John Piper

Larry,

You are the one who is incorrect. "Prevenient Grace" is no grace at all.

Link

Joseph Botwinick

 

So from what I gather here, you are saying that there is more to Calvinism than the five points, but if one does not espouse all five points, then one does not espouse Calvinism? Would this be accurate?

 

Joseph,

Your own definition supports me by calling it a "divine grace." However, I would not recommend wikipedia as a theological source. Use a theological source to get theological definitions.

Here is the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Prevenient grace is a grace which comes first. It precedes all human decision and endeavor. Grace always means that it is God who takes the initiative and implies the priority of God's action on behalf of needy sinners. That is the whole point of grace: It does not start with us, it starts with God; it is not earned or merited by us, it is freely and lovingly given to us who have no resources or deserving of our own (p. 481).

So prevenient grace is grace. It is the unmerited act of God to restore to all men (or those who hear the gospel) the ability to respond in saving faith, but iti does not secure the response of belief. It comes before any human action or desert.

Get out some theology books and read up on it. Don't accuse people of believing something they don't believe.

I severely disagree with prevenient grace. But I can do that becuase I know what it is.

What part of prevenient grace is earned, in your thinking?

 

I am not sure what he is saying, but I believe this is inaccurate. The line between Calvinism and Arminianism runs through unconditional election. You either believe God elects without respect for anything other than his own sovereign purposes, or you don't believe that. There is no middle ground there.

To the one side of arminianism, there is pelagianism and semi-pelagians. Many people are Pelagian and don't even know it. The far end of arminianism is open theism, but arminians are not open theists.

The far end of Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism or fatalism.

But one need not hold to all five points to be a Calvinist.

 

Why, it is still written by man and is a man's view or standpoint. Just because one claims to be a christian or student of the word doen't make his view more right or wrong. You must try or divide the word by the word.

We'll understand it better by and by...

 

John Piper is a solid Christian brother that his much to offer believers of any persuasion.
You've got to be pretty hard-headed not to see that.

At this morning's Men's breakfast, we were encouraged by a brother who has cancer.
He brought along John Piper's article, which is well worth reading:

DON'T WASTE YOUR CANCER [link]

Pastor Piper was diagnosed with prostrate cancer and earlier in the year had radical surgery to treat it.

1. You will waste your cancer if you do not believe it is designed for you by God.

2. You will waste your cancer if you believe it is a curse and not a gift.

3. You will waste your cancer if you seek comfort from your odds rather than from God.

4. You will waste your cancer if you refuse to think about death.

5. You will waste your cancer if you think that “beating” cancer means staying alive rather than cherishing Christ.

6. You will waste your cancer if you spend too much time reading about cancer and not enough time reading about God.

7. You will waste your cancer if you let it drive you into solitude instead of deepen your relationships with manifest affection.

8. You will waste your cancer if you grieve as those who have no hope.

9. You will waste your cancer if you treat sin as casually as before.

10. You will waste your cancer if you fail to use it as a means of witness to the truth and glory of Christ.

Of course, any trial may be substituted for the BIG "C" but it fits well in todays society.


I'm sure Pastor Piper has re-directed his time into areas he feels best serves God.

Rob

 

But theological works are written by people who have spent their life studying theology. Wikipedia entries are written by people who have nothing better to do than contribute to a group definition of something, whether or not they have actual knowledge.

The analogy of Scripture is certainly one necessary means of Bible study. But God has gifted his church with men of great wisdom, intellect, and ability who have written to make clear the Scriptures and to explain things. As such, we should avail ourselves of their work to inform our understanding of the various options available.

 

Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. I am just saying why some Calvinists do go that far. I would just say that 3- and 4-pointers are inconsistent Calvinists, not non-Calvinists.

 

Whatever writes:
"It is also worth pointing out that, as the Synod presented their response, the responses were presented as inseparable. They would have found the idea of a 3 or 4 pointer inconceivable. That's why a lot of Calvinists still say that you cannot reject any of the five points without rejecting the whole system, because you have to change the definitions of their terms in order to accept some points and reject the others. The "atonement" example illustrates this well - to accept 4 points and then to proclaim universal atonement is to redefine atonement as the Synod understood it."

