The LILAC of Arminian and Non-Cal Theology

[preacher4truth]

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 ans 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:

Keep in mind this "acrostic" was not coined by myself, but by several others as descriptive of this theology. It was designed to simplify the teachings into an easy to recall format.

Actually, the "TULIP" acrostic is one thing that got me to consider "Calvinism" and through study, illumination, leading of God, there was no denying that the things taught within it are truth. As I read the Scriptures these truths continued to "come up" and there was no way to deny they were there.

Through several things and circumstances, God taught me via His Word the truths of Sovereign Grace, and used events to show me Who is in ultimate control and Who is The Sovereign of the universe.

The extent of His Sovereignty is overwhelming and makes one literally stand in awe of Him. Anyhow, I was humbled by these things, knowing and seeing my past theology was sorely deficient. As I've stated in the past, the view of God within many IFB circles is faulty, exiquous and weak, and barely represents God. These things left a large void in my heart, and I held a sense of contempt for this theology and view of God, knowing something was amiss. God led me through some circumstances, testings, and broke me through many things in teaching me these truths.

Today we have some who would mock and demean those teachings and those who hold to them. I've noted some threads that are clearly misrepresentative of Calvinist brothers. Nothing in them proves the point of the OP as there is no theological basis for such things said, they are merely subjective. This is one reason they fall short of their intended objective.

Here I am addressing the actual theological slants of said theologies. Again, the "LILAC" is not my acrostic, it is actually presented by others to describe their theologies.

As to the teachings of Arminianism and non-Calvinist theologies, some would do well to own up to these well known fallacies they hold to, and examine them. It would take a little pride swallowing to do so. Yet instead of this we get a few pejorative laden quips with no substance. I ponder what it means about those who do these things.

May God bless all of them.

 

[glfredrick]

I will rephrase the question?

Who on this BB believes in this LILAC acrostic?

You want us to name names? :wavey:

 

[glfredrick]

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

Perhaps you should express, in a positive sense, what it is that you do hold. Make your own acrostic.

I find a good many people on this board picking apart what others hold but never putting forth their own framework for the doctrines they hold. Here is your chance!

 

[mandym]

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.

Your entire op is snide and this post is both hypocritical and childish.

 

[glfredrick]

Your entire op is snide and this post is both hypocritical and childish.

It doesn't have to be... Like I said, here is your opportunity to turn the conversation in another direction. Just lay out a positive expression for what you hold. Or are you afraid to do so? :love2:

 

[preacher4truth]

Your entire op is snide and this post is both hypocritical and childish.

To the contrary.

You're comments actually are representative of your own behavior, this being your second personal attack in one thread. You add nothing of grace or theological significance to the thread.

The only thing you see as snide is the factual representations of a theology, and because it is not anti-cal you find fault with it.

Thus, nothing in this thread is snide accept maybe you.

God bless you.

 

[mandym]

To the contrary.

You're comments actually are representative of your own behavior, this being your second personal attack in one thread. You add nothing of grace or theological significance to the thread.

The only thing you see as snide is a the factual representations of a theology, and because it is not anti-cal you find fault with it.

Thus, nothing in this thread is snide accept maybe you.

God bless you.

Your op and subsequent posts thereof are mean spirited, untruthful and snide. You know nothing of factual theology non cals hold to. You , intentionally and with great childishness misrepresented with a broad brush non cal theology. The op is just plain wrong. Period

 

[preacher4truth]

It doesn't have to be... Like I said, here is your opportunity to turn the conversation in another direction. Just lay out a positive expression for what you hold. Or are you afraid to do so? :love2:

Brother, I sincerely wish he could. I've to date not seen one time where manydy has added anything positive, theological, or edifying to a thread.

Typically, if it is a anti-cal related thread (such as the in the links I've provided), he comes in to quip not against doctrine, but cals.

If it is a thread as this one that expresses the fallacies of Arminian and non-Calvinist theologies, he again attacks, both a person and their ministry. Instead of offering anything apologetically, he offers pejoratives.

I could rest my case on this alone, as this shows one who has lost the battle. But I won't. Instead I await any non-Calvinist to back up their beliefs that were presented in LILAC. There is no denying these are representative, as the BB itself shows these are the things they in fact teach.

Anyhow, mandym claims the thread is snide? He can't see past his own nose to see that it is in fact he that is being such.

Imagine a Calvinist claiming the thread links of the OP were snide, and entered into them with these comments. Wonder what would happen? :laugh: :thumbsup:

Again, I await the non-Calvinists to back up their belief system represented in LILAC, or, they can prove they don't believe LILAC and embrace the "Calvinist" side of each issue.

