# Spurgeon on the Gospel (aka. 'Calvinism')



## Reformed Thomist (Jun 21, 2009)

*From C.H. Spurgeon's 'A Defense of Calvinism'...*

What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here.

I have my own private 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; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus.

*Would you contradict any part of this statement? I ask because I would not contradict Spurgeon's message here, and yet, frankly, for whatever reason, I find it disturbing to think that Calvinists and Arminians do not 'share' the Gospel, that our differences aren't above and beyond a shared Gospel, that the Gospel is not 'the tie that binds' all conservative evangelicals -- Calvinists and Arminians -- together. This corollary troubles me, but I cannot reject Spurgeon's statement. I, like Spurgeon, recognize the Doctrines of Grace as the Gospel -- or, at least, necessary components of the Gospel.*


----------



## WaywardNowHome (Jun 22, 2009)

When God saved my soul 2 years ago, He opened my eyes and showed me that the Christianity I was living was not really Christianity. At this same time, He opened my eyes to Calvinism and the great beauty of everything that it entails. Also at this time, I was highly ignorant and arrogant and did some damage to my campus ministry because I went through a 6-month period where I was highly cynical and skeptical of anyone who claimed to be Christian but did not adhere to the doctrines of grace; I criticized a lot of campus believers who held to Arminianism. I did a lot of harm and since then I have learned to love them instead of hate them despite doctrinal differences.

I agree with Spurgeon in that the entirety of the gospel is Calvinism. However, unless someone can show me otherwise, I don't think that all of Calvinism is essential for salvation. It is absolutely necessary to preach all of it because it _is_ the gospel but not all of it is necessary for salvation. I know a lot of Arminians who repent of their sins and put their faith in Christ for His atonement of their sins and His righteousness for salvation, which are the elements I believe Scripture would consider "essential": repentance and faith alone.

I think Spurgeon is right to call Arminianism for what it is: a heresy. However, I don't think Arminianism is a damnable heresy and I'm not sure Spurgeon is calling it a damnable heresy either. Arminianism may not embody the gospel in it's entirety but at least it does include the essentials of repentance and faith alone.


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 22, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> *From C.H. Spurgeon's 'A Defense of Calvinism'...*
> 
> What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here.
> 
> ...



This, of course, depends on how (precisely) you define *the gospel*. Arminians who repent and believe do so in spite of their doctrinal confusion rather than because of it.


----------



## turmeric (Jun 22, 2009)

I believe there are many Arminian Christians - they are ignorant, In my humble opinion, and will undoubtedly share Spurgeon's opinion before it's over, whether in this world or the next.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 22, 2009)

> What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here.


 
If this part of the quote is true, and Arminianism is a gospel, then we are left upon no grounds to condemn Rome and her gospel for they are essentially one and the same.

Here is another quote from Spurgeon:



> "Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free will: and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, 'If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment: but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both: that he is 'Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men"
> 
> C.H. Spurgeon (Sermon entitled "Free Will-A Slave")


----------



## Bad Organist (Jun 22, 2009)

Hi,

If salvation is said to be of God, that means it is by God's grace that one is saved. That doesn't mean a certain percentage of our salvation is of our doing. Or at least I have not been able to find it in the scriptures. As such, any doctrine of man helping God out in the salvation of their soul, must be considered a heresy.

Several prominent doctrines flow from Arminanism, where it diverges from the doctrines of grace,

1) the extent of man's ruin in the fall. Arminians would have you believe that man's nature was not ruined in the sense that he is still able to do good, and decide salvation by himself

2) Arminians do not believe in once saved, always saved. They believe that a person can be washed Christ's blood, and then can be undone at a later time. In other words, the new birth can be reversed.

3) Arminianism over time tends towards anti-nomianism, universalism and easy believism.

Arminianism must be considered antiscriptural and as such is a heresy. 

Arie Vandenberg
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada


----------



## WaywardNowHome (Jun 22, 2009)

I don't think any Calvinist would say that Arminianism is _not_ a heresy. But is Arminianism a _damnable_ heresy? Is there even a distinction between a heresy that is damnable and a heresy that is not? If so, where can we draw that line?

Because if that distinction exists, there has to be some kind of line that separates the similarity between the Arminians and the Romans.

And if that distinction does not exist, about 90% of the Christians I know that have grown to walk with the Lord (according to the fruit I've seen in their lives) are not even saved.