From my understanding of Calvinism (which is not much), I tend to agree with the Synod. I can see not believing in Limited Atonement not requiring much change in the definition of the other points. However, if someone does not believe in Irresistible Grace (3 point Calvinists as I understand it), the definition of the Total Depravity and Unconditional Election mst be changed to retain consistency.

This brings up a question I have. Why do people who now don't believe in all 5 points still want to be called Calvinists? Is it because they have been taught that if they are no longer Calvinists, then their Christianity is in question?

 

I think the answer to that question illustrates the truth of my contention that one is either Calvinist or Arminian. The reason is because of election. If you believe in individual election to salvation by God based on his own purposes, then you are a Calvinist. Whether or not you hold to limited atonement has no bearing on the prior question.

If you deny that view of election, you are an arminian. A lot of people reject that, but so far, no one has given a good reason to reject it. No one has been able to show any middle ground between "God elects ..." and "God does not elect ..." To me, the question is why people resist being called arminians when that is what they are (aside from pelagians).

Since the Calvinism/Arminianism questions hinges on one's view of election, it is fairly easy to see why 4 pointers are still Calvinists.

 

Never said I did. As a matter of fact I have never seen anyone on this board who has said this (I could have missed it). Your problem is that you have mis-stated what those who are not 5pt calvinist believe. It does not bother you to call brothers in Christ heretics, and you falsely state that we who don't hold to your calvinist doctrine believe we save ourselves. These are ridiculous statements that really have no place in a Christian forum where we are told that we are not to call each other heretics.

Bro Tony

 

It sounds like you are saying everyone who is not a calvinist is an arminian. That is like an ultra-left wing group (like move-on.org) saying all moderates and conservatives are right-wing reactionaries. Perhaps we should consider everyone who is not a catholic to be a calvinist. Same type reasoning. Note that non-calvinists usually do not call themselves themselves arminian, but calvinist do.

My question still is: why do some who say they believe in only 3 points, still want to be called calvinists? The probable answer is because some calvinists would call them arminians and question their salvation.

You talk about "individual election to salvation by God based on His own purposes" as being the dividing line. Why don't you use Unconditional Election as defined in the TULIP? Many non-calvinists believe in "individual election to salvation by God based on His own purposes. Many non-calvinist believe His purposes include our choce of accepting His grace.

 

Open your eyes man, yes there are great minds who have spent tons of years coming to some of the conclusions they have come to. I appreciate every one of their contributions and study each with an open mind. But in the end, John Calvin and the author of the Arminium doctorine will both stand behind their ideology. And if each wrote a dictionary you will find differences in some definitions.

I am of a belief that there may be an old man in the back woods of some state who never learned to read or write but has loved God all his life and may just have a better understanding than some of the most learned producers of theological views. Why do you think we have thread after thread of people disagreeing and using the same book to defend their view?

Mahatma Gandhi was not a Christian yet I believe he had a great understanding of the words of Christ.

Don't be shocked if we get to the kingdom and find out we over analysed the whole thing and it was as simple as God is love...

 

Larry can speak for himself, but I see your statement is a over statement in itself. I happen to agree with Larry in what he said on this. If you will just take note of the debates on the BB, it would be easy to see that Larry is right.

I am a 5 point Calvinist. Many claim that if you do not hold to all 5 points you are a "confused Calvinst" or any kind of other name. Yet, they still are a Calvinist.

The lines are drawen along one point. Who is in control? Does God elect, or does man just have a freewill to choose. This is the case that splits the 2 sides in each debate. OSAS is the only point where God is in full control that an Arminian will cross over and hold to. This one point will not make a person a Calvinist.

This is what Joe was getting at, in his post a page or two back. If salvation is not by God, then there is no salvation. The unspoken point, If God does not elect, we all go to Hell. It is clear Joe is a Calvinist with this statement.

So....If you take a quick look you will find election DOES split the two sides. If you do not hold to election you are not a Calvinist. If you do not like the lable Arminian, then makeup a name of your own, but chances are others will still call you Arminian. Many Calvin 3 pointers, try not to be called Calvinist, but if anyone finds out they hold to elction..BINGO...CALVINST.


Who is in control...Man or God?

Is it mans freewill to choose or Gods will to choose?

