Question About Cals/Non Cals

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

Even Lucifer had that freedom in the beginning, and so did Adam and Eve. And though theirs and human freedom in general was damaged and weakened in the Fall, it wasn't lost.

Since I believe so strongly that freedom is a basic part of God's character, I believe all his sentient beings remain free -- in differing degrees in different times and places, but always free.

I think there always remains the option and possibility of rebellion or obedience and loyalty. I can't prove it, but I believe this is in accord with God's character.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

I believe Calvinism is false, and therefore not the Gospel. So, I guess I know what you think of me.

 

[glfredrick]

Even Lucifer had that freedom in the beginning, and so did Adam and Eve. And though theirs and human freedom in general was damaged and weakened in the Fall, it wasn't lost.

Since I believe so strongly that freedom is a basic part of God's character, I believe all his sentient beings remain free -- in differing degrees in different times and places, but always free.

I think there always remains the option and possibility of rebellion or obedience and loyalty. I can't prove it, but I believe this is in accord with God's character.

This biblical passagec -- the specific teaching of Jesus on the issue of freedom after death, especially as concerns "hell" -- would seem to entirely refute your current position:

Luke 16:19-31 (ESV) "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,

23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'

27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house-- 28 for I have five brothers--so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Why, after realizing the error of his ways, and KNOWING AT THAT POINT FOR CERTAIN that a better existence was available at ths side of God, whom he could evidently see, did he not simply exercise his freedom of will and cross that divide, repent and turn to God? He seemingly GREATLY desired for that to happen, or at least just one ounce of mercy be extended his way, and when denied that, his next great desire was that no one else would suffer the same fate as he. But, alas, he actually had NO CHOICE in the matter, and neither would Christ send a special messenger apart from the WORD OF GOD ALREADY SENT to warn others whom this rich man loved of what was coming their way.

At this juncture, you either recant of your heterodox belief in after-life free will or admit that you are not in fact following what the Scriptures teach on the subject.

And, PLEASE note... I am not saying this to be mean-spirited -- not at all -- I am giving you the warning that the rich man in this story greatly desired to be given to his family. I am showing you IN THE WORD OF GOD that you are in error, not because of what I believe, but because of WHAT IS WRITTEN.

Don't end up sitting next to the rich man and wishing that things could be different, for they will be what they will be and you will have no choice in the matter.

 

[JonC]

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.

I absolutely agree that it is Christ who saves and not one’s idea or understanding of Christ. We share, to a great extent, our theological understandings of the gospel. Where we part company is that I believe the statement “Calvinism is true. It is, therefore, the Gospel. Anything else is not” is heretical primarily due to the last portion of the statement.

What you have done is place Calvinism in place of the gospel. Even if Calvinism is 100% correct, it is still dependent on human understanding and reasoning while the gospel is not. Beza, a student of Calvin, systematized Calvin’s teachings– what you are doing is placing that theological system in place of Scripture.

Think of it this way, before the sixteenth century what we call “Calvinism” did not exist. Part of this, of course, is that the questions addressed by Calvinism were not the questions being asked prior to the Reformation. Another part is that Lutheran and Calvinistic ideas were very much born out of a need for reformation, they were reactionary to the world around them. Some of Calvinism is founded from earlier thought, such as Augustine, and particularly Anselm’s view of substitutionary atonement – but these ideas also form the bases for much of the non-Calvinistic and pre-Calvinistic thought as well. (Augustine and Anselm, of course, did not hold Calvinistic beliefs).

So what you are saying is that everyone who lived prior to Beza was ignorant of the gospel. The early Church was ignorant of the gospel. What is worst is that you present Christ Himself as teaching a false or incomplete doctrine when speaking of salvation (Calvinism is not solely what is recorded as the teachings Christ in Scripture).

Many Calvinists, Spurgeon’s sermon “Humility” comes to mind, appreciate the writings of Paul for the tension that exists when viewing Scripture through a Calvinistic lens, Spurgeon sees this as proof that Paul wrote as the Spirit guided rather than relying on his own theology. When Spurgeon spoke the words that you now state, that “Calvinism is the gospel,” he did it in an entirely different context by presenting it as not only incomplete in terms of the gospel in its entirety, but as his understanding of the gospel. We do agree on much, but I think that you need to exercise caution when supporting your position. Regardless of the validity of our position, we derive our understanding from Scripture – not the other way around.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This biblical passagec -- the specific teaching of Jesus on the issue of freedom after death, especially as concerns "hell" -- would seem to entirely refute your current position:

Luke 16:19-31 (ESV) "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,

23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'

27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house-- 28 for I have five brothers--so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Why, after realizing the error of his ways, and KNOWING AT THAT POINT FOR CERTAIN that a better existence was available at ths side of God, whom he could evidently see, did he not simply exercise his freedom of will and cross that divide, repent and turn to God? He seemingly GREATLY desired for that to happen, or at least just one ounce of mercy be extended his way, and when denied that, his next great desire was that no one else would suffer the same fate as he. But, alas, he actually had NO CHOICE in the matter, and neither would Christ send a special messenger apart from the WORD OF GOD ALREADY SENT to warn others whom this rich man loved of what was coming their way.

