Jump to content


Photo

Doctrinal Belief


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#121 Joel Stoddert

Joel Stoddert

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Waterbury, VT
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Green Mountain Community Alliance Church

Posted 20 December 2011 - 10:11 PM

i would like to know why it is that people who claim to believe in election claim that God will save everyone. Many back there claims by using John 3:16. I recommend that you read John 3:14-17. Then go back to Deuteronomy and read Moses' dissertation concerning this subject. And remember the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible.


Universalism (the idea "that God will save everyone") isn't a facet of belief for those who hold to a biblical definition of election. Indeed, the whole point of election is that God has chosen some as His children. He is under no obligation to choose any of us, since without Christ we were what the Bible calls "children of wrath", children of the first Adam, "enemies of God" while still without Christ, "dead in sin", etc. Yet, the Bible tells us we were chosen in love "before the foundation of the world". What a gift! As I see it, Universalism is a response to the doctrine of election, as some struggle with the question of how God could choose only some and not others and still be good. In response, I sometimes use adoption. My wife and I would like to adopt a child. Are we evil or unloving if we don't adopt all the children of the world who need homes, rather than choosing one or two? Of course not. We're not obligated to adopt, & if we do so, it'll be because we want to. Romans 9, e.g., uses adoption to illustrate the meaning of election, saying God isn't obligated to make any of us members of his family, but freely chooses to adopt some just the same.

#122 Joe H

Joe H

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 06:40 AM

You should do a study on the words-"might & maybe" in the scriptures. You just "might" be surprised at what you find out...In many instances these two words were not in the original transcripts. When you read the scriptures without them, the scriptures become more "definitive" than questionable.

#123 Living water

Living water

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:Atlanta, Ga
  • Interests:Apologetics, Evangelism, not really in that order also aviation.
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Crossroads Bible Church, Decatur, GA

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:23 PM

Robert, I think this is for many Arminians one of our central problems with Calvinism. It is difficult for us to reconcile the Biblical truth that God does not will for any to perish, but that all might have eternal life, with the Calvinistic teaching that God specifically crafts some people for destruction. That's not my only issue with Calvinism, but it is a biggie - the only theological issue that literally kept me up all night long, praying with tears in my eyes. Well put.


I agree and can relate to this. At the beginning, in 'junk' theology101, I was mislead that arminians were saved by works. Then when someone explained 'election', I was shocked at this implication, "that God specifically crafts some people for destruction". I decided to study arminianism. I tend to believe that God is awesome in the fact that he can reshape(reroute?) his plan according to whatever choice we make individually and still His will, His ultimate plan, will prevail. I believe before i made a conscious decision to (believe= trust, commit) follow Jesus I was not saved.

#124 Guest_Marvin Harrell_*

Guest_Marvin Harrell_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 June 2012 - 07:01 AM

I agree and can relate to this. At the beginning, in 'junk' theology101, I was mislead that arminians were saved by works. Then when someone explained 'election', I was shocked at this implication, "that God specifically crafts some people for destruction". I decided to study arminianism. I tend to believe that God is awesome in the fact that he can reshape(reroute?) his plan according to whatever choice we make individually and still His will, His ultimate plan, will prevail. I believe before i made a conscious decision to (believe= trust, commit) follow Jesus I was not saved.


Having grown up as a Methodist and now a Presbyterian, I've worshipped under both Armenian and Calvinism. Now, as a worker in The Alliance, I have found a peace and balance in the words from Simpson's Hymn Jesus Only

Jesus only is our message,

Jesus all our theme shall be;

We will lift up Jesus ever,

Jesus only will we see.


Jesus only, Jesus ever,

Jesus all in all we sing,

Savior, Sanctifier, and Healer, Glorious Lord and coming King.


Jesus only is our Savior,

All our guilt He bore away,

He, our righteousness forever,

All our strength from day to day.