----------



## Jeff Allen (Jun 22, 2009)

The new testament says that Rahab was justified and her credentials were not the greatest. People who love the Lord and believe in Christ have been given God's grace. Otherwise they would be like the rest of the population who have various reasons not to believe. In our Modern Society it is no longer acceptable to be a Christian. I've had two bosses who after I was hired said they did not like religious people. Imagine them saying I don't like black people to a black person.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 22, 2009)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> If this part of the quote is true, and Arminianism is a gospel, then we are left upon no grounds to condemn Rome and her gospel for they are essentially one and the same.



Spurgeon's statement is hyperbole. Neither "Arminianism" nor "Calvinism" is the gospel. They are systematic constructs which answer questions related to how the gospel works. If Calvinism "were" the gospel, it would be necessary to intellectually affirm the points of Calvinism before being justified. Some systematic theologies are consistent with the gospel, some are inconsistent, and some are so inconsistent that we would say that anyone who wholeheartedly affirmed them has not believed the gospel.

This brings us to the next point. What kind of Arminianism are we talking about? Whichever kind you speak of, it is not true that "Arminianism and Romanism are essentially one and the same." If you read B.B. Warfield's _Plan of Salvation_, in which he presents a taxonomy of soteriological systems, you will find Remonstrant Arminianism is farther from Calvinism than Romanism is. On the other hand, you will find Wesleyan and evangelical (popular) Arminianism much closer. 

"Evangelical Arminianism" (such as Charles Ryrie) stands on justification as an act rather than a process, defends a (potential) substitutionary atonement, and vigorously denies sacerdotalism. There are some commonalities with Romanism, but there are significant discontinuities as well. To overlook these is akin to charging Presbyterians with "Roman infant baptism."


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 22, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Spurgeon's statement is hyperbole. Neither "Arminianism" nor "Calvinism" is the gospel. They are systematic constructs which answer questions related to how the gospel works. If Calvinism "were" the gospel, it would be necessary to intellectually affirm the points of Calvinism before being justified. Some systematic theologies are consistent with the gospel, some are inconsistent, and some are so inconsistent that we would say that anyone who wholeheartedly affirmed them has not believed the gospel.


 
Hyperbole or not, Calvinism is at most a direct conclusion of the gospel in very simple terms. It is not as if one has to have an MDIV to understand Calvinism. That being said, at least one of the 5 points (if we can limit our discussion of Calvinism to that) must needs be affirmed in order to believe the gospel. Without a positive affirmation of total depravity, one cannot understand the gospel. This is not to say that a positive affirmation must be made to all five points in order to believe the gospel, but free will is so imcompatible with the first point that we can say that it is not the same gospel that we believe.



> Westminster Larger Catechism
> Q72: What is justifying faith?
> A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] whereby he, *being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,*[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]


 


> “God has certainly promised His grace to the humbled: that is, to those who mourn over and despair of themselves. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realises that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another - God alone. *As long as he is persuaded that he can make even the smallest contribution to his salvation, he remains self-confident and does not utterly despair of himself, and so is not humbled before God; but plans for himself (or at least hopes and longs for) a position, and occasion, a work, which shall bring him final salvation.* But he who is out of doubt that his destiny depends entirely on the will of God despairs entirely of himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such a man is very near to grace for salvation.”
> 
> Martin Luther, _The Bondage of the Will_, p. 100.


 


> "*No more soul-destroying doctrine could well be devised than the doctrine that sinners can regenerate themselves, and repent and believe just when they please*…As it is a truth both of Scripture and of experience that the unrenewed man can do nothing of himself to secure his salvation, it is essential that he should be brought to a practical conviction of that truth. *When thus convicted, and not before, he seeks help from the only source whence it can be obtained*."
> 
> Charles Hodge (_Systematic Theology_, Grand Rapids, 1970, Vol. 2, p. 277)


 


CharlieJ said:


> This brings us to the next point. What kind of Arminianism are we talking about? Whichever kind you speak of, it is not true that "Arminianism and Romanism are essentially one and the same." If you read B.B. Warfield's _Plan of Salvation_, in which he presents a taxonomy of soteriological systems, you will find Remonstrant Arminianism is farther from Calvinism than Romanism is. On the other hand, you will find Wesleyan and evangelical (popular) Arminianism much closer.


 
What particular brand of Arminianism is not necessarily important, for all have their major heresy in common, their supposed "free will."



CharlieJ said:


> "Evangelical Arminianism" (such as Charles Ryrie) stands on justification as an act rather than a process, defends a (potential) substitutionary atonement, and vigorously denies sacerdotalism. There are some commonalities with Romanism, but there are significant discontinuities as well. To overlook these is akin to charging Presbyterians with "Roman infant baptism."


