ECT There Should Be Mockers In the Last Time - Jude 1: `18

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yay, the Gospel is one/unified. Seek peace on agreeable points.

Say more scripture, and less commentary speak.

 

[DAN P]

No hatred at all. it's about Christ. Anything fulfilled in Christ is the period that is the fulness of times. That's why Hebrews speaks of Christ being here at the end of the times, in ch 2 and 9. The only other period Paul was concerned about was the one leading up to Christ.

Hi and 2 Tim 1:9 is by the FATHER , THE SON and the HOLY SPIRIT , so what doe 2 Tim 1:9 mean ??

dan p

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Yay, the Gospel is one/unified. Seek peace on agreeable points.

No Dispensational believer denies that Jesus "IS" the unification. The issue in my mind is that God has a timing that involves National Israel and the BOC that differs, yet perfectly uses both for a "unified" purpose.

To me ... that purpose is to display His Mercy and draw more for the purpose of... 2 Peter 3:9 and Romans 11:32

Now... I know we disagree here... but... when it comes to the "Centrality" of Christ... I have no issue having peace with you at that point.

I remain Dispensational... but... in sincerity... the Jesus of the matter has always placed me at a sort of peace with you. I know I'm rugged and amplify my support for Israel... and... you know we'll lock horns here and there...

But I'll clank glasses with you per John 5:39.

 

[Interplanner]

The mercy in the end of Romans is in Christ and is one. It is not that Israel the nation does something separate. In fact that is not even in the picture in the quotes of Isaiah. "Saved" in Romans is about sin and righteousness. The covenant he is talking about there is what Christ effected.

So as usual, I do not see what you are saying about Israel the nation in the teaching of the NT. Added to this is the play on words of Mt 21: the vineyard is taken away from 'Israel' and given to a nation that will do its work, which is not a legal nation at all, but a kind of people who have faith.

 

[john w]

The mercy in the end of Romans is in Christ and is one. It is not that Israel the nation does something separate. In fact that is not even in the picture in the quotes of Isaiah. "Saved" in Romans is about sin and righteousness. The covenant he is talking about there is what Christ effected.

So as usual, I do not see what you are saying about Israel the nation in the teaching of the NT. Added to this is the play on words of Mt 21: the vineyard is taken away from 'Israel' and given to a nation that will do its work, which is not a legal nation at all, but a kind of people who have faith.

Translation:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."-Slick Willy Clinton


Thanks for checkin' in, Humpty Willy.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The mercy in the end of Romans is in Christ and is one. It is not that Israel the nation does something separate. In fact that is not even in the picture in the quotes of Isaiah. "Saved" in Romans is about sin and righteousness. The covenant he is talking about there is what Christ effected.

So as usual, I do not see what you are saying about Israel the nation in the teaching of the NT. Added to this is the play on words of Mt 21: the vineyard is taken away from 'Israel' and given to a nation that will do its work, which is not a legal nation at all, but a kind of people who have faith.

Wasn't my point... and I knew you disagreed there... but I was offering to raise glasses in unity of John 5:39. I never take that offering away... but retain the perspective you disagree with.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

It is not to be unexpected that there will be some polemics from both sides in these discussions.

Spoiler

Nevertheless, my hope and prayer is that in the quiet of one's room when no one is watching, some plain things from the history of the church militant are actually understood.


Neither John Calvin nor James Arminius originated the basic concepts which undergird the two systems that bear their names. The fundamental principles of each system can be traced back many centuries prior to the time when these two men lived. For example, the basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.

No person in either camp worships Calvin or Arminius. These sort of rhetorical flourishes may play well with the crowd, but in the interest of extending the greatest amount of charity—per the ninth commandment—to those who would level these charges I always assume no one seriously thinks what they assert about their opponent as to the proper object of one's faith: God. This is one of the main reasons it is a rarity to find a Calvinist laying the claim "You worship {Arminius, Pelagius, Cassian, Boyd, Pinnock, etc.}" against an interlocutor. My kingdom for those that would grant us the same simple ninth commandment courtesies.

As there was nothing new in substance in the Calvinism of Calvin, so there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Arminius. The doctrines of Arminius can be traced back as far as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus, and seem to have been held by many of the fathers of the third and fourth centuries, having been diffused in the church through the corrupting influence of pagan philosophy. Pelagius and his followers, in the fifth century, were as decidedly opposed to Calvinism as Arminius was, though they deviated much further from sound doctrine.

