# Is Calvinism the gospel?



## saintandsinner77

Many of you may have read or know about this quote from Spurgeon:

I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. 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; nor 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 do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross. (Charles Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856).

Though I am a 5 pointer and love Spurgeon, the gospel is defined in the Scripture as follows:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures . . .” -1 Corinthians 15:1–4

Whoever trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ alone based on this good news, shall be saved. A person does not need to understand or hear about unconditional election, irresistible grace, for example to be converted (though I believe they are all Biblical). In fact, many former Arminians who are now Calvinists (like myself) did not understand the aforementioned points when they were converted, but simply turned in faith to Christ for mercy and forgiveness after being convicted of their sin and guilt. In fact, in one of Spurgeon's sermons, he acknowledged that Wesley was a believer.

So, why would Spurgeon make this equation, though people can be saved through believing the gospel and receiving Christ without understanding Calvinism?


----------



## Andres

saintandsinner77 said:


> A person does not need to understand or hear about unconditional election, irresistible grace, for example to be converted (though I believe they are all Biblical). In fact, many former Arminians who are now Calvinists (like myself) did not understand the aforementioned points when they were converted, but simply turned in faith to Christ for mercy and forgiveness after being convicted of their sin and guilt.



a person may not understand the doctrines of grace, but as yourself admitted, that doesn't make them any less true.


----------



## saintandsinner77

I am not disputing the doctrines of grace--I believe them whole-heartedly- just saying that one does not have to understand Calvinism to understand the gospel as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and to believe in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.


----------



## Pergamum

The 5 points should not be equated with the Gospel:

First, a person may be saved even while doubting one of those points,

Also, the 5 points say nothing of the resurrection of Christ or of us - the most frequently occurring theme in the sermons that we have in the NT.


----------



## Grimmson

saintandsinner77 said:


> So, why would Spurgeon make this equation, though people can be saved through believing the gospel and receiving Christ without understanding Calvinism?


 
It is simple, Spurgeon wanted to disconnect any idea of somehow man earning salvation by man’s own power. If one does not believe that you are justified by faith alone in the completed work of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection for the sake of our own sins, then one is truly lost. Even Arminians recognize that it is Christ work alone that justifies us and not of our own work when they are typically asked, the problem is that they are inconsistent with their own position in the sovereignty of God and their own condition of sin as reflected in their singing praises to God or in their prayers. Calvinism communicates the condition of man to sin, and hence the absolute need for a savior; the fact that salvation is not based upon are own personal election, but instead on the unconditional election of God; that God paid fully for the sins of the elect Christians on the cross; that it is ultimately God alone that irresistible draws a people to himself, hence the reason why Arminians pray for the salvation of love ones because they recognize this fact (even though they lack consistency here); and the promise that we are the children of the living God, co-heir with Christ because we are preserved in union with Christ because of Christ burial and resurrection from the dead, and hence our own preservation to life.

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> Also, the 5 points say nothing of the resurrection of Christ or of us - the most frequently occurring theme in the sermons that we have in the NT.


 
I disagree, I think the resurrection of Christ is inherently built into the system.

Addition:
Perg, let me put it this way. If Christ did not rise from the grave then we wouldn’t preserver in the faith; which is why I say it is built into the five points. It communicates that promise that we have of our salvation by the power of Christ.


----------



## MW

saintandsinner77 said:


> I am not disputing the doctrines of grace--I believe them whole-heartedly- just saying that one does not have to understand Calvinism to understand the gospel as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and to believe in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.


 
It is probably best to say that Calvinism is presupposed rather than understood. E.g., "sins" presupposes total depravity; "our" presupposes absolute predestination, "died for" presupposes particular redemption; "rose again" presupposes effectual calling and perseverance. If one develops an understanding which undermines this theological framework he denies the basis of the gospel and thereby weakens his own faith. This is what our old divines meant by calling the doctrines of grace the gospel -- they are the theological framework of the gospel.


----------



## Kevin

No


----------



## Pergamum

Grimmson said:


> saintandsinner77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would Spurgeon make this equation, though people can be saved through believing the gospel and receiving Christ without understanding Calvinism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple, Spurgeon wanted to disconnect any idea of somehow man earning salvation by man’s own power. If one does not believe that you are justified by faith alone in the completed work of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection for the sake of our own sins, then one is truly lost. Even Arminians recognize that it is Christ work alone that justifies us and not of our own work when they are typically asked, the problem is that they are inconsistent with their own position in the sovereignty of God and their own condition of sin as reflected in their singing praises to God or in their prayers. Calvinism communicates the condition of man to sin, and hence the absolute need for a savior; the fact that salvation is not based upon are own personal election, but instead on the unconditional election of God; that God paid fully for the sins of the elect Christians on the cross; that it is ultimately God alone that irresistible draws a people to himself, hence the reason why Arminians pray for the salvation of love ones because they recognize this fact (even though they lack consistency here); and the promise that we are the children of the living God, co-heir with Christ because we are preserved in union with Christ because of Christ burial and resurrection from the dead, and hence our own preservation to life.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the 5 points say nothing of the resurrection of Christ or of us - the most frequently occurring theme in the sermons that we have in the NT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, I think the resurrection of Christ is inherently built into the system.
> 
> Addition:
> Perg, let me put it this way. If Christ did not rise from the grave then we wouldn’t preserver in the faith; which is why I say it is built into the five points. It communicates that promise that we have of our salvation by the power of Christ.
Click to expand...

 
I don't see any of the five points explicitly covering the resurrection - a central tenet of the Gospel.

Is Calvinism Biblical merits a yes answer. Is calvinism the Gospel merits a No answer.


----------



## Grimmson

Pergamum said:


> I don't see any of the five points explicitly covering the resurrection - a central tenet of the Gospel.


 
Perg, how do you apply and explain the fifth point, The Perseverance of the Saints, if you do not see the resurrection of Christ attached to the point or at least explaining the point in question?

Here is something that the Synod of Dort said:


> The Canons of Dordrecht
> The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main
> Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands
> 
> The Fifth Main Point of Doctrine- The Perseverance of the Saints
> Rejection of errors:
> I.
> "For Holy Scripture testifies that perseverance follows from election and is granted to the chosen by virtue of Christ’s death, resurrection, and intercession: The chosen obtained it; the others were hardened (Rom. 11:7)."


----------



## Moireach

I think there are simple misunderstanding here because people haven't read into the 5 points of Calvinism.


----------



## MarieP

Pergamum said:


> The 5 points should not be equated with the Gospel:
> 
> First, a person may be saved even while doubting one of those points,
> 
> Also, the 5 points say nothing of the resurrection of Christ or of us - the most frequently occurring theme in the sermons that we have in the NT.


 
Agreed! If Calvinism is "the Gospel" it would mean that non-Calvinists, by definition cannot preach the Gospel (something I know Spurgeon would deny because of his catholic spirit).

Though, I would say that Calvinism preserves our love for and proclamation of the Gospel because it espouses the sovereignty of God in salvation, the sufficiency of God's Word, the holiness of God, the saving love of God, the supremacy of Christ, and the keeping power of the Holy Spirit. I think Calvinism/Reformed theology heightens our understanding of and trust in the power of the Gospel unto salvation, the power of Christ's atoning death (it actually saves us, it doesn't just make us savable) and the endless power of His resurrection.

Not that it always prevents us from losing sight of the Gospel, sadly! It's isn't just the seeker-sensitive guys who lose track of the Gospel, we can too by falling into legalism or lawlessness or pride or debates about adiaphora.


----------



## Jack K

Calvinism is not the Gospel. However, the Gospel is understood and expressed most clearly, most completely and most beautifully within the framework of Calvinism.


----------



## ServantsHeart

Jack K said:


> PCA, worshipping with some fine Baptists in Colorado


 Hey Brother having any success straightening out those Baptist on those covenantal Issues? I hope they don't press you to hard on the Baptist Distinctives we speak of so much. All jesting aside I hope they have embraced you and yours and are serving you well in the Body.

---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 AM ----------

I think I remember Spurgeon making this statement as well in the Context of refuting the notion that Salvation in by any other means than by Grace through Faith and the Reformed understanding is Systematically found in Calvinism as has been stated.


----------



## Rational Man

Gordon Clark gave a good example in his book "what do Presbyterians Believe".

He explained that certainly there are doctrines that we hold to be more important, ala sola fide. than others. However, since scripture is systematic you NEED every doctrine to support one another. If you dont hold to a particular part of calvinism then I would say (since I believe this is what the Bible teaches), that you have a hole or contradiction in your system of thought.

His example to illustrate systematics was: "while you have four tires on your car if you have a flat tire then that is the most important one at the moment."


----------



## ServantsHeart

Rational Man said:


> His example to illustrate systematics was: "while you have four tires on your car if you have a flat tire then that is the most important one at the moment."


 I beg to disagree,the spare would be the most important to me at such a time.


----------



## lynnie

very nicely said Rev Winzer, thank you!


----------



## Jack K

ServantsHeart said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> PCA, worshipping with some fine Baptists in Colorado
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Brother having any success straightening out those Baptist on those covenantal Issues? I hope they don't press you to hard on the Baptist Distinctives we speak of so much. All jesting aside I hope they have embraced you and yours and are serving you well in the Body.
Click to expand...



We have our struggles and points of disagreement. But at the same time we find much that we share in Christ to celebrate together and lead us into ministry together. I also get the occasional rebuke from folks on this board (on both sides of the divide), who sometimes seem troubled by the idea that I and the Baptists could coexist.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

I'll simply reiterate what some of our brothers have said above: It is the clearest expression of the Gospel. 

God saves totally depraved sinners who are un-willing to come. He then unconditionally elects them; not because of any forseen faith or anything good in them but based on His good pleasure and will. The Father sends His son to die for those sinners, and the son is effcacious and purchasing salvation for them on the cross. The Spirit irresistably draws them and perseveres them until the end.


----------



## ServantsHeart

Jack K said:


> who sometimes seem troubled by the idea that I and the Baptists could coexist


 I have never felt uncomfortable around my Presbyterian Brethren even when discussing our different passionate points of view. I find it troubling when men speak with little passion or conviction about what they believe the Scriptures teach.


----------



## Peairtach

Calvinism expresses clearly the idea that salvation is by God _alone_. 

Arminianism dilutes this and therefore isn't the Gospel in its fulness and freeness.

The name Jesus means "Jehovah is salvation". 

The Triune Jehovah saves. Man can't boast that he has a finger in his salvation.


----------



## Pergamum

Again,

Asking whether Calvinism is biblical is one thing; Asking whether Calvinism is to be equated with the Gospel is another. 

When you present the gospel to people, do you cover the five points start to finish? I hope not. No, instead, you cover, hopefully, things such as the incarnation and life of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead.

Also, again, if we perfectly equate calvinism and the Gospel, thus means that all Arminians are unsaved. And even a 4-pointer then is "denying the Gospel." This is too strong of a conclusion.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

Pergamum said:


> Again,
> 
> Asking whether Calvinism is biblical is one thing; Asking whether Calvinism is to be equated with the Gospel is another.
> 
> When you present the gospel to people, do you cover the five points start to finish? I hope not. No, instead, you cover, hopefully, things such as the incarnation and life of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead.
> 
> Also, again, if we perfectly equate calvinism and the Gospel, thus means that all Arminians are unsaved. And even a 4-pointer then is "denying the Gospel." This is too strong of a conclusion.


 
I don't think the terms are interchangeable, but certainly, Calvinism is the theological framework for the Gospel. And yes, it is possible to briefly run down the 5 points when presenting the Gospel. Not necessairly speaking forth the terminology, but telling men what they are, who God is, and what Christ has done, etc.


----------



## Pergamum

I have never seen an effective Gospel presentation that explicitly tries to prove that Christ did not die for everyone. 

When presenting the Gospel it is only important for the sinner to believe that Christ died for him. Thus, the 4th point usually goes unmentioned. No need to go into the use of "cosmos" in John, etc. 

Also, seeing that the 5 points were a reaction against Arminianism and the presentation of the Gospel is not a reaction but a positive presentation of truth, we have no need to list the errors of the Arminians (usually) when giving the Gospel (unless objections are raised).


----------



## TeachingTulip

Pergamum said:


> Again,
> 
> Asking whether Calvinism is biblical is one thing; Asking whether Calvinism is to be equated with the Gospel is another.



If (and I believe it is so) Calvinism is biblical, then Calvinism proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 



> When you present the gospel to people, do you cover the five points start to finish? I hope not. No, instead, you cover, hopefully, things such as the incarnation and life of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead.



The reiteration of the Covenant of Works (Law), and the disclosure that all men are breakers of this covenant, plus the good news of Christ's incarnation, cross work, and resurrection overcoming death on behalf of His spiritual children, is the Gospel message . . . which is the message proclaimed by Calvinists.



> Also, again, if we perfectly equate calvinism and the Gospel, thus means that all Arminians are unsaved. And even a 4-pointer then is "denying the Gospel." This is too strong of a conclusion.



It is none of our business to judge others as unsaved. It is our only business to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as codified above. Any and all that we share the good news of Jesus Christ with, are probably "unsaved." Whether they remain unsaved after hearing our message of the Moral Law; mans' universal failure to keep that moral law, and the remedy that is found only in the Incarnate Christ of God and His grace, is God's business . . . not ours.

We proclaim the Scripural truths, and then in faith, leave the results in the hands of Sovereign God. Whether we are Calvinists or not. (I hope!  )


----------



## jogri17

You can be an arminian and saved. But if your an arminian you ought not to be in any teaching role.


----------



## saintandsinner77

Here is a historical conversation between Charles Simeon a Calvinist and John Wesley, an Arminian. I'm sure some of you are aware of it:

Simeon: Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Wesley: Yes, I do indeed.

Simeon: And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Wesley: Yes, solely through Christ.

Simeon: But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

Wesley: No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Simeon: Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

Wesley: No.

Simeon: What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

Wesley: Yes, altogether.

Simeon: And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Wesley: Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Simeon: Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.

Cited in Handley Carr Glyn Moule’s 1892 biography, Charles Simeon, p. 79f.

From this conversation, does it appear that Wesley believes the gospel though an Arminian? Clearly...


----------



## Iconoclast

Pergamum said:


> I have never seen an effective Gospel presentation that explicitly tries to prove that Christ did not die for everyone.
> 
> When presenting the Gospel it is only important for the sinner to believe that Christ died for him. Thus, the 4th point usually goes unmentioned. No need to go into the use of "cosmos" in John, etc.
> 
> Also, seeing that the 5 points were a reaction against Arminianism and the presentation of the Gospel is not a reaction but a positive presentation of truth, we have no need to list the errors of the Arminians (usually) when giving the Gospel (unless objections are raised).


