# Is Calvinism the Gospel?



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

To many evangelicals, almost all, the 5 points of Calvinism is equated with the Gospel. I hold this position that the 5 points of Calvinism are in fact the doctrines of the Gospel. Yet, how is it then that Spurgeon for example could say that he was saved and was a complete Arminian? If Calvinism is the Gospel, then Arminianism is a false Gospel. If Arminianism is a false Gospel then how could Spurgeon have been saved as a complete Arminian? Also, if Calvinism is the Gospel, why do so many who claim to be reformed change their Gospel when they preach to the lost? Surely the same Gospel that we believe as Christians should be the same Gospel that the lost should hear? Also, if Wesley preached a false Gospel of Arminianism, then how come so many Calvinists speak well of him as being a godly man?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 2, 2008)

Where did you get the idea that Spurgeon was the least bit Arminian?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 2, 2008)

good question...



Spurgeon said:


> "The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

His own confession. He had the following to say,

"I remember, when I was converted to God, I was an Arminian thoroughly....I used sometimes to sit down and think, "Well, I sought the Lord four year before I found him."

Again, he had the following to say in one of his sermons,

"I have known some that, at first conversion, have not been very clear in the gospel, who have been made evangelical by their discoveries of their own need of mercy. They could not spell the word "grace". They began with God, but they very soon went on with an F, till it spelt very like "free-will" etc."


----------



## Poimen (Jul 2, 2008)

I think he meant that Spurgeon was an Arminian before he became a Calvinist.


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

Poimen said:


> I think he meant that Spurgeon was an Arminian before he became a Calvinist.



Exactly. My question is the following. If Calvinism is the Gospel, as Spurgeon said, then how come he got saved through Arminianism, which would have to be heresy and a false Gospel? I believe that Calvinism is the Gospel...yet this question still raises some doubts in my mind. Of course he became thoroughly calvinistic in his thought...yet through his own confession he was saved as a complete Arminian....


----------



## danmpem (Jul 2, 2008)

I have some parts of Iain Murray's Spurgeon Forgotten that I have been wanting to put on the PB. I guess now is as good of time as any; I'll get to it when I get home.


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

danmpem said:


> I have some parts of Iain Murray's Spurgeon Forgotten that I have been wanting to put on the PB. I guess now is as good of time as any; I'll get to it when I get home.



Cool. I've got that book in front of me now! Good book...Spurgeon was a mighty strong defender of the faith...very bold!


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 2, 2008)

Benjamin, you are setting up some aggressive premises that are sinking your arguments from the start.

Calvinism is not the Gospel. It would be accurate to say that Calvinism contains the most pure form of the Gospel, relative to other sytematics.

The 5 points are not Calvinism. The 5 points are a response to the 5 points that the arminian remonstrants put forward.

Calvinism is best expressed in his Institutes and can be outlined and summarized but never reduced to 5 points.

Spurgeon was not an arminian but was indeed calvinistic.


----------



## etexas (Jul 2, 2008)

What Bob-Cat said,


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 2, 2008)

Most folks are arminians when they are saved because by NATURE we tend toward works righteousness. This is true even after we are saved and therefore need to hear repeatedly, the Gospel. The Gospel is that God sent his Son into the world to save sinners. God has done all the work for His elect to come to a saving knowledge.

Calvinism does not save. Calvinism illumines.


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> Benjamin, you are setting up some aggressive premises that are sinking your arguments from the start.
> 
> Calvinism is not the Gospel. It would be accurate to say that Calvinism contains the most pure form of the Gospel, relative to other sytematics.
> 
> ...



If Calvinism is NOT the Gospel, as you say, then how can you say that it contains the most pure form of the Gospel, relative to other systematics? Also how most reformed theologians, If i am correct, understand the equation of Calvinism with the Gospel, is that the 5 points of Calvinism are the doctrines of the Gospel. That is my issue here.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 2, 2008)

Calvinism contains a systematic summary of the Gospel which puts emphasis on the Sovereign work of God in salvation. Calvinism helps us to understand the Gospel but Calvinism is not the Gospel. Calvinism isn't perfect, the Gospel is.


