Calvinism--TULIP

[No Deceit]

Calvinism & Arminianism,
Neither Are In The Truth
July 2001

Calvinism is named after the French man John Calvin (1509-1564), and Arminianism is named after the Dutch man James (or Jacob) Arminius (1560-1609). There may be varying forms of Calvinism and Arminianism, and the differences between these two camps can become quite involved, depending on the advocates, but there are basically five points in which these systems of thought do not agree. Following the common Calvinistic acrostic "TULIP," the first point of contention is:


I. Total Depravity (or Free Will)
Calvinists contend,


. . . that man's natural state is a state of total depravity and therefore, there [is] a total inability on the part of man to gain, or contribute to, his own salvation. (The Five Points Of Calvinism, by W. J. Seaton, second printing, 1972, The Banner Of Truth Trust)


The classic Arminian position on this would concur with this statement (e.g. The Works of James Arminius, Vol. II, p. 192, VII), but would add that God, through his prevenient grace, has also given man the free will to choose to turn to God. Dr. Chris Jakway argues this from an Arminian perspective on the tape, Scriptural Response To Calvinism.


In book two, three five [of the Institutes of the Christian Religion], Calvin says, "Yet, so depraved in his nature that he can be moved or impelled only to evil." So Calvin says we can only do evil. Again, making it very clear, God has not enabled us with the free will to accept or reject him.


Contemporary Calvinists say the same thing often times. Dewayne Spencer in a book called TULIP makes this statement. "Point one, the Arminian says that man's will is free to choose either the word of God or the word of Satan. The Calvinist's response: that unregenerate man is in absolute bondage to Satan" (as if we don't believe that, as if we don't believe sinful by nature) "and wholly incapable of exercising free will to trust in Christ."

So the first thing we need to see from Scripture is that God has indeed enabled us, through this prevenient grace, to have free will. (side 1, from Evangelical Outreach, Box 265, Washington, PA 15301; www.evangelicaloutreach.org)


The Calvinist's idea of total depravity excludes the idea of God giving men the free will to accept or reject Him. The Arminian's idea of total depravity includes this free will choice and ability, understanding that it exists only by the grace of God. Now, what does the Lord say?


The Word teaches that it is indeed true that man, in his lost state, is totally depraved. That is, that he is dead in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-3), does evil continually (Genesis 6:5, "only"; Psalm 53:1-3; Romans 3:10-18), and is unable to do good on his own, especially any good that would lead to his salvation (Psalm 58:3; Jeremiah 13:23; Isaiah 64:5:b; Romans 11:36). But, when someone is saved, this lost state is broken, and they have the freedom to live in righteousness, by the power of God (Romans 6:2, 7, 14, 17-18, 20, 22; Ephesians 2:8-10).


Yet, it should also be noted for clarity, that a lost man could, if and when God so determined (Psalm 16:2; Romans 11:36), perform that which is truly good, yet the man may never come to salvation. For example, Balaam, who was a false prophet in his lost state (2 Peter 2:15-16; Numbers 25:1-3; 31:16), performed that which is truly good. He spoke, without compromise, even in the face of opposition, the unadulterated word of God (Numbers 23:5-13). "God would not listen to Balaam, but the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing" (Deuteronomy 23:5), and caused Balaam to do truly good (Romans 11:36).
Jehu is another example of a lost man doing good. Read 2 Kings 9:1-10:28 and you will see Jehu's "zeal for the Lord" (2 Kings 9:25-26; 36-37; 10:9-10; 10:16). At the end of this zeal, 2 Kings records,

However Jehu did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin, that is, from the golden calves that were at Bethel and Dan. And the Lord said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in doing what is right in My sight, and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in My heart, your sons shall sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation." But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart; for he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam, who had made Israel sin. (2 Kings 10:29-31)

The Lord says Jehu did "well in doing what is right in My sight." This is not the same perspective as, "all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). Jehu did "all that was in [God's] heart" and what was right, so much so, that the Lord blesses him saying, "your sons shall sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation." Moreover, we know Jehu did all this in yet a lost state, because verse 29 above says, "Jehu did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam . . . from the golden calves that were at Bethel and Dan." Jehu did good, truly good, but was still lost. This righteousness which he performed gave him nothing in regards to salvation.