 

[preacher4truth]

Your op and subsequent posts thereof are mean spirited, untruthful and snide. You know nothing of factual theology non cals hold to. You , intentionally and with great childishness misrepresented with a broad brush non cal theology. The op is just plain wrong. Period

There is nothing untruthful in the OP, nbor am I mean spirited as you false accuse and misjudge. It's beginning to look like it's you that is the one who is mean spirited. Just look at your comments. All of your posts so far are personal attacks and don't deal with the OP at all.

The LILAC fairly and accurately describes non-Calvinist theological points.

Limited Depravity is one of them. That's not factual? OK. :laugh:

So quite the contrary, I am very well versed on what your theology teaches, having been there, and coming to reject your theology for the sake of truth.

LILAC wasn't produced by me, it's been around for years.

 

[mandym]

Brother, I sincerely wish he could. I've to date not seen one time where manydy has added anything positive, theological, or edifying to a thread.

Typically, if it is a anti-cal related thread (such as the in the links I've provided), he comes in to quip not against doctrine, but cals.

If it is a thread as this one that expresses the fallacies of Arminian and non-Calvinist theologies, he again attacks, both a person and their ministry. Instead of offering anything apologetically, he offers pejoratives.

I could rest my case on this alone, as this shows one who has lost the battle. But I won't. Instead I await any non-Calvinist to back up their beliefs that were presented in LILAC. There is no denying these are representative, as the BB itself shows these are the things they in fact teach.

Anyhow, mandym claims the thread is snide? He can't see past his own nose to see that it is in fact he that is being such.

Imagine a Calvinist claiming the thread links of the OP were snide, and entered into them with these comments. Wonder what would happen? :laugh: :thumbsup:

Again, I await the non-Calvinists to back up their belief system represented in LILAC, or, they can prove they don't believe LILAC and embrace the "Calvinist" side of each issue.

I have never attacked you or your ministry. I addressed your post. And you are not well versed in what non cals believe. You are however well versed in your misrepresentations used to demonize others who disagree with you.

 

[quantumfaith]

Now, our study does not actually pertain to flowering botanicals. This is a theological study that is precipitated by the fact that a particular theological perspective (identified as Calvinism) has portrayed its distinctive epistemological tenets in the acrostic form of the word "TULIP." From the Council of Dort (1619) onwards the theological followers of the reformer, John Calvin (1509-1564) have often formulated their position in five (5) points, and the petals of the Calvinistic "TULIP" are traditionally represented as:

T otal depravity
U nconditional election
L imited atonement
I rresistible grace
P erseverance of the saints
The underlying presuppositional root and stem of this system of thought is that God is absolutely "sovereign" in His control of the created order that He has created, and that such "sovereignty" does not allow for any freedom of the human creature which would allow man's responsibility for freedom of choice to provide a condition or contingency on God's "sovereign" action. There is obviously a legitimacy in the concern to safeguard the recognition that the divine actions of the Creator God are not dependent upon the actions of the creature, man, in which case man would be in control of God, based on a humanistic premise of the autonomous "sovereignty" of humanity. The problem with the traditional Calvinistic perspective is that they have often emphasized the "sovereignty" of God to the extent that they have denied the responsibility (response-ability) of man in their "TULIP" theology.

Calvinists have sometimes caricatured Arminian theology, based on the teaching of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), as represented by a "daisy" rather than a "tulip". Their intent in so representing Arminianism as a "daisy" theology has been to imply that Arminian theology has no security in the "sovereign" action of God's love, so the adherents of Arminian theology are insecurely picking the petals off of the daisy one at a time, saying, "He loves me. He loves me not," never finding assurance of God's action or of a relationship with God in Jesus Christ. Let it be noted that flower aficionados and theologians are notorious for their misrepresentation of varieties other than their own!

Dare we suggest, in light of this, that the proponents of "TULIP" theology (the Calvinists) are actually advocates of a "DAISY" theology that has always tried to project itself as a "TULIP" theology? Carefully observe that the five points of Calvinistic theology can be more precisely represented in the acrostic form of the word "DAISY":

D epraved inability of human function
A rbitrary selection of the divinely favored
I nequitable limitation of Christ's redemption
S ystemic coercion of the predetermined
Y oked confinement of Christian believers
This is the "DAISY" that often poses as a "TULIP."

It is hereby proposed that there is a more legitimate "TULIP" theology that maintains the balanced symmetry of a Biblical perspective of the relationship between God and man, recognizing both the autonomous sovereignty of God and the receptive responsibility of man. Such theological understanding might be formulated in this "TULIP" form:

T otality of mankind are spiritually depraved in their fallen spiritual condition as a consequence of Adam's sin.
U nrequited action of God's grace has acted to redeem and restore mankind through Jesus Christ without express or implied contingency of such divine action.
L imitlessness of God's redemptive and restorative action in Jesus Christ makes His work universally available and applicable to all mankind.
I ndividual response of receptivity of faith allows God's grace action to be personally efficacious in the new spiritual creation of the Christian.
P reservation of the Christian in this relationship is divinely enacted in accord with the perseverance of faithful receptivity of God's grace action in a dynamic continuum unto eternity.
May we always remember that such acrostic representations are but man-made attempts to organize and explain the revelation of God in His Son, Jesus Christ. Our faith is not in such theological organization of thought, but in the living Lord Jesus, and the differing formulations of flowering thought should never be made "tests of faith" that jeopardize the unity that we have in Christ.

