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

[Aaron]

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.

I'll answer the first one, upon which the other two were based:

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.

In other words, it was about how the atonement is applied, not about how the atonement is applied. How does anyone answer that?

But your analogy is weak and flawed and betrays a very small view of the ruin of sin and the power of the act that redeems a sinner. Here's a better one:

A woman is brought to a Judge for the crime of harlotry. The Judge pronounces the sentence of death. He lays aside his robe, descends from the bench and takes her place. He is stoned and buried. The Judge then raises himself from the dead, and seeks the woman, and buys her for his wife. He kisses her and breathes his own breath into her, and the power which raised him from the grave creates a new heart (it doesn't repair the old one). This new heart loves her groom, and constantly seeks to please him in every way.

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.

It's tempting to pick at the head of each boil in this one, but I'll simply scrape the skin with a potsherd.

It's still an act of righteousness, but it's the act of one's own. So, what you have is the righteousness that Christ accomplished on the Cross PLUS this extra one that is required before one is saved.

It doesn't matter how many different ways you put it, this is what you end up saying every time. The Cross saves no one.

But lest you think that the Law doesn't touch on that, have ye never read, Remember the Sabbath? That is the commandment to believe in Christ, for Christ is our Sabbath Rest, Heb. 4:1-9.

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.

As shown above, you don't know the Law, and you're going to presume to instruct me in it?

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

Just as ears receive hearing. So when Christ commanded Lazarus to come forth from the grave, was he able to hear and believe at all, or did Christ Himself, give him life?

And, being alive, how could he not come forth?

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.

No, you can't see that you oppose yourself, and you cannot submit to the righteousness of God which says that there is none that doeth good, not even the good of humbling.

You're aptly named. You stumble over the Stone. You simply cannot believe that Christ, and Christ alone saves.

 

[Aaron]

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!

Yes, noncalvinists put the emphasis on man and his supposed "worth." The Calvinists put the emphasis on God and his glory.

One says man has worth, and that God knew some would accept Him, so He sent Christ.

The says that man has no worth, but God loves some, just because, and saves them for His own glory.

One is not the Gospel. The other is.

 

[Aaron]

[nevermind]

 

[Skandelon]

I'll answer the first one, upon which the other two were based:

The other two were not based on the first. In fact, the last of the three was the strongest and able to defeat your argument alone.

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.

In other words, it was about how the atonement is applied, not about how the atonement is applied. How does anyone answer that?

Incorrect. We were discussing two different doctrinal points. It's as different as the "L" in "Limited Atonement" and the "I" in "Irresistible Grace." If those are one in the same, then it would be called TUIP or TULP. You have been discussing this subject long enough to recognize that distinction. In the analogy, which is just that, AN ANALOGY (which is only meant to bring clarity to a particular point being discussed and not meant to accurately depict every other aspect), I was attempting to show the difference in a universal, limited and provisional atonement....nothing more.

But your analogy is weak and flawed and betrays a very small view of the ruin of sin and the power of the act that redeems a sinner. Here's a better one:

A woman is brought to a Judge for the crime of harlotry. The Judge pronounces the sentence of death. He lays aside his robe, descends from the bench and takes her place. He is stoned and buried. The Judge then raises himself from the dead, and seeks the woman, and buys her for his wife. He kisses her and breathes his own breath into her, and the power which raised him from the grave creates a new heart (it doesn't repair the old one). This new heart loves her groom, and constantly seeks to please him in every way.

So you don't affirm the trinity? You said the Judge and not his son, so you must not affirm the Triune nature of God? See how it feels when someone nitpicks your analogy and applies it to doctrinal points not being discussed?

It's still an act of righteousness, but it's the act of one's own. So, what you have is the righteousness that Christ accomplished on the Cross PLUS this extra one that is required before one is saved.

You refuse to acknowledge the distinction is righteousness based on law and the righteousness through faith, which Paul clearly lays out in Romans 3.

It doesn't matter how many different ways you put it, this is what you end up saying every time. The Cross saves no one.

That is an utterly ridiculous statement and unworthy of further comment.

But lest you think that the Law doesn't touch on that, have ye never read, Remember the Sabbath? That is the commandment to believe in Christ, for Christ is our Sabbath Rest, Heb. 4:1-9.

Of course the law and prophets testify to the righteousness which comes through faith in Christ, no one has denied this, but again you avoid the distinction between the "righteous through faith" and the "righteousness from law"...

Here I'll let Paul speak on this: "21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

As shown above, you don't know the Law, and you're going to presume to instruct me in it?

Actually, I'll let Paul do that.

