of the message and instead God opens some hearts and not others, wouldn't that be the same "election" of sorts that Arminianism opposes?Ever read the parable of the sower?

Matthew 13:3 (NASB-U)
And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, "Behold, the sower went out to sow;
Matthew 13:18 (NASB-U)
"Hear then the parable of the sower.
Mark 4:3 (NASB-U)
"Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow;
Mark 4:14 (NASB-U)
"The sower sows the word.
Luke 8:5 (NASB-U)
"The sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell beside the road, and it was trampled under foot and the birds of the air ate it up.

When asked, Billy Graham readily said that only about 20% of those who "Go forward" in his meetings retain their profession of faith or whatever it is they think they had.

BTW, I thought I was responding to something GB wrote, not you. Did I error in this? ---- Ok I see that I did. :blush:

[Kenny]

I would be extremely hesistant to phrase it like that. I believe evangelism can change people's lives. Since people in the afterlife are still the same people as they are in this life, it is going to be the case that if you change the people now they remain changed in the afterlife... their eternal state has been changed because they've changed it thanks to your evangelism.

Sure, and as a Calvinist, I agree that this is a motivation for me to evangelize someone now rather than just think that if that person is elect they'll be saved at some later date. If they are saved now rather than later, that's a longer time they have to work on behalf of the Kingdom, to be sanctified in this life, to acquire eternal rewards, etc. and this will have a positive impact on their eternal state, not to mention the radical transformation to be had in this life.

But yes, I firmly believe evangelism doesn't "save people from hell" in the Protestant conception of the words. I've held this believe for the vast majority of the time you've known me.

I still don't think I have all of your views on the nature of Heaven and Hell and the nature of salvation nailed down. I thought that you held something of a post-mortem opportunity view for those who were not saved in this life, but now I see that your view is a bit different than what I thought it to be. I'm sorry for any misrepresentations of your viewpoint, as such was not intentional, and I invite clarification wherever it is in order.

I'm making what I believe quite clear here because I don't want to feel hypocritical: If I am pointing out that Calvinism is logically inconsistent with the idea of "going out and trying to save people from hell", then it is only fair to point out that I do not believe in the idea of "going out and trying to save people from hell" and that I think the very notion is unbiblical and a late distortion of Christian theology.

Well, the notion that there is a coming eschatological judgment from which we will need salvation is certainly not unbiblical (though you may dispute that this judgment is "Hell" as traditionally understood). One of the clearest passages on this score is probably Romans 5:9

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

You can't say that the above verse is only about a present reconciliation to God, since "we will be saved" in the Greek is in the future passive indicative; the "wrath of God" here something which we have not yet been saved from but will be saved from on account of the fact that we have already been justified by Christ's blood. And Paul has already defined for us exactly what he means by the "wrath of God" here, in Romans 1-3. Though God's wrath is currently manifested in the present in terms of God giving people over to the consequences of there own choices, there is a coming eschatological judgment in which God's righteousness will be revealed and in which some will receive "wrath and furry." Since the "we will be saved" verb in Romans 5:9 is in a future tense, it is clear that it is this future eschatological manifestation of God's wrath which Paul has in mind in this verse.

Furthermore, the early church fathers did believe that salvation in this life also entailed a future salvation from Hell (assuming one persisted until the end). In fact, they were very concerned with issues like whether or not there could be a second repentance and the like, precisely because they believed this so strongly. So, I don't see why you call it a "late distortion of Christian theology" either.


However, that said, it is fair to say that the Calvinist does fare worse than me in terms of motive for evangelism. As I have pointed out, I have the motive that I really believe that by evangelising or not evangelising I actually myself have the power to change peoples lives or not change people's lives.

But as a Calvinist, I believe that too.

Now of course, Calvinists would agree you have the power to help people socially (eg to alleviate poverty through programs etc), but you do not believe you can renew the lives of any of the reprobate by leading them to God and introducing them to a relationship with Him.

Not the reprobate, no, but we can for many among the lost (those who do not yet know Christ but are nonetheless elect), and we don't know which of the lost are reprobate and which are not. So, for any given person, it is an epistemically open possibility that by leading them to God we can renew (or, more precisely, function as a means through which God renews) their lives.

To you there are two classes of people out there: Those you cannot save (by this word I mean: Introducing them to a real and life-changing relationship with God) no matter what you do, and those who will be saved no matter what you do.

