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.

I must admit, the tone of your reply, its sarchasm and seeming lack of genuine charity, doesn't really fit a discussion about the amazing grace of God.

Are you kidding me? With what your gang tries to pull, attacking every NonCalvinist as a Peligian or worse? Pathetic!

At least a couple times you inserted answers showing you hadn't read far enough to comprehend the point--so anxious were you to try to refute it.

I understood enough to know what you were saying. But then again the Calvinist retort is that no one understands us!

But perhaps I wasn't clear enough--I'll try to answer you. I'm certainly not a Bible scholar, and this is not a seminary level discussion by any means, but I do see some real misunderstandings.

Do tell!

Calvinism swept West in Europe. Correction, Chrisitanity swept western Europe. If you'd read the sentence below, you'd realize I was speaking of the movement of Calvinism after Calvin's death in the 1560s--not the innitial evangelization of Europe in the 500s+.

Well, I believe there were some non-Calvinists around that period also.Calvinists love to try to make it sound like they are Christianity.

Within 100 years of Calvin's death the most dedicated Calvinists were the Puritans of England--many of whom came to America. The ideas which fed the American Revolution and formed our constitutional government were largely of Calvinist background. So, the Calvinist would have you believe. The Purtians also drove out of their area those who would not agree with them, thats how Rhode Island got started. Jame's Madison, main writer of the Constitution, was from a Presbyterian background, attending Princeton. Many of the Founding Fathers had similar Calvinistical backgrounds. You will find many secular historians who agree Calvinism had a central role in the founding of the USA. The very form of representational government--republican democracy--a kind of leadership by "elders" (or presbyters, to use a biblical term) was originally formed for Church government, using the Bible as the guide, by John Calvin. Maybe even your own church fellowship uses elected elders or deacons to lead the church. I hate to break it to you by this is a Calvinistic idea.

I hate to break it to you but the idea of individual rights came from Locke, who got it from the Bible. The idea of the Bible being used as a guide for any gov't is counter to what this country was built on. That is postmillinial nonsense, and results in executions, inprisonments and exile, the very thing that the 'godly' Calvinists are well known for. Despite their formation of governments, which in structure are fine, as long as you are a Calvinist

The Puritans were intolerant--but not especially so for persons of the 17th Century. Keep in mind they banned people for their beliefs, while non-puritans in Europe were executing persons by the score for the same kind of offenses.

Here comes the excuse,' well, you have to remember the times'. The times had nothing to do with it, since there were Christians who advocated tolaration (like the Baptists) and were persecuted for their efforts.

Princeton and all the Ivy League did indeed go reprobate, however Calvinist ideas also were the ground in which the Baptist denominations were originally born in England. Most Baptists, indeed most evangelicals hold to at least 3 or 4 of the ACTUAL (not misstated) TULIP points. Total Depravity (I too have never been taught it termed "total inability") Unconditional election (we do nothing to earn our salvation), and Perseverance of the saints (meaning God preserves us--the meaning I've always been taught, not that we in our "strength" persevere--God preserves so we do indeed persevere, by His mercy alone) and even a form of Irresistible grace (no less an Arminian than C.S. Lewis taught this--from his own salvation experience). I'm not claiming that Baptists are "true" Calvinists, however I would claim most evangelicals who look the the Bible as their sole authority do incorporate many Calvinistic ideas--which have their root in the re-discovery of the Bible in the Reformation period.

Well Orthodox Presbyterian stated that all real Baptists were Calvinists! You had better check with him on that!See how well I did understand you! No, just because we held to Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that we held to 'Calvinistic' doctrines, as least not when it came to the nonsense known as TULIP.

That's one reason the bitterness of the debate is so untoward--on several points the position is close if not identical. For example, the arguement in the posting perporting to "refute" Perseverance of the saints, then goes on to SUPPORT "once saved always saved" theology, which is exactly the main point of the Perseverance doctrine. The man plays a semantic game--demolishing a straw man. Clearly he believes as John Calvin did, that the truly regenerate will not, by the grace of God, fall away.

That is very funny, since no Calvinist yet has stated that he knows that if he died today he would go to heaven! Now, that is what eternal security is about!

