Jon c
how are you defining the gospel?
how are you defining the gospel?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question About Cals/Non Cals
- Thread starter Arbo
- Start date
Aaron,
You may be right, and perhaps we will never see eye to eye on this. I actually doubt we differ much theologically.
I don’t really care what the common use of Calvinism is (if there actually is one). But I do know that Calvinism is a specific theological system, although there are differences within that system. One should always be concerned with the truth of what they believe rather than accepting what is common.
Yes, I do view the Gospel very narrowly. In fact, there is no deviation at all.
I do not know why you would state that I do not trust Calvinists, I already told you that I hold to that view. I do not know if my experience is anything to you, perhaps it should be, perhaps not. But please refrain from taking my words out of context. I just thought that I would let you know my past difficulty when dealing with Calvinists who are ignorant of their theology (and I am not implying that this is you, please do not take it as such). Sometimes people say foolish things that have consequences in the lives of others. Sometimes people may be held accountable at some point for the words they say.
I would have simply dismissed your post, at first I thought “what is it to me?” But if you are a Christian, then it should matter greatly to me. So I responded, in hopes that you would not become like those I ran into who actually wrecked havoc on their own theology and others in order to vindicate their position against someone who didn’t even care what they thought anyway. But, ultimately that’s up to you.
I would define the “Gospel” as redemption through Christ as presented in Scripture.
I would present the Gospel by walking through the Gospel as found in Scripture, using my own understanding and relying on the Holy Spirit to work in the life of the unbeliever, if that is what God is going to do through me at that time.
My problem is when we start calling what is theological understanding, or even Biblical truths that are not the Gospel, the Gospel. Just because something is correct does not mean it is the Gospel. I can be a Christian and believe that Jonah and the fish is a fable. I don’t, but accepting a literal interpretation of the account is not part of the Gospel message. Neither is theological understandings, no matter how Biblical, of how God effected Salvation in regards to predestination, election, etc. The Gospel is that Salvation is come to those who believe – not necessarily how God brought about that salvation (although it is important).
These are truths that should be taught, but they are taught to believers. Paul is never once said to have explained election, predestination, etc, to anyone other than the Church. These are important truths, and I believe Reformed Theology to be correct – but it is not the Gospel itself. You do not cast pearls before swine. Reformation theology is for the believer, not the unbeliever.
If there is another definition of the Gospel, and I am mistaking his position, I am more than open for correction - but not ridicule (not that I would expect ridicule from you, you have been most helpful in the past).
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
JonC, just a note... From the number of persons who have misinterpreted your words, there may be an issue with the way you expressed yourself. Most of the ones expressing concern are noted on the board for being Calvinists, as you self-identify as holding, and yet we find ourselves at odds with some of what you have written. That so many are wondering may mean, again, that you have somehow not been clear or cohesive in your expression.
I think that you may be right, and I do apologize for inadequately stating what I am trying to express. Part of this, I believe, is due to the argumentative atmosphere of having so many diverse views in one place; one is perhaps justified in expecting a disagreement to be an attack on theological grounds. I attribute a larger part to my difficulty in expressing my view. Perhaps this will be clearer.
In the first chapter of Romans, Paul states that “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” It is in this context where I derive my understanding of the Gospel and it is in this context that I believe it improper to substitute “Calvinism” for “Gospel.”
Spurgeon presented the Gospel within Calvinism, but it was the Gospel that was the power of God for salvation – not “God’s predestination in salvation.” Wesley presented the Gospel within an opposing theology (I disagree with the Wesleyan theology), but the Gospel that saved those who heard was the same Gospel – the power of God for salvation. It is in this context that I disagree that Calvinism is the Gospel and all others are not.
One group murmers, the other group simply accepts 'it is lawful for Him to do what He wills with His own'.
"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?"
jmho of course
This post goes to show the reason of distrust Jon speaks of.
It's nice to finally have a calvinist on this board like Jon with a solid head on his shoulders. A rarity on this site.
glfredrick
New Member
Again, I'm not convinced that ANY true Calvinist has actually said that phrase with the understanding that Calvinism defines the Gospel. That would be virtually impossible, for the true nature of Calvinism is a call to God's sovereignty, not the efforts of man, whether by logic, theological system, or any other invention or work. Thus, the SCRIPTURES are what drive the doctrine, as we have all agreed.
That some Calvinists have made the statement and can be cited as saying that, is a given, but I remain absolutely unconvinced that they meant it in that manner, but rather that Calvinism "expresses the gospel as recorded in the Scriptures." Nuanced, perhaps, but the way every Calvinist that I have ever met or read (save for the couple hyper- brothers in the mix who might say otherwise) would say it.
Again, we all agree that Calvinism derives FROM the Scriptures, not the other way around. Anathama to anyone who says otherwise, for they are neither Calvinist nor in fact a friend of God, for they accuse a brother or sister in the Lord without just cause by not investigating the intent of the writer or sayer.
glfredrick
New Member
Where did you come from in this discussion?
