Featured Who formed the TULIP Doctrine, it wasn't Calvin!

Concerning the 5 points of TULIP, here's where I stand:
T - Are we going Total Depravity or, as some put it, Total Inability? I believe man is depraved. I believe we are fallen thanks to Adam. However, I do not believe man is total unable to seek God, and I believe scripture bears that out. If man is unable to do anything, then the scripture presents us with a God making some statements that do not work with our condition. Why would God command all men everywhere to repent if they are unable to do so? Why would God lament Jerusalem not turning to Him, when they never had the ability in the first place, except that God first move them? These scriptures simply don't make sense to me in a Calvinist light.

U - I do not hold to unconditional election in the true sense of Calvinism. I believe all men everywhere can come to salvation, and I believe it is God's desire that we do. I just happen to believe that God granted man the ability to accept or reject Him, and thereby a great portion of mankind spurns God and falls into damnation.

L - Limited atonement...the idea that Christ only died for a few. 1 Timothy 2:6 states that Christ gave his life as a ransom for all. If this only means the Elect, then why didn't Paul say so? Why make the terminology of the doctrine so confusing. I believe Christ gave His life for all. I just also believe man can accept or reject that sacrifice. I do not see this as a weakening of God. I see this as God, still sovereign above all things, having granted His creation freedom of will.

I - I definitely do not hold to irresistible grace. I see far too many instances in scripture of people spurning God. In fact, we are given a warning/commandment in the Pauline epistles not to quench the Spirit. Why would this be necessary if if it irresistible? The alternative view from mine, one of truly irresistible grace in the Calvinist interpretation, renders a God who only selects a few of His creation for everlasting life in glory. The remaining multitude He damns to everlasting fire for not accepting Him, even though He never allowed them to accept Him.

P - This is one of the closest points I could hold to. I believe once a person is saved, they are saved for eternity. They are sealed unto the day or redemption.

If you want to say that makes me a 1-point Calvinist, so be it. Several non-Calvinist congregations hold to the "P," as well, though typically under the naming convention of "Once saved, Always Saved."

So: "Calvinism is the fullest expression of the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES... Anything less is a defective gospel." I get that you see it as the culmination of the scriptures. I have no problem with that. I know that we have differing ideas on interpretation. That's not news to anyone. I happen to think Calvinism falls short of the mark. To be fair, I'm sure my interpretation falls short, as well. Why? Because I'm fallible. I'm a corrupted being. So was John Calvin. So was anyone who aided in building the theology associated with TULIP.

Yeah, that's clear enough. You believe that anyone not teaching the same way you would teach is not fully equipping those they teach. They are only offering half truths, if that.

 

Pt

I believe they are not using the whole of the scriptures.....like having a chain saw and not starting it up.....now if you open the link it shows the two main views listed, you and others here fit the Arminian view which historically was considered error and rejected. That being said...I have no ill will toward you and am thankful God is in control and can use different kinds of churches and persons as a means to convert souls as the Spirit uses the word being sown.

 

In a similar vein, though as the opposite effect of your idea, I sometimes think that Calvinist try to use a chainsaw when a letter opener would suffice. I see them as sometimes trying to read too much into a scripture. That's not to said my side is innocent...far from it. We jsut take different approaches.

Historically considered "error" and "rejected" by whom? The Reformers? Of course they're going to say that something that runs against their chosen interpretation is in error. That's not a surprise at all.

I don't consider myself Arminian, mainly because Arminianism, in its truest sense, believes salvation can be lost. I do not believe that.