Calvinism = the gospel?

[rnmomof7]

Did you mean that the way it reads, or did you mean the gospel is reflected in calvinism? I guess that goes to the heart of my OP's question.

I meant that a proper reading of the scriptures is the evidence of reformed doctrine..

 

[Radagast]

I read this statement in another thread and asked the author this question, but rec'd no reply. So, do Calvinists believe Calvinism is the gospel? If so, do y'all then believe that those of us who reject Calvinism, e.g. TULIP in whole or in part, then are rejecting the gospel?

Indeed, no. This is the Gospel:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve 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 to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them–yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. (1 Cor 15:1-11)

If you believe that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" then you're my brother in Christ.

If you don't believe TULIP, then you're wrong (and we'll try to convince you of the truth ), but you're still my brother in Christ, and you still accept the Gospel.

-- Radagast

 

[GrinningDwarf]

If you believe that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" then you're my brother in Christ.

If you don't believe TULIP, then you're wrong (and we'll try to convince you of the truth ), but you're still my brother in Christ, and you still accept the Gospel.

-- Radagast

Well said, Radagast!

 

[BBAS 64]

I read this statement in another thread and asked the author this question, but rec'd no reply. So, do Calvinists believe Calvinism is the gospel? If so, do y'all then believe that those of us who reject Calvinism, e.g. TULIP in whole or in part, then are rejecting the gospel? I supposed this might not be answerable within the rules of this board. If you do answer, please do so with discretion. It is not my desire to get anyone in trouble here.

Good Day, 2Timothy2

IOW.. Yup

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"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."[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, which are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me. "[/font]

"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. Such a gospel I abhor. "


[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]—C. H. Spurgeon[/font]

Peace to u,

Bill


​

 

[cygnusx1]

Wesley was aman deeply blessed of God , but to say he had calvinist leanings is , stretching it , I have studied some of his letters , try reading George Whitfield , his letters and his Journals , they make it all soooooooooo clear , and if you have the stomach for it , get hold of The Works of Augustus Montague Toplady (Rock of Ages) ......... maybe online!

then read all about James Hervey from a village 2 mins away from me ........ it is amazing stuff !

an insight into the characters Wesley and toplady.....

Accordingly, in the month of March, 1770, out sneaks a printed paper (consisting of one sheet, folded into twelve pages; price one penny) entitled, The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination stated and asserted, by the Reverend Mr. A_____ T_____. Wherein you pretend to give an abridgment of the pamphlet above referred to. But,



1. Why did you not make your abridgment truly public? For an apparent reason that, if possible it might elude my knowledge, and so escape the rod. Born of a stole's embrace, it was needful for the spurious pusillanimous performance to steal its way into the world. It privately crept abroad from the Foundry, the seat of its nativity; it was sold indeed, but sold under the rose; it was carefully circulated in the dark, and the friends of Mr. Wesley were designed to be the sole sphere of its acquaintance. Thus every one that doth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light lest his deed should be reproved. In such conduct, I can discern much of the jesuit, but nothing of the saint. -- I had to this hour remained unapprised of the secret stab, but for the information received from some of superior integrity to yourself. -- I will put Christianity quite out of the question, and suppose it to have no kind of influence. But should you not at least act as a man of common honour? Come forth openly, sir, in future, like an honest generous assailant; and, from this moment forward, disdain to act the ignoble part of a lurking sly assassin.



2. Why did you not abridge me faithfully and fairly? Why must you lard your ridiculous compendium with additions and interpolations of your own; especially as you took the liberty of prefixing my name to it? Your reasons are obvious. My publication had spread among some of your people: and the longer it continued to diffuse itself, the more you trembled for your Diana. Hence, Demetrius like, you found it needful, by the help of a pious fraud, to prejudice your Ephesians against the doctrines of St. Paul. The book was likely to give the Arminian Babel a shake: therefore, no way so effectual to secure it as by endeavouring to spike the cannon which was planted against it. That you might seem to gratify the curiosity of your partisans, and keep them really hood-winked at the same time, you draw up a flimsy, partial compendium of Zanchius: a compendium which exhibits a few detached propositions, placed in the most disadvantageous point of view, and without including any part of the evidence on which they stand.