 
I completely disagree. It is true that many arminians are more orthodox in their profession than many Roman Catholics, but I never asserted that they were not. What I did say, is that their systems of salvation are *essentially* the same, i.e. they both rely on mixing merit with grace. 



> *So it is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether or not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation.* Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability ‘free-will’ has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God. *If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatsoever of Christianity, and shall be in worse case than any people on earth! He who dissents from that statement should acknowledge that he is no Christian; and he who ridicules or derides it should realize that he is the Christian’s chief foe.* For if I am ignorant of the nature, extent and limits of what I can and must do with reference to God, I shall be equally ignorant and uncertain of the nature, extent and limits of what God can and will do in me – though God, in fact, works all in all (cf. I Cor. 12.6). Now, if I am ignorant of God’s works and power, I am ignorant of God himself; and if I do not know God, I cannot worship, praise, give thanks or serve Him, for I do not know how much I should attribute to myself and how much to Him. We need, therefore, to have in mind a clear-cut distinction between God’s power and ours, and God’s work and ours, if we would live a godly life.
> 
> Martin Luther, _The Bondage of the Will_, p. 78.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 22, 2009)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Without a positive affirmation of total depravity, one cannot understand the gospel.



I really want you to think through this, because despite the Martin Luther snippets, no respectable Reformed theologian will actually back this conclusion. "Total depravity" concerns the extent to which man is affected by original sin due to the fall. It is a reflection upon man's sinful condition. However, it is not necessary for a person to be able to identify all of his faculties and the extent to which they are corrupted by the Fall. It is enough for a person to affirm that he is a sinner and without merit before God. Evangelical Arminians could affirm WLC 72; none of them believe that they are able "to recover themselves out of their lost condition."



Jeff_Bartel said:


> free will is so imcompatible with the first point that we can say that it is not the same gospel that we believe.



The conclusion which you then must reach is that every man, woman, and child - from educated scholar to theologically untrained layman - that does not embrace the early Lutheran/Calvinist concept of the will is lost. If it is not the same gospel, then it is a false gospel that cannot save. I think this commits you to an untenable, even absurd, position. 

Once again, I commend to you B.B. Warfield's little book _The Plan of Salvation_, which skillfully articulates the Calvinist position without unnecessary rhetorical flourishes against every other option.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jun 22, 2009)

in my opinion election is reinforced by observation: look at how many people are saved that barely understand the basics without grasping the details.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 22, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> I really want you to think through this, because despite the Martin Luther snippets, no respectable Reformed theologian will actually back this conclusion. "Total depravity" concerns the extent to which man is affected by original sin due to the fall. It is a reflection upon man's sinful condition. However, it is not necessary for a person to be able to identify all of his faculties and the extent to which they are corrupted by the Fall. It is enough for a person to affirm that he is a sinner and without merit before God. Evangelical Arminians could affirm WLC 72; none of them believe that they are able "to recover themselves out of their lost condition."


 
I think that you give what you call "Evangelical Arminians" far too much credit by stating they can adhere WLC 72 much less that their gospel is not one of merit. 

1. Total depravity states that sin has affected all faculties of the person to the point that it is so corrupt that it can do nothing good. It is necessary for a person to understand this complete and utter depravity in order to come to a point where they will believe in a gospel that is not of works/merit. I quote the Practical Use of Saving Knowledge:



> For convincing a man of sin by the law, consider Jer. 17.9,10
> "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings."
> 
> Here the Lord teaches two things:
> ...


 
You state that Arminians do not believe that they are able "to recover themselves out of their lost condition." What does free will do then? It saves them! They choose to believe, and therefore (with a little prodding), they are saved! 

2. Arminians do not believe in a gospel without works/merit.


> “All the Arminian wants and intends to assert is that man has the ability to exercise the instrumental cause of fait without first being regenerated. *This position clearly negates sola gratia*, but not necessarily sola fide…*He has ‘in effect’ merited the merit of Christ, which differs only slightly from the view of Rome.”*
> R.C. Sproul, Willing to Believe, p. 25-26.


