We love our drama. We love putting other people down and raising ourselves up—it is a part of our sick, corrupt, twisted, and less-than-human (the way God created us, at least) nature.
I talked to an ex-student of mine. She told me about all the soap-opera like events going on at the school ranging from personal conflict to extreme favoritism. She said it was better when I was in the administration there and I need to come back. I smiled and shook my head and said, “People complained about the exact same stuff when I was there.” It’s the same ol’ song and dance with the cards shuffled around a bit. But in the same breath as telling me about the drama, she also told me about plans her and some friends have to create other drama because they hate the current drama so much. Yeah—that sounds like a winning plan.
On a blog comment stream I saw recently, two people were debating the idea of Calvinism vs. Arminianism in the convention. One expressed surprise that a bunch of learned men couldn’t see things his way. The other expressed surprise that someone would be so arrogant to question a group of men with certain degrees who served at certain institutions in certain capacities or went to certain schools. So let’s battle arrogance with further arrogance right? The first comment might have been arrogant and off base, but the response was too. After all, if the Pharisees and modern day secular education teach us anything it’s that being a group of highly educated men doesn’t necessarily make you right.
And with that whole CvsA thing, it’s kind of funny in a sad way. A lot of people will respond, “Well I’m neither Calvinist or Arminian—I’m Baptist or I’m Biblical.” Right…because as a person who has been Southern Baptist all my life and holds to the five points, I look at the Bible and tell myself, “You know, Self, I can see that this clearly says something else, but doggoneit, I just want to be different and rebellious so I’m going to ignore what it says and be a 5-point Calvinist.” But long live the “Biblicist” club!
Of course all of this is part of our sin nature. If we weren’t so prone to put each other down and elevate ourselves especially in our disagreements, then we wouldn’t need so many comments in Scripture about being unified, building each other up, and being humble.
Be it at a school, at church, at home, on the job, at the convention, on a blog, wherever, I like to think it’s my party, you like to think it’s your party, and we all like to think it’s our party.
But it’s not.
It’s Jesus’ party.
And if we are at his party, there are certain expectations of etiquette because he loves us, we love him, and we love each other. For these, consider Romans 12:
We are to look and act different than the world (12:1-2). Our lives (bodies) are living and holy sacrifices. No longer do we conform to this world, after all we don’t belong to this world. We belong to God—his will alone is good and perfect. The attitude of the world is the very definition of self-focus and even self-worship. So let’s get over ourselves.
We are to serve one another in humility and love (12:3-13). We are many parts of one body—true of the universal church and true of the local church. This means we should be least concerned about ourselves and most concerned about others. After all, a finger, a toe, or a nose cannot live on its own. Cut it off from the body and it dies. If the body dies, it dies. Its health and life is completely dependent upon the health and life of the body. So what good does it for the finger to keep poking its own body in the eye? What good does it for the hand to try to rip off the ear and say, “You don’t belong”?
Can we get over ourselves enough to realize there is no benefit to tearing others down to puff up ourselves? Not us, not the body, and not the world.
Instead let us use our gifts—our handiness or our footiness—to serve and to build up, to make the body stronger. Let us give preference to one another. The body is more important than me.
The finer things (the non-essentials) we can debate. But let’s fight like brothers who love each other. After we get done with our wrestling, let’s help each other up, give each other a hug, and watch each other’s backs.
We are to seek peace with all (12:14-21). Bless those who persecute you…never pay back evil for evil. When we feel hurt by someone we have no right to hurt back. God is the perfect and just judge, he will take care of it. But we also have no right to ignore the situation. If your enemy is hungry feed him…overcome evil with good. In fact our call is to respond with good. If you tear me down then I’m supposed to do all I can to build you up. Easy? No. Difficult? Absolutely. But as Christians it is right in the sight of God.
Then as we see people rejoice, we rejoice with them; as we see them weep, we give them a shoulder to cry on and weep with them.
And no matter who the person is, what they have done, how they think, etc.—we are to live at peace with all, so much as it depends on us.
I told that to someone and they replied, “It’s a two way street. They have to be willing to give.” I read them 12:18. It’s not a two way street. Jesus made peace with us on the cross, there was nothing two way about that. We were his enemies and he reached towards us—the ones who mocked, spat, plucked his beard, and shoved a crown of thorns onto his brow. If we think that making peace is a two way street then we have missed the point of the Gospel.