 


> I have never seen an effective Gospel presentation that explicitly tries to prove that Christ did not die for everyone.



I have. Jn 6.....Jn8 Jn10....Jn12



> When presenting the Gospel it is only important for the sinner to believe that Christ died for him.



The Apostles never told anyone that Jesus died for them in particular.They said Jesus died for sinners;


> 15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.



1 Cor 15 contains the historic facts of the gospel, but qualifies those facts with the phrase "according to the scripture". This is where Matthews post pointed to.

Romans 1 says *the gospel is the power of God*,that results in deliverence;



> 1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated *unto the gospel of God,
> 
> 2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) *
> 3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
> 
> 4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
> 
> 5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
> 16For I am not ashamed of* the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God *unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
> 6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:



Does a gospel presentation have to be loaded with complex theological terms,and loaded down with 5 point quotes? No.
That being said.....We should not deviate from our theological base,or shrink back from any of it's teachings. 
I do not think you do this, and I think I understand your concern.ie, we could obscure the blood of the cross, and the essential issue of the once for all remedy for sinners by launching off into theology 101 and confusing those souls we are speaking with!
I am sure that people in Papua were probably not wondering who in the tribe was supra, or infra, amill, or post.....before you could address the sin question.
No doubt you had to labor to establish the true and living God has spoken.
Spurgeons quote is accurate in that the teaching he was describing is found at the heart of any gospel presentation. When you read most of his sermons, he mostly did not use the complex language of the day and as a matter of fact he tried to speak in plain common language.....no need to break out the dictionary and thesaurus when you read his sermons.[unlike some words seen on the PB]
The quote points to our theological base, it is not meant to say there is an exact correspondence to every presentation we make being incomplete unless we squeeze tulip in completely.


----------



## jayce475

Pergamum said:


> I have never seen an effective Gospel presentation that explicitly tries to prove that Christ did not die for everyone.



I'm lost. What on earth is "an effective Gospel presentation"? Never thought I'll hear a Calvinist use such terminologies.


----------



## Pergamum

Jason:

An effective Gospel presentation is one that is understandable to the hearer and faithful to the text. Conciseness and winsomeness are also advisable.

My friend's facebook message tonight reads:



> I am amazed that the Creator of the universe humbled Himself and became a servant, lived a perfect life, died a bloody death and rose again the third day. He did it in obedience to the Father and absorbed the wrath of God for a vile, worthless rebel like me. Thank you Jesus!



Now that is a pretty good first sentence to an effective Gospel presentation.


----------



## jayce475

Pergamum said:


> Jason:
> 
> An effective Gospel presentation is one that is understandable to the hearer and faithful to the text. Conciseness and winsomeness are also advisable.
> 
> My friend's facebook message tonight reads:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am amazed that the Creator of the universe humbled Himself and became a servant, lived a perfect life, died a bloody death and rose again the third day. He did it in obedience to the Father and absorbed the wrath of God for a vile, worthless rebel like me. Thank you Jesus!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is a pretty good first sentence to an effective Gospel presentation.
Click to expand...

 
Defined that way, I would find that most disagreeable. Faithfulness to scriptures is a given as anything else is a false gospel. Conciseness, winsomeness and being understandable? So somehow an evangelistic message that does cover the total depravity of man is somehow lacking conciseness and is therefore ineffective? Somehow talking about limited atonement renders the gospel presentation ineffective? Somehow giving a sharp rebuke during an evangelistic message turns it into an ineffective gospel presentation? I sure hope not. The gospel is not understandable unless God works, period. My aphasic or intellectually disabled patients are no less likely to believe upon the gospel than my friends pursing post-graduate degrees. No doubt, we need to employ the vulgar language when preaching the gospel and there is no need for us to go coat a sermon with bombastic theological terms, but that does not mean dumping down on the content. Your usage of neo-evangelical/broad evangelical language is disconcerting.


----------



## Pergamum

Who ever said dumbing down the content?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

I think it should be the common acknowledgement among all preachers that no matter how well men present the Gospel they are doomed to fail in their task. We will never grasp the gap between us and God. It's like trying to measure the depth of a bottomless pit. Calvinism is no doubt the best way mankind has ever presented the Gospel, yet it is not the Gospel in its full beauty. But another point must be made about the Gospel presentation. We must not only present the Gospel in word, but also in power:

"And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in *demonstration of the Spirit and of power*:" (1 Corinthians 2:4)

Our oral presentation of the Gospel _totally_ loses its effect on sinners, if we are not faithfully living the Gospel at the same time. Yes, the pulpit is NOT for cowards! Don't get up to the pulpit, if you're only about talk!


----------



## MarieP

Iconoclast said:


> I have never seen an effective Gospel presentation that explicitly tries to prove that Christ did not die for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. Jn 6.....Jn8 Jn10....Jn12
Click to expand...


But Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, no? I wouldn't say God couldn't use a presentation that explicitly tries to prove that Christ didn't die for everyone (and I think Pergy would agree). But I do see a contrast as to how Jesus preached to the Pharisees and to those who knew they needed a Savior. I forget who said it, but someone made the comment that some preach the Gospel in such a way you'd think they were afraid the non-elect might actually believe!



Iconoclast said:


> When presenting the Gospel it is only important for the sinner to believe that Christ died for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Apostles never told anyone that Jesus died for them in particular.They said Jesus died for sinners
Click to expand...

 
I don't think anyone would disagree with you that the apostles never indiscriminately said "Christ died for you as an individual in particular" But people do need to be brought to the place where they believe Christ died for them, no? I'd say that's ultimately the Spirit's job. However, one of my pastors once pointed out that "Christ died for me, so I can live whatever way I want" is not the only lie of Satan. He also whispers, "Jesus' blood isn't sufficient for you and your sins, you're too far-gone! There's no use believing!"


----------



## MarieP

jayce475 said:


> Defined that way, I would find that most disagreeable.



What defined which way? Pergy's friend's FB status?? What's wrong with it?



jayce475 said:


> Your usage of neo-evangelical/broad evangelical language is disconcerting.


 
If Pergy is using neo-evangelical language, how is that any different than this?:



> Ezekiel 18:31-32 "Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,' says the Lord GOD. 'Therefore turn and live!” (yes, this is to Israel, but it included the decretally non-elect)





> Isaiah 55:1-3 “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money, come, buy and eat, yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and let your soul delight itself in abundance. Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you— the sure mercies of David."





> Isaiah 1:18-20 "Come now, and let us reason together,” says the LORD, 'Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword”; For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.'"





> Matthew 23:37-39 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”





> Matthew 11:20-33 "Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 'Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.'
> 
> At that time Jesus answered and said, 'I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.'”





> Acts 3:18-26 "But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. 'Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days. You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”





> 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 "Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."





> Romans 2:2-11 "But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who 'will render to each one according to his deeds': eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God."



I'd heartily recommend this sermon my pastor preached on Acts 14:1- "Now it happened in Iconium that they went together to the synagogue of the Jews, and so spoke that a great multitude both of the Jews and of the Greeks believed."

Passionate, Persuasive Preaching


----------



## msortwell

I suspect that when we challenge Mr. Spurgeon's assertion that Calvinism is the gospel, we are applying the narrowest definition of gospel - a definition more narrow than was his intent. While it is true that 1Cor 15 provides a concise definition of THE gospel. The term is also used more broadly in the Scriptures, and by the church. I suspect that the Prince of Preachers considered expounding upon THE gospel, explaining its theological underpinnings, to be part of "preaching the gospel." If so, he would be asserting little more than a conviction that Calvinism is the correct explanation of the gospel - rather than an element expressed during the presentation of the gospel. He also seems to be intimating that the language used, and assertions made, by those preachers operating outside of the framework of what has come to be known as Calvinism generally assert positions inconsistent with Scriptural truth - will most certainly stray away from an accurate and clear offer of the true gospel. This certainly seems to be the case in the broader evangelical church that frequently seems to offer a different gospel - one providing a remedy against loneliness and the trials of life - essentially offering Jesus as a new best friend, rather than a Sovereign Redeemer.


----------



## MarieP

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Our oral presentation of the Gospel *totally* loses its effect on sinners, if we are not faithfully living the Gospel at the same time.



Totally? Can you defend that?

Phil. 1:15-17 "Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice."


----------



## Iconoclast

Hello Marie P,
[QUOTE but someone made the comment that some preach the Gospel in such a way you'd think they were afraid the non-elect might actually believe][/QUOTE]

Marie, I agree with what you have posted. The idea of gospel.....is that it becomes good news to sinners that believe as the Spirit enables them .
We know that it is the work of God. We are not to mask, or hinder the truth of scripture and wisdom should be used in the language we employ.
Jesus spoke to the woman at the well in a different way,then he spoke to apostate pharisees and neither He nor the apostles used the language of the theology we employ. A careful study of the scriptures reveals the very teaching that we hold to be "calvinistic truth".
The terms and labels we employ say alot in a little space. 

Jesus used the law to show our sinful and lost condition,and that living water was available.
Jesus spoke of the COR.... in the Jn.passages as the backdrop to His teaching.
The Apostles spoke of the covenants when they spoke to those who had knowledge of them. Paul adapted his message in Acts 17 however.
I am sure that Pergy keeps a solid grace foundation in mind, as He seeks God's face for wisdom in making a faithful presentation to those who The Lord has sent him to minister to.
Yet, I am also confident that he has at times as the situation required it......moved it up a few notches verbally depending on the audience he was facing,liberals,cultists,atheists,etc.
Humanly speaking we want all men we speak to, to believe.Yet God will use us for His purpose;


> 14Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
> 
> 15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
> 
> 16To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
> 
> 17For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


----------



## ryanhamre

msortwell said:


> I suspect that when we challenge Mr. Spurgeon's assertion that Calvinism is the gospel, we are applying the narrowest definition of gospel - a definition more narrow than was his intent. While it is true that 1Cor 15 provides a concise definition of THE gospel. The term is also used more broadly in the Scriptures, and by the church. I suspect that the Prince of Preachers considered expounding upon THE gospel, explaining its theological underpinnings, to be part of "preaching the gospel." If so, he would be asserting little more than a conviction that Calvinism is the correct explanation of the gospel - rather than an element expressed during the presentation of the gospel. He also seems to be intimating that the language used, and assertions made, by those preachers operating outside of the framework of what has come to be known as Calvinism generally assert positions inconsistent with Scriptural truth - will most certainly stray away from an accurate and clear offer of the true gospel. This certainly seems to be the case in the broader evangelical church that frequently seems to offer a different gospel - one providing a remedy against loneliness and the trials of life - essentially offering Jesus as a new best friend, rather than a Sovereign Redeemer.


Bingo.

The emphasis, from Spurgeon, would appear to be on the delivery and the preaching, not the particular definition of "gospel".

How many times was he hitting on "preach"?

Here's a wordle of it-


----------



## jayce475

Pergamum said:


> Who ever said dumbing down the content?



The language of "effective gospel presentation" is neo-evangelical babble for dumbing down of content. I am in no way suggesting that you do dumb down content in your ministry. I am contending that your idea that there is such a thing as an "effective gospel presentation" is precisely the excuse that neo-evangelicals use to do so, so I do not think such language should be used, because it is a slippery slope down to "Jesus loves you, He died for you, why wouldn't you ask Him into your heart today?" By the way, I think there is a serious disjoint in how we view the word "effective". Wherever I've checked, it pretty much means ineffectual.



MarieP said:


> I wouldn't say God couldn't use a presentation that explicitly tries to prove that Christ didn't die for everyone (and I think Pergy would agree).



Pergy isn't explicitly saying this exactly, but he's calling it ineffective. And when something is ineffective, it does not have the power to save. I mean, isn't that precisely what the word means? Lacking the ability or power to achieve a goal? 



MarieP said:


> What defined which way? Pergy's friend's FB status?? What's wrong with it?



Not the fb status. What he was saying about "an effective gospel presentation" having to be "concise, winsome and understandable".



MarieP said:


> If Pergy is using neo-evangelical language, how is that any different than this?:



I really don't get what you mean. I'm talking about his linking of "ineffective preaching" with messages or presentations that do contain doctrines beyond the most basic gospel ideas, not his preaching.


----------



## MarieP

jayce, I think I understand your disagreement better now. You don't like the terms "effective" or "ineffective" as it pertains to the Gospel.

Do you believe that there is a way to make the Gospel more effective or less effective? (not that it guarantees results, but is there a type of preaching that is especially owned of God? is there a type of preaching that hinders the Word from doing its work?)


----------



## jayce475

MarieP said:


> Do you believe that there is a way to make the Gospel more effective or less effective? (not that it guarantees results, but is there a type of preaching that is especially owned of God? is there a type of preaching that hinders the Word from doing its work?)



Marie, I believe that there is good preaching and there is bad preaching, otherwise we wouldn't need homiletics classes in bible colleges and seminaries. However, I would disagree with poor preaching being equated with "ineffective preaching". Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Faithful preaching will always be effective (in that it has power to save and sanctify), even if preachers have shortcomings. I am okay if it is just a matter of terminology and our ideas are essentially in agreement, but with regards to what Pergy said about preaching that does touch on limited atonement being ineffective, I disagree with the very essence of what he is saying. Expounding upon the doctrines of grace does not by itself make the preaching/gospel presentation/evangelism poor in any sense, and it most certainly doesn't make it ineffective.


----------



## MarieP

jayce475 said:


> I am okay if it is just a matter of terminology and our ideas are essentially in agreement, but with regards to what Pergy said about preaching that does touch on limited atonement being ineffective, I disagree with the very essence of what he is saying. Expounding upon the doctrines of grace does not by itself make the preaching/gospel presentation/evangelism poor in any sense, and it most certainly doesn't make it ineffective.



OK, I understand you better now. If Pergy means that preaching limited atonement in and of itself renders the message ineffective, I would disagree as well. Or else how can a pastor who wants to preach effectively as well as preach faithfully preach a passage like John 10?

If, however, he means that there are ways of preaching limited atonement that render a sermon less effective (I hesitate to say ineffective now that I consider it), then I would agree. There are some who, when they preach it, leave off the free offer of the Gospel. They are afraid to preach an atonement that is sufficient for their hearers, and they forget that they "are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:20-21).

Limited atonement should be preached where the Scriptures teach it. But just as the apostles never said, "Jesus died for your sins personally," they also never said, "Jesus only died for the sins of the elect ." They said "Jesus died for sinners" and "for all who believe." They persuaded men they were in need of faith and repentance and freely bid them come to the Savior. As I said, Satan is not beyond using limited atonement to pluck up the seeds that fall on the hearts of unbelievers.