But this alone was not sufficient to compass the desired end. Unsatisfied with carefully and totally suppressing every proof alleged by Zanchius in support of his argument; a false colouring must likewise be superinduced, by inserting a sentence or two now and then of your own foisting in. After which you close the motley piece, with an entire paragraph, forged every word of it by yourself: and conclude all, as you began, with subjoining the initials of my name: to make the ignorant believe that the whole, with your omissions, additions and alterations, actually came from me. -- An instance of audacity and falsehood hardly to be paralleled!



I am very far from desiring the reader to take my word in proof of the charge alleged against you. As an instance of your want of honour, veracity, and justice, I refer to the following paragraph, 1. as published by me; and, 2. as quoted by you.



1. "When all the transactions of providence and grace are wound up in the last day, he (Christ) will then properly sit as judge, and openly publish, and solemnly ratify, if I may so say, his everlasting decrees, by receiving the elect, body and soul into glory: and by passing sentence on the non-elect (not for having done what they could not help, but) for their willful ignorance of divine things and their obstinate unbelief; for their omissions of moral duty, and for their repeated iniquities and transgressions." Doct. of Abs. Predest.



2. "In the last day Christ will sit as Judge and openly publish and solemnly ratify his everlasting decrees, by receiving the elect into glory, and by passing sentence on the non-elect (not for having done what they could not help, but) for their willful ignorance of divine things and their obstinate unbelief; for their omissions of moral duty, and for their repeated iniquities and transgressions WHICH THEY COULD NOT HELP." Wesley's Abridgement, p.9.



Whether my view of the doctrine itself be, in fact, right or wrong is no part of the present enquiry: the question is, have you quoted me fairly? Blush, Mr. Wesley, if you are capable of blushing. For once publicly acknowledge yourself to have acted criminally: "unless," to use your own words on another occasion, "shame and you have shook hands and parted."



Your concluding paragraph, which you have the effrontery to palm on the world as mine, runs thus: "The sum of all this: one in twenty (suppose) of mankind are elected; nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they will; the reprobate shall he damned, do what they can. Reader, believe this, or be damned. Witness my hand, A_____ T_____." (1)



In almost any other case, a similar forgery would transmit the criminal to Virginia or Maryland, if not to Tyburn. If such an opponent can be deemed an honest man, where shall we find a knave? -- What would you think of me, were I infamous enough to abridge any treatise of yours, sprinkle it with interpolations, and conclude it thus: "Reader, buy this book, or be damned, Witness my hand, John Wesley?"


http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/toplady_to_wesley.htm

 

[JM]

Calvinism is the Gospel.

 

[Skala]

I read this statement in another thread and asked the author this question, but rec'd no reply. So, do Calvinists believe Calvinism is the gospel? If so, do y'all then believe that those of us who reject Calvinism, e.g. TULIP in whole or in part, then are rejecting the gospel? I supposed this might not be answerable within the rules of this board. If you do answer, please do so with discretion. It is not my desire to get anyone in trouble here.

The word "gospel" simply means good news. The Bible tells how God saves us, and why God saves us.

Calvinism's doctrines attempt to package up what the Bible says into bitesized portions. It attempts to explain how and why God saves us.

The way God saves us, and why God saves us is the gospel.

Calvinism is only gospel insofar as it repeats what the Bible teaches us about salvation.
But that's not the same as saying that a person must be a Calvinist in order to be saved.

It is my experience that 99% of the time, people who reject Calvinism actually reject a strawman of Calvinism, not the true thing.

The gospel is that Jesus came to save sinners.
Calvinism teaches the same thing, hence, it is the gospel, or at least encapsulates the gospel.

 

[tulipbee]

The word "gospel" simply means good news. The Bible tells how God saves us, and why God saves us.

Calvinism's doctrines attempt to package up what the Bible says into bitesized portions. It attempts to explain how and why God saves us.

The way God saves us, and why God saves us is the gospel.

Calvinism is only gospel insofar as it repeats what the Bible teaches us about salvation.
But that's not the same as saying that a person must be a Calvinist in order to be saved.

It is my experience that 99% of the time, people who reject Calvinism actually reject a strawman of Calvinism, not the true thing.

The gospel is that Jesus came to save sinners.
Calvinism teaches the same thing, hence, it is the gospel, or at least encapsulates the gospel.

Regeneration precedes faith is the good news. Faith precedes regeneration is the bad news. That's the meaning of Calvinism. It teaches the good news. Those that reject Calvinism teaches the bad news. Now why do we want bad news over good news??????