And what is your view on Limited Atonement? Can I have the quote from CS Lewis or am I just suppose to believe you? This is what goes under the heading of Calvinistic discussion, just throw our anything and it is suppose to be accepted as 'gospel' It's laughable that the author of the article uses the same language formulation as classic Calvinists use explaining Limited Atonement when attempting to refute Limited Atonement, namely "Sufficient for all but efficient" only for believers (the elect). Why is that so laughable if that is a true definition. The problem with Limited Atonement is that 1Jn2:2 and Heb.2:9 (to name just two off the top of my head) refute it! Only the philosophical view that no one who God died for could be lost makes Limited Atonment part of the TULIP system.It has no Scriptural support. But then again, that doesn't stop a Calvinist anyway. What was laughable, was he uses the same words Calvinists always have to describe the '"Sufficient for all but efficient" only for believers' nature of the attonement. His position is defined by the VERY SAME words, meaning the SAME THING as Calvinists take them to mean... I mean simple logic says that in eternity, you and any Arminian will have to admit, that Christ's blood is only EFFECTIVE for those in heaven. Those in hell will be punished not only for their failure to believe in Christ, but for all the other sins they have done too.

They will be Hell because they rejected the free gift (Rom.6:23) by not believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Jn.16:9) which they could have if they wanted to (Jn.3:19-21)

The universalist sounding verses used in those "same tired arguments" by Arminians are easily understood when one is educated to the RADICAL idea in New Testament times that God was actually interested in saving people all over the world, not merely of the "chosen people" the Jews.

Now, what are you talking about? In the Old Testament times the Jews were the means by which God was known to the world (remember the Queen of Sheba?, Jonah?) Moreover that will happen again in the Millennial rule of Christ when Israel is again the major country of the world with Jerusalam its captial (Zech 8:22)

Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalam, and to pray before the Lord

What is really laughable is your defense of TULIP. Who cares who believes in it or not, the only question for a Christian is what saith the Scriptures? Its always been amazing to me that Arminians point to a few verses--disregarding the context--to call their views "scriptural," while when Calvinists can point to whole chapters (Romans 9-11) the Arminians simply attempt to CUT OUT those chapters from the Bible.

I am not cutting out those chapters I am reading what they say. And what does flesh mean to you in Rom.9:2,5?

While I think the arguments of Romans flow perfectly smoothly without trying to narrowly parentasize (read CUT OUT) chapters 9 to 11,

For one thing, a parenthesis is not cutting out something, it is a digression by the author. You must not do much reading.

EVEN IF YOU DO say they only apply to Israel, the point still holds--God has and does unconditionally elect people. Who ever said grace was fair?

God unconditionally elected Israel as a nation to perform a certain task. That is far different then stating that individuals are going to be sent to hell, despite the fact that God could save them if He wanted to, He just does not want to! God gave Israel to the world as a blessing for through her, the prophets, the scriptures and the Messiah came.

You know what I noticed in your post, the same tired Calvinist arguments, No one really understands our view, Calvinism is Christanity, and no scriptures! I'm not a bible scholar and really don't have the time to look up the relevant scriptures. I doubt anything would change your mind anyway. :)

Now how about that? After talking about Sola Scriptura you do not know the Scriptures? Do you know the other tenet of the Reformation? Every believer a Priest and having direct access to the Lord through the Scriptures, thus the emphasis on getting Bibles into peoples own language.

I actually think its a sin to bitterly argue these points, especially when the argument is so poor as the posting article. Get over it! This really doesn't reflect a mature Christ-like attitude.

It reflects the reality of the attitude of the Calvinists on these threads, who think they can call into question peoples salvation or spiritual state on the basis of how they accept TULIP. Since I have started putting up these posts all I have heard is Calvinists whine and complain, just like I thought they would!

These are mysterious issues... no one's will is violated by the grace of God and yet, as with Israel in the Old Testament, God is calling an elect people of His own, for His own reasons... Oh,yea, first talk about the few who God is choosing and rejecting the rest and then talk about how no one's will is being violated. Typical Calvinist doubletalk. Its "doubletalk" to stand in awe that God would choose to save people at all? God rejects no one--we all rejected Him, and yet He chose to DIE in my place!

