A Tale of Two Calvinisms

[Reynolds]

which is?

Friction. Not knowing things not fully explained by scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Friction. Not knowing things not fully explained by scripture.

It that like when jay Vernon stated that we must preach and teach what Bible is sure on?

 

[Reynolds]

It that like when jay Vernon stated that we must preach and teach what Bible is sure on?

I guess, I am not very up on what Vernon taught.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Calvinism best explains the process by which God saves/justifies lost sinners...

You jest

 

[JonC]

The Gospel primary message is that of the Cross, not the Kingdom, as lost sinners must come to God thru the Cross before can even enter into the Kingdom!

Not according to Jesus and Paul.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Gospel primary message is that of the Cross, not the Kingdom, as lost sinners must come to God thru the Cross before can even enter into the Kingdom!

You are splitting hairs here. There is no time difference between the two

Though you are right that the central theme of the New Testament is the Cross of Jesus Christ

 

[Van]

I like the idea that the key verse for the entire bible is John 1:29 b, "behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

 

[Aaron]

I have noticed across boards and books that there are two kinds of Calvinism reflective of the two kinds of people that adhere to them. The doctrine is identical, but the people are completely different. We could say that there are simply two kinds of Calvinists, but based on arguments I think it is better put that the way Calvinism is held creates two different kinds of Calvinism as the arguments against Calvinism are often misdirected.

One is the idea that Calvinism best explains God’s work of Redemption from the standpoint of God’s sovereignty and the moral state of human beings. The other is that Calvinism is itself the gospel of Jesus Christ.

One is a theology, the other a philosophy that seeks to know God apart from Christ (a “backdoor Christianity).

While I believe the first is wrong, it is not a departure from the gospel but an explanation of the gospel. While I also believe the second is wrong, it is wrong on a more significant level as it is another gospel and is in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The first recognizes that other Christians are no less brothers in Christ, no less mature in the Spirit, no less a partaker of the heavenly gifts and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. The second considers those who believe differently to be brethren, but less spiritual, less enlightened, less mature.

The first discerns that these theological positions are to those who hold them the gospel, for it is their understanding of the gospel, and they interact with fellow believers in respect and love. The second replaces the gospel with their understanding of the gospel and argues that others adopt their view.

The first is secondary to Christ in the lives of the believer. The second replaces Christ in the lives of a believer.

The first sheds understanding on a living faith. The second is a dead religion.

The first is an explanation, the second is a false gospel.

No, I think you are dealing with two kinds of people, not two doctrines. There really is no difference in the two kinds of Calvinism you attempted to delineate. Naturally, the different kinds of people will express things differently, but one thing to keep in mind is that there are degrees of comprehension among Calvinists as there are in any discipline. Not every Calvinist understands Calvinism to the same degree, and their defenses will reflect that. But it's a weakness in the disciple, not the doctrine.

 

[church mouse guy]

As a theology, Calvinism should explain dispensationalism, deep time, and who goes to hell.

 

[JonC]

No, I think you are dealing with two kinds of people, not two doctrines. There really is no difference in the two kinds of Calvinism you attempted to delineate. Naturally, the different kinds of people will express things differently, but one thing to keep in mind is that there are degrees of comprehension among Calvinists as there are in any discipline. Not every Calvinist understands Calvinism to the same degree, and their defenses will reflect that. But it's a weakness in the disciple, not the doctrine.

I agree. The doctrines are identical. It is the people who are different.

I think of Jesus' words in Matthew 7. Many who know doctrine, who participate in the ministry, do not know Christ and are not known by Him.

Doctrine is important. But God, not doctrine, saves.

And this applies not only to Calvinism, of course. I use Calvinism simply because I have seen so many who are strong Calvinists but appear spiritually dead. At the same time we have so many examples of Calvinists who are examples of how we should live.

 

[Dave G]

I like the idea that the key verse for the entire bible is John 1:29 b, "behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

Here's what I see, if it is of any worth to you:

" But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." ( Matthew 4:4 ).

May God bless your studies greatly as you search His word.

 

[Dave G]

The Gospel primary message is that of the Cross, not the Kingdom, as lost sinners must come to God thru the Cross before can even enter into the Kingdom!

Not according to Jesus and Paul.

Are you sure about that, Jon?
Paul preached the cross and Him crucified:

" For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." ( 1 Corinthians 1:18-24 ).