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> Benjamin, you are setting up some aggressive premises that are sinking your arguments from the start.
> 
> Calvinism is not the Gospel. It would be accurate to say that Calvinism contains the most pure form of the Gospel, relative to other sytematics.
> 
> ...




Let me ask another question. If Calvinism is NOT the Gospel, and it IS the most pure form of the Gospel, relative to other systematics, then how is the Gospel PURER the the doctrines of Calvinism?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 2, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> . . .Calvinism is not the Gospel. It would be accurate to say that Calvinism contains the most pure form of the Gospel, relative to other sytematics.
> 
> The 5 points are not Calvinism. The 5 points are a response to the 5 points that the arminian remonstrants put forward. . .



Good points by Bawb. I would add, the five points of Calvinism are not "the gospel" per se. They summarize the doctrines of grace codified at the Synod of Dort. Benjamin, you are suggesting that one cannot come to saving faith in Christ without having accepted/understood the Five Points. I don't believe that is is true. Spurgeon was saved and subsequently became a Calvinist. In fact, that is my testimony.


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> Calvinism contains a systematic summary of the Gospel which puts emphasis on the Sovereign work of God in salvation. Calvinism helps us to understand the Gospel but Calvinism is not the Gospel. Calvinism isn't perfect, the Gospel is.



But now you are equating the Gospel with Calvinism...alas...If Calvinism is a systematic summary of the Gospel, then it IS the Gospel. A summary of the Gospel, that helps us understand the Gospel?  I am even more confused now...


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 2, 2008)

Furthermore, God doesn't use the same labels that we use. You create a dichotomy between calvinists and arminians. A person can be saved even if he doesn't understand the mechanics of how it gets done.

In my monstrous ignorance I fell upon the work of Christ on the cross in total and utter helplessness, dumb as a stump, and I was saved. 

Let's not get carried away with how much we know, salvation is still the work of God alone. God saves sinners.


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

If Calvinism is not the Gospel, then what did Spurgeon mean? Was he correct in what he said?


----------



## danmpem (Jul 2, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> Benjamin, you are setting up some aggressive premises that are sinking your arguments from the start.
> 
> Calvinism is not the Gospel. It would be accurate to say that Calvinism contains the most pure form of the Gospel, relative to other sytematics.
> 
> ...



Bob, may I quote that when explaining Calvinism?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 2, 2008)

Benjamin said:


> If Calvinism is not the Gospel, then what did Spurgeon mean? Was he correct in what he said?



He meant he was saved by grace through faith -- before he came to understand the doctrines of grace.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 2, 2008)

Dan, those quotes are not mine. Those are the fundamentals that we have discussed here many times.




danmpem said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> > Benjamin, you are setting up some aggressive premises that are sinking your arguments from the start.
> ...


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> Benjamin said:
> 
> 
> > If Calvinism is not the Gospel, then what did Spurgeon mean? Was he correct in what he said?
> ...




That makes sense. However, in heaven will we all understand the doctrines of Grace, i.e. how God saves sinners?


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 2, 2008)

Another way to say it would be:

A person is not saved when he comes to the end of Calvin's Institutes, one is saved when he comes to the end of himself.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 2, 2008)

> When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul – when they were as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron; and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown all of a sudden from a babe into a man – that I had made progress in scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God . . . I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, I ascribe my change wholly to God.



From Spurgeon's Autobiography: 1, The Early Years, Banner of Truth, p. 164-165.


----------



## Hippo (Jul 2, 2008)

The point is often made that when people say that they are arminian they are usually very inconsistent arminians, and are therefore able to trust in Christ due to their inconsistency.

We are not saved by knowledge but by the grace of God, Calvinism helps us understand that grace but it is not in itself grace. The appointed means by which we partake of this grace is by our trust (or faith) solely in the atoneing blood of Christ (a trust that is a gift of God). Such trust does not require right doctrine therefore an understanding of why we are saved (Calvinism) is very different from being saved.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 2, 2008)

Benjamin said:


> . . .
> That makes sense. However, in heaven will we all understand the doctrines of Grace, i.e. how God saves sinners?



