Issues on Arminian/Calvinist Systems

[rhutchin]

Trueseeker make the following comment on another thread.

Still I have many close Christian friends who continue to believe the TULIP doctrines, we just have to agree to disagree on those and fellowship and discuss the things we can agree on. My perspective is that Calvinists, have a filter of Calvinist beliefs closer to their eyes than the Bible. So everything they see in the Bible has to be interpreted to fit their preconcieved beliefs….it seems from my perspective that Calvinists generally think it is alright to view the Bible through a TULIP filter. Perhaps they feel that the doctrines are so well established, that they are beyond review, therefore everything else in the Bible has to fit with these doctrines somehow.


Some personal comments.

1. Calvinism is efficiently described by TULIP. The presumption is that the T (Total Depravity) is true and that Total Depravity rules the decisions of man regarding Christ. If this is true, then the rest follows as a matter of logic.

2. The Arminians challenged the idea that Total Depravity MUST rule the decisions of man regarding Christ. They say that God negates Total Depravity in some manner through something called prevenient grace (a concept that I find difficult to define fully).

3. Absent Total Depravity’s rule over man, Arminians claim that some people will accept Christ and some people will reject Christ. If people reject Christ, then they seem to be again ruled by Total Depravity and the Calvinist system comes into play.

4. The issue then is whether God overrides Total Depravity in some manner that allows people to exercise Libertarian Free Will or some other free will in order to accept or not-accept Christ.

5. The filter that Calvinists look through (if there really is one and which may incorporate bias into their thinking) is their salvation experience. A Calvinist sees no way in which he choose Christ; his recollection is one of complete and total rejection of Christ. His decision to follow Christ then could only have resulted from an outside force (God) doing something to cause him to follow Christ. If Arminianism were true, the Calvinist was among that group of people who rejected Christ and could only be saved by an act of God.

So, my questions (related to what Trueseeker said)—

A. Under the Arminian system, can a person who rejects Christ fully and completely be saved and does TULIP accurately describe the salvation of this group of people?

B. Is there a reason why the Arminian should not accept TULIP under these limiting circumstances?

C. Is there any reason why a Calvinist should not believe that he fully and completely rejected Christ and that TULIP applies to him?

[geebob]

3. Absent Total Depravity’s rule over man, Arminians claim that some people will accept Christ and some people will reject Christ. If people reject Christ, then they seem to be again ruled by Total Depravity and the Calvinist system comes into play.

unless calvinism = damnation, I don't see how this follows at all.

5. The filter that Calvinists look through (if there really is one and which may incorporate bias into their thinking) is their salvation experience.

everyone has a filter. It's symptomatic of humanity. And not everyone who is saved shares an experience that implies calvinism. Or if they think it does, there is the question of whether they are fully and properly interpreting that experience. All experience must be interpreted.

A Calvinist sees no way in which he choose Christ

which is not quite accurate. Calvinists are compaitbilists. They believe they choose christ. but they believe that they were choosen to choose christ.

his recollection is one of complete and total rejection of Christ.

so he blanked out at conversion?

A. Under the Arminian system, can a person who rejects Christ fully and completely be saved and does TULIP accurately describe the salvation of this group of people?

B. Is there a reason why the Arminian should not accept TULIP under these limiting circumstances?

I don't know if the question makes sense. TULIP is a larger picture than that. I don't understand how you could limit it and still call it TULIP.

C. Is there any reason why a Calvinist should not believe that he fully and completely rejected Christ and that TULIP applies to him?

If he's a calvinist, then most likely he's a christian. Christians do not completely and fully reject Christ. Perhaps he did fully and completely rejected christ, but then he changed by cooperating with God's gracious initiative.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
3. Absent Total Depravity’s rule over man, Arminians claim that some people will accept Christ and some people will reject Christ. If people reject Christ, then they seem to be again ruled by Total Depravity and the Calvinist system comes into play.

geebob
unless calvinism = damnation, I don't see how this follows at all.

Under Arminianism, I thought that people who rejected Christ would end up in hell. Is that wrong?

[geebob]

Under Arminianism, I thought that people who rejected Christ would end up in hell. Is that wrong?

it's not wrong, but it doesn't imply total depravity. are they totally depraved after rejecting Christ? you could say that in the arminian system. That still doesn't imply the doctrine of total depravity as articulated by calvinists. That doctrine is about a consistency of depravity that makes libertarian freedom impossible all the way up to the point of regeneration.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Under Arminianism, I thought that people who rejected Christ would end up in hell. Is that wrong?

geebob
it's not wrong, but it doesn't imply total depravity. are they totally depraved after rejecting Christ? you could say that in the arminian system. That still doesn't imply the doctrine of total depravity as articulated by calvinists. That doctrine is about a consistency of depravity that makes libertarian freedom impossible all the way up to the point of regeneration.

I guess that's right. While the Arminian philosophizes that God somehow negates Total Depravity, the Calvinists say it never happened. In reality, we have the Arminians posing a hypothetical situation where a person is given the free will to accept or reject Christ. Those who reject Christ (all of them, as it turns out) show the hypothetical situation to be imaginary and that Total Depravity is never negated.

