Calvinism Is The Gospel, So Only Believers Of Calvinism Are Saved.

[7djengo7]

You also teach that sinners Christ died for are lost!

So do you!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

One of the two, following propositions MUST be true, and the other MUST be false, as they are contradictories:

1. Spurgeon, when he said "Calvinism is the gospel," meant that Calvinism is the gospel.2. Spurgeon, when he said "Calvinism is the gospel," did not mean that Calvinism is the gospel.

Now, Professor, which of those two propositions is the true one, and which one is the false one?

One of the two, following propositions MUST be true, and the other MUST be false, as they are contradictories:

1. Calvinism is the gospel.2. Calvinism is not the gospel.

Now, Professor, which of those two propositions is the true one, and which one is the false one?

As I stated quite clearly...if you will actually digest the content...
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-of-iniquity&p=5279630&viewfull=1#post5279630

The Gospel is more than just what folks consider Calvinism, TULIP. See my comments, esp. "warp and woof".

"The quote you are alluding to speaks to the fact that unless one preaches the things that are the warp and woof of the gospel, the gospel is simply not being preached."

Spurgeon certainly understood the cautionary of assuming Calvinism is merely TULIP. When he used "gospel" he was aligned with what I also noted and linked above:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Y-ONE-GOSPEL&p=5076158&viewfull=1#post5076158

Your penchant to lift some quote and make hay from it is embarrassing to you. Again, I clearly answered your hobby horse question:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-of-iniquity&p=5279630&viewfull=1#post5279630 with an accompanying affirmative based upon that post's content (that means "yes").

You don't do theology by yes and no questions until you have defined the theological terms properly. Theologians are something like grammarians than like scientists or detectives. Such theologians show us (from the Bible) how to think, and how not to think, about God, and thusly how to talk about Him. What we should say, and what we should not say. Theologians do not control what we may say; they indicate the rules of intelligible speech.

Systematic theology is a fence that guards our exegesis from error. If our systematic theology actually comes from the organic unfolding progressive nature of Scripture, then it will not be a straight-jacket, but rather the fence that keeps the children from going out into the dangerous road.

AMR

 

[7djengo7]

Asked and answered:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-of-iniquity&p=5279630&viewfull=1#post5279630

Then again, you do have issues with doing some heavy-lifting, taking every word captive, instead preferring to quote-mine and opine while ignoring context or an author's full corpus:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...nt-destroyed&p=5281715&viewfull=1#post5281715

Using your methods, one can make just about anyone say anything, despite the meaninglessness therein. :AMR:

AMR

You never answered a single question I asked you, so, when you say that you did, you are either deluded or lying. I don't deny that you reacted to some of my questions, but you answered none.

About one thing, however, you are exactly right:

My method is to ask you questions which necessarily damn Calvinism while embarrassing you, Calvinism's would-be defender. And, by applying that method, it seems I can, indeed, make you say just about anything, with the exception of answers to the questions I ask you! Every time I ask Calvinism a question, you refuse to answer it--you refuse to try to defend Calvinism--and, instead, you try to bury me under a full corpus of meaninglessness, which you use as a smokescreen, in hope of diverting attention from the questions you (of necessity) fail to answer.

By the way, I don't believe that you, yourself, have read all, or even most, of the literature that you self-righteously cavil at others for not having read all of, and it's actually pitiful that you would imagine it plausible for you to try to imply that you have done so. I've seen that ploy used many times, and every time it is used, it is used because the one using it is painfully aware that he/she cannot, to his/her own satisfaction (let alone, to the objector's satisfaction), deal with the questions he/she is, at that moment, called upon to try to answer. If you could think well on your feet when it comes to trying to defend Calvinism, you would simply have no need for such ploys as trying to direct attention away from the questions that were asked you.

So, back to the questions:

One of the two following propositions must be true, and the other must be false, since they are contradictories:

1. Spurgeon, when he said that "Calvinism is the gospel," meant that Calvinism is the gospel.
2. Spurgeon, when he said that "Calvinism is the gospel," did not mean that Calvinism is the gospel.

Which of those two propositions is the true one, and which the false?

One of the two following propositions must be true, and the other must be false, since they are contradictories:

1. Calvinism is the gospel.
2. Calvinism is not the gospel.

Which of those two propositions is the true one, and which the false?

 

[beloved57]

So do you!

False accusation! I believe all sinners Christ died for are saved. I have testified to that continually.

 

[7djengo7]

False accusation! I believe all sinners Christ died for are saved. I have testified to that continually.