Jesus is our Sanctifier,

Saving us from self and sin,

And with all His Spirit's fulness,

Filling all our hearts within.


Jesus only is our Healer,

All our sicknesses He bare,

And His risen life and fulness,

All His members still may share.


Jesus only is our Power,

He the gift of Pentecost;

Jesus, breathe Thy pow'r upon us,

Fill us with the Holy Ghost.


And for Jesus we are waiting,

List'ning for the Advent Call;

But 'twill still be Jesus only,

Jesus ever, all in all.


Source: hymnal.net

#125 StevePage

StevePage

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend a non-Alliance church
  • Clinton First Wesleyan Church

Posted 20 June 2012 - 11:32 AM

The answer to this question lies in John 6:29, Jesus answered and said unto them, "This the work of God, that you "believe" on him whom He hath sent." The word "work" in the Greek means,"to toil as an effort or occupation, an act, a labor, a work". If this is in fact true(you can look it up in Strong's concordance to verify) Jesus said, "This is the occupation of God, this is the labor of God, this is an act of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent."

In the context of the conversation that Jesus was having it appears that He was saying "this is the work that God would have you do", rather than "this is the work that God does." In other words He was telling them they must choose to believe in God rather than God will believe for you or God will cause you to believe. (27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” 28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”)

Jesus said in John 7:16,"My doctrine(teaching)is not mine, but His that sent me."

We see that Jesus acknowledged that scripture is heaven sent in this verse. Isn't interesting that in the very next verse Jesus speaks to the free will of man?
16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

In John 8:28, Jesus said,"When you have lifted up the son of man, then shall you know that I am, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things."

This is a great example for us, we should say or do nothing except what the Lord would want. Note that Jesus speaks of the relationship between our relationship with God and our faithfulness to God. Jesus said, "he has not left me alone…" Why was that, why did God not leave Jesus alone? Jesus answers that, "for I always do what pleases him.” Jesus chose to be faithful to God. (We need to always keep on mind that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was only good because he was perfect. He was perfect by choice, not because he was God.)

28 So Jesus said, When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” 30 Even as he spoke, many believed in him.

Note also that the scripture says, "Even as he spoke, many believed in him" and not "even as He spoke He caused many to believe." It is the Word of God that moves people to make a choice, as Paul said faith comes by hearing.

Now read Acts 13. Pay close attention to vs.48. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad,and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained(to arrange in an orderly manner)to eternal life "believed". Therefore, who are the "Believers"? But those who have been ordained to eternal life. God speaking to David in 1 Chronicles 28:6, And He said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build My house and My courts: for I have chosen him to be My son and I will be his Father. Who therefore does the choosing of His sons, causing them to believe on Him ? Not at all hard to understand.

In verse 12 of that chapter (12 When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord) we see that the proconsul saw and then believed, to me this is saying "he chose to believe." In the verse you mentioned we could also understand it as saying that God extended grace and understanding to some and some chose to believe.

I guess in reading that verse I keep in mind that we rarely see God forcing anyone to believe, and then only for His specific will to be carried out for a specific purpose. We cannot apply that principle to mankind universally, because we also see many examples of free will throughout scripture.

God is God and He does as He chooses. But the whole idea that He chooses everyone who will believe and then forces them to believe is contrary to the clear principles of the entire scripture. We can find verses that seem to support the position we choose to believe in. But rather than searching out supporting verses we are much more in His will if we look for supporting principles and then applying them correctly. One principle we see from Adam to Jesus is that God makes covenants with men. Throughout the scripture we see that men reject the convenient, they accept it then break it, they accept it then break it then repent and return to it, or they react in other ways.

We see that Israel was chosen yet many Israelis chose to serve other God's, they broke the covenant. Saul was chosen just as David and Solomon were, yet Saul broke the covenant and God's Spirit was removed from him. Solomon broke the covenant as well.

