T.U.L.I.P.?

[Sovereign Grace]

You can't determine a Calvinist by their belief in the sovereignty of God. If you take away the TULIP doctrine out of the modern-day Primitive Baptist church, and all you're left with is free will. The modern Primitives teach a fabrication of Armenianism. They deny the absolute sovereignty of God in all things (a doctrine which the Bible clearly teaches), but they still call themselves Calvinist because they teach the doctrines of grace. I contend that a Calvinist is someone who teaches the five points of Calvinism. You can't call a man a Calvinist who only believes in 4, 3, 2, or 1 point. Calvinism consists of five points!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Sovereign Grace:
You can't determine a Calvinist by their belief in the sovereignty of God.

I cannot testify to what is going on in primitive Baptist circles. I think a statement like this however misunderstands how sovereignty and Calvinism are related. If you hold to one you must hold to the other. If you deny one you deny the other.

I contend that a Calvinist is someone who teaches the five points of Calvinism. You can't call a man a Calvinist who only believes in 4, 3, 2, or 1 point. Calvinism consists of five points!

But I have already shown how this cannot be true. While you may hold to five points, it is entirely possible to hold to less than five and still affirm the absolute sovereignty of God (as you describe it above).

 

[Sovereign Grace]

While you may hold to five points, it is entirely possible to hold to less than five and still affirm the absolute sovereignty of God (as you describe it above).

I'm going to deny unconditional election. Now it is up to man, according to his own free will, to come to Jesus. God's sovereignty in this?

I'm going to deny perseverance of the saints. Now it is up to man to keep his own salvation even though the New Testament writer wrote, "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13) Again, God's sovereignty in this?

There is no way to deny unconditional election and still believe in the sovereignty of God. It is impossible.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Sovereign Grace:
I'm going to deny unconditional election. Now it is up to man, according to his own free will, to come to Jesus. God's sovereignty in this?

If you read what I said above, Unconditional election is the sine qua non. You must have that. It is indispensable.

I'm going to deny perseverance of the saints. Now it is up to man to keep his own salvation even though the New Testament writer wrote, "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13) Again, God's sovereignty in this?

First, don't confuse perseverance and preservation. Those who deny perseverance assert that it is not necessary for final salvation. I disagree but it is unrelated to the question of unconditional election.

There is no way to deny unconditional election and still believe in the sovereignty of God. It is impossible.

This is what I said from the beginning so you and I aren't disagreeing here.

 

[Eladar]

Sovereign Grace,

For God a minute is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a minute.

I'm not too sure about the units of time, but the general jist is there.

God is not limited to our perspective.

 

[TomVols]

I'd be curious to hear the arguments from those who tend to disagree or strongly disagree with depravity, especially in light of all the violence we're seeing right now in the Middle East, Andrea Yates, 9/11, etc.

 

[Calvinist Dude]

I would have to agree with those who have stated that the 5 points stand or fall together. Here's an interesting quote from R.C. Sproul on this same issue:

I remember teaching a college class in theology. The class was made up of an interdenominational group of about twenty-five students. I asked at the beginning of the study on predestination how many students considered themselves Calvinists on the matter. Only one student raised his hand.

We started with a study of man's sinfulness. After I lectured for several days on the subject of man's corruption I took another poll. I asked, "How many of you are persuaded that what you have just learned is in fact the Bible doctrine of human sinfulness?" Every hand went up. I said, "Are you sure?" They insisted that they were indeed sure. I gave a further warning. "Be careful now. This may come back to haunt you later in the course." No matter. They insisted that they were convinced.

At this point in the class I went to the corner of the chalkboard and wrote the date. Next to the date I wrote the figure 25. I put a circle around this and added a note to the janitor to please refrain from erasing this portion of the board.

Several weeks later we began a study of predestination. When I got to the point of man's moral inability there were howls of protest. Then I went to the chalkboard and reminded them of the earlier poll. It took another two weeks to convince them that, if they really accepted the biblical view of human corruption, the debate about predestination for all intents and purposes was already over.
R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God pp. 104-105.

The 5 points must stand or fall together.

 

[rsr]

Pastor Larry:

If the sovereignty of God is the linchpin of TULIP, then many Arminians would be Calvinists. They accept God's sovereingty; they just don't understand it the same way as Calvinists do.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by rsr:
Pastor Larry:

If the sovereignty of God is the linchpin of TULIP, then many Arminians would be Calvinists. They accept God's sovereingty; they just don't understand it the same way as Calvinists do.

