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

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
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.

So, he purposes to express His love for the non-elect in a damning way toward them, and in an unmitigated, agonizing, endless fiery torment way toward them? With love for the non-elect like that, what's the use of hate?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
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?"

Being a Calvinist, could you say, about yourself, that Jesus loves you and died for you?

I imagine that, as a Calvinist, you consider yourself to be elect, and, in addition to that, that you consider some other persons to, also, be elect. I imagine that you consider yourself as having, or being in, fellowship with other elect individuals, whom you could specifically name. Now, could you, making eye contact with such an individual, state to them, "Jesus loves you and died for you"?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
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.

Are you trying to imply, here, that the proposition (which is about the extent of the atonement), 'Christ did not die for all mankind', is not a constituent proposition of the gospel?

Saying that "the extent of the atonement is an internecine discussion per se" has a bit of a "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" ring to it.

If it is a constituent proposition of the gospel, then a person who has never believed that Christ did not die for all mankind has never believed the gospel, and, if a person who has never believed the gospel has never been saved, then a person who has never believed that Christ did not die for all mankind is a person who has never been saved. In that case, it seems to be something that ought not be swept under the rug by Calvinists as unnecessarily divisive, or as merely distracting from supposedly more important, or more sublime issues. The joke about Arminians being Calvinists-in-training tends to sweep discussion of the extent of the atonement under the rug, as though it is not a crucial dividing line between believers of the gospel and unbelievers thereof.

If it is not a constituent proposition of the gospel, then a person who believes that Christ died for all mankind is necessarily, in so believing, not contradicting the gospel, and discussion about the extent of the atonement can just as well be relegated to a class of lesser, non-evangelical priorities.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
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

Aren't you contradicting what you were saying with these words in yellow above?

Where does "deserving" come in?

Nor do I believe these are "secret things".
These are things everyone has a right and a duty to know about God.

Is He righteous? Yes.
What more needs to be said?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So, he purposes to express His love for the non-elect in a damning way toward them, and in an unmitigated, agonizing, endless fiery torment way toward them? With love for the non-elect like that, what's the use of hate?
Mercy is getting what you do not deserve. Justice is getting exactly what you deserve.

One must start with the fall of Adam, our federal representative, made upright, yet mutable. Had he fulfilled his probationary period in the Covenant of Works, he and all his progeny would have enjoyed eternal life in bliss and glory with God. He did not, plunging all his progeny and creation into corruption. We are not born morally neutral and become sinners when we sin. Rather, we sin because we are born sinners and deserve nothing but God's justice. The thing that should amaze us and drive us to our knees is that God saves even one person from all born in Adam.

If one has their doctrine concerning the dire effects of the fall of Adam aright, this makes perfect sense. If one does not, then all manner of error is bound to follow.

God justly tells the reprobate:
"I am not going to force you to ultimately make the wrong choice; I am also not going to prevent you from ultimately making the wrong choice."

God graciously tells the elect:
"I am not going to force you to ultimately make the wrong choice; I am going to prevent you from ultimately making the wrong choice."

After all, God need not intervene to bring about evil. We will do that all on our own. Good, however, does require intervention on God's part, for we are fallen and utterly sinful.

AMR
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Being a Calvinist, could you say, about yourself, that Jesus loves you and died for you?
It matters not whether I am a Calvinist or Baptist, etc. I can say this now that I am saved and assured of the same. Before that moment, over 50 years ago, I could not say this, for I certainly did not want it and hated God with every breath I drew.

I imagine that, as a Calvinist, you consider yourself to be elect, and, in addition to that, that you consider some other persons to, also, be elect. I imagine that you consider yourself as having, or being in, fellowship with other elect individuals, whom you could specifically name. Now, could you, making eye contact with such an individual, state to them, "Jesus loves you and died for you"?
All covenanted members of the church militant are presumed to be among the elect. This is right and proper to assume absent evidence to the contrary.

If you have a point you are wanting to make, rather than "twenty-questions", or Whack-A-Mole, it would further the discussion to just make your point.

AMR
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Mercy is getting what you do not deserve. Justice is getting exactly what you deserve.

One must start with the fall of Adam, our federal representative, made upright, yet mutable. Had he fulfilled his probationary period in the Covenant of Works, he and all his progeny would have enjoyed eternal life in bliss and glory with God. He did not, plunging all his progeny and creation into corruption. We are not born morally neutral and become sinners when we sin. Rather, we sin because we are born sinners and deserve nothing but God's justice. The thing that should amaze us and drive us to our knees is that God saves even one person from all born in Adam.

If one has their doctrine concerning the dire effects of the fall of Adam aright, this makes perfect sense. If one does not, then all manner of error is bound to follow.

God justly tells the reprobate:
"I am not going to force you to ultimately make the wrong choice; I am also not going to prevent you from ultimately making the wrong choice."

God graciously tells the elect:
"I am not going to force you to ultimately make the wrong choice; I am going to prevent you from ultimately making the wrong choice."

After all, God need not intervene to bring about evil. We will do that all on our own. Good, however, does require intervention on God's part, for we are fallen and utterly sinful.

