Are the five points Biblical or man made?

[Dale-c]

In another thread it was suggested that calvinism is a man made doctrine and that the theme of the new testament is that salvation is open to all.

Ok, so here is a challenge to all calvinists:

Show scriptural support for each of the 5 points.
If you can't then they must be man made and the synergists must be right.

1. Total depravity (man has no capability in and of himself to please God, even though God restrains man from being as evil as he could be. No part of man has been left unaffected by the fall.)

2. Unconditional election (Election is based entirely on the will and purpose of God and by nothing good or bad in the creature at all.)

3. Limited atonement, or particular redemption (Christ's work on the cross was perfect and finished. It saved completely all the elect, but was specific to the elect, not general. It's saving benefits will only be experienced by the elect.)

4. Irresistible grace (The Son will not lose any that the Father has given to him. Christ is able to save all of the elect and not one is more powerful and able to thwart the Grace of God. God is able to change the will of man so that he freely chooses Christ.)

5. Perseverance of the saints. (Since it is God's work of grace in us, both to justify us and to sanctify us, He will keep us to the end. We persevere because of his preservation.)


Ok, are those man made concepts or are those the concepts taught in the Bible, both old and new testaments?

 

[Pastor Larry]

This has been done so many times here, both here and in the CvA archives below. This is old stuff. Do a little searching and skip the headache here.

The five points unquestionably have biblical support, meaning that they are supported by legitimate interpretations.

 

[EdSutton]

In another thread it was suggested that calvinism is a man made doctrine and that the theme of the new testament is that salvation is open to all.

Ok, so here is a challenge to all calvinists:

Show scriptural support for each of the 5 points.
If you can't then they must be man made and the synergists must be right.

1. Total depravity (man has no capability in and of himself to please God, even though God restrains man from being as evil as he could be. No part of man has been left unaffected by the fall.)

2. Unconditional election (Election is based entirely on the will and purpose of God and by nothing good or bad in the creature at all.)

3. Limited atonement, or particular redemption (Christ's work on the cross was perfect and finished. It saved completely all the elect, but was specific to the elect, not general. It's saving benefits will only be experienced by the elect.)

4. Irresistible grace (The Son will not lose any that the Father has given to him. Christ is able to save all of the elect and not one is more powerful and able to thwart the Grace of God. God is able to change the will of man so that he freely chooses Christ.)

5. Perseverance of the saints. (Since it is God's work of grace in us, both to justify us and to sanctify us, He will keep us to the end. We persevere because of his preservation.)


Ok, are those man made concepts or are those the concepts taught in the Bible, both old and new testaments?

These concepts may or may not be taught in the Bible, but not one of the five phrases is so stated in these words in any Bible version I've ever seen.

Ergo, whether or not any or all of the concepts are Biblical (and incidentally, I reject the wording of the 'titles' of all five 'Points' of Calvinism, as well as all five 'Points' of Arminianism, for exactly the reason that the words are not to be found in Scripture) has nothing to do with the theological wording.

So why not use Biblical words to define Biblical terms and concepts??

Thus, I am neither any 'Calvinist' nor any 'Arminian'.

However, by no stretch does that make any so-called 'synergist' right!

Ed

 

[Pastor Larry]

That's noble, Ed, but virtually impossible. Theology employs many words that aren't strictly biblical because they describe biblical concepts, such as the old example of "Trinity." The words employed are used because they communicate certain ideas. The question is Are the ideas biblical?

 

[Jedi Knight]

This DVD is a nice production and highly recommended for those interested in TULIP. http://www.amazinggracedvd.com/ See the two video sample clips on there.

 

[Allan]

In another thread it was suggested that calvinism is a man made doctrine and that the theme of the new testament is that salvation is open to all.

Ok, so here is a challenge to all calvinists:

Show scriptural support for each of the 5 points.
If you can't then they must be man made and the synergists must be right.

1. Total depravity (man has no capability in and of himself to please God, even though God restrains man from being as evil as he could be. No part of man has been left unaffected by the fall.)

2. Unconditional election (Election is based entirely on the will and purpose of God and by nothing good or bad in the creature at all.)

3. Limited atonement, or particular redemption (Christ's work on the cross was perfect and finished. It saved completely all the elect, but was specific to the elect, not general. It's saving benefits will only be experienced by the elect.)

4. Irresistible grace (The Son will not lose any that the Father has given to him. Christ is able to save all of the elect and not one is more powerful and able to thwart the Grace of God. God is able to change the will of man so that he freely chooses Christ.)

5. Perseverance of the saints. (Since it is God's work of grace in us, both to justify us and to sanctify us, He will keep us to the end. We persevere because of his preservation.)


Ok, are those man made concepts or are those the concepts taught in the Bible, both old and new testaments?

The fact there are those who agree and those who don't illistrates quite well that these views (whether one or all) are disputable but that dispute is more along the lines of mechanics not so much in main concepts.
ie: main concepts are
1. depravity
2. election
3. atonement
4. grace
5. perseverance/preservance

It is the understanding of how we see scripture illistrating these mechanics that change just how the above is defined.