No, you don't believe that. If you believed that, then you wouldn't be trying to share what you call "the gospel" with people. You believe that it is by means of the preaching of what you call "the gospel" that sinners will become saved--that is, go from being not saved to being saved. You believe that some sinners for whom Christ died are not yet saved. To be not yet saved is to be not saved, unsaved. No?

Do you not consider a person's being lost to be one and the same thing as his/her being unsaved?

So, your statement again:

You also teach that sinners Christ died for are lost!

So do you! You believe that Christ died for sinners who will not be saved until tomorrow, or the next day, or a year from now, or 10 years from now--sinners, that is, who are as yet unsaved--that is, lost!

 

[beloved57]

No, you don't believe that. If you believed that, then you wouldn't be trying to share what you call "the gospel" with people. You believe that it is by means of the preaching of what you call "the gospel" that sinners will become saved--that is, go from being not saved to being saved. You believe that some sinners for whom Christ died are not yet saved. To be not yet saved is to be not saved, unsaved. No?

Do you not consider a person's being lost to be one and the same thing as his/her being unsaved?

So, your statement again:



So do you! You believe that Christ died for sinners who will not be saved until tomorrow, or the next day, or a year from now, or 10 years from now--sinners, that is, who are as yet unsaved--that is, lost!

More false accusation!

 

[7djengo7]

More false accusation!

So, you do not believe that Christ died for sinners who are lost now, but who will be saved in the future?

You do not believe that to be unsaved is one and the same thing as to be lost?

 

[beloved57]

So, you do not believe that Christ died for sinners who are lost now, but who will be saved in the future?

You do not believe that to be unsaved is one and the same thing as to be lost?

More false accusation persisted in. I have stated on this forum for years what I exactly believe. You have lied on me. I stated to one of my adversaries that he doesn't believe that all sinners Christ died for are saved, but they may be and are lost, they will tell you thats what they believe and teach. I never ever stated that, so you have lied on me.

Now show me/us a quote where I stated that sinners Christ died for can be lost. If you cant admit you lied !

 

[nikolai_42]

One of the two following propositions must be true, and the other must be false, since they are contradictories:

1. Spurgeon, when he said that "Calvinism is the gospel," meant that Calvinism is the gospel.
2. Spurgeon, when he said that "Calvinism is the gospel," did not mean that Calvinism is the gospel.

Which of those two propositions is the true one, and which the false?

One of the two following propositions must be true, and the other must be false, since they are contradictories:

1. Calvinism is the gospel.
2. Calvinism is not the gospel.

Which of those two propositions is the true one, and which the false?

Let me ask you a question. If the answer to your question is #2, what conclusion do you draw? Your question, specifically, is what Spurgeon meant. What did he mean when he used the term "Calvinism"? What did he mean when he used the term "gospel"? If one is going to be logically precise as you are here, you have to be able to be clear about every term. And until you can be certain that it is clear what Spurgeon meant (specifically) when he used the terms "Calvinism" and "gospel" in that statement, then your requirement that we must know what he meant fails at the start. We might even need to know what he meant by "is"...Was he meaning to identify one with the other (as in =) or was it more descriptive? Until we can know what he meant (precisely) by those terms, we can't know (precisely) what he meant.

Now...someone reading that message should be able to differentiate between didactic teaching and emphatic (perhaps hyperbolic) hortatory. Because if Spurgeon is meaning to make the equivalence you want to force in a precise, exacting way, then his message should be didactic so that the listener (reader) is left in little doubt what he means by connecting the two. Otherwise, we can conclude little more than that there is something that Spurgeon calls (by nickname) "Calvinism" that meets all the requirements for what he calls "gospel". As often happens, people use terms in very specific ways. And it is to be expected that someone teaching will define those terms as much as possible so as to be clear. Spurgeon is entering into a sermon on preaching Christ and his statement about Calvinism being the gospel is couched thusly (note that even before this, he had already been speaking for a few minutes) :

Before I enter upon our text, let me very briefly tell you what I believe preaching Christ and him crucified is. My friends, I do not believe it is preaching Christ and him crucified, to give people a batch of philosophy every Sunday morning and evening, and neglect the truths of this Holy Book. I do not believe it is preaching Christ and him crucified, to leave out the main cardinal doctrines of the Word of God, and preach a religion which is all a mist and a haze, without any definite truths whatever. I take it that man does not preach Christ and him crucified, who can get through a sermon without mentioning Christ's name once; nor does that man preach Christ and him crucified, who leaves out the Holy Spirit's work, who never says a word about the Holy Ghost, so that indeed the hearers might say, "We do not so much as know whether there be a Holy Ghost." And I have my own private opinion, that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith without works; not unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor, I think, can we preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation, after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, "We have not so learned Christ."
https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/christ-crucified#flipbook/

