TULIP - Which of the 5 points to subscribe to?

[Brightfame52]

No, I am not in denial. I simply am not reading into the passage.

There is a reason biblical scholars e ist on both sides of this issue- Scripture itself neither affirms or denies individual election.

For myself, I am not dogmatic about it either way. That, as you noted, is not the actual point of that chapter.

Lol scholars can be in denial, ultiametly scholarship isnt the final say, thatcan take things out of the hands of the Spirit of God. Scholarship is helpful at times and at times not, what matters is what scripture reveals and the Spirit is the primary teacher and not scholarship. 1 Cor 2:

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom[scholarship] teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

To be honest, trusting scholarship is trusting the arm of the flesh !

You misunderstood. There are disagreements on both sides, but biblical scholars agree that the language of Scripture (what is actually written in God's Word) dictates neither position (with the exception of corporate election or "the elect" in places). That is what we call "honesty" absolutely "faithfulness to Scripture".

Those who are capable of discerning God's Word are able to understand this, grasp the legitimacy of both positions, and either choose the one that they belueves best fits or allow it open.

If you cannot understand this then you are in no position to hold a legitimate opinion.

Like I said, scholarship is helpful but not really needed. The disciples for the most part were unlearned men, they would gain their wisdom from the Spirit to teach them Acts 4 13

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

The Spirit was sent to teach them,not go to the scholars Jn 14 26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

All of the New Covenant Mercy recpients have a promise if God teaching us Heb 8:11

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

1 Jn 2:27

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

This anointing isnt scholarship !

Finally, anyone looking at Eph 1:4 and argue against Individual election is in flat out denial, for its both being presented, corporate and individual, whoever heard of a corporation without distinct individuals ! I dont care what scholar you bring to the equation

 

[JonC]

Lol scholars can be in denial, ultiametly scholarship isnt the final say, thatcan take things out of the hands of the Spirit of God. Scholarship is helpful at times and at times not, what matters is what scripture reveals and the Spirit is the primary teacher and not scholarship. 1 Cor 2:

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom[scholarship] teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

To be honest, trusting scholarship is trusting the arm of the flesh !

You misunderstood. There are disagreements on both sides, but biblical scholars agree that the language of Scripture (what is actually written in God's Word) dictates neither position (with the exception of corporate election or "the elect" in places). That is what we call "honesty" absolutely "faithfulness to Scripture".

Those who are capable of discerning God's Word are able to understand this, grasp the legitimacy of both positions, and either choose the one that they belueves best fits or allow it open.

One who cannot understand this is in no position to hold a legitimate opinion.

My opinion is my opinion. I have not stated my opinion about this topic on the BB for two reasons:

1. There are too many on this board who are followers of men before God. They are not interested in what Scripture says but only want to force Scrioture into their preconceived philosophies. They will never be open to God's Word exceot as how they can use His Word to prop uo their positions.

2. There are no passages focused on individual election to salvation. The passages brought up have different focuses. Since God was not adamant about dictating to man His mind in election I am not dogmatic about my opinion.

Like I said, scholarship is helpful but not really needed. The disciples for the most part were unlearned men, they would gain their wisdom from the Spirit to teach them Acts 4 13

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

The Spirit was sent to teach them,not go to the scholars Jn 14 26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

All of the New Covenant Mercy recpients have a promise if God teaching us Heb 8:11

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

1 Jn 2:27

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

This anointing isnt scholarship !

Finally, anyone looking at Eph 1:4 and argue against Individual election is in flat out denial, for its both being presented, corporate and individual, whoever heard of a corporation without distinct individuals ! I dont care what scholar you bring to the equation

Obviously scholarship is needed as you are having difficulty understanding how and why those passages do not dictate individual election.

In seminary my best theology professor was a Calvinist. But I did not know that until a conversation months after I had graduated. The reason is Scripture does not dictate Calvinism (in fact, much of Calvinism is extra-biblical). People put things together (Scripture, philosophy, culture, history, etc.) to develop understandings.

But if one cannot grasp God's Word itselfand be able to seoarate Scrioture from thrir conclusions then that person cannot really understand Scrioture. They merely swing from or to whatever philosophy makes sence to them.


