The LILAC of Arminian and Non-Cal Theology

[Amy.G]

Like my plea to Mandym, PLEASE SHARE YOUR OWN DOCTRINE and let's set aside the cop out that you do not have one because that "puts God in a box." You have one or else what are you debating against?

Why is this so important to Calvinists? Are you doing it out of love? Do you fear for the salvation of non cals? What is the purpose? Why do you care what others believe? Why does it bother you so much if someone doesn't believe in the TULIP?
What is your motive for debating it?

 

[glfredrick]

Why is this so important to Calvinists? Are you doing it out of love? Do you fear for the salvation of non cals? What is the purpose? Why do you care what others believe? Why does it bother you so much if someone doesn't believe in the TULIP?
What is your motive for debating it?

I am doing it because this is a forum for theology debate. The Doctrines of Grace position held by myself and others on this board, called Calvinists, comes up for discussion and debate -- some would say outright attack -- on virtually a daily basis. Yet none who bring this debate TO Calvinists have ever (to the extent that I have read the board for the past year or so) brought up their own doctrinal framework, and more, they also disavow other doctrinal frameworks that are brought up for discussion such as the 5 Articles of the Remonstrance, the LILAC, etc.

I suggest merely that it is time to ask those who hold a different perspective to share their own doctrinal framework so AT LEAST the rest of us know where they stand.

That they either cannot or will not as the case may be, is reason to question the theological comprehension, cohesion, and coherence of the individuals that snipe and pick, yet cannot present in a positive sense their own framework.

 

[Jerome]

LILAC accurately represents the theologies within these camps. I've demonstrated above how this is true and exactly how it applies.

Here is a link that expresses this in more detail. . . . .

Here it is:

http://www.prca.org/standard_bearer/volume74/1997oct15.html#Lilac

PRCA?

Is that that microdenomination that Phil Johnson discusses in A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism?

 

[preacher4truth]

Why is this so important to Calvinists? Are you doing it out of love? Do you fear for the salvation of non cals? What is the purpose? Why do you care what others believe? Why does it bother you so much if someone doesn't believe in the TULIP?
What is your motive for debating it?

Consider this Amy, and let me know if you would be concerned when a persons theology, actual teachings reflect what is said below:

I have seen it, and so have many others.

One doesn't have to come out and say "I saved myself" for it to apply. It's how ones theology reflects these things, not in coming right out in making the statement word for word. So, we go by what their theology says.

For instance, those in Matthew 7:21-22 claiming their works, would have never stated "I am saving myself" but their theology shows differently. They were exercising a works based religion, not a relationship with Christ. As a matter of fact, it would be accurate to say these types did claim Christ, yet they trusted in themselves and their works, yet remained in their sins, because their sins were still being imputed on them; Matthew 7:23.

One can express belief in "unconditional election" in their teachings having never heard the term used in an acrostic or otherwise. The same can be said for other points of TULIP.

One can also believe in "Limited Depravity" from "LILAC" without knowing the term, yet they reflect it in their teachings. The same applies for the balance of "LILAC."

One who rejects the truth of OSAS may not know the term, but believe they will or can lose their salvation. This presents several problems theologically. One, they aren't truly trusting Christ alone, though they would argue they are, and secondly, no matter how much theological acumen they possess, they still have a works based religion. Thus the term "Carnal Security" would apply to them.

Another consideration is "I elect Christ." There are many who place their faith in a prayer said, or in "they chose Christ." This is not accurate, it is God who chose and God who saves alone. The Scriptures teach dogmatically He calls, elects (chooses). Yet I see many people point to a prayer they said when asked about their salvation. Therefore "I Elect God" applies to them. By the way, there are those within the church who need to be evangelized as well as those without.

Thus, one doesn't need to come out and make a statement such as "Limited Depravity" or "Carnal Security" for these to be their true beliefs when such beliefs are reflected within their theology (teachings). So, one can say "I trust Christ alone, period!" from here to eternity, but the real truth comes out in their teachings and leanings theologically.

Lastly, I have addressed each and every one of your points, yet you fail to show me even one point of LILAC that isn't reflective of non-Calvinist theology with proof they don't teach this, or even a mere rebuttal of any point! Perhaps you cannot rebutt them?

You've also alluded that no non-Calvinist believes any of the points. This is blatantly false, as the LILAC accurately represents the theologies within these camps. I've demonstrated above how this is true and exactly how it applies.

Here is a link that expresses this in more detail. Should I expect a copout excuse that the link isn't "pure Bible?" If that is your point, then please lose the Spurgeon quote on your signature under the same principle.

