The disparity (disunity) in Calvinism

[Josheb]

Limited Atonement - Sufficiency/Efficiency - Jesus death is sufficient to save everyone, but only efficient for the elect, that is for those who believe in Him. The only one who knows who the elect are is God. The only place we have is if someone dies saved, then we can know that they were part of the elect. If they die unsaved, they were not. It is that cold, as logic is cold. Logic has no emotion, it just is. There is no, don't preach the gospel because someone who is not elect may accept. Only the elect will accept. Only the elect will be saved.

Once again, another straw man is being argued!

Limited Atonement (LA) simply means the atonement is limited to those who are saved and clarified to discriminate between its all-powerfulness to save everyone (sufficiency) and its application (efficiency). The efficiency of God's work when saving a person has nothing to do with the belief of the sinner other than that belief is the result of God's work! The efficiency is God's efficiency, God being efficient, God's will, purpose, and work being efficient. The alternative is that God is inefficient; God is not effective when He acts to save someone. God is fruitless; God is not sovereign.

The rest of this portion of your dissent is more of the same foolish misrepresentation of Calvinism. A person's belief has nothing to do with LA. A person's knowing he is among the elect has nothing to do with LA. Death deciding the matter has nothing to do with LA. "Cold" is a fallacy, an appeal to ridicule. NOT preaching the gospel nothing to do with LA (Calvin taught the gospel was available to all).

Remember, some plant the seed (go to the parable of the four soils), some water (a necessary part of gardening), but it is God who gives the increase. Why? It is God who chose.

That is just the plain reading of scripture.

1 Corinthians 3:5-7 KJV
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

It has nothing to do with Calvinism, and everything to do with the plain reading of scripture exactly as written.


Remember: We're testing your claim. Your claim, "TULIP doesn't work well as Calvinism, because Calvin did not work to fit his teachings into five letters..." is what is being tested and so far, you've got the argument against the "T" messed up, the "U" misunderstood and misrepresented, and the "L" misunderstood and misrepresented, and as a consequence the dissent deploys multiple straw men and other fallacies.

I am going to stop here because three wrong out of three possible is a score of zero, that will be the same for the remaining "I" and "P," and the three-out-of-three failure already evident is sufficient to prove the testing of your views. Evidence from Calvin himself, in his own words, has been provided to show your understanding of Calvinism is incorrect. A link to a source where you can click around and learn mainstream, orthodox Calvinism has also been provided. Calvinism is not monolithic. While sharing a core set of beliefs, there is plenty of diversity and outlying views can (and should) be known and recognized as outliers and not as representative of the whole. It is quite likely your sources failed you.

And because you repeated their errors your contribution to this thread fails. It's disrespectful to others to misrepresent their views. The Bible calls it false witness.


Learn Calvinism correctly. Stop arguing straw men.

 

[Josheb]

Before I reply to this, may I ask RV and others to detail this out for me[?] thanks.

Sure, but if the thread is reviewed to read what the naysayer (@justbyfaith) posted all the information needed to answer the request will be had (the request should not be read out of the context in which it was originally posted).








Btw, RV already weighed in. See post 56.
.

 

[Ladodgers6]

TULIP doesn't work well as Calvinism, because Calvin did not work to fit his teachings into five letters. His followers threw them together to go up against the five remonstrances of arminianism. They are clunky, and I get a little miffed when someone says that there are solid, invioilable definitions for each letter that cannot be explained in any other way. (Such as Limited Atonement and the idea of sufficiency/efficiency. I cracked the book on Calvin, and I can already tell that there isn't any easy way to truly understand what Calvin taught/believed. It is really, really deep.

I beg to differ, though the 5 points do not summed up Calvinism, they are a part of it. They were assembled to refute the 5 points of the Arminius followers. Now, when I was an Arminian the confusion I came across and couldn't get a satisfied answer to, is that, Arminius taught Total Depravity. Then he taught Prevenient Grace which totally negated Total Depravity and vice versa. What's the problem here with this? A huge one, here's why. Total Depravity or the Gravity of Sin, is that fallen man and all of his human faculties are effected with sin right down to the core, the heart. Fallen man in his fallen nature now serves and follows his sinful desires by his own free-will. He is alienated from God because of sin. He is a son of disobedience with fallen sinful behavioral traits of ungodliness, unrighteousness, evil, wicked, and so forth.

Arminius states that only by being fully regenerated by the Holy Spirit can a fallen sinner be saved. Fallen man is incapable of and by himself to will, understand, and seek God. But here's where the sleight of hand comes into play. This so-called Grace, they call Prevenient Grace, has to come before anything the fallen man can do. But this PG is not effectual in saving anyone says Roger Olson a prominent Arminian advocate of the Classical Arminian position. So, then the question naturally arises, then what does this PG accomplished if anything. Well, they will say that the fallen is placed somewhere between life and death to make a decision. Okay, another question naturally arises asking the question, does the sinner fully understand their fate of their decision knowing all the facts given by this PG. In other words, is this PG full regeneration or partial? So, in essence it's not Grace that saves anyone, but the fallen man who is given a chance with the facts in hand to make a choice.

