Do Calvinists Distort the Gospel?

[BobRyan]

HankD said: ↑
1 Corinthians is the scriptural definition of the gospel.
"another" gospel is illustrated in Acts Chapter 15 which is largely synonymous with "another gospel" of the Galatians epistle.
"Do this, Don't do that"...", etc, etc, etc...

HankD

1 Cor 15 does not say anything at all to oppose the "don't do that" message of 1Cor 5 ... and 1 Cor 6... etc.

Bottom line - it is wrong even for Christians "to take God's name in vain" and admitting that Bible fact has nothing to do with rejecting the gospel listed in 1 Cor 15.

Can you clarify this Bob?

HankD

Lot's of "Don't do that" in the NT examples I just gave..

"the saints keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
"what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Because under the Gospel's New Covenant "The Law of God written on heart and mind" Jer 31:31-33

 

[Mr. Davis]

According to Paul, the gospel is:
I Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

I think both sides of the isle would agree on this.

No, I don't!

Synergists take vs. 2 and interpret it incorrectly.

God does all the work of salvation in monergism.

Synergists say God and man are responsible for salvation. So man can believe in vain.

 

[Mr. Davis]

Lot's of "Don't do that" in the NT examples I just gave..

"the saints keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
"what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Because under the Gospel's New Covenant "The Law of God written on heart and mind" Jer 31:31-33

Wrong, Bob!!

You are now off of my ignore list and I'm coming at you with both barrels blazing!

We are NO longer under the Ten Commandments, Ephesians 2:15 (there is a footnote in the Scofield Bible that "man" in the KJV is the Church). READ that scripture carefully, Bob. The "ordinances" or Commandments have been abolished by Christ's death on the Cross. The penalties for violating them were also on the Cross. Also note in 1 Cor 7:19, the translation you quote is incorrect. In the KJV ( which the most ardent SDA of the past considered the only accurate translation) "Commandments" is not rendered with a capital "c:" just, "commandments." The commandments in view are Christ's, and "circumcision" is of the heart as Paul teaches elsewhere.

The Ten Commandments are only relevant again during the Tribulation. (As you correctly note in Rev 14). The Church is not involved because this the "time of Jacob's trouble" (Daniel) and the Church does not go through the Tribulation (1 Thes 4 and 1 Cor 15).

The "spirit of the law" is what Jeremiah meant. Paul confirms this in Romans 13 and in James "the royal law of liberty."

Romans 13:8-10 Christ fulfilled the Law by His death and we fulfill the law (the spirit of it) by loving our neighbor.

In Romans 14:5 Paul says we can worship on any day we choose. The Sabbath is over!!!

As to Synergism and Monergism, SDA has always been consistently synergistic.

Don't you believe Bob, that you are saved by grace, the Law, and your own free will?

 

[Mr. Davis]

So you deny the scriptures? This is why it's nearly impossible to have fruitful discussions with some on this board. Yes, we are made able to obey. It is only through Christ by His Holy Spirit are we able to do anything. BUT Christ calls us to abide in HIM. Yes, that demands that we DO something. So, please, spare us the ultra pious statements of "no I don't cooperate at all..."

According to John 15 Christ calls us to abide in Him.

This is not a troubling scripture for synergists because they believe that they and God together are responsible for their salvation.

One well respected Bible teacher, a monergist, taught that we and Christ abide within and we strengthen that abiding by making use of the means of Grace.

 

[Mr. Davis]

Seemingly, the difference within the "two sides" is not that the Gospel is different, per se, but how one views the act of Regeneration and their perspective AFTER one is justified. Both sides look BACK at what God has done. The question is probably a Non Sequitur. Just because someone's perspective is different regarding how they view how God effected salvation does not mean the Gospel is different. IMO

The gospel is different for the monergist and the synergist.

Since the monergist sees God's hand at work in everything pertaining to salvation, the Gospel is interpreted differently from the synergist that sees he and God as partners in salvation. Two different Gospels for the monergist and synergist.

The Scriptures unfallibly declare the great Gospel of Christ. It's up to us to study them and see how God relates to man in salvation.

 

[Mr. Davis]

He did not deny the scriptures, but rather showed you directly what is taking place in the lives of true Christians.

That is correct.

What is taking place is that God is working in our spirit to widen our awareness of our mutual abiding. Our desire is for more intimacy with Him, to abide more deeply. We use the means of Grace to do so.

The more intimate we are with Christ the more we will find obedience a blessing to us and, even more importantly to God.

 

[Rippon]

You are saying God is an enabler?

From John 6:65 in the NIV:
This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.

 

[Mr. Davis]

We are discussing the gospel, not the effects of the gospel.

The gospel is news, and that is so important as to separate true Christianity from false. Once we start mixing our response to the gospel with the actual gospel we stray from Christianity into legalism aka, self-salvation.

Synergists often do that.

They mix their experiences from their Christian walk (their response) with the actual gospel. They may experience good or bad circumstances. The lessons they draw are also found by people experiencing the same thing in the actual gospel. Hence, they mix their experience and the actual gospel. This they teach to others: that the experiences they have can be described in how God relates to them.

The actual gospel says God relates to us on his terms.

The synergist, confused theologically, says that a believer's experiences prove that he is acting on His terms.

 

[Mr. Davis]

From John 6:65 in the NIV:
This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.

The KJV says you're not studying your Greek or doing any comparison of translations in your study time!
Study to show yourself approved!

In the ESV:

And he said,"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

Burning all of my NIVs.

 

[BobRyan]

HankD said: ↑
1 Corinthians is the scriptural definition of the gospel.
"another" gospel is illustrated in Acts Chapter 15 which is largely synonymous with "another gospel" of the Galatians epistle.
"Do this, Don't do that"...", etc, etc, etc...

HankD
BobRyan said: ↑
1 Cor 15 does not say anything at all to oppose the "don't do that" message of 1Cor 5 ... and 1 Cor 6... etc.

Bottom line - it is wrong even for Christians "to take God's name in vain" and admitting that Bible fact has nothing to do with rejecting the gospel listed in 1 Cor 15.

HankD said: ↑
Can you clarify this Bob?

HankD

Lot's of "Don't do that" in the NT examples I just gave..

"the saints keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
"what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Because under the Gospel's New Covenant "The Law of God written on heart and mind" Jer 31:31-33

Wrong, Bob!!

As it turns out - 1 Cor 6 "does exist" ... so also does Eph 6:2 and James 2 "exist"

You are now off of my ignore list and I'm coming at you with both barrels blazing!

Nice to meet you too.

"the mere quote of the text is sufficient cause to give rise to strong outburst against it"

We are NO longer under the Ten Commandments

This is the part where you "did or did not" actually read Ephesians 6:2??

There we are reminded that the 5th commandment is "the first commandment with a promise" in that still-binding unit of TEN.

In Matt 19 Christ said "keep the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" at which point he quotes from the TEN.. and provides a list that PAUL also gives in Romans 13... unchanged.

, Ephesians 2:15 (there is a footnote in the Scofield Bible that "man" in the KJV is the Church).

Scofield was "inspired writer"???

I prefer C.H. Spurgeon over scofield... and Spurgeon's section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith"

Romans 13:8-10 Christ fulfilled the Law by His death and we fulfill the law (the spirit of it) by loving our neighbor.

The Romans 13 is is the same as the pre-cross Matthew 19 list and it does not include "do not take God's name in vain"

And your point?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

No, I don't!

Do I understand correctly that you do not agree that I Corinthians 15 is a biblical definition of the gospel? That was really all I was asserting in the post you quoted.

 

[utilyan]

The gospel is different for the monergist and the synergist.

Since the monergist sees God's hand at work in everything pertaining to salvation, the Gospel is interpreted differently from the synergist that sees he and God as partners in salvation. Two different Gospels for the monergist and synergist.

The Scriptures unfallibly declare the great Gospel of Christ. It's up to us to study them and see how God relates to man in salvation.

If I want your thoughts, I'll give them to you.

God can DO ANYTHING he wants, but he can't run a synergist system that gives credit to God.

God can't even teach a person to tie their own shoe apparently.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

"thatbrian, post: 2384908, member: 9301"]Is the gospel of the synergist the exact same gospel of the monergist?

Yes, or, rather, it should be.

If not, how do they differ?

They don't. The Gospel is that which we have received; that Jesus dies for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.

I seem to recall a rather famous theologian of ancient origins defining it that way.
That gospel is the same regardless of whether you are a "Synergist" or a "Monergist".

 

[Yeshua1]

As it turns out - 1 Cor 6 "does exist" ... so also does Eph 6:2 and James 2 "exist"



Nice to meet you too.

"the mere quote of the text is sufficient cause to give rise to strong outburst against it"



This is the part where you "did or did not" actually read Ephesians 6:2??

There we are reminded that the 5th commandment is "the first commandment with a promise" in that still-binding unit of TEN.

In Matt 19 Christ said "keep the Commandments" and is asked "which ones" at which point he quotes from the TEN.. and provides a list that PAUL also gives in Romans 13... unchanged.



Scofield was "inspired writer"???

I prefer C.H. Spurgeon over scofield... and Spurgeon's section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith"

Romans 13:8-10 Christ fulfilled the Law by His death and we fulfill the law (the spirit of it) by loving our neighbor.

The Romans 13 is is the same as the pre-cross Matthew 19 list and it does not include "do not take God's name in vain"

And your point?

NONE were ever saved by doing ANYTHING other than having faith in the person and promises of God, for none can boast that they could or did do ANYTHING to save themselves before God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, or, rather, it should be.

They don't. The Gospel is that which we have received; that Jesus dies for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.

I seem to recall a rather famous theologian of ancient origins defining it that way.
That gospel is the same regardless of whether you are a "Synergist" or a "Monergist".

Yes, its different on how we see God saving thru it though, the process and means that he uses!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Yes, its different on how we see God saving thru it though, the process and means that he uses!

For possibly the first, and maybe only time in my life, I agree with you.
The gospel stands apart from either a "Monergist" or "Synergist" Soteriology....
Also, the exclamation point you used is unnecessary there, in case you were wondering.

 

[thatbrian]

Yes, its different on how we see God saving thru it though, the process and means that he uses!

If we heard a Calvinist and an Arminian proclaim the gospel, would we hear the identical thing? I think not. In fact, I know not.

 

[HankD]

If we heard a Calvinist and an Arminian proclaim the gospel, would we hear the identical thing? I think not. In fact, I know not.

That's because the "elect" are the "elect" in either case.

The difference: By decree or by foreknowledge before they ever get to planet earth.

HankD

 

[Rippon]

The KJV says you're not studying your Greek or doing any comparison of translations in your study time!
Study to show yourself approved!

Well, well, well. Since no one can come to Jesus unless the Father enables them to do so --what is your problem?

The Father causes them to come, He gives them over to Jesus. Do you disagree? If you object, it is silly. There is no theological distortion. Concentrate on majors.

Burning all of my NIVs.

A classic line by someone with no Christian ethics. You are no fan of William Tyndale I suppose.

I can think of things worthy to be burned, but not a Bible translation which has and will advance the Kingdom of God.

The Lord's thoughts are not only far above your own --but opposed to your thoughts. Tread carefully.

 

[Mr. Davis]

Well, well, well. Since no one can come to Jesus unless the Father enables them to do so --what is your problem?

The Father causes them to come, He gives them over to Jesus. Do you disagree? If you object, it is silly. There is no theological distortion. Concentrate on majors.


A classic line by someone with no Christian ethics. You are no fan of William Tyndale I suppose.

I can think of things worthy to be burned, but not a Bible translation which has and will advance the Kingdom of God.

The Lord's thoughts are not only far above your own --but opposed to your thoughts. Tread carefully.

My humblest apologies to you. You are absolutely right!

God does draw us, no doubt about that.

Some like Van, SavedByGrace, and Utilyan deny it though.

Maybe the Lord will reach them.

What do think about this thread:

Monergism and Synergism: which is the actual gospel.

More intelligent conversation than usual? Or, the same knocking of heads together?

I've posted a little. Seems like a lot of people don't really understand the issue, though.

Brother Davis