So far as it depends on you.
If we look into a mirror are we going to reflect ourselves or Jesus? It’s not our party.
Amen!
For anyonewho might wonder, we do not coordinate our posts here. Mike had this up a day or so ago.
Since you brought up being a 5 point Calvinist (something I never heard discussed in 35 years of ministry–outside of seminary–until just a few years ago), I’d like to know something.
First let me say I tell everyone I’m a pointless Calvinist: I just don’t see the point in parsing my theology that narrowly. But, I do know that some “non-Calvinist” object to Calvinism because they perceive it logically leads to a lack of passion for evangelism.
Calvinist on the other hand strongly deny that charge.
I would like to know which point in the 5 points of the popular version of Calvinism unequivocably argues for a passionate, reasoned attempt to get someone to say, “yes” to Jesus.
I personally do not see how 5 point Calvinism logically leads to passionate evangelism. It seems it points in the opposite direction. I think that is why so many SBC’ers react strongly to even the mention of his name.
Which point is the “evangelism” point that logically drives someone to share the gospel?
Frank: The point of Calvinism is simply this in a nutshell. We are here on this earth to bring all glory to God. The point is not to manipulate someone to say yes. One doesn’t have to hound or harass or give them fire insurance in order to get them to say yes. We simply believe in giving the Gospel as given in scripture. Paul says he plants the seeds, God causes them to grow. Thus giving all the credit and glory to God. I get so tired of the “narrowing” charge and the rest of what you have said. And if you haven’t discussed it in 35 years of ministry, I have known Calvinism has been around since the 20 years I have been a Southern Baptist. It’s been around for a very long time.
That’s the problem: your answer has nothing to do with the question. I’m talking about the 5 points. My question was simple: which one of the points is the one that drives evangelism.
If Calvinism (the 5 point type) requires all kinds of additional explanations, then it is incomplete and inaccurate at best.
When you use words like “manipulate” and “narrowing” and “hounding or harrassing,” I think that contributes to the problem this post points out in our interactions.
It also points out to me why this issue “brings out the debate” in people who don’t follow the 5 points.
And, Calvinism has been around, I suspect longer than your 20 years. However, I’ve been a Southern Baptist (and pretty active) with education from three different SB institutions, and it has only been in the last few years that there has been heated discussions on this issue.
It makes me ask myself, why?
But again, my question is not “discuss in a short essay why you are a Calvinist” but it was, “which point of the five points dispels the fear that Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion leads to a lack of evangelistic zeal?”
Perhaps the author of this thread would prefer this not to be discussed, and I would be happy to bow out and bring the issue up later.” But, the author of this thread indicated (and I agree) that this issue seems to bring out the worst in people.
I’d like to understand it better.
Why don’t you ask that question of William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Lottie Moon, John Edwards, Charles Whitfield, and the other 5 point Calvinists who started the Great Awakenings and the modern missions movements? Or ask that question of Calvin and the other Reformers who in a couple of generations evangelized millions of people from Roman Catholicism into Protestantism. It isn’t that you want to understand. It is that you choose not to. You know church history. You simply reject the truth. That is your own problem. You go solve it and leave the rest of us alone.
Lottie Moon was a 5-point Calvinist? I have never heard that.
Hi Job,
There are just as many non-Calvinists in missions – John Wesley, Phillip William Otterbein, Francis Asbury, Hudson Taylor, etc. It is God that starts these movements, not Calvinism (or lack thereof). “Missions” involves obedience, not Calvinism (or anti-Calvinism for that matter).
Jim G.
Dave, on Lottie Moon:
– Answering The Call To A Great Commission Resurgence by Daniel Akin, p. 16.
Hi Frank,
Most Calvinists do not follow the 5 points all the way to the logical conclusions – THANKFULLY!! Hyper-Calvinists believe they are being logically consistent, and many hyper-Calvinists do not believe in evangelism. Hyper-Calvinists are wrong and disobedient, of course.
Most Calvinists care about evangelism, and some care very deeply. Thankfully on the evangelism question, most are willing to sacrifice logical rigor for obedience, as we all should.
But I can see that the logic of the 5 points COULD lead someone to a position of non-evangelistic hyper-Calvinism. (Thankfully it doesn’t, usually) But I also see where Arminianism taken to extremes leads where we don’t want to go as well.
