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

[7djengo7]

More false accusations and misrepresentation

So, you believe neither that

1. Sinners for whom Christ died ARE lost before they are found/saved,

nor, that

2. Sinners for whom Christ died are NOT lost before they are found/saved.

Am I mistaken?

 

[beloved57]

So, you believe neither that

1. Sinners for whom Christ died ARE lost before they are found/saved,

nor, that

2. Sinners for whom Christ died are NOT lost before they are found/saved.

Am I mistaken?

I have many threads here on what i believe. Read them since now you want to know so bad. You should have done that before you made false accusations!

 

[7djengo7]

I have many threads here on what i believe. Read them since now you want to know so bad. You should have done that before you made false accusations!

I just asked you a very specific, point-blank question about two propositions, as to whether or not you believe them. Since you are a Calvinism huckster, and therefore, not an honest person, of course you cannot answer my question!

I've read some of your posts, and they amount to nothing but ravings with random chunks of Scripture patched in, here and there, indiscriminately, to no purpose, and proving nothing, other than that you are begging for attention.

In not a single one of your posts have you answered the questions I have asked you. But, since you are merely a Calvinism huckster--I mean, you don't even rise to the level of a would-be apologist for Calvinism (which is neither Biblically, nor rationally defensible)--obviously you always will, because you must, refuse to try to answer every question I ask about what you believe (or, at least, what you pretend to believe).

 

[beloved57]

I just asked you a very specific, point-blank question about two propositions, as to whether or not you believe them. Since you are a Calvinism huckster, and therefore, not an honest person, of course you cannot answer my question!

I've read some of your posts, and they amount to nothing but ravings with random chunks of Scripture patched in, here and there, indiscriminately, to no purpose, and proving nothing, other than that you are begging for attention.

In not a single one of your posts have you answered the questions I have asked you. But, since you are merely a Calvinism huckster--I mean, you don't even rise to the level of a would-be apologist for Calvinism (which is neither Biblically, nor rationally defensible)--obviously you always will, because you must, refuse to try to answer every question I ask about what you believe (or, at least, what you pretend to believe).

You heard what i said.

 

[7djengo7]

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.


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

Your reaction in the earlier thread was not even applicable in that thread, let alone in this thread.

Again, Professor Stonewaller, here's a question I recently asked you, and you have not yet answered it, even though this most recent post of yours, #37, was directly submitted as a reply to the very post (#35) in which I asked it of you:

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

Now, let's reword it, a bit, since you like to play stupid when you are asked embarrassing questions about Calvinism:

Is every person who has never believed what YOU think of as, and call "Calvinism"--whatever it be--a person who has never been saved? Yes or No?

 

[nikolai_42]

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.

I don't take any of this as an attack or anything like that. Honestly, I read your OP as trying to read something into the Spurgeon quote that I don't see. Logically speaking (and only in the strictest sense) can it be said that Calvinism does not equal the gospel - but to so assert carries more implications than simply saying (1 != 2) and/or that car is not red. You seemed to be going towards saying that if one admits that Calvinism is not the gospel then not only did Spurgeon lie, but if you follow Spurgeon (or Calvinism, generally) you don't have the gospel. Maybe not that extreme, but the implication of the title of the thread was that a Calvinist is bound to believe that ONLY if someone holds to Calvinism are they saved - because they believe the gospel (i.e. since Calvinism is the gospel according to Spurgeon). When I posted that quote by Newton, it expressed something slightly different - that those who are saved may or may not be Calvinists. He even admitted to feeling himself closer to some sincerely seeking Arminians than to some Calvinists. But he said that (ultimately) he believes every believer will (or ought) to come to the conclusions that are outlined by Calvinism as regards salvation and directly related matters. Not that the primacy and definition of Calvinism is in all ways identical to the primacy of the gospel.

This is what I was driving at - one can assert that the gospel is found in Calvinism (even in its purest form) and still not believe either that Calvinism IS the gospel or that one necessarily need to identify as a Calvinist to be a believer. Men can hold to the tenets of the gospel and not be saved. Men can agree in all points with both Calvinism and the gospel and not be saved. Men can err on a great many things and not be saved. But how one defines "gospel" and "Calvinism" (remembering that the way it was expressed in 1850's Great Britain may not be the same way it is expressed in 21st century America) is sometimes more about expression than about the substance behind it. I, for example, find myself in agreement with a great many points in Calvinism yet I can't honestly call myself a Calvinist. Maybe I am...I don't know...but in my few years on earth, I have found it to be most consonant with what I have found in scriptures even if there are things that are hard to understand, accept and even believe.

