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.

First of all FtD you have changed the topic..it was your contention that Calvinism caused people to give up their faith and become apostate.

No, it was my contention that that it was the Calvinists who wanted to point to the Arminian churches and use Arminian doctrine as the cause of their failure.

When I pointed out that is the work of Satan you said OH well it happened to Arminian 's too. And well it did..we have no dispute that Satan will seek to destroy that which is of God.

Tell that to your Calvinistic brethren, who make Calvinism a test of being a Christian-like Doc for example!

The reason he is Satan is because he has no fear of God. Unfortunately neither does most of the " professing" church. Calvinists do know that .When man sits on the throne,and thinks he is in control he makes God the tooth fairy, just hanging out to pass out the goodies.

Well, I will be posting Armininus views on depravity and you will see that he nor Wesley ever put 'man on the throne'. What they reject (as do I) is making God arbitrary when it is clearly stated in Scripture that God wants man to be saved not condemned. Only the most gut wrenching of Scripture could deny that fact (2Pet.3:16)

That is a heresy that pervades the "easy grace" and "name it claim it churches"...that is not a Calvinist problem!

Easy! well now! isn't that exactly the word that Woody used in his article? Did not he say 'how easy salvation was? Ofcourse, that is what he actually wrote not what he really meant, but then again he wanted to sound spiritual and you can't sound spiritual when you are cosigning most of the world to hell because...God feels like it! (but oh....he saved ME) Isn't GRACE WONDERFUL, that God would let most of the billions of people go to the lake of Fire but at least he saved ME.ME,ME, talk about man being on a throne!

Read Jonah and see what God feels about His creation. Jonah was a good Calvinist, waiting for the people to be destroyed(you get them God, you show them who is Sovereign!) And all the people had to do was REPENT, now how about that!

I spent many years in an AOG church FtD, it was an "easy grace " church..It was name it claim it..The Pastor would stand up every so often and ask if anyone wanted to ask Christ into their heart..just raise your hand...that's it all done ,all saved..If you are poor God must not love you...just ask

I have been there FtD..

You may not believe it is a problem in the church (even the one I attend now) but it is.

Read Jonah and see what God feels about His creation. Jonah was a good Calvinist, waiting for the people to be destroyed(you get them God, you show them who is Sovereign!) And all the people had to do was REPENT, now how about that!

Interesting selection of OT events ...I think it proves that God is sovereign and His plan HIS way will be accomplished ..There is none of this thing where God keeps a back up plan if you (in your free will) refuse...God showed Jonah who was Sovereign..no back up plan needed

Have you figured out yet that Colossians is not talking about water?

Spin, spin, spin. That is what the text says. Peter spoke of water baptism, as did Jesus. Snotty condescension is no replacement for the truth.

1 Peter 3:20b-22 In it [the ark] only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[5] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Why clarify that baptism isn't simply the removal of dirt if Peter wasn't refering to water?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

"Be baptized and wash your sins away", not "congratulations, brother Paul, God picked you, your sins were forgiven, now let's baptize you because, well, umm, I am not sure why."

I can take the text at what it says, because I am trying to please the living inspirer of the text, not a dead man.

If that is what you experienced, it was a BAD church.

It was not across the board, but the "Superiority Dance" was number 457 in the hymnal. Actually, I think the Pastor fought against it but was outnumbered by the elders. We learned over our time there that there was a lot of bad blood with a daughter church and, I'm not sure if I've said this on this thread, there was a major split after we left. We were outsiders and we pushed the envelope, especially in the worship music area. Ultimately, we knew we weren't going to be a cause for change, but just pushed aside. So, we left.

So maybe they were RINOs (Reformed in Name Only) and we really haven't experienced a "good" Reformed church.

Maybe that will help you see why I see things the way I do.

You know what Ward I have seen that attitude in my Wesleyan church too.. I think it is part of the sin condition..not God's process.

Oh I know that's not exclusively Calvin. I grew up in a denomination where I actually heard a sermon preached saying that "We're the true Church of God because only the Church of God" is mentioned in the Bible.

So you see, when I got to college and found myself immersed in the Wesleyan Holiness tradition - even with all it's puritanical hangups - I felt my "heart strangely warmed," and I found home.

Why clarify that baptism isn't simply the removal of dirt if Peter wasn't refering to water?

Ummm, perhaps the Baptism that really counts has nothing to do with water. Perhaps the water is symbolic as Peter points out.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

This isn't even referring to Baptism at all. This is talking about regeneration by the Holy Spirit, which must happen before one believes. You have fallen in the same error about which Jesus chides Nicodemus.

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

Considering your other errors, I don't expect you to understand what this is saying.

2 (regeneration) and 3 (repentance unto life) are the same step.

I would say that they are different steps which are contemporaneous.

How can they be different steps if they are contemporaneous? Because #2 is the cause and #3 is the effect.

Look again at 1 Corinthians 2:14. This difference between #2 and #3 is absolutely critical to Paul's theology. There is no way around this, Ward!

