The LILAC of Arminian and Non-Cal Theology

[preacher4truth]

Recently a thread was started in an attempt to imply that Calvinists have an exalted (“higher”) view of man than those who hold to non-Calvinist/Arminian theologies. Here is the link for that thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=76148

In addition a thread was started, falsely declaring Calvinist's don’t own up or take responsibility as Arminian (and assuming non-Calvinists) do. Here is the link to this thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=75616&highlight=addiction

Each thread failed to accomplish their objectives, yet nonetheless these remarks were made.

The thread stating Calvinist's have an exalted (“higher”) view of man (than non-Calvinist's/Arminians) was shot down and found by several to be faulty in its premise. Nothing in the thread proved the point of the OP, but was rather shown to be a desperate grasp to discredit Calvinism, or, at the least, its attempt to prove that Calvinist's hold an exalted view of man failed.

But, the accusations were made. While each attempt was found to be blatantly false, said were additionally recognized as merely a desperate attempt to place Calvinism in the stead of Arminian and non-Calvinist theology. This attempt didn't succeed, and all the while the latter two theologies, Arminianism and non-Calvinist theologies remain well recognized as having both an unbiblical and inflated view of man.

Now, let’s consider the LILAC of the non-Calvinists, those who embrace Arminian theologies, and of those who believe the same points who hold another unnamed theology.

The exaltation of man shown in each point below (LILAC) is representative of the doctrine of both Arminian and non-Calvinist theologies. These teachings seek to supplant Sovereignty by going the route of freewill, or, via the power of the “choice” of man.

Please show how LILAC concisely represents the views of Arminian and non-Calvinist theologies, while at the same time exalting man to an unbiblical precedent.

I look forward to your comments. Here is an acrostic representing Arminian, non-cal, and other unnamed theologies:

L - Limited Depravity

I - I elect God

L - Limitless Atonement

A – Arrestable* Grace

C - Carnal Security

*”arrestable” is a term used by some who hold to Arminian or non-Calvinist theologies to complete this acrostic.

PLEASE, LET’S KEEP THIS DISCUSSION CIVIL. THANKS.

 

[psalms109:31]

Acronym Definition
LILAC- Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conference
LILAC- Leeds Independent Living Accommodation Company (UK)
LILAC- Learning in Law Annual Conference (UK)
LILAC - Long Island Language Arts Council (Long Island, NY)
LILAC- Leading Improvements for Looked After Children (UK)
LILAC- Lesbian Information Library and Archives Centre (Wellington, NZ)

It had to be done.

Who on this BB believes in this LILAC Acronym?

 

[Tom Butler]

I would suggest that the I represent "I elect myself."

 

[preacher4truth]

Who on this BB believes in this LILAC Acronym?

It's an acrostic not an acronym.

Points of the LILAC are held by the theologies I discussed. Not all believe each and every one, but each theology believes and embraces some of them.

There is no need for you to attempt to derail the thread.

 

[preacher4truth]

I would suggest that the I represent "I elect myself."

I agree with your assessment that it means exactly that to some in their theology.

 

[psalms109:31]

It's an acrostic not an acronym.

Points of the LILAC are held by the theologies I discussed. Not all believe each and every one, but each theology believes and embraces to some of them.

There is no need for you to attempt to derail the thread.

I will rephrase the question?

Who on this BB believes in this LILAC acrostic?

 

[preacher4truth]

I will rephrase the question?

Who on this BB believes in this LILAC acrostic?

Tell me which points an Arminian or non-cal don't believe in.

They believe in Limited Depravity, not Total Depravity. Do you deny this? They also believe in Limitless Atonement, to the point even non-elect will be saved.

I could go on, but there is no need to at this point. You're holding a pretense that they don't believe the things they actually teach. But that's OK, go for it.

Or, actually address each point of the acrostic, and describe how non-cal theologies hold to a degree each of the points.

 

[psalms109:31]

My penalty for my sin is death, I can't pay it at all, nothing I can do can save me.

I must trust in Jesus and His finished work and trust God will credit me His righteousness.

I and many non-cals will get accused of saving themselves because they trust God and His word. That God has elected them by His word and they be ridiculed and be told about them that they saved themselves. To be ashamed of their salvation?

They see themselves are saved by grace as much as you do.

I am talking about people on BB

 

[quantumfaith]

My penalty for my sin is death, I can't pay it at all, nothing I can do can save me.

I must trust in Jesus and His finished work and trust God will credit me His righteousness.

I and many non-cals will get accused of saving themselves because they trust God and His word. That God has elected them by His word and they be ridiculed and be told about them that they saved themselves. To be ashamed of their salvation?

They see themselves are saved by grace as much as you do.

I am talking about people on BB

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

My penalty for my sin is death, I can't pay it at all, nothing I can do can save me.

True.

I must trust in Jesus and His finished work and trust God will credit me His righteousness.

True.

I and many non-cals will get accused of saving themselves because they trust God and His word. That God has elected them by His word and they be ridiculed and be told about them that they saved themselves. To be ashamed of their salvation?

