Has the true gospel been misunderstood or distorted? Are we now to preach something else?

[Eleanor]

To which I would say, "Does the text say "Make a decision to believe in the Lord and you will be saved"? Or does it simply state what constitutes salvation?
What it says is that God so loved the world that he sent Jesus to save, and the ones who are saved are the ones who believe. It is not a text that says a single thing about where believing comes from or how it comes about.
Reading the rest of Fisk's statements where he "puts a passage into the words that would exist if Calvinism were true" pretty much bypass the issue altogether. If faith is what places us in Christ, where does that faith comes from. Why are some able to believe and most are not?
He truly does not understand Calvinism. I think people say that to give themselves credibility in debunking Reformed theology, even when it is not true. I.e. Civic. They are just going with what is more pleasing to them. What more aligns with the God of their image and that "old man" that wants to be under no one, but control his own destiny.

Who is this Civic?

 

[Arial]

Who is Civic?

He is a member here that started his own forum and uses it to bash Calvinism. Among other things.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Like @Carbon said, those who oppose Calvinism really do not understand anything about the doctrines of grace.

I have debated with so many synergists over the years and one question I always ask them is that when they pray for someone's salvation, do they pray to God for that person to choose to be saved? I have had many say they do.

One cannot have faith without being regenerated first, you just cannot believe without being born again from above.

Not to get off topic here, but it has always amazed me that Arminians cannot see the Doctrines of Grace in the Bible, it is in every book of the Bible as far as I know.

My question is this, does God keep their minds blinded to this truth and are they really regenerated? Is that stretching it?

I never was an Arminian, when the Lord saved me, I knew I did nothing, I saw His sovereignty over everything in the Bible.

Didn't even know what Calvinism was until someone gave me a book by A.W. Pink, the Sovereignty of God.

Nice thread.

 

[Arial]

Accepting the grace of God is quite different from meriting the benefit received.

How, I ask, would accepting the grace of God be different from meriting the benefit received, if salvation is dependent on something the person does? And who wouldn't accept the grace of God if they understood what that grace contained? Would that not be believing? Did their own believing then cause God to regenerate them? It has the grace of God unto salvation being given to all of humanity since the crucifixion and resurrection---it has that as what Christ accomplished on the cross, instead of substitutionary Atonement. And yet, that grace is powerless in that view, and useless, except for the choice of acceptance of the human. It has all people quickened to life, and yet still dead unless they accept that life. It has the human in control of what belongs to God alone---life and death.

On the other hand, the regeneration-before-faith idea is apparently a distinguishing characteristic of the hyper Calvinist. More on this later.)

The term hyper-Calvinism, however it is being used, is nothing more than a way of redefining the Doctrines of Grace in order to give assent to some of those doctrines and reject others. "Hyper" is added as a derogatory insinuation. The DOC, as they are written as to the actual doctrinal content, falls apart if any of the letters of the acronym are removed or altered in meaning. It becomes NOT Calvinism. It does not become a more moderate and acceptable to the fallen human mind, form of Calvinism.

My first introduction to the term defined it as a branch within some Calvinist churches that were so legalistic as to lose sight of Christ and him crucified. That I can agree with.