The LILAC of Arminian and Non-Cal Theology

[Amy.G]

You'd be the one to know that! :laugh:

Hey I think I look pretty good to be 600 years old. Just look at my avitar. Spry as a puppy!

 

[preacher4truth]

Hey I think I look pretty good to be 600 years old. Just look at my avitar. Spry as a puppy!

Lol. You're graying up!!! Plus I think your hind legs are getting weak!!!!! :laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

Lol. You're graying up!!! Plus I think your hind legs are getting weak!!!!! :laugh:

Uh.....no comment. But as to my dog....he's not graying. He's actually marked like that. Similar to the markings of a doberman. It's called a Phantom poodle. And he doesn't believe in LILAC either. LOL

 

[preacher4truth]

Uh.....no comment. But as to my dog....he's not graying. He's actually marked like that. Similar to the markings of a doberman. It's called a Phantom poodle. And he doesn't believe in LILAC either. LOL

awwww, I could get him to say "LILAC" for a snausage or two! :laugh:

I'll throw in a couple Beggin' Strips if he can say "TULIP!" :thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

awwww, I could get him to say "LILAC" for a snausage or two! :laugh:

I'll throw in a couple Beggin' Strips if he can say "TULIP!" :thumbsup:

for a pupperoni, our pug would say anything you'd want her to....:laugh:

 

[convicted1]

Hey I think I look pretty good to be 600 years old. Just look at my avitar. Spry as a puppy!

I figure you look good for your age......

 

[quantumfaith]

I figure you look good for your age......

Convicted, I heard through the grapevine that she regularly uses Oil of Delay.

 

[Amy.G]

Convicted, I heard through the grapevine that she regularly uses Oil of Delay.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! THAT was funny!!!

Actually my dog shares his snausages and pupperoni with me. They are actually low fat and does wonders for the complexion. :laugh:

 

[DaChaser1]

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

Actually, the "classic/true" Arminian view point would agree to what cals believe, in that Mankind was made unable to be freely respond to the offer of the Gospel message without aid from God!
Non calls would more closely see us damged by fall, but still able to freely repond!

I - I elect God

Classic Arms see this happens, but that God enables us to be able to do that, while non calls see no need for God to provide any enabling grace, we still can freely decide for Christ!

L - Limitless Atonement

yes, as both Arms/No calls see jesus providing the atonement for All, so ALL could get saved is a distinct possibility!

A – Arrestable* Grace

Either god sends grace sufficient for ALL to be enabled to freely respond{arms{, or else we can freely decide by ourselves

C - Carnal Security

Classic arms live this open , as we might be able to freely turn away from God

*”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.

Think have to keep in mind here some of the problem here we run into while discussing this is that that are some arms who refuse to identify themselves as being such, or who refuse to embrace their theology...

Also, some non calls refuse to see that by saying that the Gospel by itself is able to save us, brings in concept of our free will saving and deniel of effect of the fall!

 

[preacher4truth]

Think have to keep in mind here some of the problem here we run into while discussing this is that that are some arms who refuse to identify themselves as being such, or who refuse to embrace their theology...

Also, some non calls refuse to see that by saying that the Gospel by itself is able to save us, brings in concept of our free will saving and deniel of effect of the fall!

True. I also see those who deny what their theology actually teaches. And I also agree, and it has been seen on here from a few, that there is a denial of the severe effect of the fall on all of mankind. Romans 3 is outright rejected by some of these as properly defining and representing all of mankind. What happens next is proof-texting verses in an effort to defend man as "good."

LILAC isn't a broad acrostic covering all Arms & non-cals, just as TULIP doesn't sufficiently in a broad brush identify accurately all "cals."

But both LILAC and TULIP do represent the true views of some within each camp.

Some believe that the TULIP is false teaching, but the fact is many non-cals don't really understand the teaching of each point. Some will attack them vehemenently only to find out they really do not know what the tenet teaches. Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace being the two big ones with, albeit, somewhat misleading titles.

When we look at LILAC with such things as "Limited Depravity" and "Carnal Security" and the more subtle "I elect Christ", the teachings of these are on target with their titles but are off track Scripturally. The fact is, some teach these things. A person may not come out and say it and may also state they don't believe these things, but a look at their theology would prove otherwise. This is what we need to get at, what our theology actually teaches, not what we say it teaches. In doing this we can sharpen our apologetic to properly represent Biblical truth.

