T.U.L..I.P. 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

T - Total Inability; U - Unconditional Election; L - Limited Atonement; I - Irresistible (efficacious) Grace; and P - Perseverance of the Saints." These are the five points of Calvinism.

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,

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." 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),

"You will not come to me, that you might have life." 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.

Jesus looked over Jerusalem and wept and said, "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.

Rev. 22:17, the last invitation in the Bible says, "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, "No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him. . ." But the Bible makes it plain in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men unto Himself, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth will draw ALL men unto me."

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.

Under the same point, Unconditional Election, Mr. Lockman quotes John 15:16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." 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,

"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that wins souls is wise." 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

"not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. "I Tim. 2:4 says, "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.

For instance, the Bible says in I John 2:2, "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, "The man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all. . . ." The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Savior of the world. Jn 4:42 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."

Again, I John 4:14, "and we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." The Scriptures make it plain that Jesus came to save the world. John 3:17 says, "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."

The Bible teaches that Christ bore the sins of all people. Is. 53:6 says, "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 -

"All we like sheep have gone astray." And the second "ALL" speaks of universal atonement - "and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." 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. . . ."

Romans 8:32 states, "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?"

Look at the statements - statement after statement: "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.

Again I quote John 3:36, "He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life. . . ." 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.

The atonement is not limited. It is as universal as sin. Romans 5:20 says, "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Isaiah 53:6 states, "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.

Again Proverbs 1:24-26 says, "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, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." 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.

God offers salvation to all men. Titus 1:11 says, "For the grace of God that brings salvation hath appeared to all men." 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." When Jesus wept over Jerusalem, he said, "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.

The Bible states in Jude 1, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ. . . ."

First Thessalonians 5:23 says, "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."

The Bible says in John 10:27-29: "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.

Charles Spurgeon once said, "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.

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, (3) Calvinism." He continues, "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,

"That whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as John Calvin taught it. 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.

Doc, you always write so much that you wear a guy out. I'll take these one at a time so as to be fair with you. Actually, I prefer posts (even my own) that limit to one topic and one question at a time. Much easier to follow. That's a criticism of myself as much as of everyone else.

My position fits Acts 13:48. Yours doesn't. My position fits 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5. Yours doesn't.

Acts 13 48When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

1 Thessalonians 1 4For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake.

You must not understand what I'm saying, Doc, because my position fits the Acts and 1Th passages just fine. God has chosen and appointed would be entirely appropriate words to use to designate those God elected from the foundation of the world.

Besides, if election is based on foreknowledge in the way you have suggested, then why in the world do we have more than forty glorious references in the New Testament to the idea of being elected? My point is that the apostles where excited to pronounce people as chosen. (And they talked about election a lot. Election is manifestly tied to their understanding of what God's grace is! To say that God just ratifies a wise fellow's choice cheapens the grace of God.) What I am really saying is that it doesn't make any sense for the apostles to be saying over and over ISN'T IT WONDERFUL THAT GOD KNEW IN ADVANCE THAT YOU WOULD BELIEVE? ISN'T IT WONDERFUL THAT GOD KNEW IN ADVANCE THAT YOU WOULD BELIEVE? ISN'T IT WONDERFUL THAT GOD KNEW IN ADVANCE THAT YOU WOULD BELIEVE? ISN'T IT WONDERFUL THAT GOD KNEW IN ADVANCE THAT YOU WOULD BELIEVE? and repeating that about forty more times in the New Testament!

They would be excited about believers demonstrating themselves to be part of the elect whether your position or mine. There is no difference. I get excited when someone gets saved. Don't you?

Pardon me, but the only reason why people will believe your position concerning the nature of God's foreknowledge is because they need to repent. Your position only makes superficial sense.

I don't understand your logic here. Can you go into it?

*** Concerning the moral law written in the heart of all natural-born sinners, you have erred in assuming that it was written there by the Spirit of God. It was not. FWIW, it is not even called the Law of God. See Romans 2:15. It is merely the moral knowledge acquired in the Fall at a TREE with a SNAKE hanging from its boughs. This writing of the law on the heart is angelically mediated. It is ultimately a demonic phenomenon. (Satan knows the difference between good and evil, of course!)

