16 CALVINISM another form of, Harold Hunt Calvinism has always been able to evolve into a multitude of shapes and forms, depending on who its advocates, and its targets, happen to be.
Frank Mead’s Handbood of Denominations has been a recognized authority for the last fifty years. To give just one illustration, Mead describes Southern Baptists as being “more definitely Calvinistic” than some other Baptists. Most of us would insist that Southern Baptists are totally Arminian in their doctrine, and yet Mr. Mead insists that, by some standards, they are Calvinistic. This only points up the flexibility of the doctrine, and its ability to modify itself in order to appeal to the present audience.
It should be no surprise that Calvinism sometimes fades into various forms of Arminianism. Even though they differ in insignificant ways, in their most basic precepts Calvinism and Arminianism are very similar. Their greatest similarity has to do with their attitude toward the preached gospel.
The Arminian says, “If you are saved, you must hear the gospel and believe it, and it is up to you whether you do.”
The Calvinist says, “If you are saved, you must hear the gospel and believe it, and God will see to it that you do.
Regardless of the ways in which they are very different, both insist eternal salvation is limited to those who hear and believe the preached gospel. If that is true, the grace of God reaches no farther than the preacher does. That enormously limits the grace of God, to say the least.
In recent years we have been hearing about a new form of Calvinism, which has been considerably modified in order to appeal to a Primitive Baptist mindset. This new form of Calvinism denies the Arminian notion that hearing and believing the preached gospel is a condition one must meet in order to be born again. It admits the sinner must be born again before he is able to hear and believe the gospel. So far, so good.
By admitting the sinner must be born again before he can hear and believe the gospel, this doctrine also denies the old style Calvinistic notion that hearing and believing the gospel is the means by which a person is born again. Again, so far, so good.
That is one of the main differences between Arminianism and Calvinism. Arminianism insists the gospel provides the condition, and Calvinism insists the gospel provides the means by which the sinner is born again.
But having said all that, this new form of Calvinism insists that if one has been born again, it is inevitable that someday —after he is born again—he will hear and believe the gospel. In other words, if he never hears the preached gospel and believes it, it is proof positive he was never truly born again.
This doctrine places the same unbreakable bond between the preached gospel and salvation as Arminianism and old style Calvinism do. Arminianism says believing the gospel is a necessary condition to being born again; this new form of Calvinism says believing the gospel is an inevitable consequence of being born again. Both teach that if you never hear the gospel and believe it, you will burn in the flames of eternal damnation. On that point there is not the slightest difference between this doctrine and Arminianism.
I would hate to believe the family of God is limited to the little number we preachers can reach. But that is clearly not what the Bible teaches. God will have the victory, even in numbers.
Rev. 7:9,10, “After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, such as no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the lamb, clothed in white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.” hlh