I think we will *all* get our theology straightened out once we get to heaven.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 2, 2008)

These are great questions Benjamin. I am very pleased that you asked them. Keep it up. I remember working through these very same puzzles. (And there's plenty more!)


----------



## danmpem (Jul 2, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> Dan, those quotes are not mine. Those are the fundamentals that we have discussed here many times.



I guess I just never heard it quite like the way you put it.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 2, 2008)

If Spurgeon said "Calvinism is the Gospel" I would disagree with Him. Calvinism, as Spurgeon probably meant, is our best way of understanding the Gospel, and as Bob said, Calvinism isn't perfect, but the Gospel is. 

Arminians still believe in salvation by grace through faith, and not of any works. Their understanding of that grace is off, which is probably Spurgeon's point...


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> Calvinism contains a systematic summary of the Gospel which puts emphasis on the Sovereign work of God in salvation. Calvinism helps us to understand the Gospel but Calvinism is not the Gospel. Calvinism isn't perfect, the Gospel is.




How is Calvinism not perfect?


----------



## Herald (Jul 2, 2008)

I'll weigh in late on this discussion, if only for the purpose of confirming what has already been said.

Calvinism _is _the gospel in that it is the most faithful theological rendering of the gospel. The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Lord. How His death, burial and resurrection are made effectual to individuals is through predestination and election. God predestined His elect in eternity past and the gospel is the clarion call that announces the means by which their election is realized. Calvinism is actually Augustinian in regards to predestination and election. To the degree that Calvinism accurately reflects God's active choice of His elect and the means by which He calls His elect, it is the gospel. 

Now, how can someone be saved by an Arminian gospel? First, Calvinism does not not have a copyright on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Those truths are present in many Arminian-type gospel presentations. While the appeal to mans free will may be made, the truth of the gospel may still be resident. I think of Paul's words:



> *Philippians 1:18* 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,



Men are not saved by Augustinianism, Calvinism or Arminiansim. They are saved by the preaching of the cross and justified by faith in the risen Son of God. No other systematic approach to scripture has been more faithful in articulating these facts than Calvinism. But that does not mean Calvinism is the only way to peace with God.



> *Romans 5:1 *Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 2, 2008)

Because Calvin was French!!!!!!! 



Benjamin said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> > Calvinism contains a systematic summary of the Gospel which puts emphasis on the Sovereign work of God in salvation. Calvinism helps us to understand the Gospel but Calvinism is not the Gospel. Calvinism isn't perfect, the Gospel is.
> ...


----------



## Hippo (Jul 2, 2008)

Benjamin said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> > Calvinism contains a systematic summary of the Gospel which puts emphasis on the Sovereign work of God in salvation. Calvinism helps us to understand the Gospel but Calvinism is not the Gospel. Calvinism isn't perfect, the Gospel is.
> ...



If we knew what the errors were we would change our views to what was perfect. 

The fall effects our understanding of theology, it is inconceivable that we understand perfectly. Paul had a pretty good grasp of theology and he wrote:

As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but owhen the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. 
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. 1 Co 13:8-12


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

Thanks for your comments. Would it be wrong then to say that Calvinism is the truth?


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 2, 2008)

In as much as Calvinism is consistent with God's thoughts and God's words, it is the truth.


----------



## Hippo (Jul 2, 2008)

Benjamin said:


> Thanks for your comments. Would it be wrong then to say that Calvinism is the truth?



It is not wrong at all as long as you understand that such a statement is necessarily your opinion and you are open to changing your view on the fine details if required.


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

Thanks Hippo, I think I am starting to finally understand.


----------



## Hippo (Jul 2, 2008)

Hippo said:


> Benjamin said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your comments. Would it be wrong then to say that Calvinism is the truth?
> ...



