The Value of Evangelism in Reform Theology

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I'm not into the belief that God is the sole active agent in salvation. Or that only saving grace given to the elect to regenerate them and to give them new birth is irresistible and effectual. Thats to much like coercion to me. The dragging, kicking and screaming scenario. The Holy Spirit does not overwhelm and force the person to repent and believe; rather, the Holy Spirit transforms the person’s heart so that they want to repent and believe. They choose to believe and that decision to believe is the most important choice we ever make. It shapes all our other decisions. God does not compel us to believe any more than He compels us to keep any commandments, despite His perfect desire to have us come to Him.
Me neither buddy, that's why we use All Scripture instead of just two Verses; but that means we DO use John 6:44 in Systematic Theology since it is Scripture. I'm keeping my hand on it, and so are you; you said so...

I'm not trying to say something crazy by believing Romans 1:16 and John 6:44; that's Systematic Theology. Don't you agree?

Does Romans 1:16 Abrogate John 6:44? If so, we have to take our hand off it; right?
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Me neither buddy, that's why we use All Scripture instead of just two Verses; but that means we DO use John 6:44 in Systematic Theology since it is Scripture. I'm keeping my hand on it, and so are you; you said so...

I'm not trying to say something crazy by believing Romans 1:16 and John 6:44; that's Systematic Theology. Don't you agree?

Does Romans 1:16 Abrogate John 6:44? If so, we have to take our hand off it; right?
And then there's Romans 9 -
 

Predestined

Well-known member
Me neither buddy, that's why we use All Scripture instead of just two Verses; but that means we DO use John 6:44 in Systematic Theology since it is Scripture. I'm keeping my hand on it, and so are you; you said so...

I'm not trying to say something crazy by believing Romans 1:16 and John 6:44; that's Systematic Theology. Don't you agree?

Does Romans 1:16 Abrogate John 6:44? If so, we have to take our hand off it; right?
All the pages are still in my Bible, I haven't ripped and out. They are in my heart.

Thy word have I hid in my heart. Psalm 119:11

God’s Word is meant to be placed at the center of our lives. He is our Rock, the firm and unchanging foundation we build our lives upon. Jesus is God's revelation to us. God’s Word reveals wisdom, understanding, and perspective that we would not have without His divine hand reaching into our hearts through the Bible. It becomes our foundation, and God builds upon our lives in layers of truth, conviction, instruction, encouragement, and love.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
All the pages are still in my Bible, I haven't ripped and out. They are in my heart.

Thy word have I hid in my heart. Psalm 119:11

God’s Word is meant to be placed at the center of our lives. He is our Rock, the firm and unchanging foundation we build our lives upon. Jesus is God's revelation to us. God’s Word reveals wisdom, understanding, and perspective that we would not have without His divine hand reaching into our hearts through the Bible. It becomes our foundation, and God builds upon our lives in layers of truth, conviction, instruction, encouragement, and love.
Yeah, I don't see why we just don't go ahead and solve this age old problem; and agree with All Scripture. Let God be True and every Man a Liar. Let's just start believing the Bible again; like we used to...
 

Predestined

Well-known member
Yeah, I don't see why we just don't go ahead and solve this age old problem; and agree with All Scripture. Let God be True and every Man a Liar. Let's just start believing the Bible again; like we used to...
Sounds good! I just took a look at some of the different views of Romans 9 (oh boy) So I have both hands on your post above #682.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I'm not into the belief that God is the sole active agent in salvation. Or that only saving grace given to the elect to regenerate them and to give them new birth is irresistible and effectual. Thats to much like coercion to me. The dragging, kicking and screaming scenario.

It appears that you are using rationalization and emotion as an excuse to reject Biblical doctrine.

The Holy Spirit does not overwhelm and force the person to repent and believe; rather, the Holy Spirit transforms the person’s heart so that they want to repent and believe.

Nobody has ever said anything about "force". And yes, I'm glad you agree that the Holy Spirit transforms the person's heart (that's "regeneration") prior to, and causing them, to repent and believe.

They choose to believe and that decision to believe is the most important choice we ever make. It shapes all our other decisions. God does not compel us to believe any more than He compels us to keep any commandments, despite His perfect desire to have us come to Him.

Of course, if you were a Calvinist, Chalcedon would call you out for not having any "Scripture". But he's on your side, so I'm sure you'll get a pass.

