"Doctrines of Grace", "TULIP", Augustine and Calvin

[Van]

The DoG is simply a name change to introduce confusion into discussion. Thus debate over the fictitious differences, rather than a discussion of the doctrines.

This evasion effort is to avoid the truth that there is no support in scripture for the TULI of the Tulip.

We get the same shuck and jive with folks saying they are not Calvinists but Reformed. When asked which of the five points they disagree with, they are silent.

It should be clear to any objective bible student that the TULIP is defended by attacking those who disagree, evasion, misrepresentation, and the redefinition of words to rewrite scripture.

Choice means non-choice
adoption means being born again rather than resurrection in glorified bodies.
Love means salvation rather than providing the opportunity through faith for salvation, rewriting John 3:16.
Regeneration occurs while separated from God, rather than to be made alive together with Christ.

The list is endless.

 

[12strings]

The DoG is simply a name change to introduce confusion into discussion. Thus debate over the fictitious differences, rather than a discussion of the doctrines.

This evasion effort is to avoid the truth that there is no support in scripture for the TULI of the Tulip.

We get the same shuck and jive with folks saying they are not Calvinists but Reformed. When asked which of the five points they disagree with, they are silent.

Or, Perhaps, DOG is simply a term introduced to emphasize that they believe all salvation is of grace, including granting to some the gracious gift of faith itself.

Or, Perhaps, using "reformed" or "Doctrines of Grace" seems desireable since there is much of Calvin's belief & practice that we disagree with, thereby some may wish not to be known as calvinists.

Or, Perhaps, many use the term "DOG" because they have heard others use it to describe their particular soteriology, and they haven't though much about why they use the term...it's just another term to describe their beliefs.

(see, not everyone has to have secret, deceptive motivations)

It should be clear to any objective bible student that the TULIP is defended by attacking those who disagree, evasion, misrepresentation, and the redefinition of words to rewrite scripture.

Or, Perhaps, some people read the bible and come to conclusions similar to Luther/Calvin/MacArthur/Lloyd Jones & Piper without ever reading their writings.

OR....

Perhaps you are correct, and every DOG/Calvinist/Reformed/TULI person is in fact at conniving, lying, misrepresenting opponent of the Bible...
...or perhaps you might be misrepresenting us a bit?

Perhaps...

 

[Thomas Helwys]

1. Um, Augustine...?

2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215):...rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous.

Origen: “Our free will…or human nature is not sufficient to seek God in any manner.”

Barnabas (A.D. 70): “We are elected to hope, committed by God unto faith, appointed to salvation.”

Irenaeus (A.D. 198): “God hath completed the number which He before determined with Himself, all those who are written, or ordained unto eternal life…Being predestined indeed according to the love of the Father that we would belong to Him forever.”

Tertullian (A.D. 200): “Do you think, O men, that we should ever have been able to have understood these things in the Scriptures unless by the will of Him that wills all things, we had received grace to understand them?…But by this it is plain, that [faith] is not given to thee by God, because thou dost not ascribe it to Him alone.”

Athanasius (A.D. 350): “To believe is not ours, or in our power, but the Spirit’s who is in us, and abides in us.”

Clement Of Rome (A.D. 69): “It is the will of God that all whom He loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent. He has established it by His almighty will. But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is His almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of His?”

Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): “Such a soul [of a Christian] shall never at any time be separated from God…Faith, I say, is something divine, which cannot be pulled asunder by any other worldly friendship, nor be dissolved by present fear.”

Tertullian: “God forbid that we should believe that the soul of any saint should be drawn out by the devil…For what is of God is never extinguished.”

FROM THE ABOVE:

We can see that ascribing specific beliefs to the church fathers is difficult. And looking for a consensus among them is nearly impossible. The first there seems to be espousing the classic arminian "divine foreknowledge" view...and I have inserted a few others that seem to support a calvinistic view.

Now, of course you or me could easily find a bunch of quotes that oppose Unconditional Election and espouse the possibility of losing one's salvation...probably from some of the same people quoted above...the point is...

Church fathers will often contradict each other, and even themselves on occasion. One can find and ECF to support nearly any teaching, including some really bizarre stuff.


3. OT:

-God Chose Abraham from an idol worshiping people to know him and begin a new nation.

-God chose Israel not due to something good in them, but due to his own character (Duet 7:6-8, Deut 9).

-In choosing Israel, God was necessarily choosing the individuals within Israel to have a knowledge of him, and blessing from him, not enjoyed by the rest of the nations.

If you are implying that these fathers held to one or more petals of TULIP, I can show you an article that I found from reading on this very forum that shows that none of the fathers you quoted with one or two sentences believed as you are implying. Context of time and setting is everything. It is amusing to see people try to make the fathers adherents of varying amounts of Calvinism when this is simply not the case. The historical fact is that Augustine influenced and foreshadowed Calvin to an extent, but even he did not write from the same perspective that Calvin did.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Perhaps you need to read my response again. But I believe that 12 strings has already answered your concerns so don't bother.