At this juncture, you either recant of your heterodox belief in after-life free will or admit that you are not in fact following what the Scriptures teach on the subject.

And, PLEASE note... I am not saying this to be mean-spirited -- not at all -- I am giving you the warning that the rich man in this story greatly desired to be given to his family. I am showing you IN THE WORD OF GOD that you are in error, not because of what I believe, but because of WHAT IS WRITTEN.

Don't end up sitting next to the rich man and wishing that things could be different, for they will be what they will be and you will have no choice in the matter.

So, you're saying that I'll go to hell if I continue to believe this about freedom?

 

[Aaron]

I absolutely agree that it is Christ who saves and not one’s idea or understanding of Christ. We share, to a great extent, our theological understandings of the gospel. Where we part company is that I believe the statement “Calvinism is true. It is, therefore, the Gospel. Anything else is not” is heretical primarily due to the last portion of the statement.

What you have done is place Calvinism in place of the gospel. Even if Calvinism is 100% correct, it is still dependent on human understanding and reasoning while the gospel is not. Beza, a student of Calvin, systematized Calvin’s teachings– what you are doing is placing that theological system in place of Scripture.

Again, we're defining Calvinism differently.

 

[glfredrick]

So, you're saying that I'll go to hell if I continue to believe this about freedom?

No, I'm saying that you are "choosing" to believe something OTHER than what the Bible states. That may or may not cause you to go to hell. Your choice, I guess... :wavey:

 

[Aaron]

I believe Calvinism is false, and therefore not the Gospel. So, I guess I know what you think of me.

No, you don't, and you can't unless you are a Calvinist.

No matter how one slices noncalvinistic thought, it boils down to the man doing or thinking something to a certain degree of righteousness.

Can a man not believe in the divinity of Christ and be saved? Calvinist, yes, Noncalvinist no. We won't judge his thinking as Christian, and we won't allow him fellowship, but could he be saved? Certainly.

Can a man not believe in a literal resurrection and be saved? Calvinist, yes, Noncalvinist no. We won't judge his thinking as Christian, and we won't allow him fellowship, but could he be saved? Certainly.

Can a man believe he freely chose to enter into covenant relationship with Christ and be saved? Certainly. We won't judge his thinking as Christian, and we won't allow him to hold office, but could he be saved? Certainly.

Jesus saves, not my notions of Jesus. I might have incorrect notions about the laws of gravity, but my encounters with gravity will by certain degrees change those notions.

 

[glfredrick]

I absolutely agree that it is Christ who saves and not one’s idea or understanding of Christ. We share, to a great extent, our theological understandings of the gospel. Where we part company is that I believe the statement “Calvinism is true. It is, therefore, the Gospel. Anything else is not” is heretical primarily due to the last portion of the statement.

You have carried the argument to a logical conclusion that was never explicitly stated.

What you have done is place Calvinism in place of the gospel. Even if Calvinism is 100% correct, it is still dependent on human understanding and reasoning while the gospel is not. Beza, a student of Calvin, systematized Calvin’s teachings– what you are doing is placing that theological system in place of Scripture.

Actually, you have it inside out. Calvinism does not determine the gospel, the gospel determines Calvinism. That is one of the primary facts that those who do not identify as Calvinists seem always to misunderstand. I cannot think of a SINGLE known Calvinistic scholar who would DARE to place a theological system in place of God's revelation as found in the Scriptures. Your fundamental misunderstanding about the process drives your false beliefs about the results of that process.

I would recommend that you actually read some Calvinistic theology and discover whether or not it orients on and is driven by the Scriptures or rather if it is "proof-texted" by the Scriptures. I believe that you would be shocked at what you discover, especially when the Calvinists ACTUALLY do the heavy homework of exegeting Scripture and work to reconcile the stances found therein.

