Can A Non Calvinist Believe the Gospel of The Kingdom? Is that Even Possible?

Recently we have witnessed a couple of threads with the joyful titles Do Calvinists believe the same gospel?
Or the other favorite; The gospel a Calvinists cannot believe!

What followed were posts whining about the doctrines of grace offered by those who do not understand the basic ideas of Calvinism.

Then of course we had a few who tried to tell us, they used to be Calvinists, until they became more enlightened, or they somehow were Calvinists but at the same time, had never really came to the position by bible study, but rather got swept up in logic, or philosophy, or some other thing.

Others with a dispensational flavor to their study find no place for Historic confessional thought, much less Biblical thought and teaching as expressed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Apostles.
Several others knowingly or unknowingly follow the new measures of Charles Grandison Finney, look to emotional decisionism, and physical external substitutes to replace careful exegesis of scripture itself.

Some seem to think it is fashionable to explain these truths away as, Theory, or Gnostic philosophy, as if that gives them a reason not to answer to scripture when called upon, they just seek to dismiss the biblical claims.

Others proudly declare they are Baptists, and my bible says...this and that/ and there is no need to look into it.
Discussion of Election, Predestination, Covenants are unnecessary and tedious to discuss, and if you post more than a bumper sticker, or a meme, I am not going to read it.
Add the idol of man's free will, or Just quote Jn. 3:16, as if that is the whole ball of wax!

Do you think they can see through these obstacles and come to truth ?
Thankfully, many hope that God will grant them repentance and faith and remove some of these obstacles.

What do you think???

Looks like no non cal has any thoughts on this. Why do you think that is?

@Zaatar71

What if Calvinism is one of the obstacles?

Dave... said:

@Zaatar71

What if Calvinism is one of the obstacles?

Click to expand...

Hello Dave,
Could you take some time to explain how you see it, as one of the obstacles. Take your time and lay it out. I will read and respond,Thanks for your response!

Systems can become idols. They must leave room for changes or it must be assumed to be a system that has reached an infallible state, reaching it's final conclusion. But then it becomes equal to Scripture. We should never look at Scripture that way. It's always feeding us, layer upon layer. Alistair Begg once said that you could read the Bible to an audience, from left to right, beginning with new converts on the left, and ending on the right with well seasoned 5 star theologians, and each could learn from that reading at their own level of understanding. His point was that there is nothing else like it. I always felt that liberals try to copy that by delving into multiple meanings of great writers. But it pales in comparison.
We should always yield to the Bible. Even the systems that we create should be willing to have room to adapt to the truth as it's discovered.

I think we think too much of the past theologians. We have a lot to grateful for from them, but they were mere men, and limited, even though they dedicated their lives to the study and understanding of Scripture.

Dave... said:

Systems can become idols. They must leave room for changes or it must be assumed to be a system that has reached an infallible state, reaching it's final conclusion. But then it becomes equal to Scripture. We should never look at Scripture that way. It's always feeding us, layer upon layer. Alistair Begg once said that you could read the Bible to an audience, from left to right, beginning with new converts on the left, and ending on the right with well seasoned 5 star theologians, and each could learn from that reading at their own level of understanding. His point was that there is nothing else like it. I always felt that liberals try to copy that by delving into multiple meanings of great writers. But it pales in comparison.
We should always yield to the Bible. Even the systems that we create should be willing to have room to adapt to the truth as it's discovered.

I think we think too much of the past theologians. We have a lot to grateful for from them, but they were mere men, and limited, even though they dedicated their lives to the study and understanding of Scripture.

Click to expand...

Okay. You offer a good caution. All of the solid confessions of Faith that are Calvinistic start by listing scripture as the only rule of faith and practice.
In practice, it is possible that people shift in an unbalanced way. I have been in classes where a strong caution is offered. It is not always heeded

Zaatar71 said:

Okay. You offer a good caution. All of the solid confessions of Faith that are Calvinistic start by listing scripture as the only rule of faith and practice.
In practice, it is possible that people shift in an unbalanced way. I have been in classes where a strong caution is offered. It is not always heeded

Click to expand...

I probably should have waited until today to write that post. I was tired.

I think that everyone has good intentions.

Z, are you are you a Calvinist?

I'm reformed, but being reformed, people can have a vast amount of differences in their theology. But Calvinism these days seems to be a lot more rigid in it's borders.

What would you do if you stopped believing that total depravity was total? Would you change the Acronym? Would you throw away the whole system?

Dave

Dave... said:

I probably should have waited until today to write that post. I was tired.

I think that everyone has good intentions.

Z, are you are you a Calvinist?

I'm reformed, but being reformed, people can have a vast amount of differences in their theology. But Calvinism these days seems to be a lot more rigid in it's borders.

What would you do if you stopped believing that total depravity was total? Would you change the Acronym? Would you throw away the whole system?

Dave

Click to expand...

Hello David,
Thanks for your civil post, and discourse. As far as labels go I do not run from that label, I just reserve the right to define the term. 5 points yes they are undoubtedly biblical. Total Depravity properly understanding the fall into sin and death, shows the biblical necessity for unconditional election.

I doubt that there is much need to changes Acronyms. The issues have been put on display. Scriptures have been offered.
I would not throw away "systems" or Labels. They say much in a short amount of time. iF I can clarify any issue along these lines, I will try and help in that way. I am only one person, and cannot speak for all. I am a mainstream 5 pointer.

Zaatar71 said:

Okay. You offer a good caution. All of the solid confessions of Faith that are Calvinistic start by listing scripture as the only rule of faith and practice.
In practice, it is possible that people shift in an unbalanced way. I have been in classes where a strong caution is offered. It is not always heeded

Click to expand...

That would be a major concern of mine, as have interacted with fellow Calvinists who would always been stated the Confession states that ot=r this, and seemed to be always appealing to them and not actually what the scriptures stated, as in their mind seemed to ghave elevated the Confession to almost being scripture lite.

JesusFan said:

That would be a major concern of mine, as have interacted with fellow Calvinists who would always been stated the Confession states that ot=r this, and seemed to be always appealing to them and not actually what the scriptures stated, as in their mind seemed to have elevated the Confession to almost being scripture lite.

Click to expand...

Basically, I think that's what tradition has done in the Catholic church. I get the systems, and confessions especially, but remember, they all must claim one of two things. One, that they are complete and without error, and then it must be considered equal to Scripture, even if that idea is masked by the quoting of Scripture for the system. Or two, that they are always in a process of understanding and are willing to yield and comply that system or confession to any new *true* understanding of Scripture. That's kind of a double edged sword and I understand the concerns with that. I went to a Pentecostal church that basically lived for the next "new thing". Holy Ghost laughter, etc. Crazy stuff that seems necessary when you're not being fed the word of God. To see God only in miracles...stuff like that.

For me, I would start with TULIP. Total depravity could maybe be judicial depravity, but still not total. Or partial depravity. PULIP? Limited atonement. I've heard many staunch Calvinists say that the atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect. The thing is, most non Calvinists would agree with that. Maybe not the definition of the elect, thought. The atonement is not limited in any way. It's the definition the elect that is the point of contention. Also, there are many Calvinists who didn't believe that OT believers were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, some even believing that they could not be born again. That they were regenerated in another way, like I think Calvin believed.