A more scriptural view of the above three points would be; 1)"Limited Depravity" is false, we are from head to toe depraved. 2) In "Carnal Security" we can say in opposition that it is Christ alone who is Savior, and He alone keeps us saved, not effort, nor us, and, those who deny the faith and go out from us were never of us. 3) Then to the point "I elect Christ" let us be careful to acknowledge that it is He who chose us.

Thus the answers to oppose these would be; "Total Depravity", "Eternal Security", and "Chosen by God" respectively (and you can replace "chosen" with "elect.")

To deny that people don't believe the tenets of LILAC is to walk around with blinders on.

- Peace

 

[glfredrick]

There are a number of persons on this board that DO ascribe to LILAC.

I only hesitate to name names because of board conventions. But a search will find discussions where each of the points in LILAC are defended, and rigourously.

There is one going on right now over original sin that ought to clue some of you in...

We just wrapped up another one on that same topic where one of the posters admitted to being a Pelagian and argued that he was more right than someone who fell under the evil influence of Augustine.

 

[preacher4truth]

There certainly are, and there are a few, which is why I brought up LILAC.

I am perplexed why some of these believe the things it teaches. I don't get it.

The "no one here believes that!" delusion is just that.

The other vitriol that has come against the fact that LILAC is truly taught is just as useless.

There is no need to attack a person shedding light on what is going on. I'd rather see it addressed and truth be defended rather than seeing the dismissive pejoratives as if it doesn't exist, and as if bringing it to light is simply a person being __________, __________ , _____________ (fill in the blanks.)

Again, it should be addressed, and our apologetics need to be sharpened against this false teaching.

- Peace

 

[DaChaser1]

There are a number of persons on this board that DO ascribe to LILAC.

I only hesitate to name names because of board conventions. But a search will find discussions where each of the points in LILAC are defended, and rigourously.

There is one going on right now over original sin that ought to clue some of you in...

We just wrapped up another one on that same topic where one of the posters admitted to being a Pelagian and argued that he was more right than someone who fell under the evil influence of Augustine.

think that those who deny that the fall of adam killed us off spiritually, and that we no longer have the "free will' remaining in order to place faith in christ and get saved are in a sense deluding themselves into getting in a subtle sense into getting a man centered, not God centered theology!

and also think that Arms especially need to relise their OWN theology does see mankind as spiritually bankrupt, and that God MUST apply a special act of His grace towards us in order to have even 'free will' restored again, its NOT just preach the Gospel and you respond, period!

 

[Skandelon]

think that those who deny that the fall of adam killed us off spiritually, and that we no longer have the "free will' remaining in order to place faith in christ and get saved are in a sense deluding themselves into getting in a subtle sense into getting a man centered, not God centered theology!

and also think that Arms especially need to relise their OWN theology does see mankind as spiritually bankrupt, and that God MUST apply a special act of His grace towards us in order to have even 'free will' restored again, its NOT just preach the Gospel and you respond, period!

Can you explain what you mean by "free will restored" because if the man (who is regenerated) WILL IRRESISTIBLY accept Christ then what is "free" about it? And before you say, "It is done according to his desire," then please tell us what determined his desire and then explain how that promotes any sense of "freedom?"

Does not 'freedom' connote the idea that they could accept or reject it? If not, then explain your concept of freedom. Thanks

 

[webdog]

There are a number of persons on this board that DO ascribe to LILAC.

I only hesitate to name names because of board conventions. But a search will find discussions where each of the points in LILAC are defended, and rigourously.

There is one going on right now over original sin that ought to clue some of you in...

We just wrapped up another one on that same topic where one of the posters admitted to being a Pelagian and argued that he was more right than someone who fell under the evil influence of Augustine.

This is a lie...and cowardice on your part. If someone believes this outrageous strawman known here as LILAC please do tell who.

I expect crickets at this point...

 

[webdog]

There certainly are, and there are a few, which is why I brought up LILAC.

I am perplexed why some of these believe the things it teaches. I don't get it.

The "no one here believes that!" delusion is just that.

The other vitriol that has come against the fact that LILAC is truly taught is just as useless.

There is no need to attack a person shedding light on what is going on. I'd rather see it addressed and truth be defended rather than seeing the dismissive pejoratives as if it doesn't exist, and as if bringing it to light is simply a person being __________, __________ , _____________ (fill in the blanks.)

Again, it should be addressed, and our apologetics need to be sharpened against this false teaching.

