It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TULIP from Calvinism and the Conflict With Arminianism.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Christianity has a broad spectrum of theological understandings and doctrines. It is not unusual for the non-believing person to become confused by one doctrine and think all Christians believe the same way regarding all doctrines. We do not.

Let me help a little bit here. The difference in Calvinism and Arminianism is one of the most hotly debated subjects in Christendom, which began when John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius began their theological disputes. Both men lived in Europe during the late Middle Ages. But these two men are not to be confused with Jan Huss of the Mennonites or Martin Luther of the Reformed German movement and called Protestantism.

Calvin and Arminius are like Luther and the pope. They do not agree on major points except for the core fundamental that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, born in Bethlehem to the virgin Mary, as prophesied in the Old Testament. They agree that Jesus was crucified and resurrected and then ascended. But the differences in doctrine concern the believer and salvation. So I will explain now what TULIP is so that you might understand that what you encounter from a Christian, you might be better equipped to know what theological background they come from.

I will also present the Arminian challenge to TULIP.

TULIP is an acronym, so aptly named because Calvin was from the Netherlands.

T = Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Preservation of the saints

In pure Calvinism, which some Baptist churches are not following, these are also known as the 5 points of Calvinism. For their doctrine, this is the explanation:

1: Man is so totally depraved that he cannot seek God on his own, therefore God does the seeking based on foreknowledge and predestination. God has predestined some people to go to heaven and some to hell.

2: Those that are predestined by the foreknowledge of God then are unconditionally elected by God. They do not have to do anything on their own.

3: Limited atonement means that Jesus Christ only died for those who were predestined for heaven. Jesus did not die for all of mankind, only those who were predestined.

4: Irresistible Grace is those who have been elected because of predestination, God will present with them grace that they cannot resist, salvation then is given to them without their prior knowledge, but God causes them to understand salvation and they receive grace, not because they simply believed and had faith, but because God foreknew and saved them despite their initial lack of belief.

5: Because a person is saved by the irresistible grace of God, without any belief on his part, God will preserve that individual until the return of Jesus Christ.

These are the points that Jacobus Arminius argued. And there isn't enough space on this post to point out all of the Bible verses that support each claim. So here is the rebuttal.

1: Mankind is not totally depraved because mankind does have the ability to seek God on his own. The Holy Ghost will draw, but it is up to the individual to seek salvation.

2: There are conditions upon salvation, one must accept freely and willingly. To believe and have faith are two conditions on which one receives salvation.

3:Atonement was made for all at the Cross.

4: Grace is certainly resistible. Mankind has the ability to freely accept or freely reject.

5: Preservation is a continual work of the Holy Ghost, but true preservation is when man ultimately is in full fellowship with God once again.

The next time you are speaking with a Christian, ask them if they are a Calvinist or an Arminian. Sometimes Calvinist might be "Soft Calvinist" meaning that there are some parts of TULIP that they do not agree with.

Usually those of Reform churches are Calvinists. Some Baptist churches are, and mostly those that are Fundamental Baptist or Independent Baptist.

There is a lot of confusion out there, but helps you to know the difference. When discussing things with a Christian, those little differences in doctrine do not take away from the primary doctrine of Christianity. We all agree on the primary.

But don't look on it as though all of Christianity is wrong, we have as many different theological differences as any other religion. Muslims have their own disputes over doctrine, that is why the Sunni and Shia are always disagreeing. There is nothing wrong with understanding the other doctrines. And if you don't like a particular doctrine, you have the right to question it.

A lot of people think that Westboro Baptist represents all of Christianity, it does not, because they have their own fundamental doctrines that are supported solely within their church. And don't think all Christians think in such hard lines, they do not.




posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I grew up in the Presbyterian church, but left it before I turned 18. I found your post informative as I did not know the fundamental differences between these two philosophies of Christianity. While I no longer follow the Christian faith I still find theological history and discussion to be interesting.

Thank you for the information!




posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
I grew up in the Presbyterian church, but left it before I turned 18. I found your post informative as I did not know the fundamental differences between these two philosophies of Christianity. While I no longer follow the Christian faith I still find theological history and discussion to be interesting.

Thank you for the information!



You were a Presbyterian, so you just might be predestined even though you don't follow Christianity. Most Presbyterians believe in TULIP, so you are good to go, you just might be the elect, even if you don't follow it.

But then again, you might not be elect, only God knows.

There really is no way to tell while you are on earth.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Calvinism and Tulip sound like something out of a cult where they believe only 144,000 will ever go to heaven... LOL

This completely absolves any responsibility. Either you have a winning ticket at birth or you don't. No choice in the matter. Ridiculous.

Jacobus Arminius seems to follow the standards of the remnant church.
edit on 25-4-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: WarminIndy

Calvinism and Tulip sound like something out of a cult where they believe only 144,000 will ever go to heaven... LOL

This completely absolves any responsibility. Either you have a winning ticket at birth or you don't. No choice in the matter. Ridiculous.

