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.

Why, though, do you suppose Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter?

Changed???

Where do you get that Jesus CHANGED his name?

The Scripture is VERY CLEAR what his name was: read REEEALLLL slOOOWWWLlyyy....

NIV Matthew 4:18-19
18. As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
19. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."

NIV Matthew 8:14
14. When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

NIV Matthew 10:1-2
1. He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;

NIV Matthew 14:28-31
28. "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29. "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
30. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
31. Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

NIV Matthew 15:13-16
13. He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
14. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
15. Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16. "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.

(Simon was already known as 'Peter' BEFORE these verses came along.....)

NIV Matthew 16:13-18
13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not

overcome it.

"you are Peter" Yup: he sure is!!!

Or. Instead of reading just a few verses reaaaal slooooowly. We could just read a bit more completely.

John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).NAS

John 1:42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).ASV

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. F9 You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).NKJV

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, He said, "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonah. Thou shalt be called Cephas" (which is by interpretation, "a stone"). Third Millenium Bible.

John 1:42 Then Andrew brought Simon to meet Jesus. Looking intently at Simon, Jesus said, "You are Simon, the son of John – but you will be called Cephas" (which means Peter ). New Living Translation

John 1:42 He brought Simon F11 to Jesus, who looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter ).NRSV

John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).RSV

John 1:42 Then he took Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "Your name is Simon son of John, but you will be called Cephas." (This is the same as Peter and means "a rock.") Good News Translation

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.Douay-Rheims (My favorite. -)

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. KJV. (Fabled in both song and story)

Now, perhaps you could post -since I'm not familiar with it- the NIV's translation of this verse.

So according to mini-g if everyone said 'no' heaven would be empty or if everyone said 'yes' hell would be humanless?

Kind of a mute point, since someone did say 'yes' to heaven.

Now, that would be a horrible thought, an empty hell!

Do you think man is there because God wants them there?

As for your feigned confusion on 'authorship', here is Calvin explaining who is really responsible for Adam's fall.

The 'moderate' Calvinists attempt to remove this responsiblity by shifting around the 'logical' order the decrees, which is nothing but window dressing.

http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/bk3ch23.html

4. They again object, Were not men predestinated by the ordination of God to that corruption which is now held forth as the cause of condemnation? If so, when they perish in their corruptions they do nothing else than suffer punishment for that calamity, into which, by the predestination of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his posterity headlong with him. Is not he, therefore, unjust in thus cruelly mocking his creatures?

I admit that by the will of God all the sons of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness in which they are now involved; (emphasis added) and this is just what I said at the first, that we must always return to the mere pleasure of the divine will, the cause of which is hidden in himself.

But it does not forthwith follow that God lies open to this charge. For we will answer with Paul in these words, "Nay but, O man, who art thou that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" (Rom. 9: 20, 21.)

They will deny that the justice of God is thus truly defended, and will allege that we seek an evasion, such as those are wont to employ who have no good excuse. For what more seems to be said here than just that the power of God is such as cannot be hindered, so that he can do whatsoever he pleases?

But it is far otherwise. For what stronger reason can be given than when we are ordered to reflect who God is? How could he who is the Judge of the world commit any unrighteousness? If it properly belongs to the nature of God to do judgment, he must naturally love justice and abhor injustice. Wherefore, the Apostle did not, as if he had been caught in a difficulty, have recourse to evasion; he only intimated that the procedure of divine justice is too high to be scanned by human measure, or comprehended by the feebleness of human intellect.

The Apostle, indeed, confesses that in the divine judgments there is a depth in which all the minds of men must be engulfed if they attempt to penetrate into it. But he also shows how unbecoming it is to reduce the works of God to such a law as that we can presume to condemn them the moment they accord not with our reason. There is a well-known saying of Solomon, (which, however, few properly understand,) "The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool and rewardeth transgressors," (Prov. 26: 10.) For he is speaking of the greatness of God, whose pleasure it is to inflict punishment on fools and transgressors though he is not pleased to bestow his Spirit upon them. It is a monstrous infatuation in men to seek to subject that which has no bounds to the little measure of their reason.