Now, when it comes to free will, Scripture does teach that there is such a thing as free will (e.g. Exodus 35:29: 36:3; Leviticus 1:3; 19:5; 22:19, 29; Psalm 119:108). But, free will is under the same umbrella as the rest of the entire creation, that is, the umbrella of Romans 11:36.

For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

Nothing happens apart from God causing it to happen (Isaiah 45:7; Lamentations 3:37-38; Amos 3:6). In fact, this is where Arminians (and some Calvinists) typically have trouble. They stumble over the reality of God being the cause of sin. Randolph Foster (an Arminian, 1820-1903) in objection to "God decreed whatsoever comes to pass" argues,

And, first, I object: it renders the conclusion inevitable that God is the author of sin. I employ the term author in the sense of originator or cause. (Objections to Calvinism as it is, p. 23, copyright 1998, Schmul Publishing Co., Salem, Ohio)

Foster objects to God being the cause of sin. If all things are "of Him through Him and to Him" (Romans 11:36), then indeed, God, who is nonetheless holy and righteous in all His ways (Psalm 99:3, 5, 9; 145:17), is the cause of all things, even sin. In fact, God Himself declares,

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:37-38, KJV)

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)

Some may argue against the KJV translation of these verses, but the translation is legitimate. The Hebrew words translated "evil" (ra, haraot, raah) can all be translated this way, as the KJV illustrates (note also the same Hebrew root in Exodus 32:12-14; Psalm 78:49; Jeremiah 18:8-11; 24:3, 8; 36:3; Ezekiel 6:10; and Micah 1:12 in the KJV). But, not to "strive about words" (2 Timothy 2:14), what does Isaiah ask?

O Lord, why have You made us stray from Your ways, and hardened our heart from Your fear? (Isaiah 63:17; see also 2 Samuel 12:11-12; Psalm 105:25)

Obviously, Isaiah, the prophet of God, the holy man of God who was moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), believed that God caused the Israelites to sin ("You made us stray from Your ways"). Likewise, David prays,

Do not incline my heart to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with men who work iniquity; and do not let me eat of their delicacies. (Psalm 141:4)

[No Deceit]

pt two
David's words are not idle. David knew the Lord could incline his heart to do evil and "to practice wicked works." In fact, even though David prayed this, the Lord on at least one occasion did incline his heart to do evil.

Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1)

2 Samuel 24:10-17 records that David sinned by giving this order. David indeed sinned. Who caused David to sin? The Lord "moved David" (see also 1 Chronicles 21:1 for Satan's involvement).

Similarly, Peter writes,

Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7-8)

They were appointed to sin (i.e. disobedience to the word). Appointed by whom? They were appointed by God (Romans 11:36). In fact, this is the case for all mankind before salvation. God "has committed them all to disobedience" (Romans 11:32), and "the Scripture has confined all under sin" (Galatians 3:22).
The Word says, "the wicked are estranged from the womb" (Psalm 58:3). Who has created them that way? Is it not the Lord (Colossians 1:16)? Yes, it is. Even though Scripture says, "that God made man upright" (Ecclesiastes 7:29), it also says,

The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. (Proverbs 16:4)

So, when it comes to free will, there is no free will apart from God causing the decision to either accept or reject Him. As it is written,

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps. (Jeremiah 10:23; see also Proverbs 16:9)

A man's steps are of the Lord; how then can a man understand his own way? (Proverbs 20:24)

He fashions their hearts individually; (Psalm 33:15; see also Jeremiah 17:9; Isaiah 26:12)

All things are of Him through Him and to Him (Romans 11:36). Therefore, this being understood, then there is free will under this canopy of God's control. His ways are past finding out (Romans 11:33), and this is one of His ways that is manifestly past finding out!

God deals with man as if he did have free will, and he does (Exodus 35:29: 36:3; Leviticus 1:3; 19:5; 22:19, 29; Psalm 119:108), that is, with the above truth still standing. God rightly holds man responsible for his actions.

Do not be deceived. God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. (Galatians 6:7-8)

The judgment of God will be according to each one's work - "those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation" (John 5:29). People do indeed choose good (e.g. Joshua 24:22; Psalm 119:30; Isaiah 7:15-16; Luke 10:42) and evil (e.g. Judges 5:8; 10:14; Proverbs 1:29; Isaiah 56:4; 66:3), and the Lord will judge them accordingly (Romans 2:6-16).