God will present His covenant to every person and every person will be given the ability to choose to enter the covenant or to reject it. Part of God's presentation of the covenant is that He gives understanding of the covenant so no person has an excuse if they reject His offer. He most likely gives folks many opportunities to accept His invitation into the New Covenant, because (as we know) He wishes for all men to be saved.

God's love is unconditional, the New Testament/Covenant is not unconditonal

#126 StevePage

StevePage

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend a non-Alliance church
  • Clinton First Wesleyan Church

Posted 20 June 2012 - 12:20 PM

Armenian or Calvinism? Can you see how messed we Christians are today? Does our theology really start with the reformation and not with Adam?

Most often a denomination will define themselves by how faithful to Jacob Arminius or John Calvin it is. For the Church to move on and grow we need to have an incredible paradigm shift, reject what they taught and go back to scripture teaches. Because in light of the clear principles that are consistent throughout scripture many of today's doctrines are nonsense.

This may sound strong, but think of how some modern doctrines fly in the face of what Isaiah, Ezekiel or Jeremiah spoke about. Many modern revivals give an invitation at the end and pronounce those who come forward as being saved. Yet the prophets taught that God's promises are only for those who remain faithful to the covenant they are in, or those who repent and return to the covenant when they fail. Many Christians look at salvation as occurring after one event, yet the prophets taught that the promises were only for those who kept the covenant till the end. You enter the covenant and then keep the covenant, that is the principle throughout scripture.

We teach we are saved by faith alone, yet from the day the first man was created God has demanded correct belief, obedience and faithfulness. We are still carrying the fight of the Reformers over faith vs works and completely miss that even Jesus said He will only stay with us if we are obedient. We also ignore or have never learned that faith and faithfulness are interchangeable in both the Greek and the Hebrew.

The reformers translated the scripture to say "the righteous shall live by faith." The Hebrew scholar interprets that same verse to say "the righteous shall live by faithfulness." Why is that? I believe it's because we are still distracted from searching out God's truths because we continue the fight the reformers began.

Try to think in terms of the covenants that God has made with the men of the past and the covenant you are now in. What are the conditions and terms of our covenant with God? Is repentance one of the conditions? Is repentance a one time thing? What are other conditions of the agreement (baptism, communion, complete dedication, purity)? What are God's promises of the covenant and what are your responsibilities? Can we purposely neglect any part of covenant? As you read scripture forget the Reformers and their doctrines, ask what is it that God requires of you that is consistent through out scripture? This is what we all need to ask ourselves.

Think in terms of being faithful to Jesus as well as having faith in Jesus. Don't believe it when you are told that obedience to Jesus is "works." There is no faithfulness without obedience, you will not see God unless you choose to live a holy life and to be holy. There is no love for God where effort for obedience and holiness is absent. Do you believe in Jesus yet do not believe Him?

#127 StevePage

StevePage

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend a non-Alliance church
  • Clinton First Wesleyan Church

Posted 20 June 2012 - 01:06 PM

This chapter

My wife and I would like to adopt a child. Are we evil or unloving if we don't adopt all the children of the world who need homes, rather than choosing one or two?

And yet if you created all of mankind and sent your son to die for all of mankind your view might be much different. You see it's easy for us to make this comparison when we do not know each person as intimately as God does or we do not love them as completely as God does. We can read the first few verses of that chapter and see how Paul agonizes that his fellow Hebrews do not believe, how mu

Romans 9, e.g., uses adoption to illustrate the meaning of election, saying God isn't obligated to make any of us members of his family, but freely chooses to adopt some just the same.

When reading the epistles it's a good idea to keep in mind that we are hearing one side of a conversation. It's like hearing a person in another room speaking on the phone, we hear what they say yet we cannot be 100% certain of what is actually being said. I don't say this to take away from the authority of the epistle, they are God's word, yet we need to keep them with in their proper context.