 


> "Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we can do for ourselves? Those who say the latter, that it ultimately depends on something we do for ourselves, thereby deny humanity's utter helplessness in sin and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder then that later *Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being, in principle, both a return to Rome because, in effect, it turned faith into a meritorious work*, and a betrayal of the Reformation because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the reformers' thought. Arminianism was indeed, in Reformed eyes, a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism. *For to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle than to rely on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other.* In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment."
> J.I. Packer & O.R. Johnston (Introduction to The Bondage of the Will, p. 59)


 



CharlieJ said:


> The conclusion which you then must reach is that every man, woman, and child - from educated scholar to theologically untrained layman - that does not embrace the early Lutheran/Calvinist concept of the will is lost. If it is not the same gospel, then it is a false gospel that cannot save. I think this commits you to an untenable, even absurd, position.
> 
> Once again, I commend to you B.B. Warfield's little book The Plan of Salvation, which skillfully articulates the Calvinist position without unnecessary rhetorical flourishes against every other option.


 
I am not suggesting that one must be a Calvinist to be a Christian, I am stating that a person may not be an Arminian and a Christian at the same time. You have charged this with being absurd, but given no reason other than that means the gate that leads to heaven is narrow, and few there be that find it. Here is the argument in syllogistic form. Both premises can be substantiated by the reformed world at large. So now the burden is on you to either state if a premise is faulty, or if the conclusion does not necessarily follow. 

Premise 1: Arminianism is essentially a system whereby in the final analysis, a person’s faith merits salvation.
Premise 2: All systems that rely on works/merit for their salvation condemned as another gospel, and is not "justifying faith".
Conclusion: Arminianism is not a saving gospel.

In the final analysis though, this is not an exercise in "unnecessary rhetoric", for we are talking about the heart of the gospel. If people that profess the reformed gospel cannot say that Saving Faith has no room for works/merits, then who will? I was an Arminian for the majority of my life, and a good deal of my family are as well. One thing I know for sure, it does them absolutely no good to tell them they are just fine, when in the end, they know nothing of grace.



> The greatest judgment which God Himself can, in this present life, inflict upon a man is, to leave him in the hand of his own boasted free-will.
> Augustus Toplady


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 23, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> in my opinion election is reinforced by observation: look at how many people are saved that barely understand the basics without grasping the details.



Gordon Clarke wrote that "If Arminians were more logical they wouldn't be Arminians." Having passed over the last thirty-three years through Dispensational Arminianism, Four-point Calvinism, Five-point Calvinism minus a biblical church life, and now to a love for a thoroughly Reformed heart, home and church, I can sympathize with the lamentable condition of the Arminian who loves the Lord Jesus Christ.

Very many of these Arminians have no clue as to what the implications of their jumbled beliefs are. If God granted them, as He has so graciously granted to myself and many of us here at PB, clarity of thought and the accompanying shock of seeing the necessary implications of some of the views they are holding they would shriek and cast such nonsense far from them. Let us pray for them and seek to be used of God to _turn on the light switch_ for them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 23, 2009)

These interchanges on the nature of the Gospel are important but what is often confused is the difference between what is/isn't the Gospel and are those who do/don't apprehend the Gospel correctly are "saved".

First we need to establish what the Gospel is and I agree with those that state that the Arminian version of the Gospel is not the Gospel. The Gospel depends upon faith being a laying hold of Christ's righteousness and His alone. Evangelical faith is born from above and is not generated from within but is given to the person. Faith is not the grounds of salvation but merely the instrument by which the sinner flees from sin and clings to the feet of Christ.

What often confuses people is that they hear Arminians speaking of being saved by faith and someone will say: "Oh, good, they don't trust in works like the Roman Catholics...."

Frankly, on both counts, the person who makes this basic error misunderstands what "faith" means in an Arminian formulation as well as how grace functions in the Roman Catholic system.

Because, according to Arminianism, Christ's Propitiatory work extends to all mankind and, because prevenient grace has been granted all men, the arbiter between salvation and non-salvation is grounded not in Christ's work but Christ's work *plus* the faith that is contributed by the believer.

In other words, the orthodox view is that faith is granted to the individual and contributes nothing to salvation but is merely the instrument whereby the person lays hold of Christ's righteousness. The Arminian view, however, sees faith as spawned from within the individual and Christ's Atonement granted all men so that faith itself is given meritorious power to be added unto the Atonement to save men.

It is often said by many that Christ died for all sins except unbelief. In other words, we'll take care of that ourselves. This is why, if one reads Dort carefully, the Reformed have always historically seen this position as essentially a return to Rome. 

In the true Gospel, salvation is certain because Christ died for a people and salvation is certain for that people because He perfectly intercedes and perfectly applies that salvation for that people. There's really no room, in the Gospel, for believing that Christ's atonement lacks something that I contribute no matter how we try to qualify it and make it sound like we're receiving a gift and not working. If Christ died for all men then their sins are atoned for. Full stop. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Our faith contributes *nothing* to Christ's propitiatory sacrifice. Anything that makes salvation less than certain for those that salvation has been applied to is teaching a false Gospel.