 

[Tom Bryant]

This DVD is a nice production and highly recommended for those interested in TULIP. http://www.amazinggracedvd.com/ See the two video sample clips on there.

Although they didn't convince me, they really are well made and well presented. When I have a question about Calvinism I can access these without having to go thru all the trouble of the arguments that are caused by questions here. :smilewinkgrin: The dvd's were given away free to Fl Bapt Conv pastors thanks to Tom Ascol and the Founders.

 

[Tom Butler]

The fact there are those who agree and those who don't illistrates quite well that these views (whether one or all) are disputable but that dispute is more along the lines of mechanics not so much in main concepts.
ie: main concepts are
1. depravity
2. election
3. atonement
4. grace
5. perseverance/preservance

It is the understanding of how we see scripture illistrating these mechanics that change just how the above is defined.

Allan, I think you're right. You and I see these mechanics differently, but we both will appeal to scripture in espousing our differing views.

Depravity, for instance. We both probably agree on the debilitating effects of sin. I would argue that all are depraved and only when quickened by the Holy Spirit will we be able (then willing) to trust Christ for salvation. You, I think, will argue that God has given all the ability to trust Christ, and nothing holds one back from salvation except one's unwillingness.

We both believe in election, but differ on the ground. I would argue that God elects based on the counsel of his own will, and creates faith in the elect. You, I think, would argue foreseen faith as the basis on which God chooses.

Atonement. We both believe that Jesus died for sinners to atone for their sins. You would argue, I think, that the atonement is general, but the application is limited to believers. I would argue that the atonement is sufficient and efficient for all for whom it is intended--the elect.

Grace. We both would argue strenuously that salvation is by grace through faith, with no merit on our part. I would argue that grace is sovereignly given to his elect, along with the gift of saving faith. You, I think, would argue that grace comes through faith--that God extends his grace to those who believe.

Perseverence/Preservation. We both agree, period.

If I have misrepresented your views, please set the record straight. You and I both get sort of bent out of shape when our views are mis-stated by others.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Last night my wife and I watched a movie about Jesus where the guy would stop and explain things as the story progressed. He said Peter and Judas did betray Christ but Peter responded with the right sorrow and Judas worldly sorrow. So Peter had hope vs Judas had none. My problem with that is Peter was prayed"interceded"for vs Judas was told"what you must do..do quickly". To me that's the BIG difference in their outcome.

 

[Jarthur001]

In another thread it was suggested that calvinism is a man made doctrine and that the theme of the new testament is that salvation is open to all.

Ok, so here is a challenge to all calvinists:

Show scriptural support for each of the 5 points.
If you can't then they must be man made and the synergists must be right.

1. Total depravity (man has no capability in and of himself to please God, even though God restrains man from being as evil as he could be. No part of man has been left unaffected by the fall.)

2. Unconditional election (Election is based entirely on the will and purpose of God and by nothing good or bad in the creature at all.)

3. Limited atonement, or particular redemption (Christ's work on the cross was perfect and finished. It saved completely all the elect, but was specific to the elect, not general. It's saving benefits will only be experienced by the elect.)

4. Irresistible grace (The Son will not lose any that the Father has given to him. Christ is able to save all of the elect and not one is more powerful and able to thwart the Grace of God. God is able to change the will of man so that he freely chooses Christ.)

5. Perseverance of the saints. (Since it is God's work of grace in us, both to justify us and to sanctify us, He will keep us to the end. We persevere because of his preservation.)


Ok, are those man made concepts or are those the concepts taught in the Bible, both old and new testaments?

hello Dale,

I'll give verses later. maybe this weekend.


But for now, yes they are very supported.

 

[Jarthur001]

The fact there are those who agree and those who don't illistrates quite well that these views (whether one or all) are disputable but that dispute is more along the lines of mechanics not so much in main concepts.
ie: main concepts are
1. depravity
2. election
3. atonement
4. grace
5. perseverance/preservance

It is the understanding of how we see scripture illistrating these mechanics that change just how the above is defined.

I would disagree. Its along the lines of tidder-todder theology.

 

[Allan]

Last night my wife and I watched a movie about Jesus where the guy would stop and explain things as the story progressed. He said Peter and Judas did betray Christ but Peter responded with the right sorrow and Judas worldly sorrow. So Peter had hope vs Judas had none. My problem with that is Peter was prayed"interceded"for vs Judas was told"what you must do..do quickly". To me that's the BIG difference in their outcome.

But do not forget that Jesus already knew what Judas would do, and thus also what Peter would do as well before they (both) were ever called and authroized as His disciples.

 

[Allan]

Its along the lines of tidder-todder theology.