Care to address the acrostics points, where said points are from actual arminians/non-calvinists beliefs?

Let's start with Limited Depravity, then we can go to whether it was God who chose us, or, we chose Him OK? (I elect self).

What and where did you get "To be ashamed of their salvation"? posed as a question toward anything said here? It doesn't follow logically with anything you or I have said.

They see themselves are saved by grace as much as you do.

To the contrary the views of each are quite different and an investigation into the theologies will reveal it is not quite that simplistic.

Did you fight for calvinist brethren the way you are fighting for yourself when they were represented as holding a higher view of man, and as those who don't own up to their responsibilities?

Now, let's get back to the OP and address the LILAC. If you can't do that, then maybe stoop away. Thanks.

 

[psalms109:31]

True.



True.



Care to address the acrostics points, where said points are from actual arminians/non-calvinists, and address them please?

Let's start with Limited Depravity, then we can go to whether it was God who chose us, or, we chose Him OK? (I elect self).

What and where did you get "To be ashamed of their salvation"? posed as a question toward anything said here? It doesn't follow logically with anything you or I have said.



To the contrary the views of each are quite different.

Did you fight for calvinist brethren the way you are fighting for yourself when they were represented as holding a higher view of man, and as those who don't own up to their responsibilities?

Now, let's get back to the OP and address the LILAC. If you can't do that, then maybe stoop away. Thanks.

I am not an LILAC Arminian, you need to talk to those who do.

Do you believe Calvinist exalts God higher than non-cals?

 

[quantumfaith]

Rare occasion when I see someone encourage someone else to depart from commenting on a thread, real mature.

 

[preacher4truth]

I am not an LILAC Arminian, you need to talk to those who do.

Do you believe Calvinist exalts God higher than non-cals?

If I need to "talk to those who do" why are you commenting and asking questions?

Perhaps LILAC hit home on some areas of concern for you and what arms do in fact believe?

So...you deny that depravity is limited, or, do you believe in total depravity as explained in DoG/reformed theology? If not, then Limited Depravity applies to you.

Do you believe that any non-elect will be saved? If you do, then Limitless Atonement would apply to you.

Do you believe God can be resisted in saving whom He has chosen to save? If you do, then Arrestable Grace would apply to you.

True Arminian theology denies eternal security, do you accept OSAS or do you deny it? If you embrace OSAS you don't believe the Arm doctrine presented at the Second Synod of Dort by those representing Arminian theology. Some believe OSAS, some don't.

Do you believe God chose you? Or, was it you that chose Him? Biblically, He chose us.

To your last question, it is glaringly obvious that arms/non-cals exalt man higher than cals do in their theologies.

 

[psalms109:31]

If I need to "talk to those who do" why are you commenting and asking questions?

Perhaps LILAC hit home on some areas of concern for you and what arms do in fact believe?

So...you deny that depravity is limited, or, do you believe in total depravity as explained in DoG/reformed theology? If not, then Limited Depravity applies to you.

Do you believe that any non-elect will be saved? If you do, then Limitless Atonement would apply to you.

Do you believe God can be resisted in saving whom He has chosen to save? If you do, then Arrestable Grace would apply to you.

True Arminian theology denies eternal security, do you accept OSAS or do you deny it? If you embrace OSAS you don't believe the Arm doctrine presented at the Second Synod of Dort by those representing Arminian theology. Some believe OSAS, some don't.

Do you believe God chose you? Or, was it you that chose Him? Biblically, He chose us.

To your last question, it is glaringly obvious that arms/non-cals exalt man higher than cals do in their theologies.

I am a man a sinner who needs Jesus to save me I can't save myself, for the wages of my sin is death, not belief, not faith, not the Law I failed that is why i need Jesus to save me.

My hope, my life is in Christ alone. His word is what lead me to Jesus. His word is always before us leading us or we are following the wrong path.

 

[webdog]

Well, I had to un-ignore the OP's author due to a need for some comedy this evening, and I wasn't disappointed. An alleged pastor posting something this asinine is a disgrace to christianity and the pastorate.

 

[matt wade]

Well, I had to un-ignore the OP's author due to a need for some comedy this evening, and I wasn't disappointed. An alleged pastor posting something this asinine is a disgrace to christianity and the pastorate.

Don't give him so much credit. It's only a disgrace to himself and his pastorate.

 

[mandym]

Recently a thread was started in an attempt to imply that Calvinists have an exalted (“higher”) view of man than those who hold to non-Calvinist/Arminian theologies. Here is the link for that thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=76148

In addition a thread was started, falsely declaring Calvinist's don’t own up or take responsibility as Arminian (and assuming non-Calvinists) do. Here is the link to this thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=75616&highlight=addiction

Each thread failed to accomplish their objectives, yet nonetheless these remarks were made.

The thread stating Calvinist's have an exalted (“higher”) view of man (than non-Calvinist's/Arminians) was shot down and found by several to be faulty in its premise. Nothing in the thread proved the point of the OP, but was rather shown to be a desperate grasp to discredit Calvinism, or, at the least, its attempt to prove that Calvinist's hold an exalted view of man failed.