I agree with what I believe Spurgeon was saying even if I don't agree with the statement in a rigorously logical sense. That's why all the hand waving and explanation on my part.

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)?

Why stick with "is"? What's wrong with "contains"? "Expresses fully"? "Conveys"? I'm not equivocating but I do recognize that implications are legion by saying it the way Spurgeon said it (and trying to stick to it to its fullest logical extent). But since I don't believe Spurgeon meant it in quite the way you are taking it, I have to explain why.

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?

And that's why I went to all the trouble I did. You are attributing - both to Calvinism and the statement made by Spurgeon - implication where I don't believe any is necessarily warranted. You want to draw the conclusion (it seems) that if one will agree that "Calvinism is the gospel" is not true, then by extension you can say that I claim that Calvinism is not to be identified with the gospel. By no means does my agreeement that (logically speaking) the statement "Calvinism is the gospel - and nothing else" is not true (again, only in the strictest logical sense) justify any diminution of either Calvinism's truth or it's identification with 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?

Again, "is" or "is not" is far too simplistic a link between "Calvinism" and "the gospel" to be of any meaningful use.

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'?

Now you are going further to not only assert that Calvinism is not the gospel, but Calvinism and the gospel are mutually exclusive. In no sense would I say that. The negation of "Calvinism is the gospel - and nothing else" requires no absolute non-identification - it only requires that the two are not entirely synonymous in every conceivable way.

Is the gospel preached in Calvinism? I believe it is.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Is every person who has never believed what YOU think of as, and call "Calvinism"--whatever it be--a person who has never been saved? Yes or No?

I do consider today's Arminians confused and denying themselves of the full measure of blessedness that comes from the doctrines of grace. That does not unilaterally place them all outside the faith.

Clearly my answer to your question is "No." The same could be said of Calvinists, for not all that profess Calvinism are automatically assumed to be saved.

You would know this if you took the time to know your interlocutor before weighing in with these juvenile tactics:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-reprobation&p=4729053&viewfull=1#post4729053

See also:
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/arminians.html

AMR

 

[7djengo7]

I do consider today's Arminians confused and denying themselves of the full measure of blessedness that comes from the doctrines of grace. That does not unilaterally place them all outside the faith.

Clearly my answer to your question is "No." The same could be said of Calvinists, for not all that profess Calvinism are automatically assumed to be saved.

You would know this if you took the time to know your interlocutor before weighing in with these juvenile tactics:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-reprobation&p=4729053&viewfull=1#post4729053

See also:
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/arminians.html

AMR

Thank you, Sir, for answering the question I asked you.

That does not unilaterally place [all Arminians] outside the faith.

Outside what faith, though?

Refusing to believe, nay, flat-out denying essential propositions of Calvinism, such as that Christ never loved, never died for all mankind, indeed places a person outside Calvinism, but you seem to say that it does not place them "outside the faith". Here, you are necessarily distinguishing Calvinism from whatever it is you refer to as "the faith," and making Calvinism to be a mere adjunct of it.

The same could be said of Calvinists, for not all that profess Calvinism are automatically assumed to be saved.

But, I would not consider a person to be a Calvinist if I thought he/she merely professes Calvinism, and does not believe Calvinism. And so, if I thought it the case that every person who is saved is saved through believing Calvinism, then I would (to borrow your term) "automatically" believe that for a person to be a Calvinist is for that person to be saved, and that for a person to have never been a Calvinist is for that person never to have been saved.

I do consider today's Arminians confused and denying themselves of the full measure of blessedness that comes from the doctrines of grace.

But, if the doctrines of grace--if Calvinism--is not the faith, but an adjunct to it, is there not supposed already, nevertheless, to be a plentiful measure of blessedness that comes from the faith, by itself, diminished nothing by absence of faith in any supplemental doctrines on the side?

Arminians, if I mistake not, believe that Christ loved, and died for all mankind, and, in that belief, they are contradicting what Calvinists believe, which is that Christ did not love, and did not die for all mankind. If the proposition that Christ did not die for all mankind is a gospel proposition, then anybody who has not believed it has not believed the gospel.