For the record, I'd also say that unconditional election or total depravity can be preached in ways that cause unbelievers to think that it's useless to pray that God would grant them a new heart of faith. Sure, those two doctrines should be preached, but in what way? In the way that Christ and the apostles preached it. Not in the way it's all lined out in a systematics book.

I know most of the post dealt with non-believers- and I know it's not the primary goal of preaching, but it is a goal, nonetheless.

I'm not saying anyone here in particular has a problem with that, but I've known some who have. So I'm just making sure.


----------



## Pergamum

MarieP said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am okay if it is just a matter of terminology and our ideas are essentially in agreement, but with regards to what Pergy said about preaching that does touch on limited atonement being ineffective, I disagree with the very essence of what he is saying. Expounding upon the doctrines of grace does not by itself make the preaching/gospel presentation/evangelism poor in any sense, and it most certainly doesn't make it ineffective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I understand you better now. If Pergy means that preaching limited atonement in and of itself renders the message ineffective, I would disagree as well. Or else how can a pastor who wants to preach effectively as well as preach faithfully preach a passage like John 10?
> 
> If, however, he means that there are ways of preaching limited atonement that render a sermon less effective (I hesitate to say ineffective now that I consider it), then I would agree. There are some who, when they preach it, leave off the free offer of the Gospel. They are afraid to preach an atonement that is sufficient for their hearers, and they forget that they "are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:20-21).
> 
> Limited atonement should be preached where the Scriptures teach it. But just as the apostles never said, "Jesus died for your sins personally," they also never said, "Jesus only died for the sins of the elect ." They said "Jesus died for sinners" and "for all who believe." They persuaded men they were in need of faith and repentance and freely bid them come to the Savior. As I said, Satan is not beyond using limited atonement to pluck up the seeds that fall on the hearts of unbelievers.
> 
> For the record, I'd also say that unconditional election or total depravity can be preached in ways that cause unbelievers to think that it's useless to pray that God would grant them a new heart of faith. Sure, those two doctrines should be preached, but in what way? In the way that Christ and the apostles preached it. Not in the way it's all lined out in a systematics book.
> 
> I know most of the post dealt with non-believers- and I know it's not the primary goal of preaching, but it is a goal, nonetheless.
> 
> I'm not saying anyone here in particular has a problem with that, but I've known some who have. So I'm just making sure.
Click to expand...

 
Jason, you are quibbling with words (ineffective versus bad preaching) and are starting to bore me. Let's move on. I have not advocated dumbing down the Gospel. I advocate clear and concise presentation that is also biblical, even though there is no need to exposit the five points when doing so.


----------



## jayce475

Words have meanings Pergy, and careless usage of words means being careless with meanings. I'm sorry if I'm boring you in the process of wanting to clarify biblical ideas. And no, you have not clarified on what you had meant in that prior post about not encountering effective preaching that touches on limited atonement.

---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------




MarieP said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am okay if it is just a matter of terminology and our ideas are essentially in agreement, but with regards to what Pergy said about preaching that does touch on limited atonement being ineffective, I disagree with the very essence of what he is saying. Expounding upon the doctrines of grace does not by itself make the preaching/gospel presentation/evangelism poor in any sense, and it most certainly doesn't make it ineffective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I understand you better now. If Pergy means that preaching limited atonement in and of itself renders the message ineffective, I would disagree as well. Or else how can a pastor who wants to preach effectively as well as preach faithfully preach a passage like John 10?
> 
> If, however, he means that there are ways of preaching limited atonement that render a sermon less effective (I hesitate to say ineffective now that I consider it), then I would agree. There are some who, when they preach it, leave off the free offer of the Gospel. They are afraid to preach an atonement that is sufficient for their hearers, and they forget that they "are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:20-21).
> 
> Limited atonement should be preached where the Scriptures teach it. But just as the apostles never said, "Jesus died for your sins personally," they also never said, "Jesus only died for the sins of the elect ." They said "Jesus died for sinners" and "for all who believe." They persuaded men they were in need of faith and repentance and freely bid them come to the Savior. As I said, Satan is not beyond using limited atonement to pluck up the seeds that fall on the hearts of unbelievers.
> 
> For the record, I'd also say that unconditional election or total depravity can be preached in ways that cause unbelievers to think that it's useless to pray that God would grant them a new heart of faith. Sure, those two doctrines should be preached, but in what way? In the way that Christ and the apostles preached it. Not in the way it's all lined out in a systematics book.
> 
> I know most of the post dealt with non-believers- and I know it's not the primary goal of preaching, but it is a goal, nonetheless.
> 
> I'm not saying anyone here in particular has a problem with that, but I've known some who have. So I'm just making sure.
Click to expand...

 
Thank you Marie for giving the good amount of nuance that is necessary. I quite agree. Many others may not though, especially pertaining to the free offer of the gospel.


----------



## Pergamum

jayce475 said:


> Words have meanings Pergy, and careless usage of words means being careless with meanings. I'm sorry if I'm boring you in the process of wanting to clarify biblical ideas. And no, you have not clarified on what you had meant in that prior post about not encountering effective preaching that touches on limited atonement.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarieP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am okay if it is just a matter of terminology and our ideas are essentially in agreement, but with regards to what Pergy said about preaching that does touch on limited atonement being ineffective, I disagree with the very essence of what he is saying. Expounding upon the doctrines of grace does not by itself make the preaching/gospel presentation/evangelism poor in any sense, and it most certainly doesn't make it ineffective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I understand you better now. If Pergy means that preaching limited atonement in and of itself renders the message ineffective, I would disagree as well. Or else how can a pastor who wants to preach effectively as well as preach faithfully preach a passage like John 10?
> 
> If, however, he means that there are ways of preaching limited atonement that render a sermon less effective (I hesitate to say ineffective now that I consider it), then I would agree. There are some who, when they preach it, leave off the free offer of the Gospel. They are afraid to preach an atonement that is sufficient for their hearers, and they forget that they "are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:20-21).
> 
> Limited atonement should be preached where the Scriptures teach it. But just as the apostles never said, "Jesus died for your sins personally," they also never said, "Jesus only died for the sins of the elect ." They said "Jesus died for sinners" and "for all who believe." They persuaded men they were in need of faith and repentance and freely bid them come to the Savior. As I said, Satan is not beyond using limited atonement to pluck up the seeds that fall on the hearts of unbelievers.
> 
> For the record, I'd also say that unconditional election or total depravity can be preached in ways that cause unbelievers to think that it's useless to pray that God would grant them a new heart of faith. Sure, those two doctrines should be preached, but in what way? In the way that Christ and the apostles preached it. Not in the way it's all lined out in a systematics book.
> 
> I know most of the post dealt with non-believers- and I know it's not the primary goal of preaching, but it is a goal, nonetheless.
> 
> I'm not saying anyone here in particular has a problem with that, but I've known some who have. So I'm just making sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Marie for giving the good amount of nuance that is necessary. I quite agree. Many others may not though, especially pertaining to the free offer of the gospel.
Click to expand...

 
I stand by my usage of the word effective. 

I have never seen an effective Gospel presentation that explicitly included the 4the point of limited atonement. These sorts of issues are best left to discispleship and not initial evangelistic contact. If the Gospel is clearly presented, this might lead to follow-up questions or later dialogues, etc, and a number of issues could then be brought up. 

Often, one is dealing with an initial contact or are pressed with the limits of time. It is better to give the big picture of Scripture at first in a clear and concise way and to gain a relationship so that the person may trust you as a resource for answering later questions.

The best evangelists I have seen get right to the heart of the Gospel about our sin, Christ's work for sinners and about repentance and faith. It is biblical, clear and does not get into distracting issues. Implicitly, it could be said that limited atonement might be touched on as we speak of "Christ's work for sinners," but most people do not explicitly think "limited atonement" at these turns of phrases. 

Some of the worst gospel presentations I have seen have been by five point calvinists who wear the five points on their sleeve. These witnessers have gotten distracted by talking about modesty in church, the Sabbath, why "world" doesn't actually mean "world", when their audiences don't even know the big picture yet. 

I, myself, have been offended at the techniques that some of my fellow calvinists have used in pressing people and telling them why they are wrong. I have preferred not to go out and witness with many of them even when asked because, first, I think cold contacts are less effective than nurturing deeper relationships and, two, I am often embarrassed at their approach and technique, and their mannerisms as they corner and harass strangers.

If we are talking to false religious leaders (MarieP's observation about the way Jesus talked to Pharisees versus nornal people should be remembered) then we can be more direct and challenging, but I find many calvinistic street evangelists and those that engage total strangers to lack many interpersonal skills, lack in approachability, come off as threatening, and then chase rabbit trails or needless theological controversies when the persons being witnessed to probably could be blessed more by hearing the big picture and a clear and simple gospel presented instead of why Jesus did not die for everyone.


So again, I say that an effective Gospel presentation need not, and usually should not, explicitly mirror the five points.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

MarieP said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our oral presentation of the Gospel *totally* loses its effect on sinners, if we are not faithfully living the Gospel at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally? Can you defend that?
> 
> Phil. 1:15-17 "Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice."
Click to expand...

 
Thank you, Sister, for this rebuke. I wrote that "totally" a little doubtfully. I shouldn't have done that. It's true we can preach in a most unconvincing way, even without the power of God, yet our preaching may not be _totally_ in vain, since the truth in it is powerful in and of itself:

"For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12)


----------



## Pergamum

YouTube - The Gospel in 6 Minutes

Here is a summary of the Gospel by John Piper in 6 minutes. 

It is biblical, clear, doesn't contain a lot of jargon, and is even personal and connects with the emotions. 

The Gospel is faithfully presented and I believe it is effective, and yet the five points of calvinism are not explicitly explained.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Pergamum said:


> YouTube - The Gospel in 6 Minutes
> 
> Here is a summary of the Gospel by John Piper in 6 minutes.
> 
> It is biblical, clear, doesn't contain a lot of jargon, and is even personal and connects with the emotions.
> 
> The Gospel is faithfully presented and I believe it is effective, and yet the five points of calvinism are not explicitly explained.


 
"The love of GOD provides escape from the wrath of GOD by sacrificing the Son of God to vindicate the glory of GOD in forgiving sinners." That's how Piper often puts it.


----------



## jayce475

Pergamum said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words have meanings Pergy, and careless usage of words means being careless with meanings. I'm sorry if I'm boring you in the process of wanting to clarify biblical ideas. And no, you have not clarified on what you had meant in that prior post about not encountering effective preaching that touches on limited atonement.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarieP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am okay if it is just a matter of terminology and our ideas are essentially in agreement, but with regards to what Pergy said about preaching that does touch on limited atonement being ineffective, I disagree with the very essence of what he is saying. Expounding upon the doctrines of grace does not by itself make the preaching/gospel presentation/evangelism poor in any sense, and it most certainly doesn't make it ineffective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I understand you better now. If Pergy means that preaching limited atonement in and of itself renders the message ineffective, I would disagree as well. Or else how can a pastor who wants to preach effectively as well as preach faithfully preach a passage like John 10?
> 
> If, however, he means that there are ways of preaching limited atonement that render a sermon less effective (I hesitate to say ineffective now that I consider it), then I would agree. There are some who, when they preach it, leave off the free offer of the Gospel. They are afraid to preach an atonement that is sufficient for their hearers, and they forget that they "are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:20-21).
> 
> Limited atonement should be preached where the Scriptures teach it. But just as the apostles never said, "Jesus died for your sins personally," they also never said, "Jesus only died for the sins of the elect ." They said "Jesus died for sinners" and "for all who believe." They persuaded men they were in need of faith and repentance and freely bid them come to the Savior. As I said, Satan is not beyond using limited atonement to pluck up the seeds that fall on the hearts of unbelievers.
> 
> For the record, I'd also say that unconditional election or total depravity can be preached in ways that cause unbelievers to think that it's useless to pray that God would grant them a new heart of faith. Sure, those two doctrines should be preached, but in what way? In the way that Christ and the apostles preached it. Not in the way it's all lined out in a systematics book.
> 
> I know most of the post dealt with non-believers- and I know it's not the primary goal of preaching, but it is a goal, nonetheless.
> 
> I'm not saying anyone here in particular has a problem with that, but I've known some who have. So I'm just making sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Marie for giving the good amount of nuance that is necessary. I quite agree. Many others may not though, especially pertaining to the free offer of the gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stand by my usage of the word effective.
> 
> I have never seen an effective Gospel presentation that explicitly included the 4the point of limited atonement. These sorts of issues are best left to discispleship and not initial evangelistic contact. If the Gospel is clearly presented, this might lead to follow-up questions or later dialogues, etc, and a number of issues could then be brought up.
> 
> Often, one is dealing with an initial contact or are pressed with the limits of time. It is better to give the big picture of Scripture at first in a clear and concise way and to gain a relationship so that the person may trust you as a resource for answering later questions.
> 
> The best evangelists I have seen get right to the heart of the Gospel about our sin, Christ's work for sinners and about repentance and faith. It is biblical, clear and does not get into distracting issues. Implicitly, it could be said that limited atonement might be touched on as we speak of "Christ's work for sinners," but most people do not explicitly think "limited atonement" at these turns of phrases.
> 
> Some of the worst gospel presentations I have seen have been by five point calvinists who wear the five points on their sleeve. These witnessers have gotten distracted by talking about modesty in church, the Sabbath, why "world" doesn't actually mean "world", when their audiences don't even know the big picture yet.
> 
> I, myself, have been offended at the techniques that some of my fellow calvinists have used in pressing people and telling them why they are wrong. I have preferred not to go out and witness with many of them even when asked because, first, I think cold contacts are less effective than nurturing deeper relationships and, two, I am often embarrassed at their approach and technique, and their mannerisms as they corner and harass strangers.
> 
> If we are talking to false religious leaders (MarieP's observation about the way Jesus talked to Pharisees versus nornal people should be remembered) then we can be more direct and challenging, but I find many calvinistic street evangelists and those that engage total strangers to lack many interpersonal skills, lack in approachability, come off as threatening, and then chase rabbit trails or needless theological controversies when the persons being witnessed to probably could be blessed more by hearing the big picture and a clear and simple gospel presented instead of why Jesus did not die for everyone.
> 
> 
> So again, I say that an effective Gospel presentation need not, and usually should not, explicitly mirror the five points.
Click to expand...

 
And so we leave it. It is not quibbling over terminologies, but a disagreement over the approach to preaching. And I stand by my objection against the use of the word "effective", and what I have said about your language (as well as probably your approach) being that of the neo-evangelicals. No point in carrying on the discussion when we are carrying differing presuppositions.


