how can calvinism be "the Gospel?" isn't Tjat Jesus And the Cross/Resurrection?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

keep reading that statement from fellow cals here on BB...

Are you saying that Jesus, and the Aposles expounding on Him, now take back seat to Calvinism?

[T]here 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. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation ..... Guess who wrote that...clue...CHS

 

[Skandelon]

[T]here 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. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation ..... Guess who wrote that...clue...CHS

So, I suppose you would say that Charles Haddon wasn't preaching the gospel when he preached,

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —"Salvation By Knowing the Truth"

Maybe this "gospel" of which you speak is not as "Calvinistic" as you would like it to be?

 

[JesusFan]

[T]here 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. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation ..... Guess who wrote that...clue...CHS

Agree with what you have quoted "Brother Charles" in proclaimimg BUT...
Why can't we preach Christ crucified, as atonement for man, and resurrected by God...

Asking men to repent of their sins, and turn to Christ and be forgiven and born anew?

Believe in election of God, by why not "save" the heavy duty stuff untile they are first in the Kingdom of Christ, than as getting discipled go into deeper things of faith, the "calvinist" framework of the scriptures?

that is what happens in my baptist Church... Sundays message preached, God saves sinners, and they go than into deeper study in new faith in Christ life..

We teach TULIP, just do not go along with whole package, as we are dispy/pre mill other versions people too!

 

[Aaron]

I am a non-calvinist and I have never believed that. And I cant think of even one person in the non-Cal camp, in all my decades as a christian, that ever believed that.

Then you haven't been paying attention. It's been asserted over and over that every man is already walking around with his sins forgiven, so there is only one act that he must perform to secure his salvation.

A couple went so far as to say that faith is a carnal quality that some men inherently possess.

Of course noncalvinists will assert that they don't believe they're establishing their own righteousness, and they're sincere, but they're in error. As long as a man has to do something to save himself, he is establishing his own righteousness.

 

[Skandelon]

Then you haven't been paying attention. It's been asserted over and over that every man is already walking around with his sins forgiven, so there is only one act that he must perform to secure his salvation.

Aaron, in the previous post you said, "The noncalvinists are saying that the Cross merely created a situation in which one can save himself," as if God did his part at the Cross and then leaves us on our own to "save ourselves," by our own "works of righteousness," which I think you know is a complete misrepresentation of our views. God not only sent Christ to the Cross, but he raised him from the grave, sent HS inspired apostles, they in-turn wrote the inspired scriptures containing the powerful gospel appeal, which is carried and spread by the HS filled bride of Christ to "every creature." Now, if you consider that 'on our own' or 'saving ourselves' then you may have a deficiency in you ability to understand common language, because non-Calvinists affirm our need for divine assistance from beginning to end. To assert otherwise is to erect a straw-man for your own purposes.

A couple went so far as to say that faith is a carnal quality that some men inherently possess.

Our ability to breath our next breath is granted to us by God and anyone who thinks our ability to believe comes from anywhere but from God Himself is not worthy of consideration, nor are they orthodox baptist believers in any way shape or form. All we have is from above. That is not a belief unique to Calvinism regardless of what you may think.

Of course noncalvinists will assert that they don't believe they're establishing their own righteousness, and they're sincere, but they're in error. As long as a man has to do something to save himself, he is establishing his own righteousness.

Again, we don't believe we are "doing something to save ourselves." We believe as scripture says, "Repent and believe and you will be saved [by God]." or "Humble yourself and you will be exalted [by God]." Nothing more, nothing less. If you have a problem with that gospel, then you need to take it up with the author of that gospel.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Valid in the sense of "orthodox," yes. Valid in the sense of "true," no.

Regardless of one's position on soteriology, if your position is true, the others are at least somewhat false.

If you are a Calvinist, then you would believe Arminian soteriology is wrong/untrue. Arminians would believe the same of Calvinist soteriology.

2 quotes from CHS

I believe it is a mistake about God himself which has been the root and foundation of all the mistakes in theology. Our conviction is, that Arminian theology, to a great extent, makes God to be less than he is.

The basis and groundwork of Arminian theology lies in attaching undue importance to man, and giving God rather the second place than the first.

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, in the previous post you said, "The noncalvinists are saying that the Cross merely created a situation in which one can save himself," as if God did his part at the Cross and then leaves us on our own to "save ourselves," by our own "works of righteousness," which I think you know is a complete misrepresentation of our views.

