Posted on 05/04/2002 4:43:38 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Do you disagree with RnMomof7?"
I would stand with Spurgeon who claimed "“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"
Now, regarding Mom's post. In context, she is absolutely correct. No orthodox theologian would claim that his 'take' on the scriptures summed up in a doctrine can ever fully expound the truth of the Scriptures. Now, lest you think I am in agreement with Winston and his bantering on and on about the 'Calvinist construct' (a weak feeble attempt at grandstanding when one has run out of Scripture to support his position), I will clarify that my point is due only to our fallen state and thus our limited understanding. No man's theology can fully comprehend the truth. Nor do I think we are called to 100% correct theology. Nonetheless, I wholeheartedly believe that the entirety of Reformed theology is the closest there is.
If you think I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too, I will leave you with an example of Christian antiquity. During the Council of Antioch (267 AD) the church made a statement against the gnostic modalistic heresy. Specifically denied in this council was the pronouncement of Sabellius that Jesus is homo-ousios with the Father. This means that Jesus was 'of the same essense, substance or being' with the Father.
58 years later, the Council of Nicea also made a statement against the views of Arius. In this council, they defeated the view of Arius which denied the 'one-ness' of the Trinity. In doing so, they declared their belief that Christ is homo-ousious with the Father -the very same term rejected in the Council of Antioch. They declared that Jesus was 'of the same essense, substance or being' with the Father.
Did the Coucil of Nicea revert back to Sabellianism? Hardly! In context, we can understand and applaud the use of this term or the denial of this term. For Sabellius was attempting to eliminate the distiction of persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -thus his insistance of the use of the 'homo-ousios' term. On the other hand, Arius was attempting to eliminate the 'one-ness' of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit by declaring them to be 3 separate unconfused beings. In this context, the council of Nicea correctly declares the Son 'of the same essence, substance of being' with the Father.
Likewise, when we look at the doctrines of men, we understand that they cannot perfectly expouse the truth of Christ. On the other hand, when we look at the Scriptures, we can safely say that calvinism is indeed the gospel of Christ. Different focus, Different Context.
Mom is correct, you are incorrect.
Jean
O.J. is looking for the "real" killers.
Gary doesn't know what happened to Chandra.
Hillary isn't running for President.
Nice spin Jean. But it doesn't pass the smell test.
Calvinism expresses the gospel , it clarifies the gospel ,it expreses the fulness of the gospel ..but one does not need to have a degree in Calvinist theology to be saved.
So, do you disagree with Spurgeon?
Spurgeon: 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 [quoted from Jean's post]
RnMomof7: ...I explained Calvinism was a doctrine ...not the gospel... Post #807
RnMomof7, winstonchurchill's entire argument against "Little Johnny's Construct" is right in line with you there. Calvinism is a doctrine. It's a man-made doctrine. Let me help you out a little. So is Wesleyan-Arminianism.
If I thought the Calvinists would own up to that, I'd stop arguing with this post. You think we're wrong. We think you're wrong.
The difference is that we realize that we are limited to our human understanding.
Our doctrines are our limited attempts to understand God's word, to understand God's plan. Limited because we are limited in our humanity. Not because God is limited or God is weak.
It's because we are. All of us.
Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. - Phillipians 3:7-14
Do you disagree with Spurgeon?
Besides, from the gospel comments I see, it seems that they are all still stinging because I had to show it to 'em. What I really like is that they are calling it "Woody's 5 words" and and other stupid things. I wonder if they will bother to confess before communion.
P.S. I can assure you that the lurkers are noticing how they are behaving so take courage in the face of their "debating"....
Do YOU disagree with Spurgeon?
Yes or No please.
Run for your lives! They're talking Barbeque again!!!
;-) <--- Nice and smiley. Just like the ones Mother makes.
from Corin: Run for your lives! They're talking Barbeque again!!!
In honor of the family get-together, I penned a few lines of verse. (Sung to the tune of "When We All Get to Heaven...can anyone add the midi file?)
:-) (Please note the smiley face!!)
Calvinism, in the narrow sense of the term, is a safeguard against distortion of the gospel by those who would redefine words and add conditions that would make the gospel "another" gospel. The more the gospel is twisted by heretics or well meaning but errant teachers the more precise a refutation and clarification is needed.
In heaven we won't need Calvinists because there is no one there who will distort the message. The label Calvinist will not be needed because we will all see that salvation is of the Lord, period. Christ will receive all our glory. No boasting about our discovering Christ or electing Him will even be countenanced and therefore there will be no need for a Calvinist (in this life) to step forward to preserve His honor -- whether his is Spurgeon or her name is RnMom.
In the wider sense of the term, Calvinism means far more than a safeguard of the gospel... but you know that.
=====
FR Calvinists are welcome to speak for themselves if this misrepresents their answer to Corin's oft asked question. Otherwise, Corin, consider it answered!
I think you just said, "Yes, Calvinism is the gospel!" Did I read you correctly?
Well, thanks drstevej. You're one of the more rational Calvinists here. I appreciate your perspective and your answer.
However, those among your number have said Calvinism is the gospel. And, they have also said that everyone will be Calvinists in heaven.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to find Calvin and Wesley standing together at the Pearly Gates to tell all of us "cut it out or you're not coming in."
But, I'd still like a direct answer from some of the other Calvinists.
Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes or No.
My answer is better than yes or no because either of these one word answers would elicit a "therefore, ...." from our good friends on the otherside who would draw wrong conclusions from a one word answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.