This Prevenient Grace is not taught anywhere in Scripture, but made up and refuted by the Reformers and was exactly why the TULIP was assembled to refute the 5 Points of Arminianism.​

 

[Josheb]

I beg to differ, though the 5 points do not summed up Calvinism, they are a part of it. They were assembled to refute the 5 points of the Arminius followers. Now, when I was an Arminian the confusion I came across and couldn't get a satisfied answer to, is that, Arminius taught Total Depravity. Then he taught Prevenient Grace which totally negated Total Depravity and vice versa. What's the problem here with this? A huge one, here's why. Total Depravity or the Gravity of Sin, is that fallen man and all of his human faculties are effected with sin right down to the core, the heart. Fallen man in his fallen nature now serves and follows his sinful desires by his own free-will. He is alienated from God because of sin. He is a son of disobedience with fallen sinful behavioral traits of ungodliness, unrighteousness, evil, wicked, and so forth.

Arminius states that only by being fully regenerated by the Holy Spirit can a fallen sinner be saved. Fallen man is incapable of and by himself to will, understand, and seek God. But here's where the sleight of hand comes into play. This so-called Grace, they call Prevenient Grace, has to come before anything the fallen man can do. But this PG is not effectual in saving anyone says Roger Olson a prominent Arminian advocate of the Classical Arminian position. So, then the question naturally arises, then what does this PG accomplished if anything. Well, they will say that the fallen is placed somewhere between life and death to make a decision. Okay, another question naturally arises asking the question, does the sinner fully understand their fate of their decision knowing all the facts given by this PG. In other words, is this PG full regeneration or partial? So, in essence it's not Grace that saves anyone, but the fallen man who is given a chance with the facts in hand to make a choice.

This Prevenient Grace is not taught anywhere in Scripture, but made up and refuted by the Reformers and was exactly why the TULIP was assembled to refute the 5 Points of Arminianism.​

Very good summary.

However, I remind everyone this op is specifically about the supposed "disparity disunity in Calvinism." so it's not appropriate for any of us Cals to shift the onus or burden away from Calvinism and the supposed "disparity disunity" to that of Arminianism. That makes us tu quoque. I point this out because it is not clear the synergists in this thread are Arminian! We Cals (or anyone else participating for that matter) should assume facts not in evidence. The Cal-critics may be Pelagian (Traditionalists or Provisionists) and all the evidence from Arminius considered useless, irrelevant, non sequitur.

I also remind everyone this op began elsewhere. In another thread the author of this op was shown Calvinism is not monolithic, that a diversity of thought exists within Calvinism, that outlying points of view are not representative of the whole, and his lack of knowledge and understanding of Calvinism and reason disqualified him as a reasonable, rational critic because (like every other critic in this thread so far) his arguments are straw men.

Diversity of thought does not inherently mean disunity.

That being said, you're spot on about PG. There is, however, some disparity within Arminianism about the exact nature and place of PG, but the fundamental veracity of PG is built entirely on speculation and an inferential reading of scripture. We Cals might prove PG erroneous and never disprove the op. Conversely, all the Cal critics might prove Calvinism wrong, but that does not make their view correct.

So.....

@TMSO.... focus. You've got two Cals here telling you your understanding of TULIP is flawed. take our report seriously. Focus. Go back and re-read the op. Note all the baseless accusations made in the op and perhaps ask yourself, "Do I want to unwittingly get drawn into supporting this op when it is so objectively flawed? You might actually help your synergist brother be a better poster by helping him improve his own argument - correcting his own errors - because you have developed a better understanding of Calvinism than he.

My fellow Cals will gladly tell you they do not always agree with me and, like it or not, our posts sharpen each other's prowess. We Cals rely on one another to improve our understanding of God, scripture, and the doctrines we share. Despite the report of this op, the Cals here have done three things disproving the op: 1) posted unity, posted diversity within that unity, and 3) collaboratively posted content supporting Calvinist soteriology. If you must be a synergist, then trying to be that guy for your fellow Arms.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

T- Total Depravity is connected at the hip to Total Inability, as in one is due to the other.
U- Unconditional Election - Consider the parable of the wheat and the tares. Note how the Master planted His seeds, and then the evil one came and planted his seeds. What should we notice from here. God did not plant the tares. Hence it is not double predestination. It is unconditional because God planted the seeds, and each and every one is wheat. The tares were NEVER part of His garden. Yet the care of the garden falls on all. They get watered, and even fertilized, due to proximity. This is why I say that there is a default condition, everyone is considered the same until harvest. (The master said, don't rip out the tares so you don't accidentally pull out any wheat. Wait until it is grown when they can be recognized and properly separated.
Limited Atonement - Sufficiency/Efficiency - Jesus death is sufficient to save everyone, but only efficient for the elect, that is for those who believe in Him. The only one who knows who the elect are is God. The only place we have is if someone dies saved, then we can know that they were part of the elect. If they die unsaved, they were not. It is that cold, as logic is cold. Logic has no emotion, it just is. There is no, don't preach the gospel because someone who is not elect may accept. Only the elect will accept. Only the elect will be saved. Remember, some plant the seed (go to the parable of the four soils), some water (a necessary part of gardening), but it is God who gives the increase. Why? It is God who chose.
Irresistible Grace- This is difficult to explain as is. The idea is that if you are elect, the circumstances of life, your worldview, your understanding of life, your mental framework, will be radically changed to the point that salvation is the foregone conclusion. You will be changed, and you will not be the same. It is difficult to understand what this kind of transformation is like, unless you have experienced it. (It is not limited solely to this arena. If you have ever believed someone, and trusted someone whole heartedly, and they utterly betrayed you and your trust, the reason it is difficult to impossible to trust them again is that your understanding of them has been radically transformed. You now know something you didn't know before that runs utterly contrary to what you knew. There is no way to go back from there. (The whole, what has been seen cannot be unseen.) Multiply that by infinity to understand what the person transformed by grace now knows. They can't go back. They can only go forward. If God has drawn the person to Jesus, they will go forward. It may take time, they may strive against that narrow gate for some time, but the ending is inevitable. The grace irresistible. You didn't choose to no longer trust your friend, the situation you found yourself in caused it. It is a reaction.
Perseverance of the Saints - This differs greatly from Once Saved, Always Saved. First, note how here it says perseverance OF the saints, not by the saints. This speaks to an outside agency. Jesus in John 6 says that He will not lose a single one of whom the Father has given to Him. Where do we find out about them? Ephesians 1. Having foreordained us to the adoption as children through Christ Jesus.... What do we find about the believers. Jesus will not lose a single one, Jesus will not cast them out, nothing, no created thing can separate us from God's love, and no one can pluck us out of His hand. (Those last two include US by definition. We are created things, and we are included in no one.) Jude 24-25 has Jude, under God's inspiration praising God for being able, and doing. For being able to present us holy and blameless in His presence, and understood... doing it. He is the author and perfecter of our faith. He is the one who began the good work (salvation is not of works), and, as the one who began it, it is HE that will finish it.

