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.

Calvin himself thought the 'all' men meant all men as does Cunstance! Funny how you appeal to Calvinists when it suits your purpose, which is to discredit Calvinism. You've been trying to do so for quite a while, and you haven't accomplished it. Why?? Because YOU CAN'T!!!! LOL!!!

I appeal to Calvinists because it shows

(1) That Calvinism is inconsistent within itself, disagreeing among 'extreme' and 'moderate' on how to interpret various verses.

(2) The Calvinist is like a Romanist, he will not accept anything that is not written by a Calvinist as being valid.

Thus, like the Romanist, if an article is from a non-Calvinist source, it is just dismissed as being 'Arminian', 'Romanist' 'Pelegian', etc and not 'worthy' to be addressed.

The King James translators knew your mindset when they stated in their preface that those who opposed them would be the Papists and 'certain brethren who do not accept anything unless it is hammered out on their own anvil'

So, I will use Calvinistic sources to show that Calvinism is a mass of inner contradictions and bible twisting, that is rooted in one single premise, God's will and ways are unknowable, not revealed in Scripture (but 'we' Calvinists do know that God only saved those He chose, for no known reason found in scripture)

I don't care who said what. When I read 2 Peter 3 in context paying attention to whom Peter is speaking and what he is speaking about, it is crystal clear, razor-sharp clear, that he is speaking to and about believers, and ONLY believers. I don't need a theologian to tell me what my own eyes can see, my own mind can comprehend, and what I have learned of English syntax, grammar, and sentence construction. Sorry you can't wrap you mind around that obvious and clear fact due to your spiritual blindness and bias. It's there, if you will open your eyes and mind.

And 1Tim.2:4?

Spurgeon said that referred to all men!

Piper admitted that there too many passages that referred to God's love for all of mankind, to be summarily dismissed by the Calvinists.

Hence his article on the 'two wills'.

Now if it were not God's revealed will for all men to be saved, there would be no reason for a 'secret will' as maintained by Calvin, Spurgeon, Boettner, Piper etc.

But I guess you guys are smarter then these guys, who really did not understand Calvinism as well as you do!

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

You mean Reformed churches don't you?

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.

Amen.

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 did Arminius (who was also Reformed)

His only difference was that man had the ability to reject grace as well as accept it.

Thus, 'election' was based on this 'foreseen' acceptance of grace.

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.

Amen!

Both words are good Bible words, and they refer to a Christian who is predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom.8).

No one is Predestinated for salvation or damnation.

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.

Amen!

The purpose of which is to keep eternal security, which need not be based on unconditional election, but on unconditional love (Rom.8) after one is saved.

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.

Yes I would like to discuss your views on the 'sacraments' which imply some infusion of grace.

Luther rejected Augustine over his usage of Sacraments as opposed to unconditional election (sovereign grace).

We Baptists have two ordinances adult Baptism by immersion and the Lords supper.

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.

Which is very admirable, but on the other hand they also sought death on those who disagree with them (Luther rejoicing when he heard of Zwingli's death) and Calvins actions in Geneva.

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.

The issue is not a confession but what does the Scripture say (Sola Scriptura).

That was what the Reformers were fighting against in the first place, traditions and confessions replacing the teachings of the Bible.

The problem was that they did not go fall enough and get rid of everything that did not line up with the Scriptures.

Feel free to post me on any Lutheran doctrines, as I am always interested in learning what you believe and why (even though I may disagree with it)

The Calvinist is like a Romanist, he will not accept anything that is not written by a Calvinist as being valid

In your dreams, Ed. That statement is not provable, and I am living proof that it is wrong. Truth is Truth, and I don't filter it through Calvinist glasses, despite your illusion that I do. I wouldn't lean to heavily on that statement, because you can very easily be proven very, very wrong.

And 1Tim.2:4?

What about it? That's not the passage we're talking about. 2 Peter 3 is what I was referring to. Stay on topic. My remarks are concerned with that passage and that passage alone.

But I guess you guys are smarter then these guys, who really did not understand Calvinism as well as you do!

I make no claims to be such. It is you who accuse me of that, with no grounds other than your intense hatred of Calvin. I trust in God to lead me into all truth, and I read a wide variety of material, and not all of it is Calvinist, or Calvinist leaning. In fact the majority is not. I'm currently reading some things about Wesley, and looking for more by him and Jacob Arminius as well. Once I have found enough, I intend to post and critique what I have found.

What I have found so far is rather interesting, and I expect to hear howls of protest from the Wesleyan and Arminian camps when I finish my study...Wesley said some rather controversial things, that are not really very biblical and can be proven as such. When I have gathered enough, I will post it. Do not make the mistake of thinking I will be "converted"...what I have found so far has only strengthened my beliefs.

The Calvinist is like a Romanist, he will not accept anything that is not written by a Calvinist as being valid In your dreams, Ed. That statement is not provable, and I am living proof that it is wrong. Truth is Truth, and I don't filter it through Calvinist glasses, despite your illusion that I do. I wouldn't lean to heavily on that statement, because you can very easily be proven very, very wrong.

I will give you proof!

Check out the early post I made from a Finney website regarding the trial of Servetus.

See how dr Steve, responded to it, by simply putting a picture of Finney on the post as if that was argument enough.

That is consistent behaviour on these threads.

Mormons will make logical arguments (not theological) against Calvinism and they are dismissed as being unbelievers and thus not worthy of being addressed.

And 1Tim.2:4? What about it? That's not the passage we're talking about. 2 Peter 3 is what I was referring to. Stay on topic. My remarks are concerned with that passage and that passage alone.

No, because the 'topic' in general is not just that particular passage but the issue did Christ die for all men.

Sidestepping a single passage will not get you out of the minefield, that God does indeed want all men to be saved, a fact acknowledged by your most renowned theologians.

But I guess you guys are smarter then these guys, who really did not understand Calvinism as well as you do! I make no claims to be such. It is you who accuse me of that, with no grounds other than your intense hatred of Calvin. I trust in God to lead me into all truth, and I read a wide variety of material, and not all of it is Calvinist, or Calvinist leaning. In fact the majority is not. I'm currently reading some things about Wesley, and looking for more by him and Jacob Arminius as well. Once I have found enough, I intend to post and critique what I have found.

Good, if my posts have led you to read Arminius and Wesley then they have accomplished something!

My 'intense' hatred for Calvinism stems from an 'intense' hatred of anything that purports to be Biblical and isn't.

Do not the Calvinists have the same feelings toward the Arminians and the Romanists for that very reason?

That doesn't mean I have that hatred for the individual Calvinist or Romanist but only for that system.

That is a distinction that the Calvinists on these threads seem to ignore and make attacks very personal (as did Calvin himself)

So, if I agreed with everything Arminius and Wesley said I would be a Methodist not a Baptist.

Wesley was not dispensational, believed in sprinkling babies and remained a member of the Church of England.

However, in Christian practice, Spurgeon himself likened him to an Apostle himself.(I believe that statement can be found in Spurgeons' sermon 'The defense of Calvinism')

So whatever theological mistakes he made, they did not effect how he lived as a Christian.

Which I would say about Spurgeon, Bunyan and Whitfield.

When I have gathered enough, I will post it. Do not make the mistake of thinking I will be "converted"...what I have found so far has only strengthened my beliefs.

Good, I am not attempting to 'convert' you but to have an honest discussion on what each side believes and why.

We may actually learn something from these posts instead of waging a theological 'jihad' against those who disagree with us.

Yes I would like to discuss your views on the 'sacraments' which imply some infusion of grace.

Only in Catholic teachings. In Reformed and Lutheran teaching, they are means of grace: God's word connected with a visible sign. No different than circumcision, which St Paul likens baptism to. In both sacraments, God connects the promise of forgiveness of sins not in the doing but in His word. Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Drink ye all of it for the forgiveness of your sins. That -- the forgiveness of sins -- IS the gospel. That's why we do it.

Your churches have thrown out the baby with the baptism water. You take away the gospel part of it and turn it into law. You deny the promises to the "little ones," and substitute a man-made doctrine of "age of accountability." You comfort parents of dead infants with hollow, unscriptural words; at least those Jews at Pentecost understood what they were doing when Peter told them "...for the promise is to you AND YOUR CHILDREN..." Why would good Jews, who understood that God's covenants included their children who received believer's circum... I mean circumcision at eight days of age, trade that for another covenant that no longer bore any such mark which included their children in it?

Your church has two ordinances and one sacrament, the sacrament of the Altar Call and Rededication. You also substitute "dedication" of infants in the place of baptism, and then promise parents the blessings which only baptism brings. We don't have altar calls -- not just because they're anti-scriptural ("every head bowed, every eye closed...") -- but because we have the sacraments God himself offers that convey the same things you try to substitute. I recommend you read some of Michael Scott Horton's books which mention the sacraments. He came out of your tradition and he probably clears it up better than I can.

That was what the Reformers were fighting against in the first place, traditions and confessions replacing the teachings of the Bible.

Brother, read the confessions. They confessed Christ, they confessed scripture. That's why they got in so much trouble in the first place. Our confessions are not instruments of tradition and happenstance, they are systematic statements of the scriptures of what our churches believe and why we believe it. Your churches, too, have such statements, even if as a way to tell others what you believe. On some points (Trinity), you manage to hit it on the head; on others ("ordinances" and eschatology), you usually screw up royally.

The word creed comes from the Latin credo: I believe. We share that creed with the fathers of our faith -- from Adam and Eve to Abraham to the prophets to the apostles to the church fathers to the Reformers and so on -- and we struggle as they did to protect our faith from error and the devil. The main reason why our creeds have become lengthy is because so many errors continue to creep in and subvert the faith of the church.

The problem was that they did not go fall enough and get rid of everything that did not line up with the Scriptures.

Have you any examples?

I will give you proof! Check out the early post I made from a Finney website regarding the trial of Servetus. See how dr Steve, responded to it, by simply putting a picture of Finney on the post as if that was argument enough. That is consistent behaviour on these threads.

You're stretching already. Steve is a man of few words, something that I aspire to (although I have a looooong way to go).

Mormons will make logical arguments (not theological) against Calvinism and they are dismissed as being unbelievers and thus not worthy of being addressed.

Well, they really have no part in this discussion. As for logical arguments, I have attempted on many occasions to engage on that level with you, and have received a lot of insult and abuse for my trouble. That's why I tend to give as good as I get with you. I can hurl insults with the best of 'em, but I prefer not to do so. It doesn't help anyone to learn, except to learn more insults. I'm probably more patient than some in that I still try to engage you in something other than an insult-fest. Why? Because I was once where you are.

No, because the 'topic' in general is not just that particular passage but the issue did Christ die for all men. Sidestepping a single passage will not get you out of the minefield, that God does indeed want all men to be saved, a fact acknowledged by your most renowned theologians.

I am trying to make a point about that passage, and that passage alone. I am not trying to extend what is there to everything else. We'll get to the rest, but I say, stay on topic, because what I am addressing is 2 Peter 3, and that passage only. You act like a child with ADD sometimes! In a serious discussion, there is a time to stay on topic, and a time to anticipate where your opponent is going. The skill comes in knowing the difference.

That is a distinction that the Calvinists on these threads seem to ignore and make attacks very personal (as did Calvin himself)

When you engage in wholesale slams of Calvinists (and you say Calvinists, not Calvinism), is it any wonder that some take it personally? Confine your scorn to the system, and the personal attacks will be less frequent. Calvinists are the people, Calvinism is the system. Same for Arminians/Arminianism, Catholics/Catholicism. If you look back over posts you've made, there ARE a lot of personal attacks, attacks you've made (maybe not thinking they were) and attacks made against you because people took your remarks personally. You know I'm not afraid to step up to the plate and let some stuff fly if I am attacked. Why should that surprise you?

Both words are good Bible words, and they refer to a Christian who is predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom.8). No one is Predestinated for salvation or damnation.

Bull.

For predestination (election) to salvation, one needs look no deeper than in Strongs:

"But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth." - 2The. 2:13

Now, I realize there is an interpretation of this verse floating around out there that claims the salvation referred to here is not soteriological, but eschatological in nature. The rationale is this: II Thessalonians is eschatological in nature, discussing the Tribulation, and Paul here is expressing that the Christians are not appointed to go through the Tribulation, but will instead be Raptured off the earth. I heard this just last week. But, that is bootstrapping -- using an assumed pretrib Rapture (I myself lean post-trib, but that's another discussion for another day. Suffice it to say that there are huge assumptions necessary to use an eschatological interpretation of that verse.)

As for predestination to reprobation, there are fewer definitive verses, hence the split between infralapsarians (single predestinationists) and supralapsarians (double predestinationists). I myself am supralapsarian. I know that makes me in the eyes of many a hypercalvinist, but hey: I've never been one to care what people think. (If I were, would I be a Plymouth Brethren who's a post-trib Calvinist?) My proof of this, is this:

6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"
8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
-- 1Pet 2:6-9
"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." -- Romans 9:18

Feel free to post me on any Lutheran doctrines, as I am always interested in learning what you believe and why (even though I may disagree with it)

That'd be a first for a man for whom no shot is too cheap.

I had never heard that interpretation of 2 Thes. 2:13. In reading through it, I can't see any reason why it would be eschatological. In that verse, Paul seems to take a step backwards, and gives thanks for the fact that the believers he is addressing were chosen from the beginning by God, as is clear from other scriptures. In a sense he seems to be contrasting the chosen with those who will be given the strong deception which seals their doom.

I have come to believe that the so-called Rapture is post-trib, and you're right, that is a discussion for another day. It's not a defining doctrine of the Faith.

For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone," and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; -- 1Pet 2:6-9
"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." -- Romans 9:18

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

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 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:

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.

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.