No it isn't. Here are your own words:

Consider this illustration:

A man owes a fine for a crime he committed. He can't pay the fine and is brought to court for punishment. The judge has compassion on the man and wants to help him, but must remain just and see that the fine is paid. The judge commissions his own son to show up and pay the man's fine on his behalf. The judge looks at the man and says, "You debt has been paid in full, but all I require of you is one thing. You must say your a sorry and thank my son for his gift." STOP HERE>

At this point the DEBT, which the man could not pay is paid. The judge can now justly allow the man to go free without having to go to prison, but in order to make sure the man is repentant and grateful he only requires this one thing to be done. That is a provisional atonement. Now, the man COULD refuse to meet that burden and go to jail for his lack of remorse and gratitude, but he is NOT going to jail because of the original fine, that was paid once and for ALL by the son.

Understand now?

In your own words, there is a burden of righteousness one must meet on his own to be saved.

 

[Skandelon]

Our conviction is, that Arminian theology, to a great extent, makes God to be less than he is.

I know you don't believe this but I used to have the same conviction, but now having been on both sides of this debate I see it completely opposite now. It is not my conviction that Calvinism is doctrine that puts God into a box and "lessons" him in a sense. It's really all about the perspective, because when you believe that for God to maintain his sovereignty he must be in complete control over every intent, act and event (good or evil), then you have just limited God. You have limited him by presuming something about his supernatural nature and abilities (i.e. he MUST do this in order to be that). It's the presumption that God is bigger or more powerful if He is playing both sides of the chess board, rather than His actual defeat of a enemy He has chosen to give real dominion, real power, real authority and real choice. This is false and biblically unsupported premise, in my view.

The basis and groundwork of Arminian theology lies in attaching undue importance to man, and giving God rather the second place than the first.

Arminian theology attaches no more importance upon man than God does. Man's significance is only as significant as God himself reveals, and according to His revelation, God so loved us that he GAVE his only begotten Son. It is in that and that alone we find any significance. There is not an Arminian or non-Cal theologian in this world worth his salt who would EVER put man above God in any respect. He is supreme and always maintains "first place" in all things, and if you think that is a belief unique to Calvinism you are sadly mistaken. Like Aaron, you are attacking straw-men.

 

[Aaron]

Oops. . . . . . . . . . . [Nevermind]

 

[Skandelon]

No it isn't. Here are your own words:In your own words, there is a burden of righteousness one must meet on his own to be saved.

1. That was an analogy being used to discuss the application of the atonement, not a specific statement of doctrine regarding righteousness applied through faith, thus is being misapplied.

2. Even so, the "righteousness" being represented by this particular illustration is one met through faith in Christ not through works of the law, which is distinction made by Paul, not me.

3. Righteousness which comes through faith is accomplished through hearing the word of God, thus its not something done "on our own" or "by ourselves" as you accused.

Thus, you are wrong on three counts, and probably a few more if I wished to take time to think of anymore.

 

[psalms109:31]

Trust

I am not going to put my trust in something that I have to continue to make my calling or election sure, or others have been cut out and unable to enter for unbelief or that I am not to be aroggant if God didn't spare these natural branches He will not spare me either. That I have to continue in His kindness or likewise I will be cut out.

I find a better hope in trust in Jesus which God does not consider working. That those who trust in Him will not be disappointed and those who come to Him, He will no wise cast out. I feel more secure in the arms of Jesus. Praise be to Him

 

[Aaron]

Too late to backpeddal Skandelon. There are your words. Christ on the cross has forgiven every single human individual his sins (except one), and God now requires one act of righteousness on our part to secure our own salvation.

I haven't misrepresented anything, you just don't like my judgment of it.

[edited: and you're kicking yourself for being so clear and concise in the description of your soteriology]

 

[Aaron]

Aaron...



I am a non-calvinist and I have never believed that. And I cant think of even one person in the non-Cal camp, in all my decades as a christian, that ever believed that. I have never seen or heard any non-cal christian radio or TV broadcast where that was taught. I have never read any non-cal book where that was taught.

Do you see now?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Answer: some see it saying different things
shows a strong lack of Christian growth, thus immaturity in Christ, at least in my opinion.

Thats correct, it is your opinion....guess what Im thinking :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Like Aaron, you are attacking straw-men.

I attack nothing....I merely quote Spurgeon.

 

[Skandelon]

Too late to backpeddal Skandelon.

Backpeddaling would entail the need to take back something I've said, which I haven't done, nor do I feel the need to do. Only in your mind is the straw-man you are attacking Aaron. I gave three very clear reasons your argument was without merit and not one of them has been addressed.