Here it is:

http://www.prca.org/standard_bearer/volume74/1997oct15.html#Lilac


- Peace

These are some of the reasons I am concerned, and yes, it is done in love no matter the vitriol and judgments spewed at me herein. But that is OK with me, and I accept that behavior as it is what I must put up with, so no problem other than it is sad to see.

If I were not concerned out of love, I would not attempt to yet evangelize those even within the walls of my church. This has nothing to do with being a Calvinist, it is my concern as a Christian. I hope this will clarify as to the why and that we can remain in unity with one another for the truth of the Gospel.

- Peace

 

[psalms109:31]

So far, given a chance, no one has actually shared anything remotly like a set of doctrines that they hold except Calvinists.

We are accused of "placing God in a box" by the acrostic that is most commonly used to portray our doctrines of soteriology. I find that rather short-sighted, but if that is how you see it, that is fine.

Like my plea to Mandym, PLEASE SHARE YOUR OWN DOCTRINE and let's set aside the cop out that you do not have one because that "puts God in a box." You have one or else what are you debating against?

I believe the points found it a lacking and very limited acrostic.

That I am a sinner, who Jesus came to save. My cost of my sin is death. I cannot pay this price and be saved. Jesus died for sinners, which I am the worst. Jesus paid my debt and anyone who trust in Jesus or turn to Him will be saved. I take this by faith God has given me through His word. We all are so different and God has to deal with each other differently but it is all to bring them to the knowledge of Jesus Christ our salvation.

I am saved in Christ.


Me believing I was chosen before the foundation of the world does not save me. That is still a belief of man that comes from His word, just like those who believe Jesus and are saved, but what Jesus Christ did on the cross is what saved me.

There is more to it than I can ever explain, but all I can do is give you what has revealed to me by God.

Psalm 73:28
But it is good for me to draw near to God; I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, That I may declare all Your works.

Romans 4:5
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

1 Peter 2:6
In Scripture it says, "Look! I am placing a stone in Zion. It is a chosen and very valuable stone. It is the most important stone in the building. The one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." —(Isaiah 28:16)

 

[preacher4truth]

PRCA?

Is that that microdenomination that Phil Johnson discusses in A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism?

Stay on topic with the OP. My link is to show how LILAC is not new with me, not to go down a rabbit trail to derail a thread. Thanks.

 

[mandym]

Like my plea to Mandym, PLEASE SHARE YOUR OWN DOCTRINE and let's set aside the cop out that you do not have one because that "puts God in a box." You have one or else what are you debating against?

What in the world are you talking about? I have never said any such thing. I am not going to debate someone who intentionally misrepresents others views for the purpose of demonetization and belittling. I will spend time calling them out on their attacks on people of which they have no real knowledge about what they hold to. If you want a real debate you must first start with some honesty in your posting. The op fails that.

 

[glfredrick]

What in the world are you talking about? I have never said any such thing. I am not going to debate someone who intentionally misrepresents others views for the purpose of demonetization and belittling. I will spend time calling them out on their attacks on people of which they have no real knowledge about what they hold to. If you want a real debate you must first start with some honesty in your posting. The op fails that.

Huh, what?

Like my plea to Mandym...

I asked YOU to share your own doctrinal framework in a positive manner (in other words, own it and present it) instead of picking at other's doctrines.

I asked another poster to stop using "God in a box" as a cop out.

 

[psalms109:31]

Huh, what?



I asked YOU to share your own doctrinal framework in a positive manner (in other words, own it and present it) instead of picking at other's doctrines.

I asked another poster to stop using "God in a box" as a cop out.

God in a box is not a cop out, it is exactly what points do, if anything is outside a box, it most be forced into that box.

 

[preacher4truth]

God in a box is not a cop out, it is exactly what points do, if anything is outside a box, it most be forced into that box.

So then every sermon you've heard, or even preached is God in a box, and is then invalid. The same applies to each and every theological work based upon your theory.

But we know what you are saying isn't true, and is in fact a copout. These methods are simply used to convey truth. Rendering them "God in a box" doesn't make their truths void. This is in fact what you are doing in a copout attempt to dismiss them altogether.

If an acrostic comes along expressing your belief system then you'd consider said valid.

Every expression (speaking true Christianity here) used to convey God, whether via a sermon, an acrostic, a theological work, a book, a blog is an expression of truth.

Simply because they aren't exhaustive in expressing the truths of God doesn't render them invalid nor does it support your "God in a box" theory.

