The disparity (disunity) in Calvinism

[Ladodgers6]

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.

Why is that a bad thing? Don't things get better has we learn? Just look at DNA for example, huge strides, leaps and bounds have been made.
My daughter is on a research team at Stanford growing hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys, from cancer patient cells and utilizing CRISPR technology to cut out and remove mutated cells in the DNA sequence strand. Hereditary diseases will no longer carry over to progeny of parents.

The same goes for Theology. Excellent growth and wisdom have excelled from our ECF's. Geerhardus Vos, Bavinck, Warfield, Kline, Sproul, Horton, Phillip Lee, just to name a few. Some people have a very hard time understand old english writers and need modern writers to explain to dumb lay Christian like me. So, explaining it in a way people in the pew can understand it without sacrificing the content is just fine to me. Especially in this day in age. People do not want academic seminary jargon, right? So, I am all for keeping it simple, so people can understand and follow.

So changing Limited Atonement to Definite Atonement is not in the least lost in the translation. Because the content is intact, right? Answer me this, if you would. Do you believe or hold a position that God has a Plan of Salvation?
​

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.

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.

Well, Arminius himself said one can lose he salvation if he/she sinned, correct? Look it up.

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.

Not me, I am the opposite, I do my homework, if not then how can one debate a topic? I think this is my tired emotion of people trying to debate topics they have no clue of, or just blur out whatever in an attempt to win an argument. I could care less about winning an argument, I only seek the truth. If, I am corrected by another, that's just fine by me. If not then what's the point.

Grace is the greatest gift any sinner can receive, because it is not merited or earned, but given freely through a promise in Christ to the ungodly. And it's in this condition that we receive it. No moral improvement is needed, or exhortation to follow. Just God's Promise that he saves sinners in Christ through Faith Alone! This is where I spend most if not all my time. The Gospel; specifically Law & Gospel.

I'll leave you with this, an excerpt from one of my favorite theologians.

We must understand that 3 elements belong together: 1) The Promise Itself; 2) The Fact That The Promise Is Free; and 3) That The Merits Of Christ Are The Payment And Atoning Sacrifice. So what is necessary? That God promised me, you, the forgiveness of your sins, all on account of Jesus Christ and demands nothing from you for it. It's all given to you "FREE"; Gratis! It's By Grace through Faith Alone, and that's what makes the Gospel the Gospel! When you remove the "Aloneness", of this, and make it somehow about my response, my ability, it seizes to be the Gospel, now it becomes something else entirely (legalism-subjective) basically no Gospel, no promise, no hope, no assurance, no life!

---WHI Cast

Liberalism is always in the imperative mood; whereas Christianity is always in the triumphant indicative! Liberalism always appeals to the human will; Christianity announces first, a Gracious Act of God. What we need is not exhortation, but a Gospel, not directions for saving myself (Legalism), but knowledge of the facts on how God has saved me. Have you any good news? I know your exhortation will not help me, but if anything has been done to save me , will you not tell me the facts?

---J. Gresham Machen

​

 

[ReverendRV]

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.

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.

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.

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.

If we don't stay in Christ, we will Lose our Salvation; he is the Way, the Truth and the Life...

The Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints just teaches that Born Again Christians will stay in Christ...

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

If we don't stay in Christ, we will Lose our Salvation; he is the Way, the Truth and the Life...

The Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints just teaches that Born Again Christians will stay in Christ...

What does "stay in Christ" even mean? Does it mean you somehow think that your experience of God when you were saved changes into atheism? I don't see how that is even possible. Nobody that experiences God can somehow later turn around and say there is no God.

 

[Ladodgers6]

If we don't stay in Christ, we will Lose our Salvation; he is the Way, the Truth and the Life...

The Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints just teaches that Born Again Christians will stay in Christ...

Just curious RV, please if you wouldn't mind, share your thoughts on these passages, thanks.

John 10: 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”​

 

[ReverendRV]

What does "stay in Christ" even mean? Does it mean you somehow think that your experience of God when you were saved changes into atheism? I don't see how that is even possible. Nobody that experiences God can somehow later turn around and say there is no God.

For the Calvinist, staying in Christ means the Perseverance of the Saints. Perseverance is accomplished by the Grace of God through the works we were created for...

 

[ReverendRV]

Just curious RV, please if you wouldn't mind, share your thoughts on these passages, thanks.