The above only scratches (barely) a summary of what Calvin's followers may (if I am accurate) say is Calvinism. However, it doesn't even scratch the surface of what John Calvin taught and did. It is only the surface, and in some ways, it is forced (due to trying to come up with points from what John Calvin taught to counter the five remonstrances of arminianism. Calvin did not believe in a cold gospel. He was a humanist lawyer. He very much believed that preaching the gospel was a battle with the soul of the hearer. He would try to persuade the people into the gospel. Why? Consider the elect in this way. God knows His own. It doesn't matter what we do, we cannot change that. So... persuade away. Preach like their life depends on it (it does!) Some plant the seed, some water, but God gives the increase. There is no use in striving against the wind. Just do as God commands, and preach. You will either be the one who plants the seed, or the one who waters. God is the one who ultimately saves and gives the increase. Don't be disheartened, just preach, and know God's will will be fulfilled.

Where some may have difficulty is believing that we have control. Jesus Himself spoke of how difficult, nay, how impossible it is for us to be saved. His answer to the disciples when asked "Then who can be saved" was basically NO ONE. "It is impossible for man..." Full STOP. There is no situation where it is possible for man. As long as we lean on man, nothing will happen. We will delude ourselves into believing we have saved ourselves. Jesus concluded this statement with "but with God, all things are possible". There is no room for man there. He didn't say that God makes things possible. He said WITH God, all things are possible. He didn't say, with God AND man, just with God. There is no room for man. There is no room for boasting. There is only room for humility and the thought "What does/can God see in me that He would save this wretched sinner?" That should be our question, in line with the meaning of life. Just what does God see in us that He would save anyone? It isn't because of who we are. Unconditional election tells us that. It is because of who He is, and what He sees. (Wretched sinners one and all, yet He still loved and loves us. He still puts up with us. Consider what God said about Noah through Peter. That one hundred years building the ark. God's LONGSUFFERING, God putting up with the sin that was constantly in His view, in His hearing. He put up with it for the sake of Himself. His promise of the ultimate redemption of man pronounced to Eve. One of her seed, not Adam's seed, one of Eve's seed would crush the serpents head, while being bitten in the heal. And then, God came to earth in the form of a human, having taken upon Himself flesh, and He was the lamb who took our place on the altar, as the ram replaced Isaac on the altar. Our death became His death, that His life might become our life. He fulfilled the Law where we could not. All for His adopted children, His elect.

(Sorry, that is quite a bit overboard...)

Dude, it looks like your response is now being picked on and picked apart by people posting walls of text!

 

[Josheb]

Dude, it looks like your response is now being picked on and picked apart by people posting walls of text!

And Post 73 was NOT a wall of text? Every post in reply has been shorter in length, better formatted, and factually correct. No one has "picked on" anything and if Post 73 was "picked apart" then that was only because it could be picked apart. The fact is also that both posters replying to Post 73 also affirmed the few points of the post that were correct.

• Affirm that which is factually correct or bears consistency with well rendered scripture.
• Ask or inquire about that which is either not clear or not adequately understood.
• Refute that which is not factually correct or does not bear consistency with well-rendered scripture.

Isn't that how conversation, discussion and/or debate should be done? Isn't that list a standard to which all can ascribe regardless of their various positions? Isn't a s set of standards found in scripture?

 

[TMSO]

Yes, it is; especially since one single word, "yes" or "no" would have sufficed.

Wow. Josheb the critic. You could have just said that I wrote a bunch of drivel.

 

[TMSO]

Correct.

Before proceeding, let's focus because the one specific claim you made is that Calvinism doesn't work, and my one request was to have your view Calvinism does not work tested. Nothing more. Here's what you said.

I didn't say Calvinism doesn't work, but that TULIP doesn't work well because it is stripping down Calvin's teachings to five contrained, and sometimes strained, points. This isn't the fault of the people who did it, but the nature of their purpose which was to make five points to directly take on each of the five remonstrances. That is all I meant. It is to the point that detractors of calvinism will say you are not allowed to make any particular argument because TULIP is solid, immovable, and the final statement of Calvinism. (Except that it is not. By being the distillation, it is imperative to bring in whatever additional material there is.