Ecclesiastes 9:11 says,

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all.

Given different circumstances, there are people who would have chosen good rather than evil, and would have gone to heaven, rather than hell, because the influences in their lives would have encouraged them toward good rather than evil (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:33). In other words, given a different time, or a different chance (set of circumstances), they would have chosen differently, and the result of this choosing would have eternal consequences.

For example, the Lord told Jeremiah concerning the false prophets of his day,

I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My counsel, and had caused My people to hear My words, then they would have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings. (Jeremiah 23:21-22)

The Lord tells Jeremiah a profound truth. If the prophets had spoken the truth, rather than lies, the people would have repented and not perished! But, instead, the prophets tried to make the people forget His name (Jeremiah 23:27), and it worked; and the people perished (Jeremiah 27:9-10).

For another example, read Luke 10:13.

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

The people of Tyre and Sidon would have repented, had they had the same circumstances (mighty works) Chorazin and Bethsaida had. But, the Lord didn’t give them such a privilege, and they perished.

Knowing that certain circumstances can cause people to either accept or reject God, Jesus spoke in parables to ensure people would not accept Him. Jesus said to His disciples,

To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that "Seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them." (Mark 4:11-12)

Jesus lets his disciples know why he speaks to the people in parables, and the reason he gives is astounding! It is to prevent people from understanding His message and being saved ("lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them").

In another place we read that God made it impossible for people to accept Him. John 12:37-40 displays no free will, but rather, the exact opposite, a locked will incapable of faith, i.e. accepting God.

But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them."

The Lord made it so that these people could not believe. In other words, it was impossible for them to believe. And how did He do this? He blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. And Why? To make sure they did not understand, repent ("turn"), and receive forgiveness ("heal them"). To make sure they did not get saved!
This way of God is certainly unsearchable (Romans 11:33). He "desires all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4), and "has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32), but He acts in ways that make sure people do not get saved! Deuteronomy beautifully illustrates this. In Deuteronomy 5:29 the Lord says,

Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!

The Lord clearly desires that they would have "a heart in them that they would fear" Him. Yet, Moses later points out that God did not give them "such a heart" so they could.

Yet the Lord has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day. (Deuteronomy 29:4)

So, to that very day, God had not given them the very thing they needed in order for them to do what He longed for.

Similarly, God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), and desires that they do (1 Timothy 2:4), yet they cannot repent unless God grants them repentance (2 Timothy 2:26; Romans 11:36); and this He only grants to a few (Matthew 7:13-14; Romans 9:27-29; 11:5).

So, in conclusion, it is evident, that Scripture teaches total depravity, free will, and no free will. Arminians are in error when they reject the absolute control that God has over His creation; that is, that all things are of Him through Him and to Him (Romans 11:36). Nothing happens but by God causing it to happen (e.g. Psalm 104; Proverbs 16:33), and this includes sin (e.g. Romans 1:28-31). Therefore, when Arminians maintain that God is not the cause of sin, and that man has the capability of either accepting or rejecting God apart from God causing the acceptance or rejection (Jeremiah 10:23; Romans 11:36), then they describe a god not of the Bible and a gospel not of holy writ.
for the rest of the article you can visit our web site.

al

[Ambassador4Christ]

very interesting, I will read it all and check out your web-site Thanks  

[joelkaki]

True or False

“This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.” The Westminster Confession of Faith

I affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith as an accurate representation of Biblical truth.

If true, is this grace irresistable? Does the word "until" mean that once he is quickened he is no longer passive? And does this mean that renewal comes before faith?

Yes, the grace cannot be effectually resisted.   Once a man is regenerated, he is no longer dead in sin (Eph 2:1) and can respond in faith, the gift of God (Eph 2:.  Renewal (regeneration) must necessarily come before faith, for dead men cannot choose to become alive.  They must be made alive by God.

True or False

Mark 16:16
“The one having believed (pisteusas) and having been baptized will be saved (sōthēsetai); but the one not having believed (apistēsas) will be condemned to eternal death (katakpithēsetai)…o` pisteu,saj kai. baptisqei.j swqh,setai( o` de. avpisth,saj katakriqh,setaiÅ”

Time elements cannot be denied. Tense affirms both time and kind of action.

