If it's not the Gospel, what is it??

[OldRegular]

Yes, Spurgeon is another one OR who proclaimed Calvinism to be the very Gospel.

Actually I believe Spurgeon said Calvinism was a "nickname" for the Gospel. Spurgeon never said TULIP was the Gospel. Calvin never heard of TULIP. In fact TULIP came along many years after Calvin died. The purpose of TULIP initially was to refute the Five Remonstrances of the followers of Arminius.

And steaver you boldly declared Calvinist claim that TULIP IS the Gospel!

 

[Jerome]

Getting back to the OP, here is Calvinist Tom Ascol (Founders head) in an interview with the Florida Baptist Witness:

http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/display_article.php?id=770892

Ascol cited a statement by British Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Calvinism is the Gospel.” While Spurgeon’s other preaching made clear he did not equate the five points of Calvinism with the Gospel itself, Ascol said, “And though I would have never said it that way either, [in the past] I would have been content to just throw it in the face of people who didn’t agree with Calvinism and let them grapple with it. But now I want to be more gracious about that.”

Ascol credited spiritual growth— “God exposing pride in me”—and friendships with “good, godly men” for his change in attitude.

Referring to 1 Cor. 13:1-2, Ascol said, “To understand all mysteries, to have all knowledge—I mean, good night, who wouldn’t want to be the greatest theologian in the world? … That would be awesome!

“And yet Paul says even if that’s true, if you don’t have love, you’re a zero—a zero,” he said.

Confronted by the passage about 10 years ago, Ascol said it “has just been ringing in my mind since then—that if we love the truth we have to love the truth about love. And the truth about love is that it trumps knowledge.”

Ascol, who holds a PhD from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, added, “I love knowledge. I love theology. I hope I will always love theology and want to study it. But Theological understanding without love makes a man nothing more than a cipher. And I don’t want to be that.”

 

[DHK]

Actually I believe Spurgeon said Calvinism was a "nickname" for the Gospel. Spurgeon never said TULIP was the Gospel. Calvin never heard of TULIP. In fact TULIP came along many years after Calvin died. The purpose of TULIP initially was to refute the Five Remonstrances of the followers of Arminius.

And steaver you boldly declared Calvinist claim that TULIP IS the Gospel!

That is not to say that there is any lack of people who would declare that TULIP is the gospel.
For example:

The doctrines represented by the TULIP are not mere window dressing. They are nothing less than a precise, Biblical definition of what salvation is all about. In this sense, the TULIP is very much the Gospel.

http://the-highway.com/calvinism-gospel_Cervinka.html

 

[Jerome]

Actually I believe Spurgeon said Calvinism was a "nickname" for the Gospel. Spurgeon never said TULIP was the Gospel.

The full sentence:

"It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

And it's from very early in Spurgeon's ministry.

If only more Calvinists would follow his advice and stick with "the Gospel, and nothing else".

He expanded on the "and nothing else" idea as his ministry matured:

"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."

 

[OldRegular]

While you are rehashing those ugly quotes over and over again--and I do hope you will stop--I hope you will recognize at least this one:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2185697&postcount=77

Thank you very much DHK; I appreciate that. Perhaps you were unaware but the Biblicist and I had just mentioned on another thread our wives and Alzheimers and I was super sensitive over your remark. I should not have said what I did. I was completely unaware of the remarks by ky and pinoy until Jerome mentioned them!

I saw what Alzheimers did to my Mother-in-law and the toll it took on my Father-in-law. I still struggle to understand why. I keep praying that my wife's dementia will not develop fully to Alzheimers but there is a genetic factor in the disease.

At present there are over 5 million people in this country with Alzheimers, about two thirds are women. The government is spending six times as much money on research for AIDS/HIV as for Alzheimers yet the cost of care for Alzheimers is in excess of 200 billion. It doesn't make sense.