----------



## Pergamum

Jason, 

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove how my approach to preaching and evangelism is any different than Jonathan Edwards, Brainerd, Carey or even the Piper quote. If that is "neo-evangelical" than give me more of it.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

To answer the original question: No, Calvinism is not the Gospel. The Gospel is the Gospel. To say that Calvinism is the Gospel is to say that any other people other than Calvinists are not Christians and that is a dangerous and very wrong thing to say.


----------



## ServantsHeart

I've not read every post on this thread so If someone has already used these texts to point out what the Gospel is in its simplist form I have always liked Pauls declaration the best. 1 Corinthians 15:1 to 4 After proclaiming these essential truths if the Holy Spirit moves or draws someone to me and they ask me to explain these Gospel truths more fully I never use Calvinism or the five points to explain these words of Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit. If this questioning soul is being drawn by the Holy Spirit then I preach/teach Jesus to him or her first,His person and work that make up the facts of what Paul states in verses 3 & 4. If this questioner is regenerate I won't need to tell them who Jesus is they will already believe that revelation given them by GOD the Holy Spirit.John 6:44,45 and 3:3,5 they will be seeing and entering the Kingdom of GOD and if they are not being drawn well you know what 1 Corinthians 2:14 says and 1:18. I am a Christian who is in essential agreement with Reformed Theology, I am as declared by others a Calvinist and by others a Reformed Baptist,Calvinist. I prefer a Biblical Christian or Disciple of Christ. I do believe it is a great mistake to try a feed a BABY a T-Bone steak and would advise milk instead,even the Milk of the Word. I agree that we call the Gospel what it calls itself, The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ or The Gospel of GOD,not Calvinism. Our departed Brother John Calvin would not want us to use his name the name of a sinner saved by grace to muddy the tittle given the message by the Holy Spirit to the writers of our New Testament. Thats my 2 cents worth no change expected.


----------



## Grimmson

Unashamed 116 said:


> To answer the original question: No, Calvinism is not the Gospel. The Gospel is the Gospel. To say that Calvinism is the Gospel is to say that any other people other than Calvinists are not Christians and that is a dangerous and very wrong thing to say.


 
In addressing this question we should ask and answer a series of two questions. The first question being “is there a difference between the Gospels according to Arminians and that according to Calvinists?” In the case of the prior the focus is not on the blood of Christ that is able to save, but instead on one’s own decision to have faith in Christ; therefore limiting the power of the atonement against a sinner’s sin. With the case of the Calvinists though Christ provides more then just an opportunity of salvation, but saves you fully by his grace; in turn truly being good news because salvation is not based upon your own natural sinful ability to create or perform the work of faith. The gospel is communicated in not only there words there of, but in the meaning of the words in which the message of the gospel is communicated; in other words meaning is everything. So as we can see the gospel according to Arminians and that of the Calvinists is not the same in regards to meaning even though the words they initially apply are the same. Now was Adam, the first man, preached or given the gospel of salvation? He was not given 1 Corinthians 15 and was not told about the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord at least based on the account given in Genesis 3. This is an extremely important question because at the heart addressing the issue or concern of what the gospel according to Adam was and the flexibility of the term in salvation as applied to Old Testament saints. After Adam sinned, God gave a series of curses and blessings saying:



> 14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel." 16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." 17Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.



Then later:



> 20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
> 21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.



So what is the Gospel to Adam? It is partially the curse of the serpent, where by the serpent is defeated by a son in the line of Adam and Eve, even though both Adam and Eve live in a cursed world. It is God that clothes Adam and Eve by blood, as represented by the death of an animal so that they could wear it’s skin. And Eve is the mother of all the living, compared to the line of the serpent where all in that line are dead in their sin. This is all done by the initiative of God by his grace, because God was in the right to kill Adam and Eve there on the spot due to breaking the one command of God. 
The gospel is the promise and power of God unto salvation; it is a gift solely from God and not of our own work, so that none of us can boast. It was a gift from God that Adam was allowed to live. The Arminian gospel does not promise salvation by the Holy Spirit, but instead only gives man the opportunity to choose God and thus a possibility, not an assurance, of salvation. If salvation was by man, then Sarah, wife of Abraham, would have conceived the child of promise without the power of God. Instead what we see is by man’s power we are creatures under bondage of the law. Creatures of sin, as represented by Ishmael, not of the gospel promise. If it was by man then the Holy Spirit would not be needed to conceive Christ in the womb of Mary. We need the grace of God and without that grace we have no gospel, only law. We need the promise of being clothed, and not just the promise, but the reality of being clothed by God, just like he did for Adam and Eve; whereby we are clothed by the righteousness of Christ, passed to us by his death, burial, and resurrection. Whereby we can once again regain that status that we lost in the garden with our relationship, as he as our loving King and us as loyal subjects under his rule, and once again living a life of immortal peace in service. 


This is not to save that an Arminian or anyone else cannot be saved by the gospel. It is despite of ourselves that any of us are saved. That we are not always consistent in our own beliefs, and I would say that lack of consistency is reason why many of us that were once Arminians were saved nevertheless. But let us not kid ourselves of the type of gospel that is produced by Arminians and their production of exciting the will of their own power, like the anxious bench, or through sensational means outside of prayer and the inworking of the Holy Spirit. For the Gospel that one uses, the one that is preached, will produce a certain quality of Christian. The weaker the gospel, the weaker the Christian. If the gospel one wins a person to is not a full gospel, including the grace of God, then the result would be a denial of such Christians to the full extent of the grace of God. For I have heard Arminian Christians say in regards to the free will of man that they could never follow a God that acts on a person will so that they could choose to follow Christ. And in response we should recognize that their God is not the same God as we follow if such a statement is uttered by an Arminian. Now I know that there are people who will take offense at that, but this is one of the reason why we denote Rome as not being a true church. This is not to say that there are not Christians in Rome, as a tradition, but that their being saved is solely by the grace of God and despite of their own beliefs in regards to the many traditions of Rome and the fact that they keep to the simplicity of the Gospel towards their own salvation by grace. 

To deny the grace of God in the gospel is dangerous and affects the message of the gospel that we present; which in turn then becomes dangerous to the souls of those that are listening.


----------



## NB3K

Jack K said:


> Calvinism is not the Gospel. However, the Gospel is understood and expressed most clearly, most completely and most beautifully within the framework of Calvinism.


 
It should not even be labled "Calvinism" if we were simply refering to the Doctrines of Grace. John Calvin in his day would have been labled as an Augustinian.

From reading Augustine's Anti Pelagian Writtings and Augustine's Enchiridion On Faith, Hope, And Love, I have largly discovered that the 5 points are nothing more than Augustianism. And all that have read Calvin and Augustine would have to agree with me. Both Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were all Augustinian. This is why the "non-reformed" critics say that the reformers were not far from the Catholic Church of Rome! But then when you start digging into Church History, you see Rome has always been against Augustine's Doctrines of Grace, Election, and Predestination. They have always held to what they crafted as "semi-Augustinianism, but that was nothing but a cloak for Semi-Pelagianism which is nothing more than the modern day Judizer. 

Both Rome & the Arminian have alot in common in their Doctrine of Justification. It happens to reek of Semi-Pelagianism.


----------



## Romans922

Calvinism is a world and life view.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I thought this was helpful:

[video=vimeo;18039628]http://vimeo.com/18039628[/video]


----------



## ServantsHeart

Yes this is helpful and clear. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## jayce475

Pergamum said:


> Jason,
> 
> I think the burden of proof is on you to prove how my approach to preaching and evangelism is any different than Jonathan Edwards, Brainerd, Carey or even the Piper quote. If that is "neo-evangelical" than give me more of it.


 
Beg to differ Pergy. The onus is on the one who makes the claim that the doctrines of grace should generally not be preached while presenting the gospel to show that the scriptures say so.


----------



## Pergamum

Jason, 

Give it a break. 

If you want to explicitly exposit the 5 Points next time you meet a totally unchurched unbeliever, go ahead. "Hey Joe, let me tell you the good news of TULIP." Why not just read them the Synod of Dort at the first sign of interest in spiritual things? Better yet, instead of a tract, carry around a tulip with you.

The Gospel is more basic than that, and emphasizes slightly different things. It involves our sin, the person of Christ and His work for us. The Gospel in the NT seems to always include the resurrection, explicitly. The five points say little explicitly about Christology or the resurrection. 

Calvinism is biblical but is not the same as the Gospel. And again, four-pointers are in error but they are not to be considered unsaved (nor some arminians for that matter)...but to say that the Gospel and the Five points are the same is to pronounce Arminians damned, and even four-pointers must be said to be "betraying the Gospel" instead of being merely in error.

Getting into the mechanics of soteriology is for a later discussion, perhaps not an initial conversation (unless asked).


----------



## ServantsHeart

To even mention the name John Calvin except in a Reformed Church or Calvinism would cause a wall to go up in many peoples mind, due to all the misunderstanding about him and his teachings. I have never seen a Pastor take the pulpit to preach the Gospel and start going through the TULIP in order to plead with sinners to be reconciled to GOD.
Show me one place in the scriptures where a Gospel plea or proclimation even came close to this method. Christ Himself, Peter,Paul and every other Gospel presentation never included a theological presentation of the Doctrines of Grace. Don't you think the "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;" aspect of the great commission is better suited for these doctrinal issues? Pauls clear declaration of what the Gospel is and what aspects of it are essential to proclaim are found in 1 Corinthians 15:1 to 4. Is Paul preaching Calvinism in these verses or the Gospel? 
Acts likewise shows us what preaching the Gospel looks like, why do we think we can do it better by insisting upon new methods? 

I think I might point out a few possible reasons why we feel led to outdo the Apostles and Prophets who's examples we are taught to follow. 1.) No real concern for the lost in the assembly only a desire to impress others with our imagined great minds and abillities. 2.) A total absence of dependance upon the Holy Spirits enablement so we do it our way and in our strength. 3.) An over dependance upon how men say it has to be done,a tradition gets started so we do it because it's the traditional way to do it. In other words pride not passion or burden for the hearer. The mind needs to be spoken to but the affections must be moved as well. 
The Milk not the Meat of the Word is needed for the Spiritual New Born why would we want to present things difficult to understand to infants in the Faith?


----------



## jayce475

The doctrines of grace are the gospel properly expounded. The five points can be preached in a passionate manner which is strongly evangelistic and without undermining the free offer of the gospel. Yes, this is sometimes not done and it seems almost as though Calvinism is meant to be relegated to bible study classes for believers only. But this ought not to be. Unless someone is claiming that John 10 is "purely doctrinal" and cannot be preached in a call to the lost, there is no good reason why a message over the pulpit (which is meant to be the main means of evangelism) should not be evangelistic and proclaim the doctrines of grace at the same time. I got saved by a good message expounding total depravity. A gospel proclamation can do without the doctrines of grace no doubt, but it can have them as well.

Pergy, my contention remains and I think you are giving pragmatism too much respect. I did not say that one ought to be covering all 5 points of the doctrines of grace in 1 message, so please don't misrepresent what I am saying, thanks.



ServantsHeart said:


> I think I might point out a few possible reasons why we feel led to outdo the Apostles and Prophets who's examples we are taught to follow. 1.) No real concern for the lost in the assembly only a desire to impress others with our imagined great minds and abillities. 2.) A total absence of dependance upon the Holy Spirits enablement so we do it our way and in our strength. 3.) An over dependance upon how men say it has to be done,a tradition gets started so we do it because it's the traditional way to do it. In other words pride not passion or burden for the hearer. The mind needs to be spoken to but the affections must be moved as well.
> The Milk not the Meat of the Word is needed for the Spiritual New Born why would we want to present things difficult to understand to infants in the Faith?



Stephen, this doesn't come across as being particularly fair. Being willing to preach the doctrines of grace while preaching Christ and Christ crucified is not trying to please man, not blindly following tradition, and definitely not a total absence of dependence upon the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Pergamum

Jason.

Quit your silly charges of pragmatism towards me, my reasoning is thoroughly biblical.

With your quote here:



> *A gospel proclamation can do without the doctrines of grace no doubt*, but it can have them as well.



...you have proven my very point. So, what is it that you are still arguing about?


----------



## jayce475

Pergamum said:


> Jason.
> 
> Quit your silly charges of pragmatism towards me, my reasoning is thoroughly biblical.
> 
> With your quote here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A gospel proclamation can do without the doctrines of grace no doubt*, but it can have them as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...you have proven my very point. So, what is it that you are still arguing about?
Click to expand...

 
You're not interacting and simply claiming biblical ground. No I haven't proven your point. You're saying that a gospel proclamation should generally not have the doctrines of grace because when it happens it makes the gospel proclamation "less effective", and there is no biblical reasoning behind such an assertion. I am saying that there is no such thing and we can very well proclaim both that which is essential to salvation and the doctrines of grace at the same time.


----------



## ServantsHeart

jayce475 said:


> and cannot be preached in a call to the lost, there is no good reason why a message over the pulpit (which is meant to be the main means of evangelism) should not be evangelistic and proclaim the doctrines of grace at the same time. I got saved by a good message expounding total depravity. A gospel proclamation can do without the doctrines of grace no doubt, but it can have them as well.


 Brorher Jason, I agree that while Preaching the essential elements of the Gospel a Pastor should and can touch upon some aspects of the fuller teaching of the Doctrines of Grace, we agree here.

Regarding possible reasons why some may choose to teach Calvinism or The Doctrines of Grace instead of a simple presentation of the Gospel facts concerning Christ and Him Crucified. I did not mean to imply that any attempt to speak with the Holy Spirits enablement and with a right purpose on these weighty doctrines was a prideful motive at all times by those who do it. But it can be if we do not humble ourselves before we present our Sermon/Teaching. Paul had competition with some who Preached the Gospel out of wrong motive Phillipians 1:15 to 18 also some out of jealousy contradicted him and downplaid his call,gifts and manor of service as anApostle. This attitude and spirit is what I was speaking of as well as what Pauls warns against in 1 Corinthians 1,2,3 thats all Dear Brother.

And lastly, My main point is that a fuller treatment of the Gospel and related truths, the Doctrines of Grace seems to me to be better suited for a setting wherein the Discipleship is beginning and ongoing. The Doctrines of Grace/Calvinism are Truth and glorious explanations of what the Bible teaches about the why,when and where's of GODS actions upon helpless sinners who need Salvation. 
I am not ashamed of the Gospel or the Doctrines which shine heavenly light upon Salvation but there in my opinion is a time and a place for making them plain.