Spurgeon makes the point that he always boldly states his own opinions - but apparently he also makes it clear which are his opinions. He states that there is something that is being taught in his day as Calvinism. So can we be certain what PRECISELY that means? Since the preacher proceeds to delineate what it is he is talking about, we don't need to go survey every instance of preaching Calvinism in the mid-18th century. We are not justified in taking a local statement (local to this sermon and applied in the context as Spurgeon has defined it) and measuring it against detailed works of every aspect of Calvinism that were extant then. Spurgeon himself has cut to the chase and told us what he means by "Calvinism is the gospel".

If I hand drew a circle on a piece of paper and asked you what I drew, what would you say I drew? Logically analyzing that sentence (and assuming you were telling the truth) you would say "a circle". But practically speaking, what is the likelihood that I draw an object that has a fixed, consistent radius at all points about its center? Slim to none. So are we justified in calling what I drew a circle? There are only two possiblilities :

1. What I drew is a circle
2. What I drew is not a circle

Now answer that question without any caveat, condition or constraint and then maybe it will be possible to address your proposition.

 

[7djengo7]

If I hand drew a circle on a piece of paper and asked you what I drew, what would you say I drew? Logically analyzing that sentence (and assuming you were telling the truth) you would say "a circle". But practically speaking, what is the likelihood that I draw an object that has a fixed, consistent radius at all points about its center? Slim to none. So are we justified in calling what I drew a circle? There are only two possiblilities :

1. What I drew is a circle
2. What I drew is not a circle

Now answer that question without any caveat, condition or constraint and then maybe it will be possible to address your proposition.

What you drew is not a circle.

"If I hand drew a circle on a piece of paper..."

But, you didn't, because you can't. Whatever you drew, it's not a circle.

 

[7djengo7]

More false accusation persisted in. I have stated on this forum for years what I exactly believe. You have lied on me. I stated to one of my adversaries that he doesn't believe that all sinners Christ died for are saved, but they may be and are lost, they will tell you thats what they believe and teach. I never ever stated that, so you have lied on me.

Now show me/us a quote where I stated that sinners Christ died for can be lost. If you cant admit you lied !

Here is one place where you said that sinners for whom Christ died can be lost:

One cannot be said to [sic] found and not saved,m [sic] and that is what Christ came to do, He came to seek and TO SAVE that which was Lost.

Now was He 100 % successful in SEEKING and SAVING that which was Lost ?
YES OR NO !!!!

(The quote can be found at http://www.studylightforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=346&start=270)

In this quote, you are not only admitting that sinners for whom Christ died CAN be lost, you are admitting that they ARE, by definition, lost until they are found/saved.

So, yeah, you do, indeed, believe that sinners for whom Christ died ARE lost.

If you think that there is at least one person for whom Christ died who has not yet been saved, then you obviously think that that person for whom Christ died is lost.

And, obviously, if there are people for whom Christ died who have not yet been saved, then the answer to your question, "was He 100 % successful in...SAVING that which was Lost ?", must be NO, since they have not been saved yet, and are still unregenerate--that is, they are still Calvinism's unregenerate elect.

It is pretty simple. No need to fly into a rage at me.

Bonus question:

You admit that those for whom Christ died ARE lost, so long as they are not saved. So, what about those for whom (as you imagine) Christ did not die? Are the non-elect lost, or not?

 

[beloved57]

Here is one place where you said that sinners for whom Christ died can be lost:



(The quote can be found at http://www.studylightforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=346&start=270)

In this quote, you are not only admitting that sinners for whom Christ died CAN be lost, you are admitting that they ARE, by definition, lost until they are found/saved.

So, yeah, you do, indeed, believe that sinners for whom Christ died ARE lost.

If you think that there is at least one person for whom Christ died who has not yet been saved, then you obviously think that that person for whom Christ died is lost.

And, obviously, if there are people for whom Christ died who have not yet been saved, then the answer to your question, "was He 100 % successful in...SAVING that which was Lost ?", must be NO, since they have not been saved yet, and are still unregenerate--that is, they are still Calvinism's unregenerate elect.

It is pretty simple. No need to fly into a rage at me.

Bonus question:

You admit that those for whom Christ died ARE lost, so long as they are not saved. So, what about those for whom (as you imagine) Christ did not die? Are the non-elect lost, or not?