Jacobus Arminius seems to follow the standards of the remnant church.


Shhh, don't tell that to Baptists, well only the Calvinist Baptists. I think they are all getting ready for bed early tonight so they probably will come on here tomorrow to tell me all about it.

You just might be elect too, you just might not know it. I might not be elect, even though I am a believer..that is according to John Piper.

But R.C. Sproul thinks some might be doubly predestined.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

A lot of people think that Westboro Baptist represents all of Christianity, it does not, because they have their own fundamental doctrines that are supported solely within their church. And don't think all Christians think in such hard lines, they do not.


Wesboro was Calvinist

www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/tulip.html
We believe -- and vigorously preach -- the 5 Points of Calvinism! Anyone preaching otherwise is a Hell-bound false prophet, a messenger of Satan, to whom we

and I have met many Calvinist ministers/people who think non calvinists are hell bound, not chosen because they dont believe reformed doctrine


Oh just so you know I am not reformed, not a Calvinist, not a robot



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: WarminIndy

A lot of people think that Westboro Baptist represents all of Christianity, it does not, because they have their own fundamental doctrines that are supported solely within their church. And don't think all Christians think in such hard lines, they do not.


Wesboro was Calvinist

www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/tulip.html
We believe -- and vigorously preach -- the 5 Points of Calvinism! Anyone preaching otherwise is a Hell-bound false prophet, a messenger of Satan, to whom we

and I have met many Calvinist ministers/people who think non calvinists are hell bound, not chosen because they dont believe reformed doctrine


Oh just so you know I am not reformed, not a Calvinist, not a robot


Westboro does not represent all of Christianity. While there might be some who do agree with Westboro, I do know a church that does, Westboro seems to take a very much more fundamental approach.

And Fundamental and Independent Baptist churches teach that each individual church is its own authority.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Metallicus
I grew up in the Presbyterian church, but left it before I turned 18. I found your post informative as I did not know the fundamental differences between these two philosophies of Christianity. While I no longer follow the Christian faith I still find theological history and discussion to be interesting.

Thank you for the information!



You were a Presbyterian, so you just might be predestined even though you don't follow Christianity. Most Presbyterians believe in TULIP, so you are good to go, you just might be the elect, even if you don't follow it.

But then again, you might not be elect, only God knows.

There really is no way to tell while you are on earth.


This theology is a flawed way to think. It presents a paradox
that two completely opposite things are equally true:

1) then I cold be elected by God (to do nothing).
2) then I could be elected by God (to do something).

By suggesting that Human Agency is meaningless, one is
also lead to conclude: Human action is meaningless.

Both things of objectively false.

How can a person believe both of these things at the same it.
That logic is paradoxical, meaning it is self-contradictory when
view from the perspective of the "me" (myself) and I.

This flawed logic leads to more double-minded assumptions:

"IF those chosen to ascend to heaven are selected by God
(who knows the future) then it really does have nothing
whatsoever to do with what I do, or fail to do (meaning
my free will does effect the outcome)."

That thinking process is flawed and based on two assumptions:

1) The future is set because God knows everything
2) The "free will of man" may seen self-evident, but "it is incidental next to God's will."

These two assumptions lead to flawed believe systems, like the Classical Augustinian-Calvinist. Today, it has given rise to new opposing arguments ( like so-called "Openness Theology"). Calvinism teaches: "Nothing that exists or occurs falls outside God’s ordaining will. Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed." and "God knows the future because he preordains it." Open Theist tech God "does not unilaterally and irrevocably decide what to do" but rather God's decisions are influenced by "human attitudes and responses".

Openness Theology:


To meet the "conditions of love", God exercises "general rather than specific sovereignty, which explains why God does not prevent all evil".[32]

(32,33) John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (InterVarsity, 1998), 268
en.wikipedia.org...



It seems to me the traditional forms of classical theism have developed the exact same concepts of God as the Greeks did. In fact, it might be more correct to say traditional theism has imported some unbiblical assumptions from the Stics which openness theology now attempts to correct.


edit on 25-4-2015 by wasaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: WarminIndy

A lot of people think that Westboro Baptist represents all of Christianity, it does not, because they have their own fundamental doctrines that are supported solely within their church. And don't think all Christians think in such hard lines, they do not.


Wesboro was Calvinist

www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/tulip.html
We believe -- and vigorously preach -- the 5 Points of Calvinism! Anyone preaching otherwise is a Hell-bound false prophet, a messenger of Satan, to whom we

and I have met many Calvinist ministers/people who think non calvinists are hell bound, not chosen because they dont believe reformed doctrine


Oh just so you know I am not reformed, not a Calvinist, not a robot


Wesboro was Calvinist? That makes sense.