 

[convicted1]

Thank you very much DHK; I appreciate that. Perhaps you were unaware but the Biblicist and I had just mentioned on another thread our wives and Alzheimers and I was super sensitive over your remark. I should not have said what I did. I was completely unaware of the remarks by ky and pinoy until Jerome mentioned them!

I saw what Alzheimers did to my Mother-in-law and the toll it took on my Father-in-law. I still struggle to understand why. I keep praying that my wife's dementia will not develop fully to Alzheimers but there is a genetic factor in the disease.

At present there are over 5 million people in this country with Alzheimers, about two thirds are women. The government is spending six times as much money on research for AIDS/HIV as for Alzheimers yet the cost of care for Alzheimers is in excess of 200 billion. It doesn't make sense.

My pastor's wife is struggling with it, taking aricept. I had an aunt on my dad's side, my grandmother(dad's mom), a 1st cousin diagnosed with it in her late-40's-early-50's, a 2nd cousin, that all had, or have it.

 

[savedbymercy]

That is not to say that there is any lack of people who would declare that TULIP is the gospel.
For example:

http://the-highway.com/calvinism-gospel_Cervinka.html

I read the article and these portions I totally agree with :

Total Depravity - Men are so ruined by sin that they will not, indeed, cannot bring forth genuine repentance or saving faith apart from God’s regenerating power. Nor can they in any way improve their spiritual condition or prepare themselves to receive the grace of God.

Unconditional Election - Before He created the world, God in mercy freely chose certain individuals to receive salvation. His choice was not based upon anything He foresaw in them, such as faith, good works, repentance, their decision to believe, or their willingness to cooperate with Him. He saw that they were dead in trespasses and sins, and totally unwilling to seek Him. The cause for any man’s salvation lies entirely in God, and not in the individual.

Limited Atonement - Christ bore the full penalty of sin for all God’s elect. His death effectually and eternally saves all for whom He died. He emptied the cup of God’s wrath for each of them, so that, on the judgment day, God will have no reason or basis to condemn them. Had Christ died for all men, then no one could ever be condemned. Thus, Christ’s death is “limited” to the elect only. (Those who deny this doctrine limit the death of Christ much more severely, by denying the ability of the cross to save men).

Irresistible Grace - Unregenerate man is unwilling and unable to come to God. An individual exercises genuine faith and repentance when and only when he has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. The new heart imparted by the Holy Spirit is the source of all true Christian graces, including saving faith and repentance.

Perseverance of the Saints - Those whom the Father chose, the Son redeemed, and the Spirit regenerates are the objects of God’s eternal love and care. The Father’s election of them is eternal and unchanging. The Son’s redemption of them is comprehensive and complete. The Spirit’s work in their hearts is effective and abiding. The Holy Trinity is united in their resolve and efforts to save the elect, and so there is no possibility that any of the elect could totally or ultimately fall away and be lost.
Is Calvinism the good news about God’s salvation of men?

It should be obvious that “Calvinism” in this second sense is squarely focused on the issues of salvation. In a very real sense, the Five Points of Calvinism are the Gospel of our salvation, for they carefully define man’s need of God’s grace, and summarize the great acts performed by the Triune God to save men from their sins.

To suppose that the Gospel could have any sensible meaning in a theological vacuum is ludicrous. The “gospel” of Arminianism is but a man-centered, man-glorifying counterfeit of the Biblical gospel. The doctrines represented by the TULIP are not mere window dressing. They are nothing less than a precise, Biblical definition of what salvation is all about. In this sense, the TULIP is very much the Gospel.

First, let us clarify one point: When we speak of certain beliefs being necessary for salvation, we do not mean that a person acquires salvation because of or on the basis of believing certain truths. Salvation is strictly by the sovereign decree of God, the substitutionary work of Christ and the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, and is never based upon anything which man does or wills (Romans 9:16).

The sacrifice of Christ is the very source and basis of our salvation. We are saved from our sin because He bore the penalty for our sin. The wrath which God bore against us has been swallowed up by the Cross of Christ. If Christ died for you, then God has no wrath left to pour out upon you. Christ did not merely sip from the cup of God’s wrath—He drank the cup dry!