Paul gives the name of elect to the angels who maintained their integrity. If their steadfastness was owing to the good pleasure of God, the revolt of the others proves that they were abandoned. Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel (emphasis added) of God.

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch14.htm

We are, indeed, born into a world of sin and death, and we cannot have too deep a sense of the guilt of sin, especially our own; and, as members of the human family, we should feel the overwhelming weight of the sin and guilt of the whole race, as our Saviour did when he died on the cross. But we are also born into an economy of righteousness and life, and we cannot have too high a sense of God’s saving grace which passeth knowledge. As soon as we enter into the world we are met with the invitation, "Suffer little children to come unto me."

The redemption of the race is as much an accomplished fact as the fall of the race, and it alone can answer the question, why God permitted or caused the fall. Where sin has abounded, grace has abounded not less, but much more.

Calvinism has the advantage of logical compactness, consistency, and completeness. Admitting its premises, it is difficult to escape its conclusions. A system can only be overthrown by a system. It requires a theological genius of the order of Augustin and Calvin, who shall rise above the antagonism of divine sovereignty and human freedom, and shall lead us to a system built upon the rock of the historic Christ, and inspired from beginning to end with the love of God to all mankind.

The difference between Calvinism and non-Calvinism (Arminianism, Wesleyianism, Baptists) is that there theology, the non-Calvinists, (as regarding individual salvation) is based on the revealed will of God.

Calvinism view of individual salvation is based on a mysterious will of God.

A mysterous will that contradicts what God reveals about Himself in Scripture.

Luke, Come to the dark side!

The only reason that man is considered unable to respond to the Gospel is because the Calvinists say that he is not elected to do so.

That is a distortion and complete mis-statement of the Calvinist position. Even Arminians agree that man is unable (total inability) to "choose" God on his own. Else, why would he need "Prevenient Grace" in order to do so? Calvinists say no different. Man, by and on his own, cannot choose God, respond to God, or in any way come to a saving faith in God apart from God's Grace being first shed upon him. Where we differ is the extent of that Grace, both in scope and in application.

The fact is if you are 'yielding' in your Christian walk, you are making a decision for or against God and thus cooperating with His grace (the hated concept in Calvinism)

Ah, you must ever remind us that Calvinists *hate* opposition. Prejudicial asides don't further your case, Ed. I asked you to stop doing that. I thought we were going to discuss this calmly and rationally. It seems you just can't resist getting your little digs in. Enough!

There is a world of difference between the Christian's response to God's Grace, and the unbeliever's response. For one thing, a Christian is in relationship with God, and therefore can cooperate. A Christian has had his free will restored, and is able to make a real choice for or against God. Calvinists don't hate the concept of cooperating with God's Grace, we just rightly apply it where it is true, and that is after conversion.

Phi 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

God sets up man for failure in this system due to unconditional election and then states that man is responsible for that failure! ***Total Inability arise from the fact that man is already a sinner, not just a potential sinner. He is born that way!*** And, how according to Calvin, did man get that way? God decreed it that way. Moreover, Christ dealt with Adams sin and His grace is greater then Adams sin (Rom.5)

My, how you accuse God! And how you falsely accuse Calvinists! What does God's Word say?

Rom 9:14-33 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

I can imagine that Arminians have some problems with that passage, because it clearly indicates that some are "fitted for destruction" and some have been "afore prepared unto glory". Sounds like Presdestination to me! Also, even though Israel's children be numbered as the sands of the sea, a remnant will be saved. Not because they rejected God by their "free will", but because ...it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Looks as though it is not man's will that determines his fate, but God's Will, and His Mercy.

***He is born in a state of already resisting God's Grace.***

And why is man born that way? It is due to God's unconditional election so that the damned would remain damned. Thus, no man is damned because he is a sinnner, he is a sinner because he is damned!(not elected)

***It's not a decision he makes, it's his natural reaction.***

Man is held accountable for rejecting God at the point of nature because he has the knowledge of God but rejects it.

