1. Calvinism IS the Gospel.
Some of the people who make this statement will capitalize “Calvinism” and fail to capitalize “gospel,” which makes me wonder what takes priority in their minds. Are you saved by understanding systematic theology or by knowing the Gospel? Actually, you are saved by knowing Christ intimately with a regenerated, repentant heart. But I still believe the term “Gospel” should be capitalized.
Nevertheless, this ridiculous statement may be genuinely believed by a person, but it implies that a biblical interpretation of soteriology other than a Calvinistic one is false. Nothing could be further from the truth. And it annoys me to hear guys like R.C. Sproul say that Arminians are saved, but “barely.” Give me a break. Anyone who knows Jesus Christ intimately is truly saved, and you want to refer to a “level” of their saving knowledge?
Anyone who affirms salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is my brother in Christ. Of course, they must affirm the Trinity and the true identity of Christ (not as Satan’s brother or as the archangel Michael, but as God’s Son, the Incarnate Messiah). But referring to Calvinism as the Gospel itself narrows the parameters too much in my opinion.
2. Calvinism is heresy.
Some of the best expositional preachers, missionaries, evangelists, and theologians affirm 5-point Calvinism. Calvinists are rightly known as biblical experts and are invaluable to the protection of biblical truth because they faithfully keep Scripture in context. I may disagree with their beliefs in the limited availability of atonement and of irresistable grace, but I do respect their interpretations of Scripture. Calvinists set the bar high for those who affirm biblical inerrancy and desire to faithfully interpret the Word of God. Calling Calvinists heretics is a sign of scriptural ignorance and spiritual immaturity.
Anyone who desires to reach the world for Christ should team up with Calvinists rather than divide from them.
The urgency of lostness in a spiritually blind world demands cooperation among Bible-believing Christians. Christians should become more concerned about lost souls than about the unachievable goal of doctrinal uniformity. In the last hour, over 7,000 people died and went to hell. Are you willing to cooperate with people of diverse doctrines to fulfill the Great Commission?
The first time I saw the phrase “calvinims is the gospel” used was on a blog (go figure–but not an SBC related one! 🙂 ), and even as a full-fledged 5-pointer, it ticked me off. 1. The gospel is so much broader than simple soteriology, encompassing the full the story of God’s revelation to man. And 2. Calvinism is an interpretation (and in my reasoning the best interpretation–hence why I am “one”) of different aspects of the gospel story line, but it certainly isn’t its fullness. And unlike things like the notion of the resurrection, you don’t have to have… Read more »
I’ve never been comfortable with “Calvinism is the Gospel.” Even if it was said by great preachers. I always thought the Gospel was “Christ died according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again after three days.” And that this was the starting point. Calvinism as a way to understand how God works is fine. I think Scripture provides good support for that understanding, but it’s not “The Gospel.” I need not articulate TULIP to be saved. I must call upon the Lord for salvation to be saved. Believe in the heart, confess with the mouth–all of these things are… Read more »
I heard the good Dr. Jerry Falwell speaking in chapel at MBTS in what was probably his last time there distinctly mention something about Limited Atonement being heretical. We should reserve phrases like “heresy” for things that are outside the bounds of true Christian faith, not in-house disagreements.
And I’ve seen people on the other side say similar things.
My question is why are we as Christians constantly fighting with each other over Calvinism or Non-Calvinism, etc.
Why must in all these issues must it be one way or the other.
“Some of the people who make this statement will capitalize “Calvinism” and fail to capitalize “gospel,” which makes me wonder what takes priority in their minds.” Most likely, dastardly folks such as these place a premium on good grammar. Calvinism is a proper noun, gospel is not. Proper nouns are capitalized, common nouns are not. I get amused when people argue that Satan should be made lower case because, well, he’s Satan and we’re somehow showing our opposition by defying rules of grammar. It is not the measure of the significance of a word if we treat it according to… Read more »
Reading some of the other comments, I’ll note that it is good to clarify that the gospel is about more than just the work of Christ to save sinners, which is how I described it in my comment, but we can say of the gospel that it culminates in the work of Christ, and we can say of Calvinism that it is about more than the saving work of Christ, having in view the entire scope of God’s salvific purposes toward man, even before the foundation of the world.
Now, now. There’s no need to lord over us with your highfalutin book learnin’. We can’t all be grammarologists.
I done did do that schoolin’ for a reason!
Get it right. It’s grammarographers.
Most of those who use the phrase “Calvinism is the gospel” are, I think, just echoing Spurgeon’s statement though they may not be actually using it as a quote.
So it may be better said, Calvinism was Spurgeon’s gospel.”
Ed, Excellent article. I’m a baby Calvinist after having been a Christian for more than 40 years. How I came to be a Calvinist is a story that demonstrates that God, as the author of all things, has a sense of humor. However, I was not prepared for the vitriol that surrounds the doctrine. Seriously, I had no idea that it could raise tempers and unseemly behavior on BOTH sides. When I consider the sacrificial love, Christ has for us, I wonder why we can’t seem to remember the great commandment to love the Lord with all our hearts and… Read more »
Two Statements that Hinder Baptist Cooperation: Calvinism is the Gospel; Calvinism is heresy. While I think there is some value to what is being said here, in my opinion, the issues are much deeper than what is being articulated here so far. “Anyone who affirms salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is my brother in Christ.” The devil would certainly affirm that statement! At issue is HOW this salvation is affirmed. The Calvinist demands that regeneration produces saving faith and repentance and that brings about conversion which leads to sanctification. I cannot accept that. I believe… Read more »
So what is your solution to what you see as a problem?
I believe SB’s need to do the same thing today they did in the late 90’s and elect a President who will appoints the Committee on Committees that in turn nominates the Committee on Nominations . This committee then recommends trustee appointments to the various SBC entities, including the seminaries.
I would prefer to see more non-Calvinist trustee appointees.
><>’
“Calvinism is a minority position in the SBC today. I for one believe it needs to stay that way.”
Since you believe Calvinism is wrong, I’m not surprised you feel that way. Since I believe Calvinism is biblical, I’d love to see the SBC become majority Calvinist. Does my desire – or your desire – imply a conspiracy? Of course not.
I agree with you 100% and I do not say that there is any conspiracy taking place… it is simply a fact that Calvinism is making its way rather quietly to this point into SBC institutions. I believe that is a natural process; what I am saying is the other side needs to wake up and do something about. That is it.
One other point… your contention that my beliefs concerning Calvinism is “wrong” and yours “Biblical” was an interesting choice of words. For the record, my belief is clearly that Calvinism is non-Biblical.
><>’
Bob Hadley,
I’m in the non calvinist camp, but I understand that we need the calvinists. They are conservative, scholarly, they have a high view of scripture and of God. We are under constant attack by apostate liberals and we need the calvinists to keep the convention on the right track.
Bob stated: The Calvinist demands that regeneration produces saving faith and repentance and that brings about conversion which leads to sanctification. I cannot accept that. I believe revelation and reconciliation bring about saving faith and repentance that leads to regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Sanctification. But then I read the BFM: In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It… Read more »
Mark, Your interpretation of the BF&M is just that. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.[emphasis mine] Here is what the statement on salvation… Read more »
Okay Bob, it’s called answering you on your own grounds. I said nothing about the Calvinist position. While it might be “interesting that you left off the first statement…” I wasn’t purposely leaving parts of the BFM out as if to hide something. I did give a link. Rather, I was quoting what I saw to be immediately applicable. I merely contrasted your words with that of the BFM. You originally stated: I believe revelation and reconciliation bring about saving faith and repentance that leads to regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Sanctification. My implied question was:… Read more »
Calvinist soteriology is likely a minority position among all SBC members, but one has to wonder if that would be true (or would remain true, for long) if prominent SBC leaders and the bulk of pastors were not referring to it as “heresy” and “evil.”
“The Calvinist demands that regeneration produces saving faith”
We don’t demand it. We just believe it.
Nice try. Remember… Believing it don’t make it so!
><>’
Bob, You said “The Calvinist demands that regeneration produces saving faith and repentance and that brings about conversion which leads to sanctification. I cannot accept that. I believe revelation and reconciliation bring about saving faith and repentance that leads to regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Sanctification.” I hate to be the one to break it to you Bob, but your beliefs are not in line with the Confession of Faith of the Southern Baptist Convention. Which says under article IV-Salvation… “A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new… Read more »
Greg, you made the point I was making. 🙂
Mark, Yes, I have a bad habit of responding to a comment before I read all the other comments. About 30 seconds after I posted my comment I scrolled down and read yours only to find out that all I needed to say was… “Yea, Mark is Right On… the Mark.” 🙂 One more thing… I am not buying the whole “The BFM is ambiguous concerning the doctrine of salvation” argument. If the BFM is ambiguous concerning the doctrine of salvation then we need a new statement of faith. The same people that make this argument are the same ones… Read more »
Not sure why that last comment posted as the Apostle Paul… O well…
Gospel may not be a proper noun to some folks, but it is to me.
Relativism as applied to grammar? “It’s fine if it’s not a proper noun for you, but it is for me!”
Grammatical relativism: The next big SBC controversy. 😉
As far as Southern Baptists are concerned the allowance of the differences between believers began in 1787, when the Separates and Regulars agreed to drop their differences and unite. From henceforth they would be known as United Baptists. As to the Sovereign Grace issue, they were primarily agreed on all five points of the issue as any perusal of the writings of that period will reveal. However, the Separate Baptists had some ministers who were hung upon Hebs.2:9 where the KJV renders it that Christ “tasted death for every man.” In context, most Sovereign Grace ministers understood that it meant… Read more »
By the way you folks might like to know a prototype of present day Arminian type Baptists from the 1800s. I would suggest you read the Life and Labors of Elder Rueben Ross, who was won to Christ by a Sovereign Grace minister and whose funeral was preached by a Sovereign Grace minister. Elder Ross evidently did not know, understand, or preach Sovereign Grace. He is the first full fledged type or prototype of the modern Southern Baptist minsiter. He did hold to perseverance of the saints.
I am simply claiming that the term “Gospel” ought to be a proper noun. I can understand the lower-case usage if one refers to “a gospel,” but not if we refer to THE Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I’m not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but am simply sharing my opinion. I think THE Gospel should be considered a proper noun. “I think,” which means that, since it is coming from me and involves my thoughts, is very likely wrong to some degree.
And yet you are willing to make a judgment about the priorities of others based on their use of capitalization…? (as we see in the first sentence of your blog entry)
I wasn’t making a judgment, just offering a consideration about priorities. I do sometimes wonder about certain people’s priorities when I hear a statement that equates Calvinism with the Gospel.
Chris, are you just looking for an argument? I’ve been respectful and courteous toward those with whom I disagree, and I highly recommend that you do the same. After all, I love you as a brother in Christ because my heart was changed after I heard and responded to THE Gospel. 🙂
Why is it disrespectful to disagree and point out problems with an argument? You made your arguments, I made mine. I disagreed with some things you said, you’ve disagreed with some things I said. I see no disrespect displayed in our disagreement. As a genuine request, if you think I’ve been disrespectful, show me how.
Do you guys realize that, as best I can tell, this is about whether to capitalize a word? Group hug, gentlemen.
Hug a capitalizer? Are you nuts? Grammar nazis of the world, unite!
That was brilliant.
And Mark, the statement from Article IV about regeneration is a bit ambiguous. The sinner could be responding either to the change of heart of the conviction of sin…..the wording is intentionally vague to create a “big-tent” statement to which both sides can agree.
Ed, You are correct. The statement is broad enough for both sides to agree to disagree when the statement was crafted. Both sides would have preferred differing wording but the statement we have allows for both to co-exist and neither be excluded. My point is that the influence needs to be curbed. Mark understands my position… and he knows that BOTH of our positions line up well with the BF&M… but somehow understanding does not seem to matter in bloggin. My point is that the majority position in the SBC is non-Calvinist and that majority position needs to stand up… Read more »
Bob Hadley,
The calvinists/arminian debate is as old as the Baptist denomination. We should discuss these points of doctrine and agree that none of us have everything perfect. My point is that we don’t want to alienate the calvinists, I really do believe they are good for the convention. The ones I know are more of the Spurgeon variety and they believe in evangelism as much as we do. Bob we need them brother.
Bob, “My point is that the influence (Calvinism) needs to be curbed. So it is your position that Calvinist need to be disqualified from leadership within the SBC??? Is that really what you are saying Bob??? And might I just ask what sort of a Calvinist needs to be disqualified? 3-pointers, 4-pointers, or is it just 5-pointers that need to be disqualified? If a 3-pointer, or a 4-pointer is OK… which of the 5 points are OK, and which ones disqualify someone??? And while you are at it, why don’t you just come right out and say which Calvinist in… Read more »
That should be “responding either to the change of heart OR the conviction of sin.” Forgive the error.
Ed, I’m not sure what you are inferring, but my comment was made in light of Bob’s which seems not to line up with the BFM. Make sense?
Mark, I understand. Thanks, brother!
Chris Roberts, you just made me laugh out loud in class. Thanks a lot! 🙂
Ed, now I will answer. You stated: And Mark, the statement from Article IV about regeneration is a bit ambiguous. The sinner could be responding either to the change of heart of the conviction of sin…..the wording is intentionally vague to create a “big-tent” statement to which both sides can agree. While I agree the section on regeneration is a “big-tent” statement, I disagree that the portion you pointed out is ambiguous. Let’s look at it. A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change… Read more »