When we say that Christ died for all men, we cheapen His sacrifice, for Scripture plainly declares that all men will not be saved. To say that Christ died for every man would mean that the death of Christ, in itself, is insufficient to save anyone. The Arminian “gospel” adds a qualification or condition to the work of Christ. It says “It is not enough that Christ died for you—now you must do your part by believing in Him.” Thus, we add man’s faith or decision to believe, as a second requisite to salvation. This divides the glory for man’s salvation between Christ who died for us, and the faith-giver (whether it be man himself, or the Holy Spirit), and it thereby belittles Christ and His sacrificial death.

The object of faith is no longer Christ’s death alone, but is partly the death of Christ, and partly the act of faith. We must raise the troubling question: “If your faith does not reside wholly in Christ’s sacrifice, is it saving faith?” Many deceive themselves into thinking that they believe in the Cross alone for salvation, when their theology betrays their true convictions by insisting that the Cross cannot save anyone unless man does his part by believing.

Stripping the Gospel down to a bare-bones statement is not a wise course. The unsaved need more than a Gospel-statement declared to them. Instead, they need to have Gospel-truths explained to them. And when we explain the Gospel fully and accurately, we must tell them the depth of their depravity and declare the great acts which each member of the Trinity has done to save sinners: choosing, redeeming and regenerating them. In short, we need to tell them the TULIP. When we explain the Gospel to them in this way, we can have greater assurance that they will not misunderstand the Gospel.

It has been rightly said that the doctrines of grace stand as sentinels, guarding the Gospel of salvation. Only the Lord can open men’s hearts to receive the Gospel, but if we are careful to include the doctrines of grace in our Gospel preaching, we will avoid giving men the false assurance that comes from embracing a defective concept of the Gospel message.

God is the final judge of men’s hearts. He has the sovereign power to quicken people in response to the preaching of Christ. He is full of mercy, and may indeed bring forth genuine faith in response to a seriously flawed presentation of the Gospel. But we must remember that the character of saving faith is that it is humble, loving and obedient to God. Those who are truly saved may initially be greatly confused about the doctrines of salvation, but God will faithfully lead them into His truth with the passing days and years, as they faithfully study His Word and are taught by His Spirit.

Arminians who have a gracious, humble spirit should not be treated as unbelievers. Even so, we should remember that one of the greatest dangers is a false assurance of salvation. Given that Arminian doctrine denies God His full glory, we should be more willing to examine it critically and to ask the hard, unpopular question: “Is it consistent with saving faith?”

I would disagree with the statement highlighted, I would say that Arminians who have not embraced the Doctrines of Grace as the Gospel are unbelievers, hence i believe that avoids giving them any false sense of assurance or security while believing a defective gospel, such as one that is not clear on Limited Atonement !

 

[convicted1]

I would disagree with the statement highlighted, I would say that Arminians who have not embraced the Doctrines of Grace as the Gospel are unbelievers, hence i believe that avoids giving them any false sense of assurance or security while believing a defective gospel, such as one that is not clear on Limited Atonement !

Shame on you!!! Re-ported....

 

[savedbymercy]

Shame on you!!! Re-ported....

I have to be honest, report it all you want, the statement was meant to be seen !

 

[savedbymercy]

One more point I need to add from the article :

However, when we declare this truth to an individual, can we be certain that he understands it the same way we mean it? Does he know what it means to be a “sinner”? Does he understand the statement “Christ died for sinners” to mean that Christ died as their Substitute, bearing the penalty for their sins? What does he make of the statement “every one who believes in Him will be saved”? Perhaps he views his faith as a work which he can perform to merit salvation. Indeed, does he even understand what it means to be saved?