I would say this. You keep harping that the Early Church Fathers did not teach the Doctrines of Grace. If these doctrines are not supported by Scripture then the Doctrines are wrong no matter when and by whom they are taught. But the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are taught throughout Scripture as I noted in my posts #'s 4, 7, & 9.

If you will simply read Genesis 3 you will see that God sought out Adam and Eve after their rebellion!

The reason I keep "harping", as you put it, is because it is an important point that cannot be easily dismissed or ignored: DoG, or Calvinistic doctrine, was not taught by the fathers because it is not taught in scripture. That is the simple, scriptural, logical, historical, and theological explanation.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

What 12 strings is listing are quotes from the ECFs stating that Jehovah extends grace to sinners. I don't think anyone is questioning that. What is being asked and not answered are what exactly are the Doctrines of Grace and how do they differ from TULIP and or Calvinism or any other theological system that has Christian roots. From a historical perspective, when/where did the doctrines of grace come from? Like TULIP and like Calvinism on the whole, the "Doctrines of Grace" as discussed here have every indication of being, just like reformed theology, a systematic doctrine of a modern vintage. Not that there is anything particurly wrong with that.

Yes, that is the gist of the matter.

 

[12strings]

If you are implying that these fathers held to one or more petals of TULIP, I can show you an article that I found from reading on this very forum that shows that none of the fathers you quoted with one or two sentences believed as you are implying. Context of time and setting is everything. It is amusing to see people try to make the fathers adherents of varying amounts of Calvinism when this is simply not the case. The historical fact is that Augustine influenced and foreshadowed Calvin to an extent, but even he did not write from the same perspective that Calvin did.

Link please,

thanks,

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Well he told you he doesn't see it in the scriptures O.R. That denial alone changes the whole context of the understanding just like a Pelagian not seeing Original Sin. But we DoG believers pussy foot around attempting to explain it to them, these blind guides because we attempt to do what? Freakin change their minds?!? The mindset is already set in one direction, Example: Your a heretical gnostic & Augustine, Edwards, ML-J, Hodge, Milton, Sinclair Ferguson, Boyce, Ryken, Murry, Kuyper, Piper etc are not sufficiently intelligent enough to understand the genius of Pelagianism, Semi-P, Arminism, Non-Calvinism & whatever humanistic chap-trap that comes down the highway.

Here is what I have been able to glean from my own studies & participation on this forum. What is peddled today is rank Pelagianism. What is being marketed nowadays as the 1st wave however looks more like a do-it-yourself variety of semi-Pelagianism. It's not really clear whether they have solidified a position they are going to stick with, but there is clearly no taste for the truth that Adam's sin left us all guilty and condemned (Romans 5:18). They are simply modifying virtually every aspect of soteriology—original sin, grace, election, faith, sanctification, etc.—to fit the steadfast conviction that salvation ultimately hinges on human free will rather than divine grace. This is classic home-brew theology, making up its own definitions on the fly and devising novel explanations for vital points of theology as the situation demands.

So in closing, please continue to contend for the faith we both hold to, I will also......but recognize the "Thing" your fighting with & realize you will not change the minds of your opponents....your just attempting to defend your own beliefs. And you will continue to uphold a minority position (which I have no problem defending). :thumbs: I will also.:love2:

Be well & blessings to all.

Blind guides? Humanistic? See also the other parts I bolded.

Your content and manner are not conducive to discussion. But I must give it to you: you certainly have an uncanny ability to include the maximum amount of insults, mischaracterizations, falsehoods, and arrogance in one post that I have yet seen.

This post perfectly demonstrates why it is well nigh impossible to have a civil and rational discussion with some Calvinists.

I consider you to be my friend, one of several Calvinist friends I have made here, but posts such as this do nothing to help that friendship.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

:laugh: Mark my words Old Regular.......We NEVER took on the "exercise" of explaining stuff! Just make sure you remember this so you can reach into the archives next time the condemnation arises.

The only condemnation and condescension I see is coming from "your camp".

Why must your side do that? Why can't the questions simply be answered the first time they are asked instead of ignored or talked all around, and done so in a non-contemptuous way?

 

[OldRegular]

The reason I keep "harping", as you put it, is because it is an important point that cannot be easily dismissed or ignored: DoG, or Calvinistic doctrine, was not taught by the fathers because it is not taught in scripture. That is the simple, scriptural, logical, historical, and theological explanation.

The Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are consistent with the teaching of Scripture. The Doctrines of "Freewillism" whether Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, or Arminian are not consistent with Scripture.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I quoted them in response to T. Helwys to show reformed-sounding writings pre-Calvin, and pre-augustine.

