• 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!

Calvinists & Arminian Together

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
He is asaying that when the true Gospel is preached/taught, the end result is that sinners will be saved by the calvinistic framework of understanding, but that salvation itself does NOR hinge on us accepting/or even understanding that framework!

To give context to the statement, and perhaps correct Winman’s misunderstanding of what is being said:

"I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

“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 far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, 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 Whitefield 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 as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.” (http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm)
 

Winman

Active Member
To give context to the statement, and perhaps correct Winman’s misunderstanding of what is being said:

"I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

“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 far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, 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 Whitefield 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 as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.” (http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm)

I understood quite clearly from the beginning. It is nothing but double-talk. He says he "detests" Wesley's doctrine, but hey, he is "alright" (my words). :thumbsup:

Give me a break, the guy is talking out of both sides of his mouth at once.

You can't be teaching another gospel and be saved. Non-Cals teach that Jesus died for ALL men, five-point Calvinists teach that Jesus only died for SOME men. That is not the same message, that is not the same gospel.

Five-pointers can't tell a crowd Jesus died for them, because they don't know that. They are reduced to saying something like, "Jesus died for sinners", but this is only a half-truth and completely misleading, as it gives the impression that Jesus died for ALL sinners when five-pointers don't really believe that. They only believe Jesus died for SOME sinners.

If a five point Calvinist preacher told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth NOBODY would ever get saved, because he would leave his entire audience in complete doubt as to whether Jesus died for them personally.

How can you place your trust and confidence in a complete uncertainty? Absurd!!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I understood quite clearly from the beginning.

I thought you did, although your post suggested ignorance. I have long suspected that you take positions to rouse attention rather than deal with what is really meant behind a statement. I sometimes do the same. I just wanted to make sure.
 

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What I see after reading this is Calvinists spending 9 pages dodging the points Winman is making. :smilewinkgrin:
 

Winman

Active Member
I thought you did, although your post suggested ignorance. I have long suspected that you take positions to rouse attention rather than deal with what is really meant behind a statement. I sometimes do the same. I just wanted to make sure.

I am not a kid that needs attention thank you. I post against Calvinism because I believe it is false doctrine.

My post suggested ignorance? LOL. I would bet you claim most anyone who does not agree with you is ignorant. Wow, what a powerful argument. :laugh:

I do not hate Calvinists, at the same time, I do not feel a need to hold hands with you and sing Kum-ba-ya. That would only give you a false assurance that Calvinism is acceptable, which it is not.

This is not a game.
 

salzer mtn

Well-Known Member
Wineman, when you tell everyone that Christ died for them you are in danger of giving all of them a false hope. As a Cal to know that Christ died for me carries a lot of weight, Christ dying for me is my salvation. The free willers that have heard the message all their life that Christ died for them, it means absolutely nothing to them, or it is their ticket to keep putting things off, after all they say, " a loving God will not send me to hell"
 

Winman

Active Member
Wineman, when you tell everyone that Christ died for them you are in danger of giving all of them a false hope. As a Cal to know that Christ died for me carries a lot of weight, Christ dying for me is my salvation. The free willers that have heard the message all their life that Christ died for them, it means absolutely nothing to them, or it is their ticket to keep putting things off, after all they say, " a loving God will not send me to hell"

What???? I am giving them the greatest hope they will ever experience in this lifetime! They have the sure hope of having all their sins forgiven and living for eternity with the living God!

But if you believe in Limited Atonement you cannot know this hope. You have no idea if Jesus died for you or not. Just because you have convinced yourself you are one of the fortunate elect does not make it so.

There is no hope with Limited Atonement.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I am not a kid that needs attention thank you. I post against Calvinism because I believe it is false doctrine.

My post suggested ignorance? LOL. I would bet you claim most anyone who does not agree with you is ignorant. Wow, what a powerful argument. :laugh:

I do not hate Calvinists, at the same time, I do not feel a need to hold hands with you and sing Kum-ba-ya. That would only give you a false assurance that Calvinism is acceptable, which it is not.

This is not a game.

:laugh: I am not calling you ignorant...ignorant isn't a "bad" word BTW...note I didn't use "stupid" (I wouldn't have used "stupid" even if I thought it suitable because I do respect you, and have enjoyed your posts in the past and learned from your contributions). Ignorance means uninformed...your post suggested that you were "uninformed" or misunderstood the context of the statement (which I erroneously took as deliberate to your benefit...sorry). You linked the statement with the "gospel"...i.e., the gospel of Christ which must be believed in order to be saved. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking that you may be playing on the term "Calvinism is the gospel" as stated to that effect. I guess I was wrong...sorry, ignorant does apply to that post (as you claim not to be taking it out of context).