I don't know if you are familiar with Greek aorist participles, but that statement would indicate to the contrary.    It is all about aspect, or time of action.  And the aorist participles there are adjectival participles ( as opposed to adverbial) and do not have any time significance at all.

Further, pisteusas (will be saved) and apistēsas (not having believed) are words of the same tense, etc. Both are aorists, both are active; in both the person did something, one to be saved, and the other to be lost. Whether in belief or unbelief, the intellect, volition, and will are engaged. Likewise, the results of these attitudes affect the total person and destiny itself. The results of engagement are sōthēsetai (will be saved) and katakpithēsetai (will be condemned to eternal death). These terms are of exactly the same grammatical construction. Both are verbs in the active voice; both are revelatory of destiny based on the action of the person. Both reveal the response of God based on the action of the person. God never saved the believer apart from his action anymore than He damned the unbeliever apart from his action of unbelief. God saves because of action in which the will is engaged; God condemns eternally because of action in which the will is engaged. Thus, neither the saved nor the lost were irresistibly consigned to their state from eternity by God.

That last statement does not follow.  It is an act of the will.  But all our wills are in bondage to God--they cannot receive the things of God (1 Cor 2:14).  So God must regenerate them first, so that they will respond with the will.  And those that exercise that will are saved.  If they can do it in and of themselves, then salvation is not wholly a work of God, but is partially a work of man, and man has something to brag about.

Both classes, the saved and lost, are thus because of the manner in which they responded to God.

Yes, but without the regenerating, effectual grace of the Holy Spirit, no one would respond positively to the gospel.  All would reject.  Thus God regenerates the elect.  

Joel
 

[asaph]

No Deceit,
I do not see any real difference between your interpretation and Calvins limited atonement and unconditional election.
The offer still stands to all people: whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. It is not for us to establish doctrine or dogma to the contrary.

James 1
13   Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14   But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

asaph

[Allinall]

I'll just say this about this topic.  I've come to two scripturally undeniable truths:

1.  GOD CHOSE ME.
2.  I accepted His gift.

I've not elaborated on these two things, but if anyone wants me to, I'll be more than happy to!    However, I feel that there's a potentially more helpful truth to relay at this point.

In my past 12 years as a saved man, I've encountered many "mysteries" or antinomies in God's Word.  For one, this very topic!  The Trinity and God's sovereignty are examples of a coulple of other such mysteries.  Why are they mysterious in nature?  Because they go beyond our capability of explaining them.  Not that we don't try!  And therein lies the truth I've come to understand.  Why do we need to try?  That is, when we face something we don't understand, we naturally feel that there is a potential contradiction that must be removed.  No?  Take the Trinity.  Most here would agree that God is, in fact, one God, yet has three Persons.  Then God is both one, and three.  This appears to be contradictory; to the non-believer as fodder for their cannon, to the believer...a mystery.  The problem arises when the believer attempts to take the fodder away from the non-believer!  The point I'm trying to make is that we come to a decision: though a mystery, do I have faith in it, or do I attempt to explain it so that I can have faith in it?

This understanding was made most clear to me when reading John 6.  Christ had just fed the thousands, had preached messages that had the crowds coming back for more, and had quite a following - until He preached one message.  In this message, He relates how that God had supplied manna in the wilderness to His people, and how He (Christ) was the "bread of life."  He even elaborated by saying that unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood that they could not have eternal life!  This offended so many of them that they left.  

Here's the proverbial rub: We understand that Jesus was speaking spiritually.  In the Old Testament sacrifice at Passover, the Jewish family would offer a lamb.  The greater portion of that lamb would be taken home to be eaten on the whole by the family.  Christ was making a spiritual reference to a physical illustration as seen in reference to the manna and in practicality to the Passover.  Why do we know this?  Because we have the Gospels and Epistles to explain it to us, and the Holy Spirit to teach us.  They didn't!  What they then had...was a mystery.  It is interesting then that many left but that a few remained.  Why?  Because the few chose to believe, and have faith in that which they did not understand.  The message may have been confusing, but the Messenger had the understanding they needed.

