TULIP and why I disagree with it

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.

Dr. Loraine Boettner in his book, 'The reformed Doctrine of Predestination', says, "The Calvinistic system especially emphasized five distinct doctrines. These are technically known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism.' And they are the main pillars upon which the superstructure rests."

Dr. Boettner further says, "The five points may be more easily remembered if they are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P;

I have heard people say, "I am a one-point Calvinist, a two-point Calvinist" and so on. Look at each one of these views as taught by Calvin and then see what the Bible has to say on each point. As with any Doctrine, it is no stronger than the foundation upon which it is built and it'll either be built upon sand or the Rock!

By total inability Calvin meant that a lost sinner could not repent and come to Jesus Christ and trust Him as Savior, unless he is foreordained to come to Christ. By total inability he meant that no man has the ability to come to Christ. And unless God overpowers him and gives him that ability, he will never come to Christ.

The Bible teaches total depravity. But that simply means that there is nothing good in man to earn or deserve salvation. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9,

While the Bible teaches the depravity of the human race, it no where teaches total inability. The Bible never hints that people are lost because they have no ability to come to Christ. The language of Jesus was (John 5:40),

Notice, it is not a matter of whether or not you CAN come to Christ; it is a matter of whether or not you WILL come to Him.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem. . how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, AND YE WOULD NOT!" (Matt 23:37).

Here again notice, He did not say, "How often I would have gathered you together, but you COULD not." No. He said, "Ye WOULD not!" It was not a matter of whether they could; it was a matter of whether they would.

"And the Spirit and the bride say, COME. And let him that hearth say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

If it is true that no person has the ability to come to Christ, then why would Jesus say in John 5:40, "Ye will not come to me?" Why didn't He simply say, "You cannot come to me"?

Some Calvinists use John 6:44 in an effort to prove total inability. Here the Bible says,

But the Bible makes it plain in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men unto Himself,

All men are drawn to Christ, but not all men will trust Christ as Savior. Every man will make his own decision to trust Christ or to reject Him. The Bible makes it clear that all men have light. (Jn 1:9) Rom. 1:19, 20 indicates that every sinner has been called through the creation about him. Romans 2:11-16 indicates that sinners are called through their conscience, even when they have not heard the gospel.

So in the final analysis, men GO to Hell, not because of their inability to come to Christ, but because they will not come to Him - "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

The teaching that men, women and children are totally unable to come to Christ and trust Him as Savior is not a scriptural doctrine. The language itself is not scriptural. The foundation of this doctrine is very shaky when looked at in light of what the Scriptures say and not what some men have said.

By unconditional election Calvin meant that some are elected to go to Heaven, while others are elected to go to Hell, and that this election is unconditional. It is wholly on God's part and without condition. By unconditional election Calvin meant that God has already decided who will be saved and who will be lost, and the individual has absolutely nothing to do with it. He can only hope that God has elected him for Heaven and not for Hell.

This teaching so obviously disagrees with the oft-repeated invitations in the Bible to sinners to come to Christ and be saved that some readers will think that I have overstated the doctrine. So I will quote John Calvin in his "Institutes, Book III, chapter 23,"

"...Not all men are created with similar destiny but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestined either to life or to death."

So Calvinism teaches that it is God's own choice that some people are to be damned forever. He never intended to save them. He foreordained them to go to Hell. And when He offers salvation in the Bible, He does not offer it to those who were foreordained to be damned. It is offered only to those who were foreordained to be saved.

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.

There is the Bible doctrine of God's foreknowledge, predestination and election. Most knowledgeable Christians agree that God has His controlling hand on the affairs of men. They agree that according to the Bible, He selects individuals like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David as instruments to do certain things He has planned. Most Christians agree that God may choose a nation - particularly that He did choose Israel, through which He gave the law, the prophets, and eventually through whom the Savior Himself would come - and that there is a Bible doctrine that God foreknows all things.

God in His foreknowledge knows who will trust Jesus Christ as Savior, and He has predestined to see that they are justified and glorified. He will keep all those who trust Him and see that they are glorified. But the doctrine that God elected some men to Hell, that they were born to be damned by God's own choice, is a radical heresy not taught anywhere in the Bible.