Friend, you're simply using this as a coput so you can dismiss it altogether. Like it or not, both TULIP and LILAC accurately reflect teachings held in each camp.

I have yet to see you rebutt any point, or express them theologically.

- Peace

 

[psalms109:31]

So then every sermon you've heard, or even preached is God in a box, and is then invalid. The same applies to each and every theological work based upon your theory.

But we know what you are saying isn't true, and is in fact a copout. These methods are simply used to convey truth. Rendering them "God in a box" doesn't make their truths void. This is in fact what you are doing in a copout attempt to dismiss them altogether.

If an acrostic comes along expressing your belief system then you'd consider said valid.

Every expression (speaking true Christianity here) used to convey God, whether via a sermon, an acrostic, a theological work, a book, a blog is an expression of truth.

Simply because they aren't exhaustive in expressing the truths of God it doesn't render them invalid nor does it support your "God in a box" theory.

Friend, you're simply using this as a coput so you can dismiss it altogether. Like it or not, both TULIP and LILAC accurately reflect teachings held in each camp.

I have yet to see you rebutt any point, or express them theologically.

- Peace

We should know just like the TULIP there is more to God than the TULIP or one verse being preached on, but when we try to force all scripture into something than it is man trying to place God in a box and trying to sell Him on both camps.

 

[preacher4truth]

We should know just like the TULIP there is more to God than the TULIP or one verse being preached on, but when we try to force all scripture into something than it is man trying to place God in a box and trying to sell Him

No one has tried to force all Scripture into TULIP nor into LILAC. So, no one is placing God in a box, rather, what is actually happening is one is using this still as a copout.

TULIP - Rightly reflects some Calvinistic teachings.

LILAC - Rightly reflects some Non-Calvinistic/Arminian teachings.

Neither one attempt to put all Scripture into the acrostics.

 

[psalms109:31]

No one has tried to force all Scripture into TULIP nor into LILAC. So, no one is placing God in a box, rather, what is actually happening is one is using this still as a copout.

TULIP - Rightly reflects some Calvinistic teachings.

LILAC - Rightly reflects some Non-Calvinistic/Arminian teachings.

Neither one attempt to put all Scripture into the acrostics.

I am not limited to a acrostics person because it is man trying to sell God into a camp and I have a right to my opinion.

To the OASAS issue this is how I see it.

1 John 2:
Warnings Against Denying the Son
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[Some manuscripts and you know all things] 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he promised us—eternal life.

26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

 

[preacher4truth]

I am not limited to a acrostics person because it is man trying to sell God into a camp and I have a right to my opinion.

No one limitted either theology to only the acrostics. You came up with that idea all on your own. It's never been implied nor stated, well, accept by you. So, I think we can move past your point, as this was never stated as an exhaustive reflection of their theologies. OK? Thanks.

To the OASAS issue this is how I see it.

1 John 2:
Warnings Against Denying the Son
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[Some manuscripts and you know all things] 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he promised us—eternal life.

26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Yep. They were never of us. Yet, some Armininans and non-Calvinist believe they can lose their salvation and must maintain it, thus "Carnal Security" is a point used to express that position in contrast to "Eternal Security."

So, there actually are some that LILAC does reflect so your statement no one believes these things is a false conclusion.

 

[psalms109:31]

No one limitted either theology to only the acrostics. You came up with that idea all on your own. It's never been implied nor stated, well, accept by you. So, I think we can move past your point, as this was never stated as an exhaustive reflection of their theologies. OK? Thanks.

Awesome

Yep. They were never of us. Yet, some Armininans and non-Calvinist believe they can lose their salvation and must maintain it, thus "Carnal Security" is a point used to express that position in contrast to "Eternal Security."

So, there actually are some that LILAC does reflect so your statement no one believes these things is a false conclusion.

What are you talking about. I am talking about the BB, have you seen anyone on here believe not in the OSAS or have you seen non-cals defend OSAS?

 

[glfredrick]

God in a box is not a cop out, it is exactly what points do, if anything is outside a box, it most be forced into that box.

God is not in a box... He created the box.

So, now share... :wavey:

 

[psalms109:31]

God is not in a box... He created the box.

So, now share... :wavey:

It is every word that comes from the mouth of God not limited to the points of men .

Can an infinite box exist?

 

[glfredrick]

I believe the points found it a lacking and very limited acrostic.

They all are... None expresses the depths of the atoning work of Christ, but they are all a framework that expresses quickly for matter of reference where one stands on the larger issues.