We face issues just like this one, and either deny it because it doesn't fit our understanding, or because we feel we already have the understanding.  In my life, I came to a realization that my understanding was faulty.  In faith, I chose to seek the understanding that only comes from God.

This may not be of any help, but it is a lesson I feel that God would have me to share when we consider topics just like this one!

[asaph]

Allinall,
Perhaps yours is the best answer of all. There is a risk in quoting a lengthy passage of scripture because chances are that most will not read it. But for he that has an ear to hear...
1 Corinthians 2
1   And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2   For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. pretty simple, eh?
3   And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4   And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5   That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6   Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7   But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, just like Allinall was saying even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8   Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9   But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10   But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11   For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12   Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13   Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14   But the natural man I wonder how many of us are living by the natural man?receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15   But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16   For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

Thanks Allinall,

asaph

[Petro]

Greetings Everyone, it is good to have the site up and running again.  It is ashame, there are those who would go around creating such chaos, but we know who is ultimately behind these types, I thank those who have worked diligently to provide thos eof us who engoy sharing the good word with the uncaring and the deceived of the world, trusting that somewhere al;ong the line, the sharing and discussing of God's truth will take seed in a dying world.

I see it didn't take long to bring up a controversial subject, but it doesn't have to be; most of my ideas and understandings of doctrines throughout my 20 some odd year walking with the Lord, have taught me to not trust unto my own wisdom or understanding, but to seek the wisdom necessary to understand the things which are not humanly understood with the wisdom this world supplies, and this is one reason why it has become controversial, simply because, members of the church allow themselves to be taught by wolves dressed in sheeps clothing.

When one reads, some of the responses herein, one who understands the doctrine, can see, why these would make such responses, seen they are not acquainted at all, with the meaning of the letters, nor the history of how  this acronym, TULIP came to be.

But thank God, history is a good teacher and it together with the  Word of God, can teach those who have misconceptions, and are ignorant of the teaching of Calvinism.

First of all, it would be good to review, the historical record of how the TULIP came to be.

Although many people attribute the TULIP to John Calvin, he wasn't the one who developed it.

Someone already has written herein, about John Calvin and Jacobos Arminius, it would be well to note that Arminius, was a student at the school, Calvin started at Geneva, where he taught Pastors.

And, above all else, that the teachings put forth by Arminius, where not new, but in fact a modified version of the teachings proposed in the early church around the 3rd century which were adjured "heretical"; and this is the place where I must also insert the fact that ArminianISM was also declared "heretical" at the Synod Council of the Cannons at Dort 1618, but as one can see, these heresies just as the false teachers who expound them are still in our midsts.

About a year after James Arminius died, his followers became concerned about some of the "harsh" doctrines coming from the Churches in Holland. So, on January 14, 1610, they presented their five main concerns to the States-General. This document was first known as the Remonstrance (protest) and later on became known as the Five Articles of Faith. The ideas in this document were not new, of course; they had been around for over a thousand years (as previously noted). The Five Articles of Faith, however, did consolidate these ideas into a format that was concise and understandable.

The Synod examined the articles and rejected them. They didn't, however, feel that a mere rejection was sufficient. As a result, they wrote a document (first known as the Counter-Remonstrance) that countered each of the five points. The five chapters they wrote embodied the Calvinistic position and later became know as the "Five Points of Calvinism." Later, the word TULIP was coined to quickly identify the Five Points of Calvinism.

The official and final response to the Armenian's Five Articles of Faith came from the Synod of Dordrecht (1618). The first month was spent on other issues, but the last 180 days were spent addressing the Five Articles of Faith. The Synod wrote what became known as the Cannons of Dordrecht, later shortened to Cannons of Dort.

Regardless of what some have written herein, these are the facts, of what the five points of Calvinisn, state;

T =  When man fell, sin permeated his entire being. This fall was so complete that man had no desire for God and righteousness. Man is so totally enslaved by sin that he can only choose evil; he cannot chose good. He is incapable of choosing God and His salvation. Man in totally blind and deaf to the gospel. Apart from a supernatural intervention from God, the gospel message absolutely has no affect on a person. Total depravity is also called total inability.

U = God has chosen some people to go to Heaven and other people to go to Hell. This choice is not based on any qualities of the person being elected. This selection is not based on God's foreknowledge of who will "get saved" in the future.