In the article you linked for me, I read:

But some Arminians (I would argue, the ones that are saved) know in their heart that salvation IS all the work of God and IS all by grace. So they pray for God to save sinners! Their true theology comes out in their prayers, even if they don't want to admit it. I feel that, over time and with patience, these people would become reformed in theology if they had good teaching and instruction.

If Arminianism is a doctrine in contradiction to the doctrine that "salvation IS all the work of God and IS all by grace," then any person who believes that "salvation IS all the work of God and IS all by grace" is, by definition, no Arminian at all, but an anti-Arminian, a.k.a. a Calvinist, or if you will, an Augustinian. The author says that these people whom he is calling "Arminians" actually "know in their heart that salvation IS all the work of God and IS all by grace", which is exactly what Calvinists claim to know in their hearts. So, obviously these people whom the author is calling "Arminians" are already, by definition, "reformed in theology," and thus, his discussion of them is quite irrelevant to the title of his article, Are Arminians Saved? He has not answered the question he set out to answer, because the question was about Arminians, not about "Arminians"--not about non-Arminians.

Something else that the author wrote catches my attention:

...I again find myself concerned for their souls...

I, for one, do not understand how any Calvinist can fancy such concern to be at all consistent with Calvinism. If I am not mistaken, according to Calvinism, God does not love all mankind; there are some persons--perhaps the vast majority of mankind--whom God does not love. God does not love these people, so, how much sense would it make to say that God is "concerned for their souls"? None. God is not concerned for their unfathomably dismal prospect of a future in endless, fiery torment; nay, according to Calvinism, He predestinated them to that horrific eschatological plight, according to His good pleasure. He is pleased with, rather than sorrowful over, the prospect of their horror and torment. And yet, Calvinists come along and claim that they, themselves, have a sorrowful heart for the lost. Now, if I'm not mistaken, according to Calvinism, there is no warrant to say to the lost, indiscriminately, "Jesus loves you, and He died for you," since the Calvinist knows not (and avows that he knows not) the status of the individual. Is this or that lost guy one of God's elect, or is he one of the non-elect, the eternally reprobate? The Calvinist claims not to know either way, and so, since he knows not, he doesn't want to risk affirming falsehood to a non-elect guy: "Hey, you. Jesus loves you, and He died for you!"

But, what seems, to me, a deeper question, here, is, why should the Calvinist even be concerned, and even the least bit moved with passion and sorrow over the souls of those whom, according to Calvinism, Jesus, Himself, does not even love or sorrow over? Why should the Calvinist be moved with any pity at all over the soul's plight whom Calvinism's Jesus, according to His own good pleasure, predestined to an inexorable suffering of endless, unmitigated agony? Why should the Calvinist, himself, love those whom Calvinism's Jesus does not love? Whence comes this compassion for souls by which Calvinists claim to be moved to preaching Calvinism? Does the Holy Spirit imbue them with it? I'm specifically talking about those non-elect to whom Calvinists reach out with the imperative to repent and believe Calvinism. If God does not love, nor pity those non-elect persons, it seems quite strange to imagine that the Holy Spirit would fill the Calvinist with a compassion and pity for those non-elect persons. It seems more like the Calvinist's love and compassion for those whom God, Himself, does not even love, needs to be filed, instead, under the category of prideful defiance of God. It seems that, on account of a cognitive dissonance, the Calvinist's professed sorrow and compassion over the plight of the non-elect amounts to a declaration that, "Whereas God does not love y'all at all, and is actually pleased to throw you into hell to watch you burn, we, on the contrary, have no pleasure in the thought of your burning, and we do love you, and are very sorry to see your suffering!"

Now, of course, I am not the least bit complaining against those Calvinists who are, indeed, compassionate in regard to the plight of those they consider the non-elect--I am not complaining against them for their compassion. What I am complaining about is the cognitive dissonance that allows them to feel free to be compassionate in that way while believing things which necessarily clash with that compassion. I'm all for their (your?) compassion for the non-elect, but that very compassion is, as far as I can tell, a stark testimony against Calvinism.

You would know this if you took the time to know your interlocutor before weighing in with these juvenile tactics

And only after doing so, you'd approve of juvenile tactics, eh?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Does God Love the Reprobate?

Does God Love the Reprobate?