----------



## Pergamum

jayce475 said:


> The doctrines of grace are the gospel properly expounded. The five points can be preached in a passionate manner which is strongly evangelistic and without undermining the free offer of the gospel. Yes, this is sometimes not done and it seems almost as though Calvinism is meant to be relegated to bible study classes for believers only. But this ought not to be. Unless someone is claiming that John 10 is "purely doctrinal" and cannot be preached in a call to the lost, there is no good reason why a message over the pulpit (which is meant to be the main means of evangelism) should not be evangelistic and proclaim the doctrines of grace at the same time. I got saved by a good message expounding total depravity. A gospel proclamation can do without the doctrines of grace no doubt, but it can have them as well.
> 
> Pergy, my contention remains and I think you are giving pragmatism too much respect. I did not say that one ought to be covering all 5 points of the doctrines of grace in 1 message, so please don't misrepresent what I am saying, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ServantsHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I might point out a few possible reasons why we feel led to outdo the Apostles and Prophets who's examples we are taught to follow. 1.) No real concern for the lost in the assembly only a desire to impress others with our imagined great minds and abillities. 2.) A total absence of dependance upon the Holy Spirits enablement so we do it our way and in our strength. 3.) An over dependance upon how men say it has to be done,a tradition gets started so we do it because it's the traditional way to do it. In other words pride not passion or burden for the hearer. The mind needs to be spoken to but the affections must be moved as well.
> The Milk not the Meat of the Word is needed for the Spiritual New Born why would we want to present things difficult to understand to infants in the Faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen, this doesn't come across as being particularly fair. Being willing to preach the doctrines of grace while preaching Christ and Christ crucified is not trying to please man, not blindly following tradition, and definitely not a total absence of dependence upon the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

 
I would like to challenge this assumption as well:



> a message over the *pulpit *(which is meant to be the *main means of evangelism*)




In the NT I see most evangelism occurring in public and in a variety of pulpit-less settings. In real life I see most people coming to Christ through follow-up and not through a message from a pulpit.


----------



## PuritanZealot

What's wrong with preaching the Gospel via the doctrines of grace but never explicitly mentioning them? One could easily preach a sermon on the following points, or have a discussion personally with someone (interested in spiritual things or not).

The inability of man to save himself or to willingly choose to follow God.

The fact that God is sovereign and will choose who He will or won't save, "mercy on whom...harden whom..."

God has a chosen people (countless references).

When God decides to do something, He does it and he never, ever fails.

When God decides to save someone, He does so and they will never, ever be cast off.

I don't see what the big deal is, my Church preach this week in week out, an unchanging Gospel, there is no mincing around with words, no preaching Calvinism ("of Paul or of Apollos or of Christ?") just preaching the Gospel as it is described in the Bible. Calvinism is not the Gospel, the Gospel is commonly called Calvinism and what a lot of people call the Gospel in most churches is nothing more than the free offer of a false Christ that died for whoever fancies following him. Not the Christ who died for filth stained hell bound sinners and never ever fails to save who He will.


----------



## jayce475

ServantsHeart said:


> Regarding possible reasons why some may choose to teach Calvinism or The Doctrines of Grace instead of a simple presentation of the Gospel facts concerning Christ and Him Crucified. I did not mean to imply that any attempt to speak with the Holy Spirits enablement and with a right purpose on these weighty doctrines was a prideful motive at all times by those who do it. But it can be if we do not humble ourselves before we present our Sermon/Teaching. Paul had competition with some who Preached the Gospel out of wrong motive Phillipians 1:15 to 18 also some out of jealousy contradicted him and downplaid his call,gifts and manor of service as anApostle. This attitude and spirit is what I was speaking of as well as what Pauls warns against in 1 Corinthians 1,2,3 thats all Dear Brother.



Yes absolutely. But how is it that those who do preach the doctrines of grace while proclaiming the gospel are now made to seem like being more susceptible to such sins than those who do not? I know you've not said that explicitly, just wanting to point out that all preaching can be done with the wrong heart. Calvinists who love to uphold the doctrines of grace more are not necessarily usually such ones.



ServantsHeart said:


> And lastly, My main point is that a fuller treatment of the Gospel and related truths, the Doctrines of Grace seems to me to be better suited for a setting wherein the Discipleship is beginning and ongoing. The Doctrines of Grace/Calvinism are Truth and glorious explanations of what the Bible teaches about the why,when and where's of GODS actions upon helpless sinners who need Salvation.





Pergamum said:


> In the NT I see most evangelism occurring in public and in a variety of pulpit-less settings. In real life I see most people coming to Christ through follow-up and not through a message from a pulpit.



Alright, clearly we are on different sides of the fence with regards to evangelism and there is not much point in going through this. There're plenty of threads on PB on precisely this. Even if you are of the opinion that evangelism should mainly be done in non-pulpit settings, it does not change much. It is still perfectly fine to talk about the doctrines of grace while sharing the gospel in other settings, as long as the preacher is not denying duty-faith. We don't have to even call it Calvinism. Most Reformed churches I am in contact with preach the doctrines of grace week in week out without the congregations even know that it is TULIP. To many in the congregations, it is simply the bible preached faithfully. Once again, I reiterate lest we miss the point, there is nothing wrong with preaching the doctrines of grace while proclaiming the gospel, and the onus is on the one who thinks it to be wrong to prove his point from the scriptures, and not from plain pragmatism. The wind bloweth where it listeth, not only when we employ methods seemingly "effective" to us.



PuritanZealot said:


> What's wrong with preaching the Gospel via the doctrines of grace but never explicitly mentioning them? One could easily preach a sermon on the following points, or have a discussion personally with someone (interested in spiritual things or not).
> 
> The inability of man to save himself or to willingly choose to follow God.
> 
> The fact that God is sovereign and will choose who He will or won't save, "mercy on whom...harden whom..."
> 
> God has a chosen people (countless references).
> 
> When God decides to do something, He does it and he never, ever fails.
> 
> When God decides to save someone, He does so and they will never, ever be cast off.
> 
> I don't see what the big deal is, my Church preach this week in week out, an unchanging Gospel, there is no mincing around with words, no preaching Calvinism ("of Paul or of Apollos or of Christ?") just preaching the Gospel as it is described in the Bible. Calvinism is not the Gospel, the Gospel is commonly called Calvinism and what a lot of people call the Gospel in most churches is nothing more than the free offer of a false Christ that died for whoever fancies following him. Not the Christ who died for filth stained hell bound sinners and never ever fails to save who He will.



Amen.


----------



## Pergamum

And again, cease and desist your charges towards me of pragmatism, my reasoning is biblical.


----------



## jayce475

And again, I cannot, unless you do reason from scriptures. If you think it profitable to stop this discussion, we may cease.


----------



## Pergamum

Craig and Jason:



> The inability of man to save himself or to willingly choose to follow God.
> 
> The fact that God is sovereign and will choose who He will or won't save, "mercy on whom...harden whom..."
> 
> God has a chosen people (countless references).
> 
> When God decides to do something, He does it and he never, ever fails.
> 
> When God decides to save someone, He does so and they will never, ever be cast off.



This presentation has nothing about the resurrection, a frequent NT theme in preaching. Also, there is no call to repentance, also a frequent NT theme when the Gospel is presented. Also, I do not see that you have explicitly expounded all 5 points and limited atonement is not explicitly explained. In fact, you seem fixated by the eternal decrees of God in your Gospel presentation. While the doctrine of grace should not be hidden, the ordo salutis is not what we normally lead with, nor the decree of election or the hidden things of God. If you were engaging the totally unchurched or unreached as an initial contact and gave them this message I would say that you could have prioritized more basic issues first. 

The Gospel is more basic than the five points. When evangelizing the lost we should not hide any truth but there is a priority of what should normally be mentioned first. And this initial explanation of the gospel not need lead one through TULIP. Normally these doctrines will be presented in their due time.


----------



## Pergamum

Below are some sample Gospel Presentations /summaries from the NT:


Acts 2:



> "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." (v. 35-43)



Paul:



> For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.




Paul again Romans 1 with a summary:



> Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
> 
> 2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
> 
> 3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
> 
> 4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
> 
> 5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:






Acts 17:



> Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
> 
> 23For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
> 
> 24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
> 
> 25Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
> 
> 26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
> 
> 27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
> 
> 28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
> 
> 29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
> 
> 30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
> 
> 31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.





In the above examples we see the person and work of Christ as the main themes. We see the resurrection. When the audience are Jews we also see proofs from the OT. With the Gentiles Paul starts from the known and works to the unknown (he is "contextual"). We see also a call to action and the impact of the Gopsel on our personal actions. 






The key elements of an "effective" presentation of the Gospel would be that it is (1) biblical and 2) clear. It it is either in error or unclear or not understandable, then the Gospel is not really being communicated well. Add to these points other secondary elements such as (3) it is personal and impacts more than the cognitive realm but also the affective part of the person and (4) it motivates them to act, then I think you can call this a good or effective Gospel presentation. Given the limited time of some initial evangelistic encounters it is wise to give a bigger picture of Scripture and work from the known to the unknown and the major themes over the minor rather than get distracted on secondary issues (stick to Christ and his work). If later further discussions can be arranged, then a a more systematic and thorough approach can be adopted.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> In the above examples we see the person and work of Christ as the main themes.


 
Would you agree that these examples with their different emphases reveal that a great deal of background knowledge is necessary to the proper understanding and acceptance of the gospel which is preached? In Acts 17 we find an elaboration of providence as underpinning the moral accountability of all men to the command to repent. Without an understanding of providence the command to repent carries little weight. Therefore the apostle elaborates upon it in his proclamation of the gospel. The fact is, the gospel reaches men at various points of their understanding. Where people are already influenced by a pure Arminian conception of Christianity it becomes necessary to correct those misconceptions in order to clear the way for the gospel. Where one is on a missionary field like India it will be important to clarify that Christianity is not just a belief which can be incorporated into a Hindu philosophy of life but a radical change of allegiance to Christ the Lord. There is not really a situation which enables one to give a simple ABC presentation of the gospel. The context in some measure will dictate the emphases and the instructor will try to lead the hearer according to his abilities and understanding.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the above examples we see the person and work of Christ as the main themes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you agree that these examples with their different emphases reveal that a great deal of background knowledge is necessary to the proper understanding and acceptance of the gospel which is preached? In Acts 17 we find an elaboration of providence as underpinning the moral accountability of all men to the command to repent. Without an understanding of providence the command to repent carries little weight. Therefore the apostle elaborates upon it in his proclamation of the gospel. The fact is, the gospel reaches men at various points of their understanding. Where people are already influenced by a pure Arminian conception of Christianity it becomes necessary to correct those misconceptions in order to clear the way for the gospel. Where one is on a missionary field like India it will be important to clarify that Christianity is not just a belief which can be incorporated into a Hindu philosophy of life but a radical change of allegiance to Christ the Lord. There is not really a situation which enables one to give a simple ABC presentation of the gospel. The context in some measure will dictate the emphases and the instructor will try to lead the hearer according to his abilities and understanding.
Click to expand...

 
Dear Matthew Winzer,
I don't think there has been one comment posted by you on this board that I would not have found helpful. I've noticed you talk considerably less than others, but when you talk, there is great wisdom behind your words. Just makes me wonder if my own mouth opens a little too often before seriously pondering. So, thank you for this another great comment, and thank you for giving such a great example of discretion to others!

In Christ,
Samuel


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Lost in all this back and forth was a comment made by Matthew early on about the fact that the _central ideas_ are implicit in the Gospel. Yet again we see a thread derailed because people are not paying attention to what the question was.

Do you suppose Spurgeon was so naive as to be stating that what he meant by his statement that he walked men through the entire Canons of Dordt in order to present the Gospel?

Or is Spurgeon's statement all about how one performs door to door evangelism?

Now, as Matthew pointed out, even in 1 Cor 15, the five principles are inherent in the Gospel. 

For instance, I fully reject any idea that limited atonement is not part of the Gospel presentation. I can't tell you the number of people that I've comforted by the Gospel truth that Christ's death and resurrection saves men to the uttermost. I don't state it in the formula that Christ only died for the elect but in a way that makes clear that Christ's death and resurrection pay the full penalty for sin and that those that believe in Christ live forever.

Furthermore, in a fast food society that likes "snippets" it is wrong to assume that 1 Cor 15 is the only time that Paul calls something "the Gospel". The entire letter of Romans is repeatedly referred to by Paul as "my Gospel". There may be a shorthand way of saying certain things to people that already understand something but there are no shortcuts by just saying a minimal number of words to a listener and assuming that the person listening has understood the Gospel. Sentences in the scriptures are not incantations. We are called to press these things into the understanding of our hearers and explain and argue for certain ideas. I may start out with something very basic but will have to give further explanation or correction of something if somebody is inferring something improperly.

At the end of the day, people need to stop and consider how one could accurately present any Gospel that denied man's rebellion in sin (T), the right of God to punish men for their sin (T), God's sending of Christ out of his mere grace and not for anything they deserved (U), Christ dying on a Cross for Sin satisfying the wrath of God for all who believe (L), Christ saving to the uttermost all who draw near (L,P), God loving us before we loved him (U, I), or even the power of the Gospel to be the source of life (I).

If you think Spurgeon's concern was that the Canons of Dort and the history of the debate ought to be a part of any entry-level discussion with an unbeliever then you've utterly missed the point.

If you can think of a way to accurately present the Gospel that somehow denies any core principle then I'd like to hear it.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Disclaimer: I haven't read a single post in this thread. Nor do I intend to do so. But judging by the fact that there are 2 pages of comments I'm going to guess that there is disagreement as to whether or not the question in the OP is true. I'll add my vote to the "yes it is" lot.

Calvinism is NOT the Gospel if by that we mean that if we read someone the 5 points of TULIP we've thereby presented the Gospel. But Spurgeon was no dummy. He didn't mean that, and neither do I. The assumptions about God and man and sin and salvation that undergird the doctrines of grace; the statements about God, man, the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit, that are in TULIP... these things are the ideas and propositions that are faithfully consistent with, and in, the Biblical Gospel. More so, this is true to the extent that to the degree one rejects Calvinism, one is rejecting a belief or assumption about God/man/sin/salvation that is part of the Gospel. How much error can one have in their soteriology and be saved? I don't know, and that isn't for me to judge, but I won't back down from saying that the better one understands Calvinism, the better one understands the Gospel, and vice versa.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the above examples we see the person and work of Christ as the main themes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you agree that these examples with their different emphases reveal that a great deal of background knowledge is necessary to the proper understanding and acceptance of the gospel which is preached? In Acts 17 we find an elaboration of providence as underpinning the moral accountability of all men to the command to repent. Without an understanding of providence the command to repent carries little weight. Therefore the apostle elaborates upon it in his proclamation of the gospel. The fact is, the gospel reaches men at various points of their understanding. Where people are already influenced by a pure Arminian conception of Christianity it becomes necessary to correct those misconceptions in order to clear the way for the gospel. Where one is on a missionary field like India it will be important to clarify that Christianity is not just a belief which can be incorporated into a Hindu philosophy of life but a radical change of allegiance to Christ the Lord. There is not really a situation which enables one to give a simple ABC presentation of the gospel. The context in some measure will dictate the emphases and the instructor will try to lead the hearer according to his abilities and understanding.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, Rev. Winzer, perfectly agreed. 