John 10: 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”​

Praise the Lord! If I weren't Once Saved Always Saved, even now I would be like a Sheep gone astray from the Hundred Sheep...

 

[Josheb]

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.​

Amen! That means every time someone dissents from the doctrine of total depravity and criticizes Calvinism, they are arguing a straw man because Calvinism is not unique in this doctrine. The long-held, over-arching, orthodox, and historical position with the Church has been that of what we now call Total Depravity.

Then why did RC Sproul believe that he needed to take it upon himself to change the points, so he could properly explain them?

You'll have to ask Mr. Sproul when you meet him on the other side of the resurrection because no one here can explain his mind on his behalf. More, importantly, Sproul did not change the definition of TD. Any claim, explicit, implied, or insinuated is false.

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.

Incorrect. First of all your personal confusion is evidence for and against nothing. That is a form of the personal incredulity fallacy. The entire dissenting argument fails to consider Occam's Razor: Sproul used a phrase that better articulated a 500-year-old doctrine in modern vernacular. Nothing nefarious was intended or committed because his phrase is thoroughly consistent with the doctrine of Limited Atonement. There is no confusion.

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.

LOL. You sureness is also evidence of nothing. Have you got any evidence whatsoever some of his teachings (relevant to this op) are lost or ignored?

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.

So what?

I get tired with a lot of this.

Learning and knowing Calvinism correctly will solve a great deal of that problem. Once persuaded to Calvinism you'll have another problem, though. You'll get tired of all the strawmen arguments fallaciously criticizing Calvinism for positions it does not teach. But then, at least, you'll be on the side of scripture, fact and truth .

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.

You do understand the voice of the Calvinists here have been unified and contain very little if any diversity replying to your dissent, yes? All the Cals here have pointed out various factual errors and logical fallacies contained in your posts. The facts and fallacies are not personal opinions or in any way subjective. They are objectively verifiable matters that should be accepted as such.

Why then do you persist in defending the errors and not correcting them?

TD is not a uniquely Calvinist doctrine. It is, instead, the most enduring, long-held, orthodox and mainstream position held in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice.
UE is substantively different than what was posted as Calvinism in Post 173.
LA is substantively different than what was posted as Calvinism in Post 173.
IG is substantively different than what was posted as Calvinism in Post 173.
I'm not sure PotS had to be addressed because evidence directly and explicitly from scripture was cited in Post 173 irrefutably proving PotS correct!
Post 168 has not been proven correct and you've had three pages of post to accomplish that task.

Even if disagreement persist half of the corrections, one-tenth of the corrections should be acknowledged and there is nothing. It has been shown Arminius was an adherent of TD. It can be shown the doctrine was formalized as far back as Augustine, existent in prior ECFs, and is well-supported by scripture. Why is there no acknowledgment TD is valid, correct, and not uniquely Calvinist?

Even if you continue to disagree with the Cals here..... you cannot continue to disagree on the basis of everything found in Post 173 because many things in that post are incorrect. Why is it not one error has been acknowledged? Why has not one error been corrected?

I get tired with a lot of this.

The truth will set you free.


Let's start small and simple. Can you now go on record and state you understand the doctrine we now call "Total Depravity" is not specific only or unique to Calvinism? A lengthy response is not needed or desired. The question can be answered with a single word but a single sentence explicitly declaring, in your own words, total depravity is not unique to Calvinism and should not be used as a criticism specific to Calvinism will do wonders for this discussion.

 

[Ladodgers6]

What does "stay in Christ" even mean? Does it mean you somehow think that your experience of God when you were saved changes into atheism? I don't see how that is even possible. Nobody that experiences God can somehow later turn around and say there is no God.

Exactly, instead of having Christ and all his benefits and knowing that even our faith and repentance are not worthy, but the object of our faith is, namely Christ Jesus. But instead of knowing that Christ is sufficient to save sinners, people turn inward to their response, repentance, works to see if they are worthy enough to be saved. Here lies the problem and where legalism always tries to find a way in. God saves us in Christ while we are still his enemies, ungodly, unrighteous, vile and wicked sinners. And it's in this condition that he saves us. This is marvelous good news for the ungodly. Once free we live to God, knowing that it's all by His Grace, Mercy and Love that saved us. So, we walk before God with praise, gratitude, thanksgiving and worshipping him for what he has done for me and you.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Praise the Lord! If I weren't Once Saved Always Saved, even now I would be like a Sheep gone astray from the Hundred Sheep...