In the case of Romans 9 we can't pull it out of the context of the book of Romans and ignore what Paul wrote in Romans 1:18-25 which shows man's free will. Even Romans 9:30-33 gives us clear picture of mankind's freedom of choice. The Gentiles chose one thing the Jews another. In V. 33 we see it written that "the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” and we do not see "the one I cause to believe in him will never be put to shame.”

"30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”


So puttinh the chapter into the context of the times and the context of the entire Bible it seems to me that this chapter is about choices as well as predestination. It explains that God has no responsibility to show mercy on those who make the wrong choices, or more accurately he has no responsibility to those who break covenant or who try to reinvent the covenant. It also explains that there those, like Pharaoh, who are specifically chosen for a specific task, to accomplish a specific purpose. (Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.) But there is no indication that God chooses this method with every person or that this principle is to be universally applied to all men and women. The moral of Romans 9 seems to be that there are some destined by God for a pre-determined reason (who have no choice), there are those who make right choices and there are those who make bad choices, God will judge us all accordingly.

#128 David Carter

David Carter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:Bradenton, FL
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Christ Community Church

Posted 27 June 2012 - 10:19 AM

This is a very long thread and I have only read as far as page three, but I wanted to respond to Pastor Smarowsky's post, which excellently argues the Calvinistic position. I think he is no longer with the C&MA (nothing bad happened), so if he doesn't answer it isn't because he doesn't have an answer, he may simply no longer monitor this thread. I am not attempting to respond to all of his post, but wanted to point out two things to readers, so I have excerpted.

First:

Those who argue against unconditional election often use verses like 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 3:16. How can we reconcile election with a verse like I Timothy 2:4 that says that God “desires all me to be saved” or John 3:16 that says God “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”? The answer lies in correctly understanding the will of God and the love of God. God’s passive will needs to be understood in contrast to His decreed will (those things He foreordains to happen). The passive will of God includes the things He might desire in a sense but does not foreordain or bring to pass. Certainly if God is sovereign and all powerful, as the Bible declares Him to be, then He could bring about the salvation of all men if that was His decreed or pre-determined will. Reconciling this verse and others with the many that teach election is an unconditional choice of God is no more difficult that recognizing that there are things God might desire but does not decree to happen. It could be said that God does not desire men to sin but as part of his predetermined plan He allows them to sin. So while there is a real sense in which God does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked and desires that all be saved, His pre-determined plan allows for the fact that some will go to hell.


I think I understand the difference between God's decreed will and God's passive will as it is being presented. However, I think that when one takes this view of God's sovereignty with specific application to salvation, without the consideration of free will and indeed to the exclusion of free will, it is logically inconsistent to conclude with a distinction between His decreed will and His passive will as an answer to verses that say God is not willing for any to perish, but that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:4).

In logic, it's a simple syllogism. If, apart from God's decreed will, one cannot come to Christ, and if God has not decreed that certain ones do come to Christ, then God has effectively decided that those particular ones shall not come to Christ. So the passive will of God not being fulfilled becomes the direct result of only the decreed will of God being fulfilled. What I am saying is that God not willing by decree to save them, is the same thing as God willing by lack of decree not to save them. So, either He doesn't really desire them to be saved (which cannot be true because the scripture doesn't lie about God), or that desire is in conflict with some other desires of His and doesn't fit with His purposes, or it is really not a very important or intense desire on His part, or the Calvinistic explanation is inadequate. I think there is an answer to this conundrum, but I don't think that it lies within the Calvinistic view of unconditional election. Maybe I will find time to explain it later. (I do believe that God is absolutely sovereign, but the issue here is how He chooses to exercise that sovereignty.)

Now, Pastor S actually makes my point in a way when he says that "it could be said that God does not desire men to sin, but as part of His predetermined plan He allows them to sin." God's predetermined plan is His decreed will. So, by His decree, even that which is against His will is decreed to be permitted. The problem here is that if God is decreeing to permit sin, then either He is decreeing that sin will happen, or He is decreeing that free will can be exercised, and sin is the result. (I endorse the latter view.) Enter depravity, being expressed through free will. Otherwise God is actually decreeing the sin to happen, (but I am not sure if I should have a problem with that: Clay, meet Potter!)

Second:

In a similar way, concerning John 3:16 and God’s love, the difference lies in God’s general love for all creation and all humanity versus His specific love for His children, the elect. The difference is that God’s love for His elect is an intensive love that has Him actually doing something about their lost condition instead of simply sitting by wishing that they would in turn love Him, a picture so often conjured up by those who believe themselves to be in control of their own eternal destiny. In a generic sense, God desires all to be saved and He loves all of humanity, but that is completely different from the specific love He has for His elect and His desire and provision for their salvation.


I would like to make a simple observation here. Again the logic is flawed. This is not an indictment of Pastor S, who by all accounts is an excellent preacher of the Word. It is instead an indictment of systematic theology, which I deeply appreciate. But when arguing systematic theology we tend to get trapped within our systems and end up interpretting scripture or making arguments to fit the system, rather than questioning the complete accuracy of our particular system.

Pastor S's argument is not his alone. It is the argument of a system in its own defense. A distinction is being made between God's love for His elect and His love for humanity in general. I don't doubt that such a distinction exists, although the exact nature of that distinction may not be what the Calvinist thinks it is (or what I think it is for that matter). God's love for His elect is described as "an intensive love that has Him actually doing something about their lost condition instead of simply sitting by wishing that they would in turn love Him". Furthermore, the Calvinist says that "In a generic sense, God desires all to be saved and He loves all of humanity, but that is completely different from the specific love He has for His elect and His desire and provision for their salvation."

The problem is, if you want to apply this logic to John 3:16 you cannot logically make the distinction they are making. "For God so loved the world (presumably the general creation and/or all mankind), that He gave His only begotten Son, (in context the gift appears to be given because of His love for the world, not just for the elect. What part of this is not 'love that has Him actually doing something about their {the world's} lost condition'?), that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life".

It appears to me, to use the Calvinists' own words, that God's generic love for all humanity was what motivated Him to send His only begotten Son, which we all know is part and parcel of His desire and provision for salvation (in context being provided for the world God loved). The issue isn't that God's love for the elect motivated Him more than His love for the world to provide salvation. In fact, it was love for the world that motivated the sending of Jesus. The distinction is that those who believe are elected unto salvation.

Let's not so complicate simple truth to support our system that we derail the gospel.

There is a quote on my desk: "Preach as unsure you'll ever preach again, and as a dying man to dying men."

I might add, "Preach to everyone hoping they are elected, and pray as if their response is dependent on freewill being influenced by the convicting Holy Spirit."

Grace and Peace to you in Christ Jesus.
David Carter

A blood stained cross, an empty tomb
For by His love He met my doom.
And now I stand in His good place
Amazed by grace, in His embrace.

..."Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures..." (1 Co. 15:3-4, KJV)

#129 David Carter

David Carter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:Bradenton, FL
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Christ Community Church

Posted 28 June 2012 - 07:47 AM

When Jesus chose the 12, He didn't choose the smartest or the most educated. He chose the fishermen and the tax collectors. We suffer from a misconception that the education is the most important factor in whether someone is qualified for spiritual leadership. In God's economy, He doesn't care about our education, our talents and abilities or our background. He cares about what is in our hearts. If He can find someone who has a heart that seeks Him and is willing to go wherever He should lead, nothing else really matters. He can get the tools and resources into their hands and through His Spirit, He can teach them whatever they need to know in order to get whatever job He placed before them done.

In all actuality, the education can be more of a hindrance than a help. When we have the piece of paper, we tend to think that because we worked our butts off to get the degree, we are qualified to do the job. But when you think about it, the more time and effort that we put into our education, the more pride and self worth God has to break us from in order to get us to the place where we can truly recognize that it is all about His grace, not about what we have accomplished. That is why Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven.

Don't get me wrong. A good education can be a good thing. Quite often God will use our time in the university to get us to where he needs us to be, but be careful not to place too much emphasis on ones education, for doesn't the Bible tell us in 1 Corinthians 1.27 that "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong."


Jay, much of what you said is true, but don't neglect the fact that while Jesus called fishermen and tax collecters, both of which were important and potentially lucrative professions, one being in commerce and the other being a subcontractor for government at that time, Jesus definitely took the time to educate them for ministry. Training was essential to preparing them to lead after the ascension.
David Carter

A blood stained cross, an empty tomb
For by His love He met my doom.
And now I stand in His good place
Amazed by grace, in His embrace.

..."Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures..." (1 Co. 15:3-4, KJV)

#130 David Carter

David Carter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:Bradenton, FL
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Christ Community Church

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:29 AM

This is some great stuff! So I ask a question that may get us off the discussion a bit here. What is the end result of the election question? What does the world need from those of us that are elected or predestined or have chosen to follow the voice of our Father as spoken through His son Jesus?

Going back to the original question, what are we to do with the question as originally posted? Do you believe in election? Also known as predestination? Or, do you believe in free will when it comes to salvation?

And I would then add, so what are you doing with that belief and how does it affect your day to day witness for Jesus? Thoughts?


Marvin, I am still reading to catch up, but thanks for this.

I would add a question. Does it have to be either/or? I don't think it does. My answer is that I do believe in election, predestination, foreknowledge, calling, because these are all mentioned in scripture. To say that I don't believe in them is to say that I don't believe the scripture. However, my caveat is that I am not a Calvinist, and I am not convinced that either Calvinism or Arminianism is completely correct in their understanding of how the scripture uses these terms. Furthermore, I also believe that free will plays a part, because the scriptures speak at times as if man has free will, as if man is responsible for his response to revelation regarding sin, righteousness, and judgment.

In Acts 2 Peter speaks of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in the church as an act of fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel (therefore predetermined). Clearly God is at work. Peter preaches Jesus as Messiah. The crowd's response in Acts 2:37 is that they were pierced to the heart (convicted by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word), and their response was "Brethren, what shall we do?" They clearly recognized a responsibility to "do" something as a response to what they had heard. Peter then tells them to repent and be baptized.

They were convicted. We can infer from verse 39 that they were called. But they were still required to respond. And it is interesting that Peter calls each and every one of them to repent and be baptized (vs 38), which could imply that he considered that they had all been called through the preaching of the word. After all, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. How will they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10)

Back to Acts 2. They were pierced to the heart (vs. 37) and knew they should respond somehow. Peter urged all of them to repent and be baptized (vs. 38). He apparently in context considered the promise to be for all of them (vs. 39), though some would read this as a promise only for the called. He continued to exhort them to respond (vs. 40). But only those who gladly "received" (to accept what is offered, to take fully) were baptized. This "received" is in the middle deponent, which usually corresponds to the active voice in English, meaning that the subject of the sentence performs the action. In other words, they actively decided to receive the Word preached, and as a result were baptized.

Now for your question about how this affects my day to day witness for Jesus. Sadly, while I preach the gospel to all who come in the door, I don't often find myself in witnessing scenarios on a day to day basis. The office at the church is not the best place to meet people who are not yet saved. They tend not to frequent my office. But, in the spirit of answering your question with application:

I share the gospel with people knowing that it is not my responsibility to save them, but that I may have a role in persuading them of the truth of the gospel. As the messenger, I am delivering to them the message which is "the power of God unto salvation for all that believe". I just tell them the truth, explain the truth, explain their need, show them the Word, urge them to consider. I need to do more of what Peter did, exhorting them to respond.

But in the context of the question of election/predestination vs. free will, I want to make this observation. The typical pre-believer is not in the throes of debating whether he was foreordained unto salvation or whether he has a choice, or whether the two are mutually exclusive. He is asking the question what must I do to be saved? He may not like the answer, and like the rich young man might walk away. Or, he might abandon everything to follow Jesus. In his mind, however, he is making a choice of commitment.

So, I do not say to him: "are you now convinced that you have no choice in the matter but to respond to God and surrender to Jesus because God has ordained that it be so?" Or worse: "having heard this gospel are you now certain that you are saved because God ordained that it should be so?" without even asking him for a response.

I do ask questions like: "Do you understand what I have said to you? Do you understand what this means? Do you want to be forgiven? Do you want to accept Christ as Lord and Savior?"

My point is that in witnessing, I doubt that even the Calvinist couches the invitation in terms that imply no choice to respond on the part of the pre-believer. God undoubtedly influences the choice, but we still expect a decision/response to take place.

On a humorous note, if a Calvinist sings "I have decided to follow Jesus?", is he lying?
  • Charles Miles likes this
David Carter

A blood stained cross, an empty tomb
For by His love He met my doom.
And now I stand in His good place
Amazed by grace, in His embrace.

..."Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures..." (1 Co. 15:3-4, KJV)

#131 Guest_Marvin Harrell_*

Guest_Marvin Harrell_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2012 - 12:20 PM

I share the gospel with people knowing that it is not my responsibility to save them, but that I may have a role in persuading them of the truth of the gospel. As the messenger, I am delivering to them the message which is "the power of God unto salvation for all that believe". I just tell them the truth, explain the truth, explain their need, show them the Word, urge them to consider. I need to do more of what Peter did, exhorting them to respond.

But in the context of the question of election/predestination vs. free will, I want to make this observation. The typical pre-believer is not in the throes of debating whether he was foreordained unto salvation or whether he has a choice, or whether the two are mutually exclusive. He is asking the question what must I do to be saved? He may not like the answer, and like the rich young man might walk away. Or, he might abandon everything to follow Jesus. In his mind, however, he is making a choice of commitment.

So, I do not say to him: "are you now convinced that you have no choice in the matter but to respond to God and surrender to Jesus because God has ordained that it be so?" Or worse: "having heard this gospel are you now certain that you are saved because God ordained that it should be so?" without even asking him for a response.

I do ask questions like: "Do you understand what I have said to you? Do you understand what this means? Do you want to be forgiven? Do you want to accept Christ as Lord and Savior?"

My point is that in witnessing, I doubt that even the Calvinist couches the invitation in terms that imply no choice to respond on the part of the pre-believer. God undoubtedly influences the choice, but we still expect a decision/response to take place.


Well said David! Thanks much for your thoughts on this.

#132 Gordy

Gordy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 255 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Ensley Alliance Church, Pensacola FL

Posted 18 July 2012 - 07:40 AM

By what criterion for the stand that the Lord will say that all the world will be saved. Might I suggest that those who believe that the whole world MIGHT BE SAVED (John 3:17).

Let's think about that, Amen.

#133 Charles Miles

Charles Miles

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Location:West Point, MS
  • Interests:Medicine
    Fruits of the spirit
    Learning more about the Kingdom of God and how to live in it here on earth
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend a non-Alliance church
  • First Presbyterian Church EPC