Now, shifting trails, it is not on the basis of a perfected faith or understanding that the work of Christ will be applied. He may even take a circuitous Providential route in saving a person (such as myself). I don't believe it is helpful to call a baptized Christian an Arminian within a Church because they have been baptized into Christ. I consider, therefore, a presentation of an Arminian Gospel to be spiritual malpractice perpetrated against baptized Christians who are owed the true Gospel by their ministers.

Where I meet these impoverished Christians, however, is on the basis of their baptism into Christ and I labor to teach them appropriately about the nature of Christ's work. I cannot tell you the joy I've experienced in seeing a woman's mouth agape when she understood, for the first time, that Christ saves the ungodly. She also was blown away at the perfect high Priesthood of Christ. She had never, in 30 years of Pentecostalism, heard of either.

Hence, it wouldn't be useful for me to have speculated about her position before God. Let Him be God. My job, when I taught about Christ, was to represent His Gospel correctly and let the Holy Spirit produce the fruit.

Thus, let's be careful to separate the issue between doctrines and people. Let's not compromise on what the Gospel is on the one hand but let's neither be presumptuous about who we know is saved nor become sentimental about "nice people" and try to guess that God is going to save anyway with an impoverished Gospel that is really no Gospel at all.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 23, 2009)

I would also like to add that Arminian's are sometimes placed in the seat of Pelagians. Arminius was a Semi-Pelagian, like most of the Evangelical Church now days. They still believe in equipoise where God brings you out of depravity to make a choice. They believe that the influences of God and Grace are necessary and that they could never come to Christ without his divine influence. They are utterly incapable without it. The Pelagian belief is that man is totally capable in himself to convert without this. 

God knows who are His and who are not. I know many semi-pelagians who love Christ and live in the light of the cross. I am not willing to place A. W. Tozer or others like him in the boat of the unsaved.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 23, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I would also like to add that Arminian's are sometimes placed in the seat of Pelagians. Arminius was a Semi-Pelagian, like most of the Evangelical Church now days. They still believe in equipoise where God brings you out of depravity to make a choice. They believe that the influences of God and Grace are necessary and that they could never come to Christ without his divine influence. They are utterly incapable without it. The Pelagian belief is that man is totally capable in himself to convert without this.
> 
> God knows who are His and who are not. I know many semi-pelagians who love Christ and live in the light of the cross. I am not willing to place A. W. Tozer or others like him in the boat of the unsaved.



That is true, Randy, but they share this view of the nature of Grace enabling cooperation with Roman Catholics. Roman Catholicism likewise repudiated Pelagianism and that grace from God is necessary for man to be rehabilitated to a place where they are enabled to cooperate with grace offered.

The principle issue of disagreement which led to the statement that man is saved by Christ *Alone* by Grace *Alone* was noting that cooperation is not added to the saving work that God works in a believer.

Sadly, many Evangelicals today actually are more Pelagian than not and I had a recent interaction with a fellow (a "born again" Evangelical) who insisted that sin has not left man in a state where grace is necessary for man to make a decision.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 23, 2009)

I agree with you Rich. I have seen various shades of semi-pelagianism.


----------



## Exiled_2_God (Jul 16, 2009)

If all there was in your town was an Arminian church, which outwardly rejected Calvinism, would you attend?


.


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 16, 2009)

I think that the point made by Jeff Bartel is a good one. The point is that Arminians and Romanists are guilty of the same error in justification.
I have struggled with issue (perhaps our inconsistency) or accepting Arminians as saved but not Roman Catholics. For the record I do not think that practicing Roman Catholics have a hope if they trust in their "church" and its sacerdotalism.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jul 16, 2009)

Exiled_2_God said:


> If all there was in your town was an Arminian church, which outwardly rejected Calvinism, would you attend?
> 
> 
> .



I would travel. I am traveling.


----------



## Exiled_2_God (Jul 17, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> Exiled_2_God said:
> 
> 
> > If all there was in your town was an Arminian church, which outwardly rejected Calvinism, would you attend?
> ...



Well, let's make believe that there were no other churches in traveling distance...

I guess my question is, can one go to a church, such as an Arminian church or even a Southern Baptist that doesn't believe in the Doctrines of Grace, and not have a guilt conscience? Can we do so, even if it bugs the snot out of us?