L = God limited His atonement to only those who are elect. When Jesus died on the cross, He did not die for the sins of the whole world, He only died for those He wanted to go to Heaven.

I = The grace that God extends to the elect cannot be refused. God puts into the hearts of the elect an irresistible desire to turn to Him and accept His salvation. This desire is so overpowering that no one can refuse it.

P = Since God has determined who will get save and they cannot resist His call, they are unconditionally and eternally secure in that election. Therefore, those who have been chosen to be saved will always stay saved. They cannot resist or loose their salvation.

asaph's site which he posted, emphasizes what Calvinism claims AFTER we are saved,  note the word AFTER, noone who understand's the teaching of the Calvinists, would make some of the outlandish claims Calvinism teaches, all these do is expose their ignorance of the true teachings.

Charles Spurgeon (a Calvinist) said;

"The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straightline, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the Gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once."

Dr. H.A. Ironside, Pastor of D.L. Moody Memorial Chruch, at Chicago, Ill, While delivering a message on the Lord's Day on the subject of "Eternal Security" (which is what the ArminianCalvin positions are ultimately reduced to) said:

"Let me say that my object was not controversy nor the besting of an opponent but rather the edification and enlightment of the people of God, that thye knowledge of the truth might deliver from legality and give true libertuy." (April 24,1934)

Since how, one views these great truths ultimately determines his or hers position on "eternal security"; it would seem vital, that Christians should strive to learn the true teaching, of the two sides, in all my years of studying and sharing this subject whith the other side, I have yet to encounter anyone that believes in ArminianISM, who is shocked to find out, the protestant church has adjured the teaching "HERETICAL"; it would seem to me a Christian could be deceived about this teaching, and not know the history behind it, but another matter altogether to come to the truth of this fact, that the teaching was found to be "Heretical", and simply ignore this and discount it as nonsense;  it is almost as thou it matters not to them, this is so.

ArminianISM, denies eternal security, and further goes on to teach the Christian must observe the law to continue on the road to salvation;  the scriptures teach;

 "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."  (Gal3:10)

I find no need to go into the pro or cons for either teaching, it has been extensively discussed, and there is no lack of positions for or asgainst the points, and most all are the result of mis understandings or presuppositions, which amount to nonsense.


Blessings,

Petro

[Allinall]

Asaph,

Thank you!  I hadn't considered that passage before.  That was very insightful and very helpful.

God bless,

[Saved_4ever]

Hey allinall I think you got it pretty good there too.  I don't follow either teaching because they are both wrong.  There are things we cannot explain but just need to have faith in.  I trust in the LORD and His plans.  I know He knows what He's doing and that's all I need to know.  So far from my experience the more I see people that hold to one particular teaching the more the aggrivate me with there misconceptions.  Calvinists always hide from doing what they should because "If it was meant to be it will be be" and never do what they need to.  They always hide from doing what they don't want to with that.  I haven't had too many encounters with Arminians so I don't have as much experience with them but from what I have read about them annoys me a lot as well.

Well at least the site is back.  I gave up checking back but now it's here again.  I can't believe some people alrady have 200+ posts.  So much for my 600+ posts.  Time to start over.  I guess we can call it spring cleaning.

God bless,
Jason

[joelkaki]

Calvinists always hide from doing what they should because "If it was meant to be it will be be" and never do what they need to.  They always hide from doing what they don't want to with that.

s4ever, I don't think you have a proper view of Calvinists here.  I am one, have been around them my entire life, my parents have been around them for a great portion of their lives, and never have I heard of a single Calvinist ever saying anything like that.  That is not to say that there could be some--obviously I have not met every Calvinist in the world.  But such would be an extremely small exception, not the rule.  You can't just say, "Calvinists always..."  when that is simply not accurate.  In fact, the Calvinist leaders (pastors, etc) have expressly said to the contrary, condemning such things.  So please, don't use personal attacks on Calvinists which have no basis.

Joel

[Saved_4ever]

Well until I have some better experiences it remains unchanged.  I still don't agree with them anyway, and that's not going to change.  I'm not getting in to a huge debate because it proves fruitless time and again.  I already seriously disagree with your entire stance of the bible and other such matters.  We have gone at it before and I really don't feel like going at it again.  Not that I am trying to toss your age in to "disqualify" you or anything but 15-16 years is not so long and someday you just might find yourself changing the tune of "all my life".  You haven't left home to be on your own and do other things yet so your "people" experience should grow greatly.  I'm not saying this to be mean but rather when you see more you may not say the same thing.

