Should Sinners Hear of Love or Wrath First?

[@johnkelley9877]

I completely agree with you. I do not deserve the love or salvation of Christ but He made me worthy through His blood and sacrifice. I thank Jesus for the mercy He has shown me and the great gift of knowing His incredible love as well as the privilege of going to Him in prayer. Thank you for this wonderful message.

[@caman171]

I love these conversations. As someone who is neither Calvinist nor Arminian, I have had to ask myself these very questions, For what its worth, here is what I have learned and concluded 1) Love and wrath can be presented together. However, there is a vast difference between "threatening" someone with hell and WARNING them of hell. God prepared hell for the devil and his angels, not humanity. God gives every person what they choose, and if you choose to live life without God, then He will allow you to send yourself to a place where you will not be bothered by Him for eternity. A person can tell when someone warns them because they love them, and a person who threatens, as tho they seemingly have some kind of pleasure in knowing that people perish. Let the sinner know that God the father has already poured out His wrath on God the Son. In other words, God poured out His wrath on Himself so that we could go free. Once this is truly understood, they will understand Jesus' words when he said "Greater love has no man, than the one who lays down his life for his FRIENDS. God has called us "friend" even while still in our sin. Even as Judas was betraying Jesus, the Lord called him "friend". Many times as an act of kindness, the one who truly is a friend, even calls his enemy the same in order to show the desire that the friendship go both ways. 2) Make sure "repentance" is defined as "change of mind" or seeing your sin for what it really is which is absolutely ugly. If you define repentance as a "turning from sin" and you make that a condition to salvation, then you are requiring a sinner to do something they cannot do until AFTER they believe. This is why Calvinism has to redefine regeneration and make it come BEFORE faith. This is also why Calvinists believe God MUST have those he hates and gets glory from their condemnation. If a sinner is told they must stop sinning before they can come to Christ, they will never come. Try telling the sinner that they must STOP before they can be saved. They will walk away, for they know they have no power to stop. Jesus MUST be the reason they come. If they could stop in their own power, then they can save themselves. Of course they must KNOW they are sinners. You cant be found until you are first convinced that you are lost. 3)Calvinists and some Arminans believe God must regenerate someone first, before they can exercise faith. This is because of the doctrine of total depravity which both groups share. Some Arminians believe prevenient grace comes to each individual as the gospel is presented, while others say it was poured out by God on the whole world, and we all possess it already, so total depravity was prevented. I believe examples such as God hardening Pharaoh's heart shows we only get totally hardened as we reject the light that has been given us. This is why it is imperative to show sinners that TODAY is the day of salvation. The longer you say "no" to God, the more hardened you become, and He will eventually leave you alone altogether. God made sure Cornelius heard the gospel, because God had already heard his prayers before he was saved. 4) I love the quote from Adiel Sherwood, one of the founders of the Georgia Baptist Convention, and who rejected both Calvinist and Arminian points, when he said “I am aware that there are staunch professors to be found, who would smite me on one cheek, for displacing a fold of Mr. Wesley’s prunella gown-and others, who would smite me on the other cheek, for disturbing a curl of Doctor Gill’s wig. But I trust that the truth is found between the extremes.” And here is where I will bow out, before I get shot at from both sides :-) The Calvinist arrows and Arminian arrows becomes fast friends when aimed at me lol, but oh how JESUS SAVES!

[@jbaites850]

Love this brother!

[@lukemitchell3275]

How do you define "total" depravity?

[@caman171]