Praise the Lord for he will leave the 99 for the one!

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

For the Calvinist, staying in Christ means the Perseverance of the Saints. Perseverance is accomplished by the Grace of God through the works we were created for...

You didn't answer my questions. You were the one that talked about losing salvation and now you are saying you are always saved. I think you are confused.

 

[His clay]

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.

I appreciate this attempt to refocus discussion upon the veracity of the opening post.

 

[His clay]

I have seen it....some Calvinists believe in free will, others don't.

Some believe that God is the First Cause of everything, others don't.

Some make these issues a hill that they would be willing to die on (saying that one cannot be a Calvinist and not agree), yet other Calvinists disagree with them.

I believe that this is because Calvin may have said certain things in some places outright and then said other things in other places that might bring people to an opposite conclusion.

Otherwise, why is there so much disagreement between Calvinists?

Time and time again, I have mentioned what was preached to me by one Calvinist, and then addressed it elsewhere; only to find that it "is not the teaching of Calvinism" according to the Calvinist that I am talking to "now"...

I am not going to play games with you folks.

If all you are going to do is say that certain beliefs in Calvinism are not believed by you as Calvinists, then I am forced to make this assertion:

That Calvinism is divided against itself and therefore its kingdom cannot stand.

If certain Calvinists believe things that are opposite to Calvinistic teaching, how is the teaching going to survive?

I would say to all of you that you had better get some doctrinal unity. Even as it is written by Paul,

1Co 1:10, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

The single greatest problem with the opening post is that the opening poster has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to properly deal with real Calvinism. By reading the opening poster, we see the poster's subjective opinions and ideas, but this is often objectively at a disconnect with reality. Accusations of "straw man" are met with the idea that the poster has somewhere out there, somehow, in the poster's subjective account of memory, encountered someone who supposedly advocated a stance on Calvinism in keeping with the straw man. But again, this once again presents a subjective stance. We are supposed to take the poster's opinion as though it is reality, without any objective justification that such encounters actually happened. I simply cannot jettison objective reality because someone someone subjectively misinterprets Calvinism.

With regard to "free will," it depends upon the definition. When Calvinists reject "free will," they are rejecting libertarian freedom, and when they are endorsing choice, agency, responsibility, and freedom to do as one most prefers, then they are endorsing compatibilist freedom. The opening post is just displaying ignorance and incompetence in handling the issues involved and proclaiming disparity, when in fact a more nuanced understanding would clarify matters.

All Christians believe that God was the first cause of everything. It's called creation. Genesis 1:1 . . . Apart from creation, we do not have the ability to even speak of secondary causation. This is a Christian issue, not a Calvinist issue.

I can grant a diversity with respect to the importance different Calvinists place upon the doctrine, but a divergence on "importance" does nothing against the truth of Calvinism. The fact that my neighbor is non-Christian and conservative politically does nothing to change the fact that we are in agreement on much conservative politics. My neighbor may make this a hill to die on, but I hold it in a more personal way, not expecting non-Christians to hold to Christian values. This doesn't mean that we don't agree and find unity on much conservative values. The categories are distinct (degree of conviction vs content of conviction), and thus the opening post is seeking to engage in a conflation (category error fallacy) of distinct issues.

The opening post asserts that Calvin said such and such, without quoting, without even paraphrasing the content. On the basis of a vague, not connected to anything that Calvin actually said objectively, assertion of Calvin, we are told that he was internally contradictory in that his comments could lead to a conclusion at odds with another conclusion. Again, no objective content is given here. We just see non-objective, opinionated slander.

The rest of the opening post continues along the same trajectory, and I'm not going to waste time responding to it. Again, we see the opening poster's opinion of Calvinists and Calvinism, but we see nothing that objectively demonstrates that this diversity is actually the case. We see no referenced quotes from Calvin. We see no linked quotes from Calvinists. All that we see is unjustified, subjective opinion.

 

[Josheb]

The single greatest problem with the opening post is that the opening poster has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to properly deal with real Calvinism.

And a perusal of every synergist-authored op in the Arm & Cal board shows that is uniformly the case, the standard operating procedure, modus operandi, and the default practice of Cal-critics . The problem is, sadly, compounded and perpetuated by the fact even the simplest and most obvious of errors are never acknowledged and corrected.

Again, we see the opening poster's opinion of Calvinists and Calvinism, but we see nothing that objectively demonstrates that this diversity is actually the case. We see no referenced quotes from Calvin. We see no linked quotes from Calvinists. All that we see is unjustified, subjective opinion.