Context
Proverbs 26 New American Standard Bible
21 Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire,
So is a contentious man to kindle strife.
22 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels,
And they go down into the innermost parts of the body.
23 Like an earthen vessel overlaid with silver dross
Are burning lips and a wicked heart.
24 He who hates disguises it with his lips,
But he lays up deceit in his heart.
25 When he speaks graciously, do not believe him,
For there are seven abominations in his heart.
26 Though his hatred covers itself with guile,
His wickedness will be revealed before the assembly.
27 He who digs a pit will fall into it,
And he who rolls a stone, it will come back on him.
28 A lying tongue hates those it crushes,
And a flattering mouth works ruin.
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a tab on this site just above called "New Posts" that members use to browse and comment on "new posts" without the permission of other members. I know, that probably just went way over your head...
Of course, you are the picture of consistency in calling out Aaron's constant vitriolic posts against both cal's and non
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
There's a tab on this site just above called "New Posts" that members use to browse and comment on "new posts" without the permission of other members. I know, that probably just went way over your head...
Of course, you are the picture of consistency in calling out Aaron's constant vitriolic posts against both cal's and non
I've engaged with Aaron on this board.
Please, gifredrick, help my understanding of your position. Are you affirming that you hold the statements below to be correct?
glfredrick
New Member
I wound not say it that way... But I believe I understand the greater point is that Calvinism accurately portrays the gospel as given in the Scriptures.
Aaron's languge in this case is sloppy and he would be taken to task if he wrote that stuff in a theology classroom while sitting under virtually any theology prof I have seen. Nuance and word constructs mean everything in the theological arena.
Quote from the Person that originally said Calvinism is the gospel
Here's the quote from Spurgeon.
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
I don't have my book out at the moment so I'm not sure which page it's on. But here's a website with it. It's about half way down.
Here's the quote from Spurgeon.
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
I don't have my book out at the moment so I'm not sure which page it's on. But here's a website with it. It's about half way down.
Either way its OK. I mailed your invitation, but you probably haven't received it yet.
“So truly in the riches of grace there are mines too deep for man’s finite understand ever to fathom. However profound your investigation, there is still a deep couching beneath which baffles all research. Who can ever discover the attributes of God? Who can find out the Almighty to perfection? We are at a loss to estimate the very quality and properties of grace as it dwells in the mind of Deity.”
Like Spurgeon, I do not believe that my finite understand is inerrant, nor capable of encompassing the depths of God’s grace and work in salvation. I agree with Calvinism, but also like Spurgeon, believe it to be incomplete when dealing with the totality of Scripture. I trust God, and try not to lean on my own understanding for He is sufficient for my shortcomings and flaws in reason. This is where I may part company with some (hopefully not most) Calvinists.
Exactly. Spurgeon speaks of Calvinism as the gospel in his understanding. Aaron may mean the same, I may have taken his comments wrong and it could be a missunderstanding on my part. I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
Since we're on Spurgeon, these are also applicable:
There are some brethren with small heads, who, when they have heard a strong doctrinal sermon, grow into hyper-Calvinists, and then when we preach an inviting sermon to poor sinners, they cannot understand it, and say it is a yea and nay gospel. Believe me, it is not yea and nay, but yea and yea. We give your yea to all truth, and our nay we give to no doctrine of God. Can a sinner be saved when he wills to come to Christ? Yea. And if he does come, does he come because God brings him? Yea. We have no nays in our theology for any revealed truth. We do not shut the door on one word and open it to another. Those are the yea and nay people who have a nay for the poor sinner, when they profess to preach the gospel (from "God's Will, Man's Will).
You know, brethren, that there is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer, I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But, my dear friends, far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none within her walls but Calvinistic Christians, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him, that while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself, I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one of whom the world was not worthy. I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ into their hearts, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist out of heaven. (From "The Man with the Measuring Line")
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
glfredrick
New Member
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
I’m going to ask this quickly because we’re here and both jbh28 and glfredrick have utalized Sprugeon in their posts.
In your link, Spurgeon states “I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures.”
“I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy…The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.”
(I know it was Calvin’s view, but he lived quite a bit prior to the synod of Dort and the development of the “five points”).
Would you say that this explanation is “five point” Calvinism (viewing limited atonement in terms of limited or definite redemption) or is it Amyraldianism (sufficiency or atonement without application constituting universal atonement)?
In your link, Spurgeon states “I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures.”
“I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy…The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.”
(I know it was Calvin’s view, but he lived quite a bit prior to the synod of Dort and the development of the “five points”).
Would you say that this explanation is “five point” Calvinism (viewing limited atonement in terms of limited or definite redemption) or is it Amyraldianism (sufficiency or atonement without application constituting universal atonement)?
Quote from the Canons of Dordt.
"While the death of Christ is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world, its saving efficacy is limited to the elect."
"The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."
"And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves."
The 5 points of Calvinism do not limit the sufficiency of the atonement, but the intent and efficiency.