Apostates... LOL



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

I hope you caught that I was being sarcastic in my post.

When one believes the theology of predestination such as that, then say they don't really know who is predestined, then anyone could be predestined, as I said to the above poster.

You have made a very good argument. That was very nice to read.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I thought you were being sarcastic, but your
pithy comment sharked my thought process.

Just made a few edits.

Perhaps you can dig into what I wrote and
we might flesh out a few new thoughts.



edit on 25-4-2015 by wasaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: wasaka
a reply to: WarminIndy

I thought you were being sarcastic, but your
pithy comment sharked my thought process.

Just made a few edits.

Perhaps you can dig into what I wrote and
we might flesh out a few new thoughts.




Classic theology like Pascal's Wager?

I've read Blaise Pascal and as a non-Catholic, I am interested in what you are presenting. We can always discuss it. But my point was for people who assume all Christians are the same and most hear from Calvinists, I wanted them to understand that not all doctrines and theologies are the same.

I thought at one time it would be nice to take a class online with a well-known group (I am sure they are by now) and was approved by Dallas Theological Seminary, so you got credit through that, even if you didn't go to the brick and mortar.

After I had to read the required material attacking Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and then attacking Pentecostals, I refused to take it any more. It is one thing to point out error, it is quite another to attack mercilessly under the guise of theology.

But as they always pride themselves on pointing out error, that seems to be the sole purpose of their theology. And who is to say the other side is in error?

OK, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are in error. I had this experience though, my friend who was Mormon, invited me to come in and visit. While I was there a lady who was a Calvinist Baptist came in and sat down and then attacked my friend. After listening to this for some time, I stopped her.

I said to my friend "Do you believe that Jesus Christ came to save you, do you believe that salvation came by the cross?" She replied to me that she did. I turned to the other lady and said "According to the doctrine of your church, this lady has made a confession in salvation through Jesus Christ at the cross, therefore, she is born again and saved, according to your church". The lady was furious with me, then she told me that she guarantees that she knows the Bible more than me. I replied "That's nice to know, but why aren't you living it?" She had just told me prior to that she had left her husband for another man because even though her husband was good, the other man had more money.

She even asked my opinion on it. She then told me that she had eternal security.

I asked my friend why she just didn't kick the lady out. But it has been my experience with them that they are very quick to point out the errors of others, but not in their own hearts.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: WarminIndy

A lot of people think that Westboro Baptist represents all of Christianity, it does not, because they have their own fundamental doctrines that are supported solely within their church. And don't think all Christians think in such hard lines, they do not.


Wesboro was Calvinist

www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/tulip.html
We believe -- and vigorously preach -- the 5 Points of Calvinism! Anyone preaching otherwise is a Hell-bound false prophet, a messenger of Satan, to whom we

and I have met many Calvinist ministers/people who think non calvinists are hell bound, not chosen because they dont believe reformed doctrine


Oh just so you know I am not reformed, not a Calvinist, not a robot


Westboro does not represent all of Christianity. While there might be some who do agree with Westboro, I do know a church that does, Westboro seems to take a very much more fundamental approach.

And Fundamental and Independent Baptist churches teach that each individual church is its own authority.
Yes I am aware Wesboro are not representative of the church.
i just wanted to note that the Calvinists can become extreme in their way of thinking

and thankyou wasaka very eloquently put



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy
There is great historic irony in the fact that the Church of England is officially Calvinist- Articles of Religion XVII. Even had a delegation at the Synod of Dort.

To me, the great flaw is that extreme Calvinism tends to get legalistic in its analysis of the way God works, thus reintroducing the same stubborn human fault which Paul and Luther were trying to combat.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy




1: Man is so totally depraved that he cannot seek God on his own, therefore God does the seeking based on foreknowledge and predestination. God has predestined some people to go to heaven and some to hell.
The very foundation of the matter should if believed ,cause one to disregard all other attempts by said person to elaborate any further on all matters . If said foundational were true then what is the guiding principal that follows ? My personal experience with Calvinism did anything but build me up and was actually quite un-edifying .



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
There is great historic irony in the fact that the Church of England is officially Calvinist- Articles of Religion XVII. Even had a delegation at the Synod of Dort.

To me, the great flaw is that extreme Calvinism tends to get legalistic in its analysis of the way God works, thus reintroducing the same stubborn human fault which Paul and Luther were trying to combat.



I did not know this. That makes sense then, the old idea was that kings became kings because of divine right, therefore Henry VIII thought himself to be predestined to be king, therefore if God predestined him to be king then God predestined his salvation.

And if God predestined his salvation then the Catholic church did not have any power over his soul and that is probably the arguments he heard from Anne Boleyn. I have heard it said that she was exposed to those Protestant thinkers while exiled to France.