Just to clarify what while a statement that "Calvinism is the truth" is necessarily ones opinion, the truth as to whether that statement is in fact true (in whole or in part) is an objective fact known with certainty by God. 

In no way am I suggesting that all opinions are valid, some will be correct and some will be wrong.


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 2, 2008)

Hippo said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > Benjamin said:
> ...



I understood you there. I wonder however how many here will be consistent in what is said about calvinism here....I find that often those who say that Calvinism is not the Gospel, go on to speak of it as such! That is what confuses me...


----------



## Ivan (Jul 2, 2008)

Benjamin said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > Hippo said:
> ...



Aye, fallen human beings are a confusing lot!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 2, 2008)

Charles Spurgeon, _A Defense of Calvinism_:



> 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.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 2, 2008)

Exactly! Thank you Andrew. I have been out with my grandson all afternoon and was preparing to post that quote.

Even allowing for rhetorical overkill, what Spurgeon was saying is that the message of Calvinism captures the truths of the Gospel more completely than alternative presentations. Can God save a sinner through an Arminian presentation? Sure! But that does not make it "OK" to dilute the Gospel through emphasizing "free will" and decisional regeneration over the biblical call to repent and believe and an emphasis upon the sovereignty of God in the Gospel.


----------



## Hippo (Jul 2, 2008)

I have always shared Jonathan Edwards view that while initially (pre-conversion) the doctrines of grace appear to be "a horrible doctrine," he came to see them as being "exceedingly pleasant, bright and sweet." 

Calvinism is a joyous doctrine that we talk about constantly, not only because it is true, but because it is so exhilerating and comforting. A bit like the Gospel really.


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 4, 2008)

Thanks guyz for all your comments. It has been a bit hard following you guyz at first and it seemed confusing, but these things are confusing though. They are not meant to be easy I think. Calvinism is the Gospel in the sense that just as the Gospel declares the salvation is of God's Grace alone, so Calvinism shines the best light and makes the Gospel all the more clearer and delightful for us. I hope I haven't stepped over into heresy...is that sort of okay what I said???


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 4, 2008)

Dennis et al,

I have read this post, and am grateful for the thoughts people have shared.

I wanted to make a quick comment. It seems that we often confuse the psycholgical inner-workings of someone's beliefs and the beliefs themselves.

For instance, can someone call himself an Arminian and yet still be saved? Absolutely! Can someone call himself a Calvinist and go to hell? You bet. However, that does not mean that Calvinism is from the pit, and Arminianism is the gospel. It just means that God works in us in stages, and that there are hypocrites on the earth. BUT, the ideas themselves, as the Spurgeon quote so eloquently puts it, are what counts. Arminianism, as a set of propositions is heresy. Calvinism, as a set of ideas, is the gospel. When someone is an "Arminian" and a Christian, he is only an Arminian in name, but not in fact. When he prays to God, he doesn't dare say "Thank you God, that I exercised my power of free choice to be born again." He says "God be merciful to me, the sinner!" As Luther said, there is a difference between the beliefs that we feel deep down, and the beliefs that we merely like to think we believe.

Cheers,

Adam




DMcFadden said:


> Exactly! Thank you Andrew. I have been out with my grandson all afternoon and was preparing to post that quote.
> 
> Even allowing for rhetorical overkill, what Spurgeon was saying is that the message of Calvinism captures the truths of the Gospel more completely than alternative presentations. Can God save a sinner through an Arminian presentation? Sure! But that does not make it "OK" to dilute the Gospel through emphasizing "free will" and decisional regeneration over the biblical call to repent and believe and an emphasis upon the sovereignty of God in the Gospel.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 5, 2008)

I grew up playing Tank Wars with Mr. David Cox. I think there is a sufficiently long history (and sufficiently great contemporary numbers) of Calvinist activity to rebut the charge that we only think, we don't preach against sin or pray or go or give sacrificially. To be sure, there are idle calvinists; but so far as they are idle they are bad calvinists.


