Calvinism -TULIP

[Pastor Larry]

But beyond that - Arminians hold to the text of scripture and Calvinists don't. What is so hard about seeing that?

That little thing called truth gets in the way. We "can't see it" because it isn't true. Arminians do not hold to the complete truth of Scripture. They deny unconditional election. They deny perseverance of the saints.

 

[Claudia_T]

Arminians do not (generally) believe that each time you sin you lose your salvation. John makes it clear in 1John 2:1 "THESE things I write that you sin NOT - but if anyone does sin we have an advocate with the Father".

John does not say "each time you sin you are lost".

that is not an Arminian teaching you have ever seen promoted on this board by Arminians.

In Christ,

Bob

Good point, Bob, Ive seen people say that we claim every time we sin we are lost but I have never heard anyone teach that here.

In fact Ive gone out of my way at least a few times trying to tell people that God isnt sitting there just waiting to punish us and that he isnt quite as "legalistic" as they make him out to be.

I believe THEY are the ones who view God as being legalistic... and because they do see God and the ten commandments as so strict, they turn around then and say see? we cannot do what God says! Then they do the free grace thing and leave out the law of God.

Instead of realizing yes we have to keep the law but no God isnt standing there with a stick just waiting to whop you over the head each time you sin.

Claudia

 

[Dustin]

Dustin,

Its hard to read your posts when its all one big paragraph, at least it is for me.

I had about 30 minutes to think and write after I woke up and before I had to be at work. Pressing enter just wasn't time effective. :laugh: Sorry for that, as long as you read and understand it, then I'm happy.

Look I just made a new paragraph. I do realize that arguing about this particular issue on the interent yeilds no profit and if any profit is going to be made, then it will be between two people face to face with Bibles in hand. If the Lord is willing, one day we will be able to do so. We have a tendency to argue more with the words on the screen, than the actual person. I try to explain everything in my view, not so good but I try. The fruit of that labor is long block like posts devoid of paragraphs. But the point is in there, all laid out. God's Word never returns void.

So, in closing, I'm going to leave this issue out in the open, with nothing else to say that I deny the Arminian/Wesleyan/ semi-Pelagian position, for the simple fact that the Bible states otherwise. Like I said before, I'm conformed by the Scriptures, bound by God's Word, and I cannot in good conscience state or believe otherwise. Much of the issue is misunderstanding, and can only be understood by deeper study in the Word and spiritual discernment. The rest of it is, that Calvinism or Arminianism cannot be a simple debate, but it involves so many tenants of the fundamentals, that it much more often than not becomes a circular series of pitched battles over issues that don't ultimatly prove the point. Iron sharpens iron, but strawmen eventually full the blade.

Reformed and always reforming,
Dustin

 

[tragic_pizza]

somebody has it right. or else theres no use even having a Bible.

What?

Seriously?

So either Calvinism or Arminianism is completely, 100% correct, which of couorse means the "other side" is going to Hell, OR the Bible is worthless?

Please explain that unique position.

 

[Claudia_T]

you either have a free will or you dont... and I said nothing about judging anyone's salvation, its not my right or my job.

 

[tragic_pizza]

you either have a free will or you dont... and I said nothing about judging anyone's salvation, its not my right or my job.

So in order for God to be God, one or the other must be true?

Interesting.

 

[Claudia_T]

well I guess you could have an expensive will instead of a free will...

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TP: So in order for God to be God, one or the other must be true?

Interesting.

HP: There is no ‘for God to be God,’ for He simply IS.

There must be freedom of the will or the lack thereof. What other possibilities are there? Either one can do something other than what he does under the same set of circumstances, or he cannot. Either there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent or there is more than one. If only one possible consequent is possible for a given antecedent, no freedom exists. If two or more possible consequents are possible for a given antecedent, choice is said to exist.

Either we are able to form our intents or we are not. Either we are the proper recipients of praise or blame for those intents or we are not. Which is it? There is no fence to ride. Either you are in agreement to freewill or you are opposed to it in spite of the overwhelming evidence provided to us that we indeed are in possession of it.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: There is no ‘for God to be God,’ for He simply IS.

There must be freedom of the will or the lack thereof. What other possibilities are there? Either one can do something other than what he does under the same set of circumstances, or he cannot. Either there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent or there is more than one. If only one possible consequent is possible for a given antecedent, no freedom exists. If two or more possible consequents are possible for a given antecedent, choice is said to exist.

Either we are able to form our intents or we are not. Either we are the proper recipients of praise or blame for those intents or we are not. Which is it? There is no fence to ride. Either you are in agreement to freewill or you are opposed to it in spite of the overwhelming evidence provided to us that we indeed are in possession of it.

So in order for God to be God, one or the other must be true?