Just as ears receive hearing. So when Christ commanded Lazarus to come forth from the grave, was he able to hear and believe at all, or did Christ Himself, give him life?

And, being alive, how could he not come forth?

An analogy? Does scripture equate the narrative of Lazarus with salvation? If so, how does that relate to the parable of the soils? Could Lazarus have gotten caught up in some briars on his way out of the tomb preventing him from following Jesus? Or been distracted by the idols of this world and grown hardened to the voice of Christ?

No, you can't see that you oppose yourself, and you cannot submit to the righteousness of God which says that there is none that doeth good, not even the good of humbling

I've never seen scripture equate the groveling of the prodigal in the pig stye with the Pharisees who is running after righteousness through the works of the law, but if you can't see that clear distinction I'm not sure my words will help. All I know is that Jesus said, "Humble yourself and God will exalt you." It does say, "God will humble you so that he can exalt you." He also compliments and rebukes people for having or not having faith, instead of crediting or rebuking himself for giving or not giving them faith. So, again, your problem is with the text, not with me.

You're aptly named. You stumble over the Stone.

Christ was that stone, so I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

And yet you've reminded me here of another verse which shows the clear distinction between the righteousness pursued by law and the righteousness by faith:

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33 As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

You equate the righteousness by faith with a law of righteousness which causes you to make the errors seen throughout all your posts.

 

[Aaron]

You equate the righteousness by faith with a law of righteousness which causes you to make the errors seen throughout all your posts.

Au contraire, you are the one in error. As there is only one righteous God, there is only one righteousness. That righteousness is written in the law.

There isn't one kind of righteousness of the law, and another kind of righteousness by faith, there is only the righteousness of God, and the means by which it is attained.

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. The righteousness which is imputed by faith is the righteousness written in the Law.

But you're forced into your dichotomy by your erroneous, and quite frankly paganistic view of Christ's work on the Cross and its efficacy (or lack thereof). You say that one's sins have been atoned for. Sin is no longer an issue, because the work of the Cross is finished. One thing yet remains, I must _____________ (fill in the blank.) In other words, Christ's work alone hasn't saved me, I must add something to it. Since the righteousness of the law has been satisfied, there must be ANOTHER kind of righteousness, mine, my own, my Precious.

But the correct view is that Christ died for the elect, and gives them new life by His resurrection. They now fulfill the righteous of the law. His work on the Cross, and that alone, has effectually saved the elect. They must add nothing to it.

Oh, and your violence to the Fourth Commandment is begging for justice. The Fourth Commandment doesn't merely testify of Christ, it commands one to Remember and enter into rest. To cease from one's own works. In other words, believe.

Hey, Paul was right! By faith we establish the law.

Here's your condition. You don't know the law. You, therefore, cannot possibly expound upon the Atonement with any assurance of accuracy. That means your views of the Person and Work of Christ are also grievously flawed. It also means you don't know yourself.

It's Calvinism only that offers you any hope for salvation. It is the only theology that allows that one who knows so little can still be known of God.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, noncalvinists put the emphasis on man and his supposed "worth." The Calvinists put the emphasis on God and his glory.

One says man has worth, and that God knew some would accept Him, so He sent Christ.

The says that man has no worth, but God loves some, just because, and saves them for His own glory.

One is not the Gospel. The other is.

Yes! One is Man Centered & one is God Centered.

"It is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God"

 

[Allan]

Yes! One is Man Centered & one is God Centered.

"It is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God"

So do you, like Aaron, believe that ONLY Calvinists preach the true gospel, and that all others preach a false gospel?

If false, then we who are not Cals, have received another/false christ, and as such are not neither indeed can be saved since only the Christ of the True Gospel is saving.

Thus only Calvinists are Christians and all others are reprobates?

Please speak plainly and do not do any fancy dance steps around the question at hand

 

[Aaron]

So do you, like Aaron, believe that ONLY Calvinists preach the true gospel, and that all others preach a false gospel?

If false, then we who are not Cals, have received another/false christ, and as such are not neither indeed can be saved since only the Christ of the True Gospel is saving.

Thus only Calvinists are Christians and all others are reprobates?

Please speak plainly and do not do any fancy dance steps around the question at hand

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. In a noncalvinist's view, one cannot have a flawed notion of Christ and the atonement and still be saved.

The Calvinist says that the Lord knoweth them that are His, even if they are in grievous error.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So do you, like Aaron, believe that ONLY Calvinists preach the true gospel, and that all others preach a false gospel?

If false, then we who are not Cals, have received another/false christ, and as such are not neither indeed can be saved since only the Christ of the True Gospel is saving.

Thus only Calvinists are Christians and all others are reprobates?