Exactly. Both center or work from the premise of the main concepts that are established in scripture but both vary to differing degrees (depending on how far they take their view) as to how they opporate. That is why it is the mechanics which are actaully at odds or the different and not the immutable truths in which they are established.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I think you're right. You and I see these mechanics differently, but we both will appeal to scripture in espousing our differing views.

Depravity, for instance. We both probably agree on the debilitating effects of sin. I would argue that all are depraved and only when quickened by the Holy Spirit will we be able (then willing) to trust Christ for salvation. You, I think, will argue that God has given all the ability to trust Christ, and nothing holds one back from salvation except one's unwillingness.

Let us just state that my view is much the same as yours with the exception that I hold God reaches out to all men and only then can man believe or not believe those things which God has revealed to him.

We both believe in election, but differ on the ground. I would argue that God elects based on the counsel of his own will, and creates faith in the elect. You, I think, would argue foreseen faith as the basis on which God chooses.

With respect to my personal view - No, I do not agree with the foreseen faith aspect but will agree that this is the common view of many non-cals and is the view of Arminians.

Atonement. We both believe that Jesus died for sinners to atone for their sins. You would argue, I think, that the atonement is general, but the application is limited to believers. I would argue that the atonement is sufficient and efficient for all for whom it is intended--the elect.

Actaully I agree with your statement on the first, but also contend that what you give with respect to your view does not contradict mine in the least. Which is why many 'so-called' Cals (or 4 pointers) see both views as true.
Would not His shed blood be 'sufficient' for all men? And would not that blood be efficient for any or all who believe?

Quick synopsis of my view - It is based upon the Sacrifice of Atonement that had to satify the Law which God laid down. That sacrifice was made on behalf of ALL of Israel, even though not evey person who was a Jew believed. That sacrifice made was not applied to all for whom it was made but only those who through faith received it. (Rom 3:25)

Grace. We both would argue strenuously that salvation is by grace through faith, with no merit on our part. I would argue that grace is sovereignly given to his elect, along with the gift of saving faith. You, I think, would argue that grace comes through faith--that God extends his grace to those who believe.

No, grace does not come through faith. (actaully I haven't ever heard anyone put it quite like that either). Grace brings forth faith. If God had not first loved me and gave himself for me, I could have never, in faith, believe on Him.

Our divergence here is mainly that only the elect are given 'grace' and also 'faith'.

Perseverence/Preservation. We both agree, period.

If I have misrepresented your views, please set the record straight. You and I both get sort of bent out of shape when our views are mis-stated by others.

You rarely misrepresent my position though you might get my views mixed up alot of times with other non-cals who might differ with me on certain things :thumbs:

 

[Jedi Knight]

But do not forget that Jesus already knew what Judas would do, and thus also what Peter would do as well before they (both) were ever called and authroized as His disciples.

Yes indeed....but even though he knew before hand....Jesus still prayed for him.

 

[Allan]

Yes indeed....but even though he knew before hand....Jesus still prayed for him.

Oc course brother, but what must be remembered is this - what did Jesus know before hand, that he would fall only and thus prayed for him;
OR
That in falling he would also repent, thus Jesus prays for him in that situation which is to come to pass.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Oc course brother, but what must be remembered is this - what did Jesus know before hand, that he would fall only and thus prayed for him;
OR
That in falling he would also repent, thus Jesus prays for him in that situation which is to come to pass.

I believe Jesus prayed for him that his faith would not fail. Jesus is the keeper of the sheep,but said Judas was a devil from the beginning. God knows the beginning from the end but we still live it"flesh it out"if you will.... with his on going intercession.

 

[Allan]

I believe Jesus prayed for him that his faith would not fail. Jesus is the keeper of the sheep,but said Judas was a devil from the beginning. God knows the beginning from the end but we still live it"flesh it out"if you will.... with his on going intercession.

And that was my point as well

 

[Allan]

And that was my point as well

Oops, my edit didn't save. It was suppose to include "with the exception about his faith failing". And the only reason really is I think 'failing' here is not a good wording. For me a better way to put it might be - that his faith might increase or grow.

 

[Jarthur001]

Exactly. Both center or work from the premise of the main concepts that are established in scripture but both vary to differing degrees (depending on how far they take their view) as to how they opporate. That is why it is the mechanics which are actaully at odds or the different and not the immutable truths in which they are established.

Hello Allan,

It's tidder-todder theology because of what system lifts what subject the highest.

Calvinist lifts God up...higher and higher. While this is done man is placed at the other end of the tidder-todder and is placed low.

All the power and all the glory go to God and God alone.

Arminian system wants to bring man up. The system is about making man not as helpless as a dead person but only a bit of a sick person.

The Arminian says man has a little life in him. The Arminian says man is not a sinner until man sins. The Arminian says man must make a choice. The Arminian says man can over power God and reject grace, even after God opens his eyes. The Arminian says man can walk away from his salvation at any time. Man can come and go as he pleases.

Its all built around giving some type of power to man.

Just as in a tidder-todder when man comes up....God goes down.