What you do is impose your philosophy onto Scrioture and declare that is what the Bible must teach. That is the opposite of scholarship.

@JonC



Okay I believe you trusting in the flesh on this and cant see what is obviously true.

I am trusting in God's Word. I see how it can be taken to be individual election but "what is written" does not demand that interpretation.

That you cannot grasp "what is written" in Scripture is sad, not because of your conclusions (like I said, I have not stated mine) but because you choose to trust man over God.

If you could discern Scripture then you would acknowledge "what is written" and from there defend your interpretation. You can't.

@JonC



I cant see that friend, not when you resist and deny individual election viewed in Eph 1:4 with Paul even using a personal pronoun for the inclusion of himself individually in the corporate election.

I am not denying or affirming individual election. I am talking about what is literally written in God's Word.

I agree that the corporate is made up of individuals. But what S ripture dies not say is that individuals are election Ted to be a part of the corporate (you need a verse that does not relate "elected" to "in Christ"...one that says "elected to Christ.

I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with individual election. I am reading what is stated in the text of Scripture.

You need to present how you reason out individual election rather than saying it is stated in Scripture (so do the corporate election guys....granted, they have an easier task but that doesn't mean they are right).

Thus far you have merely presented Scripture and stated what you believe. You need to bridge that divide.

@JonC


And then turn right around and say Eph 1:4 doesnt refer to individual election, so that's inconsistent. I say it teaches both.

I did not say it referred to or did not referr to individual election.

I said that the actual words do not specify that the election is individual because the context is the body of Christ.

You say it teaches both, and it may. But the words themselves do not necessitate individual election.

This means that you need to explain how you get from what is written in the text of S ripture to your conclusion about what you think it teaches.

The problem with many discussions on this board is members post a passage and then state what that passage "teaches", just pretending it is the only conclusion.


We need be able to recognize what is written (to respect God's Word) and bridge tge gap between what is written (objective) and what we believe is being taught (subjective).

Those who see no gap, or ignore the gap and pretend theirs is the only conclusion, lack respect for God's Word and elevate their understanding to the level of Scripture.


How do you get from elect in Christ to being individually elected to Christ in that passage?


Again, Im not saying I disagree. I don't know, really, if I agree because thus far you have not explained how you get from "what is written" to "what you think is taught".

 

[atpollard]

Moody in Chi town ? Arminian school you know ? But he could still learn from there. I graduated from a arminain bible college, but God preserved me through it.

Hank was ancient … I think he might have studied under old Dwight himself.
He is an interesting individual. M.Div from Moody (and an MBA and PhD in Economics from somewhere else) then he helped found Campus Crusade before becoming a VP of sales at Coca Cola. When I met him he was retired and teaching an adult Sunday School.

My favorite “Hank story” was his advice from his days as VP of sales. Hank told his people they always needed to be ready with an “elevator pitch” … a sales pitch short enough that it could be given in the time it takes to ride an elevator to the next floor. Hank said that Christians needed to prepare an “elevator pitch” version of the Gospel to present when God creates an opportunity. They can always ask for more information, but they need enough information to even know to ask.

Whenever people want to debate theology, Hank always begins his response with “Let me tell you about my grandkids.” … that is non-threatening and opens the door to talking about God being faithful through three generations of a family.

 

[Brightfame52]

@atpollard

Hank was ancient … I think he might have studied under old Dwight himself.
He is an interesting individual. M.Div from Moody (and an MBA and PhD in Economics from somewhere else) then he helped found Campus Crusade before becoming a VP of sales at Coca Cola. When I met him he was retired and teaching an adult Sunday School.

lol campus crusade ? All the way arminian, I encountered them on some college campuses

My favorite “Hank story” was his advice from his days as VP of sales. Hank told his people they always needed to be ready with an “elevator pitch” … a sales pitch short enough that it could be given in the time it takes to ride an elevator to the next floor. Hank said that Christians needed to prepare an “elevator pitch” version of the Gospel to present when God creates an opportunity. They can always ask for more information, but they need enough information to even know to ask.

Whenever people want to debate theology, Hank always begins his response with “Let me tell you about my grandkids.” … that is non-threatening and opens the door to talking about God being faithful through three generations of a family.

I see !