----------



## Dawie (Jul 5, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> When someone is an "Arminian" and a Christian, he is only an Arminian in name, but not in fact. When he prays to God, he doesn't dare say "Thank you God, that I exercised my power of free choice to be born again." He says "God be merciful to me, the sinner!"



This might be a case in point:

I found this online library and it looks wonderful.

The missionary has laboured fervently the world over.



> We believe in . . .
> 
> 6. His power to save men from sin;
> 7. the new birth through the regeneration by the Holy Spirit; and
> ...



That mostly sounds Calvinistic to me, but here he says:



> My View on Calvinism, by David Cox
> 
> I view Calvinism as a perversion of Scripture, a serious and dangerous threat against Fundamental Christianity. I reject it wholeheartedly.
> 
> ...



Maybe it's the case as you say:



Christusregnat said:


> As Luther said, there is a difference between the beliefs that we feel deep down, and the beliefs that we merely like to think we believe.


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 5, 2008)

Ouch! That quote by David Cox is quite harsh. Only evangelize on pretence?! As if "Calvinists" don't have a heart for the lost...


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 6, 2008)

It sounds like Mr. Cox has an axe to grind.

Adam






Benjamin said:


> Ouch! That quote by David Cox is quite harsh. Only evangelize on pretence?! As if "Calvinists" don't have a heart for the lost...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 6, 2008)

Mr. Cox sounds like an open theist and a moralist as well.



> ...First of all, the more pastors and churches get into Calvinism, the less they are concerned and deeply motivated (understand this to mean here sacrificial giving, dedicated prayer, and they themselves getting off their duff and doing something like going) about (1) evangelism, (2) preaching against sin that would lead to salvation, (3) missions, and (4) prayer to change the reality around them.


There is a tendency of sloth about some who wear the Calvinist name as if God controlling all things gives them excuse to ignore His commands because He'll accomplish them anyhow but this is not a defect in Calvinism but those that call themselves such.

As for what the Gospel is to this fellow, it is very strange to hear about preaching against sin that would lead to salvation. The man sounds like a moralist who sees the Gospel as the great message of "...clean up your act...."

I don't actually buy the charge that Calvinists aren't doing anything knowing many that are. I think the reason why it seems like there are few doing this is that there are few Calvinists by proportion to man's religion. The proprietors of error will always outnumber us because man's religion spreads like wildfire and guilt/moralism works as a motivator. If you want pure numbers of hands in the air then you're going to get a large Church of people being made twice as fit for Hell.

The Christian religion takes a lot of effort and discipleship and, given the shallow view of doctrine this fellow exhibits, he could stand to be discipled himself by someone who actually knows the truth rather than spreading his ignorance and error around so widely. 

I used to concern myself that I couldn't impact as many lives but that was the American pragmatist in me that saw success in numbers. I've since experienced the joy in helping to build back up a Church that was in tatters as a result of these so called friends of the Gospel that are no friends at all in my estimation. Open theism may make God seem just like us and may get the sentimentalist or the guilty busy propagating more fairy tales of the God of the Universe biting his nails until we pray the right prayers but the God of the Scriptures that I serve seeks and saves the lost because they don't know where they are. I am privileged to be in a Church that knows its place and it isn't in changing men's hearts but in relying upon the power of the Gospel to do so.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 6, 2008)

Another thing, when Calvinists do good or evangelize etc. they don't usually go around advertising the fact. You want to see a do-gooder doing good on national TV or something, watch the Poprah Winfrey!


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 6, 2008)

Benjamin said:


> Thanks guyz for all your comments. It has been a bit hard following you guyz at first and it seemed confusing, but these things are confusing though. They are not meant to be easy I think. Calvinism is the Gospel in the sense that just as the Gospel declares the salvation is of God's Grace alone, so Calvinism shines the best light and makes the Gospel all the more clearer and delightful for us. I hope I haven't stepped over into heresy...is that sort of okay what I said???


 
Benjamin,

I'll give you my opinion from a lay-person's perspective, so please take it for what it's worth! Maybe .