"TULIP doesn't work well as Calvinism, because Calvin did not work to fit his teachings into five letters. His followers threw them together to go up against the five remonstrances of Arminianism. They are clunky, and I get a little miffed when someone says that there are solid, inviolable definitions for each letter that cannot be explained in any other way. (Such as Limited Atonement and the idea of sufficiency/efficiency. I cracked the book on Calvin, and I can already tell that there isn't any easy way to truly understand what Calvin taught/believed. It is really, really deep."​

And you say the "T" in TULIP, which means "Total Depravity," or "total Inability," and I agree. So here we have a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist agreeing the "T" means "Total Inability," BUT that does not go very far because it does absolutely nothing to address the fact Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley ALL agree the sinner is unable to come to God for salvation without God's grace enabling him/her to do so. It does absolutely nothing to address the fact that either every single saved person in the Bible either lived in an already-existing covenant relationship with God or God was at work in that person's life for the express purpose of the individual's salvation, and (more importantly) there's not a single example in the entirety of scripture of anyone coming to God for salvation in the might of their own flesh or scripture ever explicitly stating a nonbeliever turned themselves into a believer.

Synergism, by definition, does not believe in Total Inability because if we aren't able, how can there be synergism? That calls for us to do something. That calls for ability.

That is what you have to overcome, and I do not see you even making an effort beyond stating the obvious (which is something on which everyone but the heretics agree). If your intent is to negate Calvinism because of Total Inability, then you will end up negating all of Christian thought going back through the ECFs well past Calvinism into the Arminian views.

Why would I negate Calvinism. All I stated is tha TULIP doesn't work well as Calvinism. I didn't say calvinism is negated. There are a lot of people who ONLY know TULIP, don't know who Calvin is, and when attacked by seasoned Arminians, fall like dominos. That is because they allow the Arminians to set barriers on argumentation, because they don't realize that TULIP is not the final statement of Calvinism, but is instead a distillation of a vast well of information.

Please do not post another lame one-sentence argument like the above again. Show up for the discussion and show up with substance (well-rendered scripture and reasonable, rational, coherent case made thereof.

Ad hominem.

 

[TMSO]

Though some do see the U as stating double predestination, it is not really what it is stating in my understanding. The elect were not chosen because of anything good or bad in them and the non-elect were not chosen because they were worse than any other.

That is how I understand it. I see it as someone given a list of numbers which stand in for names. They are told to pick 10 to be on a team. Those 10 are elect. Those still on the list are not. They are not picked to not be on the list. They are what was left when the choosing stage was over.

That is the correct statement of the doctrine, but only the elect believe in Him.

This has nothing to do with the doctrine of limited atonement but is a different subject.

If it is stated as it actually is in the doctrine, as effectual grace, it means it accomplishes what God sends it to do, and in the case of salvation, actually saves. By grace you are saved. The change is a result of this grace.

I believe the TULIP says "preservation of the saints" and the perseverance of the saints is because God is preserving them----according to what you stated---His doing it in us. But it also does mean once saved, always saved.

That is my understanding. I have understood it as preservation or perseverance. The issue with once saved, always saved, is you will notice that God is not in it. That is why it is the belief of those who believe in "cheap grace" or "easy believism". You just make some statement of faith at nine, and the dance with the devil starts at ten, in heaven by eleven. Why? Once saved, always saved. The focus is on being able to lay claim on being saved. If one can make that claim, they can live however they please, even tea with the devil and they are fine. This is what I see is the danger to once saved, always saved. People will look for, reach out to, and cling to anything they believe means they are/were saved, and they stop there.

 

[TMSO]

Sooo..............

You do not correctly understand the terms, do you? The entire portion of your post pertaining to Unconditional Election is a straw man!

So... you didn't understand what I wrote. Understandable. I did take a route to show why I believe there is no double predestination. If everyone is technically headed to hell, and God chose some to rescue, how is that double predestination? They were ALREADY going to hell. Everyone was already going to hell. (I speak in technicalities).
If you want my take on unconditional election, it is Ephesians 1.
"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He [a]made us accepted in the Beloved."

Put it in proper order. (I like how Paul writes, it seems so educated, however it makes some things a little confusing for some. The proper order is that God predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, and as such, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. So, we were adopted as His children, and then He called us to live up to the standard set for His children. All of this took place before the foundation of the world, and all of this was according to the good pleasure of His will. That is... He felt like it. There were no conditions or standards put forward for Him to choose who would be His children. Nothing but the good pleasure of His will.

Double predestination has nothing to do with Unconditional Election. However, if it did have something to do with UC then the parable you selected and the way you chose to render it would be proof of the doctrine because the two different kinds of plants (wheat and tares) can never be the other and the destinies of both sets is pre-determined without they plant having any choice or input. There is another problem with your criticism, though, because double predestination is an outlier view within Calvinism, not the orthodox position. Failing to grasp that you've committed a composition error, assuming what is true of an outlying point of view is true and applicable to all of Calvinism. It is not.

Calvin did not read the parable as double predestination. We, therefore, see you have, once again, totally screwed up what Calvinism teaches and argued against the screwed-up version. That is called a straw man. You (or your sources) screwed up.

My example on double predestination and unconditional election is this. You are given a clipboard with a bunch of numbers on it. Each number connected to a person. You are choosing 10 names to join a team. All you have are numbers. No information, no names. You choose 10. Was that by merit? Or because you felt like it? As for double predestination, consider that all of these people are in the same position (perhaps going to hell). You chose 10 and they are no longer going to hell. Did you choose the rest and tell them they are going to hell, or were they already going there.

Here is an important question. Do you believe people are erased out of the book of life after being written into it from the foundation of the world?

