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.

Hmm...what wilted your flower this morning? You are showing you bent for arguing.

I never said Scripture was unknowable. I said; "...I'm careful to not make absolute declarative statements which attempt to limit the abilities or attributes of the One Who is limitless, unless with absolute certaintly, He has made such clear declarations Himself", and "I simply accept His Word as final; not my mortal intellectual reasoning, for we cannot ever fully comprehend the Omnipotent One". Again, you are twisting my words for the sake of your desire to be argumentative and divisive (Pro.6:19).

'Rodney Kingish'? "With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace..."(Eph 4:2-3). I suppose you would say that Jesus (John 13:35) was also 'Rodney Kingish' regarding conduct within the body? You should take your Rodney king complaint to Him, not me.

You obviously have personal issues.

I leave you to stew in your anger and to debate with yourself, for no further replies to you will be forthcoming

Not to be be seen as an apology, but the_doc is passionate in his faith and passionate in his profession as a physician. I have seen this over the last couple of years, and especially appreciate it after spending some "face time" with him this past weekend. He really is a good guy. One of the facets of his person is the fact that he has very good discernment, and is both blessed/cursed with the gift of prophecy. Please don't write him off, just yet (Right, "Mom"?)

In fact, he becomes an acquired taste, even for those who don't agree with him.
That said, I also like you guys, and see in your contributions something that is often lacking in some of our other non-Calvinist correspondents. That is your desire to listen, ask intelligent questions, and participate without presupposition. Thanks.
Even though I am "up to my eyeballs" right now, I desire to continue our conversation. I will also BUMP the_doc and Woody as well, since they both have an uncanny knack of cutting through the confusion at times and giving these discussions some clarity.

You are right Jerry *grin*

When I fist met doc he kept tell me about those "lovey dovey Wesleyans "*grin** But I have come to know doc's heart. it is indeed passionate for God and His word..sometimes I just sit here and smile at his direct approach and wish I could do that..but that is his gift not mine..

I am enjoying the discussion here too....like Jerry I would like to continue...

Not a substantial argument, brother. In fact, it's ad hominem. That's generally a sign that one has no substantial bullets left and has reverted to throwing rocks.

No, I was being sharply critical of your interpretation. I even went on to show you what was trite in your interpretation. This offended you. You decided to regard it as a personal attack when it most certainly was not.

This tendency to write off my arguments as ad hominem attacks just because they are critical is what has been keeping you from addressing my arguments.

(I run into this all the time on FR. Please don't get your feelings hurt. Our feelings can make fools out of us, of course.)

You did say that Satan put a "holy law" inside men's hearts. Now, it's possible that you wrote poorly what you were trying to say, but that "satan the law-scriber" is a fair reading of your post. I guess you've retracted that.

No, I did not say Satan put a "'holy law' inside men's hearts," so I don't know that I can retract anything for you. In fact, I believe that I was pretty clear (all of my communications foibles aside). What I said was

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.

I am very much interested in why it is that you misread my statements as saying that Satan put a "holy law in men's hearts." Actually, I think I know the answer. It think it's because of the presupposition which you bring to the discussion--which happens to the very presupposition which I am trying to get you to abandon.

In other words, I think that you are just reading your own view of the conscience into what I said--even as I am urging you to quit doing that. I think that you are still presupposing that man's inborn moral awareness is somehow a wonderfully holy thing, whereas that is the very point which I am challenging.

I'm saying that the existence of a conscience does not mean as much as people assume it does. The conscience is an artifact of the Fall, a thing of man's defilement, of man's spiritual death in sin.

The funny thing is, people assume that conviction of sin is always "God speaking inside their souls." This is one reason why they tend to equate sin-conviction with repentance unto life. But according to Acts 2:37-38, these are different things!

The conscience is man's self-evaluative faculty by which he certainly should notice his defilement as one who has not met God's standards. The self-evaluative faculty is a rational thing, and this rationality and self-awareness are part of what it means to be made in the image of God. But it is not necessarily correct to say that God is in the conscience.

If God is in the conscience, then, everyone who has a conscience has the Life of God in his soul. Everyone who experiences conviction of sin is saved.

Arminian preachers have learned to insinuate that convicted sinners are surely born again, because this gets them a lot of "converts." But they need to be a lot more careful. A lot of their converts are just wood, hay, and stubble. The sloppy minister's God-dishonoring works are going to be burned in hell.

Since you are minister, I urge you to think soberly about what I am saying.

Trite....certainly. You are wise and I am not. You know the bible and I don't. You have logic and I'm destitute of reason. You have concern for salvation and I'm reprobate. You hear from God and I hear only the ramblings of my insufficient mind.

I have asserted that your doctrine is based on trite interpretations of Scripture, but what else can I do? I think my complaint against your position is correct. The fact that you won't even entertain these complaints amounts to an impasse a la 1 Corinthians 3.