.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 17, 2009)

Exiled_2_God said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > Exiled_2_God said:
> ...



I'd have to try and start a church.

-----Added 7/17/2009 at 08:00:43 EST-----

Allow me to elaborate a little-

I know some "arminians" that I believe are saved, but like Catholics, I think they are few and far between. Now, why is that? Am I being an arrogant Calvanist? No, I am very sad about this opinion. 

I hold it because I've dealt with many, many "arminians (semi palegians if you will). They are very, very "haughty" and demeaning of others in their stubborn view. They will not budge at all when shown scripture that contradicts their views, and often will gladly break fellowship over "free will". I've been banned from numerous web forums because I am not a free willer, and I've been told flat out by a local church that as a Calvanist I am NOT welcome and was asked "where do you attend that accepts the tulip position?"

Now do I believe some/many of these people may be given the grace to see their error and come to the truth? Absolutely! However I honestly believe that those who stubbornly cling to their precious free will to the point of the arrogance and pride that I've seen are not really Christians.


----------



## Exiled_2_God (Jul 19, 2009)

ReformedWretch said:


> Exiled_2_God said:
> 
> 
> > Rich Koster said:
> ...



So you would say that in many cases this "haughty" attitude would insinuate their lack of salvation. I guess when you see this attitude portrayed against their nemesis -the Calvinist- along with the same attitude in other aspects of their life (their day to day fruit), it only makes one question their salvation. I'm sure you're not talking about a friendly disagreement, but rather a hateful diatribe prescribing Calvinism heresy. Now, I'm sure an Arminian would counter your argument and state that many Calvinists are "haughty" and dogmatic as well. But hey, who's to say that all professing Calvinists are saved, right? 

Would the dogmatism of an Arminian and the dogmatism of a Calvinist be different, in that we believe Calvinism to be correct and Arminianism false? Obviously I'm sure we both agree that this severe dogmatism is wrong, but would the same consensus be made with the Calvinist, in your opinion? It would be funny to see the Arminian argue that we believe too much in the sovereignty of God, as opposed to them believing too much in the will and choice of man. 

Makes sense about the church. Ha, if it was that bad I'm sure I would do the same thing. Luckily, I have found a good church in the area.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 19, 2009)

> Would the dogmatism of an Arminian and the dogmatism of a Calvinist be different, in that we believe Calvinism to be correct and Arminianism false? Obviously I'm sure we both agree that this severe dogmatism is wrong, but would the same consensus be made with the Calvinist, in your opinion? It would be funny to see the Arminian argue that we believe too much in the sovereignty of God, as opposed to them believing too much in the will and choice of man.



It would be different! Arguing against the total sovereignty of God would be sickening and would back up what I said earlier about extreme Arminians being unsaved. How could a truely saved person argue against God having total and complete control? How could (do) they insist that salvation isn't ALL of God? When they do this, how can we then state confidently they belong to Christ?

To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect -John Owen

If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright. (Martin Luther, agreed with by Charles Spurgeon..and me)


----------



## rpavich (Jul 19, 2009)

> Arguing against the total sovereignty of God would be sickening and would back up what I said earlier about extreme Arminians being unsaved. How could a truely saved person argue against God having total and complete control?




If this is true, then about 98% of everyone that I know is not saved.


What I REALLY think is happening is just muddled thinking; They will say that Of course God is sovereign, the bible says so...and at the same time saying that God lets us choose our free will....
While saying that they had to have faith or they couldn't be saved, and that on the basis of that faith, God saved them...they will flatly deny that they had anything to contribute to their salvation!

They've never REALLY connected all of the dots....


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jul 19, 2009)

Exiled_2_God said:


> If all there was in your town was an Arminian church, which outwardly rejected Calvinism, would you attend?



No.

I attended a SBC mission church in town a few weeks ago, and the sermon that day happened to be a full-on attack on Puritan theology and Reformed soteriology generally (I imagine that the 'New Calvinism' was the pastor's inspiration). It was basically a pathetic display, 99% strawman, but what really disgusted me was the several members of the church in the audience piping up throughout the sermon with "Amen!" and "Praise!" whenever an ignorant barb was thrown Reformed theology's way. I sat through it quietly, but I ended up getting into heated argument, which degraded into a verbal fight, with the pastor afterward. I cannot _fathom_ opting to worship with such people again.


----------



## rpavich (Jul 19, 2009)

> If all there was in your town was an Arminian church, which outwardly rejected Calvinism, would you attend?