The way you answer this will tell if you are a Calvinist or not.



In Christ...James

 

And here we have a good clue as to what helps make a person choose their side of the debate. I do not mean to pick on LeBuick, but it was just the timing of his post. The freewill side starts with Gods love as to what God is. All other things are based on this one point of "God is love". Calvinist start with God as Holy Supreme Ruler and base all other points on this.


Arminianism does allow for God as Supreme Ruler, but only after you view God is love.

Calvinisim does allow for Gods love, but only to be viewed though an Holy Supreme Ruler.

 

There are a few other choices, like Pelagian and semi-pelagian. But in the main, yes, if you aren’t a Calvinist, you are an arminian. If you aren’t an arminian, you are a Calvinist.

No, it’s not the same type of reasoning. Not even close.

The question is Why? If you deny individual election to salvation, what are you?

The question is “Why?” These labels serve useful purposes. There is nothing wrong with them. It does not mean, as some seem to think, that you are following a man. It means you hold a certain view of soteriology.

That is unconditional election as “defined in the TULIP.”

This describes arminianism, like it or not. And it is not within the framework that I gave above. Assuming this believes in total depravity, it describes in a prevenient grace that restored everyone to a sort of neutrality, a state of enablement. That is classic arminianism. So why not simply use the label for it?

 

I don't appreciate all their contributions. Some of them are wicked and heretical. And the fact that they have spent years coming to them does not help.

You shouldn't. If you define a word differently, then you have no basis for communication because you are talking about two different things. The only way you can respond to an idea is if you understand what the idea is, and how the word is being used by the author.

This may be. But hard to imagine if he can't read how he can have a better understanding of God's word, since it is written. Perhaps he has someone reading to him. Of course, the point that you do not need formal education is true.

Because some are improperly using the book to defend their preconceived view.

He evidently had no understanding of the words of Christ or he would have been a Christian. He may have understood the grammar and the definitions, but he did not understand the point of it.

 

While going to church this morning, I thought more of this statement. Gandhi had NO understand at all if the message of Christ. If he did understand, he was a bigger fool then I thought for not calling Christ Lord.

When Gandhi was asked if he was a Hindu he said...." Yes I am, I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew"

Here we have this whole idea of "God is Love" thing going on again. God is indeed love, but you have left out most of the Bible if you stop there. Christ message was more then just going around doing good works.

God is a holy God that hates sin. Gandhi never understand this.

All men are sinners and need atoned form that sin not by works, but washed by the Blood of the Lamb. Gandhi never understand this.

Christ is the only way, the only truth and the only light that we have to be made right before Gods eyes. Gandhi never understand this.


Gandhi went around doing good things for people, but good works will place you in hell, if that is your hope of salvation.

 

Larry 's response to drfuss
"Quote from drfuss:
You talk about "individual election to salvation by God based on His own purposes" as being the dividing line. Why don't you use Unconditional Election as defined in the TULIP?

That is unconditional election as “defined in the TULIP.”

Quote from drfuss:
Many non-calvinists believe in "individual election to salvation by God based on His own purposes. Many non-calvinist believe His purposes include our choce of accepting His grace."

This describes arminianism, like it or not."


Calvinists believe in "individual election to salvation by God based on His pruposes". However, calvinists also believe God's purposes cannot include giving man a choice in accepting God's grace. God is sovereign; His purposes can be whatever He wants and scriptures (whosoever, etc.) indicate God in His sovereighty gives man a choice.

If you limit God's purposes to not including giving man a choice, then aren't you questioning God's sovereignty?

Isn't this a contradiction?

 

No calvinist ever said that they question God's sovereignty and/or limit His purpose, that I'm aware of!

Here's the truth: God is sovereign and man is responsible, both are true!

Man is free to choose, BUT an unregenerate heart can only choose against God.

Until God regenerates a heart man is totally unable to respond to the Holy Spirit's work in his heart, have an interest in spiritual things and ask for God's mercy and to repent!

No man CAN come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him. John 6:44

The doctrines of grace are abundantly present on every page of scripture!
For a calvinist the ordo salutis is this:
election, predestination, calling, regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification.

For an arminian it is quite different, the order, that is, as they feel they have a more active part in making it happen by either accepting or rejecting the offer.