Only if the same word can have two different definitions. An arminian might claim to believe is sovereignty but when pushed on the issue, he cannot believe in sovereignty without redefining what sovereignty is. To say that they believe in sovereignty is akin to saying that I drove a rose to my office this morning. Of course you would look at me strange and say I have no idea what a rose is if I say I drove it to my office this morning. And I would look at an arminian just as strangely when he claims to believe in sovereignty because by definition, he cannot believe in sovereignty.

 

[Eric B]

It's not a matter of two different definitions; it is a matter of a particular forced definition that does not necessarily apply. If God is so sovereign, then He can define/manifest that sovereignty the way He sees fit, not the way we think sovereignty must be. Like you all said on the other thread, He is God, we are not.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
It's not a matter of two different definitions; it is a matter of a particular forced definition that does not necessarily apply. If God is so sovereign, then He can define/manifest that sovereignty the way He sees fit, not the way we think sovereignty must be. Like you all said on the other thread, He is God, we are not.

But he has told us how he exercise sovereignty. He is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. He works all things after the counsel of his own will. This is not sovereignty the way I think it should be. It is sovereignty the way God said it was.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Rev. Josha Villines,

Your statements were insightful.

Dr. Berrian

 

[Ray Berrian]

I never heard that Calvinism is a worldview. Please, explain what you mean by this. Is not the Christian world divided as to Arminian and Calvinistic theology? How then can it be a world view? Is it not one of many views in relation to the Word of God?

Sincerely,

Dr. Berrian

 

[Eric B]

But he has told us how he exercise sovereignty. He is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. He works all things after the counsel of his own will. This is not sovereignty the way I think it should be. It is sovereignty the way God said it was.

But if we force what He actually tells us to conform to our idea of what "doing whatever He pleases" really means (creating implications that He has not said, and in fact contradict much of it), then that is the way we think it should be, and not the way He actually said.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
But if we force what He actually tells us to conform to our idea of what "doing whatever He pleases" really means (creating implications that He has not said, and in fact contradict much of it), then that is the way we think it should be, and not the way He actually said.

I would agree and that is why I have problems with your position. God's sovereignty is not determined by whether or not you think something is fair. And God's sovereignty cannot be interpreted in such a way that would contradict his other revelation. You have subjected the sovereignty of God to something that your mind is willing to live with rather than accepting the revelation of God about the matter.

 

[Monergist]

Originally posted by Eric B:
But if we force what He actually tells us to conform to our idea of what "doing whatever He pleases" really means (creating implications that He has not said, and in fact contradict much of it), then that is the way we think it should be, and not the way He actually said.

IMHO, "doing whatever He pleases" means "doing whatever He pleases." "Whatever He pleases" is ALWAYS perfectly in line with His Holy character. So who am I to question?

 

[TomVols]

I never heard that Calvinism is a worldview. Please, explain what you mean by this.

The Biblical framework that constitutes Calvinism is a worldview in that it provides a grid through which one filters the experiences of life and the observations made. For instance, if I believe in the doctrine of total depravity, that affects how I see people, their struggles, their spiritual condition, etc. I do not merely see humans as pretty good folks who just need a little polishing here or there. I see them as people in need of redemption. That is but one example. Make sense?

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by TomVols:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I never heard that Calvinism is a worldview. Please, explain what you mean by this.

The Biblical framework that constitutes Calvinism is a worldview in that it provides a grid through which one filters the experiences of life and the observations made. For instance, if I believe in the doctrine of total depravity, that affects how I see people, their struggles, their spiritual condition, etc. I do not merely see humans as pretty good folks who just need a little polishing here or there. I see them as people in need of redemption. That is but one example. Make sense?</font>[/QUOTE]Calvinism is a Theocentric worldview. It recognizes (in the current words of S.C. Chapman) God is God and I am not. It understands that all of God's revelation is about God and not about us, and his eternal purpose is to glorify himself and not us. We are the beneficiaries of his own self-glorification by being redeemed by the great Redeemer, so all honor and glory go to him and we have nothing to brag about on our own.

Salvation is by God's grace, through his gift of faith to the elect, and not a faith we self-generate. God is holy and righteous and above the judgments of man, how man thinks God should be or act.

God's ultimate glorification comes when every knee bows and every mouth confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord. Even the damned will do this, as they will be unable at last to deny the sovereignty and glory of God in Christ Jesus.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Sovereign Grace says:

Sovereign Grace Baptists teach what the early Primitive Baptists taught. The Primitive Baptists today do not teach what the original Old School Baptists taught.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a rather sweeping statement about Primitive Baptists, man.
I challenge you to prove that.

 

[rsr]

That's a rather sweeping statement about Primitive Baptists, man.
I challenge you to prove that.

Glad to see some of the Primitive Baptist brethren calling on that one.

I kept thinking Bro. Glen would join in ...