@@lukemitchell3275 my response sometimes shows and sometimes does not. let me know if you see it friend. Calvinists and many Arminians define it as total, complete corruption, with NO ability to respond to God, incapable of desiring God. We are the walking dead, and are born guilty of Adams sin imputed to us at conception. The imago dei has been destroyed within humanity. IF THIS IS TRUE, then non elect babes and young children who die, go to hell, because they are just as guilty and depraved as Hitler. We don't have to commit our own sin in order to be guilty, we are born guilty, conceived in iniquity. Non Calvinist Baptists (both Provisionist and Free Will Baptists) reject this. We believe we are guilty of our own sin, and the sins of the father are not imputed to the children. We believe Ezekiel 18 makes this clear. Another example is the fact that God heard the prayers of Cornelius BEFORE he heard the gospel and was saved. I would also submit, that if we are born TOTALLY depraved, then why did God need to "harden" the hearts of people like Pharaoh? If TP is true, we are already as hard as we can get. Calvinists love to use the example of Jesus calling Lazarus from the grave as a symbol of salvation. However, Lazarus died in a saved state. Jesus wept over Jerusalem because they "were not willing" to come to him. This implies that they could have come. Many Arminians believe "preventing grace" overcomes these obstacles, which puts them close to our position. However they get upset that we deny TOTAL depravity ever occurred in the first place, and they still cling to original sin (hence infant baptism). Arminians are really just Bezan Calvinists. Both Arminians and Calvinists have the same starting point (total depravity) and same ending point (perseverance) The biggest difference is that Calvinists must persevere to prove they are saved, while the Arminian must persevere to stay saved. Below is a list that makes my position clear 1) We do NOT believe we contribute to our salvation. It is ALL of God. We can however, respond to God's call in order to be regenerated .2) We are NOT "pelagian" regardless of who makes that accusation (Luther called Zwingli a pelagian) 3) We believe our predestination does not begin until AFTER we believe. Election does not always refer to salvation. Most of the time it refers to service and gifts that God gives 4) We do not deny that Adams fall affected all humanity. A baby who is born to a mother who drank alcohol while pregnant isnt guilty of his mothers sin, but he does suffer the consequences of his mother's sin. We reject the guilt associated with original sin, but the consequences of Adam's sin does enure that we will knowingly sin against God at some point. We believe in an age of accountability where children are safe until they knowingly sin against God. NO infant who dies, will go to hell. 5) While we dont believe we are born totally depraved, we do believe you can BECOME totally depraved. the more you reject God and indulge sin, the more depraved you become

[@caman171]

@@lukemitchell3275 my response sometimes shows and sometimes does not. let me know if you see it friend. Calvinists and many Arminians define it as total, complete corruption, with NO ability to respond to God, incapable of desiring God. We are the walking dead, and are born guilty of Adams sin imputed to us at conception. The imago dei has been destroyed within humanity. IF THIS IS TRUE, then non elect nfants and kids who die, go to hell, because they are just as guilty and depraved as Hitler. We don't have to commit our own sin in order to be guilty, we are born guilty, conceived in iniquity. Non Calvinist Baptists (both Provisionist and Free Will Baptists) reject this. We believe we are guilty of our own sin, and the sins of the father are not imputed to the children. We believe Ezekiel 18 makes this clear. Another example is the fact that God heard the prayers of Cornelius BEFORE he heard the gospel and was saved. I would also submit, that if we are born TOTALLY depraved, then why did God need to "harden" the hearts of people like Pharaoh? If TP is true, we are already as hard as we can get. Calvinists love to use the example of Jesus calling Lazarus from the grave as a symbol of salvation. However, Lazarus died in a saved state. Jesus wept over Jerusalem because they "were not willing" to come to him. This implies that they could have come. Many Arminians believe "preventing grace" overcomes these obstacles, which puts them close to our position. However they get upset that we deny TOTAL depravity ever occurred in the first place, and they still cling to original sin (hence infant baptism). Arminians are really just Bezan Calvinists. Both Arminians and Calvinists have the same starting point (total depravity) and same ending point (perseverance) The biggest difference is that Calvinists must persevere to prove they are saved, while the Arminian must persevere to stay saved. Below is a list that makes my position clear 1) We do NOT believe we contribute to our salvation. It is ALL of God. We can however, respond to God's call in order to be regenerated 2) We are NOT "pelagian" regardless of who makes that accusation (Luther called Zwingli a pelagian) 3) We believe our predestination does not begin until AFTER we believe. Election does not always refer to salvation. Most of the time it refers to service and gifts that God gives 4) We do not deny that Adams fall affected all humanity. A baby who is born to a mother who drank alcohol while pregnant isnt guilty of his mothers sin, but he does suffer the consequences of his mother's sin. We reject the imputed guilt associated with original sin, but the consequences of Adam's sin does enure that we will knowingly sin against God at some point. We believe in an age of accountability where children are safe until they knowingly sin against God. NO infant who dies, will go to hell. 5) While we dont believe we are born totally depraved, we do believe you can BECOME totally depraved. The more you reject God and indulge sin, the more depraved you become