I believe that the gospel can be talked about in broader and narrower senses. Calvinism DIRECTLY interacts with a person's UNDERSTANDING of the gospel. Did Christ really SAVE you, or merely makes salvation POSSIBLE? These are not unimportant questions. It is because of this relationship between the 5 points and the gospel, that the ministers at Dort didn't take it lightly when the heresy (the reformed do still call it a heresy) arose. 

The question over Arminianism is debated among the reformed. I tend to agree with the older brand of puritanism that generally viewed (In my humble opinion) Arminianism as a system that is antithetical to the true gospel. A system that teaches salvation by works cannot save. I think that our own Rev. Winzer put it well:



armourbearer said:


> Nobody has ever been saved by believing the Arminian gospel. Yes, Arminians have been saved. Roman Catholics have also been saved. But it is in spite of the system they adhere to, and only because they believe somewhat inconsistently the true Calvinistic gospel which teaches a man is saved by faith receiving and resting upon Christ and His righteousness alone.


 
I have debated this subject alot in the past, and will refer you to those threads for some good discussions on this topic.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/you-sure-you-like-spurgeon-modern-ref-18679/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/question-regarding-arminianism-22204/#post276817

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/can-5-point-arminian-go-heaven-6226/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/what-ideologies-liminally-damnable-10300/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f59/arminian-god-not-worshippable-11817/

With that I will leave you with a quote from John Owen:



> One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a tast, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit, their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a swavering hestitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church-communion. The sacred bond of peace compasseth only the unity of that Spirit which leadeth into all truth. We must not offer the right hand of fellowship, but rather proclaim "a holy war" to such enemies of God's providence, Christ's merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherien they differ from their masters. We see their own confessions; we know their arts, --"the depths and crafts of Satan;" we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men. With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but yet, for the most part,--like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wiggle in here whole body, sting and all,--give the least, and the whole poison must be swallowed.
> 
> The Epistle Dedicatory, A Display of Arminianism p. 3​


----------



## Benjamin (Jul 6, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Mr. Cox sounds like an open theist and a moralist as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi brother. Thanks for the words of encouragement. I was at a service this evening, I play the piano, so I'm often called upon to play. I am playing in mom's place at the moment at a Reformed Church. Tonight the preacher spoke about "unity" between denominations, and that that is the cause why there is such disaster in South Africa. He said it is God's judgements on us because of our disobedience to put uside our differences and join together. It sounded very beautiful, but I was left having these questions on my mind,

"If it will be like this, then isn't it inevitable that no one will be allowed to criticize a teaching, because that would break the unity?" Who will be able to decide what is true or not? Also, is it only unity of the Spirit that we are to seak for, and not also unity of the faith?

It seemed like a strange message coming from a Reformed Church who should know the dangers of Arminianism to true Gospel Evangelism. Now, I see why the mass would delight in such unity. It is rather non conflictive. For instance, when a father sees his children fighting, what would be the best way to handle it? The father should go to his children and ask WHY they are fighting. He should listen carefully to each side and see if they are not just fighting over things that are not so important. If that is the case, then they should just keep to their convictions, but not make a big thing out of it. Granted. BUT, if the issue is important, what should happen? If the wrong is from one party, then that party should be disciplined. If for example the one child says that the other stole something, and he in fact did not, and they are arguing over that, would a good parent say to the children that they must just put aside their differences for the sake of unity? No! That will not help anything, for then there is not inward unity, no justice... In the same way, I think that the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism are quite large, and extensive(they affect your view on God's redemption history all over) and therefore to push them aside, for the sake of "unity" is creating more disharmony because it is treating important matters as if they are of no consequence which is also quite a slap in the face of all the godly man that have fought to keep the Church pure, Charles Spurgeon being a wonderful example of this. I have also found that this "unity" has not actually helped the Church much, but has rather made the Church more relaxed in her purity. Sins are taken less seriously, especially doctrinal ones. Also, I have found that when this teaching of "unity" is brought in, those who say "The Bible says so" are seen as extremely divisive and arrogant souls. This is deeply discouraging seeing that I am one of them, and I love God's people and have many friends from other denominations. Yet, I speak the truth to them when I can. One has to learn to lean on God's everlasting Arm...nothing else can hold a man when he is avowedly "Calvinistic", which is really a misnomer. Calvin never came up with it, it is the true religion of Christianity of which I am NOT ashamed to own. Let us UNITE on that!


