[irishtenor]

I will pray for you.

[the infidel]

By attacking all points of TULIP, you've also attacked Lutheranism and other confessional Protestant churches.

We Lutherans have our strongest disagreements with our Calvinist brothers and sisters on unconditional election and limited atonement, not to mention the nature of the Lord's Supper -- in, with, under -- though I imagine we'd both disagree with your position for some of the same reasons.

Everything boils down to two main areas of scripture: law and gospel. Law tells us what to do. Gospel tells us what has been done for us in Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Nobody is saved under the law since we cannot keep it. Only gospel saves, for the sake of Christ's work alone.

You've certainly pointed out some important verses with respect to total depravity (or inability). The thing is, you don't find many instances of people responding to such calls to salvation in the Scripture under the law. The verses you use are all law: do this, do that, you come to Me. You only find people responding as a matter of gospel. "No man cometh to the father but by me," and "No man cometh unless the Holy Ghost draw him," and "No man sayeth Jesus Christ is lord but by the Holy Ghost." If you get law and gospel wrong, everything else will be wrong. On this our churches agree.

As I noted, we disagree with our Calvinist brethren about election and predestination -- but to a degree. We, too, agree the Bible contains doctrines of election and predestination. They're both good Bible words and sound doctrine. So don't be too excited because we both disagree with you.

As for our differences, the scripture does not say, "God is not willing that the elect should perish..." but rather than ANY. Nor does the Bible say, "For God so loved the elect," rather he loved the world. We accept that grace is available to both the elect (who were predestined) and to those who aren't (though we disagree that they're predestined to hell). The Calvinist position is, we believe, an attempt to rationalize incongruent teachings from Scripture rather than leaving it to the unsearchable knowledge and purposes of God.

I hope you noted that I still refer to Calvinists as my brethren. They truly are. They believe and trust in Christ alone for their salvation, and they're drawn to faith by the same Holy Spirit working through word and sacrament. BTW, sacraments are all gospel. Your position is most likely that they're all law, which is why we would disagree with your views about them. Let me know if you'd like to discuss the matter fully so you can understand our position accurately.

Let me also remind you that Calvin and his colleagues, like Luther and his colleagues, faced penalty of death for proclaiming salvation by grace alone through faith alone for the sake of Christ alone. I urge you to read the Belgic Confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Heidelberg Catechism to see what Calvinists believe and confess and then decide if Calvinism is of the Bible or of man. Though I'm not Calvinist, I know the answer's not man.

[Wrigley]

I see you went back to your bag of tricks for this article.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630085/posts?q=1&&page=101

[Thinkin' Gal]

These are technically known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism.' And they are the main pillars upon which the superstructure rests."

Proverbs 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:

Ooops, looks like they're a couple of pillars short.

Come to think of it, Islam is built upon five pillars.

[Bellflower]

ping for self later

[Jeremiah Jr]

Proverbs 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:

The five books of the Torah and these two verses.

Numbers 10

³⁵So it was, whenever the ark set out, that Moses said:


        "Rise up, O LORD!
        Let Your enemies be scattered,
        And let those who hate You flee before You."


³⁶And when it rested, he said:


        "Return, O LORD,
        To the many thousands of Israel."


The Resurrection and the Return

http://www.outreachisrael.net/torahscope/2002-2003/behaalotecha.html

[fishtank]

I guess I'm a TUI 3 pointer.

[Frumanchu]

Here's where I stopped reading, Ed...

"However, that is not the end of the verse. Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stopped in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads..."

"Again, Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stops in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads..."

"The Bible teaches that God would have all men to be saved. 2 Pet. 3:9 says that He is 'not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'"

Unlike most Calvinists, Mr. Hossack STARTS in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads:

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

Certainly if you choose to ignore the context of the verse the first part means little, but seeing as the author's foundational premise for that section is that there is no sovereign election I think the first part of the verse has considerable bearing.

The rest of the article appears to be of the same consistency...sludge.

[nobdysfool]

Right here, I want to point out an error in the article you posted:

The term "Calvinism" is used by some people who do not hold Calvin's teaching on predestination and do not understand exactly what Calvin taught.

The author sets the tone for the whole piece by planting the idea that Calvinists don't know what they are talking about. That is a huge assumption that he throws out with no substantiation other than what he quotes following, which contains an error in the very first part.

T - Total Inability;

It's Total Depravity, not total inability. As can be seen rather quickly, Dr. Boettner has no problem with total depravity, as it is clear that scripture teaches that. But, if he's going to tear down Calvinism, he can't very well agree with its first point, now can he? So he slips in a little change that the non-Calvinist would not notice. It raises the question as to what else he has mis-defined...

Concerning Unconditional Election:

This teaching insists that we need not try to win men to the Lord because men cannot be saved unless God has planned for them to be saved. And if God has planned for them to be eternally lost, they will not come to Christ.

This is an opinion of the author, not what the teaching itself says. But he presents it as though that is what Calvinisits believe. Subtle deception (possibly unintentional) once again.

Concerning Irresistible Grace:

By irresistible grace, John Calvin meant that God simply forces people to be saved.

Once again, the author inserts his own opinion and passes it off as Calvin's teaching. That is his own interpretation of Calvin's teaching. The author doesn't even try to quote Calvin, or to deal with what Calvin actually said, he just takes it upon himself to tell the reader his own interpretation, from his own obviously biased viewpoint. He's saying, in effect, "trust me, I know what Calvin said, and I don't agree with it, so I'll give you some scripture that seems to speak against what I say Calvin says." He may have the best of intentions, but he is being dishonest in doing so.

Closing remarks:

I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. I believe in the eternal security of the believer. I believe that Jesus Christ died for all men, and I believe what the Bible says, "That whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Here he attempts to protray himself as being "above the fray", and adopts the philosophical "high ground", to lend weight to what he has written. It sounds good, and it certainly would persuade the average listener that he must know what he's talking about, because he's doing so from a neutral position. Then he says:

But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as John Calvin taught it.

A dishonest statement. What he really means is, "But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as I have defined them."

Since he has not been entirely truthful with his definitions, his whole teaching here must be called into question. He may sincerely believe he is right, but he hasn't been completely honest with his definitions. His bias against Calvinism has colored his perceptions, so he cannot lay claim to the high moral ground that he attempts to do at the end of his teaching here.

Frumanchu had a word for it...sludge. I think it's an apt description.

[Bellflower]

God knew the end from the beginning so in the very creation from the time of it's inception he knew exactly how all things would unfold. By creating everything exactly how he did he allowed for every detail that follows.

Revelation Chapter 1:8 I am Alpha and Omaga, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Isaiah chapter 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

[Cvengr]

Outstanding post. God Bless. Hallehujah! Amen!