Here is my 2 cents in the whole thing: I am truly saddened by what I see in the SBC blogosphere on this issue. Unless we begin to love one another as Christ has loved us, we will look like a bunch of roosters itching for a fight. I am very committed as a non-Calvinist, but I don’t have a problem accepting and embracing Calvinists as my brothers and sisters. We all really need a slice of humble pie on this issue. Calvinism has flaws in its system. Arminianism has flaws in its system. The “other side” has perfected the art of pointing out the flaws in “our side.” We don’t like to have our weaknesses exposed, so we lash out.
The “speck and beam” in our eyes would do us well on this issue. It is our own pride that is killing us. In our rush to proclaim the “truth,” we have forgotten that it is empty if not proclaimed in love and humility. We do not deserve as powerful a voice as the SBC if we cannot figure out how to love each other and disagree in a manner befitting Christians on this issue. “Pride goeth before a fall.”
Jim G.
It’s 2 Corinthians 2–God always leads us to triumph in Jesus and the proclamation of the Gospel. Every time we share we stand as an aroma of God before men–though to those perishing it leads further to their death but to those being made alive it leads to life in Jesus. That’s why Paul asks who is adequate for such and in chapter 3 answers that God is the one who makes us adequate.
A biblical “calvinist” position believes that God ordains the ends and the means. Unconditional election and the effective call means the elect will respond to the Gospel (maybe not immediately, sometimes the seed needs watered)… but that’s just it–they will respond to the Gospel. It’s like Romans 10 –> how will they believe if they do not hear and how will they hear unless someone preaches. But it’s also John 10 where Jesus tells some Jews “You do not believe because you are not my sheep…my sheep hear my voice, I know them, they follow me and I give them eternal life.”
So: no person will be saved without the Gospel, but when we share the Gospel the sheep will respond.
All together from 2 Corinthians 2 to John 10–it not only provides the basis for passionate evangelism but it gives us the confidence every time we share the Gospel we are being effective. The Gospel doesn’t potentially lead to salvation for some people; it absolutely leads to salvation for all of God’s people!
How much more of a passionate basis do you want?
Mike, that’s an answer I’ve seen many times but it is less than satisfying. I agree with everything you said in that post and yet I don’t practice 5 point (or even 3 point) Calvinism.
I don’t feel I have to identify myself with Calvin to practice anything you said in your post. I think this is because you described Calvinism based upon a “big picture” perspective. However, when you go point by point, I don’t undestand how any one of the points, or all five added together logically leads to a more passionate zeal for evangelism.
For example: limited atonement at the very least casts doubt on someone even being a prospect for evangelism. If one answers: “But we don’t know who the elect are,” my answer would be then it is a “definition without a difference” and not worth arguing over.
I do appreciate your post. I think the Devil is in the details and the more you outline each of the five points the further away we will get in agreement. That is an odd phenomenon to me that I don’t quite know how to deal with.
Also, someone from my perspective theologically has “nowhere to run” because the opposite of “Calvinism is Arminianism” in common parlance as Mike’s post below (or above) points out.
Again, thanks for your post.
For example: limited atonement at the very least casts doubt on someone even being a prospect for evangelism.
Like you said, obviously “we don’t know who the elect are” is part of it but doesn’t add much.
When you get down to it–the way I take 2 Corinthians 2 is that when it comes to sharing the Gospel God is using us not only to bring his sheep to salvation but also to further prove to those who live rejecting Christ that their condemnation is just. That’s why Paul says we are always a pleasing aroma to God before men in our Gospel sharing, but to some it’s an aroma from life to life and for others from death to death.
I think you see this elsewhere in Paul and also in 1 Peter 2 where the Gospel is power and life to the believer but it is a stumbling block to the non-believer.
As much as the Gospel is good news to those being saved, it is bad news to those who reject Christ and stay lost in their sins.
