Question About Cals/Non Cals

[glfredrick]

So non cals are not saved?

Define "saved". Make sure you incorporate into your definition all the biblical tenets involved.

 

[jbh28]

So non cals are not saved?

And how Calvinistic do you need to be to be saved? (Are those who hold to Amyraldianism saved or is the difference minor enough for it to still be the gospel?)

Non Calvinist are saved. The last time I checked, the Bible doesn't teach that one has to hold to Calvinistic doctrine in order to be saved.

 

[jbh28]

Problem is that Christ bought even those who deny him and this in itself nullifies both limited atonement and irresistible grace in one fell swoop.

I'm not sure how it would nullify irresistible grace nor limited atonement. First of all, many people will "deny him" and be saved later. Second, limited atonement does affirm that the atonement is sufficient for all.

 

[jbh28]

And how Calvinistic do you need to be to be saved? (Are those who hold to Amyraldianism saved or is the difference minor enough for it to still be the gospel?)

4.765434554433 points.

 

[JonC]

4.765434554433 points.

What if you need extra credit. :tear:

 

[jbh28]

What if you need extra credit. :tear:

If you read Calvin's book, Institutes of the Christian Religion, You can receive one extra credit point. Planting a tulip in an Arminian's yard is worth a half a point.

 

[JonC]

Planting a tulip in an Arminian's yard is worth a half a point.

:applause:

 

[mandym]

Define "saved". Make sure you incorporate into your definition all the biblical tenets involved.

It is a clear question. If you are not a Calvinist are you saved? I asked an unnuanced question and I want the same type of response from him.

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm not sure how it would nullify irresistible grace nor limited atonement. First of all, many people will "deny him" and be saved later. Second, limited atonement does affirm that the atonement is sufficient for all.

Jesus has bought the rights to all flesh at the cross....jn 17 1-3.....all flesh is His...ex19 1pet2....

 

[Iconoclast]

It is a clear question. If you are not a Calvinist are you saved? I asked an unnuanced question and I want the same type of response.

Mandy....a person can be saved by believing the gospel, that the blood of Jesus covers a believing sinners sin. They might not fully know much theology proper....{the saved thief on the cross, or a death bed conversion}

A person can be saved and confused about many things...doctrinally.

When a person openly opposes truth.....that is a warning to the church to be careful, to be on guard;
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.

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears

 

[glfredrick]

It is a clear question. If you are not a Calvinist are you saved? I asked an unnuanced question and I want the same type of response from him.

Define saved...

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Uh huh. I am aware of the literal meaning of aoinion, but that does not mean that the intent of the writer in connotation is to imply that the words do not indicate the indefinite perpetuity of the condition expressed. Compare the statements regarding the devil and his followers being cast into the lake of fire and being tormented "day and night forever and ever" ("into the ages of the ages") with what is said about the saints:

Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

So, by "into the ages of the ages," are the saints only supposed to reign with Christ for "a very long period of time," and then this reign will end according to the intended meaning of the writer? If the writer intended with aionon that the torment of God's enemies was not perpetual, but would indeed end and "reverse" to a different (better) state, then, to be consistent, would we not have to understand that the writer had the same intention regarding the reign of the saints with Christ that there would indeed be an end to this? How about we all--believer and unbeliever alike--disappear into oblivion after "the ages of the ages." That would be a fair solution to this dilemma of the eternal dichotomy.

Sorry, the eternal state is it for all participants.

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

At just what time does God ever remove the freedom to choose from His sentient beings? Does God change His character and become something He is not? No.

 

[mandym]

Define saved...

As in disagrees with calvinism

 

[glfredrick]

At just what time does God ever remove the freedom to choose from His sentient beings? Does God change His character and become something He is not? No.

You have yet to actually prove that we HAVE that sort of libertarian freedom.

The Bible actually says that we are all slaves -- either to sin or to righteousness -- no one is exempt.

 

[Aaron]

And how Calvinistic do you need to be to be saved? (Are those who hold to Amyraldianism saved or is the difference minor enough for it to still be the gospel?)

It is a Person Who saves, not a doctrine. It is faith in a Person by which one enters into covenant with God, not by one's faultlessly accurate notions of Him. (Who could be saved?)

When I say one doctrine is the Gospel, and the other is not, it drives home the point that one doctrine is true, and the other is not. The Gospel contains no falsehood. One or the other isn't about simply seeing Christ from two different points of view, as one may bring a dove and another a bullock for the Burnt Offering. The disparity is that one describes a lamb, and the other, from a distance through the fog, is thinking he is seeing a dog. Yet they are looking at the same Person, and have placed their faith in that Person.

 

[JonC]

I think that the problem when one states that a particular theological view is the gospel and another is not is that it implies that the other is not saved, and it also implies that one’s own understanding is equal to the Word of God. We can’t assume that Beza was more a Christian than Calvin; or Calvin more than Luther, or Wesley more than Whitefield. None of these Christians actually agreed on all points of theology, so one at most could be right (probably all are wrong in some aspect).

I may understand my theological perspective to be the gospel because that is what I understand to be the correct position, but it is an error to present it as the gospel to someone who may hold a different understanding (even if I believe them to be theologically wrong) because my understanding is not actually the gospel. Put it this way, I hold a reformed belief, but if I say that this is the gospel and my understanding is not as perfect as the Word of God, then I have altered Scripture.

Spurgeon is a good example. He stated that he understood Calvinism to be the gospel. But then, in the same sermon, he stated that “gospel” to be incomplete. It actually incorporated what he called other “directions.” If he left it as “Calvinism is the gospel” then he left an incomplete gospel - it would be another gospel altogether. Thankfully (since he is one of my favorites) he went on to explain his understanding, the potential for error, and other aspects that are equally true but that reside outside of Calvinism.

My personal view is that neither Calvinism or Arminianism is the gospel, but they are understandings of the gospel as stated in Scripture. The gospel is of Christ, not theological positions within which the gospel is understood. Man can and do err, but there is no error in the gospel.

 

[JonC]

It is a Person Who saves, not a doctrine. It is faith in a Person by which one enters into covenant with God, not by one's faultlessly accurate notions of Him. (Who could be saved?)

When I say one doctrine is the Gospel, and the other is not, it drives home the point that one doctrine is true, and the other is not. The Gospel contains no falsehood. One or the other isn't about simply seeing Christ from two different points of view, as one may bring a dove and another a bullock for the Burnt Offering. The disparity is that one describes a lamb, and the other, from a distance through the fog, is thinking he is seeing a dog. Yet they are looking at the same Person, and have placed their faith in that Person.

Aaron,
Thanks for the clarification. I do agree with your soteriology, but was concerned about the statement because I realize that my understanding is precisely that - a human understanding of divne revelation.

 

[quantumfaith]

I think that the problem when one states that a particular theological view is the gospel and another is not is that it implies that the other is not saved, and it also implies that one’s own understanding is equal to the Word of God. We can’t assume that Beza was more a Christian than Calvin; or Calvin more than Luther, or Wesley more than Whitefield. None of these Christians actually agreed on all points of theology, so one at most could be right (probably all are wrong in some aspect).

I may understand my theological perspective to be the gospel because that is what I understand to be the correct position, but it is an error to present it as the gospel to someone who may hold a different understanding (even if I believe them to be theologically wrong) because my understanding is not actually the gospel. Put it this way, I hold a reformed belief, but if I say that this is the gospel and my understanding is not as perfect as the Word of God, then I have altered Scripture.

Spurgeon is a good example. He stated that he understood Calvinism to be the gospel. But then, in the same sermon, he stated that “gospel” to be incomplete. It actually incorporated what he called other “directions.” If he left it as “Calvinism is the gospel” then he left an incomplete gospel - it would be another gospel altogether. Thankfully (since he is one of my favorites) he went on to explain his understanding, the potential for error, and other aspects that are equally true but that reside outside of Calvinism.

My personal view is that neither Calvinism or Arminianism is the gospel, but they are understandings of the gospel as stated in Scripture. The gospel is of Christ, not theological positions within which the gospel is understood. Man can and do err, but there is no error in the gospel.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I think that the problem when one states that a particular theological view is the gospel and another is not is that it implies that the other is not saved, and it also implies that one’s own understanding is equal to the Word of God. We can’t assume that Beza was more a Christian than Calvin; or Calvin more than Luther, or Wesley more than Whitefield. None of these Christians actually agreed on all points of theology, so one at most could be right (probably all are wrong in some aspect).

I may understand my theological perspective to be the gospel because that is what I understand to be the correct position, but it is an error to present it as the gospel to someone who may hold a different understanding (even if I believe them to be theologically wrong) because my understanding is not actually the gospel. Put it this way, I hold a reformed belief, but if I say that this is the gospel and my understanding is not as perfect as the Word of God, then I have altered Scripture.

Spurgeon is a good example. He stated that he understood Calvinism to be the gospel. But then, in the same sermon, he stated that “gospel” to be incomplete. It actually incorporated what he called other “directions.” If he left it as “Calvinism is the gospel” then he left an incomplete gospel - it would be another gospel altogether. Thankfully (since he is one of my favorites) he went on to explain his understanding, the potential for error, and other aspects that are equally true but that reside outside of Calvinism.

My personal view is that neither Calvinism or Arminianism is the gospel, but they are understandings of the gospel as stated in Scripture. The gospel is of Christ, not theological positions within which the gospel is understood. Man can and do err, but there is no error in the gospel.

An excellent post!

 

[Aaron]

Aaron,
Thanks for the clarification. I do agree with your soteriology, but was concerned about the statement because I realize that my understanding is precisely that - a human understanding of divne revelation.

Thank you, but I'm not leaving the door open for the legitimization of noncalvinistic thought. I'm simply extolling the glory of Christ and His power, when I say it is a Person Who saves, and not my idea of that Person. If what I say about Christ and His work is true, then it is the Gospel. If what I say about Christ and His work is not true, then it is not the Gospel.

Calvinism is true. It is, therefore, the Gospel. Anything else is not.