Refusing to believe, nay, flat-out denying essential propositions of Calvinism, such as that Christ never loved, never died for all mankind, indeed places a person outside Calvinism, but you seem to say that it does not place them "outside the faith". Here, you are necessarily distinguishing Calvinism from whatever it is you refer to as "the faith," and making Calvinism to be a mere adjunct of it.

As soon as the word "reprobate" is used or implied, the waters are muddied. God does not love the reprobate as such, for reprobation required perfect hatred. But it would be quite appropriate to say that God loves His own image; hence, insofar as men are still the image of God in a broader sense, it is acceptable to speak, in a qualified sense, of God loving all men without drawing distinctions between elect and reprobate. That "lump of clay" in God's hands is made in the image of God irrespective of election and reprobation. God must have loved men as men, otherwise He would not have made them men.

The love God shows to men as men is as effectual as the love He shows the elect. It is simply that God does not purpose to express His love in a saving way to all men. He purposes to make some men objects of wrath, providentially sustaining them, and overruling their actions for His glory. These are His prerogatives and things we are forbidden from searching out. Yet insofar as He loves all men we can say that the goodwill He bears to them has the effect of producing the benefits He intends for them.

So we can certainly say God loves the Elect as a Father loves His Children. God loves the Reprobate as a Creator loves that which He creates. The Creator's love for the created does not extend to salvation.

The simple answer is "Yes, God does have a love that extends even to the reprobate," since He has a love of benevolence over all His creation, which, obviously, includes the reprobate (Matthew 5:43-48, Acts 14: 14-18).

He also, of course, hates Esau (Romans 9:6-13), meaning that God does not love the reprobate with a peculiar redeeming love as He does the elect, whom He delights to save. This is all part of the high mystery of predestination (WCF 3.8), which is to be handled with special prudence and care so that all who "sincerely obey the gospel" may enjoy assurance.

It has somehow become an argument for anti-Calvinists to reason thusly: "How can I spread the Gospel if I can't tell a man that Jesus loves you and died for you?"

One is usually dealing with people who assume that this is the Gospel presentation. It is not, but it is shocking how many teachers there are that inculcate Christians to believe this way: God loves all mankind equally and gives no preference to any.

Thus, when the Biblical concept of an Elect that God has chosen before the foundation of the world is presented, it completely runs contrary to their pre-suppositions about the character of God. It's almost a waste of time to talk about God's love to an anti-Calvinist until you point out how the Gospel is heralded both in Acts and in the Epistles.

Due to a defective view of the love of God that finds its root in a basic denial of the Fall of Man, anti-Calvinists tend to view grace as an entitlement. Too many Christians are surprised at suffering and death instead of being surprised about Grace. That is, many will couch the idea of reprobation as God sending innocent people to Hell because God made them reject Him. I honestly shudder when I hear people talk this way. How a man can view reprobation in such a manner makes me wonder if he has ever fled to the Cross for refuge.

The un-Scriptural view and real lack of a federal theology, wherein some persons don't really understand the just condemnation that all men face in Adam, and their utter need for a second Adam that takes away the Curse is at the root of confusion on this topic. The term "love" takes on more meaning because it's placed in the context of man's condition and God's grace toward rebel sinners.

Arminians, if I mistake not, believe that Christ loved, and died for all mankind, and, in that belief, they are contradicting what Calvinists believe, which is that Christ did not love, and did not die for all mankind. If the proposition that Christ did not die for all mankind is a gospel proposition, then anybody who has not believed it has not believed the gospel.

The Arminian and others are guilty of hypothetical universalism when they make the claim that Christ atoned for all persons. It is to hypothetically assume that if all believed all would be saved. This is to make the actual work of Our Lord but a possibility, not an actuality.

Yet, Scripture emphasizes the definite relation of the mission of Christ, and specifically of His death to those whom He actually redeems. Christ gave Himself for His people (Mt. 1:21), for His friends (John 15:13), for His sheep (John 10:15), for his church (Eph. 5:23–26, Acts 20:28), for many (Mt. 20:28; 26:28; Mk. 10:45), for us (Tit. 2:14), for me (Gal. 2:20). These expressions need not be construed as exclusive of others not explicitly mentioned—(this is quite manifest in the case of Gal. 2:20)—but the specific reference in all these passages certainly indicates that the relationship of the work of Christ to those who are saved is different from that which it bears to those who are lost.