So when we share we both give a message of life and set up a stumbling block. Now, people can and have looked at that second part and protested, “Well, why share at all?” And that comes back to a couple of things: 1) Because, still, the sheep will hear the voice of Jesus in the Gospel and believe; 2) either way a person responds we are still ministers of a new covenant and our task in this world is to make disciples of the nations; 3) we do not have the mind of God outside what he has revealed in his Word, and he has revealed that the gospel is the means to salvation in Jesus as well as a stumbling block, we bring life and we bring death, and the sheep will respond while the non-sheep will reject; and 4) we’re supposed to passionately declare the excellencies of him who called us out of darkness and into his marvelous light (1 peter 2:9) and knowing as we do that sheep hear and follow makes it all the more sweet.
Personally, on the flip side of all of this w/o the framework of unconditional election and the effective call I don’t think you get the same surety in evangelism. If a person doesn’t respond in faith to the Gospel call, we’re left to ask: why? Was it what I said, how I presented it, did I not explain the Gospel clearly enough? In other words: could I have done more? On the other hand, if we go into with the idea that God has already elected and will effectively draw his elect through the Gospel, then clearly preaching the Gospel is enough.
Deep down I think most people are more prone to believe in the full sovereignty of God within evangelism (aka a more “calvinistic” position) than they’re willing to admit. I remember a guy in my home church who declared “Calvinism is evil” sharing a story once. Every year he put out a huge Christmas light display as a way of sharing the Gospel and every year he heard complaints. He said, “When I hear them complain I just pray that God would change their hearts and save them!” I didn’t do it, but there was a part of me that wanted to ask, “If it’s about their free will and they have to choose, then what does praying for God to change their hearts have to do with it?”
Anyway… it’s a fun discussion, but it’s getting close to my bedtime (I turned 31 today–old coots like me have to go to bed before 10!) 🙂
I lied about bed… i will add this and then go to bed…
I don’t undestand how any one of the points, or all five added together logically leads to a more passionate zeal for evangelism
At the very least, it doesn’t logically lead to a less passionate zeal…
Well, that may be true, though I think there are those that would argue that it does for the reasons I mentioned, and others.
Though, as you point out, in reality (as far as I’ve ever seen) Calvinists have NOT been any less passionate about evangelism.
That’s what leads me to thing that there is something more needed for a balanced approach than 5 points (or three or 2 or whatever).
That’s what leads me to think that there is something more needed for a balanced approach than 5 points
I think part of the problem in understanding and people’s perceptions is that you cannot divorce the points from the broader aspects of theology.
You made mention about how some see the 5 points logically leading to less passion for evangelism.
The five points basically, as we know are:
1. Total depravity–man is corrupted in all his being and both unwilling and unable to turn to Christ on his own.
2. Unconditional election–God chose to save a certain group of persons based on no foreseen merit but solely by grace, while he also chose to pass over other persons.
3. Limited atonement/particular redemption–while Christ’s death is sufficient for all it is truly efficacious only to the elect.
4. Irresistible grace/effective call–the Holy Spirit regenerates the heart of the elect so they go from absolutely unwilling to absolutely willing to receive and follow Jesus.
and 5. Perseverance of the Saints–what God began in the elect he will see through to the end so that they truly persevere in their faith and therefore salvation.
Now the bare bones as most people see and understand them neither logically lead to a greater or lesser zeal for evangelism any more than rejecting or reformulating any of the points do.
But this isn’t the total framework either. In defining the work of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, the Canons of Dort state, Just as the almighty work of God by which he brings forth and sustains our natural life does not rule out but requires the use of means, by which God, according to his infinite wisdom and goodness, has wished to exercise his power, so also the aforementioned supernatural work of God by which he regenerates us in no way rules out or cancels the use of the gospel, which God in his great wisdom has appointed to be the seed of regeneration and the food of the soul.
In other words, you don’t get point #4 without the sharing of the Gospel.
Therefore the points lead to evangelism and not away from it.
A misunderstanding or inadequate view of the points may cause someone to think it does. Likewise, a hyper-calvinism rejection of the Dortian formulation may also lead someone away from the passionate sharing of the Gospel. But a Dortian soteriology itself is highly, necessarily, and logically evangelistic.
I’ve never understood how people can claim “it leads away from evangelism” when the basic logical flow is: God chose some to be saved, the means of their salvation is responding through faith to the Gospel, therefore the Gospel must be shared for people to respond.
Yes, we believe that the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit is what causes a person to believe, but they still must believe the Gospel to be saved.