Jesus said this:
" And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.
33 This he said, signifying what death he should die." ( John 12:32 ).

...and Peter, by the Holy Spirit said this:
" Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:" ( Acts of the Apostles 2:22-23 ).

Good morning to you, sir.

 

[Van]

Here's what I see, if it is of any worth to you:

" But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." ( Matthew 4:4 ).

May God bless your studies greatly as you search His word.

Yes, I think we all need to value both every word of scripture, and our siblings insight of scripture.

 

[JonC]

Are you sure about that, Jon?
Paul preached the cross and Him crucified:

" For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." ( 1 Corinthians 1:18-24 ).


Jesus said this:
" And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.
33 This he said, signifying what death he should die." ( John 12:32 ).

...and Peter, by the Holy Spirit said this:
" Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:" ( Acts of the Apostles 2:22-23 ).

Good morning to you, sir.

Yes, I am sure about that. The issue is not that the cross is unimportant (it is vital). But the gospel itself (per Christ) is that the Kingdom has come. The question, then, is how do we enter that Kingdom.

My point is that there is a difference between information about the gospel and the gospel itself (and the results of the "good news"). This is something I had not considered until D.A. Carson made it in his gospel lectures.

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people." - Matthew 4

So Jesus preached "the good news of the Kingdom". I do not think that we can let this take a back seat to the Cross - but rather "the Cross" (Paul uses it to speak of God's reconciliation as a whole) is the means by which we are able to enter into that Kingdom.

 

[AustinC]

What brought this to mind is that I'm revisiting old books. I mentioned before that one book that I've read countless times is God in the Wasteland by David F Wells (it is a wonderfully insightful book).

In it David Wells writes: "The fundamental problem in the evangelical world today is that God rests too inconsequentially upon the church. His truth is too distant, His grace is too ordinary, His judgment is too benign, His gospel is too easy, and His Christ is too common."

Now, Wells is writing of the effects of Postmodernity on evangelical Christianity. But it occurred me that this is applicable to Calvinism (at least as sometimes argued for and sometimes mischaracterized).

Calvinism as an explanation of God's work shares a deep history with the Church because it shares the gospel and Church history that transcends any one theology.
But Calvinism as the gospel itself is a shallow thing. It presents a God that is inconsequential. It presents the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ as too distant, making no demand on the "Christian". Despite it's focus on moral justice, it even presents a judgment that is too benign, a gospel that is too easy, and a Christ that is far too common.

This, I'm sure, can apply to any other theological position or religious philosophy when people replace the gospel with their understanding of the gospel. It is interesting in this context (Calvinism) because Calvinism is such a simple and concise system.

Jon, you are making massive brush strokes and assumptions. I can only assume you do this because you think your personal thoughts about God are superior and more well thought than others here.
Your proposition is therefore oozing with self-pride and daring people to prove your nebulous theory to be wrong. Good luck. It's clear you are stuck on your opinion.
As to Wells, I believe you have failed to understand his proposition if you imagine you can take his message and disparage Calvin with it.
This is my last and only comment on this thread as I believe it is a wasted thread.

 

[kyredneck]

I like the idea that the key verse for the entire bible is John 1:29 b, "behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

Here's what I see, if it is of any worth to you:

" But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." ( Matthew 4:4 ).

I would remind Dave G of Jn 5:39:

39 Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; Jn 5

Van's pick is excellent as a key verse for the theme of Redemption. But I see the Bible as a multi-faceted gem that has more than one theme, all of which revolve around the Seed of the woman. My pick for key verse of yet another theme:

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Jn 1

...the theme of the revelation of God through the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[JonC]

Jon, you are making massive brush strokes and assumptions. I can only assume you do this because you think your personal thoughts about God are superior and more well thought than others here.
Your proposition is therefore oozing with self-pride and daring people to prove your nebulous theory to be wrong. Good luck. It's clear you are stuck on your opinion.
As to Wells, I believe you have failed to understand his proposition if you imagine you can take his message and disparage Calvin with it.
This is my last and only comment on this thread as I believe it is a wasted thread.

I suppose we could say that anyone who disagrees with us are "oozing with self-pride and daring people to prove their nebulous theory to be wrong". That's just ad hominem and has no place in adult discussions. I will say that what may have led you to this erroneous conclusion is that you have made a false assumption - I do not believe that my personal thoughts about God are superior or more well thought than others on this forum. You are reading into my posts.