The Scriptural language concerning the work of Jesus Christ does indicate more than a general intention which would await the fulfillment of additional conditions before effectuation could be achieved. Specifically the Scripture represents Christ’s work as redemption (Eph. 1:7; Rom. 3:24; I Pet. 1:18, 19; Matt. 20:28, etc.): this implies that the people in view are actually redeemed. The Scripture speaks of propitiation (I John 2:2, 4:10; Rom. 3:24, Heb. 2:17): this term implies that God is actually appeased and that He does not deal any further in terms of His righteous anger with those who are under the benefit of propitiation. The Scripture speaks of reconciliation (Col. 1:21, 22; Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:18–20, etc.): this term implies that those who were estranged are actually brought back into a relationship of friendship and fellowship.

What kind of redemption would this be where the redeemed are still under the power of the enemy? What kind of propitiation, where God still deals in wrath? What kind of reconciliation where estrangement continues to exist and is even sealed for eternity? These three terms, severally and jointly, bear witness to the fact that the Scripture views the work of Christ as bringing about the effectuation of salvation.

In effect, per hypothetical universalism, God becomes a debtor to those that believe, merely rubber-stamping their wise choice. The gospel includes His active and passive obedience for those He came to redeem. The extent of the atonement is an internecine discussion per se. The teachings of Scripture that Our Lord came to redeem those given to Him is related to the scope of the Gospel, not to the Gospel a se.

As noted, the question must be raised whether the purpose of the work of Christ is to effect divine reconciliation and human redemption, or merely to render God reconcilable and man savable. If the former, definite atonement follows; if the latter, a human ingredient is to be super-added to the work of Christ. It is this human ingredient which determines the difference between the saved and the lost, and the conclusion follows that the work of Christ by itself actually saves no one. This would appear derogatory to Christ and repugnant to Scripture. A conditional impetration is really no impetration at all.

If Arminianism is a doctrine in contradiction to the doctrine that "salvation IS all the work of God and IS all by grace," then any person who believes that "salvation IS all the work of God and IS all by grace" is, by definition, no Arminian at all, but an anti-Arminian, a.k.a. a Calvinist, or if you will, an Augustinian. The author says that these people whom he is calling "Arminians" actually "know in their heart that salvation IS all the work of God and IS all by grace", which is exactly what Calvinists claim to know in their hearts. So, obviously these people whom the author is calling "Arminians" are already, by definition, "reformed in theology," and thus, his discussion of them is quite irrelevant to the title of his article, Are Arminians Saved? He has not answered the question he set out to answer, because the question was about Arminians, not about "Arminians"--not about non-Arminians.

All of which is to say, as we Reformed are fond of so doing, "all Arminians are but Calvinists in training" or "Arminians are saved...just barely."

The author of that item recognizes the historical reality that there are no true Arminians of the days of Arminius today. Those were the rank heretics denounced at Dordt. Hence, his treatment therein about what we call "Arminians" today.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, according to Calvinism, there is no warrant to say to the lost, indiscriminately, "Jesus loves you, and He died for you," since the Calvinist knows not (and avows that he knows not) the status of the individual.

Truely stated.

But, what seems, to me, a deeper question, here, is, why should the Calvinist even be concerned, and even the least bit moved with passion and sorrow over the souls of those whom, according to Calvinism, Jesus, Himself, does not even love or sorrow over?

We need to appreciate Jesus as the Mediatorial Prophet, Priest, and King of his church. It is not fitting to read every statement of Jesus (who is God the Son) during his humiliation, as if he always speaks in his full capacity as the Ascended Lord, according to all his combined powers in hypostatic union, the God-Man. Frequently he speaks as the King of visible-Israel. He has come for the good of this collective portion especially; and they (the leaders, and their followers) are in process of repudiating him who is given them for a blessing. Is this not truly and objectively sad?

The Man, Christ Jesus, is fully capable of appreciating how that rebellion and sin had blinded the eyes and hearts of so many pitiful people, who above all the rest of the people on earth had one of the most extraordinary opportunities to repent and believe in God's saving Promise, and yet refused to do so, and prevented others from doing so; Mt. 23:37, "...and ye would not." I cannot think why such an epic tragedy should not wring tears of grief, of sorrow, of frustration, of rage from the heart of One who had a clearer understanding of how this all must eventuate than anyone around him.