It is foolish of you to think that I suggest anyone disagreeing with me is ignorant. While your post did exhibit ignorance, it has nothing to do with my positions. Many Calvinists have exhibited the same, or greater, level of ignorance when dealing with Arminian or non-Calvinistic doctrines. I was pointing out that your statement has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. If you were to legitimately disagree with a doctrine on its own terms, using Scripture, then it would be a disagreement...that is not the case here.

I personally do not care if you accept Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other understanding of the gospel as long as you accept the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is what matters...not how you think God effected that salvation. You and I do disagree on interpretation and understand of how God saves...but it is you, not I, who condemns the other to Hell for believing a "false gospel." I know my Savior and my salvation, so your opinion here is not of great consequence. I accept you as a brother at your confession of faith...I do not mind if it is not reciprocated (I am not one to wear my feelings on my sleeve).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
:laugh: I am not calling you ignorant...ignorant isn't a "bad" word BTW...note I didn't use "stupid" (I wouldn't have used "stupid" even if I thought it suitable because I do respect you, and have enjoyed your posts in the past and learned from your contributions). Ignorance means uninformed...your post suggested that you were "uninformed" or misunderstood the context of the statement (which I erroneously took as deliberate to your benefit...sorry). You linked the statement with the "gospel"...i.e., the gospel of Christ which must be believed in order to be saved. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking that you may be playing on the term "Calvinism is the gospel" as stated to that effect. I guess I was wrong...sorry, ignorant does apply to that post (as you claim not to be taking it out of context).

It is foolish of you to think that I suggest anyone disagreeing with me is ignorant. While your post did exhibit ignorance, it has nothing to do with my positions. Many Calvinists have exhibited the same, or greater, level of ignorance when dealing with Arminian or non-Calvinistic doctrines. I was pointing out that your statement has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. If you were to legitimately disagree with a doctrine on its own terms, using Scripture, then it would be a disagreement...that is not the case here.

I personally do not care if you accept Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other understanding of the gospel as long as you accept the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is what matters...not how you think God effected that salvation. You and I do disagree on interpretation and understand of how God saves...but it is you, not I, who condemns the other to Hell for believing a "false gospel." I know my Savior and my salvation, so your opinion here is not of great consequence. I accept you as a brother at your confession of faith...I do not mind if it is not reciprocated (I am not one to wear my feelings on my sleeve).

I believe Paul preached to unbelievers that Jesus Christ died for OUR sins, just as he said in 1 Corinthians 15:3. That would rule out Limited Atonement as being the gospel.

I think it is you that is ignorant of what I am saying.

Either way, I do not care if you think I am ignorant, or stupid, or whatever. Like I said, I am not some little kid afraid of being called names. I have been called dozens of names by Calvinists in the five years I have been posting at BB. I am not shocked, and I certainly am not going to cry like a little baby because a Calvinist has called me a name. I actually get a chuckle out of it many times. It's all you guys have.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I believe Paul preached to unbelievers that Jesus Christ died for OUR sins, just as he said in 1 Corinthians 15:3. That would rule out Limited Atonement as being the gospel.



I think it is you that is ignorant of what I am saying.



Either way, I do not care if you think I am ignorant, or stupid, or whatever. Like I said, I am not some little kid afraid of being called names. I have been called dozens of names by Calvinists in the five years I have been posting at BB. I am not shocked, and I certainly am not going to cry like a little baby because a Calvinist has called me a name. I actually get a chuckle out of it many times. It's all you guys have.


I also believe that Paul preached that Christ died for us. I will go one further. I believe that Christ died as a proportion not only for our sins but for the sins of the world. But what of it?????? Our disagreement was about your implication that Calvinists believe a false gospel and are therefore outside the faith and condemned to hell. I do not think you a child, but for the life of me I don't know why you don't just man up and address your own comments.
 

Winman

Active Member
I also believe that Paul preached that Christ died for us. I will go one further. I believe that Christ died as a proportion not only for our sins but for the sins of the world. But what of it?????? Our disagreement was about your implication that Calvinists believe a false gospel and are therefore outside the faith and condemned to hell. I do not think you a child, but for the life of me I don't know why you don't just man up and address your own comments.