Think of it this way, before the sixteenth century what we call “Calvinism” did not exist. Part of this, of course, is that the questions addressed by Calvinism were not the questions being asked prior to the Reformation. Another part is that Lutheran and Calvinistic ideas were very much born out of a need for reformation, they were reactionary to the world around them. Some of Calvinism is founded from earlier thought, such as Augustine, and particularly Anselm’s view of substitutionary atonement – but these ideas also form the bases for much of the non-Calvinistic and pre-Calvinistic thought as well. (Augustine and Anselm, of course, did not hold Calvinistic beliefs).

Church history says that you are wrong, except for applying the name "Calvinism" to the Doctrines of Grace as expressed in the Scriptures and by virtually everyone in the early church until such a point in time that they eventually drifted into syncretism. This is all rather well documented and you can actually read about all this in several good books. Let me recommend one, Gregg Allison, "Historical Theology."

So what you are saying is that everyone who lived prior to Beza was ignorant of the gospel. The early Church was ignorant of the gospel. What is worst is that you present Christ Himself as teaching a false or incomplete doctrine when speaking of salvation (Calvinism is not solely what is recorded as the teachings Christ in Scripture).

Not at all... Calvin based a lot of his understanding on those who came before, especially Augustine, who's views virtually mirrored Calvin's later efforts, all of which demonstrate that the views pinned to Calvin and his later disciples did in fact exist all the way into the early church!

Many Calvinists, Spurgeon’s sermon “Humility” comes to mind, appreciate the writings of Paul for the tension that exists when viewing Scripture through a Calvinistic lens, Spurgeon sees this as proof that Paul wrote as the Spirit guided rather than relying on his own theology. When Spurgeon spoke the words that you now state, that “Calvinism is the gospel,” he did it in an entirely different context by presenting it as not only incomplete in terms of the gospel in its entirety, but as his understanding of the gospel. We do agree on much, but I think that you need to exercise caution when supporting your position. Regardless of the validity of our position, we derive our understanding from Scripture – not the other way around.

We do indeed drive Calvinism BY the Scriptures, not the other way around.

 

[JonC]

----------

 

[JonC]

Glfredick,

Actually, you have it inside out. Calvinism does not determine the gospel, the gospel determines Calvinism.

I think you misunderstand my position. I carried the statement that “Anything else is not [the gospel] ” as stating that anything other than Calvinism is not the gospel.
I do not have it inside out. Neither do you – Calvinism is derived from Scripture. It is therefore an error to present Calvinism as scripture.

I would recommend that you actually read some Calvinistic theology

I appreciate you recommendation, but you have assumed that I have not read Calvinistic theology and that I have rejected Calvinism as false (which is not actually true).

Church history says that you are wrong, except for applying the name "Calvinism" to the Doctrines of Grace as expressed in the Scriptures

That assessment is not correct although I would add that Calvinism is supported by Scripture. It is important to remember also that the early church did not have as full of an understanding of these doctrinal and theological issues. They lived in expectation of Christ’s return, while many of us (myself included) tend to live in expectation of His delay. But no, Church history does not confirm a Calvinistic belief in the early church – although it does solidify much of Calvinism.
Augustine’s view did not “mirror” Calvin’s view (just compare their views of atonement for a quick verification). Nor did Beza’s view match exactly with Calvin’s (atonement, logical order).

We do indeed drive Calvinism BY the Scriptures, not the other way around.

I hope that you didn’t take my statement to imply that all Calvinists present Calvinism in a heretical fashion. That is was not my intent. I don't think that you speak for everyone, though. The comment that was made was certainly heretical. Since you are acquainted with the writings of Calvinists, and I suppose of Calvin himself, you should know this – Calvin was extraordinarily careful in his exegesis of Scripture. Some may disagree with his conclusions, but none can argue with any validity that he ignored or changed scripture to develop his understanding. I could not imagine Calvin ever saying “here’s my understanding – it is the gospel.” (Of course, had he said it his ideas probably wouldn’t have survived his execution, but he was a scholar who held a high regard for Scripture).

Calvinism is a theological system through which the gospel is understood. Nothing more should be said regarding the nature of Calvinism to the Word of God. What I was objecting to is the notion that Calvinism is the gospel.

Nothing but the gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel.

I am curious, though. Why did you think that I was unfamiliar with the writings of Calvinists, or that I rejected the Doctrines of Grace?

 

[JonC]

Again, we're defining Calvinism differently.

You may be right, and if I misunderstood you I do apologize.

Without saying “the gospel” (which would be a circular argument), how do you define “Calvinism?”

 

[AresMan]

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.

1. You assume libertarian free will without proving it.
2. You have not touched the Scriptures I presented.

 

[glfredrick]

Glfredick, I think you misunderstand my position. I carried the statement that “Anything else is not [the gospel] ” as stating that anything other than Calvinism is not the gospel.
I do not have it inside out. Neither do you – Calvinism is derived from Scripture. It is therefore an error to present Calvinism as scripture.

It is possible that I misunderstood your earlier response...

We rightly understand that Calvinism is NOT the gospel, and yet qualified preachers and theologians have said it that way down through the years, so there must be a second interpretation for what they were saying. A man like Spurgeon, though utterly human and capable of saying something untoward, would not make such a mistake unless he had a thought in mind that was other than the way those who use the remark against him think. So, in considering that, might we not say that Calvinism is the surest expression of the soteriology that the gospel stands for? And, to shorten that, we might end up with "Calvinism is the gospel" without meaning that the kerygma of Scripture depends on Calvinism for its existence, for truly it IS the other way around!

I appreciate you recommendation, but you have assumed that I have not read Calvinistic theology and that I have rejected Calvinism as false (which is not actually true).

I'm actually glad to hear that... Most who argue some point as you did would never open a book or a theology that had Calvinist roots, for "god only knows" what they might find between those covers (use of small "g" intentional).

That assessment is not correct although I would add that Calvinism is supported by Scripture. It is important to remember also that the early church did not have as full of an understanding of these doctrinal and theological issues. They lived in expectation of Christ’s return, while many of us (myself included) tend to live in expectation of His delay. But no, Church history does not confirm a Calvinistic belief in the early church – although it does solidify much of Calvinism.
Augustine’s view did not “mirror” Calvin’s view (just compare their views of atonement for a quick verification). Nor did Beza’s view match exactly with Calvin’s (atonement, logical order).

For simplicity sake above, I foreshortened the historical record considerably, but in essence, I agree with what you wrote above. The early church could not "confirm" Calvinism for it had yet to be derived in its modern form. But as I said, all the roots of Calvinism can be found in the writings of the early church fathers. That is also partly why I asked if you had read much Calvinistic work, for Calvin himself often quoted the Anti-Nicene Fathers as did those like Beza who came after.

I hope that you didn’t take my statement to imply that all Calvinists present Calvinism in a heretical fashion. That is was not my intent. I don't think that you speak for everyone, though. The comment that was made was certainly heretical. Since you are acquainted with the writings of Calvinists, and I suppose of Calvin himself, you should know this – Calvin was extraordinarily careful in his exegesis of Scripture. Some may disagree with his conclusions, but none can argue with any validity that he ignored or changed scripture to develop his understanding. I could not imagine Calvin ever saying “here’s my understanding – it is the gospel.” (Of course, had he said it his ideas probably wouldn’t have survived his execution, but he was a scholar who held a high regard for Scripture).

Completely agree! Some claiming Calvinism do indeed cross the boundary to a logical conclusion that a true Calvinist ought not cross, for we are bounded by the Scriptures and can no farther travel into speculation about what we cannot know. That is also a though of Calvin, as well as those who we are speaking of that came earlier. In between Calvin and the Anti-Nicene Fathers, much happened in the RCC, and as they turned to allagory, heaped one bad teaching upon another, hinged their implications on a quasi-accurate Latin translation instead of the original languages, invoked Greek philosophy (with one refuting another), etc., all of which led to a radical re-purposing and misunderstanding of the doctrines that are now commonly called the Doctrines of Grace as portrayed in the Scriptures.

Calvinism is a theological system through which the gospel is understood. Nothing more should be said regarding the nature of Calvinism to the Word of God. What I was objecting to is the notion that Calvinism is the gospel.

Nothing but the gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel.

I also agree with that, save one thing... The doctrine of Calvinism derives FROM the Bible, not the Bible from the doctrines of Calvinism. That is certainly true, yet the strawman arguments that say otherwise are rampant.

I am curious, though. Why did you think that I was unfamiliar with the writings of Calvinists, or that I rejected the Doctrines of Grace?

Because you seemed to be fighting against them in your response.

 

[JonC]

glfredrick,

I have read Spurgeon’s sermon several times. It is titled “God’s Will and Man’s Will.” He says when asked if he is a Calvinist he says he is a Christian. He equates Calvinism to the gospel, but only in the context of his understanding. He calls these theologies necessary because of our finite minds, and therefore he is a Calvinist with additions.

My contention is not really with you saying to me that Calvinism is the gospel, in the manner you describe. But it would be wrong to tell another who holds a different understanding that it is and anything else is not. That was my problem, because in that context, Calvinism is not the gospel either.

I once read a book, maybe by Robert Peterson (I think), that objected to many of the defenses that Calvinism uses. The author was a Calvinist, and did a great job presenting how these objections are flawed and only create animosity while proving nothing. What I was arguing against here was a comment that, in the context it was presented, was not only wrong but was offensive. Sometimes the biggest problem with Calvinism is not the doctrine or theology, but the Calvinists. There are better ways of debating theological differences.

By the way, I checked out Gregg Allison’s Historical Theology, it looks interesting. I have Grudem’s Systematic Theology, and noticed Allison recommends it as a companion to his book. I think I prefer Erickson, but it is good to glance at several works.

 

[Aaron]

You may be right, and if I misunderstood you I do apologize.

Without saying “the gospel” (which would be a circular argument), how do you define “Calvinism?”

Calvinism is the acknowledgement of God's sovereignty in salvation.

 

[glfredrick]

Calvinism is the acknowledgement of God's sovereignty in salvation.

I agree... Well said.

 

[Aaron]

Calvinism is a theological system through which the gospel is understood. Nothing more should be said regarding the nature of Calvinism to the Word of God. What I was objecting to is the notion that Calvinism is the gospel.

By your definition, unless one simply reads straight from the Scriptures, no one can be said to be "preaching the Gospel."

 

[JonC]

Calvinism is the acknowledgement of God's sovereignty in salvation.

You are correct, we do disagree in the definition of Calvinism. First, are you stating then that the Gospel is defined as “ the acknoweldgement God’s sovereignty in salvation?" If so, please provide Scripture, and if not, this is only posturing. Second, acknowledging the sovereignty of God in salvation is not restricted to Calvinism, but certainly election based on the decrees of grace rather than on a corporation or solely on the will of man is more of a distinctly Calvinistic doctrine.

By your definition, unless one simply reads straight from the Scriptures, no one can be said to be "preaching the Gospel."

One is the Gospel, and the other is not.

What is preached as the gospel should be the Gospel, so yes - the Gospel is the message from Scripture within our communication. The power of the Gospel is salvation, but we do not save by presenting our words. Our presentation of the Gospel involves our reasoning and our understanding – and how we relate this understanding to others. We do call it preaching the gospel. BUT – lets be honest here. We were not speaking of “preaching the Gospel.” We were talking about others who do not share your additions to simply reading from the Scriptures as not having the Gospel because they don’t believe the additions (reason, understanding, etc.).


My experience probably does color my view and interpretation of what you say – so if I’m still misunderstanding you I am sorry. I did not come from a Reformed background. I was not raised with a Reformed understanding. I attended an evangelic college and an evangelic seminary. I do believe that there were some errors in my soteriology at that time. It was studying the Bible, however, that led me to a reformed belief. BUT, even looking back to when I rejected Reformed doctrine I can see that I DID NOT misunderstand the Gospel. There is a difference between soteriology and the gospel. My soteriological understanding of how God effected salvation changed, my understanding of the Gospel did not.


My biggest obstacle in Reformed Theology was what had become a distrust of Calvinists. Many of those I conversed with held false understandings of non-Calvinistic positions . But they could never accept that. Their idea that Calvinism was the Gospel and all other views were illogical led me to realize that many had replaced the Gospel with the doctrines of grace and were indeed holding another gospel altogether. They were not focused on the Gospel, but on how God implemented it. They could care less about loving other Christians who disagreed with them as long as they appeared justified in their own understanding, and it was on this understanding that they chose to lean. (Fortunately not all Calvinists are like this – surely none here – and there were many helpful professors that held Reformed views).

 

[Aaron]

It's as I told you when we first met. If you mean one thing when you say Calvinism, and I mean another thing, then we aren't communicating. As it is commonly used, Calvinism refers to predestination according to God's purposes according to election. If you want to define it otherwise, that's your prerogative, but you're simply erecting a straw man.

Your definition of Gospel is likewise arbitrary, and unreasonably narrow. Its effect, if not its design, is to present noncalvinistic thought as equal to Calvinistic thought; to present error as equal to truth. If I am saying true things about Christ, I am preaching the Gospel. If I am saying erroneous things about Christ, I am not. Calvinism is either true or false. If it is true, then it is the Gospel, and anything that contradicts it is not.

Calvinism is the Gospel, anything else is not.

You distrust Calvinists. So?? What is that to me?