More false accusation and misrepresentation

 

[7djengo7]

More false accusation and misrepresentation

OK. Thank you for clarifying that it is false that you believe that sinners for whom Christ died are lost before they are found.

Now we understand that you do NOT believe that sinners for whom Christ died are lost before they are found.

So, since we now understand you were not speaking of sinners for whom Christ died, then to whom, exactly, were you referring by the phrase "that which was Lost", when you said that Christ came "TO SAVE that which was Lost"?

 

[beloved57]

OK. Thank you for clarifying that it is false that you believe that sinners for whom Christ died are lost before they are found.

Now we understand that you do NOT believe that sinners for whom Christ died are lost before they are found.

So, since we now understand you were not speaking of sinners for whom Christ died, then to whom, exactly, were you referring by the phrase "that which was Lost", when you said that Christ came "TO SAVE that which was Lost"?

More false accusations and misrepresentation

 

[7djengo7]

Asked and answered:

Observe that your post, #18, is your first post in this thread I started, and your post, #18, was directly submitted as a reply to my thread-initiating post, #1.

Here, again, is what I wrote in post #1, in its entirety:

According to Charles Spurgeon, Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

Since Calvinism is the gospel, every person who does not believe Calvinism is a person who does not believe the gospel. And, every person who has never believed the gospel is a person who has never been saved. So, unless you have believed Calvinism, you have never been saved.

I asked no question in my post, #1. Not one. That's why you do not see any question mark(s) therein. I wrote three, short, declarative sentences, and nothing else; not one or more interrogative sentences. So, right off the bat, your having written "Asked and answered" manifestly has no relevance to what I wrote in post #1.

Obviously, you have a gripe with what I did write in post #1, so you just had to try to do something to vent your frustration at me, even though what you wrote amounts to naught. (Although, at least this time you were able to use far less text to say nothing than you usually do in your reactions to my posts!) But, your gripe is against the necessary consequence from the propositions that

1. Calvinism is the gospel,

and that

2. Every person who has never believed the gospel is a person who has never been saved.

Why do you hypocrites go about identifying Calvinism with the gospel, yet you refuse to come out with a spine and declare the necessary consequence of that supposed identity, which is that those who have never believed Calvinism have never been saved?

Is every person who has never believed Calvinism a person who has never been saved? Yes or No?

 

[7djengo7]

More false accusations and misrepresentation

Stop lying about me, please.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Observe that your post, #18, is your first post in this thread I started, and your post, #18, was directly submitted as a reply to my thread-initiating post, #1.

This thread is but a rehash of your earlier mishmash related to Spurgeon. My response in the earlier thread is applicable in this redundant thread.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-of-iniquity&p=5279630&viewfull=1#post5279630

It is even more on point herein as at least one of us (not you) took the time define our terms (e.g., Calvinism, Gospel) beforehand.


AMR

 

[beloved57]

Stop lying about me, please.

No,its the other way around, you've been lying about me, and have persisted in it relentlessly !

 

[nikolai_42]

What you drew is not a circle.

"If I hand drew a circle on a piece of paper..."

But, you didn't, because you can't. Whatever you drew, it's not a circle.

Then in that context I would agree. Calvinism is not the gospel. The gospel is the gospel. But it's a reduction to the absurd or tautological (or both?). Because then I can't (by that reasoning) draw a reasonable facsimile of a circle (so that you recognize what it is I'm drawing) and then draw a reasonable facsimile of (for example) a square and say one is a circle and one is a square so that I am contrasting critical points to highlight what is wrong when certain people "nowadays" call a square a circle. In that situation, if you are going to say "That's not a circle", then you're missing the intent of my comparison by requiring some devotion to absolute literality in a situation where my purpose is something else.

Absolutely...if Spurgeon is teaching the details of the gospel and the details of Calvinism with precision, he's not going to make that statement (or at least I can't see him doing it - but then I am more sympathetic with Newton's approach). There is a degree of hyperbole in it made to emphasize the fact that he sees Calvinism as absolutely true, but I think in his sermon he makes it abundantly clear that his specific and precise focus is not Calvinism per se, but it is the God of the bible - the Christ of the bible.