So, what makes you so special and not most of the world which is going to hell. I infer from you statement (which you never did answer) that you do believe in Limited Atonement. (Calvinists never answer questions, but they love demanding answers)

I never really understood the appeal of trying to "parenthesize" Romans 9-11, as then it just makes God acting Calvinistically toward Israel... when I always thought God was consistent. The reason you do so is because the Scriptures demand it. When it speaks of those of Pauls and Christ flesh it is speaking of racial Jews. Israel is unconditionally elected, individuals are not. To say "scriptures demand it." doesn't self evidently prove that. That's a non-argument.

I made the argument by appealing to the Scriptures, but you were to lazy to look them up. Check out Rom.9:2,5 and see Paul referring to himself and Christ as relating to the kinsmen of the flesh, this is not 'spriritual Israel (Gal.3:29) but Physical Israel that Paul is discussing in chapters 9-11, no matter how you feel about it

As I said above, EVEN IF the point was granted (and certainly not a natural way to read Romans) STILL, as you admit here, God unconditionally elected a nation (through the individuals Jacob and Esau, I might add).

He elected Israel through Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Both Esau and Jacob thus represent their respective nations and the future of both (for the future of Edom see Obadiah)

To try to distinguish between Israel, and individuals is silly--since the very text deals with both the individuals, and the nations that came from them. Paul's arguement is very clear: Its fully just and right for God as Creator to elect some to love and not to elect others. I think his Holy Spirit inspired response to objections (such as yours) to such are outstanding:

Individual salvation is not the same as calling out people or nations for particular tasks. I know that is deep but try to mediate on it for a while.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:19-21

I find it amazing that you guys never seem to get around to quoting the rest of the passage,

What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering (2Pet.3:9!) the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.(Rom.9:23)

Moreover, if you care to note, you will see that every reference in the three chapters is an Old Testament reference.

Back to the original point though, to blame the apostasy of Europe, American universities and Presbyterianism on Calvinism is like blaming wars on Christianity.

There was a point to all of this?

No one blamed the apostasy on Calvinism, the point what that it is Calvinists who point out Arminians as the cause of apostasy and apostasy is just as rampant in their churches as Arminian ones. Actually the thing I innitially responded to was indeed claiming deadness--ie apostasy--was a result of Calvinism. Just as it is the LACK of Christian virtues which makes "Christian" Europe's history so full of bloodshed, so too it is a LACK of clear honest Biblical thinking--which is called Calvinism--which led and leads to apostasy. You'd be hard put to claim that the Methodists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics and other historically more Pelagian (read Arminian) denominations are less fallen than Presbyterian and Reformed churches. No, and you would be hard pressed to say that the Calvinist churches were any less fallen. ??? I think it helps to distinquish historically Calvinist denominations (Presbyterian & Reformed) from actual Calvinists.

Oh, brother!

I have yet to meet a theologically liberal Calvinist. Persons who reject the authority of scripture (which liberals do) also throw out scripturally based doctrines--especially those repellent to the modern egalitarian mindset.

This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Calvin had Servetus burned at the stake to show Rome how orthodox he was!

I would further argue that Arminian views were the ground from which Schliermacher and others raised up theological liberalism.

Well, you can argue all you want, do you have any facts?

When it becomes all about me...and my freedom--not about God and His freely given grace, one easily slips into wanting to block out certain objectionable parts of scripture.

It is not about 'freedom' it is about God's essence and what He said about His desire to save all men! (1Tim2:4,4:10,Jn.3:16,2Pet.3:9, Ezk,33:11-well, you get the point)

Another fact to be reckoned with: The modern missionary movement is FULL of evangelical Presbyterian types. Groups such as Wycliffe Bible Translators (the largest independent protestant mission organization in the world), Campus Crusade, Navigators, and Inter-Varsity also have undue numbers of evangelical Calvinistical types... so the claim that Calvinism stifles the preaching of the Gospel just doesn't hold water. Consider also how few Calvinists in America there are, How few? I thought you said that most Baptists (Evangicals) adhere to Calvinism!And the statement that you can accept three points and be a Calvinist is nonsense. Even 4pointers are attacked on these sites as being 'fake' Calvinists, as was L.S.Chafer To be consistantly Calvinist one should accept the 5 points--as supported (but not argued by me here) by scripture. An interesting thing is though, show me ANY modern group of Christians who believes ALL the 5 points of the Remonstrants? If not, then they are "partially" Calvinist. Are you partially Calvinist? :D