The contemporaneity of steps 2 and 3 is confusing to some folks. It's like a bullet going through a board. Which happened first--the bullet going through the board or the occurrence of the hole?

Most would say that it's not at all confusing. The bullet came first, since it caused the hole. But the Arminian would say that the hole formed first--since the bullet could not have traversed the board without the hole being there!

But the Arminian is being idiotic. The bullet caused the hole. And causes logically precede effects. (Another way to say this is that causes are not mediated by effects.)

***

Notice that I said that the Arminian's analysis of the ballistics scenario is idiotic. Well, the Arminian's analysis of regeneration and conversion is just as idiotic.

The Arminian is correct in saying that the "board" (the lost sinner's soul) resists the "bullet" (the regenerating Spirit). Well, if the bullet's striving is only that of a lead slug which is tossed at the board, the resistance will certainly prevent the full work of the bullet. But it is completely silly to brag about the board wonderfully allowing the bullet to pass through the board when the bullet is fired from a rifle of Omnipotence. That is what happens when God decides to convert His elect.

See 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5.

So, the Arminian has missed the point by emphasizing that if the board had not formed a hole for the bullet's passage, the bullet could not have made it through. He has the cause and effect backwards. And this is one of the reasons why he reverses the order of regeneration and repentance unto life.

See again 1 Corinthians 1:14. There's no way around this, Ward.

Being born again enables belief. The verb indicates a past completed action which happens before belief. They do not occur at the same time.

The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.
Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI ("It is finished!") is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely "It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time." - Strongs

Thus this passage reads: Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God...

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I believe that the phrase "has been born of God" is a good translation of the Greek text.

The "has been born" construction is a past tense construction known as a present perfect. (The "past perfect" construction would be "had been born.")

This idea of the present perfect is interesting in that it can also be rendered in the way the NASB gives it--i.e., "is born." This utilizes a present-tense linking verb (a copulative) and a past participle being made to function as a predicate adjective.

Either way we translate the verse, we are considering the time relationships of issues of believing and the new birth. The verse says that as of the present (characterized by present believing), the verb action (being born of God) is complete. It doesn't actually say when the action was performed beyond saying that it is complete as of now. It doesn't say that it occurred a long time ago, and it doesn't say that it occurred recently. It doesn't say that it occurred slowly or quickly. It merely says that as of right now, it is a fait accompli.

Notice in particular that the present perfect construction does not say that the time frame of the completion of the verb is remote from the present. That being the case, I'm still prepared to use the board-and-bullet example. It perfectly fits John's statement. And it shows how regeneration and conversion can be contemporaneous even if regeneration precedes conversion.

(John's statement is merely a declaration of the cause and effect, not an elucidation of the process details. We know that the Spirit took over the sinner's soul if the sinner is a true believer. It's because unregenerate folks will not believe the gospel--which is Paul's point!)

I would say that they are different steps which are contemporaneous.

And I would say that statement is double talk. Still your insistence that 1 Corinthians 2:14 proves your point rings hollow.

But the Arminian is being idiotic.

There you go again. You know doc, I've told you about my Wesleyan heritage. I've also stated clearly that I'm no theologian. But, I went to a Wesleyan Holiness college associated with a Wesleyan Holiness seminary. There I sat under the teaching of some of Christianity's foremost Biblical scholars. If I dropped names here, many would recognize them. These are people who have devoted their lives to the cause of Christ and to the study of scriptures. Many of them risked their very lives for the cause of Christ. Dear friends of ours (now deceased) were in prison in China with Eric Liddle (Chariots of Fire). They go way back.

And you have the audacity to call their position "idiotic."

Am I to believe them, whom I have known and revered for twenty-five years?

Or do I believe you, whom I've "known" via pixels on a screen for 48 hours?

I think I know.

I'm sure you're a nice guy, doc. And I'm sure that you believe you are firmly grounded in your beliefs. But if you can't present them without hurling insults at my heritage and my beliefs, then why should I bother listening to you?

There's been a lot of proof-texting going on here, but I've seen little evidence of John 13:35.

I fully agree with you. That's one of the problems with the bullet-and-board example. It makes things sound instantaneous when there are process issues. See John 6:44.

See also Pilgrim's Progress for a typical description of what the sinner often experiences in the time frame of conversion.

Maybe I could use a real thick board in my example. (Ha!) But we still have to keep the cause and effect coupled in the way the bullet-and-board example does. (The fact is, a cause with no effect is not clearly a cause. By the same token, an effect without a cause is a contradiction in terms.)

If you will notice the point at which I introduced the word "idiotic," you will see that I did so in the hypothetical situation of an idiot who would twist the bullet-and-board scenario and say that the hole preceded the bullet!

Ward, if that's not an excellent example of an idiot who styles himself a philosopher, then God didn't make little green apples.

So, please explain your complaint more carefully. Please don't just fly off the handle at me. Please show me a little Christian charity when I am trying to help you.

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.