......and an abject failure to acknowledge the facts when those references are provided by the Cals!

The rest of the opening post continues along the same trajectory, and I'm not going to waste time responding to it.

Smart man.

 

[ReverendRV]

You didn't answer my questions. You were the one that talked about losing salvation and now you are saying you are always saved. I think you are confused.

I'm not confused; I'm a Compatibalist. The both/and instead of the either/or...

Why can't it be the both/and?

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I'm not confused; I'm a Compatibalist. The both/and instead of the either/or...

Why can't it be the both/and?

If you are saved already, how can you be unsaved? What does a person have to do to be unsaved? Are you saying that you have no experience of God spiritually and factually? Is your assurance of salvation bereft of any experience of God? If you actually have experienced God, please let us all know what that was like to you and describe it in words. If you can't do that, I don't believe you can have any assurance of salvation at all, even 1%.

You say you are a "compatibalist" (which isn't a word either), but I take it to mean you like to argue with people to no good end.

 

[ReverendRV]

If you are saved already, how can you be unsaved? What does a person have to do to be unsaved? Are you saying that you have no experience of God spiritually and factually? Is your assurance of salvation bereft of any experience of God? If you actually have experienced God, please let us all know what that was like to you and describe it in words. If you can't do that, I don't believe you can have any assurance of salvation at all, even 1%.

You say you are a "compatibalist" (which isn't a word either), but I take it to mean you like to argue with people to no good end. If that is your modus operandi, you are done. Nobody could ever take you as not being a troll.

A Born Again Christian can't Lose their Salvation; it can only be an Unrealized Potential. You and I can potentially Lose our Salvation, but it will never happen...

 

[Ladodgers6]

The single greatest problem with the opening post is that the opening poster has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to properly deal with real Calvinism. By reading the opening poster, we see the poster's subjective opinions and ideas, but this is often objectively at a disconnect with reality. Accusations of "straw man" are met with the idea that the poster has somewhere out there, somehow, in the poster's subjective account of memory, encountered someone who supposedly advocated a stance on Calvinism in keeping with the straw man. But again, this once again presents a subjective stance. We are supposed to take the poster's opinion as though it is reality, without any objective justification that such encounters actually happened. I simply cannot jettison objective reality because someone someone subjectively misinterprets Calvinism.

With regard to "free will," it depends upon the definition. When Calvinists reject "free will," they are rejecting libertarian freedom, and when they are endorsing choice, agency, responsibility, and freedom to do as one most prefers, then they are endorsing compatibilist freedom. The opening post is just displaying ignorance and incompetence in handling the issues involved and proclaiming disparity, when in fact a more nuanced understanding would clarify matters.

All Christians believe that God was the first cause of everything. It's called creation. Genesis 1:1 . . . Apart from creation, we do not have the ability to even speak of secondary causation. This is a Christian issue, not a Calvinist issue.

I can grant a diversity with respect to the importance different Calvinists place upon the doctrine, but a divergence on "importance" does nothing against the truth of Calvinism. The fact that my neighbor is non-Christian and conservative politically does nothing to change the fact that we are in agreement on much conservative politics. My neighbor may make this a hill to die on, but I hold it in a more personal way, not expecting non-Christians to hold to Christian values. This doesn't mean that we don't agree and find unity on much conservative values. The categories are distinct (degree of conviction vs content of conviction), and thus the opening post is seeking to engage in a conflation (category error fallacy) of distinct issues.

The opening post asserts that Calvin said such and such, without quoting, without even paraphrasing the content. On the basis of a vague, not connected to anything that Calvin actually said objectively, assertion of Calvin, we are told that he was internally contradictory in that his comments could lead to a conclusion at odds with another conclusion. Again, no objective content is given here. We just see non-objective, opinionated slander.

The rest of the opening post continues along the same trajectory, and I'm not going to waste time responding to it. Again, we see the opening poster's opinion of Calvinists and Calvinism, but we see nothing that objectively demonstrates that this diversity is actually the case. We see no referenced quotes from Calvin. We see no linked quotes from Calvinists. All that we see is unjustified, subjective opinion.