What are you talking about? I WAS attending that church until recently!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 19, 2009)

rpavich said:


> > Arguing against the total sovereignty of God would be sickening and would back up what I said earlier about extreme Arminians being unsaved. How could a truely saved person argue against God having total and complete control?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



but the faith came from "them" they chose to exercise it, they drummed it up inside themselves, they made them selves "alive" in order to chose Christ. 

When does it stop being "ignorance" or "misunderstanding" and become heresy?


----------



## Rich Koster (Jul 19, 2009)

Exiled_2_God said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > Exiled_2_God said:
> ...



We are commanded not to forsake the assembly of believers. If there was no other congregation I would go. However I would not be totally silent about my beliefs. That would give me clear conscience. Those who have a heart of flesh can be taught. If we agree salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, there is room left to dialogue about cause and effect. I may eventually get booted for heresy, but then my absence would not be because I was neglectful.

Arminians can handle "we love Jesus because he first loved us", now we have to expand the issue a little more


----------



## Exiled_2_God (Jul 19, 2009)

ReformedWretch said:


> rpavich said:
> 
> 
> > > Arguing against the total sovereignty of God would be sickening and would back up what I said earlier about extreme Arminians being unsaved. How could a truely saved person argue against God having total and complete control?
> ...



I'll use myself as an example. God saved me in 2002. Now, growing up in an IFB home, I was programmed with Arminian thinking. Even into my salvation experience I would describe it as I was trained to think it. I would admit that I got to the point where I had to open myself to what God had dangling over my head and choose him. Now, fastforward to 2008. I had a desire to search for some truth. I was attending churches where I just wasn't at ease, though I didn't know why. One thing led to another and I started to study the issue of Calvinism, because I knew that Calvinism was so wrong. Through arduous study on the topic it became evident to me that it was in fact my Theology through ignorance that was incorrect. I made a 180 into Reformed Theology, at least with the Doctrines of Grace. There are many other facets (disspensationalism, eschatology, etc) that I haven't fully studied or grasped yet. 

So, this is an example of my ignorance turned into truth and knowledge. I had a hunger for the truth, and still do, and God illuminated my hungry heart for what he wanted me to know - which was found through scripture and prayer. When I talk to many Arminians, it seems that there isn't that hunger per se, but rather that stubbornness where they just don't want to budge on anything. 

Though I initially had a bad understanding of what truly happened in 2002, the truth was that God saved me and that I had nothing to do with it. Even though I would have said otherwise, the truth was absolute. It would seem to me that people who preach that man has this ability to choose Christ in and of themselves, and who seem to be "well learned" in scripture at some point must harden their hearts to the truth of scripture. Can someone merely remain in this ignorance? I know of some like this, who actually do possess a lot of Christian fruit. It would be hard for me to assume that they are not saved. Maybe they have been in those churches since they were first saved, and have never truly studied the issue, other than studying the straw men raised by their church leadership. Which brings the question around to those in that "leadership" who don't teach correctly. I dunno... tough topic.

-----Added 7/19/2009 at 02:23:08 EST-----



Rich Koster said:


> Exiled_2_God said:
> 
> 
> > Rich Koster said:
> ...



good point.

-----Added 7/19/2009 at 02:35:19 EST-----



ReformedWretch said:


> rpavich said:
> 
> 
> > > Arguing against the total sovereignty of God would be sickening and would back up what I said earlier about extreme Arminians being unsaved. How could a truely saved person argue against God having total and complete control?
> ...



Good question. I would hope that the issue for many is that they are just describing something wrong... that is, that they truly believe it is all of grace, but are ignorant to think that we have this ability to choose within our sinful nature (they believe the "through faith" is the "us" part). Obviously, they don't get the whole "we choose based on our desires which is based on our nature" deal. Maybe they have never been challenged on the issue, which would be more understandable than someone that just suppresses the truth and denies the scriptures. They'll give you their big 3 proof-texts as proof of their "choice," but my question is how do they package that with verses like John 6:44, Romans 9, etc... to which they will step back and say "we don't know the mind of God." Then I'll show them how their big 3 is most likely an issue of context, and then I'll show them how I still believe in choice, etc. etc.


----------



## rpavich (Jul 19, 2009)

> but the faith came from "them" they chose to exercise it, they drummed it up inside themselves, they made them selves "alive" in order to chose Christ.
> 
> When does it stop being "ignorance" or "misunderstanding" and become heresy?



I'm being very honest when I say...that's the question of the day...I don't know.