That's not quite true. The "no matter what you do" clauses in the above are distorting. Calvinist believe that God's sovereignty does not encompass the ends alone but also the means. So, as I already noted, even if Bob is elect, it may not be the case that Bob will be saved no matter what I do. It may be that in all relevantly nearby possible worlds in which Bob is elect, that God also moves me to witness to him, and in all relevantly nearby possible worlds in which I do not witness to Bob, Bob is not elect. On such a scenario, there is a very real counterfactual dependence upon my witnessing to Bob and Bob being saved.

As far as that goes to motivation, suppose (to idealize for a bit) that God reveals to me that the above counterfactuals hold, but He does not tell me whether or not Bob is elect. What am I going to do in that situation? I'm going to witness to Bob! Bob has a guaranteed ticket to remaining unsaved unless I do witness to him. Of course, I don't know that if I do witness to Bob, Bob will be saved. It is possible, in the above situation, that the actual world is one in which I witness to Bob, but Bob is still not elect. But, it’s the difference between my making it epistemically certain that Bob is not elect by refusing to witness to him and keeping the possibility that Bob is elect epistemically open by witnessing to him. Under those conditions, of course I am going to do the latter!

Now, of course, in the real world, the above idealization does not hold. I do not know whether or not such counterfactuals hold for any given person. Nevertheless, it is an epistemic possibility for any given person that such counterfactuals hold, and therefore, by witnessing to people, I am not closing off one possible avenue through which they may be saved (and which may turn out to be the only avenue through which they would have been saved in any relevantly nearby possible world).

Thus at best, you can find one of those who will be saved and save them earlier than they would have been saved had you not done this. Whereas I hold that if you did not save that person, they would never be saved in their life.

Well, as I explained above, Calvinism is perfectly consistent with believing in the same counterfactual conditional, so there is no disadvantage for Calvinism here.

Let me be more candid, and point out that as a studier of the history of theology I think it is beyond reasonable dispute that the Calvinist idea that it does matter is a late distortion of Christianity.

I suppose it depends somewhat on whether or not you think that any development in theology amounts to a "distortion." Do you think the open view is a late distortion of Christianity, or is it merely a "development?"

I think that Calvinism is a refined system that built itself on a line of historical precedents, and I think, in terms of soteriology, it models the Biblical revelation better than the systems which preceded it.

My system has the stronger motivation when it comes to evangelism as I laid out above. Just because you think that someone needs to be properly evangelised to receive eternal salvation doesn't entail you have that as a motivation when it comes to evangelism because the predestination thesis wipes out that motivation.

I don't see how the predestination thesis does that at all. In fact, in some ways, it adds other motivators. On the one side, you could argue that Calvinists don't concern themselves with doing a good job with witnessing because they think it doesn't matter how crappy they do (and some do think this, admittedly, but this is a lazy attitude and such Calvinists should not expect God to honor their laziness by using them as the means through which He brings the elect to Himself), but others do not evangelize because they are afraid of screwing it up. For these, it is a great comfort to know that if their heart is in the right place, and they do the best they can, God will use them to bring the elect to Himself and there's nothing they can do to screw it up.

It would certainly be too historically simplistic. Certainly it wasn't just Anselm and Calvin who erred, they were merely pointed out because they are most clear points of discontinuity of doctrine, being clearly involved in making up the new satisfaction/penal substitution theories of the atonement which pretty much completed the western rewriting of Christianity.

Rewriting, or precedented development? I'm not going to argue for an answer here one way or the other both because it's off topic and because the issue is more complex than I care to deal with right now, but it is not immediately obvious that the answer is the former rather than the latter.

In Christ,
Kenny

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

... the fact still remains that it was the foreknowledge of God that determined their destiny.
No, not foreknowledge, fore-ordination, God did not see, and then decided, he decided, period.

---- I'd be real curious to see what God fixed in Jacob before he was born and then choose him because it was His good pleasure to do so.
No, God chose him, then formed (I wouldn't say "fixed") him, a vessel of mercy.

Blessings,
Lee

[Ormly]

Hi everyone,


No, not foreknowledge, fore-ordination, God did not see, and then decided, he decided, period.



No, God chose him, then formed (I wouldn't say "fixed") him, a vessel of mercy.


Nonsense!
Blessings,
Lee
Romans 8:29 (NASB-U)
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

Deal with it.