I noted above the different approach Paul took with the Jews as opposed to the Gentiles. 

Also, many times in my posts above I used phrases such as “initial” evangelistic encounter and “totally unchurched” to describe the context. 

I simply think that those in America aged 30 years or below are so biblically illiterate that they need to hear a solid summary of the Gospel before getting into the game of “Your church may say this, but that is not right…” because many folks simply don’t have a church. If asked, or at a later point there is room for this as well. 

Also note that my perspective is an evangelistic one. 

I also believe that we ought to prioritize the teaching of some doctrines before others when engaging in evangelism. Eschatology might not be for day one. I believe an explicit explanation of the five points is usually not for day one either, unless there are questions. These are all practical considerations on the field when trying to impart understanding to people. I try to work from the big picture of Scripture down to smaller and more specific doctrines, I try to work from the known to the unknown. I try to get them to acknowledge the truths that they accept first in their native religion before engaging in controversies. I try to give a basic summary of the Gospel the first chance I get without getting “distracted” by one or two issues. Call these things “pragmatic” if you will (and these general operating practices do prove very practical), but I do not believe the apostles were purposely impractical and I believe that we serve a practical God. 

And, of course I have never said that I want to hide any doctrine from any man, only that some doctrine fits better to lead off with. And if we are to give the “Gospel” to someone this means that we must give them those core truths of the NT which seem to be more basic than the five points of Calvinism. 


The Gospel is not the five points, though I have partnered with some folks in evangelism that have thought this and one man that I partnered with even ended up trying to prove that “world” didn’t mean the whole world to a totally unchurched man on our first visit and within the first ten minutes and failed to give a solid summary of the basics because he got fixated on going through the five points. 

It is quite right that Paul immediately attacks the Gentiles as being altogether too superstitious (the phrasing here seems to be negative and not a commendation of their religiousity) but I think directly engaging error among the unchurched today in the West would be to engage their sinful lifestyles first and give them a solid summary of the Gospel – although even on an initial encounter one should engage false notions of religion. Also, Paul quotes from the pagan’s own poets and focused on a truth that all could accept as a point of commonality before pushing the audience further and demanding repentance, so that there also seems a principle of working from the known to the unknown and from the accepted to the unaccepted. Therefore, an explicit exposition of limited atonement will come in its own due time, but a general teaching of Christ coming to save sinners is sufficient for an initial Gospel Summary. 

In my experience I am dealing with unchurched people or people largely wholly ignorant of the basic gospel truths. 

My conclusion: Simply put, Calvinism is perfectly biblical and we should teach it fully. However, when engaging someone and telling them what the gospel is in its narrow definition, we get our pattern from Acts 2, Acts 14, and other places which seem to focus on Christ and his person and work and his resurrection and a call to repent, etc, and not an explicit exposition of the five points. 

A note on disagreements in this thread: 

Jason has challenged me and has called my principles pragmatic. If that is the case, then the Apostle Paul was also pragmatic in how he addressed Jews differently than Gentiles. Also, perhaps he believes that I want to intentionally hide some doctrine from people, but this has never been said. Perhaps he thinks that I am advocating NOT teaching Calvinism, but this also was never said, only that the Gospel is not equated 100% with the 5 points but is more basic and when giving the Gospel one needs not explicitly mention these five points. Also, he seems to be equating evangelism with an activity from the pulpit (though I believe that the service of the church is basically focused on feeding believers and not unbelievers; we should go out into the highways and hedges to focus on unbelievers)and I am equating evangelism with an activity where there is no pulpit or church. So maybe these factors are causing some disagreement on this thread.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------




Semper Fidelis said:


> Lost in all this back and forth was a comment made by Matthew early on about the fact that the _central ideas_ are implicit in the Gospel. Yet again we see a thread derailed because people are not paying attention to what the question was.
> 
> Do you suppose Spurgeon was so naive as to be stating that what he meant by his statement that he walked men through the entire Canons of Dordt in order to present the Gospel?
> 
> Or is Spurgeon's statement all about how one performs door to door evangelism?
> 
> Now, as Matthew pointed out, even in 1 Cor 15, the five principles are inherent in the Gospel.
> 
> For instance, I fully reject any idea that limited atonement is not part of the Gospel presentation. I can't tell you the number of people that I've comforted by the Gospel truth that Christ's death and resurrection saves men to the uttermost. I don't state it in the formula that Christ only died for the elect but in a way that makes clear that Christ's death and resurrection pay the full penalty for sin and that those that believe in Christ live forever.
> 
> Furthermore, in a fast food society that likes "snippets" it is wrong to assume that 1 Cor 15 is the only time that Paul calls something "the Gospel". The entire letter of Romans is repeatedly referred to by Paul as "my Gospel". There may be a shorthand way of saying certain things to people that already understand something but there are no shortcuts by just saying a minimal number of words to a listener and assuming that the person listening has understood the Gospel. Sentences in the scriptures are not incantations. We are called to press these things into the understanding of our hearers and explain and argue for certain ideas. I may start out with something very basic but will have to give further explanation or correction of something if somebody is inferring something improperly.
> 
> At the end of the day, people need to stop and consider how one could accurately present any Gospel that denied man's rebellion in sin (T), the right of God to punish men for their sin (T), God's sending of Christ out of his mere grace and not for anything they deserved (U), Christ dying on a Cross for Sin satisfying the wrath of God for all who believe (L), Christ saving to the uttermost all who draw near (L,P), God loving us before we loved him (U, I), or even the power of the Gospel to be the source of life (I).
> 
> If you think Spurgeon's concern was that the Canons of Dort and the history of the debate ought to be a part of any entry-level discussion with an unbeliever then you've utterly missed the point.
> 
> If you can think of a way to accurately present the Gospel that somehow denies any core principle then I'd like to hear it.


 
Rich, 

I saw Rev. Winzer's early thread and agree with it. 

The difference is whether the five points are *implicit* or *explicit* when one usually presents the Gospel to unbelievers initially. 

Perhaps Spurgeon was not so naive as to try to read the Canons of Dordt to unbelievers when asked about what the Gospel was, but I have seen with my own two eyes calvinists who have tried to "witness" in this manner. I have been with men who have told people that world did not really mean world within 10 minutes of a first encounter with someone, even when this topic seemed of secondary importance at the time. Like your gopsel summary above, I would have felt fine with leaving it at, "Christ died for sinners" or "Christ died for all who believe." The nature of the atonement is important and the extent of the atonement flows from its nature, but the extent of the atonement might better be reserved for a later time unless the person you are talking to explicitly mentions it.

Note that in your above fine Gospel Summary, limited atonement was also implicit and not explicit and you did not march down the five points either. You mentioned that:



> Christ dying on a Cross for Sin satisfying the wrath of God for all who believe



This is much the same as how I present the Gospel to an unbeliever. It is a good start. I notice that in this initial summary of the Gospel you did not explicitly say that Christ did NOT die for anyone, only that He died for sinners who believed. Are you denying a central truth because who failed to mention this? Or are you merely sticking to the main things for the need of time and conciseness? 



The five points of calvinism are perfectly biblical. I think that is what is meant when people say "Calvinism is the Gospel" - they mean merely that "Calvinism is Biblical." Amen.

Since the PB consists of all calvinists therefore, it is not a naive thing then to take the word "Gospel" in its narrowest sense, since the phrase "Calvinism is biblical" is already accepted by all. And when do we usually try to explain this narrowest sense to people? When we are initially evangelizing them. 

And if the gospel is taken in its narrowest sense, then what we are talking about is those core doctrines Paul mentions when he summarizes the Gospel. In this case, then no, Calvinism and the Gospel are not perfect synonyms.

This does not mean that we are trying to find gospel presentations that deny any of these tenets, but just like in your gospel summary above, those things will stay implicit and sometimes unmentioned until a later point.

And as the context allows there will be time and opportunity to go deeper. But initially one must give the core of the Gospel to unbelievers, and that core is more basic than the five point explicitly explained.

---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> Disclaimer: I haven't read a single post in this thread. Nor do I intend to do so. But judging by the fact that there are 2 pages of comments I'm going to guess that there is disagreement as to whether or not the question in the OP is true. I'll add my vote to the "yes it is" lot.
> 
> Calvinism is NOT the Gospel if by that we mean that if we read someone the 5 points of TULIP we've thereby presented the Gospel. But Spurgeon was no dummy. He didn't mean that, and neither do I. The assumptions about God and man and sin and salvation that undergird the doctrines of grace; the statements about God, man, the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit, that are in TULIP... these things are the ideas and propositions that are faithfully consistent with, and in, the Biblical Gospel. More so, this is true to the extent that to the degree one rejects Calvinism, one is rejecting a belief or assumption about God/man/sin/salvation that is part of the Gospel. How much error can one have in their soteriology and be saved? I don't know, and that isn't for me to judge, but I won't back down from saying that the better one understands Calvinism, the better one understands the Gospel, and vice versa.


 
Yes, agreed. 

We all agree with the statement "Calvinism is biblical" which is what I think most people mean when they say "Calvinism is the Gospel."

However, narrowly defined, when we give a summary of the Gospel this does not mean summarizing the five points and at the most those five points will usually stay implicit in our gospel summaries to unbelievers. I have quoted Peter and Paul above in how they summarized the Gospel.

This is not advocating denying any of the doctrines of grace, which is what perhaps some people have assumed. I am advocating that when we present this narrow summary of the Gospel to unbelievers that normally it will not look exactly like the five points nor even mention some of the points explicitly (I used limited atonement as an example). 

This is not pragmatism, but a right prioritizing of the core tenets of our faith. Later on, one can go deeper. 

In this sense the five points is not the Gospel.


----------



## tommyb

If one goes back to Spurgeon's quote, I believe when he says "preach" he is speaking as a Pastor preaching from the pulpit and teaching the flock the whole counsel of God. He is saying you cannot avoid or separate these doctrines from the Gospel because, ultimately, they are the Gospel. To to teach any other doctrine is to detract from the "goodest" part of what makes the good news so good. When it comes to evangelizing the world, I believe Spurgeon would agree with the OP entirely in that you don't need to preach the fine points unconditional election (nor should you) to preach the Gospel and regenerate the soul. The text of Spurgeons' evangelistic sermons would seem to confirm this.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Semper Fidelis said:


> At the end of the day, people need to stop and consider how one could accurately present any Gospel that denied man's rebellion in sin (T), the right of God to punish men for their sin (T), God's sending of Christ out of his mere grace and not for anything they deserved (U), Christ dying on a Cross for Sin satisfying the wrath of God for all who believe (L), Christ saving to the uttermost all who draw near (L,P), God loving us before we loved him (U, I), or even the power of the Gospel to be the source of life (I).



Outstanding post Rich. Amen.

---------- Post added at 12:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> We all agree with the statement "Calvinism is biblical" which is what I think most people mean when they say "Calvinism is the Gospel."



I'm sorry, Pergamum, but simply acknowledging Calvinism as "Biblical" falls short of accurately describing the relationship of Calvinism and the Gospel. I believe homeschooling is "biblical," however I do not believe that homeschooling is the Gospel. 

What we are saying is that the whole of Paul's Gospel in its fullest sense is Calvinism. Are there brief and definitive summaries of this Gospel which omit some of the finer points? Absolutely! But the Gospel in its entirety shew forth the Doctrines of Grace in all their beauty. Calvinism is our soteriology. And it is an answer to the question "What must I do to be saved?" So in that sense we say, Calvinism is the Gospel. 

I have found The Sum of Saving Knowledge to be a perfect example of the interdependency of what we call "the Doctrines of Grace" and the Gospel