AMR

So, if Adam had kept his stuff together and not "swayed away from the path of righteousness" then everyone would be okay and there wouldn't be any such thing as the "elect" or "reprobate"? There'd be no curse whereby some seemingly arbitrary system of people being selected for grace occurs? Also, your wording amounts to little other than semantics. If God is going to prevent the elect from making "the wrong choice" then choice is rendered moot anyway.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
So, he purposes to express His love for the non-elect in a damning way toward them, and in an unmitigated, agonizing, endless fiery torment way toward them? With love for the non-elect like that, what's the use of hate?

Well, there isn't any use for it. Hardly ties in with the Biblical definition of love either.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If God is going to prevent the elect from making "the wrong choice" then choice is rendered moot anyway.
God must intervene when it comes to grace and mercy. No one in Adam possesses the moral ability to choose wisely. God quickens those upon whom He has set His salvific preference, such that their own choice will be for the good. God is not doing the believing for those so quickened.

AMR
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Are you trying to imply, here, that the proposition (which is about the extent of the atonement), 'Christ did not die for all mankind', is not a constituent proposition of the gospel?
That is exactly what I am stating, not implying. The extent of the atonement is not part and parcel of that which saves someone. That those who are saved may never come to fully understand the distinctions between the extent of the atonement, versus its sufficient virtue, is not something that makes them "unsaved". Rather it makes them confused. Our Lord certainly knows for whom He came to redeem. Whether we know it (some of us do) or do not know it is not abrogating the promise that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved and not lost to Him. That is the duty of all. Do that. The rest will work out as the providence of God would have it.

AMR
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
God must intervene when it comes to grace and mercy. No one in Adam possesses the moral ability to choose wisely. God quickens those upon whom He has set His salvific preference, such that their own choice will be for the good. God is not doing the believing for those so quickened.

AMR

I submit this notion of "In Adam" has been stretched far beyond what was intended by the few verses from Scripture from which it's taken. If that error was fixed this whole notion of Total Depravity would fall.

Besides, you seem to be suggesting the Lord was not being honest when He told Cain in Gen. 4:6-7a " And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Mercy is getting what you do not deserve.

That's grace, not mercy.

Mercy is NOT getting what one DOES deserve.

Justice is getting exactly what you deserve.

One must start with the fall of Adam, our federal representative, made upright, yet mutable. Had he fulfilled his probationary period in the Covenant of Works, he and all his progeny would have enjoyed eternal life in bliss and glory with God. He did not, plunging all his progeny and creation into corruption. We are not born morally neutral and become sinners when we sin. Rather, we sin because we are born sinners and deserve nothing but God's justice. The thing that should amaze us and drive us to our knees is that God saves even one person from all born in Adam.

If one has their doctrine concerning the dire effects of the fall of Adam aright, this makes perfect sense. If one does not, then all manner of error is bound to follow.

God justly tells the reprobate:
"I am not going to force you to ultimately make the wrong choice; I am also not going to prevent you from ultimately making the wrong choice."

God graciously tells the elect:
"I am not going to force you to ultimately make the wrong choice; I am going to prevent you from ultimately making the wrong choice."

After all, God need not intervene to bring about evil. We will do that all on our own. Good, however, does require intervention on God's part, for we are fallen and utterly sinful.

AMR
 

beloved57

Well-known member
amr

That is the duty of all.

Thats law keeping salvation. Do a duty to get saved, the word duty means:


  • something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation.
  • the binding or obligatory force of something that is morally or legally right; moral or legal obligation.
  • an action or task required by a person's position or occupation; function:

Its also like saying men have a duty to become a Sheep of Christ, or a duty to become a Christian. A obligation to have the Faith of Gods Elect.
 

beloved57

Well-known member

MennoSota

New member
Are you trying to imply, here, that the proposition (which is about the extent of the atonement), 'Christ did not die for all mankind', is not a constituent proposition of the gospel?

Do you often speak in double negatives?
"Christ did...not...die for all mankind
is...not...a constituent proposition of the gospel.
Turn this around:
"Christ died for all mankind is your proposition of the gospel."
It seems you ignore all the scripture from Jesus where he chooses his disciples and tells them that he will bring to salvation all that the Father has given him.
It seems you ignore Jesus warning about hell.
Your proposition requires God to save all humanity, yet you add a wrinkle because the entire responsibility, in your proposition, for salvation must lie fully upon the human will and nowhere else.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
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?

A man can agree that a chair has the capability to hold him up yet not sit on that chair. Likewise, a man can agree with what is told him about himself, about God and about God in Christ bringing salvation yet (honestly) state that he loves his sin and simply turn from the offer of the gospel. Such a man agrees with Christ but does not follow Him or trust him.

EDIT: I just want to be clear that I see it as a matter of unbelief - agreement (as I understand it) is not necessarily consonant with salvific belief. Agreement is more superficial.
 
Last edited:

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
God must intervene when it comes to grace and mercy. No one in Adam possesses the moral ability to choose wisely. God quickens those upon whom He has set His salvific preference, such that their own choice will be for the good. God is not doing the believing for those so quickened.