I'm speaking for Tragic here so I may be out of line, (if so, I apologize) but I think he was referring to Calvinism vs. Arminianism, not free will vs. lack of free will.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy G: I'm speaking for Tragic here so I may be out of line, (if so, I apologize) but I think he was referring to Calvinism vs. Arminianism, not free will vs. lack of free will.

HP: Not out of line in the least.

At the heart of the Arminian/Calvinistic debate lies the question of freewill. You cannot discuss Calvinism without speaking directly to it’s denial of freedom of the will. You cannot discuss the separation of the two ideologies without addressing this issue. I see it as the foundational ‘wall of separation’ between these opposing ideas.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Not out of line in the least.

At the heart of the Arminian/Calvinistic debate lies the question of freewill. You cannot discuss Calvinism without speaking directly to it’s denial of freedom of the will. You cannot discuss the separation of the two ideologies without addressing this issue. I see it as the foundational ‘wall of separation’ between these opposing ideas.

Yes, I agree. I just think he was saying that both groups have some things right and some things wrong, thus they can't both be right. But, I may have totally misunderstood him. :laugh: He would probably rather speak for himself, so I will let it go at that. :love2:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Claudia: Can anybody just please explain to me the basics of Calvinism and T.U.L.I.P. and what exactly that means?

HP: In a nutshell, Calvinism, and all other ism’s following in it’s footsteps, deny freedom of the will. That is the basic concept of Calvinism and tulip.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Yes, I agree. I just think he was saying that both groups have some things right and some things wrong, thus they can't both be right

.

HP: What really matters is what does Amy think? Does man have a freewill or not?

 

[Amy.G]

.

HP: What really matters is what does Amy think? Does man have a freewill or not?

Oh, that was very nice of you to care what I think. I think you're the first here on the BB!:laugh: I believe that we have free will. I believe Adam and Eve had free will. They chose to sin. Cain chose to murder his brother. We can either accept or reject the Savior. That's what I think.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: We can either accept or reject the Savior. That's what I think.

HP: Now we are getting somewhere. Is our freedom of the will limited to rejecting or accepting a Savior, or are we truly the creator of all our moral intents just as Adam was?

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Now we are getting somewhere. Is our freedom of the will limited to rejecting or accepting a Savior, or are we truly the creator of all our moral intents just as Adam was?

I'm not really sure what you mean by "creator of moral intents".

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: I'm not really sure what you mean by "creator of moral intents".

HP: Why don’t we start a thread on 'the heart of morality' to discuss this in detail and it's realtionship to the freewill issue? I believe it could be a very informative discussion.

 

[BobRyan]

That little thing called truth gets in the way. We "can't see it" because it isn't true. Arminians do not hold to the complete truth of Scripture. They deny unconditional election. They deny perseverance of the saints.

First of all - while I can clearly see how the Bible fully debunks the errors of 4 and 5 point Calvinists -- I have to conceed that the 3 Point Calvinists hold to less error - they have a better position than do the other Calvinists.

They reject limited Atonement and so like Arminians they have no problem accepting scrpture when IT say "God so loved the WORLD that He gave.." yes -- really.

Arminians believe in an unconditional election of the form "God is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance".

We believe in "Perseverance of the saints" such that ONLY the saints do persevere in following Christ. Those who do no persevere in it - will not continue to remain saved so in the end they are not among the saints who enter heaven.

But the lost "BY DEFINITION" CAN NOT ever CEASE to persevere in following Christ since they never started and therefore have nothing to CEASE. This always seems to come as a surprise to Calvinists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: Now we are getting somewhere. Is our freedom of the will limited to rejecting or accepting a Savior, or are we truly the creator of all our moral intents just as Adam was?

Paul said "it is no longer I who live but Christ the lives in me" Gal 2:20

In Rom 7 he states clearly "the GOOD that I would do - I DO NOT" -- I don't doubt the fact that the unsaved do morally correct deeds - but I believe that it is God that is restraining them from evil in those cases - enabling those morally correct deeds even though they are not born-again.

Hitler may have been kind to someone or handed candy to a child or fed his dog... but that does not mean he was born-again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[tragic_pizza]

HP: Not out of line in the least.

At the heart of the Arminian/Calvinistic debate lies the question of freewill. You cannot discuss Calvinism without speaking directly to it’s denial of freedom of the will. You cannot discuss the separation of the two ideologies without addressing this issue. I see it as the foundational ‘wall of separation’ between these opposing ideas.

But Scripture speaks of both freedom of will and predetermination. Refomed theology, which is an extension of Calvinism, acknowledges both/and, not either/or. If things are present in Scripture which appear to be contradictory, then either both are true or the Bible is a book of lies. One cannot have it both ways. Thus if God's Word lies, God lies, and if God lies, God is not God.