 

[Silverhair]

I didn’t even know you knew Hank DeWeerd (the teacher that taught me that what I believed was called ‘Calvinism’).
However, I am pretty sure that Hank considers “Compatibalism” and “Hard Determinism” as two different things. (Moody Graduates are usually pretty good at understanding definitions of theological terms).

Who is Hank DeWeerd?

“Compatibilism is no less deterministic than hard determinism.” [Calvinist {John Hendryx, How can God be Sovereign and Man still be Free?}]

How can Compatibilism & Hard Determinism be different if they are the same. They are both deterministic.

Both those views end up making God the only sinner as according to them He determines/causes all the sin and evil.

 

[atpollard]

Who is Hank DeWeerd?

I told you, Hank is the person that taught me about “Calvinism” … before that it was just what I believed based on scripture and my salvation experience.
You stated “your own Calvinist teacher says they are the same” and Hank is MY Calvinist teacher, so I commented that I was unaware you knew Hank, let alone what he taught.

“Compatibilism is no less deterministic than hard determinism.” [Calvinist {John Hendryx, How can God be Sovereign and Man still be Free?}]

Frankly, if I was inclined to be persuaded by what MEN THOUGHT, I would probably be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox … they have a head start of ECF and “Apostolic Succession” teachers. John Hendryx barely registers on the “Appeal to Authority” scale. As a Baptist, I stick with what the God wrote as scripture as my authoritative source.
(So I see your quote from Mr Hendryx and raise you a Genesis 50:20 as an example of Compatibalism without Hard Determinism.)

How can Compatibilism & Hard Determinism be different if they are the same. They are both deterministic.

I already pointed you to the answer:
The Story of Joseph.
The Story of Job.
The fall of Adam.
All COMPATIBALISTIC and none are Hard Determinism.

Both those views end up making God the only sinner as according to them He determines/causes all the sin and evil.

If you think that the only two options are either God surrenders control or God causes sin/evil then that is YOUR failure to understand and a problem above my pay grade. I reject your “false dichotomy” and embrace Genesis 50:20.

 

[Dave G]

Please do not add any additional res(p)onses

Added for clarity.
Salty, did I miss something, or did you just ask people earlier not to respond, but only to vote?

 

[Salty]

Added for clarity.
Salty, did I miss something, or did you just ask people earlier not to respond, but only to vote?

vote - then respond if necessary
Just didnt want people adding items to the poll

 

[Wesley Briggman]

I checked all five. Nothing to do with Calvinism. I believe thy are biblical.

 

[David Lamb]

There in lays the problem for calvinism, TULIP is understood by those that reject it. Those that hold to it have to ignore the damage that it does to the character of God.

Under Calvinism
God unconditionally chooses to only save some, but not all,
God limits the atonement of Christs’ death to that select few and
God gives irresistible grace to those that are the fortunate elect.

That is an example of what I said in my post: " I have been involved in several threads where non-Calvinists claim (for example) that "Limited Atonement" must mean that Calvinists believe only a few people are saved." Calvinists do believe the bible, and that includes the verse in Revelation that talks about a multitude which no man can number.

If you do not meet any of these conditions then you are doomed from the start.
Calvinism says this brings glory to God. How? Does this show justice? NO. What is shows is raw despotic power which is just the opposite of what that bible tells us about God.

But what does the bible tell us
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. Rom 5:10
To get the full impact of that verse read Rom_5:1-11

Exactly, the Christian can say, with Paul, that while he/she was an enemy of God, he/she was reconciled to God the the death of God's Son, not "Once we'd become friends of God, we were reconciled to Him."

God is love 1Jn_4:8 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1Ti_2:4 so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Rom_3:26

Which doctrinal system is really most likely to give rise to pride and boasting:
The system that says anyone can come and be saved.
or
The system that says only the chosen ones given a special unique gift of grace can come and be saved.

Well, according to Ephesians 2, the doctrine that says the sinner instigates his or her own salvation is the one that leads to boasting:

“And you [He made alive], who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.”

“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:1-10 NKJV)

 

[Brightfame52]

@JonC

Obviously scholarship is needed as you are having difficulty understanding how and why those passages do not dictate individual election.

Okay I believe you trusting in the flesh on this and cant see what is obviously true.