Pelagius denied that human nature had been corrupted by sin. He maintained that the only ill effects which the race had suffered as the result of Adam's transgression was the bad example which he had set for mankind. According to Pelagius, every infant comes into the world in the same condition as Adam was before the fall. His leading principle was that man's will is absolutely free. Hence every one has the power, within himself, to believe the gospel as well as to perfectly keep the law of God.

Augustine, on the other hand, maintained that human nature had been so completely corrupted by Adam's fall that no one, in himself, has the ability to obey either the law or the gospel. Divine grace is essential if sinners are to believe and be saved, and this grace is extended only to those whom God predestined to eternal life before the foundation of the world. The act of faith, therefore, results, not from the sinner's free will (as Pelagius taught) but from God's free grace which is bestowed on the elect only.

Augustine's unanswerable polemic had so fully discredited Pelagianism in the field of argument, that it could no longer be made plausible to the Christian mind. Pelagianism collapsed. But a new system soon presented itself, teaching that man with his own natural powers is able to take the first step toward his conversion, and that this obtains or merits the Spirit's assistance.

Cassian was the founder of this middle way, which came to be called semi-Pelagianism, because it occupied intermediate ground between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, and took in elements from both. Cassian acknowledged that Adam's sin extended to his posterity, and that human nature was corrupted by original sin. But on the other hand Cassian held a system of universal grace for all men alike making the final decision in the case of every individual dependent on the exercise of free will.

In other words, those who followed Cassian held that the first movement of the will in the assent of faith must be ascribed to the natural powers of the human mind. Their maxim was: 'it is mine to be willing to believe, and it is the part of God's grace to assist.' They asserted the sufficiency of Christ's grace for all, and that every one, according to his own will, obeyed or rejected the invitation, while God equally wished and equally aided all men to be saved. The entire system thus formed is a half-way house containing elements of error and elements of truth, and not at all differing from the Arminianism which, after the resuscitation of the doctrines of grace by the Reformers, diffused itself in the very same way through the different Churches.

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century rejected Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism on the ground that both systems were unscriptural. Like Augustine, the Reformers held to the doctrines of the sovereignty of God, the total depravity of man, and of unconditional election. They stood together in their view of predestination. It was taught not only by Calvin, but by Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon (although Melancthon later retreated toward the Semi-Pelagian position), by Bullinger, Bucer, and all of the outstanding leaders in the Reformation. While differing on some other points they agreed on this doctrine of predestination and taught it with emphasis. Luther's chief work, 'The Bondage of the Will,' shows that he went into the doctrine as heartily as did Calvin himself.

To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply whether God justifies believers without works of law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ's sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue: whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self reliance and self-effort.

The difference between the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God Who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself. One view [Calvinism] presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit-as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view [Arminianism] gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man's salvation is secured by any of them.

These two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God's gift of salvation, the other as man s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing, operated it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the 'five points,' as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.

While recognizing the permanent value of the five points as a summary of Calvinism, a warning should be sounded against simply equating Calvinism with the five points. The very act of setting out Calvinistic soteriology [the doctrine of salvation] in the form of five distinct points (a number due merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject.

The five Arminian points:

Spoiler

The five Arminian points, given by the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dordt held fifty-four years after the death of Calvin, were the following:

I. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief.
II. Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved.
III. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed.
IV. This grace may be resisted.
V. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation.

Each of these points were responded to by the state of Holland to at the Synod, wherein the Remonstrants sought to have the Church of Holland revise its official standards. The response given to each of these Arminian five points later became what is known as the five points of Calvinism or the doctrines of grace. Hundreds of years later (1900s) a pastor formed a memory aid (an acrostic) to remember these responses, TULIP, basically along the following lines of reasoning:

Spoiler

1. T - Is humanity basically good or totally depraved? If it is basically good, the concept of Savior is irrelevant; all we need is a guru with a self-improvement plan. (When you study Liberal theology, this is really what they are teaching. An infallible Bible, Virgin Birth, literal resurrection are not really important to their theology.)