I do, however, believe that my own beliefs are correct - otherwise (to paraphrase John MacArthur) I'd change my incorrect beliefs so they'd be correct. I hope that you believe your beliefs are correct. You would be in a sad state if you thought your beliefs were false ones. But here you are confusing conclusions with observations. I have observed ungodly "Christians" who hold a good theology. The issue is not the theology but the person.

You are wrong that my intent is to disparage Calvin or Calvinists. I also affirm TULIP (which is what most here consider to be "Calvinism"). And I said very clearly (twice) that the issue is not Calvinism (the doctrine) but how some people hold the theology.

I am, BTW, agreeing with Jesus Christ. Many will say "Lord Lord" only to find that they were wrong - NOT in doctrine but in not being known by Him.

My personal thoughts about Calvinists is that Calvinists were the most used group to reach others for Christ in the 19th and perhaps 20th centuries. People accuse Calvinists of not having a motive for evangelism because of their doctrine - BUT history proves this accusation incorrect. The difference is not doctrine but Christ.

I understand Well's quote very well. And like I said, Wells was referring to Postmodernity and evangelical Christianity. Wells was not speaking of Reformed churches alone. I said that his quote made me think of the issue - NOT that his quote was about the topic.

 

[Van]

I would remind Dave G of Jn 5:39:

39 Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; Jn 5

Van's pick is excellent as a key verse for the theme of Redemption. But I see the Bible as a multi-faceted gem that has more than one theme, all of which revolve around the Seed of the woman. My pick for key verse of yet another theme:

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Jn 1

...the theme of the revelation of God through the Lord Jesus Christ.

The overall theme is God's revelation. Thus the Lamb of God points not only to Christ Jesus, but also to the Father, because we must believe in the One that sent Christ to be saved.

 

[Dave G]

But the gospel itself (per Christ) is that the Kingdom has come.

I suppose that depends on perspective.
Until he comes again and sets up His reign at Jerusalem, I don't see where the Kingdom has come unless we consider that it has come in the person of Christ's Spirit within them.

Right now He's in Heaven at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us.

The question, then, is how do we enter that Kingdom.

Romans 8:29-30.
Ephesians 1:4-5.
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.

My point is that there is a difference between information about the gospel and the gospel itself (and the results of the "good news").

I'm sorry, but I don't consider the difference between 1 Corinthians 15:1-6 and the rest of the news about what the Lord has to say about how and why someone is saved to be all that great.
While I hold that the apostles didn't preach every important detail of this in their public presentations to the masses, it was only further developed in the epistles.

In other words, I see that the contents of Romans 8:28-30 are as much the Gospel as its "smaller version"...
Christ crucified for sinners, His death, burial and resurrection the third day for sinners.
But God's word only expands on that the more we read it.

This is something I had not considered until D.A. Carson made it in his gospel lectures.

Apologies, but I rarely listen to preachers that are in the public eye anymore, so I'm not aware of what particular ones teach.

So Jesus preached "the good news of the Kingdom".

...and do you see anywhere in God's word what, exactly the good news of the Kingdom was / is?
If so, then I'd be interested to know where you think that the good news is further developed in the Scriptures.

 

[Dave G]

Jon, you are making massive brush strokes and assumptions. I can only assume you do this because you think your personal thoughts about God are superior and more well thought than others here.
Your proposition is therefore oozing with self-pride and daring people to prove your nebulous theory to be wrong. Good luck. It's clear you are stuck on your opinion.
As to Wells, I believe you have failed to understand his proposition if you imagine you can take his message and disparage Calvin with it.
This is my last and only comment on this thread as I believe it is a wasted thread.

Austin,
I'd like to point out something if I may...
This may seem harsh, but it's not meant to be.

To me, you seem to charge anyone who makes a certain kind of post with having a lot of self-pride.
That may be the truth and it may not be.

But how can you honestly tell, based on reading some words on a page, what is in their heart or in their mind?
In addition, would you please stand back and read your own comments and ask yourself how they appear to come off to others who read them?
Would you say that they are edifying, or are they condemning and accusatory?

Also, please remember...

I bear you no ill will and I wish you well, despite our apparent differences.
My purpose in writing things like this is not to hurt anyone, but to help them...
Even though it may not come off as being that way to the person that they are written to.


May God bless you, sir.