TULIP - Which of the 5 points to subscribe to?

[Brightfame52]

Note the obvious misrepresentation of the biblical doctrine? Does 2 Peter 2:1 show Christ redeemed lost people? Nope, but that is the mischaracterization. So we do not spend time discussing the actual biblical doctrine, but waste time addressing efforts to derail discussion. This is all they have, folks!

The person heading for destruction had been "bought" by Christ. This refers to Christ dying as a ransom for all, those to be saved, and those never to be saved. Such a simply concept.

Says nothing about being redeemed by Christs blood . Christs Name isnt mentioned, blood isnt mentioned. Please explain this ?

 

[Brightfame52]

Yes, I am not a Calvinist, I am a non-Calvinist.

Yes, to clearly state the doctrines you believe are biblical is critical. Note all those posts addressing this or that doctrine which is not believed. That does not move the football.

1) "T" = Total spiritual inability. False doctrine. Actual biblical Doctrine = Limited Spiritual Ability, the lost are able to understand Spiritual Milk
2) "U" = Unconditional Election. False doctrine. Actual biblical Doctrine = Conditional Individual Election based on God crediting the person's faith as righteousness.
3) "L" = Limited Atonement. False doctrine. Actual biblical Doctrine = Christ died for all humanity, those to be saved and those never to be saved, providing the means of reconciliation for the whole of humanity.
4) "I" = Irresistible Grace. False doctrine. Actual biblical Doctrine = The lost do not need to be supernaturally "enabled" in order to seek God and trust in Christ.
5) "P" = Preservation of the Saints. Some versions of this doctrine are false. Once born anew, we are kept by the power of God, and thus will endure to the end. Endurance to the end proves salvation, rather than provides salvation.

The Truths of Tulip are essential Gospel doctrines.

 

[Salty]

This thread will be closed no sooner than 0630 GMT (230 am EDT)

 

[Christforums]

So where do you stand on the C vs A?

Calvinism was the response to the Five Points of Arminianism. Like a lot of heterodoxies, heresies, apostacies etc., "the church" responds as the issues surface. For example, the Nicene Creed and various revisions resulted in the final form we have today. The Nicene Creed addressed the essentials of the catholic faith over time: The Father and Son and later Holy Spirit. Likewise, the Synod of Dort (Dutch Reformed Church) responded to the teachings of the followers of Jacob Arminius.

The historical timeline of pivotal debates which Reformed the catholic church could be said to have been on the shoulders of theological giants: Erasmus, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin among other early Reformers such as Tyndale.

I have studied both Arminianism and Calvinism (in contrast) considering myself theologically a 5-point Calvinist. I am grateful for the doctrines which serve as a theological lens when reading scripture to theologically edify. However, I am no longer a member of a Calvinist church and hold no objections to any of the five points of Calvinism.

 

[Salty]

This thread will be closed no sooner than 0630 GMT (230 am EDT)

This thread is closed- Feel free to start a new thread