2. U - Is God sovereign? If He is, then His covenant people must have been chosen by unconditional election. If He isn't, then it is really our will which determines providence. (Many people really think, God helps those who help themselves is actually in the Bible.)

3. L - What happened on the Cross? Did Christ pay the one, all-sufficient price for the sins of the covenant people, or did he merely make redemption a possibility for whomever might choose to accept the offer, or did He pay the price for everyone, regardless of faith? The meaning of the celebration of Easter is determined by how we answer this.

4. I - Do we choose God or does He choose us? If grace is irresistible, then God draws to the Christ all His covenant people, no one will be lost; if it is not, then if we don't "save souls for Jesus" some who might have gone to go to Heaven won't.

5. P - Can we lose our salvation? If God is not able to equip His covenant people to persevere, then He cannot really offer eternal life. Confident Christians are more fruitful.

In summary, had there not been five points raised by the Remonstrants following Arminius there would not have been five points of Calvinism. In a very real sense we Calvinists owe the non-Calvinists a great deal of gratitude.

The five points, though separately stated, are really inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all. To Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners. God, the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power, and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people: the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father's will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing. Saves: does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners: men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God's will or better their spiritual lot.

God saves sinners and the force of this one main point may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man's own, or by soft-pedaling the sinner's inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Savior. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the 'five points' are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms or descendents (open theism) to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever.

AMR

It is not to be unexpected that there will be some polemics from both sides in these discussions. Nevertheless, my hope and prayer is that in the quiet of one's room when no one is watching, some plain things from the history of the church militant are actually understood.

I fully understand what you are saying here and respect it. My main point of disagreement is with the concept that the "church militant" is somehow removed from "sin". As in... the brick and mortar slips because of human contention and doctrine suffers because of this. "Authority" belongs to Jesus Christ and to be clear... I'll map out how I see this...

The initial "Unity" began with Israel... as the "Body of Moses"... (Jude 1:9) ... and the second "Unity" was forged in the "Body of Christ" ... (1 Corinthians 12:27).

History can be seen in scripture that is completely apart from all doctrines of men. Satan beguiled Eve... and Satan beguiled (The Body of Moses) ... with "Extra Teachings" ... that remove the simplicity of "Faith" and "Mercy".

Jesus was literally slain at the wish of the (Church Militant)... Hierarchy... and the Hierarchy did so with their developed "doctrines of men". POWER was at the heart of this struggle and I'm fairly certain you understand what I mean. The brick and mortar wanted to retain it's influence... and actually felt threatened by God's presence. That is the signature of "Death Incarnate"... aka... Satan.

The budding 7 churches were eventually swallowed by the adoption of "Pauline Christianity"... via the adoption of the Roman Government... so ... when "Peace" of sorts finally came and "Universal Thrust" came about... it wasn't to "unify" or "propagate" the "message"... but to retain "Power". The Roman society recognized it's need to manipulate the power of the "Gospel" to retain "Its' Rule". The human emperors known as "Caesars"... that were perceived as "Gods"... lost their authority... due to the sincere spread of the Gospel... despite all of the attempts to "commit Theological Genocide". In this... we see that the true foundation of the "Brick and Mortar"... "Church Militant" is indeed the Universal or "Catholic" church. The Catechism contains the heart of ALL Christian Doctrine and even "Protestants" are more "Catholic" than they realize... thanks to the carrying on of central doctrines that originated out of the birth of the "Catholic" church. In reality... there is no foundation of the UNIVERSAL BOC... other than Jesus.

The "Greco Roman" entity that is now global... that has schisms and even "Protestant" members... is simply a more full development of "POWER CONSOLIDATION" and clashing "AUTHORITIES".

Here in lies the "Rub".

Neither John Calvin nor James Arminius originated the basic concepts which undergird the two systems that bear their names. The fundamental principles of each system can be traced back many centuries prior to the time when these two men lived. For example, the basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.

I agree... but the "MOTHER CHURCH"... did. And thus... the Mediation of "Brick and Mortar"... remains in their perspectives.

No person in either camp worships Calvin or Arminius. These sort of rhetorical flourishes may play well with the crowd, but in the interest of extending the greatest amount of charity—per the ninth commandment—to those who would level these charges I always assume no one seriously thinks what they assert about their opponent as to the proper object of one's faith: God. This is one of the main reasons it is a rarity to find a Calvinist laying the claim "You worship {Arminius, Pelagius, Cassian, Boyd, Pinnock, etc.}" against an interlocutor. My kingdom for those that would grant us the same simple ninth commandment courtesies.