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Satan would not write God's law on men's hearts....because the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. (Ro 7:12)

Regeneration, on the other hand, is mediated by the Spirit of Christ. This is why Jeremiah speaks of the New Covenant as that of the law written on the heart by God. This is different from what happened in the Fall. In fact, it is the opposite of what happened in the Fall. However, it corresponds to the Fall in the way that the Atonement corresponds in the typology to the Fall. Christ was the Serpent (the Accursed One) hanging from the Tree. In summary, the Law is written in men's hearts in two different ways. In both cases, it is written there by the spirit of a "serpent" who hung from a "tree."

Doc, this argument falls apart in your assertion above that Satan would write holiness on the hearts of men. (If Satan even had such power.) It's totally off base in that regard, but in that a new law has been written on the hearts and minds of Christians, as prophesied, we have agreement.

Remember: God called the Forbidden Tree the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Man became SATANIC in the Fall. Man acquired a foul spirit of moral apprehensions through Adam's disobedience. Until you grasp this, you will never grasp what we Calvinists are saying. The conscience is ordained by God. But it ain't God. Satan just wants the sinner to think it is. The sinner may think that he has a little piece of God in his soul, but he is just a Christ-hating idolater. This is why the lost sinner is in unfathomably serious trouble. He has no Spirit to receive the Truth. He hates the Truth. Even his mind is enmity against God. This is also why we Calvinists stir up such venomous opposition. It's because we are correct. A lot of FReepers are aware of the reality of God, and they are conservative in their morality. They wrongly assume that this amounts to regeneration. But it is no such thing.

I am saying that God has left a communication device within us -- and it is a piece USABLE by Him. Since it is God's activity, and since God speaks to the conscience, and since Christ uses it to lighten every man who comes into the world, then all unbelievers will stand guilty before God for having the opportunity to repent but refusing to do so. My methodology makes sense and it preserves God's love, God's promises, and God's righteousness, a part of which is God's fairness

Now here are two areas I'm unclear whether we are in agreement on:
1. all have sinned (you seem to think without law there is no sin)
2. following Christ is the only way to peace with God and everlasting life.

I am only responding to this, because you seem to be clear on the rest.

I did not say without the law there is no sin, only that without one knowing the law there is no moral culpability, which is exactly what Paul and Jesus specifically taught. But sin, of which one can be guilty, is intentionally choosing what one knows is wrong or contrary to the truth. Everyone has some knowledge of right and wrong, and at some point in their lives intentionally choses to act in contradiction to their own moral convictions.

This is a non-theological explanation of the same principle described in scripture as, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

My views are not Diest at all, but purely Scriptual without any Augustinian adulteration. I view the atonement as a universal amnesty purchased with the blood of Christ which allows all those who wish to throw down the arms of their rebellion and surrender to their God, to do so and be reconciled as full members of the family of God.

There is no other means of reconciliation with God accept the blood of Christ (by which I mean nothing mystical, as in the Roman Catholic church, only the death, burial, and resurrection), and nothing but total surrender is accepted.

Hank

Then, please explain to me why I should not regard your belief as Pelagain heresy?

Please explain Pelagain heresy.

As to your reading of Romans 5:12, explain to me how sin was in the world before the giving of the law. How could a righteous God condemn a man to death for a crime he didn't commit?

Romans 2:14,15
14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Oh, does this quote (found here) from ftd offend you? Is ftd even wrong?

ftd is wrong.

And while you are thinking on these things, please explain to me how a baby can go astray from birth, speaking lies if he is not born with a sin nature?

Be careful here, I never said a baby is born without sinful nature (if I did then I mistyped.) I said and meant that babies are not born with sin guilt, and are therefore spiritually alive. Sinful nature produces sin guilt which is spiritual death. Sinful nature is not the same as sin guilt and spiritual death.

Somehow, I don't think you and RnMomof7 are on the same page, even if she would wish that you were.

RnMomof7 conceives of God's foreknowledge as necessarily fixing the future. It is a planning faculty, i.e., a thing of God's determinate counsel.

As I recall, you have denied this on other threads.

The test is, What do you think of Acts 13:48? As I recall your answer from a year or so ago, it doesn't mean much of anything interesting.

A second test is, What do you think of 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5? Pardon me if am just being forgetful, but I don't remember you addressing that verse at all.

A third test is, How can you explain 1 Corinthians 2:14? The verse is obviously revealing to us that an unregenerate sinner cannot receive the Truth.

Now, that's the Truth. And it follows from this Truth that regeneration precedes conversion. That, in turn, means that my explanations of Acts 13:48 and 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 are correct.

Please think about this stuff. It's pretty important.

You misunderstood me. I'm saying that your Wesleyan-Arminian interpretation is trite, brother. That's all.

They would be excited about believers demonstrating themselves to be part of the elect whether your position or mine. There is no difference. I get excited when someone gets saved. Don't you?

Of course. But again, I say you are being trite in your interpretation. There's a lot more in the scenario than you have been willing to notice.

The apostles were not emphasizing that their readers were in the Body of Salvation by the Faith of the Son of God. There were specifically emphasizing that they were chosen to be in that Body. They were placed in that Body in that they were given the will to believe the gospel. Most people under the sound of the gospel don't receive this strangely special grace, which converts souls unto repentant faith. The elect, however, are supernaturally overwhelmed by the Purposeful, Powerful Spirit (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5).

I don't understand your logic here. Can you go into it?

Not now, brother.

***

Satan would not write God's law on men's hearts....because the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. (Ro 7:12)

All the unregenerate Gentile has as a law in the core of his being (his heart) is the basic knowledge of right and wrong. This is not the "Law of God."

In fact, Romans 2 says that the unregenerate Gentile with the knowledge of good and evil is a "law unto himself." James even says that the unregenerate sinner who has this "law" is at enmity with God and will not submit to the Law of God.

In view of what I have just pointed out, your objection has no force. (Your quotation from Romans 7 is not relevant, since I was not even talking about Satan imparting the Law of God to Adamic hearts. Romans 2 clearly says that the moral knowledge conveyed in the Fall is similar to the Law of God in many ways, but Romans 2 clearly tells us that it is not the Law of God.)

I don't think it's off-base at all, because I never said that Satan would write holiness on the hearts of men.

Besides, who do you think energizes the self-righteous (morally aware!) fools who think they can be holy without the Spirit of Christ? Satan does.

My explanation makes more sense than you have realized.

I think your last paragraph is irrelevant. I agree that there is a "communication device." It is actually one of the important channels which the Spirit of regeneration opens up to God. But the Spirit of regeneration has to work. According to 1 Corinthians 2:14, regeneration has to precede conversion. Apart from a supernatural takeoever of the nature, the will is bent away from God. The lost sinner is Satanic. He is not even reasonable. The communication device doesn't even work right unless the Spirit attends the message with Power (see 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5).

And I agree that God is fair. But it is perfectly fair to throw wicked sinners into hell without even sending them the gospel. And He does do that. So, you don't get to complain when He regenerates one pewsitter unto saving faith and leaves the other one helplessly stuck in his filthy, God-hating unbelief. And that is precisely what God the Spirit does.

"Do I not have the right to do what I will with my own?"

I know enough about sin and Satan not to continue to assume that you are a Christian. Fair enough?

Let's see, what is a Christian? A Christian is any of the following: a Roman Catholic, a Baptist, a Coptic, a Greek Orthodox, an Episcopalian, a Mormon, a Lutheran, a Methodist, a Presbytarian, a Seventh Day Adventist, a Jehovah's Witness, a Congregationalist, etc. etc.

If by Christian, you mean any of these, certainly I am not one. It was organized religion that crucified my Savior, and it is organized religion that would crucify him today, while calling itself "Christian" as though there were anything in the Bible that taught we are supposed to be "Christians". (The word Christian, in any form, only appears in the Bible three times. Not once is it ever used to indicate we are to be called by that name.) Anyone who calls himself a Christian while supporting one of these organizations, has placed himself in the company of those who are the enemies of the Cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18).

I do not know if you call yourself a Christian or not, but I do know if you have surrendered youself to God, claiming nothing but the atoning blood of Christ, you are a child of God. That's what I am. If you are, also, than you are my brother in Christ. Wouldn't that be better than being a "Christian" or "Calvinist" or "non-Calvinist" or any other thing?

Hank

YES, WE DO!!!!!! Even an act of "kindness" that is not done in Christ's name and with the goal of His glory is sinful.