> *THE SUM OF SAVING KNOWLEDGE​*
> The Sum of Saving Knowledge may be taken up in these four heads: 1. The woeful condition wherein all men are by nature, through breaking of the covenant of works. 2. The remedy provided for the elect in Jesus Christ by the covenant of grace. 3. The means appointed to make them partakers of this covenant. 4. The blessings which are effectually conveyed unto the elect by these means. -Which four heads are set down each of them in some few propositions.
> 
> *HEAD I*
> 
> Our woeful condition by nature, through breaking the covenant of works. Hos. xiii. 9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself.​
> I. The almighty and eternal God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, three distinct persons in the one and the same undivided Godhead, equally infinite in all perfections, did, before time, most wisely decree, for his own glory, whatsoever cometh to pass in time: and doth most holily and infallibly execute all his decrees, without being partaker of the sin of any creature.
> 
> II. This God, in six days, made all things of nothing, very good in their own kind: in special, he made all the angels holy; and he made our first parents, Adam and Eve, the root of mankind, both upright and able to keep the law written in their heart. Which law they were naturally bound to obey under pain of death; but God was not bound to reward their service, till he entered into a covenant or contract with them, and their posterity in them, to give them eternal life, upon condition of perfect personal obedience; withal threatening death in case they should fail. This is the covenant of works.
> 
> III. Both angels and men were subject to the change of their own freewill, as experience proved, (God having reserved to himself the incommunicable property of being naturally unchangeable) for many angels of their own accord fell by sin from their first estate, and became devils. Our first parents, being enticed by Satan, one of these devils speaking in a serpent, did break the covenant of works, in eating the forbidden fruit; whereby they, and their posterity, being in their loins, as branches in the root, and comprehended in the same covenant with them, became not only liable to eternal death, but also lost all ability to please God; yea, did become by nature enemies to God, and to all spiritual good, and inclined only to evil continually. This is our original sin, the bitter root of all our actual transgressions, in* *thought, word, and deed.
> 
> *HEAD II *
> 
> The remedy provided in Jesus Christ for the elect by the covenant of grace. Hos. xiii. 9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.​
> I. Albeit man, having brought himself into this woeful condition, be neither able to help himself, nor willing to be helped by God out of it, but rather inclined to lie still, insensible of it, till he perish; yet God, for the glory of his rich grace, hath revealed in his word a way to save sinners, viz. by faith in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, by virtue of, and according to the tenor of the covenant of redemption, made and agreed upon between God the Father and God the Son, in the council of the Trinity, before the world began.
> 
> II. The sum of the covenant of redemption is this: God having freely chosen unto life a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, unto God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature, of a soul and a body, unto personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fulness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to the law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross: But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits unto the elect; and that he doth by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings.
> 
> III. For the accomplishment of this covenant of redemption, and making the elect partakers of the benefits thereof in the covenant of grace, Christ Jesus was clad with the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King: made a Prophet, to reveal all saving knowledge to his people, and to persuade them to believe and obey the same; made a Priest, to offer up himself a sacrifice once for them all, and to intercede continually with the Father, for making their persons and services acceptable to him; and made a King, to subdue them to himself, to feed and rule them by his own appointed ordinances, and to defend them from their enemies.
> 
> *HEAD III*
> 
> The outward means appointed to make the elect partakers of this covenant, and all the rest that are called, to be inexcusable, Matt. xxii. 14. Many are called.​
> I. The outward means and ordinances, for making men partakers of the the covenant of grace, are so wisely dispensed, as that the elect shall be infallibly converted and saved by them; and the reprobate, among whom they are, not to be justly stumbled. The means are especially these four. 1. The word of God. 2. The sacraments. 3. Kirk-government. (i.e. Church-government) 4. Prayer. In the word of God preached by sent messengers, the Lord makes offer of grace to all sinners, upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ; and whosoever do confess their sin, accept of Christ offered, and submit themselves to his ordinances, he will have both them and their children received into the honour and privileges of the covenant of grace. By the sacraments, God will have the covenant sealed for confirming the bargain on the foresaid condition. By kirk-government (i.e. church-government), he will have them hedged in, and helped forward unto the keeping of the covenant. And by prayer, he will have his own glorious grace, promised in the covenant, to be daily drawn forth, acknowledged, and employed. All which means are followed either really, or in profession only, according to the quality of the covenanters, as they are true or counterfeit believers.
> 
> II. The covenant of grace, set down in the Old Testament before Christ came, and in the New since he came, is one and the same in Substance, albeit different in outward administration: For the covenant in the Old Testament, being sealed with the sacraments of circumcision and the paschal lamb, did set forth Christ's death to come, and the benefits purchased thereby, under the shadow of bloody sacrifices, and sundry ceremonies: but since Christ came, the covenant being sealed by the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, doth clearly bold forth Christ already crucified before our eyes, victorious over death and the grave, and gloriously ruling heaven and earth, for the good of his own people.
> 
> *HEAD IV*
> 
> The blessings which are effectually conveyed by these means to the Lord's elect, or chosen ones. Matt. xxii. 14. Many are called, but few are chosen.​
> I. By these outward ordinances, as our Lord makes the reprobate inexcusable, so, by the power of his Spirit, he applies unto the elect, effectually, all saving graces purchased to them in the covenant of redemption, and maketh a change in their persons. In particular, 1. He doth convert or regenerate them, by giving spiritual life to them, in opening their understandings, renewing their wills, affections, and faculties, for giving spiritual obedience to his commands. 2. He gives them saving faith, by making them, in the sense of deserved condemnation, to give their consent heartily to the covenant of grace, and to embrace Jesus Christ unfeignedly. 3. He gives them repentance, by making them, with godly sorrow, in the hatred of sin, and love of righteousness, turn from all iniquity to the service of God. And, 4. He sanctifies them, by making them go on and persevere in faith and spiritual obedience to the law of God, manifested by fruitfulness in all duties, and doing good works, as God offereth occasion.
> 
> II. Together with this inward change of their persons, God changes also their state: for, so soon as they are brought by faith into the covenant of grace, 1. He justifies them, by imputing unto them that perfect obedience which Christ gave to the law, and the satisfaction also which upon the cross Christ gave unto justice in their name. 2. He reconciles them, and makes them friends to God, who were before enemies to God. 3. He adopts them, that they shall be no more children of Satan, but children of God, enriched with all spiritual privileges of his sons. And last of all, after their warfare in this life is ended, he perfects the holiness and blessedness, first of their souls at their death, and then both of their souls and their bodies, being joyfully joined together again in the resurrection, at the day of his glorious coming to judgment, when all the wicked shall be sent away to hell, with Satan whom they have served: but Christ's own chosen and redeemed ones, true believers, students of holiness, shall remain with himself for ever, in the state of glorification.


----------



## jayce475

Many thanks to Pergy for your elaboration and interaction. Perhaps allow me to clarify a bit too.



Pergamum said:


> I have never seen an effective Gospel presentation that explicitly tries to prove that Christ did not die for everyone.



This is the statement in question. No I have not said that you wish to hide the doctrines of grace somehow, but I acknowledge that you wish to de-prioritize the explicit presentation of it in favour of the bare facts of the gospel. As Rev Winzer has said, there is a time and place for such a presentation in some cases and I still fail to see how we necessarily need to strip our gospel presentation bare of any other doctrines. We can preach on the blessed hope of the Kingdom of Christ while telling one about the need to believe and repent. Why not? Our Lord and Saviour did it. We don't have to go on a two-hour lecture on the differences between amil, postmil and *gasp* premil . But surely we can tell of the second coming of Christ?

It is perhaps unfortunate if the talk about pragmatism is being seen as being offensive. It is necessary to be pragmatic but it is a matter of how pragmatic one is. Being pragmatic does not mean one is now preaching like Rick Warren does. If I have 10 minutes to witness to a dying unbeliever, I will not be talking about total depravity or limited atonement. At the same time, I have unbelieving friends with RC backgrounds, and some who have departed from broad evangelical churches after being there for a while. Many a times, I do have some time to spend with them and it may be needful to sometimes cover the doctrines of grace to clarify the gospel. And perhaps I am being pragmatic in doing so. What I am disagreeing with is your insistence on how gospel presentations generally ought to be done and I think that it is mainly pragmatic principles which have brought you to your stance. So yes, we kind of disagree on how to be pragmatic.

Our differing views on what evangelism normally is has contributed to the disagreement no doubt, but at the same time, it is not the substance of the disagreement. I think the true issue lies with how we visualize a possible gospel proclamation with the doctrines of grace in view, and this relates well back to the OP on whether Calvinism is the gospel. "The Sum of Saving Knowledge" that Rev Sheffield has given is a good example of how to do so. Also, with regards to the implicit/explicit distinction, I am not convinced that it is viable to "keep the doctrines of grace implicit". It is because the doctrines of grace are implicit to the gospel that we may at times need to make them explicit in the hope of making the gospel clearer. The modern mainstream "Arminian" preacher is able to preach a gospel which saves, but what is implicit to his understanding of the gospel is fuzzy and inconsistent, and it remains so when there is a need to make them explicit.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

jayce475 said:


> It is perhaps unfortunate if the talk about pragmatism is being seen as being offensive. It is necessary to be pragmatic but it is a matter of how pragmatic one is.



Jason,

This is where I'll differ with you. There is an important difference between practical theology and pragmatism. All theology is practical (i.e. has real life implications). But our practice flows from our theology. Pragmatism is quite different. Pragmatism on the other hand arrives at conclusions on practice based on weather or not that practice produces the desired result (i.e. "if it works, its right!"). The pragmatist wilfully disregards the dictates of God's Word if he feels that doing so will better accomplish his ends. 

Biblical Doctrine must inform our practice. That's practical theology. 

Pragmatism is motivated solely on the basis of results. Pragmatism is dangerous error and heresy. So, we must be very judicious in the levying of this charge. It is indeed an offensive charge.


----------



## jayce475

C. M. Sheffield said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is perhaps unfortunate if the talk about pragmatism is being seen as being offensive. It is necessary to be pragmatic but it is a matter of how pragmatic one is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jason,
> 
> This is where I'll differ with you. There is an important difference between practical theology and pragmatism. All theology is practical (i.e. has real life implications). But our practice flows from our theology. Pragmatism is quite different. Pragmatism on the other hand arrives at conclusions on practice based on weather or not that practice produces the desired result (i.e. "if it works, its right!"). The pragmatist wilfully disregards the dictates of God's Word if he feels that doing so will better accomplish his ends.
> 
> Biblical Doctrine must inform our practice. That's practical theology.
> 
> Pragmatism is motivated solely on the basis of results. Pragmatism is dangerous error and heresy.
Click to expand...

 
If pragmatism must necessarily be defined that way, let's chuck the word and take it that I actually mean practicality. Pardon me for not using the terms the same way.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

jayce475 said:


> If pragmatism must necessarily be defined that way, let's chuck the word and take it that I actually mean practicality. Pardon me for not using the terms the same way.



We needn't chuck the word, but only apply it when the shoe fits. We are all susceptible to the error of pragmatism and it is rampant in our day. We should certainly call it out when clearly identified.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Perhaps Spurgeon was not so naive as to try to read the Canons of Dordt to unbelievers when asked about what the Gospel was, but I have seen with my own two eyes calvinists who have tried to "witness" in this manner. I have been with men who have told people that world did not really mean world within 10 minutes of a first encounter with someone, even when this topic seemed of secondary importance at the time.



But Perg, the thread was started with a very specific question about what _Spurgeon_ meant by what he wrote. The question wasn't how some theoretical person might use the "5 points" during a witnessing opportunity but what Spurgeon might properly mean. 

You also jump to exactly what I was critical of by restricting "Gospel" to immediate Evangelistic encounter. As noted the whole of the Book of Romans is called "my Gospel" by Paul. There's information in there that is useful for a person completely ignorant of the Gospel as well as for those who have been in the Church for their entire lives. Ironically, in another thread, you're interacting against a notion of the Gospel that restricts its usage to the _kerygma_ and that an understanding of the Gospel needs to embrace sanctification as well as justification. Paul's concern for the Galatians is that they are abandoning the Gospel in their approach to sanctification.

Now, if the first post asked "What is every single way in which some immature or ignorant believer might poorly present the Gospel to an unbeliever", then I don't necessarily think I'd even be bothered. If the thread started out even by saying: "Are the 5 points from the Canons of Dordt the evangelical method by which we should present the Gospel?" then it would also be a different topic.

If, however, we embrace the wide understanding of what the Gospel _is_ to include the _kerygma_ as well as the richer understanding of the term as used throughout the Word, then I don't know why anyone who embraces a Reformed understanding of the Word would want to affirm that their understanding of the Gospel is tentatively false. "No, my understanding of the Gospel is not the Gospel."



Pergamum said:


> I notice that in this initial summary of the Gospel you did not explicitly say that Christ did NOT die for anyone, only that He died for sinners who believed. Are you denying a central truth because who failed to mention this? Or are you merely sticking to the main things for the need of time and conciseness?



I said that Christ died to save to the uttermost all who believe. The fact that Christ atones for the sin of believers is something I regularly drive home. I deny nothing but it's a building block. I gave a basic Gospel outline but, as I said, the Gospel is much richer and I would include Hebrews 9-10 as embracing "the Gospel" concerning Christ's once-for-all atonement. I think the strongest argument for understanding the atonement is to get people to understand what the atonement represents and any illusions about Christ dying to atone for the sins of all men quickly vanish.

I was simply trying to give a very short example of how a simple Gospel presentation might be outlined to demonstrate that it's nigh impossible to escape Biblical themes that some put under theological headers called "the 5 points". The whole point of this thread is not to argue that the "5 points" have to be stated explicitly. There is no requirement to demonstrate that Spurgeon is essentially correct by insisting that every thing we say follows some explicit statement from the Canons of Dort. It is enough to note that everything we present about the Gospel is going to have some _a priori_ implicit grounding in what we believe is part of the whole.


----------



## Pergamum

Rich,

You write: 



> I deny nothing but it's a building block



The same with me. We all use building blocks when explaining the Gospel. These building blocks are more basic and often implicit rather than explicit (just as in your own gospel summary and just as in Rev. Winzer's early quote). 

We simply do not have time to explain the kerygma plus all other related dogma at a short meeting, and so one explains the core. And my point again is that this core is not the same as the five points. The five points are biblical, but the kerygma, the core, is more basic. I am not advocating hiding or de-prioritizing anything, but I do advocate leading with the more basic.

And it is ironic that in 3 or 4 other threads many people are protesting an enlarged definition of the term "Gospel" and here some are protesting my use of the term "gospel" in its narrow definition when speaking to unbelievers. 

When most calvinists say, "Calvinism is the Gospel" they mean, "Calvinism is Biblical." If anyone believes that the five points and the kerygma or core of the Gospel are the same, this needs to be challenged. The two terms (Calvinism and Gospel) are not perfect synonyms. Plus of course, many of the "Truly Reformed" also add infant baptism to the term Calvinism as well, so I think it right to use a more narrowed definition of the term Gospel when we speak of a presentation of the Gospel or speaking the Gospel to unbelievers since our time and our words must be limited.

And Rich, I think you would agree with me since your Gospel Summary reflects very closely how I present the Gospel.

Reading your post and Jason Lim's posts, it seems we really disagree on little, but perhaps you are shooting at strawmen. In your answer you say "I deny nothing" as if you think I do. And Jason Lim speaks of my advocating of leading with the basics of the kerygma and leaving other points of doctrine for a later time as "pragmatism." So please understand my position, it essentially differs little than what I see you and Rev. Winzer, and Jason Lim, writing. 

However, due to my experiences with calvinists in the "cage stage" who want to beat people over the head with the 5 points in evangelism, I have seen some people lead with the five points instead of the gospel and these have majored on such things as "Christ did NOT die for you if you do not believe." Or "God chooses some for damnation." Remember, Fred Phelps, too, is a five point calvinist - is he faithfully preaching the Gospel? Many people hearing some of the people that I have evangelized with would reject the message based on these wordings, but this does not necessarily mean they are rejecting the Gospel, because, in truth, they have not really heard the core of the Gospel, the basics which we see in Acts 2 and Acts 17 and I Cor 15.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> When most calvinists say, "Calvinism is the Gospel" they mean, "Calvinism is Biblical." If anyone believes that the five points and the kerygma or core of the Gospel are the same, this needs to be challenged. The two terms (Calvinism and Gospel) are not perfect synonyms.



Again, I object. And this is key to the conversation because it represents a misunderstanding of the opposing view point. Simply acknowledging Calvinism as "Biblical" falls short of accurately describing the relationship of Calvinism and the Gospel. As stated earlier, I believe homeschooling is "biblical," however I do not believe that homeschooling is the Gospel. 

What we are saying is that the whole of Paul's Gospel (and Scripture) in its fullest sense is Calvinism. Are there brief and definitive summaries of this Gospel which omit some of the finer points? Absolutely! But the Gospel in its entirety shews forth the Doctrines of Grace in all their beauty. Calvinism is our soteriology. And it is an answer to the question "What must I do to be saved?" So in that sense we say, Calvinism is the Gospel. 

We are not simply saying "Calvinism is biblical," we're saying its the Gospel.