AMR

Again, there's no "choice" involved if God intervenes to ensure that a person makes a "decision" for the good.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
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.
Who I am, or what my story is, is beside the point here. My position is Catholic in my theology, just as yours is Reformed, and as others' here's Open Dispensationalism. Which school of theological thought one subscribes to, does not require membership in any particular ecclesial community tradition. Catholicism does 'come with' an ecclesial community tradition, it is true, but this does not bear on whether or not a Christian can hold to Catholicism, theologically.

fyi, I am a pastor of a small non-Catholic church, so my bodily conversion to Catholicism is not as simple for me, as it would be for most other Christians. I've done my duty as pastor of my small flock, and sought out the truth of our faith in order to teach the truth, and I've come up 'Catholic' in my quest. It's been through decades of prayerful Scripture study, theological study, and historical study, that I've arrived to where I have. Not that any of this bears on what we're talking about here, but just fyi.
We have but one infallible and final authority (Scripture) for life and faith, not the magisterium, nor the traditions claimed by Rome.
Bald assertion, nowhere found in the Bible. What Is found in the Bible, are the Church's authentic pastors, the bishops (the whole of them called the Church's Magisterium, the episcopal office, that office tasked specifically with teaching our faith). Perhaps you're frightened that we ascribe to them too much power, and that they could use that power to supersede the Scripture, but that has never happened, not once, and nor could or would it, given the specific job description of the bishops, which is to teach us what the Apostles themselves taught the earliest Church, before there was ever even the hint of a 'New Testament,' back when the only scriptures were the Old Testament, and the only Apostolic teachings were from their own tongues (which could speak many different languages, but I digress).

It was ancient bishops who finalized the New Testament, and in fact the canon of Sacred Scripture. They drew upon what they knew the Apostles taught, wrt specific doctrines, and also wrt which writings were authorized Scripture, and which were not.

All New Testament books present authentic Apostolic teachings unvarnished, that's why they're Scripture. And all Old Testament books (including the seven ones missing from the Protestant Bibles) are authorized as Scripture by the Apostles as well. The fact of the canon of Scripture testifies to the authority given to the Apostles by Christ Himself when He commissioned them.
Romanists advocate three authorities: Scripture, the teaching office of the church, and tradition.
And I've set out precisely how those three relate with each other. The ultimate authority is Christ Himself, and He gave His authority to administrate His Church directly to His Apostles. He handpicked each of them, including the Apostle Paul.

These men instituted Holy Orders, by which they ordained men as bishops, who are the Church's authentic 'senior' pastors, through the imposition of their own hands. The bishops hold the same office as the Apostles did as 'senior' pastors of the Church, and this is why we talk about 'Apostolic succession,' since all bishops were holding that same office.

The Apostles possessed Christ's pastoral and teaching authority, and they gave His authority to the bishops that they consecrated themselves. Furthermore, they instructed these bishops to continue Holy Orders, and to consecrate new bishops themselves. All Catholic (and Orthodox) bishops today are men who've been consecrated just as that 'second generation' of bishops were; by bishops who were previously consecrated. This line of bishops has continued from the beginning of the Church, unceasingly, until today.

Some famous ancient bishops: Timothy and Titus, Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Jerome, Augustine, Pope Gregory the Great, etc. All these bishops were Catholic in their theology.

The relationship between "Scripture, the teaching office of the church, and [Sacred] tradition," is that the bishops (the teaching office) confirmed what writings there are, that are Scripture, and Sacred Tradition are all the Apostolic teachings that are not found in Scripture, not through any design, but through happenstance. No matter what the New Testament wound up containing, does not change Sacred Tradition. In the earliest years of the Church, Scripture was just the Old Testament, just the Apostles were the teaching office, and just what they taught then through word-of-mouth, was Sacred 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."
Right.
Thus the Romanists affirms prima scripture, the primacy of Scripture.
I would say that Sacred Tradition is partially recorded in the New Testament, so Scripture is Sacred Tradition, just that portion of Sacred Tradition that was committed to writing, by either Apostles themselves, or by writers who composed writings that went on to be authorized as Scripture by the Apostles.
Scripture is the primary source for theology, but not the final source. Tradition and church teaching effectively limit Scripture's authority.
No, they don't. In fact, Scripture authenticates the teaching office of the Church, since its beginning is recorded there. I got that through following 'Sola Scriptura,' and I don't believe that 'Sola Scriptura' will lead astray an honest student of Scripture. It will lead them right to the bishops, who continue to be among us today.

The New Testament Was Sacred Tradition, before it was written down.
If a matter is uncertain in Scripture, and tradition has an authoritative interpretation, then tradition has the final word.

Nonsense abounds.
Where is this nonsense? Is it in these matters, which are uncertain in Scripture? Abortion, pornography, the Trinity, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Oops, that last one; the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, isn't uncertain at all in Scripture. Four times in Scripture, our Lord is quoted as saying, "This is My body," wrt 'this bread.' There is only a certain type of pastor who teaches this as plainly as it is taught in Scripture, and they are the Catholic (and Orthodox) bishops.
 
Top