My focus was on Nang and her quote from Spurgeon.... and to be concise... Jesus is the Gospel... not "Calvin". You want to see that some don't venerate men... but AMR... :idunno: ... I'm sorry... some do. You don't! But people mistake your continual quotation and citation of men for the same... and only those who have seriously traded blows with you... "know" that you scrap it all and cling to Christ. The mass citation of other's words confuses... and doesn't assist. This is a simple matter that is too easy to cite.

I agree that the idea that people "venerate" men can be preposterous and poorly used... like old Tetty and his perpetual accusations... but some claim the men's names and wear them on their theological sleeves. What can be said about this?

As there was nothing new in substance in the Calvinism of Calvin, so there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Arminius. The doctrines of Arminius can be traced back as far as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus, and seem to have been held by many of the fathers of the third and fourth centuries, having been diffused in the church through the corrupting influence of pagan philosophy. Pelagius and his followers, in the fifth century, were as decidedly opposed to Calvinism as Arminius was, though they deviated much further from sound doctrine.

The bottom line is that none of these men are in cannon... so their words are irrelevant. They have zero say in cannon lensing and thus... they become argumentative tools to give sway to one human argument or another... and that's the core of the whole enchilada.

Pelagius denied that human nature had been corrupted by sin. He maintained that the only ill effects which the race had suffered as the result of Adam's transgression was the bad example which he had set for mankind. According to Pelagius, every infant comes into the world in the same condition as Adam was before the fall. His leading principle was that man's will is absolutely free. Hence every one has the power, within himself, to believe the gospel as well as to perfectly keep the law of God.

He was a man too and outside of Canon. Like all men... there was correct understanding and incorrect understanding... just like "Calvin and Augustine".

Augustine, on the other hand, maintained that human nature had been so completely corrupted by Adam's fall that no one, in himself, has the ability to obey either the law or the gospel. Divine grace is essential if sinners are to believe and be saved, and this grace is extended only to those whom God predestined to eternal life before the foundation of the world. The act of faith, therefore, results, not from the sinner's free will (as Pelagius taught) but from God's free grace which is bestowed on the elect only.

God continually shows freewill as His very own gift in scripture and Satan tries to take all the credit... but Choice is indicative of Free Will... and Augustine drew from some nasty sources from his earlier studies that assisted him in believing that God did not "bestow free will".

Peli... whatever is relegated to "Heresy" and "Augustine" is sainted by "Papal Decree"... and thus... the core of your argument is again rooted in the "Universal Brick and Mortar"... and the idea that the "Free Will" Discussion is off the table.. as it is to be "IN LEAGUE" with "PELAGIUS" to believe that God "Authored Free Will" as part of the equation.

Honestly... people know why men want FREE WILL removed from the equation. If we don't have it... Institutions of "Brick and Mortar" can conveniently dictate for us... what "God meant" and "desires". ... Um... yeah... that is called Theocracy and it is so far from what Jesus established that it is simply effortless to bury.

Augustine's unanswerable polemic had so fully discredited Pelagianism in the field of argument, that it could no longer be made plausible to the Christian mind. Pelagianism collapsed. But a new system soon presented itself, teaching that man with his own natural powers is able to take the first step toward his conversion, and that this obtains or merits the Spirit's assistance.

I honestly don't give a lick about either of them... except they were theologians that got nasty with each other and the one with the strongest hand "won". The core point of it all is that neither is God and both have zero say in "What God actually said" in scripture.

Cassian was the founder of this middle way, which came to be called semi-Pelagianism, because it occupied intermediate ground between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, and took in elements from both. Cassian acknowledged that Adam's sin extended to his posterity, and that human nature was corrupted by original sin. But on the other hand Cassian held a system of universal grace for all men alike making the final decision in the case of every individual dependent on the exercise of free will.

This is fair... but again... God says Choose and unfortunately... Auggy... Pelly.. and Cassy... have Zero say in if God said this or not. God said "Choose" and that is the bottom line.

God set Choice before mankind and in doing so... made it clear that He recognizes the place of choice in Love... which God is the example of.