And I would also object to limiting the Gospel's definition to what might be communicated in a one-off, 60 second evangelistic encounter. The Great Commission commands us to make disciples by "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Evangelism and Missions encompass the Whole Counsel of God - this _is_ the Kerygma (II Tim. 4:1-2).


----------



## Pergamum

A summary of the Gospel and a summary of the five points will yield very different results. This is a clue that they are not to be treated as perfect synonyms.


The Gospel narrowly defined is more limited than the "all things whatsoever I have commanded you.." found in the Great Commission. No one has every fully explained that yet to anyone.

Also, many reformed people state that calvinism is not enough or that baptism is part and parcel of calvinism in such a way as to make the opposing side on baptism (usually credos) to be somehow betraying the gospel because they differ in baptism. But, a difference in baptism usually does not indicate not knowing the Gospel (except maybe views of baptismal regneration which strike at the heart of soteriology). 

But Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians share the same Gospel and merely differ on baptism. Calvinism and Reformed Theology are virtually synonymous terms as well to many people and if we equate calvinism with reformed theology to the gospel then those who differ with us in baptism are not merely in error, but are Gospel-betrayers. This is too harsh.




My narrow use of the word Gospel is not unique. B.B. Warfield here does not treat the word "Gospel" as synonymous with the whole system of Calvinism or Reformed Theology but he explains the word "gospel" as one sub-heading when summarizing Reformed Theology in general:

Westminster Theological Seminary - What is Reformed Theology?

He states instead that the Gospel is this (employing a narrow definition fo Gospel):




> 10. The Gospel I believe that God requires of me, under the gospel, first of all, that, out of a true sense of my sin and misery and apprehension of His mercy in Christ, I should turn with grief and hatred away from sin and receive and rest upon Jesus Christ alone for salvation: that, so being united to Him, I may receive pardon for my sins and be accepted as righteous in God's sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to me and received by faith alone: and thus only do I believe I may be received into the number and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God.






Likewise, J.I. Packer in his Intro to John Owen's Death of Death booklet writes this short summation of the Gospel:



> According to Scripture, preaching the gospel is entirely a matter of proclaiming to men, as truth from God which all are bound to believe and act on, the following four facts:
> 
> (1.) that all men are sinners, and cannot do anything to save themselves;
> 
> (2.) that Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is a perfect Saviour for sinners, even the worst;
> 
> (3.) that the Father and the Son have promised that all who know themselves to be sinners and put faith in Christ as Saviour shall be received into favour, and none cast out (which promise is “a certain infallible truth, grounded upon the superabundant sufficiency of the oblation of Christ in itself, for whomsoever [few or more] it be intended”);
> 
> (4.) that God has made repentance and faith a duty, requiring of every man who hears the gospel “a serious full recumbency and rolling of the soul upon Christ in the promise of the gospel, as an all-sufficient Saviour, able to deliver and save to the utmost them that come to God by him; ready, able and willing, through the preciousness of his blood and sufficiency of his ransom, to save every soul that shall freely give up themselves unto him for that end.”
> 
> The preacher’s task, in other words, is to display Christ.






Furthermore, Spurgeon himself says in the sermon mentioned in the OP:



> 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 far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, 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 Whitefield 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."



Thus, it appears that there is an essential core of doctrine that is more basic than the five points explicitly explained. Spurgeon himself was saved in an Arminian church; did he hear the Gospel there somehow without hearing the five points? Spurgeon is using the phrase "Calvinism is the Gospel" to mean that it is biblical in opposition to the Arminian system, not that Calvinism=Gospel as perfect synonyms.

It is, again, ironic, that in this OP most are pushing for the assertion that calvinism or reformed theology is the Gospel even while in another thread many are slicing up what is "law" and what is "gospel." 

Once again, a summary of the Gospel and a summary of the five points of calvinism will yield very different results, indicating that their nature is not 100% overlap. 

Again, most theologians use the term "gospel" as a narrower sub-heading; for instance, BB Warfield uses "Gospel" as one sub-heading as he is explaining the larger system of Reformed Theology, and this is common practice and indicates that it is common to define "the Gospel" as being that most basic and essential set of essential truths that most folks try to summarize when evangelizing others (because they are the most vital).

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

Reformation Theology: What is the Gospel? by C. J. Mahaney


----------



## JM

I would say yes and point to Rev. Winzer's post. 

Also, there are a couple of different kinds of Arminianism with consistent Arminianism being the ever elusive.

The Christ of Arminianism

1. The Christ of Arminianism - loves every individual person in the world and sincerely desires their salvation.
The Christ of the Bible - earnestly loves and desires the salvation of only those whom God has unconditionally chosen to salvation. (Ps. 5:5, Ps. 7:11, Ps. 11:5, Matt. 11:27, John 17:9-10, Acts 2:47, Acts 13:48, Rom. 9:10-13, Rom. 9:21-24, Eph. 1:3-4)

2. The Christ of Arminianism - offers salvation to every sinner and does all in his power to bring them to salvation. His offer and work are often frustrated, for many refuse to come.

The Christ of the Bible - effectually calls to Himself only the elect and sovereignly brings them to salvation. Not one of them will be lost. (Isa. 55:11, John 5:21, John 6:37-40, John 10:25-30, John 17:2, Phil. 2:13)
3. The Christ of Arminianism - can not regenerate and save a sinner who does not first choose Christ with his own "free will." All men have a "free will" by which they can either accept or reject Christ. That "free will" may not be violated by Christ.

The Christ of the Bible - sovereignly regenerates the elect sinner apart from his choice, for without regeneration the spiritually dead sinner can not choose Christ. Faith is not man's contribution to salvation but the gift of Christ which He sovereignly imparts in regeneration. (John 3:3, John 6:44 & 65, John 15:16, Acts 11:18, Rom. 9:16, Eph. 2:1,Eph. 2:8-10, Phil. 1:29, Hebr. 12:2)

4. The Christ of Arminianism - died on the cross for every individual person and thereby made it possible for every person to be saved. His death, apart from the choice of man, was not able to actually save anyone for many for whom he died are lost.

The Christ of the Bible - died for only God's elect people and thereby actually obtained salvation for all those for whom He died. His death was a substitutionary satisfaction which actually took away the guilt of His chosen people. (Luke 19:10, John 10:14-15 & 26, Acts 20:28, Rom. 5:10, Eph. 5:25, Hebr. 9:12, I Peter 3:18)
5. The Christ of Arminianism - loses many whom he has "saved" because they do not continue in faith. Even if he does give them "eternal security," as some say, that security is not based upon his will or work but the choice which the sinner made when he accepted Christ.

The Christ of the Bible - preserves His chosen people so that they can not lose their salvation but persevere in the faith to the very end. He preserves them by the sovereign electing will of God, the power of His death, and the mighty working of His Spirit. (John 5:24, John 10:26-29, Rom. 8:29-30, Rom. 8:35-39, I Peter 1:2-5, Jude 24-25)

As you can see, although the Christ of Arminianism and the Christ of the Bible may at first seem to be the same, they are very different. One is a false Christ. The other is the true Christ. One is weak and helpless. He bows before the sovereign "free will" of man. The other is the reigning Lord Who wills what He pleases and sovereignly accomplishes all that He wills.

If you believe and serve the Christ of Arminianism, you must recognize the fact that you do not serve the Christ of the Bible. You have been deceived! Study the Scriptures and learn of the True Christ. Pray for grace to repent and trust Christ as your sovereign Savior.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Pergamum said:


> A summary of the Gospel and a summary of the five points will yield very different results. This is a clue that they are not to be treated as perfect synonyms.




The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the product of the entirety of Holy Scripture, and so is the systematic theology called "Calvinism," which is established upon the five points of the doctrines of grace (TULIP).

I am very distressed that a missionary, who supposedly identifies himself with Puritan thought and teachings, and claims to adhere to Reformation confessions, would be questioning the validity of the gospel message provided by Calvin or Calvinists.

Do you find a universalistic, free will gospel, more pertinent to your needs, Pergamum?


----------



## Pergamum

Ronda,

Your posts are as edifying as ever.

-----A summary of the Gospel yields info such as the incarnation, the person and work of Christ and the resurrection. When the NT writers preached to the Jews, this summary also included the message of Jesus being the long-awaited messiah of whom OT Scripture spoke. 

-----A summary of the five points yields TULIP, whiich makes no explicit mention of the resurrection. 

Thus, these two summaries emphasize different things. While calvinism is biblical, calvinism and the gospel are two separate entitites. When people say that "calvinism is the gospel" they usually really mean that calvinism is biblical.

When did I say anything about universalism or free-willism?


----------



## JM

Pergamum said:


> When did I say anything about universalism or free-willism?



Arminianism assumes universalism and free willism.


----------



## Pergamum

Nobody is defending arminianism here.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Pergamum said:


> -----A summary of the five points yields TULIP, whiich makes no explicit mention of the resurrection.



Odd.

Every Reformer (Calvinist) preacher/teacher I have known in my (long Christian) life, has based his preaching of all five points of the doctrines of grace as founded upon and realized because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There would be NO doctrines of grace apart from acknowledging Christ's crucifixion and resurrection; overcoming death on behalf of those elect God have Him to represent as Federal Head (in His righteous life under the Law, His death, and His resurrection) through the decree of Unconditional Election.

The five points of TULIP are not mere formula, but actually encompass the teachings of the entire bible . . . and I believe are particularly and most properly upheld through the teachings of biblical Covenant Theology.

There is no such thing as a gospel message that does not proclaim the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

But the gospel message will be meaningless without the message that the Christ who did rise from the grave, was provided by God for Totally Depraved sinners, who were Unconditionally Elected by God to be represented in the Person of Christ, for whom He came in the flesh as Federal Head to fulfill all the Covenant of Works under the Law in perfect obedience unto substitutionary death on their behalf and pay for their sins; resurrecting from death to personally promise these same elect victory over sin, death, and the devil; which will be realized through the commission and indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit who will call, convict, regenerate through the same power of divine resurrection; granting them faith to believe in this Christ, unto justification from all guilts, and giving them power to turn away from their sins, and sealing them with His guarantee of ultimate salvation unto everlasting life.

In other words,'s the Gospel message is a BIG BIBLICAL package, and frankly should not be abbreviated or reduced to just spouting I Cor. 15:1-4 or giving folk any kind of simple or mystical rendition of a _resurrection from the dead_ (without doctrinal explanation) that might fit or feed into their natural and superstitious beliefs.


----------



## Pergamum

When I engage people i do not engage them in a "simple" or "mystical" way, though I do prioritize the core of the gospel message at first and save deeper issues for later. No faithful evangelist merely "spouts" I Cor 15 and leaves it at that, but I Cor 15 is a good place to start. I have already provided BB Warfield's link containing his definition of the Gospel as a smaller sub-heading of the larger category of "Reformed Theology" in general, so I am with many of the reformed in defining the gospel in a narrow sense as a summary of the core of the biblical message that is more narrower than the entire 'biblical package" and even more narrow and more basic than the five points of TULIP.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Pergamum said:


> When I engage people i do not engage them in a "simple" or "mystical" way, though I do prioritize the core of the gospel message at first and save deeper issues for later. No faithful evangelist merely "spouts" I Cor 15 and leaves it at that, but I Cor 15 is a good place to start. I have already provided BB Warfield's link containing his definition of the Gospel as a smaller sub-heading of the larger category of "Reformed Theology" in general, so I am with many of the reformed in defining the gospel in a narrow sense as a summary of the core of the biblical message that is more narrower than the entire 'biblical package" and even more narrow and more basic than the five points of TULIP.



Pergamum,

I see a difference between attempting to condense and simplify the gospel (whether warranted on the mission field, or not) . . . with casting dispersion and discrediting the doctrines of grace (TULIP) as being illegitimate or less than a proper message of the good news of Jesus Christ as preached by faithful Calvinists (Confessional Reformers).


----------



## Pergamum

Ronda,

There is nothing negative to say about the five points. If you say that it sometimes might be wise to condense or simplify the gospel down to its most basic form and if this form is not 100% synonymous with tulip, then, well..you have just granted my point. There are times for more explicit and fuller explanation but sometimes, initially, one needs to give a concise and basic summary of the gospel, and this summary will be more basic and different than the five points. Thus, the gospel is not calvinism, though calvinism is biblical.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Pergamum said:


> Ronda,
> 
> There is nothing negative to say about the five points. If you say that it sometimes might be wise to condense or simplify the gospel down to its most basic form and if this form is not 100% synonymous with tulip, then, well..you have just granted my point.



I didn't say it was wise to condense the gospel; I simply contrasted your attempt to do so, while seeming to discredit Calvinistic preaching.




> There are times for more explicit and fuller explanation but sometimes, initially, one needs to give a concise and basic summary of the gospel, and this summary will be more basic and different than the five points. Thus, the gospel is not calvinism, though calvinism is biblical.



Calvinists preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and in accordance with the WCF.

To deny this is so, is to deny the Reformed faith.

Have you by any chance made the acquaintance of Keith and Anita Miles in Papua from New Tribes Mission?


----------



## PuritanZealot

> The Gospel is more basic than the five points.


Totally agree with this and believe this is the core of what should be discussed alongside "is Calvinism the Gospel". The Gospel must be understood by totally illiterate fishermen, coal heavers, farmers, peasants and all kinds of sinner to be the true Gospel. I admit the Gospel is not contained in Calvin's commentaries, nor his massive theological expositions associated with the 5 points, nor do you need to understand the 5 points to be saved. You cannot be saved by a false Christ that denies Limited Atonement, nor can you be saved by a Gospel that says you are not totally depraved and unable to do anything to save yourself. A Gospel preached from the Gospel, i.e. the Bible will save sinners until the end of time, and I have to agree, a Gospel preached from Calvin, will not.


----------



## Pergamum

TeachingTulip said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronda,
> 
> There is nothing negative to say about the five points. If you say that it sometimes might be wise to condense or simplify the gospel down to its most basic form and if this form is not 100% synonymous with tulip, then, well..you have just granted my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was wise to condense the gospel; I simply contrasted your attempt to do so, while seeming to discredit Calvinistic preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are times for more explicit and fuller explanation but sometimes, initially, one needs to give a concise and basic summary of the gospel, and this summary will be more basic and different than the five points. Thus, the gospel is not calvinism, though calvinism is biblical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calvinists preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and in accordance with the WCF.
> 
> To deny this is so, is to deny the Reformed faith.
> 
> Have you by any chance made the acquaintance of Keith and Anita Miles in Papua from New Tribes Mission?
Click to expand...

 
I know a Kevin Miles herewith NTM.


----------