@JonC

I am trusting in God's Word.

I cant see that friend, not when you resist and deny individual election viewed in Eph 1:4 with Paul even using a personal pronoun for the inclusion of himself individually in the corporate election.

@JonC

I am not denying or affirming individual election. I am talking about what is literally written in God's Word.

I agree that the corporate is made up of individuals

And then turn right around and say Eph 1:4 doesnt refer to individual election, so that's inconsistent. I say it teaches both.

I did not say it referred to or did not referr to individual election.

I said that the actual words do not specify that the election is individual because the context is the body of Christ.

You say it teaches both, and it may. But the words themselves do not necessitate individual election.

This means that you need to explain how you get from what is written in the text of S ripture to your conclusion about what you think it teaches.

The problem with many discussions on this board is members post a passage and then state what that passage "teaches", just pretending it is the only conclusion.


We need be able to recognize what is written (to respect God's Word) and bridge tge gap between what is written (objective) and what we believe is being taught (subjective).

Those who see no gap, or ignore the gap and pretend theirs is the only conclusion, lack respect for God's Word and elevate their understanding to the level of Scripture.


How do you get from elect in Christ to being individually elected to Christ in that passage?


Again, Im not saying I disagree. I don't know, really, if I agree because thus far you have not explained how you get from "what is written" to "what you think is taught".

You flat out deny Eph 1:4 teaches individual election, and then turn around and say it teaches corporate election with individuals.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So where do you stand on the C vs A?

Five Points of Calvinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Please do not add any additional resonses
(you can always start your own poll)

All the above.

 

[JesusFan]

You can't simply assume the "we" and "us" is not corporate. That is the issue. The passage can be interpreted to apply individually, but the context us the body of Christ (the context of the chapter). So it does not "prove" individual election. People take the passage in accordance to their presuppositions (both sides).

Did Jesus die in my stead for my personal sins then?

Obviously scholarship is needed as you are having difficulty understanding how and why those passages do not dictate individual election.

In seminary my best theology professor was a Calvinist. But I did not know that until a conversation months after I had graduated. The reason is Scripture does not dictate Calvinism (in fact, much of Calvinism is extra-biblical). People put things together (Scripture, philosophy, culture, history, etc.) to develop understandings.

But if one cannot grasp God's Word itselfand be able to seoarate Scrioture from thrir conclusions then that person cannot really understand Scrioture. They merely swing from or to whatever philosophy makes sence to them.


What you do is impose your philosophy onto Scrioture and declare that is what the Bible must teach. That is the opposite of scholarship.

Except we who hold that our theology is indeed what the scriptures teach

I am not denying or affirming individual election. I am talking about what is literally written in God's Word.

I agree that the corporate is made up of individuals. But what S ripture dies not say is that individuals are election Ted to be a part of the corporate (you need a verse that does not relate "elected" to "in Christ"...one that says "elected to Christ.

I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with individual election. I am reading what is stated in the text of Scripture.

You need to present how you reason out individual election rather than saying it is stated in Scripture (so do the corporate election guys....granted, they have an easier task but that doesn't mean they are right).

Thus far you have merely presented Scripture and stated what you believe. You need to bridge that divide.

Are you not also just stating in same passages 'what you believe?"

 

[Silverhair]

That is an example of what I said in my post: " I have been involved in several threads where non-Calvinists claim (for example) that "Limited Atonement" must mean that Calvinists believe only a few people are saved." Calvinists do believe the bible, and that includes the verse in Revelation that talks about a multitude which no man can number.

Yes I know what the bible says. But we were talking about what your TULIP says.
Do you deny what it says?

So long as you have unconditional election and irresistible grace only for the elect, it does not help to play down limited atonement. You still have limited salvation. It is limited strictly to the elect God unconditionally chooses to save, but no one else.

The bible does not agree with that view.
Joh 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation...
Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Exactly, the Christian can say, with Paul, that while he/she was an enemy of God, he/she was reconciled to God the the death of God's Son, not "Once we'd become friends of God, we were reconciled to Him."

Yes we were reconciled, made right with God, but that does not save anyone. We are saved by trusting in the risen son. You left out that part of the verse.
Rom 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Christ was the propitiation for the sins of all mankind so that while all mankind could be saved but only those that freely believe in the risen Son will be saved.