I'm a little out of my depth here, but the way I read the English rendition (and have minimal understanding of the underlying Greek), Paul is engaging in something like that here :

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
Philippians 3:2

He effectively calls circumcision mutilation. Are they the same thing? Can we say circumcision is mutilation? The inflection is there to make a point. And if we were to look at tithing (for example) and call it protection money paid to God to protect and keep His people (in the context of Malachi 3:11) and so paint the picture of God in the light of a mafia don - what justice is there in that picture (even though there is truth in the fact that God promised to restore Israel's fortunes if they tithed faithfully)? It's a corruption of the truth even though there is an element of truth in it. The only point I'm trying to make here is that taking a concept to its extreme may render something literally wrong even though the core element is true. So with Spurgeon claiming Calvinism is the gospel - nothing more, nothing less - you need first of all to see the context in which he said that - and then realize that to take that to its full logical extent (i.e. that the full gospel is described accurately and completely by Calvinism and to take anything away from the complete doctrine of Calvinism is necessarily to take away from the gospel) is to import something into the statement that was not intended and so it caricatures it and changes it.

So while I would agree with the strictly logical statement that the statement "Calvinism is the gospel - nothing more nothing less" is not true, the foregoing posts serve to explain why I don't see it as a viable point of contention for assailing Calvinism since it adopts a caricature that I don't believe would be agreed to by most Calvinists or even be supported by the Calvinist corpus.

 

[7djengo7]

Then in that context I would agree. Calvinism is not the gospel. The gospel is the gospel. But it's a reduction to the absurd or tautological (or both?). Because then I can't (by that reasoning) draw a reasonable facsimile of a circle (so that you recognize what it is I'm drawing) and then draw a reasonable facsimile of (for example) a square and say one is a circle and one is a square so that I am contrasting critical points to highlight what is wrong when certain people "nowadays" call a square a circle. In that situation, if you are going to say "That's not a circle", then you're missing the intent of my comparison by requiring some devotion to absolute literality in a situation where my purpose is something else.

Absolutely...if Spurgeon is teaching the details of the gospel and the details of Calvinism with precision, he's not going to make that statement (or at least I can't see him doing it - but then I am more sympathetic with Newton's approach). There is a degree of hyperbole in it made to emphasize the fact that he sees Calvinism as absolutely true, but I think in his sermon he makes it abundantly clear that his specific and precise focus is not Calvinism per se, but it is the God of the bible - the Christ of the bible.

I'm a little out of my depth here, but the way I read the English rendition (and have minimal understanding of the underlying Greek), Paul is engaging in something like that here :

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
Philippians 3:2

He effectively calls circumcision mutilation. Are they the same thing? Can we say circumcision is mutilation? The inflection is there to make a point. And if we were to look at tithing (for example) and call it protection money paid to God to protect and keep His people (in the context of Malachi 3:11) and so paint the picture of God in the light of a mafia don - what justice is there in that picture (even though there is truth in the fact that God promised to restore Israel's fortunes if they tithed faithfully)? It's a corruption of the truth even though there is an element of truth in it. The only point I'm trying to make here is that taking a concept to its extreme may render something literally wrong even though the core element is true. So with Spurgeon claiming Calvinism is the gospel - nothing more, nothing less - you need first of all to see the context in which he said that - and then realize that to take that to its full logical extent (i.e. that the full gospel is described accurately and completely by Calvinism and to take anything away from the complete doctrine of Calvinism is necessarily to take away from the gospel) is to import something into the statement that was not intended and so it caricatures it and changes it.

So while I would agree with the strictly logical statement that the statement "Calvinism is the gospel - nothing more nothing less" is not true, the foregoing posts serve to explain why I don't see it as a viable point of contention for assailing Calvinism since it adopts a caricature that I don't believe would be agreed to by most Calvinists or even be supported by the Calvinist corpus.

Please, do not take this as mean, or a putdown, because I am really not trying to attack you, but I just really don't understand what you're trying to say.

Are you not just trying to equivocate on the word 'Calvinism'? Would you say that, on the one hand, there is a sense of the word 'Calvinism' according to which the proposition, 'Calvinism is the gospel', is true, while, on the other hand, there is also a sense of the word 'Calvinism' according to which the proposition, 'Calvinism is the gospel' is false (and, of course, the proposition, 'Calvinism is not the gospel' is true)?

When you say that I am "assailing Calvinism", are you using the term 'Calvinism' in the same sense as when you use the term 'Calvinism' in affirming that the proposition, 'Calvinism is the gospel', "is not true"? Would you say that the object you claim I am assailing is the Calvinism that you are now openly declaring to be NOT the gospel?

Is there any sense of the word 'Calvinism' according to which you can readily affirm that Calvinism IS the gospel? For instance, what about the sense of the word 'Calvinism'--whatever that sense be--that "would be agreed to by most Calvinists"? Is Calvinism, in that sense, the gospel, or not?

Is there any sense of the word 'Calvinism' according to which you are ready to affirm that 'Every person who has never believed Calvinism is a person who has never been saved'?