In other words, those who followed Cassian held that the first movement of the will in the assent of faith must be ascribed to the natural powers of the human mind. Their maxim was: 'it is mine to be willing to believe, and it is the part of God's grace to assist.' They asserted the sufficiency of Christ's grace for all, and that every one, according to his own will, obeyed or rejected the invitation, while God equally wished and equally aided all men to be saved. The entire system thus formed is a half-way house containing elements of error and elements of truth, and not at all differing from the Arminianism which, after the resuscitation of the doctrines of grace by the Reformers, diffused itself in the very same way through the different Churches.

Anyone who "Follows" a man is in TROUBLE... no matter who it is... if the man "isn't" our "God-Man"... Jesus Christ. It's that simple. We have choice in the matter sir. I don't care how many billions of people think we don't or who represents either side. The only reason "choice" is removed from the equation is because HUMANITY... like Satan... enjoy "Power" and the ability to assist in "Choice".

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century rejected Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism on the ground that both systems were unscriptural. Like Augustine, the Reformers held to the doctrines of the sovereignty of God, the total depravity of man, and of unconditional election. They stood together in their view of predestination. It was taught not only by Calvin, but by Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon (although Melancthon later retreated toward the Semi-Pelagian position), by Bullinger, Bucer, and all of the outstanding leaders in the Reformation. While differing on some other points they agreed on this doctrine of predestination and taught it with emphasis. Luther's chief work, 'The Bondage of the Will,' shows that he went into the doctrine as heartily as did Calvin himself.

This is very important history of the "Brick and Mortar"... but it is all Power struggle. It is nothing more! Luther should have stopped at "Faith Alone" and seen that others wanted to "Reorganize" the Power... instead of "Return it to God".

To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply whether God justifies believers without works of law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ's sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue: whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self reliance and self-effort.

Believe that He is He and one will not die in their sins. Love and we show that we are His. Choose ye this day who you will serve. No one can do anything apart from Him.

These are all core principles of Jesus and are all throughout scripture. It's that simple. No scissors can remove the clear implications. God gave us "free will" and "Choice" is part of the gospel... just like it was part of Adam and Eve's pre-fall life. No amount of name dropping can change this.

Ism's... Ologies and so forth are void of aid. Jesus did the work... and either it is embraced or rejected. He did the heavy lifting, and we simply accept the free gift.

Acts 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”​

Where choice is removed... Religious Tyranny will follow. That's a promise you can take to the bank.

The difference between the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God Who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself.

This is sophism. If I call the national guard because my city is in peril and they rectify things... then the national guard saved the day. I simply "chose" to call them. If I don't call them and ruin occurs... I "chose" to do nothing... and that's a choice too. But that doesn't change the fact that they were there to "CALL ON" AND "THEY DO THE SAVING".

One view [Calvinism] presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit-as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view [Arminianism] gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man's salvation is secured by any of them.

No... at it's core... Calvinism disables man and allows the "Election" of Israel to be usurped and proclaimed to divide a group of "piggies" that are "less" dirty "than" the "other group".

Much painstaking effort comes from the Calvinism Apologist to cover the fact that Calvinism ultimately says that God only died for the "ELECT". It will even be argued that it doesn't say this.. but in the end... that person will end up saying it.

Love your enemies is pretty clear and Jesus said this. All means All sir. That's the end of it.

These two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God's gift of salvation, the other as man s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing, operated it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the 'five points,' as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.

Both of them are opinions and lenses. They are not scripture and they are not the Holy Spirit... so spiritual goose stepping has no right to occur and discussion must persist and scripture must be sought out... every generation. No volumes or theorem in an extra biblical book has "THE ANSWER". The war rages on and only God and the His scripture has the final say. Any other approach is Theocratic Tyranny!

While recognizing the permanent value of the five points as a summary of Calvinism

I love the Solas... but I don't like the "flower". The Sola's are good... the Flower is "Bad".

, a warning should be sounded against simply equating Calvinism with the five points. The very act of setting out Calvinistic soteriology [the doctrine of salvation] in the form of five distinct points (a number due merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject.

We all like "cheat sheets" and I agree that a "warning should be sounded against simply equating any ism with any points... unless the points are manifested over and over again by students of the school.