Please speak plainly and do not do any fancy dance steps around the question at hand

I am a Calvinist for a reason, because I believe the gospel contains it....BTW so did Spurgeon. Boice, Whitefield, Pink, Cotton, Edwards, Kuyper, Machen,Hodhe, Warfield as well as many millions of stalwart Christians.

Allen , why dont you go to Dr. Bob and ask him what he believes? I have made my position well known for over a year.

Lastly I dont believe in reprobates & I dont think Aaron ever used such language.

 

[savedbymercy]

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

Tulip, is the Gospel of God's Grace, they explain why Salvation must be all of Grace, and the Gospel is to explain Why Salvation is all of Grace, no details should be left out which the bible gives us as to why Salvation is to be all of Grace, hence paul says Acts 20:

24But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

25And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

26Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.

27For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

In explaining the Whole counsel of God, its seen how The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ saves sinners all by Grace.

Yes, 1 Cor 15:1-4 is the Gospel, but merely a brief summary of the historical fact, paul goes into detail and explains the meaning of the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ. God wants His ministers to declare all the counsel of God in Saving sinners by His Grace, that men will have no reason to boast, and that He receives all the Glory for Salvation by Grace Eph 1:

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

 

[Allan]

I am a Calvinist for a reason, because I believe the gospel contains it....BTW so did Spurgeon. Boice, Whitefield, Pink, Cotton, Edwards, Kuyper, Machen,Hodhe, Warfield as well as many millions of stalwart Christians.

Allen , why dont you go to Dr. Bob and ask him what he believes? I have made my position well known for over a year.

Lastly I dont believe in reprobates & I dont think Aaron ever used such language.

Please leave the dancing for professionals.
Aaron made the comment in the very post you quote and agree to.

I didn't ask you to deflect the question by asking me to ask others. I wanted YOU to answer the question posed to YOU.

If Calvinism preaches the ONLY true gospel that entails all others are in fact preaching a false gospel which of necessity equates to no one but Calvinists are saved.

If a false gospel then we preach a false message. If a false message, no one can be saved since the message is not true. Ergo we preach a false Christ, a false message, and thus there is no salvation.

Speak plain and answer the question

(WAIT) .. you're not even a Calvinist, and don't 'really' hold to reformed theology because you hold to PB views. Though the view itself has reformed aspects to it they are not necessarily linked together. Thus I guess another question is why do you agree with them since they stand in opposition to the fundamental aspect of your view whereby in their view people are eternally saved when they believe and you hold all elect are already eternally saved? That view stands in opposition, with the exception of God choosing the elect.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. In a noncalvinist's view, one cannot have a flawed notion of Christ and the atonement and still be saved.

The Calvinist says that the Lord knoweth them that are His, even if they are in grievous error.

Let me ask you Allan....Do you believe that God has a say in your salvation, with the devil having a say & you yourself having a say?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Please leave the dancing for professionals.
Aaron made the comment in the very post you quote and agree to.

I didn't ask you to deflect the question by asking me to ask others. I wanted YOU to answer the question posed to YOU.

If Calvinism preaches the ONLY true gospel that entails all others preaching a false gospel which of necessity equates to no one but Calvinists are saved.

If a false gospel then we preach a false message. If a false message, no one can be saved since the message is not true. Ergo we preach a false Christ, a false message, and thus there is no salvation.

Speak plain and answer the question~!

Answer mine 1st

 

[Aaron]

If Calvinism preaches the ONLY true gospel that entails all others preaching a false gospel which of necessity equates to no one but Calvinists are saved.

If a false gospel then we preach a false message. If a false message, no one can be saved since the message is not true. Ergo we preach a false Christ, a false message, and thus there is no salvation.

Speak plain and answer the question~!

Is there a question in there somewhere? Be careful, you are about to condemn yourself. You yourself cannot hold that both systems are true.

 

[Allan]

Answer mine 1st

I edited my post with :

(WAIT) .. you're not even a Calvinist, and don't 'really' hold to reformed theology because you hold to PB views. Though the view itself has reformed aspects to it they are not necessarily linked together. Thus I guess another question is why do you agree with them since they stand in opposition to the fundamental aspect of your view whereby in their view people are eternally saved when they believe and you hold all elect are already eternally saved? That view stands in opposition, with the exception of God choosing the elect.
__________________

However, no. I asked you the question first. If you would like an answer it behooves you to adhere to courtesy and answer mine since it was asked first.

Again please stop deflecting from the question and simply answer it.

 

[Allan]

Is there a question in there somewhere? Be careful, you are about to condemn yourself. You yourself cannot hold that both systems are true.

Actually one can. It depends on your understanding.