Christ on the cross has forgiven every single human individual his sins (except one), and God now requires one act of righteousness on our part to secure our own salvation.

Even I see faith as the gift of God, birthed in the hearts of Christians by the work of the Holy Spirit through the Word, if its not resisted, rejected, ignored, or traded for a lie. Jesus himself said, "Humble YOURSELF." and "Believe in me." If you think humbling yourself and/or believing in Christ is equal to a "work of righteousness" according to the Law, then your problem is not with me, its with Christ. There are TWO types of righteousness spoken of in scripture Aaron.

Read Romans 3 and Paul will explain the difference between the two. You are equating them as one thus leading you to doctrinal error. There is a righteousness which come through the law (works), which we all fall short of, but their is another righteousness which comes THROUGH FAITH. To equate "faith" with a "work of the law" is your mistake, not mine.

Faith receives the gift of salvation rather than causes salvation, as even Luther himself taught.

I haven't misrepresented anything, you just don't like my judgment of it.

You said we believe that we "save ourselves," as if God does nothing to help us or provide what we need. Find me one non-Calvinist who wouldn't see that as a complete misrepresentation and then we'll talk.

and you're kicking yourself for being so clear and concise in the description of your soteriology]

"Backpeddling" and now "kicking myself?" Really? Aaron, you translate my replies much like you translate my original posts and the scriptures themselves: through your own preconceived thoughts, ideas, and straw-men glasses, thus leading you to read what you want to read rather than what is actually there.

 

[quantumfaith]

Thats correct, it is your opinion....guess what Im thinking :laugh:

Guess what I am thinking.

 

[JesusFan]

I know you don't believe this but I used to have the same conviction, but now having been on both sides of this debate I see it completely opposite now. It is not my conviction that Calvinism is doctrine that puts God into a box and "lessons" him in a sense. It's really all about the perspective, because when you believe that for God to maintain his sovereignty he must be in complete control over every intent, act and event (good or evil), then you have just limited God. You have limited him by presuming something about his supernatural nature and abilities (i.e. he MUST do this in order to be that). It's the presumption that God is bigger or more powerful if He is playing both sides of the chess board, rather than His actual defeat of a enemy He has chosen to give real dominion, real power, real authority and real choice. This is false and biblically unsupported premise, in my view.

Arminian theology attaches no more importance upon man than God does. Man's significance is only as significant as God himself reveals, and according to His revelation, God so loved us that he GAVE his only begotten Son. It is in that and that alone we find any significance. There is not an Arminian or non-Cal theologian in this world worth his salt who would EVER put man above God in any respect. He is supreme and always maintains "first place" in all things, and if you think that is a belief unique to Calvinism you are sadly mistaken. Like Aaron, you are attacking straw-men.

Couple of points here to consider...

please remember that Calvinist have 'differing" shades to the understanding of that system...

High/Hyper Cals DO see God has being inabsolute control directly of all things, the determiner/direct cause.. So little need to witness/evangelise, as God will save his people, no need for them to even hear Gospel and exercise faith, will get saved regardless...

those of my "camp' still do have God in absolute control, BUT do see that God causes some things directly, allows/permits other things. Either direct cause/allowed, God still though knows what will happen, and already has predetermined what will be the end result, factoring in what he has done and what has been permitted..

Do Arminians than hold that man does have 'total free will?"
Might say that man does, but a Cal would say that ONLY 2 men ever had "total free will" up to now...

Adam and Jesus, as both were "without: sin natures as rest of us are after the fall....

That is why Cals see God has to work in/thru us, as we are found in Adam, and spiritual deaf now...

Also, cals tend to place the "importance" on God for the Cross of Christ... Arminians tend to see the price of Jesus death showing us how Worthy we are, how much value God places in us to send His Son to die for us...
Cals tend to see that the Cross shows us more in how loving and great God is, that He is the sigificant one involved....

Arms say that we are so much worth to God jesus sent to die for us...
Cals say God gets glory by Jesus willing to die for us, in that in ourselves have NOTHING to appeal/make us worthy/worth it to God to save us....

Interesting discussion!

 

[Jerome]

Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. ..... Guess who wrote that...clue...CHS

From the opening months of his pastorate.
Twenty years later, Spurgeon expands on the "nothing else" idea:

"It is one thing to believe in the Doctrines of Grace, but quite another thing to accept all the encrustations which have formed upon those doctrines and also a very different matter to agree with the spirit which is apparent in some who profess to propagate the pure Truth of God."


Wise words, indeed, considering recent BB events.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Aaron...

Do you see now?

Do I see WHAT now?