The five Arminian points:

Spoiler

The five Arminian points, given by the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dordt held fifty-four years after the death of Calvin, were the following:

I. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief.
II. Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved.
III. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed.
IV. This grace may be resisted.
V. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation.

Spoiler

These points are fair... but again... there is so much more in scripture than what is written in "any points". The specrum of how God works with mankind and mankind responds is far beyond any neat and clean list of points.

Each of these points were responded to by the state of Holland to at the Synod, wherein the Remonstrants sought to have the Church of Holland revise its official standards. The response given to each of these Arminian five points later became what is known as the five points of Calvinism or the doctrines of grace. Hundreds of years later (1900s) a pastor formed a memory aid (an acrostic) to remember these responses, TULIP, basically along the following lines of reasoning:

Spoiler

1. T - Is humanity basically good or totally depraved? If it is basically good, the concept of Savior is irrelevant; all we need is a guru with a self-improvement plan. (When you study Liberal theology, this is really what they are teaching. An infallible Bible, Virgin Birth, literal resurrection are not really important to their theology.)

2. U - Is God sovereign? If He is, then His covenant people must have been chosen by unconditional election. If He isn't, then it is really our will which determines providence. (Many people really think, God helps those who help themselves is actually in the Bible.)

3. L - What happened on the Cross? Did Christ pay the one, all-sufficient price for the sins of the covenant people, or did he merely make redemption a possibility for whomever might choose to accept the offer, or did He pay the price for everyone, regardless of faith? The meaning of the celebration of Easter is determined by how we answer this.

4. I - Do we choose God or does He choose us? If grace is irresistible, then God draws to the Christ all His covenant people, no one will be lost; if it is not, then if we don't "save souls for Jesus" some who might have gone to go to Heaven won't.

5. P - Can we lose our salvation? If God is not able to equip His covenant people to persevere, then He cannot really offer eternal life. Confident Christians are more fruitful.

In summary, had there not been five points raised by the Remonstrants following Arminius there would not have been five points of Calvinism. In a very real sense we Calvinists owe the non-Calvinists a great deal of gratitude.

This seems to be a somewhat global approach and I respect it tremendously. My simple thought process remains that any "non" and "for" group that doesn't take its association directly from scripture and roots into extra biblical debate and representatives that are outside of scripture... remains nothing more than an over validated "opinion".

The five points, though separately stated, are really inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all. To Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners. God, the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power, and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people: the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father's will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing. Saves: does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners: men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God's will or better their spiritual lot.

God saves sinners and the force of this one main point may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man's own, or by soft-pedaling the sinner's inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Savior. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the 'five points' are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms or descendants (open theism) to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever.

I appreciate this perspective and see honesty in it. A sinner was enabled by Calvary... in my opinion... and since all humanity is "guilty" of sin... I can further say that humanity means all. From the worst the the less worst... But that's just me. I do see much in your "point's" that is enormously important for many to grasp... but as noted time and time again... i don't agree with all of "the points".
Solas? Well... boy howdy... those are good to go.

AMR

:e4e: ... Always a pleasure... and though i'm a stubborn somebody... i appreciate the "points" you have made and the supporting structure behind much of the discussion and debate that is relegated to the "brick and mortar".

- EE

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

and given to a nation that will do its work, which is not a legal nation at all, but a kind of people who have faith.

Do you ever tire of making things up?

 

[Right Divider]

Do you ever tire of making things up?

Words are mere putty in the "grammar scholars" hands.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Words are mere putty in the "grammar scholars" hands.

He has no conscience and zero respect for the scriptures. :up:

 

[Interplanner]

When stp spends more time in the Bible than TOL, he'll 'make up' for it.

 

[Interplanner]

I think STP's mind is 'made up'--entrenched--in the mistakes of D'ism.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

When stp spends more time in the Bible than TOL, he'll 'make up' for it.

The irony...
It's a full time job correcting your many erroneous threads and erroneous posts.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I think STP's mind is 'made up'--entrenched--in the mistakes of D'ism.

Grounded and settled in the truth.
Indeed.

 

[Interplanner]

Did STP find the passages on the ante-diluvians? On the Jerusalem above? This week he was totally lost on them.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Did STP find the passages on the ante-diluvians? On the Jerusalem above? This week he was totally lost on them.

Made up.