Mike,
I’m not disagreeing with you. I think where people see the system leading away from evangelism is in U + I. If God has unconditionally chosen those whom he will save and those whom he calls will be irresistibly pulled by his grace, then they will (this is where logic crashes with obedience) be saved whether I evangelize them or not. That is where the dispute usually arises concerning evangelism.
Jim G.
Mike,
Very helpful in understanding Calvinism. The way you present it is not the way it is usually argued. If I understand your explanation, I am correct in my assessment that “Calvinism” as it is usually presented as “5 points” is incomplete.
You present a “6 point Calvinism” in a sense, including the broader context of theology. I could live with that. But, with that, I don’t need the 5 points of Calvinism to express my theology in any given text.
Therefore, it seems to me that Calvinism is not an altogether helpful way of discussing the doctrine of grace and salvation, unless two parties can come to an agreement on each point.
Any hard-line view seems to me to guarantee a break down in communication.
I wonder if most Calvinist would agree with your next to last paragraph. I think it solves many problems in the debate, but it seems too simple for some to accept.
Mike,
Very helpful in understanding Calvinism. The way you present it is not the way it is usually argued. If I understand your explanation, I am correct in my assessment that “Calvinism” as it is usually presented as “5 points” is incomplete.
You present a “6 point Calvinism” in a sense, including the broader context of theology. I could live with that. But, with that, I don’t need the 5 points of Calvinism to express my theology in any given text.
Therefore, it seems to me that Calvinism is not an altogether helpful way of discussing the doctrine of grace and salvation, unless two parties can come to an agreement on each point.
Any hard-line view seems to me to guarantee a break down in communication.
I wonder if most Calvinist would agree with your next to last paragraph. I think it solves many problems in the debate, but it seems too simple for some to accept.
God has also ordained the mode by which the elect come to salvation and that is through the giving of the gospel. Christ commanded it in Go ye into all the word and preach the Gospel, Paul also said “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” Romans 10:14.
But, with that, I don’t need the 5 points of Calvinism to express my theology in any given text.
The purpose of the points (at least my purpose) isn’t to read it in to any text or use them to “express my theology in any given text.”
But it’s just like a systematic theology book that seeks to lay out the attributes of God or define the Trinity or explain the virgin conception, etc.
It is a systematic formulation of what several texts say.
So just like the Trinity doesn’t explain everything about God, it explains a part of who God is. So the 5-points don’t explain everything about the doctrine of salvation, but they explain a part of that doctrine.
Therefore I’m a 5-point Calvinist in the same way I’m a Trinitarian, in the same way I’m a resurrectionist, in the same way I beleive in the virgin conception… they are all pieces of my theology but none of them explain it fully.
Mike, first of all, thank you for the conversation. It is helpful to see how others express themselves theologically without feeling like it is a game in which one must keep score and have a winner and loser. I do appreciate that.
“”Therefore I’m a 5-point Calvinist in the same way I’m a Trinitarian, in the same way I’m a resurrectionist, in the same way I beleive in the virgin conception… they are all pieces of my theology but none of them explain it fully.””
Under this definition, I could be comfortable calling myself a “Calvinist” in a very modified way, perhaps. The problem with theology is that most people (myself included) have been trained in “Systematic Theology” which is by far the most popular through the ages.
Yet, any system is going to be fraught with difficulties. It is not the only approach to a theological expression. There are other models, but as soon as you put them in a book, they begin to look just like all other systematic theologies.
I do like the way you describe you approach using the idea of the Trinity as a model. That is very good, in my opinion. Please know I will probably steal that line.
Frank,
I would also add that the five points are a response to arminius’ 5 points of disagreement. So those 5 points aren’t exhaustive of one’s theology.
But you do make a helpful point. If calvinists are only known by these 5 things it’s an inadequate theology. Thanks for the corrective.
There is nothing to correct Mike. That has been a given from the beginning. I personally am tired of the correctives. There is no need.
What I wish, is that people would quit trying to apologize for Calvinism. I believe it, I teach it, and I believe it to be Biblical. I am not going to apologize for it nor am I going to cow tow to those who give condescending strawman warnings. That would be ridiculous. I stand tall that I am Calvinist, and of course I believe I am right and Biblical or I wouldn’t believe it. It certainly doesn’t help the discussion. The discussion should be more geared to both doctrines working together, not cowtowing and apologizing for believing in the Doctrines of Grace.