Here is One perfectly aware of how the wrath of God will be earned by this "city," by her leadership and by those who persist in identifying with them. He also knows that their blindness is willful, self-chosen. Just because one man's participation is ordained by God and certain, does not mean that he does not also choose and embrace his destiny. This is just that difference between predestination and fatalism. The latter presumes a foiled free-will whose better aims were deflected, and whose better hopes were dashed, despite the teachings of Scripture about the lack of any better aims or hopes in the lost person (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1; Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3; Eph. 2:3;1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 6:16-20).

If we only allow a Jesus who always sublimates his ordinary human feeling into a perfect expression of resignation and repose in the ultimate aims of the godhead, then we actually have a less-than-human Christ. We have no explanation for Jesus in Gethsemane. We do not have a sympathetic High-Priest, because his temptations were meaningless. We do not have One who weeps at the door of a tomb from which he intends to summon a dead man to life in mere minutes.

AMR

 

[glorydaz]

The love God shows to men as men is as effectual as the love He shows the elect. It is simply that God does not purpose to express His love in a saving way to all men. He purposes to make some men objects of wrath, providentially sustaining them, and overruling their actions for His glory. These are His prerogatives and things we are forbidden from searching out. Yet insofar as He loves all men we can say that the goodwill He bears to them has the effect of producing the benefits He intends for them.


AMR

That for His glory?

Nothing in the above paragraph is for God's glory.

And forbidden from searching it out? Seriously, AMR?

 

[7djengo7]

Honestly, I read your OP as trying to read something into the Spurgeon quote that I don't see.

Well, again, here is the Spurgeon quote:

Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

It is you who is, quite literally, trying to read something into the Spurgeon quote:

Is the gospel preached in Calvinism? I believe it is.

But, Spurgeon did not write:

Calvinism is [that in which] the gospel [is preached], and nothing else.

You wrote:

Why stick with "is"? What's wrong with "contains"? "Expresses fully"? "Conveys"?

But Spurgeon did not write:

Calvinism is [that which contains] the gospel, and nothing else.

Nor:

Calvinism is [that which expresses fully] the gospel, and nothing else.

I, for one, do not read any of these things into Spurgeon's quote; these are things that you are pretending to see in his quote.

Men can agree in all points with both Calvinism and the gospel and not be saved.

Are you saying what I think you are saying, here? One can agree with the gospel and not be saved? I, for one, do not see that there is any difference between agreeing with the gospel and believing the gospel, and so, it really looks as though you are saying that one can believe the gospel and not be saved. Are you saying that someone can believe the gospel, and yet not be saved?

 

[nikolai_42]

Well, again, here is the Spurgeon quote:



It is you who is, quite literally, trying to read something into the Spurgeon quote:



But, Spurgeon did not write:

Calvinism is [that in which] the gospel [is preached], and nothing else.

You wrote:



But Spurgeon did not write:

Calvinism is [that which contains] the gospel, and nothing else.

Nor:

Calvinism is [that which expresses fully] the gospel, and nothing else.

I, for one, do not read any of these things into Spurgeon's quote; these are things that you are pretending to see in his quote.



Are you saying what I think you are saying, here? One can agree with the gospel and not be saved? I, for one, do not see that there is any difference between agreeing with the gospel and believing the gospel, and so, it really looks as though you are saying that one can believe the gospel and not be saved. Are you saying that someone can believe the gospel, and yet not be saved?

I think you're trying to make hay out of a quote that - as I read it in context - I don't see Spurgeon pushing to the extent you are. I read a Spurgeon subordinating any formalizing of man (Calvinism, specifically) to the scriptures and essentially saying that the points of Calvinism as preached in his day he finds entirely consonant with what he reads in scriptures - he even itemizes them and explains. He then proceeds to preach on Christ crucified. Never (as I recall) returning to raise the specific issue of Calvinism again in his message. I won't again try to (however amateurishly and ham-handedly) explain in detail how it is I read that statement beyond what I say here. I'm sure there are other such statements that could be pushed to their logical consequence (stripped of the intent of the speaker). For we should surely go after Paul for daring to be so duplicitous as to tell the Ephesian church one thing :

For by grace are ye saved through faith...
Ephesians 2:8a

...and the Roman church something else :

For we are saved by hope...
Romans 8:24a

 

[Right Divider]

For by grace are ye saved through faith...
Ephesians 2:8a

...and the Roman church something else :

For we are saved by hope...
Romans 8:24a

Read it IN CONTEXT

Rom 8:18 KJV For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.​

Paul is NOT saying that it is hope that saves us.