No, man is born that way because he is of his father, Adam, who sinned. Man is born a sinner because Adam sinned. That is an unavoidable truth in the word. Man sins because he is a sinner. He is born that way. It is his nature to sin. Man is held accountable to God because he is a sinner, not because he has rejected God at the point of nature, because that knowledge cannot save him. The natural revelation stands as a witness against man. Romans 1 says that because of the natural revelation, God gave them up to their sins, gave them over to their sins, and they are justly condemned for their sins.

Unconditional election is not the agency by which man is damned. Their own sins are the basis. The ONLY basis. You wrestle with this because it gives man no quarter. It allows man no say in his fate. You don't like the idea that it is God who IS in control, and it is He, and He alone, who chooses.

***It is God's Grace that apprehends a man, and causes him to turn and receive God's gift of salvation. It is never man deciding that he will stop resisting Grace, and receive God's gift. God must first enable the man to receive, or he will not, and therefore cannot.***

And the reason man cannot is because God will not!

Thus, the sum of Calvinism is putting man is hopeless situation, saving some, damning the rest and then blaming those who are not chosen for being damned in the first place!

That's what you'd like people to believe, but it just isn't so! Man put himself in that situation, by sinning. If you're going to blame someone, blame Adam. Calvinism is not about putting man in a hopeless state and then blaming him for being that way. That's pure Bull-winky! The reason man cannot choose God is because he cannot! You are trying to portray the Calvinist conception of God as some sort of mean, capricious, cruel, sadistic, and utterly evil Supreme Being that resembles Saddam Hussein and his sons much more than it does the God of the Bible. the reason you do that is clear: If the Calvinist position appears to be one that seems unfair, then the Arminian position by contrast looks much more attractive. It tickles the ears with its talk of man "cooperating" with God in his salvation, of man being able to "choose" God, or reject Him, and puts man in the "catbird" seat, making him the "captain of his soul", and the "master of his destiny", with the promise that if he will "cooperate" with God, he will be blessed. The question begs itself: Who's in charge in that scenario?

Moreover, all your protestations regarding Adams sin are made void by the fact the second Adam undid the condemnation of the first Adam, so that all men are now savable because of the greater grace of the Second Adam. Only man's rejection of that grace damns him (Jn.16:9). The one result of Adams sin that has not been dealt with yet is death itself but it will be in the future (1Cor.15)

Is that so? So, you're saying that Christ's work on the cross kind of "half-saved" man, and it is man who must complete the process to be saved? If Christ's death, burial and resurrection undid the condemnation for sin for all men, why are men still dying in their sins? Why are men still reprobate? Couldn't God do more? Oh, I know, it's because now man gets to decide his own fate, by either acceptiing or rejecting Christ's work. So you're saying that man really is in control. Then answer me this: if the condemnation for sin was dealt with on the cross for all men, how can God still hold them accountable for that which has already been paid for by Christ? Either it's paid for or it isn't. You want to have it both ways. Chargeable to men unless they believe it has been paid. Again, it's man who decides his own fate, not God.

That is completely and utterly unscriptural, and I cannot believe that a Baptist would hold such a position! That's no teaching of the Baptist church that I've ever heard!

Rom 11:1-36 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

There's your "secret counsels" that you rant against so much, Ed. Right there in the Word you claim to believe! Paul boldly declares that there are depths to God's Wisdom and Knowledge that are past our finding out. God has given us enough, but He has not revealed all there is to know. Some of it we can't handle right now. There is no requirement that God must make "full disclosure" of His Will and Purpose. You can't demand it, and He certainly does not have to give it, unless it pleases Him to do so!

So, it follows that just because you don't understand how and why God has done, is doing, and will do what He Wills, you cannot accuse Him of injustice simply because it doesn't seem right to you. You don't have all the info necessary to make such a judgment! What is revealed shows that it is God who makes the choices, and you should be grateful that He chose you, rather than spending your time ranting about how you think it's unfair that He doesn't choose everyone, or that He doesn't allow them to make a choice which you can't seem to understand that they can't make, by themselves. Your problem is not with Calvin, but with God, and your faulty understanding of Him.

I think you need to learn to read more closely!

Chapter 11 is speaking of the hardening of Israel, not the reprobation of the non-elect!

So, it follows that just because you don't understand how and why God has done, is doing, and will do what He Wills, you cannot accuse Him of injustice simply because it doesn't seem right to you. You don't have all the info necessary to make such a judgment! What is revealed shows that it is God who makes the choices, and you should be grateful that He chose you, rather than spending your time ranting about how you think it's unfair that He doesn't choose everyone, or that He doesn't allow them to make a choice which you can't seem to understand that they can't make, by themselves. Your problem is not with Calvin, but with God, and your faulty understanding of Him.

If Calvinism cannot understand why someone is saved (as it cannot explain why God chose one and not another), then it is based on a mystery and not what is revealed.

What is revealed is that God wants all men saved (as you stated) died for all men (which you stated) but all men are not being saved (which means God is not accomplishing what He reveals He wants)

Appealing to the mystery of God as the final answer of your 'Biblical' faith, means you have to reject what God has revealed, that He has provided salvation for all men, but it is man who says 'no' to God. (Rom.1:28, Jn.3:36)

Calvinism then on the one hand claims to know how God is saving men (with unconditional election) but when pressed to ask why some and not others then it holds up its collective hands and cries MYSTERY.

Hey, if its such a mystery then shut up about it!

Unconditional election was never an issue in the first 300 years of the Church.

I think you and I have finished our discussions, don't you?

I think you need to learn to read more closely! Chapter 11 is speaking of the hardening of Israel, not the reprobation of the non-elect!

I think you need to quit trying so hard to avoid admitting what doesn't fit your view. Did I ever apply anything in that passage out of context? NO! I quoted the entire chapter, in context, to indicate the point I was making, that there are things hidden form our understanding concerning God's work, so your rant against "secret counsels" is without merit, seeing how it is clearly shown in the Word that it is so.

I know the chapter is about the hardening of Israel! I'm not that dense! But, in case it slipped your notice, if you're a Gentile (like me), then this chapter does have a lot to say about our own salvation. It does speak of election, so by inferrence, it also touches on reprobation. Maybe you should learn to read more closely!

If Calvinism cannot understand why someone is saved (as it cannot explain why God chose one and not another), then it is based on a mystery and not what is revealed. What is revealed is that God wants all men saved (as you stated) died for all men (which you stated) but all men are not being saved (which means God is not accomplishing what He reveals He wants)

Now you are either deliberately mis-stating things, or you really do not understand what I and many others have tried and tried and tried to help you understand. What is certain is that Some are saved, and others are not. That is fact. Calvinism sees clear evidence in scripture that God elected before the foundation of the world those whom He would save. Calvinism sees that election as residing in the Will and Soveriegnty of God the Father Almighty, and is not dependant on man, his actions, or his desires. Calvinism sees from scripture that man is totally depraved as a result of Adam's sin, and therefore unable to please God, and unable to seek God on his own initiative. Man is rightly and justly condemned for his sins, and deserving of the judgment for sin, which is death. There is no injustice in God's judgment, and it would be completely Righteous, Just, and wholly appropriate if God did not save a single soul but let every man, woman, and child go to judgment for their sins. In fact, God wiped out all but 8 people at the time of the Flood, and if those 8 had not been chosen by Him, ALL of mankind would have perished, and we wouldn't even be sitting here discussing this. There is a lot we do know from scripture about God's purpose and Will, Do we know everything? No! Only a fool would claim that we do.

Now here's where you are out and out lying: You said, "What is revealed is that God wants all men saved (as you stated)

Stop right there! Where did I ever state that? Those are not my words, those are yours. It is you who states that. You are the one who keeps yammering on and on about that. Now you try to turn it around and make it appear that I have agreed with you all along? Bull!