 

[TMSO]

Sooo..............

You do not correctly understand the terms, do you? The entire portion of your post pertaining to Unconditional Election is a straw man!

The "U" in TULIP stands for "Unconditional Election," which is defined within Calvinism to say simply God did not condition His election on any attribute of the one being saved, such as whether or not that individual was a good or moral person or had done something making him/her worthy of being chosen for salvation. God conditioned His choice (and His work) solely upon His will and His purpose and nothing to do with the sinner being saved from sin. Nothing less and nothing more.

Double predestination has nothing to do with Unconditional Election. However, if it did have something to do with UC then the parable you selected and the way you chose to render it would be proof of the doctrine because the two different kinds of plants (wheat and tares) can never be the other and the destinies of both sets is pre-determined without they plant having any choice or input. There is another problem with your criticism, though, because double predestination is an outlier view within Calvinism, not the orthodox position. Failing to grasp that you've committed a composition error, assuming what is true of an outlying point of view is true and applicable to all of Calvinism. It is not.

Calvin did not read the parable as double predestination. We, therefore, see you have, once again, totally screwed up what Calvinism teaches and argued against the screwed-up version. That is called a straw man. You (or your sources) screwed up.

Learn Calvinism correctly. Stop arguing straw men.

Okay, I will am going to do a bottom line up front (called BLUF in the military and government) so you get my main point, and then I will explain.
I will be quick on TULIP, and then explain some.
1. Total depravity/total inability. My source, Jesus Christ, put it best. Since you seem to have issues with my source, can you please explain?
[The only source I need is Jesus answer to the disciples question "Then who can be saved". I am intelligent enough to understand the full breadth of Jesus answer.] Obviously there are other scripture to use, but if you are trying to prove this to me, all you need is Jesus answer to this question. To me it even completely obliterates the response that camel through the eye of a needle doesn't mean impossible, just incredibly difficult. When I add this to Jesus answer, it is clear to me exactly what Jesus was saying. Unforunately this young rich man would not be entering heaven. [I add, so you don't misunderstand "without God's intervention"]
2. Unconditional Election: Ephesians 1. That is all I need. Since you need more, can you tell me what is missing in your belief that you have issues? (This does not mean I don't use other scripture, however, I find Ephesians 1 to be very clear and very concise.)
3. Limited Atonement. I went to see what RC Sproul said, and found nothing different then what I believe. However, you apparently have an issue with understanding the gist of what I said, and knowing the foundation of where "sufficiency/efficiency" comes from. Yes, one has to consider all the parameters, but if you already know them, why do I have to give a dissertation.
4. Irresistible grace. Again, the basic bottom line is, if you are elect, you will be saved. There is no question. You will not be able to resist God drawing you to Christ. Is there a reason why I have to go deeper in just stating what it stands for?
5.. Perseverance of the Saints. I just stop at Jude 24-25
"24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling or falling into sin, and to present you unblemished [blameless and faultless] in the presence of His glory with triumphant joy and unspeakable delight, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and power, before all time and now and forever. Amen."
Is there a reason you would be against praising God for this? Is there something wrong with me saying that not only can He do this, He will to the utmost? Why is there a problem with it?

In explanation of my refusal to believe in double predestination, though I absolutely believe in Unconditional Election:
Unconditional Election simply states that God has chosen some, without merit, without standards, and without condition, to be His children, and to live to the standard of being His children. (to live holy and blameless).
If double predestination takes the stand of unconditional election, then one must consider unconditional non-election to bring up double predestination.

As such, God has chosen, without condition, for the pleasure of His will, to adopt some of His creation as children, and save them. Likewise, God has chosen some, without condition, for the pleasure of His will, to send them to hell. Consider: without condition. That means that sin is not the reason people go to hell. They go to hell because God chose, without condition, to send them there. I believe this is why arminians and others believe that this is a valid, rational argument. Unconditional election cannot be true because of double predestination.

That may work on some, however, I don't believe in double predestination. I believe that people go to hell because of their own sin, though, by extension, because of Adam. Why? Paul said "[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: " So the default condition of man is: hellbound, and it is conditional. It is by our works. Paul also says "For the wages of sin is death..." That is, we work the work of sin, and our payment for our labor is death. It is payment. We earn it. So, for this, my bottom line is, in the line of unconditional election, there is no double predestination. Everyone by default, from birth, [human POV] is hellbound. Not because God chose them without condition, but because they are sinners, and they have earned it. However, God had chosen, before the foundation of the world, to adopt some of His creation as His children through Christ, and rescue them from their fate. This He did without condition, but according to the good pleasure of His will.

Now, I don't believe in double predestination, however, from what I read from Calvin, he never disputed it. (Granted, I only read a little bit in one book because an arminian pointed it out.) If you have trouble understanding the point that I am making, just ask. I may have focused too much on one thing, and not on the other. The parable of the wheat and chaff to me, points out that it is God. He planted the wheat. The chaff was not planted by God in the parable. If you want to go deeper than that, you have to interpret who the evil one is. Is it sin? Is it the devil? I don't see what Calvin is saying about this parable (not to say he is wrong), since the idea of the church was still unknown while Jesus was here. (Not non-existent, but still hidden.) I see Jesus speaking to God's mercy, and I don't try to dig too deep to believe that I have found some hidden meaning. God could just kill off all the non-elect, and save the elect now. Mercy. I may go deeper when I read it again, but that is what sticks out the most. Consider how Solomon and others speak to the prospering of the rich. Consider the scripture (I don't know the reference off the top of my head) that says that the rich have their full in this life. I consider it God's mercy considering where their eternity is. I don't think that is necesarrily right, but I haven't gone deeper into that yet. (There is a lot in scripture.)