Even though most religionist who say they believe in Salvation by Grace through Faith, what they really mean, though they will deny it vehemently, they believe that their Faith, which they perform, an act of their mind and or heart, is what merited them Salvation ! I dont care how much they deny it, that is what they are doing, and such a mindset must be condemned as seeking Salvation by works, even the works of the Law, since Faith is a work of the Law that ought to be done Matt 23:23

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

I read the article and these portions I totally agree with :










The sacrifice of Christ is the very source and basis of our salvation. We are saved from our sin because He bore the penalty for our sin. The wrath which God bore against us has been swallowed up by the Cross of Christ. If Christ died for you, then God has no wrath left to pour out upon you. Christ did not merely sip from the cup of God’s wrath—He drank the cup dry!
















I would disagree with the statement highlighted, I would say that Arminians who have not embraced the Doctrines of Grace as the Gospel are unbelievers, hence i believe that avoids giving them any false sense of assurance or security while believing a defective gospel, such as one that is not clear on Limited Atonement !

 

[convicted1]

I have to be honest, report it all you want, the statement was meant to be seen !

You have every right to believe what you believe, but you don't have the right to call anyone on the board's salvation into question. You openly questioned over half the board's salvation...


S'long...:wavey:

 

[Don]

One more point I need to add from the article :



Even though most religionist who say they believe in Salvation by Grace through Faith, what they really mean, though they will deny it vehemently, they believe that their Faith, which they perform, an act of their mind and or heart, is what merited them Salvation ! I dont care how much they deny it, that is what they are doing, and such a mindset must be condemned as seeking Salvation by works, even the works of the Law, since Faith is a work of the Law that ought to be done Matt 23:23

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

You do not understand true arminianism at all. You should try reading Arminius for yourself; last I checked, his writings were freely available at ccel.org.

In light of your statements, please explain Hebrews 10:39.

 

[savedbymercy]

convicted

You have every right to believe what you believe,

Thank You, just like you do !

but you don't have the right to call anyone on the board's salvation into question. You openly questioned over half the board's salvation...

I have a right to agree with or disagree with statements made in said article, thats all i did ! Are you saying I have no right to read an article here and point out what I agree with and dont agree with ?

 

[PreachTony]

I have a right to agree with or disagree with statements made in said article, thats all i did ! Are you saying I have no right to read an article here and point out what I agree with and dont agree with ?

Things is, SBM, you didn't just disagree with an article statement. You stated:

I would say that Arminians who have not embraced the Doctrines of Grace as the Gospel are unbelievers, hence i believe that avoids giving them any false sense of assurance or security while believing a defective gospel, such as one that is not clear on Limited Atonement !

That isn't simple disagreement. That's, as C1 said, you calling into question the salvation of a sizable portion of this forum. I'm pretty sure that's not good.

 

[convicted1]

Brother Tony,


Eventhough we may disagree on some biblical subjects, I would never dare question your's or anyone's salvation, on here, in public, or on another forum.


God said it best, "What I have cleansed, call thou not common."

 

[PreachTony]

Brother Tony,

Eventhough we may disagree on some biblical subjects, I would never dare question your's or anyone's salvation, on here, in public, or on another forum.

God said it best, "What I have cleansed, call thou not common."

I don't doubt that you would, C1. We certainly are not in agreement on many things. But your experience of grace is yours alone. Just as mine is mine alone. I can no more give account for you on the day of judgment than you can give account for me. Therefore, it is not in my hands to question your salvation, or anyone else'e (let alone half the board).

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Hold on for the moment. There are many of us who do not identify ourselves as Calvinists and who do not use the term Doctrines of Grace in our theological vacabulary. This statement seems to question our salvation.

• Since many here are binary in their catagorizations, e.g. if a person doesn't self identify as a Calvinist then they are an Aminian.
• If one doen't embrace the Doctrines of Grace, one is an unbeliever. The problem is many of us are from a Northern Baptist background and the term (though not neccessarily the idea) is'nt used in out circles.

SNIP
I would disagree with the statement highlighted, I would say that Arminians who have not embraced the Doctrines of Grace as the Gospel are unbelievers, hence i believe that avoids giving them any false sense of assurance or security while believing a defective gospel, such as one that is not clear on Limited Atonement !