[@caman171]

@@lukemitchell3275 Let me know if you see this and I will reply. My replies keep disappearing

[@KWmsChildOfGod]

Excellent video. Yes and amen. Wrath first or the love is not understood. I agree with all you said. And I watched until the end. 😂

[@kengraham3332]

People are different. Some might hear wrath first. However, for me the wrath did no good. When I figured out the connection between the love of God and the cross that connection made me believe that I could give my life my life to God through Jesus and that he really would forgive my sin and welcome me into his eternal kingdom. We need to be careful when we say that one way or another is the only way to lead people to Jesus. I am a GMC Elder and former UMC pastor for 33 years. In that time I have seen people come to Jesus in many and varied ways.

[@darthnocturnis3941]

Here's my take on it and it's not as "concrete" as some may like. In order to answer the initial question about whether God loves people, I go to Romans 5:8. I think this is straightforward enough to make clear that God loves people prior to their salvation. God loves everyone and has the true desire to see everyone saved, thus the general prevenient grace offered to everyone. I think holiness is a bit more dynamic - NOT in the sense that holiness changes, but rather in how holiness impacts the individual. One the one hand, I have listened to an atheist say, "I do not believe in God and if I were somehow convinced he exists, I would still reject him because I find him repulsive." You can preach sin all day long to someone like that and it will never be convicting. Granted, preaching "love" to such a person is no MORE effective. Moving from the most extreme to a slightly less extreme, it has been my experience that people are not concerned about holiness and sin until they are convinced that there is a God who has an interest in them. One example I have, is where I met someone who flat out despised God. Over the course of time and our interactions, this individual has moved from hating God to being open to God, though still reluctant to accept his standards of holiness. And that is what I mean by "holiness is dynamic." As people are learning who God is through us, they become more aware of how unworthy they are. I realize at this point, that my thoughts on this are probably more extensive than I have want or time to type out. . .

[@deej7928]

It needs to be both at the same time, very early in the discussion.

[@UnashamedofJesus]

Great topic....I think the love of God is part of the gospel message, however the gospel message doesn't make sense unless we know we are sinners and deserving of Hell. Like you said, I don't believe most people understand our sinful depravity, we must reveal The Law to them as Jesus did in Mark 10 with the Rich Younge Ruler. God bless

[@jeffdollar1646]

The hearers must hear the bad news before they are ready for the good. People today do not believe they are sinners, they think God loves them unconditionally. The love of God must only be presented as it is attached to the cross of Christ, for anyone not connected to that remains under God's wrath.

[@dalethomas5392]

We need to recapture and re-recognize God's wrath - His unwavering opposition to all evil and a willingness to confront and eliminate it - as a necessary aspect of God's love.

[@christianusacross5084]

An idea for the Global Methodist Church the Global Methodist Church should teach New Testament Greek and Christian Latin the languages of Christianity spread the idea please!

[@dalethomas5392]

As for Wesley on prevenient grace, he says that the vast, overwhelming majority of people "stifle [it] as soon as possible, and after a while forget, or at least deny, that they ever had [it] at all.” The difference between prevenient grace and convincing grace (aka legal repentance) is that with prevenient grace, we might recognize that we’ve done evil things, but we don’t actually care all that much about it. Convincing grace, on the other hand, helps us to realize the seriousness of our sin to the point that we understand we need to turn away from it, we sincerely desire to turn from it, and recognize that something needs to be done about it. Unlike prevenient grace, convincing grace gives us a servile fear of God for having violated His law/commands. Whereas prevenient grace is intended to address, deal with, and overcome the thoroughly devastating effects of original sin on the human person (i.e. total depravity) and sufficiently free our will so that we can genuinely respond to God's offer of salvation, convincing grace is intended to address, deal with, and overcome our apathy toward sin.

[@caman171]

I totally agree with the sentiment here brother. As a non calvinist non arminian Baptist we dont believe Adams fall resulted in TOTAL depravity (Augustine was the first to articulate that extreme). We believe scripture is clear that TOTAL depravity (hardening) occurs over time as we indulge sin more and more, and reject God more and more, until he just leaves us in our sin. We would differ as to the imputation of Adams guilt. While we suffer the consequences of Adams sin, we are not born "Guilty" of his sin, much like a child born to a mother who drank alcohol wile pregnant. The child bears the consequences but isnt guilty of his mothers sin. HOWEVER, because of your belief in prevenient grace, we both land on the same starting point, as we both agree that we must choose Him or perish. Provisionist Baptists dont use terms that split up grace into categories like calvinists and arminians, but again the outlook is similar. I would say that "convincing grace" occurs after salvation and is part of sanctification. We see a difference between sonship and discipleship. Of course we would differ on the eternal security issue as well, but t least we re on similar footing as to who Christ died for and who he will save

[@dalethomas5392]

@caman171 That's called Pelagianism. Also, Wesley is clear that convincing grace (aka legal repentance) preceeds properly saving grace (justification & new birth). There is a repentance that is subsequent to justification and new birth, but that is called evangelical repentance and is different from legal repentance.

[@caman171]

@@dalethomas5392 Lots of talk about Wesley. he disagreed with Whitefield. Arminus saw things differently than Calvin. What does Jesus say? so many types of "repentance" and "grace"! We Provisionists get arrows shot at us from both calvinist and arminians so I am used to it. The thief on the cross understood his guilt, and simply said to Jesus "Remember me". No baptism, no confirmation, no church membership. It does grieve me tho that so many Methodists are quick to shoot arrows our way and call us "pelagian" when they tolerated sin within their leadership that no Baptist would ever tolerate. You wont ever see a Baptist deny the virgin birth, resurrection or deity of Christ, nor will you see pride flag hanging from our churches. While Methodists have laughed at Baptists for not using alcohol, they have forgotten, that it was the Methodists who started the temperance movement, and invented pasteurized grape juice for communion, while Baptists were still using real wine. Baptists dont even ordain females or divorced persons or practicing lgbt+, so I hardly see your view as being something superior. You have tolerated sin within your ranks more than any Baptist. So please show me where your view of both salvation and sanctification can be found among Methodists. Where may I see it lived out? Where are there any great Methodists preaching the gospel to the world instead of just inside their own church? Where is your version of Billy Graham or Franklin Graham or Greg Laurie? On a side note, Pelagianism isnt even a real thing. Pelagius was found innocent of all charges THREE times til Augustine convinced the pope he'd have more power if he condemned Pelagius. Of the 14 charges against Pelagius, he only affirmed one half of one point. Even calvinists are kind enough to call us "semi pelagian", as they call you as well. Perhaps you'd learn something from a video called "Was Pelagius a Pelagian" by Dr Leighton Flowers (Baptist seminary professor of apologetics) and an Oxford scholar. If you believe young children are guilty and deserving of hell, please read Ezekiel. Look up "Baalgate" for an expose of the calvinist belief that "non elect" infants who die go to hell, since they are guilty of Adams sin. Show me an example of total sanctifiction. And finally, while I love Wesley (and despise Calvin), neither of them saved me from my ruined state. That my friend, was ALL Jesus. No one here is claiming they saved themselves or contributed to it. The ONLY thing I have contributed to my salvation, is the sin which made it necessary. I am your friend whether you are mine or not, and I love God more than my own life, and on that, hangs ALL the law and the prophets.

[@Squarepeg43]

John Wesley's sole requirement for entry into the Methodist movement was a sincere desire to flee from the wrath to come. That sounds like starting with conviction, not love. The description of what a fully mature Christian's heart looks like given in the Beatitudes starts with mourning over our sinfulness. The hardest people to evangelize are those who do not know they need a Savior. None of these sound like talking about God's love is the right starting point.