Gospel Fulness in Calvinist Doctrine

 THE GOSPEL IN ITS FULLNESS IN THE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINES OF GRACE

Note: Using the term Calvinistic doctrine here to distinguish it from other interpretations of the Bible. I believe that these Calvinist doctrines are drawn from and agreeable to the word of God, but in polemics, it helps to further clarify your position by the use of labels.  I also recognise that there are those who may argue against these doctrines, but who effectively put them into action when they pray or evangelise.  

Doctrine:	Why this doctrine is full of the gospel
Total Depravity	While there is obviously no good news in the fact that the depravity of sinners reaches to every part of their being (hence total) yet by correctly diagnosing the situation as truly hopeless, it is easier to establish the great truth that salvation can only be by the grace and power of God alone without the impute of man. By contrast, those who believe that man has the last say or the deciding vote on salvation that is basically more effective than that either of God and Satan give the sinner the pretence of a power he does not possess. The seeds of religious humanism are truly sown where the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity are not embraced.
Unconditional Election	Unconditional meaning that the reason for choosing some to one but not another lies not within the sinner himself i.e. foreseen faith or good works but within God Himself. No sinner deserves salvation and God could have justly left us all in our sins to perish and still have retained His glory undiminished. The blunt reality is that if God did not elect sinners to salvation, but merely offered it to them, then none of them would either want it or receive it.   The problem with the conditional election folk is that have turned faith from being the channel of salvation to a major contributing cause. The sinner then becomes the bottom line with the last say in who will be saved.   No unconverted sinner on this earth can either profess himself to be elect or non elect, as such things in this circumstance are known only to God. This truth negates several arguments that assume that the non elect may know that he is so.
Particular Redemption	This teaches that Christ only atoned for the sins of His elect people and that the sacrifice of Christ, not merely provided salvation, but actually secured it for His elect. It is therefore a 100% successful work, accomplishing everything it set out to do. Christ therefore can see the travail of His soul and be truly satisfied. Spurgeon observed that the redemptive work of Christ needs to stand in its own right without needing the will of man to empower it. This is true.   Just as “God’s word is true. I believe it and that settles it” would better read: “God’s word is true. That settles it. I believe it” so likewise, the objective truth of the atonement is not settled by our believing, but we believe because it is already settled. So, it is not “Christ died for ours sins. I believe it. That settles it” but rather, “Christ died for our sins. That settles it. I believe it.” The objective does not need to subjective to give it weight. It is a stand alone truth. As such, we are commanded to believe it. In the other scenario, where Christ bore away the sins of people actually in Hell in AD33 (and who would never be saved) and those whom He knew would be in Hell, you effectively have a failed atonement. If God set out to save every last sinner, then He has signally failed in what (to quote Dabney) must be the greatest failure in history. The other scenario has people in Hell suffering for sins when the guilt of that sin – they say – was actually borne away by Christ on the Cross. That is unjust. Lest I be misunderstood, no Calvinist worth his salt limits the worth or the merit of Christ’s atonement. The old Calvinist maxim is “Sufficient for all men, efficient only for the elect.”
Effectual Calling	This is when God gives the spiritually dead sinner the needed grace to actually forsake his sins and come to Christ. It is effectual because it successfully accomplishes what it set out to actually do i.e. bring the elect sinner in repentance and faith to Christ. The will of the elect sinner, previously bound by sin and Satan, has been renewed in regeneration and he freely comes of his own freed will to Christ. It is simply the outworking of the decreed unconditional election in time. That other sinners – and even elect sinners to a certain point – can resist the proffered salvation of God is firmly believed by Calvinists, both in Scripture and by sad experience, both personally and in evangelism. Calvinist commentaries on relevant verses (Acts 7 etc.) will bear this out. The alternative view that denies effectual calling again leaves the evangelist with no sure hope of success in his gospel preaching. We sow the good seed knowing (not merely hoping) that it will accomplish the will of God. BTW: If you are praying for God to actually save your love ones etc., then your argument is based on the truth of the effectual call of God. We are all Calvinists on our knees, no matter what silly things some may argue on Twitter etc.
Perseverance of the Saints	This is the teaching that those who are effectually called and come to Christ are preserved by the power of God through persevering faith unto holiness and glory. Usually, it is the one point which the older preachers who are not too happy about the previous four will embrace. HA Ironside taught it. It is the evidence of the changed life indication the new creation in Christ. Ultimately it is not based on what we do  - although we are to put on the whole armour etc., – but it is rooted in what God the Father decreed – God the Son did on Calvary and continues to do as our Great High Priest – and what the Holy Spirit is doing in us. There are two rivals to this doctrine. One is the raw thought that some or many of God’s elect could be eventually lost. Not merely false professors, but those who were once true professors.  Another rival to this doctrine is that of “Carnal Security” which, (sadly in some quarters) Eternity Security has become. Thus, we have many people who once “said a prayer” or “walked an isle” but haven’t produced any fruit at all or for many years resting comfortably in the perversion of a doctrine that was never designed to give such the least comfort. I believe in “Eternal Security” as defined in the doctrine of the Calvinistic Perseverance of the Saints.
Conclusion	So this is why I believe that the so called 5 points of Calvinism are indeed the gospel in its fulness. Belief of these doctrines did not hinder the great evangelists and missionaries like Spurgeon and Whitefield etc. To say that Spurgeon was a “confused Calvinist” or “a moderate Calvinist” as if he did not hold to these 5 points or did so in a confused manner is to speak in absolute ignorance. * Furthermore, if you are going to going down the line that Calvinism is “Satan’s #1 choice of wicked doctrine” – or “the spit in the face of Jesus” – or “another gospel” or merely a heresy etc., then you can hardly positively quote those men who held to it (the dead false gospellers, being, of course, cursed in Hell itself) but rather mark and avoid and reject them. Say what you want, but Fundamental non Calvinist churches are gloriously riddled with Calvinism, from the commentaries in the pastor’s study, the church bookstore, and the hymnal and role models set forth from the pulpit. Name names from your ”Baptist Heritage”  as far back as you can honestly and comprehensively  go, and I will pick you out the Calvinists e.g. Gano, Backus, Stearns, Leland.  And/or if they were not Calvinists themselves, either/and endorsed the ministry of Calvin in the most glowing of terms and worked with Calvinists in the preaching of the gospel e.g. John R. Rice, Tom Malone.

* An exhaustive reference to list to the strength of Spurgeon's 5 point Calvinism