Perhaps you have gone deep enough to understand when I say that I feel like the poor man who took a seat that you reserved for rich men, and that every seat in this church is a seat you reserved for a rich man.

 

[TMSO]

Dude, it looks like your response is now being picked on and picked apart by people posting walls of text!

Ah yes, the division that has found itself at home in Calvinism.

 

[TMSO]

I beg to differ, though the 5 points do not summed up Calvinism, they are a part of it.​

I disagree. I believe it is a summary of Calvinism intended to stand against the five remonstrances of arminianism. That is where the issue lies.

They were assembled to refute the 5 points of the Arminius followers. Now, when I was an Arminian the confusion I came across and couldn't get a satisfied answer to, is that, Arminius taught Total Depravity. Then he taught Prevenient Grace which totally negated Total Depravity and vice versa. What's the problem here with this? A huge one, here's why. Total Depravity or the Gravity of Sin, is that fallen man and all of his human faculties are effected with sin right down to the core, the heart. Fallen man in his fallen nature now serves and follows his sinful desires by his own free-will. He is alienated from God because of sin. He is a son of disobedience with fallen sinful behavioral traits of ungodliness, unrighteousness, evil, wicked, and so forth.​

On Arminius, I heard he was actually a Calvinist. The five remonstrances were penned by his followers, not by Arminius. TULIP was made to answer the remonstrances. I would say (and could be wrong) that that means they were not inteded to be representative of all that Calvin taught, but a distillation of some/all he taught into five points. Being they were five points, who knows how much they left out.

Arminius states that only by being fully regenerated by the Holy Spirit can a fallen sinner be saved. Fallen man is incapable of and by himself to will, understand, and seek God. But here's where the sleight of hand comes into play. This so-called Grace, they call Prevenient Grace, has to come before anything the fallen man can do. But this PG is not effectual in saving anyone says Roger Olson a prominent Arminian advocate of the Classical Arminian position. So, then the question naturally arises, then what does this PG accomplished if anything. Well, they will say that the fallen is placed somewhere between life and death to make a decision. Okay, another question naturally arises asking the question, does the sinner fully understand their fate of their decision knowing all the facts given by this PG. In other words, is this PG full regeneration or partial? So, in essence it's not Grace that saves anyone, but the fallen man who is given a chance with the facts in hand to make a choice.

I think you found the other answer. It was ROger Olson who apparently said that PG is not effectual. This would mean more if it was Arminius who said this. You should consider that given five remonstrances, they got Finney. Try and tell me that what Finney brought to Arminianism has any relation to what Arminius taught. (And I mean, besides the fact that I don't believe Finney knew much of anything about God in the first place.)

This Prevenient Grace is not taught anywhere in Scripture, but made up and refuted by the Reformers and was exactly why the TULIP was assembled to refute the 5 Points of Arminianism.

I believe the prevenient grace, as Arminius apparently taught it, was just his description of the grace that saves the elect, as John Calvin taught. Of course, I could be wrong, since my feeling/opinion comes from those who say Arminius was actually a Calvinist who just expounded upon things that Calvin did not. Again, I could be very wrong here, but I can't help but feel that Arminius may have been slighted by his followers after his death.

 

[TMSO]

@TMSO.... focus. You've got two Cals here telling you your understanding of TULIP is flawed. take our report seriously. Focus. Go back and re-read the op. Note all the baseless accusations made in the op and perhaps ask yourself, "Do I want to unwittingly get drawn into supporting this op when it is so objectively flawed? You might actually help your synergist brother be a better poster by helping him improve his own argument - correcting his own errors - because you have developed a better understanding of Calvinism than he.

My fellow Cals will gladly tell you they do not always agree with me and, like it or not, our posts sharpen each other's prowess. We Cals rely on one another to improve our understanding of God, scripture, and the doctrines we share. Despite the report of this op, the Cals here have done three things disproving the op: 1) posted unity, posted diversity within that unity, and 3) collaboratively posted content supporting Calvinist soteriology. If you must be a synergist, then trying to be that guy for your fellow Arms.

You asked me to expound on why I said something I said, and I did. I didn't word it perfectly (apparently) so you apparently missed that I was speaking to certain aspects, and not to the whole thing. (Since you asked about me saying TULIP is not the best representation (however I worded it) of Calvin's teachings. I am not a synergist, except in sanctification. (I consider the verse that says that we walk in the good works that God prepared for us beforehand. Not salvation. That is solely God's domain. Our journey after salvation, I feel, is hand in hand, Father and child.) I'll try to find time to read the op to deal with that, now that I feel I have better explained my beliefs/position after your rather direct attacks.

 

[makesends]

So... you didn't understand what I wrote. Understandable. I did take a route to show why I believe there is no double predestination. If everyone is technically headed to hell, and God chose some to rescue, how is that double predestination? They were ALREADY going to hell. Everyone was already going to hell. (I speak in technicalities).
If you want my take on unconditional election, it is Ephesians 1.
"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He [a]made us accepted in the Beloved."

Put it in proper order. (I like how Paul writes, it seems so educated, however it makes some things a little confusing for some. The proper order is that God predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, and as such, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. So, we were adopted as His children, and then He called us to live up to the standard set for His children. All of this took place before the foundation of the world, and all of this was according to the good pleasure of His will. That is... He felt like it. There were no conditions or standards put forward for Him to choose who would be His children. Nothing but the good pleasure of His will.