...died for all men (which you stated) but all men are not being saved (which means God is not accomplishing what He reveals He wants).

You are putting words in my mouth and attributing words to me that I have not written. Show me, with clear quotes, in context where I have said these things the way you are staing them here.

Rom 1:28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

Where in these two verses does it say that man says "no" to God? Romans 1:28 says God gave them over to a reprobate mind. John 3:36 is a simple statement of the way things are. There is no case here for man having any sort of controlling free will that can thwart God's Will (remember, it is you who says God wants all men to be saved).

Calvinism then on the one hand claims to know how God is saving men (with unconditional election) but when pressed to ask why some and not others then it holds up its collective hands and cries MYSTERY. Hey, if its such a mystery then shut up about it! Unconditional election was never an issue in the first 300 years of the Church.

It wasn't an issue because no one ever questioned it! It was the common belief of Christians before the errors of Catholicism started creeping in. You apparently don't understand the the various councils and synods of the Church were not to establish doctrine, but to refute error and codify already held correct doctrine. That some of these doctrines weren't explicitly written of or spoken about before the councils and synods doesn't mean they didn't exist, it only means they were the commonly held belief until heresies and errors arose which required that correct doctrine be clearly codified in order to be able to clearly refute the heresy. The Canons of Dort were just such a statement. They clearly refute Arminianism. Sorry about your luck!

When you stop yammering on about "secret counsels", then it won't be a topic of conversation, now will it?? I'm not the one bringing it up, YOU ARE!!!! So shut up about it, youself!

I think you and I have finished our discussions, don't you?

This is you well-known exit tactic, and we've seen it plenty of times before. When pressed, you twist words, falsely ascribe your words to others, and then declare the discussion over and yourself the winner. Bull**it, Ed!

Funny, I deal with most of what you say, point by point, but you rarely deal with what I say, point by point... could it be because you CAN'T?????

I would advise you to read Calvins statement from his 3rd Book on the subject, since you do not know what Calvin himself admits regarding Calvinism.

And just exactly why would I take the word of an Arminian, one who hates Calvin with an intense hatred, as the final word on the subject?? I have read Calvin, and you apparently have only skimmed, it, looking for things you could quote out of context to villify the man. My primary source is scripture. Sola Scriptura. I read the works of others, but they are all held up against scripture. I have areas where i don't think Calvin was quite right. I have said so before, and shown you before. Your response? You DEFENDED Calvin against me! LOL!!! An Arminian defending Calvin...that's rich! I think the biggest reason you did so, was just to be contrary to me. I can count on one hand (with fingers left over) the number of things you have agreed with me on.

You have a closed mind. It is evidenced by your unremitting refusal to entertain the idea that you could be wrong about Arminius, and your rabid KJV-only-ism. The KJV only thing I don't really care about. It's a juvenile attitude, and one I hope someday you grow out of. But the Arminianism is something I pray sincerely that you wake up and see the distortion of scripture and truth that it entails.

The more I dig into Arminius and Wesley, the more shocked I am at some of the unscriptural attitudes they professed. Some of the modern-day Arminians have taken Wesley and the Remonstrants to their logical conclusion: Open Theism and the like. I am surprised that a Baptist would be associated with such teachings. Most of the Baptists I've associated with are Calvinists. The Methodist Church I grew up in makes me sick, with their Social Gospel, acceptance of unscriptural things, and their totally ineffective witness. I have a cousin-in-law who is a Methodist minister, and he is in total favor of abortion on demand, thinks communism is a good system of government, doesn't see anything wrong with gays getting married or being in clergy, and is about as Leftist as they come regarding terrorism, war, and civil rights. So, you must understand that I have had plenty of exposure to Arminianism and Wesleyism, and I've seen what it leads to, so I reject it out of hand as being unscriptural. It produces nothing but bad, rotten fruit.

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.