In the booklet entitled TULIP by Vic Lockman, Lockman attempts to prove the five points of Calvinism. Under the point, Unconditional Election, he quotes Ephesians 1:4, but he only quotes the first part of the verse: "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." 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:

"According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."

The verse says nothing about being chosen for Heaven or Hell. It says we are chosen that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

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

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

The verse says nothing about being chosen for Heaven or Hell. It says we are chosen to go and bring forth fruit, which simply means that every Christian is chosen to be a witness for Him and to practice soul winning. Proverbs 11:30 says,

Nowhere does the Bible teach that God wills for some to go to Heaven and wills for others to go to Hell. NO. The Bible teaches that God would have all men to be saved. 2 Pet. 3:9 says that He is

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Those who teach that God would only have some to be saved, while He would have others to be lost are misrepresenting God and the Bible. Does God really predestinate some people to be saved and predestinate others to go to Hell, so that they have no free choice?

Absolutely not! Nobody is predestined to be saved, except as He chooses of his own free will to come to Christ and trust Him for salvation. And no one is predestined to go to Hell, except as he chooses of his own free will to reject Christ and refuses to trust Him as Savior. John 3:36 says,

"He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on Him."

Nothing could be plainer. The man who goes to Heaven goes because he comes to Jesus Christ and trusts Him as Savior. And the man who goes to Hell does so because he refuses to come to Jesus Christ and will not trust Him as Savior.

By limited atonement, Calvin meant that Christ died only for the elect, for those He planned and ordained to go to Heaven: He did not die for those He planned and ordained to go to Hell. Again I say, such language is not in the Bible, and the doctrine wholly contradicts many, many plain Scriptures.

"He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

The teaching of Calvinism on Limited Atonement contradicts the express statement of Scripture. First Timothy 2:5-6 says,

"and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world."

"and we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."

"For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved."

No man will ever look at Jesus and say, "You didn't want to be my Savior." No! No! Jesus wants to be the Savior of all men. As a matter of fact, I Timothy 4:10 says,

"For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those who believe."

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.:

There are two "ALLS" in this verse. The first "ALL" speaks of the universal fact of sin -

The "ALL" in the first part of Isaiah 53:6 covers the same crowd that the "ALL" in the last part of that verse covers. If we all went astray, then the iniquities of all were laid on Christ.

Not only did He bear the sins of us all, but the Bible plainly teaches that He died for the whole world. Look at I John 2:2,

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

If that isn't plain enough, the Bible says His death was for every man; (Hebrews 2:9)

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY MAN" .

Nothing could be plainer than the fact that Jesus Christ died for every man. First Timothy 2:5-6 says,

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all. . . ."

"He that spared not His own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"

"that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man"; "Who gave himself a ransom for all"; "delivered him up for us all."

John 3:16 has been called "the heart of the Bible." It has been called "the Bible in miniature." "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Jesus died for the whole world. He suffered Hell for every man who has ever lived or ever will live. And no man will look out of Hell and say, "I wanted to be saved, but Jesus did not die for me.

Some argue that if Jesus died for the whole world, the whole world would be saved. No. The death of Christ on the cross was sufficient for all, but it is efficient only to those who believe. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross made it possible for every man everywhere to be saved. but only those who believe that He died to pay their sin debt and who trust Him completely fro salvation will be saved.

Everybody is potentially saved, but everybody is not actually saved until he recognizes that he is a sinner, believes that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the sin debt, rose from the grave on the third day, and trust Him completely for salvation.

"all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

The fourth point of Calvinism is irresistible grace. By irresistible grace, John Calvin meant that God simply forces people to be saved. God elected some to be saved, and He let Jesus die for that elect group.

And now by irresistible grace, He forces those He elected, and those Jesus Christ died for to be saved.

The truth of the matter is, there is no such thing as irresistible grace. Nowhere in the Bible does the word "irresistible" appear before the word "grace." That terminology is simply not in the Bible. It is the philosophy of John Calvin, not a Bible doctrine. The word "irresistible" doesn't even sound right in front of the word "grace."

Grace means "God's unmerited favor." Grace is an attitude, not a power. If Calvin had talked about the irresistible drawing power of God, it would have made more sense. But instead, he represents grace as the irresistible act of God compelling a man to be saved who does not want to be saved, so that a man has no choice in the matter at all, except as God forcibly puts a choice in his mind. Calvinism teaches that man has no part in salvation, and cannot possibly cooperate with God in the matter. In no sense of the word and at no stage of the work does salvation depend upon the will or work of man or wait for the determination of his will.

Does the Bible say anything about irresistible grace? Absolutely not! The Scriptures show that men do resist and reject God. Prov.29:1 states,

"He, that being often reproved hardens his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."

Notice the word "OFTEN" in this verse. If God only gave one opportunity to be saved, then man could not complain. But here the Bible says, "He, that being often reproved. . . ." This means the man was reproved over and over again. Not only was he reproved many times, but he was reproved often.

But the Bible says he "hardens his neck" and "shall suddenly be destroyed, and without remedy." That certainly doesn't sound like irresistible grace. The Bible teaches that a man can be reproved over and over again, and he can harden his neck against God, and as a result will be destroyed without remedy.

"Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comes."

Here the Bible plainly says, "I have called, and ye have refused. . .but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof." That doesn't sound like irresistible grace. God calls, and men refuse. Is that irresistible? God stretches out His hand and no man regards it?

Is that irresistible grace? No. The Bible makes it plain that some men do reject Christ, and they refuse His call. John 5:40 says,

That verse plainly teaches that men can and do resist God and refuse to come to Him. In Acts 7, we find Stephen preaching. He says in verse 51,

"Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."

To these Jewish leaders, Stephen said, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." So here were people; some of whom had seen Jesus and heard Him preach; others who had heard Peter at Pentecost; others who had heard Stephen and other Spirit-filled men preaching with great power. And what had they done? They were stiff necked and uncircumcised in their heart and ears. That is, they were stubborn and rebellious against God. The Bible plainly says, "They resisted the holy Ghost."

Notice the words of Stephen in verse 51, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Here the Bible teaches that not only were these Jewish leaders resisting the Holy ghost, but that their fathers before them had also resisted the Holy Spirit. Stephen says that all the way from Abraham, through the history of the Jewish nation, down to the time of Christ, unconverted Jews had resisted the Holy Spirit.

But man must make his own choice. He must either receive or reject Christ. John 1:12 says,

"But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Here again the Bible clearly indicates that God would have gathered them together as a hen gathers her brood, but they would not. That certainly shows that they could reject and resist Christ. "I would, but ye would not" does not fit the teaching of irresistible grace. So people do resist the Holy Spirit. They do refuse to come to Christ. They do harden their necks. They do refuse when God calls.

That means that those who are not saved could have been saved. Those who rejected Christ could have accepted Him. God offers salvation to those who will have it, but does not force it upon anyone who doesn't want it.

The Bible teaches, and I believe in, the eternal security of the born-again believer. The man who has trusted Jesus Christ has ever- lasting life and will never perish. But the eternal security of the believer does not depend upon his perseverance.

I do not know a single Bible verse that says anything about the saints' persevering, but there are several Bible verses that mention the fact that the saints have been preserved. Perseverance is one thing. Preservation is another. No. The saints do not persevere; they are preserved.

"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ. . . ."

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The Bible makes it plain that the believer is kept. He does not keep himself. First Peter 1:4-5 states:

"To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fades not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life: and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."

Now that doesn't sound like the PERSEVERANCE of the sheep or the saints. Here the sheep are in the Father's hand, and they are safe - not because they persevere, but because they are in the Father's hand.

"I do not believe in the PERSEVERANCE of the saints. I believe in the PERSEVERANCE of the Savior."

To be sure, the Bible teaches the eternal security of the believer. But the believer's security has nothing to do with his persevering. We are secure because we are kept by God. We are held in the Father's hand. And according to Ephesians 4:30, we have been sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.

So I disagree with all 5 points of Calvinism as John Calvin taught it. There is a belief that if one does not teach universal salvation, he must either be a Calvinist or an Arminian. In his book, "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Dr. Loraine Boettner says on page 47,

"There are really only three systems which claim to set forth the way of salvation through Christ [And he names them]:

"(1) Universalism, that all will be saved. (2) Arminianism, which holds that Christ died equally and indiscriminately for every individual. . ., that saving grace is not necessarily permanent, but those who are loved of God, ransomed by by God, and born of the Holy Spirit may (let God wish and strive ever so much to the contrary) throw away all and perish eternally; and,

"Only two are held by Christians." That is Calvin's position and Arminius' position."

Calvinists would like to make people believe that if one does not teach universal salvation, he must either be a Calvinist or an Arminian. And since the Arminian position does such violence to the grace of God, many preferred to call themselves Calvinists. But a person doesn't have to take either position.

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,

In conclusion, let me say that Calvin and those who followed him claimed to believe and follow the Bible. They claimed to find at least a germ of the Calvinist doctrine in the Scriptures. But a careful student will find that again and again they go beyond the Scripture, and that Calvinism is a philosophy developed by man and depending on fallible logic and frail, human reasoning, with the perversion of some Scriptures, the misuse of others, and the total ignoring of many clear Scriptures. Calvin did teach many wonderful, true doctrines of Scripture.

It is true that God foreknows everything that will happen in the world. It is true that God definitely ordained and determined some events ahead of time and selected some individuals for His purposes.

It is certain that people are saved by grace, and are kept by the power of God. That far Calvinists may well prove their doctrines by Scriptures. but beyond that, Calvinism goes into a realm of human philosophy.

It is not a Bible doctrine, but a system of human philosophy, especially appealing to the scholarly intellect, the self-sufficient and proud mind. Brilliant, philosophical, scholarly preachers are apt to be misled on this matter more than the humble-hearted, Bible-believing Christian.

I believe that is the traditional Arminian view of the Atonement.

I believe you're wrong about that. Go back and read it very carefully.

I believe that the sins were paid for and that no man will be judged for them, they will rather be judged for their works, which will always fall short of the Righteousness needed for salvation (Mt.5:20)

(Rom 6:23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Too many verses talk about sin as an ongoing problem, not just for unbelievers, but believers as well.

(Joh 20:23) Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jesus spoke this after His resurrection. If He had already paid the price for and already forgiven all sins, how could He then instruct His Disciples to abrogate that? A man is still in his sins until he is born again, and then he has forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins is to those who believe, not to those who reject and disbelieve God. Their sins remains on them.

Is man 'elect' because he believes or does man believe because he is 'elect'

Bravo for condensing it down to it's essence! I firmly believe that a man believes because he is Elect (and only then). If a man is elect because he believes, then his election is based on and caused by his own action as first cause, and not on God's choice.

The Word teaches that God is the first cause in Election, based on His own Counsel and Will, and not on man's foreseen action, belief, or will.

(Rom 9:16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Anyone else have anything to add?

Once a Calvinist cannot find a way to defend unconditional election he has to start looking around for ways to discredit the opposition. Ed there are 20,000 languages in the congo that have no written vocabulary. These people have never heard the word of God If it is Gods desire to save every man without exception..what of the millions that have died since 33AD without the gospel? Why do you suppose God predestined you to hear it and not them?

That has to do with their rejection of God at the point of natural theology.

That is what happens when man rejects God at the outset (Psa.19, Rom.1)

What is really amazing is how when God knows that someone is positive and wants to hear the Gospel, missionaries are sent, as was the case with Paul to Macadonia.

Now, if the unconditional view were true, it would seem that God has a special affinity for white people, since, according to you, not many in Africa or Asia were 'unconditionally elected'(unless you figure they do not need to hear the Gospel to get saved)

Rom 9:16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

That passage is referring to Israel, not individual salvation (check the reference and context)

The Arminian view of the Atonement is that the sins were paid for but that payment must be appropriated to be effective.

If a person does not accept the free gift of salvation, then the sins are held against him.

If there are any Arminians out there, please let me know if I am accurate.

The Unlimited Redemptionist takes the same view,although he tries to make the Arminian view seem different.

If you believe in unlimited Atonement, you believe all men are savable since their sins were paid for.

Since, however they were not elected, it is really a mute point, since they cannot believe anyway.

That passage is referring to Israel, not individual salvation (check the reference and context)

There are also references to Gentiles in the same passage, and there is no "gentile nation" standing as a counterpart to Israel. There is nothing in this passage to preclude reference to individual salvation. You're attempting to explain away a text that gives your Arminian theology problems.

The Arminian view of the Atonement is that the sins were paid for but that payment must be appropriated to be effective. If a person does not accept the free gift of salvation, then the sins are held against him.

That's not what you said yesterday. You said, and I quote: "I believe that the sins were paid for and that no man will be judged for them, they will rather be judged for their works, which will always fall short of the Righteousness needed for salvation".

So which is it? Are the sins forgiven apart from the man's position regarding salvation (saved or not saved), or are the sins of the saved forgiven, and the sins of the unsaved still charged to them?

I have said it before, and I'll say it again: the Atonement of Christ is Sufficient to save all who come to Him, but Efficient only for those that do. Those who do not receive Christ are still in their sins, and will be judged accordingly. There is no forgiveness apart from Christ's saving work done in individual hearts. Sin is only forgiven when Christ is received. No Salvation, no forgiveness of sins, for each and every individual.

That is what happens when man rejects God at the outset (Psa.19, Rom.1)
What is really amazing is how when God knows that someone is positive and wants to hear the Gospel, missionaries are sent, as was the case with Paul to Macadonia.
Now, if the unconditional view were true, it would seem that God has a special affinity for white people, since, according to you, not many in Africa or Asia were 'unconditionally elected'(unless you figure they do not need to hear the Gospel to get saved)

So Ed let me get this straight. Man has to desire to hear the gospel with out any grace applied . It is man that initiates the preaching of the gospel? If that is true your previous idea that God elects those that he foreknows choose Him is out the window. Because in this case you have God acting and sending the gospel before the man desires to choose Him.

That Ed is a form of predestination. God knows exactly how much grace is needed to make a man choose Him. So it seems that you have the same problem you say we have. You have God refusing to send the gospel or to apply the grace necessary to save from some, and doing it for others. If it is Gods will that ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION hear and respond to the gospel why would he select some and "pass over" others?

Ed God has saved men of all races , tribes and nations. You make the mistake of concluding that all black men live in Africa (have you seen the power of the "black church" in America?)

I suspect when the final count is in it will be "fair" as God counts "fair"

Nature itself is grace!

It reveals the existence of God which man can accept or reject.

This 'dead' person does have a knowledge of God but does not 'retain him'(Rom.1:28)

As for God 'refusing' to send grace, that is going on the assumption of irresistable grace.

What makes you think any amount of grace would convert all men if their will were involved!

Check out Luke 16, where the rich man is told, if they do not believe the prophets then they will not respond if one is raised from the dead.

God has given enough revelation of Himself so that all men can make a decision about Him and respond to that knowledge or reject it.

God wants man to freely accept Him.

Ofcourse, from your point of view, those who are condemned are somehow more wicked then you?

You were saved by God for what reason?

God just closed His eyes and picked your name out of the cosmic hat?

Your view of the individual fate of man is simple mysticism, based on nothing revealed.

Romans 9:10 is referring to the birth of two nations(Gen.25:23)

And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb,and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels. And the one people shall be stronger then the other people and the elder shall serve the younger

Romans 9:12 refers to Malachi 1, Esau as a nation not an individual.

There is nothing in the passage that is referring to individual salvation.

Paul is speaking about his race and why they have been set aside, and makes references to the Old Testament.

Proof texting Romans 9-11 for Calvinism is a classic case of context dropping.

If you could read more carefully, I was explaining the Arminian view of the Atonement, which differs from mine.

The Arminian view is more like the four-point Calvinist one.