Spot on! I will have to admit that when I was a Classical Arminian, I too took the same approach to Classical Calvinism when I first heard it. Without taking the time to read it or understand it, I condemned it with ignorance and bias. I just couldn't believe that the TULIP was biblical. I choked on predestination because my piny mind couldn't comprehend it. I was comfortable with knowing in Synergistic theology I am in control of my fate. And happy that I also control God on how and where he acts. Sorta like a genie in a bottle, as long as I have the ultimate decision making ability, I'm good.

But still I couldn't shake what I heard about TULIP. I had to destroy it by all means possible. Setting out on a mission to refute this heresy, I studied day and night for weeks, months. It was until I finally read and heard the Doctrines of Grace of Luther, Calvin, Huss, Sproul, Horton that it all came together for me. Especially the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone (Law & Gospel). Once I was able to grasp Law & Gospel the whole Bible opened up to me, including TULIP. Another concept that is the soil of the Doctrines of Grace is Classical Covenant Theology.

In hindsight my friend who is a Calvinist at the time and told me about TULIP, I wish he started with Law & Gospel in relation to Justification by Faith Alone first to get me acclimated with the Reformation, then gently introduced TULIP, because predestination nearly choked me out. Anyways, I also believed and advise Calvinists to also beware of presenting TULIP and do so with kids gloves. From my experience I would recommend preaching Law & Gospel first then catechize them as they progress along. Just my two wooden cents.​

 

[His clay]

Spot on! I will have to admit that when I was a Classical Arminian, I too took the same approach to Classical Calvinism when I first heard it. Without taking the time to read it or understand it, I condemned it with ignorance and bias. I just couldn't believe that the TULIP was biblical. I choked on predestination because my piny mind couldn't comprehend it. I was comfortable with knowing in Synergistic theology I am in control of my fate. And happy that I also control God on how and where he acts. Sorta like a genie in a bottle, as long as I have the ultimate decision making ability, I'm good.

But still I couldn't shake what I heard about TULIP. I had to destroy it by all means possible. Setting out on a mission to refute this heresy, I studied day and night for weeks, months. It was until I finally read and heard the Doctrines of Grace of Luther, Calvin, Huss, Sproul, Horton that it all came together for me. Especially the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone (Law & Gospel). Once I was able to grasp Law & Gospel the whole Bible opened up to me, including TULIP. Another concept that is the soil of the Doctrines of Grace is Classical Covenant Theology.

In hindsight my friend who is a Calvinist at the time and told me about TULIP, I wish he started with Law & Gospel in relation to Justification by Faith Alone first to get me acclimated with the Reformation, then gently introduced TULIP, because predestination nearly choked me out. Anyways, I also believed and advise Calvinists to also beware of presenting TULIP and do so with kids gloves. From my experience I would recommend preaching Law & Gospel first then catechize them as they progress along. Just my two wooden cents.​

I really appreciate this. My experience with "Calvinism" was somewhat similar. I was raised in an Arminian church. So I was obviously opposed to Calvinism, and the whole discussion was so earth shattering that it effected me greatly. With a mind full of constant debate, I remember looking at my Bible while thinking, "whatever that means." It was nothing less that a worldview shift that changed everything. Sometimes I'm sympathetic with non-C posters because of my background, and sometime I confess that I'm not empathetic or patient.

Nothing less that 4-5 papers in seminary were over the issue of "free will" and its meaning. (1) church history paper over Augustine and Pelagius, (2) church history paper over Luther and Erasmus, (3) contemporary understanding of issues regarding free will for a systematic class, (4) paper over Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will in an elective class over the life and theology of JE. The remaining material appeared in footnotes in many other papers, for the issues are rather wide reaching.

So the issues have encompassed a great deal of thought and time for me. Of course, this doesn't even deal with the amount of time and energy spent in internet forums during those formative times.

Thanks again for sharing your experience.

 

[Arial]

Are you saying that you have no experience of God spiritually and factually? Is your assurance of salvation bereft of any experience of God?

Do you mean experience God or had an experience? If you mean had an experience, and you also say if one hasn't had an experience of something that you would deem acceptable as proof (for you do not set the perimaeters of what an experience is to you) then you are basing your security on the wrong thing. An experience you had and not on God's word as to who Jesus is and what He did. Even though scripture tells us it is faith in Jesus that saves, and that by grace.

 

[prism]

f all you are going to do is say that certain beliefs in Calvinism are not believed by you as Calvinists, then I am forced to make this assertion:

That Calvinism is divided against itself and therefore its kingdom cannot stand.

Will you make the same assertion about Christians seeing we are divided?