[Tercel]

Well, the notion that there is a coming eschatological judgment from which we will need salvation is certainly not unbiblical (though you may dispute that this judgment is "Hell" as traditionally understood).Exactly. For starters the emphasis of the eschatology of God's anger present in the New Testament is more to do with God's anger in the here and now against sin (1:17). Wherever there is evil God's anger is aroused against it. As a consequence the same would of course apply in the afterlife. But the coming judgement of God against 1st century Israel has a tendency to dominate early Christian thought more than the afterlife. I'm not trying to say the afterlife is never mentioned, because I think it is. But to focus on the afterlife to the exclusion of all else, as the great time at which God's anger is manifested is to commit some systematic abuse to the texts.

You can't say that the above verse is only about a present reconciliation to God, since "we will be saved" in the Greek is in the future passive indicative; the "wrath of God" here something which we have not yet been saved from but will be saved from on account of the fact that we have already been justified by Christ's blood.The connection with justification language makes it extremely likely that the coming anger being thought of here is in this life, not the next one. Paul is presumably hence referring to Jesus' prophesies of destruction against Israel and saying that Christians will be saved from the judgement against the Jews - the judgement is in the future, but not the afterlife.

there is a coming eschatological judgment in which God's righteousness will be revealed and in which some will receive "wrath and furry."Yup, I agree. Though I suspect you've probably got the wrong meaning of righteousness here. In Paul's usage, the "righteousness of God" = "the method that God uses of defining His covenant People" / "the way in which people are accounted as members of the People of God", which Paul argues is by faithfulness and not by the law.

Furthermore, the early church fathers did believe that salvation in this life also entailed a future salvation from Hell (assuming one persisted until the end).There's certainly nothing wrong with that, I believe that too.

So, as I already noted, even if Bob is elect, it may not be the case that Bob will be saved no matter what I do. It may be that in all relevantly nearby possible worlds in which Bob is elect, that God also moves me to witness to him, and in all relevantly nearby possible worlds in which I do not witness to Bob, Bob is not elect.I have always had a basic objection to your use of possible-worlds logic in order to try and defend Calvinism:
Your use of possible words in which some people are non-elect who are elect in this world is incorrect in as far as it is totally irrelevant to the problem at hand. It's a bit like being asked to defend a claim that a triangle has four sides, and proceeding to note that in nearby possible worlds there are objects which are close to triangles and have a really small fourth side.

The only relevant possible worlds to consider in any Calvinism-is-consistent-with-X defense are those in which God's election decree contains 100% the same people as it does in the current world. This is because the problem at hand is not a metaphysical problem but an epistemic problem:
God has decided whether Bob is saved. It's done, it's decided, you can't change it. Bob will be saved or not saved in this world in accordance with God's decree.

Now into this situation wanders Jim, who thinks "should I evangelise Bob?". Jim's first problem is that he doesn't know what God's decree is - he's got an epistemic problem. Jim speculating on possible-worlds where God's decree is different is pointless: God's decree for who elect in this world is a fixed background fact just as much as Bob's existence in this world. Jim can think about possible worlds in which God's decree is the same as it is in this world (whatever that might be for Bob), and realise that if he doesn't witness to Bob and Bob is elect, then someone else will and Bob will be saved anyway, but if he does witness to Bob and Bob isn't elect, then he won't be able to acheive anything. Bob's salvation will happen or not happen independently of Jim's action.
To consider possible worlds in which God's decree is different is just changing the topic.

So, for any given person, it is an epistemically open possibility that by leading them to God we can renew (or, more precisely, function as a means through which God renews) their lives.And it is a 100% certain possibility that if you did not do so that someone else would if it is the case that God desires to save that person.

As far as that goes to motivation, suppose (to idealize for a bit) that God reveals to me that the above counterfactuals hold, but He does not tell me whether or not Bob is elect.That is a non-sensical statement on the part of God. God has decided whether or not Bob is elect, and he didn't do it based on His foreknowledge. If you are in a world where Bob is and the counterfactual holds, you will witness to him, if you are not, you will not do so. It's not up to you, it was up to God, and you can't change anything by your action because it was pre-determined. If God reveals the counterfactual and you go out and witness because of it, God has simply manipulated you into acheiving something He had already determined would happen.