That I am a sinner, who Jesus came to save. My cost of my sin is death. I cannot pay this price and be saved. Jesus died for sinners, which I am the worst. Jesus paid my debt and anyone who trust in Jesus or turn to Him will be saved. I take this by faith God has given me through His word. We all are so different and God has to deal with each other differently but it is all to bring them to the knowledge of Jesus Christ our salvation.

Good start. Some here would not admit that they are sinners (or at least that they must be sinners!).

But, you are a tad generic in your response. To be effective as a theological framework you have to define a few of the terms you use. For instance, "sinner." Is that because you were born in original sin, and then committed acts of sin or is that because you were born free of original sin and later committed acts of sin. The definition is the heart of the doctrinal framework and makes a difference in the discussion.

Same goes for "whom Jesus save..." Did He save you before you asked or did you turn to Him for salvation and then He came?

Note that I am not picking on your points per se. They are common to what we all hear in our churches and even our pulpits virtually every Sunday and I do not disagree with a thing you have said. All is truth, but it is not truth that is put in a theological framework whereby we can understand the ordo salutis (order of salvation) which is primarily what we are discussing in this thread.

I am saved in Christ.

Amen!

See above.

Me believing I was chosen before the foundation of the world does not save me. That is still a belief of man that comes from His word, just like those who believe Jesus and are saved, but what Jesus Christ did on the cross is what saved me.

Here you start in the exercise of developping a framework. You are taking a stand and saying that some events took place at some point in history.

There is more to it than I can ever explain, but all I can do is give you what has revealed to me by God.

Indeed... That is all any of us can give.

Psalm 73:28
But it is good for me to draw near to God; I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, That I may declare all Your works.

Romans 4:5
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

1 Peter 2:6
In Scripture it says, "Look! I am placing a stone in Zion. It is a chosen and very valuable stone. It is the most important stone in the building. The one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." —(Isaiah 28:16)

I would presume from the above cited verses (all great Bible verses!) that you hold to a point in your framework that stipulates that you chose Christ instead of Him chosing you by election before the foundation of the world. That is okay, for it is your framework.

 

[preacher4truth]

Awesome



What are you talking about. I am talking about the BB, have you seen anyone on hear believe not in the OSAS or have you seen non-cals defend OSAS?

Yes, I've seen OSAS bashed on here by non-calvinists. I've also received PM's from some against it railing on me about their position against it. I've also seen non-Calvinists defend OSAS, as a matter of fact, most of them I know of do.

You've heard of "Freewill Baptists?"

That would be what I'm talking about, and this belief is not limited to "Freewill Baptists."

Here is their belief in case I am called out on this also as not being truthful:

Perseverance - We believe that there are strong grounds to hope that the saved will persevere unto the end and be saved because of the power of divine grace pledged for their support. We believe that any saved person who has sinned (whether we call him a backslider or sinner), but has a desire to repent, may do so and be restored to God's favor and fellowship. Since man, however, continues to have free choice, it is possible because of temptations and the weakness of human flesh for him to fall into the practice of sin and to make shipwreck of his faith and be lost.

The point again is not every single point of LILAC applies to each and every Arminian or Non-Calvinist to the same extent, but the points are reflective of some of their teachings. Therefore simply stating no one believes this (LILAC) is unfounded and actually the evidence on the BB proves otherwise.

It's the same with TULIP, some claim to be Calvinists, while not affirming every point of TULIP, thus the term "4 pointer" & c.

So, the pretense that others who have differing views than you are "simply making things up" (as in presenting LILAC) is quite a misnomer. But this is what people do to copout of it altogether, of course they must mix in their parting pejoratives a la "immature" "childish" "hateful" "snide" &c as they do.

But Gods blessings on them anyhow.

I do appreciate your dialogue in the last few posts, and that you've left out the pejoratives. Perhaps others will follow suit. It's really just prattle and shows the state of their heart. They know this to be true from Scriptures they've heard. Thanks.

- Peace

 

[glfredrick]

It is every word that comes from the mouth of God not limited to the points of men .

Can an infinite box exist?

Our universe is finite and IT is the box. God is the creator of the box and is infinite. So no, we cannot place God in a box, EVEN WHEN WE APPLY A THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK TO HIS ACTIONS.

I find your issues somewhat a dodge from the question at hand. I'd not fear placing God in a box by a theological framework.

Cannot one of the points be that INFINITE SOVEREIGN GOD CAN DO WHAT HE PLEASES? That certainly does not box in God at all, and yet I have found here on this board that somewhere around 60% of the respondents would disagree with that statement as an article in a doctrinal framework. I am most pleased, however, to add it to my own framework.