My point is not to argue that the ECFs were reformed, but that their beleifs on nearly every issue were all over the board. I am leary when anyone attributes a specific belief to "The Early church Fathers", As if they all agreed on everything for the first 400 years of the church until Augustine messed everything up.

It is well known that specific trinitarian statements took time to be formulated, but that doesn't mean we accuse the earliest fathers of denying the trinity.

I would simply say this: one can find ECF writings that seem to support the reformed/Dog/tulip/Calvinistic view of Election/depravity/perseverance. You can also find ECF writings that seem to contradict them...sometimes by the same writers!

In Fairness, based on volume of expressed viewpoints, It seems that the Dog/Tulip view was not predominant, but it also seems that some of them may have simply accepted dual truths without reconciling them: "God Chose us to be saved before the foundation of the world / I must chose to accept Christ, or die lost...how can those both be true? I don't know, but that Roman soldier is coming to kill us so let's get out of here!"

Also, however, one must distinguish between the Latin fathers and the Greek fathers. It was the former who influenced the RCC and Protestantism. The Eastern Church whose theology was that of the Greek fathers is diametrically opposed to and never taught anything resembling the so-called DoG. Since the Eastern Church had the NT in its original Greek authorship, I trust the Eastern views as being in line with scripture on soteriology rather than the Western views which were Latin-influenced.

That is why it is very significant to me that the Greek fathers and early churches never taught the "DoG". This says to me that the DoG are not scriptural.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The DoG is simply a name change to introduce confusion into discussion. Thus debate over the fictitious differences, rather than a discussion of the doctrines.

This evasion effort is to avoid the truth that there is no support in scripture for the TULI of the Tulip.

We get the same shuck and jive with folks saying they are not Calvinists but Reformed. When asked which of the five points they disagree with, they are silent.

It should be clear to any objective bible student that the TULIP is defended by attacking those who disagree, evasion, misrepresentation, and the redefinition of words to rewrite scripture.

Choice means non-choice
adoption means being born again rather than resurrection in glorified bodies.
Love means salvation rather than providing the opportunity through faith for salvation, rewriting John 3:16.
Regeneration occurs while separated from God, rather than to be made alive together with Christ.

The list is endless.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. I say unfortunately because I see attacks and insults coming from only one side in this which says to me that they can't defend their position.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Or, Perhaps, DOG is simply a term introduced to emphasize that they believe all salvation is of grace, including granting to some the gracious gift of faith itself.

Or, Perhaps, using "reformed" or "Doctrines of Grace" seems desireable since there is much of Calvin's belief & practice that we disagree with, thereby some may wish not to be known as calvinists.

Or, Perhaps, many use the term "DOG" because they have heard others use it to describe their particular soteriology, and they haven't though much about why they use the term...it's just another term to describe their beliefs.

(see, not everyone has to have secret, deceptive motivations)




Or, Perhaps, some people read the bible and come to conclusions similar to Luther/Calvin/MacArthur/Lloyd Jones & Piper without ever reading their writings.

OR....

Perhaps you are correct, and every DOG/Calvinist/Reformed/TULI person is in fact at conniving, lying, misrepresenting opponent of the Bible...
...or perhaps you might be misrepresenting us a bit?

Perhaps...

I want to go on record and say that I appreciate how you have presented your position, in words, manner, tone, and objectivity. If everyone would respond this way instead of making insults and personal attacks, we actually might get somewhere and understand each other better. Why can't this be done?

 

[thomas15]

...

no my friend Im just getting tired of you......you pussy foot between one theology & another without standing up as a man & being known for what you believe. Frankly you shoot your mouth off more than you stand up for any one given theology.... you must be completely confused so you rail against others....in particular Calvinists!

Well I'm sorry that you are tired of me, really. This really hurts my feelings. Actually, I have said this many times on this board that I lean in the direction of Calvinism. To be sure, I question covenant theology, the Biblical proof is just not there. Unless you believe that in order to embrace TULIP you must also embrace covenant theology then there you have it, my stance in a nutshell. Pre-Mil pre-trib, dispensational, mildly calvinistic. No confusion at all.

...

Answer me this, why is that? Why do you feel compelled to go on the attack? You appear somewhat intelligent so what do you need, HAND HOLDING through doctrine? What RC will attempt is to do is painstakingly explain his beliefs....and that is what ICONO does, only to be vilified by the cabal, Im frankly waiting for it to happen again....I will set my clock by it.

Questioning doctrine is not attacking. Granted, I put ICON to the test more than any other here but here is an individual that uses the sledgehammer approach to making his case, pays little attention to the actual meaning in context of the Scriptures yet the reformed are there at his side, just because he knows how to cut and paste from Bible gateway. He Icon does to his credit keep it civil, I can't say the same for another poster in his corner who has anger issues and no one calls him out on it. But that's his problem not mine.