It would not be difficult to conclude that theologians who ponder such leaves of thought are but "blooming idiots" or "petal pushers" who fallaciously perceive that ultimate meaning is to be found in such "flower power." Though precision of theological explanation is indeed a worthy calling, the need of the hour, for both theologians and Christians in general, is to "wake up and smell the roses" * to allow God by His grace to manifest the "fragrance of the knowledge of Christ in every place" (II Cor. 2:14). That "fragrance" will be evidenced in "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and godly control of the self" (Gal. 5:22,23).

Instead of dissecting the petals of the DAISY or the TULIP, perhaps there is a greater need to "consider the lilies, how they neither toil nor spin" (Matt. 6:28), but are receptive to and rely upon the provision of God's grace.


http://www.christinyou.net/pages/daisy.html

 

[preacher4truth]

I have never attacked you or your ministry. I addressed your post. And you are not well versed in what non cals believe. You are however well versed in your misrepresentations used to demonize others who disagree with you.

You've attacked with insults and name-calling. It's apparent. Own up.

I am very well versed in what non-cals believe. I was one. Again, own up.

Show me how Limited Depravity misrepresents non-cal theology if you can even debate theology at all.

 

[preacher4truth]

I have never attacked you or your ministry. I addressed your post. And you are not well versed in what non cals believe. You are however well versed in your misrepresentations used to demonize others who disagree with you.

Please show me where you've addressed the points of my post. We fail to see you addressing them anywhere. All I see here are pejoratives, and I don't see one time where youv'e addressed a point.

 

[mandym]

You've attacked with insults and name-calling. It's apparent. Own up.

Show me.

I am very well versed in what non-cals believe. I was one. Again, own up.

Show me how Limited Depravity misrepresents non-cal theology if you can even debate theology at all.

I am not going to debate theology with someone who cannot debate it so you make up misrepresentation and paints with a broad brush in order to compensate for honest debate skills. Your personal attacks are so notorious that a good number folks on this board have you on ignore. Why is that?

 

[quantumfaith]

You've attacked with insults and name-calling. It's apparent. Own up.

I am very well versed in what non-cals believe. I was one. Again, own up.

Show me how Limited Depravity misrepresents non-cal theology if you can even debate theology at all.

http://www.moviesoundclips.net/movies1/braveheart/braveheartg.wav

 

[mandym]

Please show me where you've addressed the points of my post. We fail to see you addressing them anywhere. All I see here are pejoratives, and I don't see one time where youv'e addressed a point.

Let me remind you of your own post:

Originally Posted by 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.

 

[preacher4truth]

Show me.

Your insults are apparent. That you can't see them is of great interest.

I am not going to debate theology with someone who cannot debate it so makes up misrepresentation and paints with a broad brush in order to compensate for honest debate skills. Your personal attacks are so notorious that a good number folks on this board have you on ignore. Why is that?

I've not seen you debate theology to date anywhere on the BB. Ever.

Again, you add nothing of Christian grace to yet another thread. by the way, there are many who have many on ignore on the BB. I'd gather that you're one that has hit ignore on the lists of many. Seeing your behavior would justify this.

God bless you.

 

[preacher4truth]

Let me remind you of your own post:

Oh how HORRIBLE of me to say those things! :laugh:

Again, God bless you.

Oh, and by the way, you've definitely earned yourself a place on that certain "feature" on the BB.

I see nothing to gain from your behavior and attitude, but I will certainly pray for you.

Congrats and Buh-bye! :wavey:

 

[mandym]

Your insults are apparent. That you can't see them is of great interest.

I see an accusation with no support or reality. Such is referred to as slander.

I've not seen you debate theology to date anywhere on the BB. Ever.

uh huh

Again, you add nothing of Christian grace to yet another thread. by the way, there are many who have many on ignore on the BB. I'd gather that you're one that has hit ignore on the lists of many. Seeing your behavior would justify this.

God bless you.

I have no one on ignore. Not even you.

 

[webdog]

Your op and subsequent posts thereof are mean spirited, untruthful and snide. You know nothing of factual theology non cals hold to. You , intentionally and with great childishness misrepresented with a broad brush non cal theology. The op is just plain wrong. Period

:thumbs: :thumbs: