Featured Question About Cals/Non Cals

Aaron,

You may be right, and perhaps we will never see eye to eye on this. I actually doubt we differ much theologically.

I don’t really care what the common use of Calvinism is (if there actually is one). But I do know that Calvinism is a specific theological system, although there are differences within that system. One should always be concerned with the truth of what they believe rather than accepting what is common.

Yes, I do view the Gospel very narrowly. In fact, there is no deviation at all.

I do not know why you would state that I do not trust Calvinists, I already told you that I hold to that view. I do not know if my experience is anything to you, perhaps it should be, perhaps not. But please refrain from taking my words out of context. I just thought that I would let you know my past difficulty when dealing with Calvinists who are ignorant of their theology (and I am not implying that this is you, please do not take it as such). Sometimes people say foolish things that have consequences in the lives of others. Sometimes people may be held accountable at some point for the words they say.

I would have simply dismissed your post, at first I thought “what is it to me?” But if you are a Christian, then it should matter greatly to me. So I responded, in hopes that you would not become like those I ran into who actually wrecked havoc on their own theology and others in order to vindicate their position against someone who didn’t even care what they thought anyway. But, ultimately that’s up to you.

 

I would define the “Gospel” as redemption through Christ as presented in Scripture.

I would present the Gospel by walking through the Gospel as found in Scripture, using my own understanding and relying on the Holy Spirit to work in the life of the unbeliever, if that is what God is going to do through me at that time.

My problem is when we start calling what is theological understanding, or even Biblical truths that are not the Gospel, the Gospel. Just because something is correct does not mean it is the Gospel. I can be a Christian and believe that Jonah and the fish is a fable. I don’t, but accepting a literal interpretation of the account is not part of the Gospel message. Neither is theological understandings, no matter how Biblical, of how God effected Salvation in regards to predestination, election, etc. The Gospel is that Salvation is come to those who believe – not necessarily how God brought about that salvation (although it is important).

These are truths that should be taught, but they are taught to believers. Paul is never once said to have explained election, predestination, etc, to anyone other than the Church. These are important truths, and I believe Reformed Theology to be correct – but it is not the Gospel itself. You do not cast pearls before swine. Reformation theology is for the believer, not the unbeliever.

If there is another definition of the Gospel, and I am mistaking his position, I am more than open for correction - but not ridicule (not that I would expect ridicule from you, you have been most helpful in the past).

 

I think that you may be right, and I do apologize for inadequately stating what I am trying to express. Part of this, I believe, is due to the argumentative atmosphere of having so many diverse views in one place; one is perhaps justified in expecting a disagreement to be an attack on theological grounds. I attribute a larger part to my difficulty in expressing my view. Perhaps this will be clearer.

In the first chapter of Romans, Paul states that “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” It is in this context where I derive my understanding of the Gospel and it is in this context that I believe it improper to substitute “Calvinism” for “Gospel.”

Spurgeon presented the Gospel within Calvinism, but it was the Gospel that was the power of God for salvation – not “God’s predestination in salvation.” Wesley presented the Gospel within an opposing theology (I disagree with the Wesleyan theology), but the Gospel that saved those who heard was the same Gospel – the power of God for salvation. It is in this context that I disagree that Calvinism is the Gospel and all others are not.

 

Please, gifredrick, help my understanding of your position. Are you affirming that you hold the statements below to be correct?

 

Either way its OK. I mailed your invitation, but you probably haven't received it yet.

“So truly in the riches of grace there are mines too deep for man’s finite understand ever to fathom. However profound your investigation, there is still a deep couching beneath which baffles all research. Who can ever discover the attributes of God? Who can find out the Almighty to perfection? We are at a loss to estimate the very quality and properties of grace as it dwells in the mind of Deity.”

Like Spurgeon, I do not believe that my finite understand is inerrant, nor capable of encompassing the depths of God’s grace and work in salvation. I agree with Calvinism, but also like Spurgeon, believe it to be incomplete when dealing with the totality of Scripture. I trust God, and try not to lean on my own understanding for He is sufficient for my shortcomings and flaws in reason. This is where I may part company with some (hopefully not most) Calvinists.

 

Exactly. Spurgeon speaks of Calvinism as the gospel in his understanding. Aaron may mean the same, I may have taken his comments wrong and it could be a missunderstanding on my part. I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

Since we're on Spurgeon, these are also applicable:


There are some brethren with small heads, who, when they have heard a strong doctrinal sermon, grow into hyper-Calvinists, and then when we preach an inviting sermon to poor sinners, they cannot understand it, and say it is a yea and nay gospel. Believe me, it is not yea and nay, but yea and yea. We give your yea to all truth, and our nay we give to no doctrine of God. Can a sinner be saved when he wills to come to Christ? Yea. And if he does come, does he come because God brings him? Yea. We have no nays in our theology for any revealed truth. We do not shut the door on one word and open it to another. Those are the yea and nay people who have a nay for the poor sinner, when they profess to preach the gospel (from "God's Will, Man's Will).

You know, brethren, that there is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer, I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But, my dear friends, far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none within her walls but Calvinistic Christians, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him, that while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself, I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one of whom the world was not worthy. I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ into their hearts, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist out of heaven. (From "The Man with the Measuring Line")​

 

I’m going to ask this quickly because we’re here and both jbh28 and glfredrick have utalized Sprugeon in their posts.

In your link, Spurgeon states “I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures.”

“I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy…The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.”
(I know it was Calvin’s view, but he lived quite a bit prior to the synod of Dort and the development of the “five points”).


Would you say that this explanation is “five point” Calvinism (viewing limited atonement in terms of limited or definite redemption) or is it Amyraldianism (sufficiency or atonement without application constituting universal atonement)?