----------



## cwjudyjr (Jul 6, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> Most folks are arminians when they are saved because by NATURE we tend toward works righteousness. This is true even after we are saved and therefore need to hear repeatedly, the Gospel. The Gospel is that God sent his Son into the world to save sinners. God has done all the work for His elect to come to a saving knowledge.
> 
> Calvinism does not save. Calvinism illumines.



Very well stated. Thank you!!!

Conrad


----------



## py3ak (Jul 6, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Mr. Cox sounds like an open theist and a moralist as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mr. Cox (I can speak from personal acquaintance) would certainly reprobate the errors of open theism. And I think we could read his statement about preaching against sin to mean a preaching of the law, resulting in conviction of sin. But obviously he does have some misconceptions about Calvinism, which are verbally and practically contradicted by at least some of the Calvinists I know he knows.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 6, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Cox sounds like an open theist and a moralist as well.
> ...



Ruben,

It's statements like this that lead me to believe he is advocating a position that God is in a process of learning:

"If God has truly decided every single human being's eternal destiny without any chance of changing things, then certain conclusions have to be...."

What is the alternative? A God that doesn't know or hasn't yet decided?

"(1) You cannot change anybody's eternal destiny - Why witness? Why preach the gospel? Why go out of your way to see somebody change from unsaved to saved?"

Again, does God discursively learn of someone having faith?

"(2) Prayer is useless - At the bottom of Calvinism is an apathy that God has predecided everything, and we cannot nor should change things."

Perhaps the strongest statement here. What is the other option? That God has not decided everything? Even Arminians recognize that God knows the beginning from the end and has "pre-decided" by creating a Universe according to how it will all unfold.

"This ignores that God perhaps has decided that the instrument of this will of His may be you knocking on a door to witness to the unsaved. Prayer is based in a belief that God has allowed men and the world to do "their thing" which always turns out against God's will as a rule, and that if a child of God implores God long enough, and hard enough, it is possible (not a rule though) that God may overrule these forces and do something to change what is. We who reject Calvinism live in prayer daily to change our lives and the lives of those around us. For the die-hard Calvinist, it is hard to accept the finality and futility of God's will in other matters and it not invade our prayer life to destroy it."

This above is a very confused view of means. God's will is not decided but, maybe, if we pray "hard enough" God will "...overrule these forces...."

I'm not saying he understands the Calvinist position at all, by the way, I simply believe the God he offers as an alternative to his distortion of the Scriptural God is a God that is waiting on us and learning from us. He may repudiate Open Theism with the one hand but then embraces a learning God with the other.

I always find it remarkable how the most important theological concept for many people is not God as He is revealed but whether or not that revealed God _seems_ like a God that would cause people to be serious about Evangelism.

In other words, the standing premise for this fellow is that the principle doctrine of Scripture is that God has to be whatever it is that would make Evangelism most successful. Upon that basis the God that is least offensive to the human mind and Evangelism is pasted together and any Scriptural doctrine that would offend that is shaved off.

Again, I'm a big believer in Evangelism but Evangelism is on the basis of Who God is first. The Love of God is found not that we loved Him but that He loved us. Whatever seems to be the case to Mr. Cox about what that does to his success as an Evangelist is immaterial to me.

A study of the Gospels and Acts will demonstrate that Christ and His Apostles were not interested in number of souls saved but were absolutely committed to Truth no matter what the cost. You would have to be in a coma to miss the opposition that the Gospel causes in Acts. One wonders why Paul was such a wanted man everywhere if he could have just softened out the rough edges on God's character to make Him more acceptable to the minds of his hearers.


----------