Nonsense! Unbelievers can do good. Was the 'good Samaritan' saved?, How about Cornilus who was called 'devout'in Acts.10:2 before he was saved?

there is an important distinction between right action and righteousness action. As the Calvinist(emphasis mine) Donald Grey Barnhouse explains,'Total Depravity does not mean that there is no good in man, but that there is no good in man which can satisfy God.(Vance,p.211)

We can only do "good works" through God's grace. You really need to learn the Calvinist position before you set about debunking it.

You need to read some of your own theologians on the issue.

It seems to me that the only experience you have with the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination is through snakes like Vance.

No, alot of it has been through Calvinists who rant and rave like you on the internet.

From your post #172: That is true, but the Calvinist must wait to know that he has been really chosen! How are you sure that you are saved? Because you see God working in your life!! Don't you DARE say that you know you're saved because you believe in Christ and call Him "Lord".

You just proved my point! You as a Calvinist do not know you are saved? I do!

That was my point with Matt. 7:21 ("Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.") It is true that belief in Christ is what is required for salvation, but Christ makes it plain that there are people out there with false faith and they will be very surprised on the day of judgement. So you cannot be sure of your salvation because you have said, "Lord, Lord." You will be sure of your salvation because you see the fruit that you bear (which is a gift of grace)("he who does the will of My Father in heaven.")

The Christian, as far as God is concerned is already sitting in heaven with Him (Eph.2:6)

Now, if a believer knows this, he will know that it is not a matter of preservation but relationship what keeps him saved. You are correct!! But what is the result of that relationship? John 15:5 "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." If you believe you are in a relationship and you are not bearing any fruit you need some serious introspection.

If I am not bearing fruit my walk needs addressing, not my salvation.

The fifth point says that if you are saved by that relationship, you will bear the fruit of that relationship (you will persevere till the end). THAT'S IT! The best advice I can give you, if you'll take it, is to put away the theology books and see what the Word of God says about the issue. Don't just look at the verse that seem to support your position; struggle with the difficult ones. The Word of God is effective, Vance isn't.

Thats funny coming from a Calvinist. Vance is very effective in exposing the Calvinistic heresy. The Bible is 'quick and powerful'(Heb.4:12)

A Calvinist can never be sure he is a part of the elect unless he does bear fruit! Thus, you have Arminians working to stay saved and Calvinists working to prove they are saved, while those who believe in eternal security work because they are saved. How does scripture tell us to judge?Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: Matthew 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Matthew 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. Matthew 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. So it would appear thart one of the problems with Arminians is they do not inspect their fruit then HUH? Could there be a problem with false salvations because no one bothers to do fruit inspections? Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen. 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew is a book written to the Jews on the arrival of their Messiah! We derive principles from the Gospels, but our doctrines come primarly from the Pauline Epistles, for the Church age believer. Even if we 'believe not' yet he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself (2Tim.2:13), we are His bride, bone of His bones, flesh of His flesh (Eph.5:30) His very body (Eph.1:23). Fruit bearing represents our salvation to others (James.2:18). Our confidence comes from the fact we have believed in Jesus Christ as our Saviour,

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life...(1Jn.5:13)

Do men reject the Gospel no matter if it is Arminian or Calvin or Wesley? Or do they only reject the gospel if it is preached by a Calvinist?

Men reject the Gospel no matter who preaches it! The key point is that Calvinism is suppose to represent 'orthodoxy' and resulted in heresy instead. What ever happened to Princton, the school of Hodge, Warfield and Machan?

Now, lets cut to the chase. You state that you believe no one would willingly reject God. Yet, you refuse to tell me how Lucifer and Adam did so. Unless you have an answer to those two historical examples of perfect creatures who rejected God from their own will, your protestations are empty sounds. Did God know that Lucifer and Adam would sin before they were created?

Yes, he did, and He gave them free will anyway. So, since it is your contention that no one would reject God willingly how do you explain Lucifier (along with 1/3 of the Angels) and Adam and Eve. Do not ask anymore questions on the issue, you are avoiding answering the question-explain the two historical cases that you say should be impossible, both had free will, both were perfect, God knew that both would use that free will He gave them to sin. Do not give me any nonsense about their envirnoment or genetic make up (Doc's determinism), both were perfect, and had a will which was the Uncause cause of their actions.

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.