I suppose it depends somewhat on whether or not you think that any development in theology amounts to a "distortion."Changing the essence of Christianity from Christ freeing us from sin and death in love for us to being about a threat of God infinite smiting us for eternity due to our inability to escape sin and God freeing some of us from that by killing himself? :eek: It's twisting words a bit to call that a "development".
The gospel's gone from the good news of Christ freeing us from the powers that held us in bondage thereby showing God's love for us, to the bad news that God's going to make everyone suffer for eternity unless they happen to have won the metaphysical lottery and been chosen by Him to not be smited.

I can just imagine preaching that 'gospel' to starving children in Africa:
"Even though most of your life you have been starving, and your brain barely functions, and you have been abused by others who have killed your parents, raped you, and deprived you of food, you are guilty before God and deserving of eternal punishment and torment in Hell. In fact, the torment you have endured all your life is infinitely less than you actually deserve. But I have good news for you! God has paid the penalty for your sins! He has endured the infinite punishment...." (this quote is from Robert Collins)

In fact Calvinism goes further than that and says that there's nothing that person can do, and their fate is entirely up to the salvation lottery.
That's not development, it's simply totally another religion from beginning to end.

Do you think the open view is a late distortion of Christianity, or is it merely a "development?"Neither, I think it's what a good proportion of Christians have believed through the first millennia of Christian history.

[lee_merrill]

Romans 8:29 (NASB-U)
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren...
Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge...

Here "purpose" comes before "foreknowledge," so I don't think noticing the order in Rom. 8:29 is conclusive. Also, will you say that God saw that people would crucify his Son, and then, realizing that, made a plan to give redemption through that act that he foresaw?

I don't think this is at all the consensus, on how God provided the way of salvation...

Blessings,
Lee

[Ormly]

Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge...

Here "purpose" comes before "foreknowledge," so I don't think noticing the order in Rom. 8:29 is conclusive.
Blessings,
LeeSo? It comes first. What matter is that when in God's foreknowledge he saw the event and the man he could use in that event/purpose. As to it being conclusive: Nothing will ever be conclusive to the one who wishes to cling to whatever he believes regardless of the simplicity of the truth that argues against it. That's dangerous.

Also, will you say that God saw that people would crucify his Son, and then, realizing that, made a plan to give redemption through that act that he foresaw?No! The plan was God's. He foreknew how it would unfold with all the events leading up to it. All He had to do was wait and "in the fullness of time He sent His Son". Now when you read where David says:

Psalm 27:14 (NASB-U)
Wait for the Lord;
Be strong and let your heart take courage;
Yes, wait for the Lord.

Psalm 37:34 (NASB-U)
Wait for the Lord and keep His way,
And He will exalt you to inherit the land;
When the wicked are cut off, you will see it.

Proverbs 20:22 (NASB-U)
Do not say, "I will repay evil";
Wait for the Lord, and He will save you.

.........................[The KJV has it as "wait on the Lord". I'll take it either way]

We can take on fresh understanding of what it means to wait on or for the Lord.

I don't think this is at all the consensus, on how God provided the way of salvation...May I suggest to you that salvation isn't what it's all about? ---- His coming was to usher in the Kingdom of God; a whole new way for man to live; a life even Adam didn't have. Redemption was incidental to that message. Redemption was a necessity freeing man that he MIGHT enter into it. [Ahem, -- a choosing]

John 3:17 (NASB-U)
"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

He is the Kingdom and the Governor of that Kingdom. It is now an ongoing government whereby if redeemed man does'nt neglect it, he will be saved. Salvation now takes on an additional meaning.

:smile:rm

[lee_merrill]

Hi Orm,

Lee: … will you say that God saw that people would crucify his Son, and then, realizing that, made a plan to give redemption through that act that he foresaw?

Ormly: No! The plan was God's.I agree! God made the plan, and carried it out, we may conclude that "foreknowledge" in Acts 2:23 doesn't mean God seeing what would happen first, then making a plan from there…

Blessings,
Lee

[Ormly]

Hi Orm,

I agree! God made the plan, and carried it out, we may conclude that "foreknowledge" in Acts 2:23 doesn't mean God seeing what would happen first, then making a plan from there…

Blessings,
LeeIn this plan of God as with any plan of God you can conclude nothing by a dependent verse of scripture.
He makes His plan and looks for men to fullfill/set in place to bring about the outcome He desires. He knows these men well before hand. Remember Jeremiah? This is not to say that He doesn't move upon man's heart to persuade or cause him to be see more clearly/willing to do His will; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Balaam, etc. This is much revealed in scripture as well as man's resistance to that same influence. It's sometimes called "rebellion". You know what rebelliousness is, don't you? You don't seem to see that truth of the scriptures that speaks of God in this way in the history of the Israelites.:ahem:

[lee_merrill]

He makes His plan and looks for men to fullfill/set in place to bring about the outcome He desires. He knows these men well before hand. Remember Jeremiah?I do believe God does more than just looks for people he can accomplish his purposes through, though:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

"I formed you … I set you apart … I appointed you."