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” -John‬ ‭6:65‬

This is a cherry-picked translation.

"given"7KJV, NLT, ASV, YLT, Darby, WEB, HNV,
"granted"5NKJV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV,
"enabled"1NIV
"allowed"1NET

Of all the translations on the BLB website, 12 of them render it "given" or "granted", while only two render it with the weaker "enabled" or "allowed".

Jesus could have clarified His meaning by saying, “This is why I told you no one can come to me unless the Father drags or makes him.”

I see... So this is why you no longer need a Bible, you simply let a really bad website, "Soteriology 101", tell you what to believe.

But here's the problem.... Jesus ALREADY told us that God "draws" ("helkuo") His people to the Son, so we already know that's true. Just because v. 65 tells us He "gives" us to the Son ("didomi") doesn't erase the fact that He gave us by "drawing" us. It simply ADDS to our understanding, rather than "replacing" it.

Jesus had the choice of many Greek words that could have clearly indicated that intention

He did. He used "helkuo" in v. 44.
You're not supposed to simply ignore it because it doesn't match your theology.

but Jesus said “didomi” which is typically understood as “to grant, permit or enable.

This is why Soteriology 101 is such a biased, worthless website. You used quotation marks, so what are you quoting? If you're quoting Soteriology 101, then what source did THEY quote? You don't know, do you?

The basic gloss for 'didomI" is to "give". It can have various levels depending on context, ranging from "enable" to "cause to happen". But since you have to smuggle in your false doctrine of "free will", you are forced by your theological bias to choose the WEAKEST connotation of the term, in order to maximize the "room" to wedge in man's "free will".

So let's check the lexicons...


BDAG:
δίδωμι
1.
to give as an expression of generosity, give, donate
2.
to give someth. out, give, bestow, grant
3. to express devotion, give
4. to cause to happen, esp. in ref. to physical phenomena, produce, make, cause, give
5.
to put someth. in care of another, entrust
6.
to engage in a financial transaction a. of payment pay, give
7. appoint to special responsibility, appoint
8. to cause someth. to happen, give
9. to bear as a natural product, yield, produce
10. to dedicate oneself for some purpose or cause, give up, sacrifice
11. to cause (oneself) to go, go, venture somewhere
12. to use an oracular device, draw/cast lots Ac 1:26.
13. to grant by formal action, grant, allow,
14. to cause to come into being, institute περιτομὴν δ. institute circumcision B 9:7.
15. give up, someth. that has been under one’s control for a relatively long time, give up, give back
16. to proffer someth.,
extend, offer


Thayer:
1325. δίδωμι; didōmi to give;


Louw & Nida:
13.128 δίδωμι: to cause to happen, used particularly in relationship to physical events — ‘to make, to cause, to give, to produce.

Calvinists often use the term “enable” or “grant” as if it somehow connotes “effectual causation,”

This is quite disingenuous. We correctly assert that "give" connotes effectual causation. But then YOU change it to "enable", to weaken it

but that is simply a systematic presumption they are reading onto these terms.

Nope. It is YOUR "systematic presumption" which weakens "give" to merely "enables", so that you can try to smuggle in "free will".

I can enable you to call me by giving you my phone number, but you still have to pick up the phone and dial. Since when does “to enable” necessitate “to effectually cause?”

That's not how it's used in Scripture.
Again, you are cherry-picking an analogy that matches your false teaching, and we are supposed to blindly believe it's the same meaning in Scripture.

SOTERIOLOGY 101​


A cancerous website.
 

Predestined

Well-known member

Theo1689

Well-known member
Jesus could have clarified His meaning by saying, “This is why I told you no one can come to me unless the Father drags or makes him.” Jesus had the choice of many Greek words that could have clearly indicated that intention, but Jesus said “didomi” which is typically understood as “to grant, permit or enable.

Btw, this is biased and fallacious argumentation.
You could just as easily argue that if Jesus wanted to clearly give (or should that be, "enable"? :ROFLMAO: ) the idea of mere "enable" or "permit", He could have chosen from the many Greek words that clearly indicated that intention, such as:
"εαω"
"αφιημι"
"επιτρέπω"

Αll you're really doing here is showing that the semantic range of the term used is too broad and vague to build a doctrine on.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
—Romans 1:16

The joyous good news of salvation in Jesus Christ and Him alone.
I don’t think I’ve said anything different.

Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
You have no clue what's in the mind of each Calvinist. I tried and tried to tell my my deceased loved ones to believe in Jesus for salvation.
Hello Janice, it’s nice to meet you. This said, I’m not sure what you’re trying to tell me?

Doug
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
It also says that you are not really interested in the soul you are speaking with, because you don't know if they are Elect or not, but you are just doing what you are told to do.

I believe what Janice meant is that you have NO BASIS for commenting on what someone else is or is not "really interested in". You are jumping to self-serving conclusions in order to insult someone because their theology differs from yours. And that's shameful.

There is no deep, personal investment like Paul does for his fellow Israelites in Rom 9.

Again, you have absolutely NO BASIS in making derogatory and baseless assumptions of what others do or do not "have deep personal investment in".

Why the need to mudsling at other Christians, just because they disagree with you in soteriology? Absolutely shameful.

If you cannot believe that I can certainly be saved, that God truly wants to save everyone you speak to, then you cannot honestly say you have good news to bring to their ears. It may or may not be that I can be saved!

Another insulting, rude, and false comment.
You do not define what the "gospel" is. We can MOST CERTAINLY say we have good news to bring to their ears.

And do you know why?
This is what most Arminians seem not to understand. The gospel is NOT just about "you". Yes, it's good news when people get saved. But it's ALSO good news, "gospel", to hear that God is so loving that He would stoop down to even SAVE sinners! And this is "good news" to ANYONE who hears it, regardless of whether they are believers or not. Arminians seem to be selfish, with a "what's in it for me?" attitude, and only think it's good news if THEY personally benefit. How can adult (supposed) "Christians" be more selfish than the 8-11 year-old kids I was watching on Masterchef Junior, who were GENERALLY happy for the winner, even when they lost?

And the other thing is that Arminians hate the god of the Bible, because (IMO) they've turned the gospel on it's head. You start out your message with "everyone has good news" camp. You use "prevenient grace" to utterly remove total depravity, and falsely proclaim "universal atonement", so that EVERYONE has the potential for salvation, and the only thing they need is to make sure they don't make the wrong "choice" or "belief". So you can't handle a gospel unless you try to FORCE God into saving (or at least making salvation "possible" to EVERYONE. You think God has to operate under YOUR rules and dictates. Well, He doesn't. You are His creation. He doesn't answer to you. He doesn't have to obey you.

But in the TRUE gospel, everyone starts out being condemned, or at least worthy of condemnation. We start at the BOTTOM. So when I hear that God saved sinners like Bob & Ted & Carol & Alice, that is "good news", even if I'm not one of the ones saved.

I never realized "selfishness" was a Christian "virtue".
Or at least some seem to think.
 

Howie

Well-known member
Then you have no gospel, you only have a potential message of good news and hope because it may or may not for the one hearing it. It also says that you are not really interested in the soul you are speaking with, because you don't know if they are Elect or not, but you are just doing what you are told to do. There is no deep, personal investment like Paul does for his fellow Israelites in Rom 9. If you cannot believe that I can certainly be saved, that God truly wants to save everyone you speak to, then you cannot honestly say you have good news to bring to their ears. It may or may not be that I can be saved!

Doug
LOL.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Thank you for your opinion, Janice!

Doug

I've reported you for breaking the rules.
My name is not "Janice".
And this is a public discussion forum, not a private email, so I'm perfectly welcome to respond to ANY post I choose.

And I will not disrespect you, Doug, as you have disrespected me.
Shameful.

I will however respectfully suggest you follow your own advice from your signature, "dare to be gracious". Referring to me as "Janice" Is anything BUT "gracious". Pray on it.
 

Kampioen

Well-known member
I'm sorry for your lack of understanding of Scripture.
And I'm sorry you think that God is an abject failure.

According to predeterminists, God precauses someone to not understand scripture and believe God is an abject failure and then God blames him for it.
 
Last edited:

Kampioen

Well-known member
God came to save everyone (according to you).
Everyone isn't saved.
So God failed.

And if you want to blame man, then you are claiming man is sovereign over God.
Blasphemy!

Man has no omni attributes in his libertarian choice, so libertarian choice does not make man sovereign. Man can't escape God's open foreknowledge.
 
Top