Are 3 or 4-pointers consistent?

What about the Arminians out here?

No, a "3-4 pointer" is not consistent, although I wouldn't argue with a 4-pointer. A 3-pointer states that there is a belief in total depravity, when in reality they don't hold to total depravity. If they did, they would have to hold to unconditional election and overcoming grace.

Rev. G

 

It's possible to be a 3 or 4 pointer and remain consistent, it isn't possible to remain a 3 or 4 pointer and remain consistent.

After all, we're all growing in grace and knowledge.

 

I suppose it depends on which point(s) you would be omitting. Myself I am 4 pt, dropping Limited Atonement. And it is a perfectly consistent position. That's why I've stuck to it for years. It is consistent with Scripture, logic and the other points.

 

#1. If you drop limited atonement and keep the rest- then you are arguing that after going through all the effort to pay for the sins of the lost -- God simply "fails" to notice that by NOT drawing them (John 12:32) the effort is pointless.

#2. If you ALSO drop irresistable grace - but point instead to the CHOICE of resisting grace that is sent to you individually -- then you have highlighted Choice in the prcess of salvation and have something so close to Arminianism - that it would be impossible to hold to the OSAS - once-saved-always-saved basis of 'no choice, no way to be lost'.

#3. If you choose to dump the perserverance of the saints - then you argue that God elects you, but fails to have you perservere and so ends up dragging you screaming and kicking into heaven instead of "willing" that the New Birth cause the "Law to be written on the tablets of the human heart".

But lets say you were either a ONE point Calvinist ("total depravity alone") or a FIVE point calvinist - then I would say you are being consistent in either position.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I could care less that people remain five point Arminians or Calvinists. I thought that our concern was, as Christians, to exegete Scripture correctly so that His entire Word from Genesis to Revelation stands in complete harmony. This should be the goal of the student, layperson, pastor, and scholar.

 

(((((((( AMEN )))))))

 

I agree with you Ray. It is strange though how much you are willing to allow inconsistency to stand so that your own presuppositions can rule the exegetical process. The five points stand because of a need for a unified system. We do believe that all of Scripture can be harmonized as so we have set out to do that. Those who seek the harmony of Scripture inevitably end up as at least four pointers.

As for the question at hand, a four pointer can remain totally consistent because there is not that much practical difference. A three pointer -- what point would you omit?

 

Pastor,

You too have your own set of presuppostions that you try to find in the Word of God. I haven't bought into a system of theology. The difference between you and me is that I have had to make some changes in my original theology, one being my belief in eternal security, almost like preserverence of the saints. I debated against fully security of the believer for four years at a Bible College. I was brought up to believe that a Christian could be in and out of grace due to wilful sin. This view is an extreme of Arminian way of thinking. Now I believe that the Lord saves us forever, at the moment we believe and trust in Him and can defend this position better than most five point Calvinists.

The other four points of Arminianism are within the perimeters of Scriptural theolgy.

My guess is that you trained for the ministry at a seminary or training center that believes in Five Points of Calvinism. Am I correct? Please, don't feel like you must answer this question.

 

Don't kid yourself Ray. You have your presuppositions. It is clear in every thing that you post. Everybody has them. I am not saying it is bad to have them. But they must be proper presuppositions. It is interesting how your life has gone. Previously on this board, you were trained at a Calvinist seminary. Now you came from full arminianism to full arminianism minus eternal security.

I did not attend a 5 point seminary. I did attend a Calvnistic seminary. (Notice how I actually answered your question rather than ignoring it.) However, the reason it is a Calvinistic seaminry is because the emphasis was on exegesis of the text. That is clearly the difference between the positions. The exegetical evidence has never favored the arminian system apart from the presuppositions that demand its conclusion. For instance, review how many times you have argued that election is the result of belief. And then look back and see how much Scripture you have used for it. The difference would be staggering. You believe that election is the result of belief because of your presupposition that it cannot be otherwise, not because there is biblical evidence for it. In fcat, as many times as I have asked you to provide a reference stating the election is the result of belief, you have stalled every single time, most of them not even bothering to respond. Chappie did the same thing the other day. HE made the same statement, listed a bunch of irrelevant Scriptures, made a false equation, and then never supported his position from Scripture. Using just that simple example, I have shown how your presuppositions rule your understanding and how you are not driven by biblical proof in your presuppositions.

 

Pastor,

You said that you do not find presuppositions bad. I disagree with your statement. 98% of my statements are backed by Scripture, not in less I know Calvinists are for the most part acquainted with selected verses.

You never hear me elevate Jacob Arminius as a kind of god. I do find that Calvinists stay with the presuppositions of Calvin's Institutes, rather than unbiasly studying the Word of God without his aid.

After Bible College in the Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton area, I went to Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Philadelphia for only one year. I could not bear to hear any more about God choosing some for Heaven and the rest for Hell. No questions were allowed and no discussion about the matter. Just Calvinistic propaganda. They also believed that God is the Author of sin because He is sovereign. I received my B.D. from an evangelical, Arminian persuasion seminary in Pennsylvania and the Th.D. degree out of state.

Yes, I am clearly a four point Arminian by way of belief and a one point Calvinist having come to believe in the absolute security of the 'born again' believer.

 

Boy there's a surprise ...

Most Bible believers would disagree with you. In fact, I don't know anyone who would agree with you. I have seen arguments like yours refuted time and again in various sources. In fact, I have already demonstrated one deadly inconsistency (which you conveniently failed once again to acknowledge or address). Perhaps that statement is in your 2%.

I, for one, came to my conclusions through the unbiased study of the Word of God. I have found my conclusions to be the only ones that do justice to the whole of Scripture. I am not content to merely deal with part of it. I believe that God gave one revelation that fits together. Therefore,I believe what I do. If you are willing to have the inconsistencies and unanswerable exegetical questions that you deal with, and if you can live with that, then more power to you. I have tried it and I can't.

Where did you receive your BD and your ThD from?

 

Pastor Larry,

Where did you get your Calvinistic theological education from? If I answered your question as to where I received my B.D. and Th.D. I might expect you to say, it wasn't from Harvard.

Respectfully,

Ray

 

From Scritpure. When I began to read and study Scripture, I realized that there was only one position that could deal with all the texts. Over the years, my understanding has increased much. However, my foundational belief in the sovereignty of God started in 1990.

My formal seminary education is from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (MDiv, ThM).

You are much too theologically sound for it to be from Harvard. However, I am not sure why you wouldn't say. Why are you hesitant to say where it was from?

 

Pastor Larry,

I take your first commend as a compliment. Thanks!

Has anyone else given a personal theological history of their background? Not.

 

I have. A number of people on this forum have. In fact, the theological education of most of those on here who have formal theological education is known. Again I ask, why are you hesitant to say where your education is from? The more you refuse, the more it seems like you are either trying to hide it or are embarrassed about it for some reason. It is just strange that someone who throws around ThD like a badge of credit won't say where it is from ...

 

Pastor Larry,

In all of my reading on the board I never have seen anyone say, on this board, where they received their theological training.

 

I'll tell mine - the Bible, Bible classes, sermons, commentaries, theological books and magazines, informal discussions and debates.

 

Did you see the last page??? I have seen it in numerous places ... But again I ask, who cares what others do?? Why are you hesitant to share yours??

 

Ken Hamilton,

Good post. All these places are excellent ways to become fully informed. Great!