There is no sense of a search here, or Jeremiah being a candidate who passed some sort of test or examination…

Blessings,
Lee

[Ormly]

I do believe God does more than just looks for people he can accomplish his purposes through, though:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

"I formed you … I set you apart … I appointed you."

There is no sense of a search here, or Jeremiah being a candidate who passed some sort of test or examination…

Blessings,
LeeSo what is it you are saying I already haven't?

Why don't you stop arguing for that sake of rebuttal? Have you ever heard the term "picking fly dirt out of pepper"? That's what's you're doing here. --- and all just so you don't have to admit you overlooked something that's been pointed out to you ---for your benefit.

[Calvinist4Him]

We are all assuming that in the Calvinist model that we have a choice whether to evangelize or not. We don't. If God ordained the means (evangelising) and ordained the ends (the salvation of the elect) then we will evangelize. Paul himself said that He did not willingly preach the Gospel:

1 Cor.9:16,17

For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I am entrusted with a commission.

:thumb: I believe evangelism in the effective sense, is not the work of people, but the work of God the Holy Spirit working through certain people. The evangelist cannot boast in "his" works, for apart from God the Holy Spirit, he could not be effective.

I think the better question is: Is conditional election inconsistant with being saved by grace?

[GoBahnsen]

:thumb: I believe evangelism in the effective sense, is not the work of people, but the work of God the Holy Spirit working through certain people. The evangelist cannot boast in "his" works, for apart from God the Holy Spirit, he could not be effective.

I think the better question is: Is conditional election inconsistant with being saved by grace?:thumb:

[Ormly]

:thumb:
<That says a lot.>

[GoBahnsen]

:rock: I'm sorry Orm. Are you ok. I don't know what got in to me. I thought it was a snowball. I mean a dirty one. It was kind of heavy and hard. I was aiming lower.

[Ormly]

:rock: I'm sorry Orm. Are you ok. I don't know what got in to me. I thought it was a snowball. I mean a dirty one. It was kind of heavy and hard. I was aiming lower.
Yer missin a few .. you know that dontcha?

[Kenny]

The connection with justification language makes it extremely likely that the coming anger being thought of here is in this life, not the next one. Paul is presumably hence referring to Jesus' prophesies of destruction against Israel and saying that Christians will be saved from the judgement against the Jews - the judgement is in the future, but not the afterlife.

I find that extremely unlikely given how Paul has defined his terms in Romans 1.

6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

This is no description of the local judgment against Israel that took place in the first century (which I agree did fulfill passages like Matthew 24), but a universal judgment coming upon all of humanity, both Jew and Greek.

Yup, I agree. Though I suspect you've probably got the wrong meaning of righteousness here. In Paul's usage, the "righteousness of God" = "the method that God uses of defining His covenant People" / "the way in which people are accounted as members of the People of God", which Paul argues is by faithfulness and not by the law.

I'm fairly skeptical of the New Perspective as I question the validity of many of its historical claims, but that's something that I need to look into in more depth.

I have always had a basic objection to your use of possible-worlds logic in order to try and defend Calvinism:

The only relevant possible worlds to consider in any Calvinism-is-consistent-with-X defense are those in which God's election decree contains 100% the same people as it does in the current world. This is because the problem at hand is not a metaphysical problem but an epistemic problem: God has decided whether Bob is saved. It's done, it's decided, you can't change it. Bob will be saved or not saved in this world in accordance with God's decree.

I agree that it's primarily an epistemic problem, but I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion from that observation. To see how, consider a parallel issue. As a Calvinist, I believe that God has, in some sense (either actively or passively) decreed every future contingency, including, let's say, the time of my death. So, the time of my future death has been decreed; there's nothing I can do to change that. Does that mean I might as well just eat plenty of junk food, drive my car however unsafely and at whatever speeds I wish, play rush and roulette, spend too much time reading stuff at the Secular Web, etc.? Of course not. God has not only decreed the ends, but also the means. If I am foolish and live dangerously, that's a fast track to epistemically insuring that I