I have a fire that happened last night to contend with...that will occupy my time.

I sincerly pray that all is well. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I think it's probably best that I bow out of this thread I created, as I have got the answer to my original question.

The thread has done as I feared: degenerated into a ...... well, you know.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well I'm sorry that you are tired of me, really. This really hurts my feelings. Actually, I have said this many times on this board that I lean in the direction of Calvinism. To be sure, I question covenant theology, the Biblical proof is just not there. Unless you believe that in order to embrace TULIP you must also embrace covenant theology then there you have it, my stance in a nutshell. Pre-Mil pre-trib, dispensational, mildly calvinistic. No confusion at all.


Questioning doctrine is not attacking. Granted, I put ICON to the test more than any other here but here is an individual that uses the sledgehammer approach to making his case, pays little attention to the actual meaning in context of the Scriptures yet the reformed are there at his side, just because he knows how to cut and paste from Bible gateway. He Icon does to his credit keep it civil, I can't say the same for another poster in his corner who has anger issues and no one calls him out on it. But that's his problem not mine.


I sincerly pray that all is well. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you.

I am sorry I blew up---Type A kinda person & you hit the trip cord (right after I learned about the fire). There actually was a small fire in January (that I was not aware of) that was put out & reported so what did the landlord do.....absolutely nothing! Thank God these people were out of the house at the time. Only the dog & two cats have paid the ultimate sacrifice

On another note, I have stated pubically that I have no allegiance to Dipsy or CT....but I do believe in Systematic (salvation based ) theology. When we have these historical conversations, I can start opening books ...I personally use Gregg Allison's book "HISTORICAL THEOLOGY" as reference, but these church fathers were all over the boards .... Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, another, Pelagius, Celestinus, another. Therefore, it is necessary that the rule for correct understanding of the prophets & apostles be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical interpretation.

As far as Im concerned, Augustine joined together the inspiration, canonicity, and authority of Scripture.
In his commentary in "The City of God" he stated that" God produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves" That is how I roll.

 

[thomas15]

I am sorry I blew up---Type A kinda person & you hit the trip cord (right after I learned about the fire). There actually was a small fire in January (that I was not aware of) that was put out & reported so what did the landlord do.....absolutely nothing! Thank God these people were out of the house at the time. Only the dog & two cats have paid the ultimate sacrifice

Thank you and no problem, I'm not immune to being irritating at times. Was this fire in a house you own or rent? I'm a volunteer firefighter here in Carbon and get to see the results of the event up close from time to time, it's not a good thing. I got started in this endevor after having a small fire in my house in NJ 1995, even the small ones are quite expensive to fix and an emotional experience.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones!!!!!!!!
yea!
Baptist

No Welsh Calvinistic Methodist.... but they do Believers Baptism.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thank you and no problem, I'm not immune to being irritating at times. Was this fire in a house you own or rent? I'm a volunteer firefighter here in Carbon and get to see the results of the event up close from time to time, it's not a good thing. I got started in this endevor after having a small fire in my house in NJ 1995, even the small ones are quite expensive to fix and an emotional experience.

I dont own that house....that was a rental. But I only have one son & he should have been more astute to the hazards of a deteriorating & faulty gas furnace, particularly if it caused a fire previously. Such is the maturity of a 21 yo. But now the three are w/o a home ....so I have to quickly buy a bed for him & find him a place (probably my finished basement)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The only condemnation and condescension I see is coming from "your camp".

Why must your side do that? Why can't the questions simply be answered the first time they are asked instead of ignored or talked all around, and done so in a non-contemptuous way?

I did that---Dont blame my side, I have no side. BTW,
Take a walk..... small pier & long walk! Now, figure out which side Im on:tongue3:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Blind guides? Humanistic? See also the other parts I bolded.

Your content and manner are not conducive to discussion. But I must give it to you: you certainly have an uncanny ability to include the maximum amount of insults, mischaracterizations, falsehoods, and arrogance in one post that I have yet seen.

This post perfectly demonstrates why it is well nigh impossible to have a civil and rational discussion with some Calvinists.

I consider you to be my friend, one of several Calvinist friends I have made here, but posts such as this do nothing to help that friendship.

Cant take a little constructive criticism is all this is showing me. BTW, Im not a Calvinist.

Lastly, when you insult Calvinist, you insult 6 generations of family who were some of the nicest Christian people Ive ever met.....While Im not a Calvinist, I take it personally your constant disregard for them. I cant measure up to these folks....I have a strong & willful sin nature, but Im much better from the cuss I was 2 years ago. That is all I have to say to you.