I can say this: Other than this PB and my own current church, I know possibly 5 people total who realizes that their salvation was God's doing...the rest of them believe (either well thought out formally or not thought out at all) that God is trying to save everyone, they exhibited faith, and because of that...God saved them.


Are we saying that they are not saved?


I'm not starting a fight...I'm being mentally challenged and trying to understand this issue..


----------



## Exiled_2_God (Jul 19, 2009)

rpavich said:


> > but the faith came from "them" they chose to exercise it, they drummed it up inside themselves, they made them selves "alive" in order to chose Christ.
> >
> > When does it stop being "ignorance" or "misunderstanding" and become heresy?
> 
> ...



The question may be whether or not they are dogmatically wrong. When people *attack* those who believe it is 100% God, and acclaim, rather, that it is they who have made it possible to get saved... this raises serious questions. For we know man cannot save themselves. This dogmatism is a sign that they are a false teacher. 

The opposite would be those who are merely ignorant, and maybe taking other peoples explanations for granted. They are wrong for not being like a Berean, but I don't think that is a salvation issue. It's more so a maturity issue.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 21, 2009)

> When people attack those who believe it is 100% God, and acclaim, rather, that it is they who have made it possible to get saved... this raises serious questions. For we know man cannot save themselves. This dogmatism is a sign that they are a false teacher.



Amen!



> The opposite would be those who are merely ignorant, and maybe taking other peoples explanations for granted. They are wrong for not being like a Berean, but I don't think that is a salvation issue. It's more so a maturity issue.



If it's a maturity issue, they will eventually "grow" and come to know/accept the truth.


----------



## Exiled_2_God (Jul 22, 2009)

ReformedWretch said:


> > When people attack those who believe it is 100% God, and acclaim, rather, that it is they who have made it possible to get saved... this raises serious questions. For we know man cannot save themselves. This dogmatism is a sign that they are a false teacher.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One would think... the funny thing is that people often (at least what I have seen in my circle) defend or attack the word Calvinism... and therefore never really look into scripture for what it truly says. In other words, people waste most of their time on a straw-man (usually one of their current leaders caricatures of Calvinism) and never just sit back and say, "I'm gonna study scripture, and whatever it says I'll follow and believe." At that point I would think they can confidently say, "I'm definitely not Arminian." Whether or not they take up the word Calvinism, that's up to them, though they may be considered a closet-Calvinist once they can accurately portray scripture, especially with regard to salvation. They will just live in denial at that point...


----------



## rpavich (Jul 22, 2009)

But here's where I'm getting stuck in the mud on this one...;

None of my Christian friends would answer to the affirmative that they helped save themselves. Not one.

But if you were to ask them; So...is God trying to save everyone?

They'd say "Why yes!"

And then if you point out..."Then what was the difference between you; who were saved, and your next door neighbor who was not?"

They'd say: "I had faith"

And you point out..."But doesn't that mean that the difference between you getting saved and your neighbor getting saved is found inside you and not God's choice?

They'd say; "Oh no...Salvation is of the Lord!"


And then you'd start the circle all over again from another angle..

"So...why didn't your neighbor get saved"

They'd answer "Because he didn't have faith"

And then you'd point out that they are saying that it's them who contribute something to their own salvation...

And at that point they'd deny it "No way...I can't help save myself"....


and around and around it goes.....so they aren't being intentionally Synergistic...but that's the net effect...they really don't get it...


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jul 22, 2009)

Exiled_2_God said:


> In other words, people waste most of their time on a straw-man (usually one of their current leaders caricatures of Calvinism) and never just sit back and say, "I'm gonna study scripture, and whatever it says I'll follow and believe." At that point I would think they can confidently say, "I'm definitely not Arminian." Whether or not they take up the word Calvinism, that's up to them, though they may be considered a closet-Calvinist once they can accurately portray scripture, especially with regard to salvation. They will just live in denial at that point...



I know of a local independent congregation which, in their statement of faith, specifically outlines the Doctrines of Grace in quite unmistakable and robust terms, but then notes right afterward (I'm paraphrasing) "This is not 'Calvinism'; we do not wish to be a 'Calvinist' church, but simply a Biblical church. These doctrines are what the Bible cleary teaches regarding salvation, and therefore we profess them wholeheartedly."


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 22, 2009)

rpavich said:


> But here's where I'm getting stuck in the mud on this one...;
> 
> None of my Christian friends would answer to the affirmative that they helped save themselves. Not one.
> 
> ...



Then you simply ask them

"Where did that faith come from, and why doesn't your unsaved neighbor have it."

How they respond to that, tells you A LOT.


----------