[Allinall]

I debated on whether or not to pull out this soapbox...and decided it might be helpful.  Hopefully I've exercised good discernment here.

First of all, thank you for your reply S4Ever!  It gets me to thinking about that soapbox.  I've come to an understanding concerning "teachings."  If others were to put their opinion of which viewpoint I adhere to, I'm sure that the Calvinistic viewpoint would be cited, namely because of the posts I've given on the subject.  While I agree with many of the tenants with acception of irresistable grace, I still do not consider myself a Calvinist.  While I agree with the Armenian concept of free-will (per se), I don't consider myself a hybrid Calvarmenist (   )!  I rather consider myself a Biblicist.  Here in is the problem with such a statement.  Interpretation.  My understanding of scripture doesn't necessarily agree with others, and runs the risk of offending them when I say "Thus has said the Lord."  Why?  Because what He said may not agree with their theology.  But that's another soapbox  ...The thing I've come to realize, is that many of the "greats" we espouse, have this same understanding.  Calvinistic in nature, biblical in application.  Who?  Spurgeon and Edwards to name a few!  

The point I'm verbosely attempting to make is this:  God said it.  It cannot be explained adequately away with blanket statements concerning His love and death for all (which, I personally believe and agree whole heartedly with!).  And yet, He grants me choice of obedience; a choice that does, in some inexplicable way, determine my eternal standing.

[Saved_4ever]

While I agree with the Armenian concept of free-will (per se), I don't consider myself a hybrid Calvarmenist (   )!  I rather consider myself a Biblicist.

   YAY!!

I.E. "those that follow God"

The point I'm verbosely attempting to make is this:  God said it.  It cannot be explained adequately away with blanket statements

I thought we were close to the same page.  

God bless,
Jason

[Petro]

I debated on whether or not to pull out this soapbox...and decided it might be helpful.  Hopefully I've exercised good discernment here.

First of all, thank you for your reply S4Ever!  It gets me to thinking about that soapbox.  I've come to an understanding concerning "teachings."  If others were to put their opinion of which viewpoint I adhere to, I'm sure that the Calvinistic viewpoint would be cited, namely because of the posts I've given on the subject.  While I agree with many of the tenants with acception of irresistable grace, I still do not consider myself a Calvinist.  While I agree with the Armenian concept of free-will (per se), I don't consider myself a hybrid Calvarmenist (   )!  I rather consider myself a Biblicist.  Here in is the problem with such a statement.  Interpretation.  My understanding of scripture doesn't necessarily agree with others, and runs the risk of offending them when I say "Thus has said the Lord."  Why?  Because what He said may not agree with their theology.  But that's another soapbox  ...The thing I've come to realize, is that many of the "greats" we espouse, have this same understanding.  Calvinistic in nature, biblical in application.  Who?  Spurgeon and Edwards to name a few!  

The point I'm verbosely attempting to make is this:  God said it.  It cannot be explained adequately away with blanket statements concerning His love and death for all (which, I personally believe and agree whole heartedly with!).  And yet, He grants me choice of obedience; a choice that does, in some inexplicable way, determine my eternal standing.

Greetings Allinall,

Not that it makes any difference, but aside from Spurgeon, & Edwards, the points are a summation poorly articulated of what John Calvin taught; then there is D.L. Moody, H.A. Ironsides, Tory, J. Vernon McGee, every great teacher of the Word of the 20th Century, except Billy Graham, I don't know what he really believes; since herein, he stated, man can be saved in a varity of different ways, I hope this is not true.

It's hard for me to believe this, but, he was a signor of the;

Evangelicals and Catholics Together; Christian Mission in the Third Millenium Contract dtd March 29, 1993

The issue is not the 5 points of Calvinism, its what did He (Calvin) teach.

Instead of looking to see, if the teachingfs, aligned themselves with Biblical teaching, "Liberals" argue against His teachings, based on the points.

Igtnorance is bliss....I guess..this proves it.



Blessings,

Petro