Then you are a four point Calvinist if there is such a thing. Many say you cannot truly be a Calvinist unless you believe all five points. Nevertheless, many persons who claim to be Calvinists reject Limited Atonement.

If you read carefully, I have been very careful to say that five-point Calvinists that believe in Limited Atonement are preaching another gospel from non-Cals and Arminians, and that is perfectly true. Non-Cals and Arminians preach that Jesus died for ALL men, five-point Calvinists preach that Jesus only died for SOME men. That is another gospel, they cannot both be true, one must be error.

It is you that should man up and admit that five-point Calvinists do not preach the same gospel as non-Cals and Arminians. You have waited until very late in this discussion to say you believe Jesus died for all men. In my opinion, you are not truly a Calvinist at all if you believe that, but hey, you can call yourself any name you fancy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Then you are a four point Calvinist if there is such a thing. Many say you cannot truly be a Calvinist unless you believe all five points. Nevertheless, many persons who claim to be Calvinists reject Limited Atonement.

If you read carefully, I have been very careful to say that five-point Calvinists that believe in Limited Atonement are preaching another gospel from non-Cals and Arminians, and that is perfectly true. Non-Cals and Arminians preach that Jesus died for ALL men, five-point Calvinists preach that Jesus only died for SOME men. That is another gospel, they cannot both be true, one must be error.

It is you that should man up and admit that five-point Calvinists do not preach the same gospel as non-Cals and Arminians. You have waited until very late in this discussion to say you believe Jesus died for all men. In my opinion, you are not truly a Calvinist at all if you believe that, but hey, you can call yourself any name you fancy.


I don't call myself a Calvinist. Some on this board have taken a similar stance as you when I point out their misrepresentation of non-Calvinistic doctrine. I chalk it up to emotional attachment (as I do your comments).

Correct my misunderstanding. I read your comments to suggest that Calvinists do not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. Since they deny the gospel and believe a false one they are not saved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
Here is a bit of interesting history about the early church and what they believed concerning the atonement and if it was limited or not.

James Morison argues that the doctrine of a limited atonement was never taught in the early centuries of church history:

The doctrine of a propitiation for the elect alone is not yet above fourteen hundred years old. Such a doctrine was unheard of during the glorious first three centuries of the Christian era. Nay, it was not known for about two hundred years after that. This surely is a striking fact, and should make some men pause and ponder before they condemn. "I think," says the illustrious Bishop Davenant, a divine most intimately versed in ecclesiastical history and the writings of the Fathers, "that it may be truly affirmed, that before the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, there was no question concerning the death of Christ, whether it was to be extended to all mankind, or to be confined only to the elect. For the Fathers, when speaking of the death of Christ, describe it to us as undertaken and endured for the redemption of the human race; and not a word (that I know of) occurs among them of the exclusion of any person by the decree of God. They agree that it is actually beneficial to those only who believe, yet they everywhere confess that Christ died in behalf of all mankind. [He then quotes from Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Primasius, Athanasius and Prosper].

Bishop Davenport goes on to give some further details respecting the opinions of Augustine: "We assert, therefore, that Augustine never attempted to impugn that proposition of the Semi-pelagians, that Christ died for the whole human race . . . For neither did Augustine ever oppose as erroneous the proposition ‘that Christ died for the redemption of the whole human race;’ nor did he ever acknowledge or defend as his own, ‘that Christ died, not for all men, but for the pre-destinate alone.’"

Augustine died A.D. 429, and up to his time, at least, there is not the slightest evidence that any Christian ever dreamed of a propitiation for the elect alone. Even after him, the doctrine of a limited propitiation was but slowly propagated, and for long but partially received. [James Morison, The Extent of the Atonement, pages 114-117.]

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/4whom22.htm

So, according to this author, the early church did not preach a limited atonement. Surprisingly, even Augustine did not teach Limited Atonement.
 

Winman

Active Member
I don't call myself a Calvinist. Some on this board have taken a similar stance as you when I point out their misrepresentation of non-Calvinistic doctrine. I chalk it up to emotional attachment (as I do your comments).

Correct my misunderstanding. I read your comments to suggest that Calvinists do not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. Since they deny the gospel and believe a false one they are not saved.

You are not going to get me to say who is saved and who is not. That is not my job, that is God's job. Only God knows the heart of a man and who is saved and who is not.

I will say this though, I firmly believe Paul taught an UNlimited Atonement, that Jesus died for ALL men. I believe those who preach that Jesus only died for the elect are preaching another gospel.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
You are not going to get me to say who is saved and who is not. That is not my job, that is God's job. Only God knows the heart of a man and who is saved and who is not.