But, the accusations were made. While each attempt was found to be blatantly false, said were additionally recognized as merely a desperate attempt to place Calvinism in the stead of Arminian and non-Calvinist theology. This attempt didn't succeed, and all the while the latter two theologies, Arminianism and non-Calvinist theologies remain well recognized as having both an unbiblical and inflated view of man.

Now, let’s consider the LILAC of the non-Calvinists, those who embrace Arminian theologies, and of those who believe the same points who hold another unnamed theology.

The exaltation of man shown in each point below (LILAC) is representative of the doctrine of both Arminian and non-Calvinist theologies. These teachings seek to supplant Sovereignty by going the route of freewill, or, via the power of the “choice” of man.

Please show how LILAC concisely represents the views of Arminian and non-Calvinist theologies, while at the same time exalting man to an unbiblical precedent.

I look forward to your comments. Here is an acrostic representing Arminian, non-cal, and other unnamed theologies:

L - Limited Depravity

I - I elect God

L - Limitless Atonement

A – Arrestable* Grace

C - Carnal Security

*”arrestable” is a term used by some who hold to Arminian or non-Calvinist theologies to complete this acrostic.

PLEASE, LET’S KEEP THIS DISCUSSION CIVIL. THANKS.

I am a non cal and hold to none of those.

 

[Skandelon]

Well, I had to un-ignore the OP's author due to a need for some comedy this evening, and I wasn't disappointed.

Tempting....but no....

 

[preacher4truth]

I'm not surprised that some of you refuse to face the doctrines you teach. Nor am I surprised by the quips of some of you here as it is status quo. To be honest I've seen very little actual theological dialogue being discussed by you on the BB. Typically it's a dismissive attitude that refuses to face reality. One goes as far as to slight someones pastorate. That's fine, blessings to you. If you can't discuss your actual teachings without being snide, then don't.

I've addressed the teachings here, and nothing in them is false nor misrepresentative, so deal with the facts and be Christian in doing so. However, I can understand why you wouldn't want to face what you actually teach. Furthermore evidence on the BB shows these are the teachings of Arms and non-cals.

In addition some of you attack doctrines, i.e. "Irresistible Grace" and other teachings while remaining completely oblivious to what they actually do teach. This has been proven on the BB.

What Armininans and non-Calvinists do in fact teach:

"Limited Depravity." Many of you fight for this on here against Total Depravity. You embrace and have an objective of a defense of mankind in his lost state as not being according to Romans 3 and other passages, instead of holding an objective of revealing God's truth concerning lost man. This is the first of your man exalting and defending "theology."

"I Elect God." Though unaware, in these theologies, the teachings espoused are so adamant against election, or even discussing it, that you show disdain even for the term in some cases. On the flipside as to what you do like to discuss, your teachings go as far as to say you chose God, so, "I elect God" is quite representative. The fact is God chose us in "eternity past" so it is actually He who chose His elect. But again, man is exalted in any doctrine that proclaims someone other than God doing the electing.

"Limitless Atonement." Armininan theology and non cal theologies believe in "Limitless Atonement" and in Arminian theology, it is taught that even the non-elect can be saved. Some teach they are saved. Skandelon has brought this up himself. It's erroneous. None who are saved are non-elect. Thus, this describes your theologies very well.

"Arrestable Grace," coined by some Arminians teaches that Grace can be resisted. We believe His Grace will win out for his elect. This also describes Arminian and non-cal theologies. Again, in these theologies, man saves the day and is so mighty, that he can stop Gods grace to save, even the "elect" can do this. More man exalting doctrine.

"Carnal Security" is a description of those who don't accept OSAS. True Arminian theology denies OSAS. Not all Arms/non-cals believe against OSAS, but this is still representative of some of them. Man is again exalted in this teaching, that he can "decide" to walk away and forfeit his salvation, contrary to the teachings of Scriptures, and of the Words of Christ in John 10:28, supplanting both by his choice. This is yet another man exalting teaching.

But I understand, the best you can do is pretend you don't teach these things. Fortunately, the BB shows otherwise, and these things have been taught at least in part. There's no escaping the evidence.

:thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Im not a fan of any acrostics my friends so I dont know how to comment. The criticism of our own (TULIP) are noteworthy & full of debate. However I believe that anyone evaluating any faith can use an acrostic as a starting point to prove (or deny) soundness of doctrine. In my case I read books, spoke to pastors & theologians, & dove deeply into the scriptures (with fervent prayer) to gain understanding.

I was told by the critics that Doctrines of Grace emerged late in Church History, were destined mostly by Calvin & then many attempted to vilify Calvin. That can be viewed as a beginners point & so this negative commentary only encouraged me to delve deeper. What I found out is that the Doctrines of Grace really found their origins in the teachings of Jesus, which has been preserved throughout the church in many periods, and which has always been characteristic of the church at its greatest periods of faith and expansion.

So now if someone provides you with your own acrostic, thank him! You might learn something you didnt know about your own faith belief. :laugh: