Featured A Tale of Two Calvinisms

I never understood why people view the Gospels as inferior.

Christ tells us to first seek this Kingdom, yet so many discount it as secondary.

Anyway, very much of the Kingdom of God is expressed outside of the four Gospels. The Pauline epistles often focus on who will inherit this Kingdom and in Romans Paul expounds on the nature of this Kingdom. Isaiah focuses on this Kingdom. 2 Peter turns our attention to the kingdom.

 

This is my point.

There is a difference between a Christian yielding to the flesh and a person mastered by the flesh.

I use Calvinism partly because of its simplicity. But more than that, I was a Calvinist for a long time and I still affirm the 5 points.

Across forums some Calvinists are known as spiritually dead and ungodly people pretending to be Christian. But historically Calvinists have been known differently. Men like George Mueller are known for their love and utter dependence on God. Men like Charles Spurgeon had a heart for the lost. Contemporary examples abound as well (Tim Keller, John Piper, for example).

The issue is not doctrine but the heart. Spiritual matutity is the maturity of the spirit, not the acceptance of knowledge.

That is what I mean by two kinds of Calvinism. The reason is that the gospel, not Calvinism (or any other "ism"), is the power of God unto salvation. Christians know this. Calvinists use "Calvinism" as the gospel because it is their understanding. Same with Amyraldianism and Arminianism (fill in the blank).

But not all who say "Lord, Lord" are saved. Some worship knowledge and all they have is Calvinism (or any other theological view) apart from knowing Christ. To them doctrine means "spiritual truth". Calvinism tends to create a very ungodly spirit when applied to lost church people.

 

Nah. The 5 points in Calvinism work together and build upon one another. Anything less than a 7 point Calvinist (Piper's two additional points) is an inconsistent Calvinist.

And you can confirm the conclusions without being a Calvinist (you can get there without Calvinistic philosophy).

I believe in the total depravity of men in that without the work of the Spirit men will not turn to God. And I think God saves men unconditionally (not based on any merit natural to that person). I believe Christ died to redeem mankind as a whole but also specifically to save those who would believe. And God's grace is ultimately irresistible (God's plan will happen and tge future will unfold as God knew it would prior to Creation). And those who are saved are saved from the wrath to come (salvation is not superficial). I believe those who do not believe are predestined to disbelief and those who believe are predestined to salvation because God is omniscient (if God is omniscient then everything is predestined to occur as God knew it would occur, and everything is decreed to occur by the act of Creation). And lastly I believe we are living in the best if all possible worlds because everything will ultimately work out to glorify God.

So I can still affirm the 5/ 7 points even though I am no longer a Calvinist. I ditched Calvinism because I did not see its philosophy biblical. BuI do believe that God is omniscient (so I have to accept everything is predestined) and I believe God created the world (so I have to believe everything is predestined by God). And based on an omniscient Creator predestination does not make God the source of sin.

 

I do not understand how you can believe that God foreknew everything, Created everything, but the future is not predestined to unfold as God knew and created it to unfold. Perhaps it is just perception, or more likely that I'm just not the sharpest tool in the box.

Do you believe that God knew, before God created the world, the outcome of contingent events (like who would and would not believe, for example)? If not, then perhaps that is where I am not following (many believe God knew all that is to be known, but our decisions are unknown prior to us making them).

There is also the possibility that we believe the same thing (on this point) but are speaking about this differently. I just want to make sure we are not talking past one another.

 

Very well put. We can hold different understandings and interact with one another in Christ because we are able to realize the difference between our understanding (which we believe correct) and the gospel (or Scripture) from which our understanding is derived.

I believe that Romans 14:4 applies. We are not accountable to one another but to Christ. This is expressed at the local church level as well (but we are not a church). So we are not to judge another person even as we can strongly argue for our understanding. There should always be a line that we do not cross, and when we become unable to tell the difference between the gospel and our understanding of the gospel we have crossed that line.

 

I'm working on a secret decoder ring for this. If you want, when I'm finished, I'll send you one....for three easy installments of $29.95.

 

No, actually more emphasis is made over the Kingdom. This is the theme throughout the Old Testament and into the New. It is the them throughout all four Gospels and most of Jesus' parables. And it is the theme throughout most of the epistles (especially Romans and the letters to the church in Corinth).

You are wrong on this point, brother, and may want to look at the number of times the kingdom is mentioned in Scripture. The kingdom has always been the gospel and the Cross the place of reconciliation.