My view of the Atonement is that the sins have been paid, and one will stand on his works at the Great White Judgement, which will always fall short of salvation.

Your view of salvation being sufficent for all men but efficent for only those who believe is what the Arminians also say.

The gift has to be approbriated to be effective.

I am not so concerned with the mechanics of the Atonement as the fact that Christ did die for all men and thus, all men are savable.

If one wanted to state that a man will stand in Judgement for his sins as opposed to his works, I would not make a big deal about it.

The real issue is that all men can be saved since Christ died for all men (1Jn.2:2, Heb.2:9)

There is nothing in the passage that is referring to individual salvation.
Paul is speaking about his race and why they have been set aside, and makes references to the Old Testament.

Proof texting Romans 9-11 for Calvinism is a classic case of context dropping. Arminians cannot abide with the conclusions of Romans 8-11, so they have to invent an interpretation of those chapters that limits it to "God's dispensational dealings with Israel." But that position is untenable.

Romans 9: 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

Notice the use of the word "man" -- that doesn't sound like a nation-state to me.

Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

Those of Israel that were chosen (a subset of the physical nation) were chosen, the rest reprobated. Doesn't sound like "God's dispensational dealings with Israel" either.

Face it, FTD: it's not Calvinists who torture the meaning of Romans 8-11 to confirm a predetermined conclusion, but rather you and your Arminian brethren.

Nature itself is grace!

Oh, please! What poppycock! Nature is God's Creation which he allows both the unjust and the just to live in. He causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. Defining the creation itself as Grace is stretching a bit. Romans 1 speaks about unregenerate man's reaction to the natural revelation: he perverts it, he profanes it, he misuses it, and actively rejects the witness, so all the natural revelation can do is stand as witness against man. there is not enough there to bring any man to saving faith. That's the reason God gave them up, gave them over, and uses the natural revelation to seal unregenerate man's fate.

You keep going on about how man must be able to choose God freely. What would be so wrong if God forced you to believe? How would that be bad for you, or for God? Paul wasn't exactly gently persuaded and wooed to get him to receive Christ. Jesus appeared to him and blinded him in the road, while he was on his way to kill some Christians. Paul had no intention of getting saved! That's enough to shoot a big hole in your theory right there! Paul became a great Apostle, but when he was converted, he was just a slob like any one of us.

Your idea of God wanting man to choose Him freely is born out of an anthropomorphic projection of human emotion onto God, and expecting that God has the same wants, needs and desires that we do. That's pure horsepucky! There is not one shred of evidence for that in scripture.

Ofcourse, from your point of view, those who are condemned are somehow more wicked then you? You were saved by God for what reason? God just closed His eyes and picked your name out of the cosmic hat? Your view of the individual fate of man is simple mysticism, based on nothing

There you go again, mis-stating and twisting Calvinist teachings, to make your goofy idea look better. You want to be able to say that you chose God, like you would get a merit badge or something for it. Nope, God chose you before you even had a notion of seeking Him (I'll bow to His greater Wisdom in doing so...)

I was saved by God because He chose me. I wasn't seeking Him. I had no interest. He chose me, not because I chose Him, and not because of anything within me that has any value. He chose me because He did. That's all I need to know, and I thank Him every day that He did, because I sure didn't deserve it! No mysticism involved here, Ed. I was no more or less wicked than any other man, but I was wicked. I was lost, rebellious, willful, and a blasphemer. My thoughts ran to evil continually. I was full of sin, and had no intention of ever 'getting religion'. God had other ideas, and He didn't ask my permission, He just did it.

Why did you get saved. Ed? Because you thought God could use your great debating skills? Because you chose Him? Because it seemed like a good idea at the time?

Do you ever actually look at Scripture.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind...

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen (the invisible things are clearly seen!) being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

So, God can be understood by the natural man since God has made His work known throughout the world (Psa.19).

Now, I know that this doesn't line up with the Calvinistic view of Total depravity, but then again nothing in TULIP is scriptural anyway.

Do you know that the unregenerate man in Genesis 20 and the unregenerate men in Jonah knew there was a God!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.