For me, the message is the same, how we see the mechanics of operation is the distinction but that does not change the message of the Gospel.
Thus it is not a false gospel.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I edited my post with :


However, no. I asked you the question first. If you would like an answer it behooves you to adhere to courtesy and answer mine since it was asked first.

Again please stop deflecting from the question and simply answer it.

OK then Im not answering you either....thats called a stalemate I believe.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

(WAIT) .. you're not even a Calvinist, and don't 'really' hold to reformed theology because you hold to PB views. Though the view itself has reformed aspects to it they are not necessarily linked together. Thus I guess another question is why do you agree with them since they stand in opposition to the fundamental aspect of your view whereby in their view people are eternally saved when they believe and you hold all elect are already eternally saved? That view stands in opposition, with the exception of God choosing the elect.

Well well well...everyone on here has told you that most of us doesnt consider ourselves Calvinist but you continue to insist on labels. Isnt this just making it easier for you?

 

[Allan]

OK then Im not answering you either....thats called a stalemate I believe.

Thought so. :thumbs:
It takes a lot to state your real thoughts and not deflect the answer to something or someone else.

Secondly - WRONG. I don't insist on labels. I actually try to see people for where they are not presumably coming from.
It was YOU who said you were a Calvinist.. that was what threw me

 

[Skandelon]

A As there is only one righteous God, there is only one righteousness. That righteousness is written in the law.

There isn't one kind of righteousness of the law, and another kind of righteousness by faith, there is only the righteousness of God, and the means by which it is attained.

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. The righteousness which is imputed by faith is the righteousness written in the Law.

The fact that you think I would disagree with this only proves you have yet to understand our perspective. Of course there is only one true righteousness, but this is a new revelation just being made clear to these people at that time. You have once again avoided the CLEAR distinction that scripture draws between what the people of that day believed to be the "law of righteousness" versus what was NOW being made known, "righteousness by faith." I noticed you avoided even dealing with Romans 3 or 9 that I quoted verbatim in my post which blatantly lays this distinction out.

Here let's listen to Paul once again: "21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

I don't think it can be stated any clearer.

But since it does seem to be misunderstood let me lay it out this way:

1. Jews were pursuing righteousness as if they could earn it through keeping the law.

2. Gentiles have obtained a righteousness by faith in Christ, the one who fulfilled the law and the righteousness to which the Prophets testified.

Conclusion: YOU make the mistake of equating WORKS OF THE LAW in the first example with FAITH in the second. You presume that because men can't fulfill the demands of the law that he also can't trust in the one who fulfilled those demands in their stead even when assisted by God's divine grace through the powerful gospel appeal. There is no connection between man's inability to fulfill the works of the law and your presumption that men are likewise unable to have a faith response to the appeal of God to be reconciled.

Further, you accuse US of teaching that men can have faith "on his own" or that he can "save himself," which is NOT what we believe or teach. We believe like you that faith comes from God. We just believe that man, in his sin and rebellion, can choose to reject God's gift. God makes it clear and understandable to all man, thus, if man refuses the truth and perish they are "without excuse."

But you're forced into your dichotomy by your erroneous, and quite frankly paganistic view of Christ's work on the Cross and its efficacy (or lack thereof). You say that one's sins have been atoned for. Sin is no longer an issue, because the work of the Cross is finished. One thing yet remains, I must _____________ (fill in the blank.) In other words, Christ's work alone hasn't saved me, I must add something to it. Since the righteousness of the law has been satisfied, there must be ANOTHER kind of righteousness, mine, my own, my Precious.

First, please refrain from calling others orthodox Baptist views "paganistic." That is a clear violation of BB posting rules.

Second, I've never said that sin "is no longer an issue." Sin is the reason many resist God's appeal to be reconciled and if you understood our perspective you would know that.

Third, I've never claimed the "other kind of righteousness" was "mine" or "my own," but it is Christ's righteousness applied through faith, and I think you know that, making your misrepresentations all the more revealing of your character and lack of objectivity in this discussion.

They must add nothing to it.

Actually, even in Calvinism they still must humble themselves, believe and repent, for without these responses they will not be saved. The fact that these responses are effectually caused by God's work of regeneration doesn't negate that they still MUST occur for salvation. Thus, if you insist faith is a "work of righteousness" then you too must affirm that you have been saved by grace through works. A work effectually produced is still a work. We teach that faith is produced through a work of God too, just not irresistibly so. Thus, we avoid the issue of divine culpability that cripples your position.

It's Calvinism only that offers you any hope for salvation.

I think this statement alone reveals everything we need to know about your views. I think Christ alone offers me that hope...

Again, I'll just let Paul speak for himself:

2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? 5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe