Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace' started by saintandsinner77, Jan 20, 2011.
Nobody is defending arminianism here.
Every Reformer (Calvinist) preacher/teacher I have known in my (long Christian) life, has based his preaching of all five points of the doctrines of grace as founded upon and realized because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
There would be NO doctrines of grace apart from acknowledging Christ's crucifixion and resurrection; overcoming death on behalf of those elect God have Him to represent as Federal Head (in His righteous life under the Law, His death, and His resurrection) through the decree of Unconditional Election.
The five points of TULIP are not mere formula, but actually encompass the teachings of the entire bible . . . and I believe are particularly and most properly upheld through the teachings of biblical Covenant Theology.
There is no such thing as a gospel message that does not proclaim the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But the gospel message will be meaningless without the message that the Christ who did rise from the grave, was provided by God for Totally Depraved sinners, who were Unconditionally Elected by God to be represented in the Person of Christ, for whom He came in the flesh as Federal Head to fulfill all the Covenant of Works under the Law in perfect obedience unto substitutionary death on their behalf and pay for their sins; resurrecting from death to personally promise these same elect victory over sin, death, and the devil; which will be realized through the commission and indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit who will call, convict, regenerate through the same power of divine resurrection; granting them faith to believe in this Christ, unto justification from all guilts, and giving them power to turn away from their sins, and sealing them with His guarantee of ultimate salvation unto everlasting life.
In other words,'s the Gospel message is a BIG BIBLICAL package, and frankly should not be abbreviated or reduced to just spouting I Cor. 15:1-4 or giving folk any kind of simple or mystical rendition of a resurrection from the dead (without doctrinal explanation) that might fit or feed into their natural and superstitious beliefs.
When I engage people i do not engage them in a "simple" or "mystical" way, though I do prioritize the core of the gospel message at first and save deeper issues for later. No faithful evangelist merely "spouts" I Cor 15 and leaves it at that, but I Cor 15 is a good place to start. I have already provided BB Warfield's link containing his definition of the Gospel as a smaller sub-heading of the larger category of "Reformed Theology" in general, so I am with many of the reformed in defining the gospel in a narrow sense as a summary of the core of the biblical message that is more narrower than the entire 'biblical package" and even more narrow and more basic than the five points of TULIP.
I see a difference between attempting to condense and simplify the gospel (whether warranted on the mission field, or not) . . . with casting dispersion and discrediting the doctrines of grace (TULIP) as being illegitimate or less than a proper message of the good news of Jesus Christ as preached by faithful Calvinists (Confessional Reformers).
There is nothing negative to say about the five points. If you say that it sometimes might be wise to condense or simplify the gospel down to its most basic form and if this form is not 100% synonymous with tulip, then, well..you have just granted my point. There are times for more explicit and fuller explanation but sometimes, initially, one needs to give a concise and basic summary of the gospel, and this summary will be more basic and different than the five points. Thus, the gospel is not calvinism, though calvinism is biblical.
I didn't say it was wise to condense the gospel; I simply contrasted your attempt to do so, while seeming to discredit Calvinistic preaching.
Calvinists preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and in accordance with the WCF.
To deny this is so, is to deny the Reformed faith.
Have you by any chance made the acquaintance of Keith and Anita Miles in Papua from New Tribes Mission?
Totally agree with this and believe this is the core of what should be discussed alongside "is Calvinism the Gospel". The Gospel must be understood by totally illiterate fishermen, coal heavers, farmers, peasants and all kinds of sinner to be the true Gospel. I admit the Gospel is not contained in Calvin's commentaries, nor his massive theological expositions associated with the 5 points, nor do you need to understand the 5 points to be saved. You cannot be saved by a false Christ that denies Limited Atonement, nor can you be saved by a Gospel that says you are not totally depraved and unable to do anything to save yourself. A Gospel preached from the Gospel, i.e. the Bible will save sinners until the end of time, and I have to agree, a Gospel preached from Calvin, will not.
I know a Kevin Miles herewith NTM.