 

[nikolai_42]

Read it IN CONTEXT

Rom 8:18 KJV For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.​

Paul is NOT saying that it is hope that saves us.

So even though the words say that hope saves us, it's possible that that's not precisely what he means? That he has limited what he means by that phrase elsewhere in his letter?

 

[Right Divider]

So even though the words say that hope saves us, it's possible that that's not precisely what he means? That he has limited what he means by that phrase elsewhere in his letter?

So you really don't understand how context works?

Indeed, you have to use what he says before to determine what he means after. And sometimes it works the other way around.

A single word, or even a few words together do NOT have a meaning independent of the larger context.

 

[nikolai_42]

So you really don't understand how context works?

Indeed, you have to use what he says before to determine what he means after. And sometimes it works the other way around.

A single word, or even a few words together do NOT have a meaning independent of the larger context.

I was trying to make a point when I brought up the contrast between what Paul said to the Romans and what he said to the Ephesians. And what you have said is my point. The only reason I didn't use the word "context" is that even with context, Paul still made that statement (that hope saves). And in isolation from Ephesians, there still is lacking something to connect the two that neither passage contains. But, essentially, context is the issue.

So when Spurgeon says "Calvinism is the gospel" (in the middle of a sermon where he is exhorting others and being less than rigorously logical with his words - not illogical, mind you), wouldn't it make sense to not isolate that statement for the purposes of making specific claims on behalf of Calvinism? Claims we might be justified in expecting that Spurgeon might not necessarily agree to? Certainly not on the basis of one sentence in the middle of a sermon...

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That for His glory?

Nothing in the above paragraph is for God's glory.

And forbidden from searching it out? Seriously, AMR?

God's glory is manifested in all His attributes. All God's attributes inhere one another. There are no attributes elevated above another. God is His attributes. God is jealous about all His attributes (Nah. 1:2; Ex. 20:4-6).

How does God display His mercy unless there are the undeserving?
How is God's glory in His holy wrath towards sin made manifest unless there are those that deserve His holy wrath?
What God has revealed in Holy Writ is ours to know. When God shuts His mouth, so should we (Deut. 29:29).

AMR

 

[Idolater]

What God has revealed in Holy Writ is ours to know. When God shuts His mouth, so should we (Deut. 29:29).

So the Apostles only said that which is written in the New Testament? They never uttered a single thing, that isn't recorded for us in the Bible?

I know I know. 'Romanists. Sigh.'

And that, from a Clavinist.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So the Apostles only said that which is written in the New Testament? They never uttered a single thing, that isn't recorded for us in the Bible?

I know I know. 'Romanists. Sigh.'

Yes, Romanists, indeed. If I recall, are you the fellow who is not actually in full communion with Rome, but merely one who really, really, likes them, yet unable to actually join them for "personal" reasons? I may have you confused with another.

We have but one infallible and final authority (Scripture) for life and faith, not the magisterium, nor the traditions claimed by Rome.

Romanists advocate three authorities: Scripture, the teaching office of the church, and tradition. The Catholic Catechism says, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone." The faithful should receive all their teaching "with docility" (par. 85, 95). Tradition, Scripture "and the Magisterium of the Church" work together for "the salvation of souls."

Thus the Romanists affirms prima scripture, the primacy of Scripture. Scripture is the primary source for theology, but not the final source. Tradition and church teaching effectively limit Scripture's authority. If a matter is uncertain in Scripture, and tradition has an authoritative interpretation, then tradition has the final word.

Nonsense abounds.

AMR

 

[7djengo7]

That does not unilaterally place [all Arminians] outside the faith.

In post #48, I had asked you specifically what faith you were talking about when you stated that some Arminians are not "outside the faith".

Arminians believe, as an essential proposition of Arminianism, that Christ died for all mankind; they deny the proposition that Christ did not die for all mankind. How, then, can they fail to be outside of the faith that Christ did not die for all mankind?

What faith, exactly, are you declaring that some Arminians are not outside? Or, in other words, what faith are you declaring that some Arminians are inside?