Well, according to Ephesians 2, the doctrine that says the sinner instigates his or her own salvation is the one that leads to boasting:

Are you saying that trusting in Christ is a work? Or that responding in faith to the gospel message is instigating ones salvation?
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

@David Lamb what you do overlook is that those that think they were per selected are actually boasting by that claim.

What does the bible say
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
Rom 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
Gal 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Faith is not a work so I have to ask why do calvinists keep saying that it is?

 

[JonC]

You flat out deny Eph 1:4 teaches individual election, and then turn around and say it teaches corporate election with individuals.

This is a Christian board. Please be more careful not to post falsely.

I said that I have NOT SAID what I believe Ephesians 1:4 teaches.
I said we have the text which does not state individual election.
I said this means we need to bridge the gap between the text and what we say it teaches.

Please refrain from attributing to me or any member of this board things not said. I understand you may be getting emotional, but read and think before being carried away by your feelings.

 

[JonC]

Except we who hold that our theology is indeed what the scriptures teach

You and @Brightfame52 are completely missing my point.

I am saying that when you read an text and the text does not state what you nelieve it teaches you need to explain how you got there.

Example - I believe that John 11:35 ("Jesus wept") teaches that Jesus had sympathy with us, that He had and has compassion for our sorrows. The reason I believe this is we are told in Romans 12 to morning with those who morning. I believe this is a part of "having all things in common", sharing one's burdens. Jesus weeping with those grieving shows that He is indeed one of us.

Scrioture states "ABC". You say it teaches "XYZ". It very well may, but you have to show how you get there.

Are you not also just stating in same passages 'what you believe?"

No. I have not stated my belief regarding individual election at all.

I have not disagreed with @Brightfame52 's conclusion regarding election. He just got emotional because I asked how he got from the text to what he believes the text teaches and he could not answer.

I never said his conclusion about individual election was wrong, or that it was right. And I did not state my belief either way.

Did Jesus die in my stead for my personal sins then?

Jesus died for your sins. But for you to say "Jesus died in my stead for my sins" you need to bridge the gap between what is written in God's Word and what you believe is taught.

We can't make a claim that the Bible teaches something and simoly provide verses not stating that something. You have to explain how you get from Scripture to what you are claiming it teaches.

For example, I could say "Jesus wept" teaches that we need to always carry handkerchiefs. But I would need to bridge the gap between "Jesus wept" and the teaching we need to always carry handkerchiefs. I can't just leave it at a verse and my opinion.

 

[Piper 2]

Who is Hank DeWeerd?

“Compatibilism is no less deterministic than hard determinism.” [Calvinist {John Hendryx, How can God be Sovereign and Man still be Free?}]

How can Compatibilism & Hard Determinism be different if they are the same. They are both deterministic.

Both those views end up making God the only sinner as according to them He determines/causes all the sin and evil.

You totally minsnterpret and misrepresent. That is a dishonest way to discuss things.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I do not totally agree with any of the 5 points.

1. Total depravity - While I believe man is totally depraved and unable to do Good and pretty much all they can do is sin. I believe God can and does break through this Scripture says he draws. He calls. He uses many sources. The most important is the word (Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word) he uses creation (romans 1) He uses others. he demands we as Gods children work out our salvation as we are lights in the world.. God uses us to draw people to him. And of course he uses the HS who convicts. teaches and helps us understand (Acts as the human spirit as I was told in my Baptist bible studies) - I reject that one is so depraved they can not answer God unless they are first regenerated (while still in a state of unbelief and still condemned because of that unbelief as said in John 3)

2. Unconditional election - This is a hard one. Does God give us conditions (works) so that we can save ourselves. No. No work we can do can ever save us, and as Jesus said in John 6. its Gods work we believe. Yet passage after passage after passage, including the gospel message itself (Jesus said the gospel of repentance for remission of sin will go to the whole world) that God will not force us to take his gift. He wants us to receive it in faith (john 1: 1`2) Or as he said in John 6. He who believes is not condemned (technically a condition to be saved, hence a condition required to be the elect) he who does not believe is condemned already (a condition for condemnation)

3. Limited atonement - As the high priest of Israel made atonement for all Israel. whether they believed in God or not. Jesus made atonement for the world. The fact Jesus said he was not sent to judge the world. but that the world may be saved (Saved is in aorist passive subjunctive) meaning for a period of time, Jesus death will give the possibility that he may save (passive voice. the person can not save themselves) According to the calvin theory. the word world here does not literally mean all the world. but the elect. the problem is. If Jesus died for only the elect. everyone he died for would be saved. it would not be just a possibility. it most likely would be in the aorist, passive, perfect tense.. Yet it is not.