Not according to Calvinists I'm not! I am a Peligian,(which you yourself used) semi-Catholic immerser! So much for you Christian charity

and their numbers in those para-church organizations are even more notable. I would say that Arminian type evanglists could easily hold their own with the Calvinists, Wesley, Finney, Billy Sunday, Cartwright, Sam Jones to name a few. I've read Finney on the Atonement and sadly clearly the man was in no sense a biblical Christian.

According to you? Well, let me cross him off my list of soul savers!

He's still a famous evangelist, but underneath, his gospel was hollow, as he denied very basic biblical truths. Finney was a true Palagian,

There we go! That is Calvinism at its finest. Now, tell me how uncharitable I have been!

and honestly, having read him, I don't think can be named a brother in Christ.

I could say the same thing about CS Lewis, by the way did you find the quote about him accepting 'irresistable grace'

I know little of Billy Sunday except he was known as a great showman, of Cartwright or Jones I know nothing.

That is a pity, since all were responsible (through the power of the Holy Spirit) for saving hundreds of thousands. I also forgot the great Moody!

Now, let us get down to brass tacks. On this website it is not the Arminians who are accusing the Calvinists as being 'nonregenerate' because they reject Arminianism. It is the Calvinists who want to make the 'five points' a test of ones Christianity. I suppose thats possible, but I have yet to hear a Calvinist say a non-Calvinist must not be a Christian.

You just did with your comment on Finney! As for these cites you go back and check out some of the exchanges I have had with CCWoody, OrthodoxPresbyteran, the Doc, Jerry M to name a few. If I was a Christian (and they might grant that to me) I was carnal since I was refusing to accept that great Biblical truth known as TULIP.

They will say they are wrong and unbiblical, but real faith in Christ, dependent fully on his grace is what makes one a Christian or not. Calvinists primary concern is to make known the full extant of that dependence on God. Not 99% God's work, and 1 % my wise and good choice...

The Calvinists I have experienced on this site have only one goal to make everyone accept their rotten lie known as TULIP. If you do not, then you labeled in various ways (they do love making up theological terms, I guess it makes them feel smart or something)

So we will see just how Scriptural those points are. Do you know not one Calvinist has attempted to even defend TULIP by explaining it!. Everyone whined and moaned about how 'unfair' the article was, the author doesn't understand us, blah, blah, blah. There's an easy explanation for this--in that most of us have jobs and simply don't have the time to write an elaborate apologetic for TULIP. TULIP, after all was merely the Calvinist RESPONSE in the Cannons of Dort to the 5 Remonstrants points. Calvinism, as I tried to point out above in matters of church governance, is a lot bigger than 5 points developed long after Calvin's death.

Calvinism is wrong on TULIP and it is wrong on infant Baptism and it is wrong on its prophecy (most are Covenant, not dispensational)

You don't like it, put up a TULIP article explaining it and get used to the fact that you will be seeing more posts, which will reveal how nonScriptural Calvinism is. Several Calvinists in this thread have pointed out what a straw man the innitial post's argument is... Even where the authors view agree with Calvinist doctrine, he finds little semantic points to try and dispute so he can say he doesn't agree... Seems kinda petty in his hatred of Calvinists if you ask me.

Well, that is the typical Calvinistic response to anything, ignore it and hope it will go away. I will be posting a lot more articles, and have already done so by Arminius and others. No doubt they will all be straw men, because no can explain Calvinism, it seems even Calvinist's themselves can't!

Finally, I have gotten mail from Calvinists that they supported me since they (even though they agreed with the gang noted above in most areas) found themselves the subject of abuse and riducle if they didn't agree with every point that those bunch of Pharisees had concluded was real Calvinism.

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.