Posted 19 July 2012 - 10:59 AM

Free will and/or election? This is an interesting discussion that we won`t probably solve before we stand before the Throne of God. I do enjoy reading Boble stories and applying these two truths to both sides, just to see if there is a lesson there. Did the prodigal son leave home because he chose to leave, or was he predestined to leave.......then did he return home because he was predestined to return, or did he return due to his own free will? Neither...either? Really makes no difference to me because I read the story to learn truths about how God`s Kingdom works. The Father knows who will do what and lives out of time....true, but confusing to the human mind. The Angel of the Lord spoke to Gideon and said "Greetings great warrior", and Gideion looked around to see who He was speaking to! He was not a great warrior in human eyes at that time, but obviously God saw him differently. God knew who Gideon was and who he would be at the same time. Wow!
My relationship with God is much different now than is was 4-5 years ago and I marvel at just how much He loves me and where He leads me both mentally and physically. Did I choose to have a better relationship with the Lord? Yes. Did He elect me as one who would have a closer relationship with Him? I certainly think so and feel that He did, but I don`t know at this point. I DO have a relationship with Him now that is better than I could ever have imagined, and and whichever one of these methods was used, I don`t care! I have it and I am in a good place. I do know this....if a believer will ask the Lord for a closer relationship he/she needs to brace for a huge change in life! When I read Romans 8 now, I get a peace that falls on me like a summer rain.
Maybe a bit off topic here, but then again, maybe not...

Charlie

#134 elizabethcog

elizabethcog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend a non-Alliance church
  • The Bridge

Posted 20 July 2012 - 03:31 AM

I was his way before I even knew him,my head knowledge didn't do it,but God came in my heart somehow,cause it sure was not of me,praise God for his love,mercy and his ways,even when it makes no sense to me
Jesus and Jesus alone saves=D

#135 iaveteran

iaveteran

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Location:Newton Iowa
  • Interests:Evangelism
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Community Heights Alliance

Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:22 PM

This is a amazing I have been studying this very subject. I believe like scriptures says. Jn 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; NASU.

I guess the best way to explain it is quickly tell my story. I grew up in a Pentecostal church, who said you weren't saved till they told you where. At the age of 16 They prophesied over me and said I had committed the unpardonable transaction. I was told that I would be in jail less than 2 years from then. (just to set the record straight I was horrible). 18 months later I went into the US Marines and served 2 years. I then transferred over to the US Army because I wanted to be an Paratrooper. I was a coldhearted, God hating, Christian tormenter. I was a Drill Sergeant at Fort Sill ,OK in 1979. I enjoyed making Christian trainees suffer. I would go on the street in Lawton, OK and even pretend to get saved just so I could get in their (Witnessing Christians) face after they started to cry and say how glad they were that aI was part of the family of God. You see I knew I was going to hell, and hated Christians who where. On the last Saturday of Sept 1979, I was going into Ihop for Pancakes. I wasn't looking or thinking about God, Jesus. In the newspaper rack was a newspaper with Headlines that read " Jesus Returns". Something inside of me became fearful. I paid 10 cents for by the way and realized it was a Gospel Track. it had about 10 pages to it. About the only thing I remember is on the back page about the size of a business card was the following, " If you were told there no hope for you and had committed the unforgivable sin you were lied to " Something inside just broke. The next day, this young Army Drill instructor found himself in an Assembly of God church. At 11:42am the pastor took a pause to let what he just said to sink in, I got up and ran to the altar and told God if what I read yesterday was true then I want in. Well I have never looked back.

Having shared all of that to say . the Spirit of God drew me and I responded. That is my answer.
Bob Colby
  • Tkulp likes this

#136 Kenny

Kenny

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 416 posts
  • Location:North Eastern U.S.
  • Interests:Bible Study, Bicycling, Christian Fellowship, I love reading A.W. Tozer and listening to Alistair Begg. Favorite book other than the Bible is Pilgrims Progress.
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church

Posted 01 March 2013 - 05:44 PM

Do you believe in election? Also known as predestination?
Or, do you believe in free will when it comes to salvation?
~ Pastor Tex


hello Pastor Tex

IMO Since the Bible makes mention of election, then I must believe that election is a Biblical concept. The problem arises when we try to understand what is meant by "election" many people disagree on the exact meaning of election.
Having said that . . .
For me personally, a summary of my personal view of election from what I get from Scripture is that God has elected to save whosoever believeth. Secondly, a person must respond in belief to become saved. or as Romans 10:9-10 says; if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.