4. Irresistible grace. - If Grace was irresistible we have two problems - 1. Everyone Jesus died for would be saved,, ie universalism, everyone would be saved. 2. God in essence forced people to be saved.. when you refuse to give them a choice. and claim they will never reject.. asnd they have no say in the manner. this is forced.

5. Perseverance of the saints - A term used by many being OSAS. while I agree with OSAS. Or as I would rather call it. eternal security. I believe this point is a response to the other 5 point doctrine which says we MUST persevere to the end. We do not persevere, God keeps us. The word says he perfected forever those being sanctified. even our sanctification is not on our own merit or power. it is God who works in us.. He gave us eternal life. and the promises of John 6 were we will never perish, never hunger or thirst. Live forever. and be raised.. So While I agree with the thought, that we have eternal security. I disagree with the wording, which by the words insist we persevere.. which we do not. we will never meet Gods standard.. we passed the opportunity the first time we sinned.

So my vote is I agree with 0 points (I believe I used to be a 3 pointer.. but when I actually dig deep. I changed my view)

 

[Paleouss]

So where do you stand on the C vs A?

My vote on each point could be a yes or a no. Depending who got to define the points.

1. I believe scripture outlines total depravity... but not utter depravity.
Jer 17:9, Tit 1:15-16 , Eccl 9:3, Rom 1:28-31, Eph 4:17-18, Jer 10:7-8,14, Matt 15:19, Gen 6:5 & 8:21, Pro 10:20, Prov 28:26. Thus, God gets all the praise and glory for salvation.

2. I believe scripture outlines Election (Particular and unconditionally)... but not without the condition of faith. (How's that for Compatiblisim).

3. I believe scripture outlines one intention of the cross as being to secure the elect (those that believe and have faith)...but another intention of the cross was to accomplish a Cosmic Triumph so that all could be offered a bona fide offer of salvation. Thus an Unlimited/Limited view.

4. I believe if God so chose, His grace would be irresistible. But I also believe scripture outlines that He is resisted (Acts 7:51, Rom 13:2, 2tim 3:8), and rejected (Mark 7:9, Acts 13:46 1Thes 4:8).

5. I believe in Once Saved Always Saved...but that once saved, fruits of the Spirit follow.

Peace to you all

 

[Brightfame52]

My vote on each point could be a yes or a no. Depending who got to define the points.

1. I believe scripture outlines total depravity... but not utter depravity.
Jer 17:9, Tit 1:15-16 , Eccl 9:3, Rom 1:28-31, Eph 4:17-18, Jer 10:7-8,14, Matt 15:19, Gen 6:5 & 8:21, Pro 10:20, Prov 28:26. Thus, God gets all the praise and glory for salvation.

2. I believe scripture outlines Election (Particular and unconditionally)... but not without the condition of faith. (How's that for Compatiblisim).

3. I believe scripture outlines one intention of the cross as being to secure the elect (those that believe and have faith)...but another intention of the cross was to accomplish a Cosmic Triumph so that all could be offered a bona fide offer of salvation. Thus an Unlimited/Limited view.

4. I believe if God so chose, His grace would be irresistible. But I also believe scripture outlines that He is resisted (Acts 7:51, Rom 13:2, 2tim 3:8), and rejected (Mark 7:9, Acts 13:46 1Thes 4:8).

5. I believe in Once Saved Always Saved...but that once saved, fruits of the Spirit follow.

Peace to you all

This sounds like what is called fullerism. Have you heard of that before ? Its basically a blending together of Calvinism and Arminianism, I believe its a very subtle way of believing in arminianism which is salvation by man meeting a condition, even if that condition is faith or believing, which amounts to works.