My example on double predestination and unconditional election is this. You are given a clipboard with a bunch of numbers on it. Each number connected to a person. You are choosing 10 names to join a team. All you have are numbers. No information, no names. You choose 10. Was that by merit? Or because you felt like it? As for double predestination, consider that all of these people are in the same position (perhaps going to hell). You chose 10 and they are no longer going to hell. Did you choose the rest and tell them they are going to hell, or were they already going there.

You propose something that could be taken by the self-determinist to imply randomness on God's part. I have heard on this site that TULIP is false because Election isn't unconditional. These mockers want to say that if God didn't choose individually, purposefully, then he chose randomly, even capriciously.

But he DID choose individually, purposefully, as is logically derived through the mere law of causation AND as is shown in Scripture. He created each individual for his specific use of them, and that, both the elect and the reprobate.

There is no 'pool of possibles' from which he chose some particular number.

Here is an important question. Do you believe people are erased out of the book of life after being written into it from the foundation of the world?

Consider the possibility that 'blotted out' carries the notion of of impeded, or 'kept out'. I don't know of many other verses showing that they once were but no more, except by the definition spoken of in "Not all are Israel that are of Israel".

 

[Josheb]

Wow. Josheb the critic. You could have just said that I wrote a bunch of drivel.

Take responsibility for yourself. Go back and look at your post. One single simply question was asked, and the reply was a wall of text that NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESION!!!

It is not criticism to observe facts in evidence. If you feel criticized then you might want to take responsibility for that, too. The facts in evidence - so far - are that you do not answer questions directly when asked and you have a very, very incorrect understanding of TULIP, think you are justified to hold that false view, and in that self-justification think strawmen are godly and persuasive. When all this is pointed out the response is...

Wow. Josheb the critic. You could have just said that I wrote a bunch of drivel.

When the correct response should have been, "Ah, my bad. You're correct. I should have just answered the question asked."



So, what makes you think I have any interest in replying to Posts 188-194 (where I can see more of the same subterfuge)?

 

[TMSO]

You propose something that could be taken by the self-determinist to imply randomness on God's part. I have heard on this site that TULIP is false because Election isn't unconditional. These mockers want to say that if God didn't choose individually, purposefully, then he chose randomly, even capriciously.

I believe it is individual. They like to say it is the church, and by ending up in the church, one is part of this elect body of the church. I believe it is individual and that people end up in the church because they were elect.

But he DID choose individually, purposefully, as is logically derived through the mere law of causation AND as is shown in Scripture. He created each individual for his specific use of them, and that, both the elect and the reprobate.

I have no issue with that. I know He chose the individual. I always argued that while the church is a corporate body, it is made up of individuals who would not be there, unless they were elected individually.

There is no 'pool of possibles' from which he chose some particular number.

I take it you can't take what I said like a parable. You don't think I literally meant that this is what He did? I was showing that it is possible, using this theoretical idea, for God to choose without merit, and that He doesn't choose people to keep off the list. Consider it this way. One could go too far and say that if God chose people unconditionally for salvation, then God chose people unconditionally to go to hell. However, going to hell is all about conditions. Being a sinner, for instance. If God chose without condition for people to go to hell, then ANYONE could go to hell, sinner, or saved, if God so chose. Elect to salvation is without condition, but dying in sin is a condition that sends people go to hell. The wages of sin is death, that is, the payment for our work of sin is death. It is based on condition. But the free gift of God is life. It is a gift. Gifts have no conditions, or they aren't gifts, but favors.

Consider the possibility that 'blotted out' carries the notion of of impeded, or 'kept out'. I don't know of many other verses showing that they once were but no more, except by the definition spoken of in "Not all are Israel that are of Israel".

Not all of the church (on Earth) are of the church. One sees this in Hebrews. Anyone can go to church. Anyone can participate in a service (up to those few things that can end up in judgement, such as communion. Hebrews puts it as those who have tasted. They did not accept Christ, but by being in the church, they experience God's common grace poured out on the church. In the end, they rejected, and Hebrews speaks of their end. The verse about names blotted out has to be carefully examined, and I'm not at that point yet.

 

[Arial]

I believe the prevenient grace, as Arminius apparently taught it, was just his description of the grace that saves the elect, as John Calvin taught. Of course, I could be wrong, since my feeling/opinion comes from those who say Arminius was actually a Calvinist who just expounded upon things that Calvin did not. Again, I could be very wrong here, but I can't help but feel that Arminius may have been slighted by his followers after his death.

A brief incomprehensive, but hopefully helpful, statement on Arminius and the remonstrance.

Arminus was a disciple of Beza who was a follower of Calvin. But Arminus became persuaded by the doctrine of free will and universal grace. He took a more moderate position of original sin. The statements of the remonstrance:

1. God decreed to save all who believe and persevere in the faith; all others are left in sin and damnation.
2.Christ died for all men, "so that he has obtained, so that hd has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and forgiveness of sins; though yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer.
3. Man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will "inasmuch as in a state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, or do anything that is truly good---but that he be born again of God in Christ."
4. Without the operation of grace, man cannot do anything good, but grace is not irresistible since men have resisted the Holy Spirit.
5. Believers are partakers of eternal life and have power to strive against Satan. HOwever, whether they can fall away and be lost is a matter "that must be more particularly determined out of Holy Scripture before we ourselves can teach it with full persuasion of our minds."

