Can non-Calvinists be saved

[Cajun Huguenot]

In a recent thread, a poster named "Stumpjumper" claims that Calvinists believe that all non-Calvinists are unsaved, simply by virtue of the fact that they're not Calvinists.

Now, obviously I know that this is stupid and untrue, but, in the interests of fairness, I wanted you all to have an opportunity to speak for yourselves.

So, how about it? Is there anybody here who agrees with Stumpjumper?

I agree with you that anyone who would make such a claim is very foolish and has a very distorted understanding of the Scriptures and Calvinistic thought.

John Calvin did not believe such a thing. Augustine did not believe such nonsense. The best Reformed theologians have not believed it either.

Later,
Kenith

 

[calvinroyal]

Sorry for not posting sooner,
To answer some of the questions id like to first define some terms. I would agree with bradfordl in his assessment that “orthodoxy means right teaching", I would also point out that schism is the term that defines those who depart from the teachings of a perceived “confessional” orthodoxy. For example, if I were to deviate from the 5 points of Calvinism, or depart from a covenantal eschatology, I would then be a schismatic; having departed from what is “traditionally” orthodox teaching. This is precisely what happened within the evangelical church as a result of dispensationalism. Now, herein lies the problem, a schismatic is justified in his schism *if* the schism results in the acceptance of what is truthfully orthodox. If the schismatic departs and leads astray those who are dissenting from what is truthfully orthodox, and leads them into heresy then we are just to condemn those who schism into heresy. So the question remains, “what then is orthodox?” The first obstacle is to define fundamentals of the Christian faith. The second obstacle is to define what is heresy. The church agrees with the Biblical account of these fundamentals and catechisms and defends that set of fundamentals. The problem is that each sect in Christendom has it’s own set of fundamentals. But we must be careful not to assume ecclesial authority over these issues or we will become like Rome. Our final rule therefore *must* be the Word of God. The case of Nasa1 is different though, he has stated that he is new in the faith. Nasa1 is not a schismatic. The Unitarian church is definitely heretical in it’s teachings and is therefore a cult, but this does not mean that Nasa1 is. What Nasa1 needs is instruction in righteousness, and patience from the church to lead him into the “correct teachings” (orthodoxy) about Christ and the Trinity. But I must confess that I’m not so certain that a “proper” understanding of the Trinity is sufficient to save us. As a mater of fact I’m not so certain that *any understandings of the Trinity are sufficient to save. What I mean is this; are we saved by what we understand? Are we saved by proper understanding? Or are we saved by the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5-10). And if this is so, are we right to condemn Nasa1 if this is how he was saved, assuming he is? I suspect we need to obviously defend the faith. But lead those in error (as is Nasa1) into the truth with gentleness and respect (Peter 3:15).

Well, I’ve said enough for now, I’ll chat later.
In Christ,
Calvin

 

[Tacere]

In a recent thread, a poster named "Stumpjumper" claims that Calvinists believe that all non-Calvinists are unsaved, simply by virtue of the fact that they're not Calvinists.

Now, obviously I know that this is stupid and untrue, but, in the interests of fairness, I wanted you all to have an opportunity to speak for yourselves.

So, how about it? Is there anybody here who agrees with Stumpjumper?

You don't have to be Calvinist to be saved. Simply as that.

 

[McWilliams]

God doesnt consider denominations or labels but He definitely reads hearts and knows what you have done regarding Jesus Christ! Is He your Lord and Savior? Then you belong to Him, whether Calvinist or Arminian! Do you want the real truth of scripture? Then most likely you are Calvinist!!

 

[heymikey80]

What makes you a Christian then? Can we not give the benefit of the doubt to some groups that are orthodox but have crappy theology? Can you define orthodox for me?

I believe that God can save anyone who has heard the gospel, even if unorthodox, and then leads them to orthodoxy. I do not believe that He will leave them in unorthodoxy, though.

I believe the point is that you can't drive someone into orthodxy but by the Spirit you can lead them into it.

Thanks guys, y'all are sounding off in ways that beggar me.

Plus, my appreciation again for calvinroyal's posting, which I won't repeat, above. Worth a serious reread.

I look at it this way. Say you're a scientist, and you have all kinds of knowledge about light and heat and electronmagnetism. That doesn't make you a light bearer. That just tells you a whole lot about what light is and how you may handle it.

Being a Christian is about bearing the Light of the World to a darkened cosmos. You'll benefit immensely by greater and greater knowledge about the Light of the World, what's the nature of His Light, and how His Light shines in the uncomprehending darkness. But just knowing it doesn't make you a Light bearer. It makes you a better Light bearer if you are one, already.

Some people are carrying lamps that go out, and other lamps that aren't really the Light of the World.

Plus, there are people carrying the Light of the World who are really thinking about Him the way those other lamps work.

It's hard to tell one mistake from the other. The easiest way to start doing that is to become familiar with what's different about such a person, once he starts bearing the Light of the World. But again, that doesn't change who is the Light bearer, and who's carrying a counterfeit.

To tell the difference, it's not checking to make sure how correct his theology is. Normally you check for the direction such a person is headed in. "Where's he going?' I look to see if he's following the Spirit of God and changing -- reforming -- bit by bit toward orthodoxy. So orthodoxy is a test -- but it's not a "minimum bar".

The reason orthodoxy is a test at all is that all the other lamps are intentionally placed by the Light's enemy, to drag people away. But the Light of the World could not help but draw people to Himself.

I realize this is highly allegorical, but ... it's kind of hard to talk about in almost any other way.