Calvinism/Why God Hates

[savedbymercy]

Rom 1:14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
Rom 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
--Paul was a debtor. He owed it to the unsaved at Rome. He preached the gospel to the unregenerate at Rome. He went to the Jew first and then to the Gentiles. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
It alone can save.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
--Paul was not sent to baptize, not to the Christians, but rather to preach to the unsaved, to take the gospel to those who have not heard it. Things like baptism were left up to other pastors.

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
--Those that are perishing are the unregenerate. Paul went to the unregenerate with the gospel. They were the foolish ones on their way to hell. They needed to be saved; born again. He had a heart for the lost, just as God did.

1Co 1:21 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.
What is the pleasure of God SBM? The pleasure of God is that by the preaching of the gospel the unregenerate will save. And who will be saved? Those that believe will be regenerated and saved.
Paul preaches the wisdom of God, the foolishness of preaching to these unregenerate people that they will be saved.
It can't get any clearer than that, can it?

Evasion and Rabbit Trail !

 

[steaver]

Evasion and Rabbit Trail !

I believe it is called allowing the full counsel of Scripture interpret Scripture. You appear to get tunnel vision.

 

[thatbrian]

(1) IMO, the doctrines of grace better elaborates on the gospel...the gospel being "God saves sinners".

(2) But it is crazy to say someone who doesn't embrace the doctrines of grace (and it is also crazy to limit doctrines of grace to five counter-points) doesn't believe the gospel.

(3) Calvinists and Arminians/non-Calvinist both believe the gospel (God saves sinners), we just don't agree on each other's elaboration of the gospel.

(4) Not endorsing each other's elaboration of the gospel does not mean one side does not believe the actual gospel. It is no different than two people believing a car drives but one believes it is because of an engine and the other because of Fred Flintstone's feet.

(5) I think HEALTY debate can come from a mutual understanding that both sides believe the essential gospel.

I'm with you on the above, which must make me a 5 Pointer!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Point number one is most important to me. The reformed viewpoint best explains and protects the purity of the gospel. In fact, I did not even begin to have a good grasp on what the gospel was until after I came to understand reformed theology. Of course I was saved, but with only the dimest hint of gospel knowledge. Christianity goes off course when it does not keep the gospel message pure ( Gal 1:6-10) and does not keep the gospel message central.

 

[OldRegular]

(1) IMO, the doctrines of grace better elaborates on the gospel...the gospel being "God saves sinners".

(2) But it is crazy to say someone who doesn't embrace the doctrines of grace (and it is also crazy to limit doctrines of grace to five counter-points) doesn't believe the gospel.

(3) Calvinists and Arminians/non-Calvinist both believe the gospel (God saves sinners), we just don't agree on each other's elaboration of the gospel.

(4) Not endorsing each other's elaboration of the gospel does not mean one side does not believe the actual gospel. It is no different than two people believing a car drives but one believes it is because of an engine and the other because of Fred Flintstone's feet.

(5) I think HEALTY debate can come from a mutual understanding that both sides believe the essential gospel.

Excellent post. I attempted to start a thread, hoping for some beneficial discussion, based on the following Scripture: This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. {1 Timothy 1:15} The discussion quickly deteriorated into a nonsensical wrangle between Ryan and SBM and I ask the moderator to close the thread.

I particular like your statement:

(and it is also crazy to limit doctrines of grace to five counter-points)

I have been saying for years that TULIP does not present the whole of the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace. TULIP was simply a response to the Five Remonstrances of the followers of Arminius. If my memory is correct Calvin and Arminius were both dead when this occurred.

TULIP does present some truths of the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace. One problem I have with TULIP is the "I", Irresistible Grace. Some of those who espouse "free will" on this BB vehemently proclaim that God drags the Elect kicking and screaming to Salvation. But TULIP is a response to the Arminian Remonstrances which likely explains the use of the term Irresistible Grace..