- Peace

"Light" :laugh:

The comedy continues... :laugh:

 

[mandym]

True. I also see those who deny what their theology actually teaches. And I also agree, and it has been seen on here from a few, that there is a denial of the severe effect of the fall on all of mankind. Romans 3 is outright rejected by some of these as properly defining and representing all of mankind. What happens next is proof-texting verses in an effort to defend man as "good."

LILAC isn't a broad acrostic covering all Arms & non-cals, just as TULIP doesn't sufficiently in a broad brush identify accurately all "cals."

But both LILAC and TULIP do represent the true views of some within each camp.

Some believe that the TULIP is false teaching, but the fact is many non-cals don't really understand the teaching of each point. Some will attack them vehemenently only to find out they really do not know what the tenet teaches. Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace being the two big ones with, albeit, somewhat misleading titles.

When we look at LILAC with such things as "Limited Depravity" and "Carnal Security" and the more subtle "I elect Christ", the teachings of these are on target with their titles but are off track Scripturally. The fact is, some teach these things. A person may not come out and say it and may also state they don't believe these things, but a look at their theology would prove otherwise. This is what we need to get at, what our theology actually teaches, not what we say it teaches. In doing this we can sharpen our apologetic to properly represent Biblical truth.

A more scriptural view of the above three points would be; 1)"Limited Depravity" is false, we are from head to toe depraved. 2) In "Carnal Security" we can say in opposition that it is Christ alone who is Savior, and He alone keeps us saved, not effort, nor us, and, those who deny the faith and go out from us were never of us. 3) Then to the point "I elect Christ" let us be careful to acknowledge that it is He who chose us.

Thus the answers to oppose these would be; "Total Depravity", "Eternal Security", and "Chosen by God" respectively (and you can replace "chosen" with "elect.")

To deny that people don't believe the tenets of LILAC is to walk around with blinders on.

- Peace

And this post is a prime example of what I said here


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1788601&postcount=29

 

[DaChaser1]

Can you explain what you mean by "free will restored" because if the man (who is regenerated) WILL IRRESISTIBLY accept Christ then what is "free" about it? And before you say, "It is done according to his desire," then please tell us what determined his desire and then explain how that promotes any sense of "freedom?"

God freely determines on the basis of His good pleasure and Will , to chose to elect unto salvation in Christ those whom will be the receivers of His Love and mercy... Ultimate freedom was found in Adam when he FULLY was a slave to the Will of God, and Jesus when he ALWAYS did his Fathers Will...

that is God has the Grace of His to be "irresistable" towards sinners who are the saved of God, as His will to save them will get done, its is what they will crave and desire once exposed to/by God to the Lord jesus!

Our freedom comes best by allowing God to fully be in charge in our lives!

lose our freedom in order to gain Him!

You err in thinking that we have either free will in the sense able to decide to accept jesus byourselves, and in not seeing that the goal of us should be to NOT have our freedom, but to have our lives controlled fully by the Lord!

 

[preacher4truth]

Can you explain what you mean by "free will restored" because if the man (who is regenerated) WILL IRRESISTIBLY accept Christ then what is "free" about it? And before you say, "It is done according to his desire," then please tell us what determined his desire and then explain how that promotes any sense of "freedom?"



You err in thinking that we have either free will in the sense able to decide to accept jesus byourselves, and in not seeing that the goal of us should be to NOT have our freedom, but to have our lives controlled fully by the Lord!

I thought faith was the gift of God? From the Word of God? In fact, it is.

I heard a preacher today talk about our inherent faith, and how we say it and we get it.

The non-cal view of and teaching of faith, that it is inherent, and that we need to exercise it to be saved, and is not a gift of God has lent itself toward false teachings as I heard today.

I also heard Copeland teach that God cannot do a thing until we let Him in by this "faith" otherwise He is helpless.

Interesting!

 

[DaChaser1]

I thought faith was the gift of God? From the Word of God? In fact, it is.

I heard a preacher today talk about our inherent faith, and how we say it and we get it.

The non-cal view of and teaching of faith, that it is inherent, and that we need to exercise it to be saved, and is not a gift of God has lent itself toward false teachings as I heard today.

I also heard Copeland teach that God cannot do a thing until we let Him in by this "faith" otherwise He is helpless.

Interesting!

IF all people have this inherit faith and the free will to respond naturally...

How are they NOT the determinite factor in getting saved?

They would have God doing His aprt, nailing Jesus on the Cross and raising Him, and we would do our part by exercising faith and free will to complete the salvation process God started!