OK, you call it “doctrines of grace.” If I don’t consider myself a “stand up tall Calvinist” then is my believe “doctrines of law?”
Calvinism always seems to beg for a negative reaction to it.
And, why get all worked up . . . nobody’s asking (or at least I’m not asking) you to “cow tow to those who give condescending strawman warnings.” I don’t see anybody doing any such thing.
Frank: You don’t see it, because you are the one busy doing it. Quit!
You along with a few others on here. I want both doctrines to serve with each other and quit the discussion on Calvinism being wrong or the young ministers being wrong or whatever supposed wrong is being committed that isn’t. It’s not solving the problem but widening the strife. I am not going to quit being Calvinist and I won’t apologize for it nor for the teaching of it. I am not going to keep explaining what Calvinism is or isn’t.
I am going to strive to call for the teaching of both, side by side, and I am going to call for us to cooperate with each other, leaving all disagreements at the door, allowing both to be taught. Until that is done, it’s just a spinning of the wheels. I am tired of infighting and needless, senseless apologizing. It’s like an abuser getting apologies from the abused just to keep the peace. It adds to the ones being abused, and empowers the abuser. Nope. Ain’t happening.
I am tired of infighting and needless, senseless apologizing.
I pastored a church that had stripped the license they had given to man b/c he was teaching calvinism. It was one of the first questions the search committee asked me: “what are your views on calvinism?” I replied: “What do you mean?” Then they asked me my view on election. I explained it with supporting scriptures. They were good with it.
As I taught through books of the Bible, if we came across a passage that dealt with one of the doctrines, I taught the ideas w/o mentioning the “c” word or “tulip” b/c I just simply taught what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the text. They were good with it.
Maybe that’s the key: we should quit trying to defend “calvinism” and simply teach and proclaim.
Most Christians don’t have a problem with the Bible… they have a problem when you try to interject a particular system they may not fully understand upon the Bible.
I believe the 5 points are Biblical, but I don’t believe the 5 points are the Bible or the Gospel. So I’ll simply teach the Bible and leave the divisive terminology to the text books.
Mike,
My experience has been the same. I’m not afraid to be called a Calvinist, but I don’t throw the label around simply because it’s so often misunderstood.
“”As I taught through books of the Bible, if we came across a passage that dealt with one of the doctrines, I taught the ideas w/o mentioning the “c” word or “tulip” b/c I just simply taught what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the text.””
Mike, I think this is how I would describe my process minus the fact I don’t even consider the rubric of Calvinism. I’ve always believed that the key is the text in context without and pretext — as much as humanly possible
Perhaps that’s the key: just lose the labels.
Mike,
I think that is the “eye-opener for me.” It’s the “5 point” thing. That just seems like a system that need a lot of definition and a lot of qualification.
Perhaps the rebuttal argument is the same thing. So, the truth lies in between it seems to me — was it Geisler who coined the phrase, modified Calvinism?
If anything the five points and the grasping of them shows who God is and who we are in God’s eyes. It’s God’s perspective. If anything it spurs us to want to give the Gospel and evangelize because contrary to what I had been taught prior to believing Calvinism, any good works are from God working through us, it’s not our efforts and that gives true rest as Christ promised…”Come to me and I will give you rest.”
Gee, Mike; you make it sound so simple. Love Jesus. Love others. and follow Scripture. Stop nit-picking and poking folks in the eyeballs and thinking myself better, wiser, kinder, more compassionate, knowledgable, etc., than anyone else. I’m in. Wish we could do what we use to do at youth camp and have a group hug. May the Great Awakening come and come quickly. selahV
Hariette,
It is simple. But the problem is, life together is not. As long as we keep having conventions and keep choosing leaders by popular vote, we are going to have spirited discussions that are not so simple.
However, if we could take the advice of this thread, perhaps we could — at the least — begin to identify where the hot spots are.
I would like to know how a 5-pointer would give out the Gospel? I know how 4-pointers, non-Calvinists or Arminians would present the Gospel.
Are there any 5-pointers who would briefly share what they would say when presenting the Gospel?
This is what I wrote for our churches website. It’s a combination of a few other gospel presentations. Of course its going to be much different in a one on one situation because you really can’t “can” the gospel. But this is the gist of what I say when present the gospel to someone.
http://fbjasper.org/#/the-gospel
The same way you would give the Gospel Don. I believe you have asked and the question has been answered in other posts.
I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]
II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein;[5] and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9]
III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13]
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
Debbie,
Is that really what you would say to someone, when giving them the Gospel?
Don: I believe I answered your question. I would give the Gospel the same way you would. The quote I gave as I think you know, explains that answer further. You are going and have been going to try and show Reformed Theology heresy, and I dare say you have not done it in several years of trying, you or anyone is going to be hardpressed to do it now. I could take your theology and ask strawman questions too. I just choose to deal with your beliefs honestly(as I was non-Calvinist at one time) and not try to destroy it through the use of non-true questions or assertions, I simply ask that those who do not like Calvinism do the same. Is that too much to ask?
Now if you would ask if I would disciple a Christian, even a new one in Calvinism, the answer would be a strong yet. I would always point those I am teaching to scripture to check and see if I am correct. If one does not invite someone to check it out for themselves in scripture, but to simply follow the teaching, that is a grave error.
What makes you think that a new Christian is capable of interpreting scripture correctly?
that should be “strong yes.”
“But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.
Debbie,
It’s ok if you don’t want to answer. Here is the part of the Gospel for which I was looking. I could say to anyone at anytime under any circumstances the following:
“Jesus loves you and Jesus died for your sins.”
Can you say the same without any qualifiers?
I was wondering where you were going with this.
I, myself, couldn’t say to someone “Jesus died for your sins” because I don’t believe that to be true for everyone. I believe in limited atonement. I also believe God’s love is different for the elect than for those who are not elect.
What I could say to someone without hesitation is that we’re all sinners–everyone of us deserves Hell. If you will repent of your sin and trust God to save you on account of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, God will save you. He won’t turn you away.
I just happen to believe that the only people who will repent of their sins and trust God to save them on account of Christ’s atonement are the elect.
Joe,
According to 1 Cor. 15:1-4 the first thing Paul preached to the Corinthians was: “how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” Paul states in verse one that he is declaring the the Gospel which he preached to them. Which they received and were saved.
Paul delivered first of all to these unsaved Corinthians “that Christ died for our sins.” He did not say Christ died for them if they would repent and believe.
Paul could say Christ died for them before they were saved because Paul believed Christ died for everyone. Which is the same message Peter preached in Acts.
Ok, I disagree with you some but I certainly am not willing to fight about it. If I happen to be wrong you can have a good laugh at me while we’re munching on fried chicken and if you happen to be wrong I’ll give you a good ribbing about it while we’re gobbling down some apple pie a la mode around the marriage supper of the Lamb.
Right after the Rapture.
Well, unless we die first.
Joe, help me understand your statement:
“”I, myself, couldn’t say to someone “Jesus died for your sins” because I don’t believe that to be true for everyone. I believe in limited atonement””
So, do you mean that say, Jn. 3:16 does not mean “the world” but just a portion of the world? I believe certainly in the limited appropriation of Jesus’ death, but not the limited availablility.
What do you do with verse like, “If anyone comes to me, I will in no way cast them off.” God could have clearly said, “If any of my elect come to me,” but He didn’t. Your view of limited atonement seems to make God, unclear, or even cryptic in some verses.
Frank
I’d say the world does not mean the entire world but people from all over the world. As far as the verse “if anyone comes to me” I would say that is perfectly consitent with what I’m saying–anyone who come to Him will be saved. I believe only the elect will do that. However, I’m not saying that you or anyone else who disagrees with me is less of a Christian, stupid, or a heretic. I disagree with you but I’m not anywhere close to willing to fight over it and I’ll go out handing out gospel tracts any day you want.
Joe, I see how you get to where you are, but in my humble opinion, that is not the plainest way to read those verses.
Your interpretation would seem to have the need for a “preposition” such as “for God loved some from all the world.”
I don’t see that as the plain sense of the text. Though, as you say, it’s not something I’d fight over. I’d even still buy you lunch should we ever meet.
Well, I may be wrong and you may be right. Or vice versa. However, I firmly believe and am committed to the fact that we as believers are responsible to share the gospel with every man, woman, boy and girl child we can. As long as the gospel you share is Jesus Christ and Him crucified as the only Savior, I’m with you no matter if you’re a 4 pointer, 3 pointer, or a no pointer.
Joe, great encouraging words. I’ll bet that the “rightness” or wrongness of our respective theologies will matter very little to either of us 50 years from now.
It is the gospel: Christ crucified, risen again, received exclusively by faith because of grace, that will really matter.
Thanks for the encouraging words, brother.
Don,
Unless you are a universalist I’m not sure that you can say that same thing without any qualifiers.
Hi Mike,
If we have to qualify “Jesus loves you and Jesus died for your sins,” we really have a problem. I think it is very easy to do without being a universalist.
Jim G.
Jim,
“Qualifiers” is probably a bad word. In all honesty I have no problem telling people that Jesus loves them and that Jesus died for their sins. (I’m more of a Fuller-type Calvinist than a strict Calvinist) Of course this is not the whole of the gospel and you certainly share more in a gospel presentation. When you get down deeper unless you are a universalist at some point you “qualify” or perhaps “deepen” your understanding of what Jesus loves you and died for your sins means.
I probably shouldn’t have responded to this anyways….
Mike,
I don’t think your criticism is valid. It assumes a substitutionary atonement, but even starting there, a limited atonement is not necessary. If justification is not applied to a person at the time of faith, then Christ’s death for one’s sins per se does not save. An elect person’s sins have been punished by God through Christ, but until they come to faith, they are not justified by Christ’s death. Once this is accepted, the only way to make a logical necessity of limited atonement is to make some extra-biblical argument about whether we think Christ would have “died in vain” in an unlimited atonement scheme.
Typo: If justification is not applied to a person until the time of faith…
Chase,
Your comment confuses me. All I was saying is that unless you are a universalist you make some type of qualifier to Christ dying for your sins (and that would be in the spot of appropriation). Of course you can say that in one sense Christ positionally died for the sins of humanity…but unless you are universalist, you do not believe that the salvific benefits of the death of Christ are applied until faith and repentance occur. So at some point there is a “qualifier” for everyone. That’s all I’m saying.
So, I’m not arguing for limited atonement or saying that its necessary…that’s why your comment confuses me.
Mike,
I apologize if my comment was confusing. I will try to clarify.
In an unlimited atonement, the statement that “Jesus loves you and Jesus died for your sins,” spoken indiscriminately, does not assume salvation for all those for whom Jesus died. A limited atonement necessitates that all those for whom Christ died will be saved.
I don’t see how one could use the universalist criticism if they do not adhere to a limited atonement; for if one believes in an unlimited atonement, charges of universalism fall flat. But even in a limited atonement, the universalist criticism does not apply, because Christ dying for someone’s sins does not save per se; because justification must still be applied through faith, though there still exists a “virtual” period of justification, in which an elect person’s sins still remain in force, even though they have already been punished. Salvation would only be effected at the moment of faith.
So one who adheres to a universal atonement does not have to use qualifiers to tell a non-elect person that “Jesus loves you and Jesus died for your sins.”
Chase,
The confusion all stems from my lack of clarity and poor choice of words.
I’ll simply stand corrected.
Mike and I (and others) have been tag-teaming on this whole, “Can’t Calvinists and non-Calvinists just get along?” thing. And every time we attempt to write about this, the blog post devolves into a Calvinist against Non-Calvinist brouhaha.
Oh well…
Hi Dave,
We’d rather be right than loving. So here we go….
Jim G.
LOL
it can’t be THAT bad . .
I feel, Jim, that I should call you a name in response to that, but none comes to mind right now. I’ll think one up and get back to you.
LOL Dave,
Call me anything you want. I especially like “heretic” or “liberal lover.” We are running a two-for-one special this week if you can call me a name that will connect both of them together. You get 50% off of double your next grocery bill on the sixth Tuesday of every month for a year!
Jim G.
Dave,
That is one of the reasons that I simply gave up on the debate as a whole a few years ago. I am not really a five-point Calvinist or anything else in the debate. I have my opinions, but they are exactly that, opinions. I think I will just be content to be agnostic on figuring out how God does what He does when it comes to saving people. I know He saves and that is enough for me.
He tells us to go and make disciples, not figure out how He works salvation. When we spend more time arguing about the mechanics of how God works instead of going out in the fields and doing the work He has told us to do, we have missed our own calling in my opinion.