It makes sense now.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy
No, Henry VIII would not have been a Calvinist. Timing's wrong.
He was a straightforward Catholic, apart from the minor detail of disobeying the Pope.
The Protestant Reformation, and therefore Calvinism, came to the church through Edward VI and Elizabeth when they succeeded him.
I'd have to check, but I think the 39 Articles are from Elizabeth.
It was Laud who was responsible for starting the reaction against Calvinism.


edit on 26-4-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy




After I had to read the required material attacking Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and then attacking Pentecostals, I refused to take it any more. It is one thing to point out error, it is quite another to attack mercilessly under the guise of theology.
I watched some of the discussions on that site and finally decided that it was not really for me . My comment was that when the 70 had returned and reported that there was another group that didn't belong to our group , the Lord said leave them be . If they are not against us then they are for us . Far too often we see one group waging a kind of war about another .That is not what Christ was teaching us to do .



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
No, Henry VIII would not have been a Calvinist. Timing's wrong.
He was a straightforward Catholic, apart from the minor detail of disobeying the Pope.
The Protestant Reformation, and therefore Calvinism, came to the church through Edward VIII and Elizabeth when they succeeded him.
I'd have to check, but I think the 39 Articles are from Elizabeth.
It was Laud who was responsible for starting the reaction against Calvinism.



I see.

But they still believed in the divine right of kings.

I am descended from Huguenots, who were Calvinist also.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

We are Calvinists as well - didn't know you were though! lol..

I think very few are truly Calvinists... but I think where people misunderstand Calvinism is the doctrine of election, and this person puts it so eloquently that I will simply copy a this portion of what this man said:


O let one object fix your eye and one theme fill your mind—Christ and His salvation. Absorbed in the contemplation and study of these two points, you may safely defer all further inquiry to another and a more advanced stage of your Christian course. Remember that the fact of your predestination, the certainty of your election, can only be inferred from your conversion. We must hold you firmly to this truth. It is the subtle and fatal reasoning of Satan, a species of atheistical fatalism, to argue, “If I am elected I shall be saved whether I am regenerated or not.” The path to eternal woe is paved with arguments like this. Men have cajoled their souls with such vain excuses until they have found themselves beyond the region of hope!

But we must rise to the fountain by pursuing the stream. Conversion and not predestination, is the end of the chain we are to grasp. We must ascend from ourselves to God, and not descend from God to ourselves, in settling this great question. We must judge of God’s objective purpose of love concerning us, by His subjective work of grace within us. One of the martyr Reformers has wisely remarked, “We need not go about to trouble ourselves with curious questions of the predestination of God; but let us rather endeavor ourselves that we may be in Christ. For, when we are in Him, then are we well: and then we may be sure that we are ordained to everlasting life. When you find these three things in your hearts, repentance, faith, and a desire to leave sin, then you may be sure your names are written in the book, and you may be sure also, that you are elected and predestinated to eternal life.” Again he observes, “If thou art desiring to know whether thou art chosen to everlasting life, thou mayest not begin with God, for God is too high, thou canst not comprehend Him. Begin with Christ, and learn to know Christ, and wherefore He came; namely, that He came to save sinners, and made Himself subject to the law, and a fulfiller of the law, to deliver us from the wrath and danger thereof. If thou knowest Christ, then thou mayest know further of thy election.” And illustrating his idea by his own personal experience, he says, “If I believe in Christ alone for salvation, I am certainly interested in Christ; and interested in Christ I could not be, if I were not chosen and elected of God.”

In conclusion, we earnestly entreat you to lay aside all fruitless speculations, and to give yourself to prayer. Let reason bow to faith, and faith shut you up to Christ, and Christ be all in all to you. Once more we solemnly affirm that, conversion, and not predestination, is the doctrine with which, in your present state of inquiry, you have to do. Beware that you come not short of true conversion—a changed heart, and a renewed mind, so that you become “a new creature in Christ Jesus.” And if as a poor lost sinner you repair to the Savior, all vile, guilty, unworthy, and weak as you are, He will receive you, and shelter you within the bosom that bled on the cross, to provide an atonement and an asylum for the very chief of sinners. Intermeddle not, therefore, with a state which you can only ascertain to be yours by the Spirit’s work upon your heart. “Your election will be known by your interest in Christ; and your interest in Christ by the sanctification of the Spirit. Here is a chain of salvation; the beginning of it is from the Father; the dispensation of it through the Son; the application of it by the Spirit. In looking after the comfort of election, you must look inward to the work of the Spirit in your heart; then outward to the work of Christ on the cross; then upward to the heart of the Father in heaven.” Oh, let your prayer be “God be merciful to me a sinner,” until that prayer is answered in the assurance of full pardon sealed upon your conscience by the Holy Ghost. Thus knocking at mercy’s door, the heart of God will fly open, and admit you to all the hidden treasures of its love.
www.reformedreader.org...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join