Quote
M Azingrace said:
Reconciling God's call to evangelize with the Calivinistic doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election. I'm reading J. I. Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God and thought it was helping to clarify, but when I read the compare and contrast chart of the two models of Arminianism and Calvinism here, I get confused again.
There should be no confusion on this matter IF you are understanding the issues involved. What usually brings about confusion is when one, either latently or consciously, begins with the presuppositional error that man has a "free will".

Okay, let me make this VERY simple.

1) The Bible teaches the doctrine of "Total Depravity"; man is TOTALLY UNABLE to even desire God, Christ, holiness, salvation, etc. in his natural fallen state. See here: The Presbyterian Doctrine of Total Depravity, Total Depravity - Boettner, Total Depravity - Girod

2) The Bible teaches that God is "Sovereign" in both authority and power. He has decreed all things for His own glory including the redemption of an elect group (remnant) of Adam's fallen. This predestination includes ALL that is necessary, from beginning to end, to secure their salvation in Christ.

3) Although sinners are totally incapable of responding to the Gospel of Christ in and of themselves, the Holy Spirit works regeneration in the elect at God's appointed time thus enabling them to comprehend their need of Christ and to believe upon Him infallibly. So, the greatest motivation to evangelism is that God has a definite number of sinners set apart who will assuredly come to Christ when the Gospel is brought to them. It is not important to the evangelist who these elect are nor if the timing is right. All that is necessary is that one fulfill that responsibility which God has entrusted; the preaching of the Gospel to all men everywhere. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Quote
M Azingrace then wrote:
A discussion led by Michael Horton on besetting sins and eternal salvation in which random pastors were asked about their position on this. What the pastors said seemed scriptural and yet their words were picked apart in order to reveal their "Arminian" positions.
I'm not sure where the "confusion" is for you here? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> It seems that what Horton effectively accomplished is to show that there were/are some men who profess to hold to "Eternal Security", but when examined further, it was shown that they did NOT hold to that doctrine but rather held to the idea that a believer could in fact loose salvation.

Quote
M Azingrace wrote further:
Sometimes, it just seems that the root of what a professing Christian truly believes is not really discovered but rather a person's theology is discounted because of the use of some buzzword that hits a nerve with the reformed "inquisitor" (for lack of a better word). I think I have even read where a person's salvation is brought into question based on the answers given regarding certain doctrinal positions.
What I have found over the years is that what a person says they believe is far different than what they really believe. The awful truth is this: IF a person TRULY believes in the Pelagian/semi-Pelagian/Arminian doctrine they espouse, then one must doubt their salvation since any of the above are contrary to the biblical teaching that salvation is ALL of grace and not of works. ALL of the above are "synergistic" systems, i.e., they teach a salvation that is a combination of grace+works, despite their protests that they believe in salvation by grace alone. For more, see my little article here: Do You REALLY Believe that Salvation is by Grace Alone?.

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]