For the sake of the argument, I will say that I might be wrong. But you need to consider the possibility that your doctrine is just as trite as I am saying it is.

At the bottom line, I am urging you to be more careful as a minister. Unfortunately, you are just offering the standard response which we Calvinists elicit by our warnings. You just don't want to hear our warnings.

Arminians think that they are wiser, that they know the Bible better, that they have more godly logic, that they have more concern for the lost.

Well, I think the whole thing is a Satanic shell game. And I specifically think Arminianism is just the Lie of Eden. In my opinion, it is the nastiest deception in the universe.

The Fall was worse than Adamic sinners realize. A lot of professing Christians are just stuck in the Fall, and they are calling it their gospel. They are actually unbelievers. They just don't fully believe that they are on their way to hell. They have never savingly embraced the good news of the Atonement. They are just refusing to believe the bad news of the Fall. That looks like salvation, but it's no such thing.

Please read Romans 5:12-20. Death came through Adam. We inherited it.

Specifically it says we all die because we all sin, but there is nothing about inheritance in those verses.

I agree that sin entered into the world through Eve, and then Adam, and that all men since have sinned. I also agree that death in this world is the indirect result of Adam's sin and the direct result of God's curse on the world. Death is general and pertains to all living things. If you are going to assume the man's death is a result of the nature they inherit from Adam, because of his sin, you must come to the stange conclusion that the animals also are Adams descendents, because they also die. Actually, what we inherit is life, but because we are part of the cursed world (here the word 'depraved' may be used correctly, meaning corrupted from its original physical nature). Everything in the world grows old and dies, including the world itself.

Rom 8:21-23 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Psalms 102:25&26 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed.

Romans 5 is not a good choice if you want to defend Calvinism, however, especially with me. Please see my post #234.

By the way, I do appreciate your arguments and comments, and the reasonable way you present them. It is nice to find those we can disagree with without being disagreeable.

Thanks! Hank

Hard words Doc..but it leaves me with a comment for my fellow Wesleyan .

X , My Pastor took a couple of Wed. nights to teach " evangelization". At one point he talked about having them admit they are sinners and than say " the prayer". I was very disturbed by that ..so I raised my hand and asked about repentance. I asked how can a man be born again unless he repents? As repentance is different than acknowledging that you are a sinner or even a confession of sin. I asked how that man could be saved unless he was truly repentant?.The answer I got back left me even more troubled..He said let God take care of that "after" he is saved.

That position is clearly out of scriptural order .

As a Wesleyan Pastor how do you see it?

Doc, to the general tenor of what you've written. A paraphrase, "Most who think they're Christians aren't really." My sense is that you think they aren't christians because they are not calvinists. You will allow that some non-calvinists are actually Christians.

Additionally, I guess that you aren't accustomed to having your positions challenged, your analyses disputed. As an officer in the Army, I had the same experience within the group of troops I supervised. There was a deference to me because of a rank difference. It is a heady thing.

I do think trite is a condescending, ridiculing word. Your own sense of the language tells you the same....bygones be bygones.

I have given my life to Christ. From the moment I was saved through the day I was called to preach the gospel through years of seminary, pastoring, ministering to American soldiers around the world to include on battlefields where many died, on to this pastorate I now hold in retirement I have testified to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ who is MY Lord forever, His name be praised.

I have placed my case with Him. His Spirit testifies with my spirit that I am a child of God. No one will snatch me out of His hand. Neither tribulation, nor distress, nor famine....nor anything in all creation.

The conscience is an artifact of the Fall, a thing of man's defilement, of man's spiritual death in sin.

Try replacing the word "conscience" with the phrase, "artifact of the Fall, a thing of man's defilement, of man's spiritual death in sin," in the following verses.

Ac 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
Ac 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.
Ro 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.
2Co 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.
1Ti 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck.
1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

I actually agree with some of what you said about the conscience. It is only an instrument, like the emotions, and even the mind, which can be good or bad, which Scripture plainly teaches. But as an instrument, like the mind, and all other faculties, they were given by God, and God does not give bad gifts.

By the way, the words "convict" and "conviction" do not appear in the King James version. (They may appear in some other version which are more liberal in their use interpretation rather than translation, e.g. the translation of the word sarx (flesh) as "sinful nature." I haven't head any Calvinist's object to this mistranslation, however.)

Conviction is derived from the same root as convince, and to be convicted only means to be convinced of some idea as true. It would be correct to say as James relates, the devils are under conviction there is one God.

The idea of conviction, or conviction of sin, is a rather recent theological or evangelical concept. The work of the Holy Spirit is always expressed as revealing the truth of Jesus Christ. (I know that truth will also convince one of their own sinfulness and unworthiness, as a result, not the purpose of the revelation.) I do not know when this view originated and if you have any incite into that I would be interested.

Hank

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.