I will say this though, I firmly believe Paul taught an UNlimited Atonement, that Jesus died for ALL men. I believe those who preach that Jesus only died for the elect are preaching another gospel.


I am not trying to get you to say anything ... Just explain what you have already said.

I do believe in particular redemption , but our definitions most likely differ. But to the point, if one believes what you define as another gospel are they saved? Do you believe in multiple gospels leading to salvation? Or are you (like Spurgeon) speaking of different understandings of the same gospel? If the latter, what is your point? If the former, why not speak plainly?
 

Winman

Active Member
I am not trying to get you to say anything ... Just explain what you have already said.

I do believe in particular redemption , but our definitions most likely differ. But to the point, if one believes what you define as another gospel are they saved? Do you believe in multiple gospels leading to salvation? Or are you (like Spurgeon) speaking of different understandings of the same gospel? If the latter, what is your point? If the former, why not speak plainly?

What? You believe in "particular redemption"? That is Limited Atonement. You are just playing semantics now. Either Jesus died for all men or he did not. We are told Jesus "bought" false teachers who taught damnable heresies, so Jesus "redeemed" or bought back these persons who were sold to sin.

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Redemption is when Jesus bought us back from sin (Rom 7:14). I don't know if you are trying to play word games, but you cannot believe in unlimited atonement and also believe in particular redemption, that is an absolute contradiction.

Paul said if a person preaches any other gospel than he preached, "let that person be accursed". So it is absolutely a very serious matter to be preaching a false gospel.

However, that does not necessarily mean the person is not saved. A person might have been saved, and then fall into error after he is saved. This person might be saved even if he is now preaching another gospel. Either way, I think Jesus made it clear we are not to judge whether other people are saved or not.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Jesus warned against calling someone a "fool". A fool in scripture is someone who does not believe in God, a person who is lost for certain. I believe Jesus here is warning us not to judge other persons. I take this warning very seriously.

I will leave the judging to God. But it certainly is a very serious thing to be teaching another gospel.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
What? You believe in "particular redemption"? That is Limited Atonement. You are just playing semantics now. Either Jesus died for all men or he did not. We are told Jesus "bought" false teachers who taught damnable heresies, so Jesus "redeemed" or bought back these persons who were sold to sin.

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Redemption is when Jesus bought us back from sin (Rom 7:14). I don't know if you are trying to play word games, but you cannot believe in unlimited atonement and also believe in particular redemption, that is an absolute contradiction.

Paul said if a person preaches any other gospel than he preached, "let that person be accursed". So it is absolutely a very serious matter to be preaching a false gospel.

However, that does not necessarily mean the person is not saved. A person might have been saved, and then fall into error after he is saved. This person might be saved even if he is now preaching another gospel. Either way, I think Jesus made it clear we are not to judge whether other people are saved or not.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Jesus warned against calling someone a "fool". A fool in scripture is someone who does not believe in God, a person who is lost for certain. I believe Jesus here is warning us not to judge other persons. I take this warning very seriously.

I will leave the judging to God. But it certainly is a very serious thing to be teaching another gospel.


If limited atonement means Christ died to redeem those who believe, then yea, that's what I believe. But again to the point: please explain your previous statements. Do you believe Calvinists hold a false gospel and are therefore on the "outside" and unsaved or are you speaking merely of understandings of the same gospel? If they hold a false gospel (not a false understanding of the same gospel) then how exactly can they be saved?
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What I see after reading this is Calvinists spending 9 pages dodging the points Winman is making. :smilewinkgrin:
You probably haven't read half of his posts or you would know how utterly wrong his "points" and attitude are. Anyway, he's gone, what will you do?
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I guess that I am confused in understanding the consept of unlimited attonement. From my prospective, its an arguement of potential vs really saving. I see Christ as really ---"really saving " all those the father has chosen.....so if the son died for all, well then all are truly saved.....so do we all go to heaven?????

See I believe that unless the atonement is particular & effective in truly saving, then we have really distroyed the harmony of the Trinity.....in effect you'd be saying that the members of the Trinity don't quite know what they are doing (now that's absurd) .

The Father has chosen the elect; but the Son has died for all; and the Holy Spirit has managed to apply the atoning work of Christ to some?!?! But that's not what scripture says.....rather the son died for all who were given to Him by the Father. Now it fits....now there is harmony.....now people are actually being saved......it is not a zero /sum game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top