I will not break it down step by step as to refuting it, but is is obvious it is full of scriptural errors and even contradictions such as in number 2. It is also, when compared to the the systematic element in TULIP of one letter representing the first doctrine flows of necessity into the next, with consistency, without speculation, with no contradictions, and each part can be fleshed out from the scriptures. Whereas the remonstance contains none of those elements and an inability to either deny or support the security of our salvation, and no recognition or consideration given to the first hermeneutic that all doctrine must agree with and be consistent with all other doctrine. Who does God say He is?

 

[Ladodgers6]

I disagree. I believe it is a summary of Calvinism intended to stand against the five remonstrances of arminianism. That is where the issue lies.

That's fine we disagree. The 5 points of Calvinism are Biblical truths taught in Scripture. In fact, as I stated before and this is coming from a former Classical Arminian myself, Arminius himself taught and believed in Total Depravity, which is one area both agree upon.

Only Grace Alone can redeem a sinner from this plight and Arminius knew this because it is throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. But the major difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, is that in Classical Calvinism Grace is effectual whereas in Arminianism it is not. See the problem? I did.​

On Arminius, I heard he was actually a Calvinist. The five remonstrances were penned by his followers, not by Arminius. TULIP was made to answer the remonstrances. I would say (and could be wrong) that that means they were not inteded to be representative of all that Calvin taught, but a distillation of some/all he taught into five points. Being they were five points, who knows how much they left out.

Yes, they were pinned by followers but using Arminius teachings, correct? Same with the the 5 points of Calvinism, right? Anyway, speaking for myself here, Arminianism fails miserably because there is no hope, promise of salvation, no assurance (because one could lose their salvation) everything depends on human effort, which is a lost cause, that was lost in the Garden. The curse of the Law hangs over everyones head already under condemnation for every sinner. We need a Redeemer, a Savior, another way other than the exhortation to save us. We need the good news of the Gospel for the ungodly! Arminianism is subjective in nature, whereas Calvinism is object to what saves, namely Christ Jesus.​

I think you found the other answer. It was ROger Olson who apparently said that PG is not effectual. This would mean more if it was Arminius who said this. You should consider that given five remonstrances, they got Finney. Try and tell me that what Finney brought to Arminianism has any relation to what Arminius taught. (And I mean, besides the fact that I don't believe Finney knew much of anything about God in the first place.)

Roger Olson got this from Arminius teachings. Read his book against Calvinism. He'll quote all the references from Arminius.

I believe the prevenient grace, as Arminius apparently taught it, was just his description of the grace that saves the elect, as John Calvin taught. Of course, I could be wrong, since my feeling/opinion comes from those who say Arminius was actually a Calvinist who just expounded upon things that Calvin did not. Again, I could be very wrong here, but I can't help but feel that Arminius may have been slighted by his followers after his death.

Yes, you are wrong here. Do some homework and get back to me.

 

[TMSO]

That's fine we disagree. The 5 points of Calvinism are Biblical truths taught in Scripture. In fact, as I stated before and this is coming from a former Classical Arminian myself, Arminius himself taught and believed in Total Depravity, which is one area both agree upon.​

Then why did RC Sproul believe that he needed to take it upon himself to change the points, so that he could properly explain them? For instance, the big one, Limited Atonement he changed to definite redemption. Why? Because one does not find an explanation of definite redemption that is the whole foundational reason for Limited Atonement, within Limited Atonement. This is why so many people who aren't universalists still will not accept Limited Atonement. Four pointers. Why? Confusion.

Only Grace Alone can redeem a sinner from this plight and Arminius knew this because it is throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. But the major difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, is that in Classical Calvinism Grace is effectual whereas in Arminianism it is not. See the problem? I did.

Yes, they were pinned by followers but using Arminius teachings, correct?​

That is the thing. They used, but they may not have understood his teaching. I'm pretty sure some/a lot of his teachings may have been lost, or ignored.

Same with the the 5 points of Calvinism, right? Anyway, speaking for myself here, Arminianism fails miserably because there is no hope, promise of salvation, no assurance (because one could lose their salvation) everything depends on human effort, which is a lost cause, that was lost in the Garden. The curse of the Law hangs over everyones head already under condemnation for every sinner. We need a Redeemer, a Savior, another way other than the exhortation to save us. We need the good news of the Gospel for the ungodly! Arminianism is subjective in nature, whereas Calvinism is object to what saves, namely Christ Jesus.​

The fifth remonstrance actually avoids saying that it is possible to lose one's salvation, and ends by saying more study must be done in order to make such a determination. They question the possibility of losing salvation if one does not remain in Christ, but again, state that they cannot be sure. The Baptist church I went to was rock solid in belief when it came to perseverance of the saints. And they were apparently more than happy having a calvinist as the associate pastor. The pastor was die hard arminian.

Roger Olson got this from Arminius teachings. Read his book against Calvinism. He'll quote all the references from Arminius.

Yes, you are wrong here. Do some homework and get back to me.

I get tired with a lot of this. Quotations from people have basically become worthless especially in debate. Why? The find one sentence that appears to say what they want, in a paragraph that says the exact opposite, and they take the sentence and say "SEE! He agrees." (How do I know? I used to do that decades ago.) These tactics are worthless once you walk into someone who knows what you are talking about. I am not disagreeing with you, I am saying I am getting really tired of having to research every little quote made on the forums here, especially when they are quotes from the Bible. It's like, why don't they read the context? So forgive me for being totally spent.