[Sheepdog]

1. Calvinism is efficiently described by TULIP. The presumption is that the T (Total Depravity) is true and that Total Depravity rules the decisions of man regarding Christ. If this is true, then the rest follows as a matter of logic.

but, as i have been told, there is more to Calvinism than TULIP. TULIP, after all, was a response to the 5 Remonstrant Articles.

2. The Arminians challenged the idea that Total Depravity MUST rule the decisions of man regarding Christ. They say that God negates Total Depravity in some manner through something called prevenient grace (a concept that I find difficult to define fully).

Previent Grace merely means "grace that goes before." it's actually a hand-me-down from Calvinism, which holds to a kind of previent grace, though it is irresistable.

we both agree that God must do His thing in the heart of a man before he could ever believe. We Arminians just don't think this work is irresistable, and indeed it has been resisted, Biblically (Is. 5:1-4).

3. Absent Total Depravity’s rule over man, Arminians claim that some people will accept Christ and some people will reject Christ. If people reject Christ, then they seem to be again ruled by Total Depravity and the Calvinist system comes into play.

depends. do you mean the are ruled again after they reject Christ? it certainly isn't inconsistent with Arminianism, though i believe that God generally doesn't give up after being rejected.

4. The issue then is whether God overrides Total Depravity in some manner that allows people to exercise Libertarian Free Will or some other free will in order to accept or not-accept Christ.

this could be. note that God would also have to "override" T to irresistably regenerate a sinner under the Calvinist system.

i, however, don't believe that one's depravity is "overridden." (though, you should define that term so we may know we are on the same page). it is possible, i believe, for God to draw the sinner even while in his depravity. i see no reason why an omnipotent God cannot, and i am convinced by Scripture that this is so.

5. The filter that Calvinists look through (if there really is one and which may incorporate bias into their thinking) is their salvation experience. A Calvinist sees no way in which he choose Christ; his recollection is one of complete and total rejection of Christ. His decision to follow Christ then could only have resulted from an outside force (God) doing something to cause him to follow Christ. If Arminianism were true, the Calvinist was among that group of people who rejected Christ and could only be saved by an act of God.

this is why Experience is a bad substitute teacher. i would argue that it only seemed like you couldn't choose God, but perhaps the change from prechristian to Christian was so drastic for them that it had the appearance of an irresistable drawing.

my experience was that God had been drawing me for at least 10 years before i came to Christ. when i converted, i still resisted, but continued to grow in Him neverthtless.

not that my experience proves anything, since it could indeed be interpreted in a Calvinist framework. (my experience actually led me to take on a Semipelagian view at first!)

A. Under the Arminian system, can a person who rejects Christ fully and completely be saved and does TULIP accurately describe the salvation of this group of people?

a person who rejects Christ is not saved, by definition. they could be, but it isn't necessitated. believers are saved. Arminians would reject U, L, I, and for most P under any circumstance.

to turn it around, is it possible in Calvinism for one who is nonelect to be saved?

B. Is there a reason why the Arminian should not accept TULIP under these limiting circumstances?

it's hard to understand what you are asking. there are reasons to reject U, L, I, and P absolutely. i can go into detail if you wish.

C. Is there any reason why a Calvinist should not believe that he fully and completely rejected Christ and that TULIP applies to him?

Biblically, or experiencially? if i understand now what you are asking, i would doubt that God wasn't working on your heart prior to your conversion. since this would be true under either systematic, the fact that the Calvinist "fully and completely rejected Christ" at some point prior to conversion is inconclusive. God clearly brought the Calvinist to the point where he became a believer. whether he did by choice is another matter.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
1. Calvinism is efficiently described by TULIP. The presumption is that the T (Total Depravity) is true and that Total Depravity rules the decisions of man regarding Christ. If this is true, then the rest follows as a matter of logic.

Sheepdog
but, as i have been told, there is more to Calvinism than TULIP. TULIP, after all, was a response to the 5 Remonstrant Articles.

The story they tell in Calvinist circles is that the Remonstrants developed their 5 articles in response to what the Calvinists were teaching (the dominant theology of that day). The Calvinists then responded to the Remonstrant articles in their logical, orderly manner with 5 points to clarify the differences between the two groups. While there is more to what Calvin taught, I think it fair to say that, in the minds of most people, salvation is all that really matters and it all comes down to TULIP.

rhutchin
2. The Arminians challenged the idea that Total Depravity MUST rule the decisions of man regarding Christ. They say that God negates Total Depravity in some manner through something called prevenient grace (a concept that I find difficult to define fully).

Sheepdog
Prevenient Grace merely means "grace that goes before." it's actually a hand-me-down from Calvinism, which holds to a kind of previent grace, though it is irresistable.

we both agree that God must do His thing in the heart of a man before he could ever believe. We Arminians just don't think this work is irresistable, and indeed it has been resisted, Biblically (Is. 5:1-4).

What the Arminians think is somewhat fuzzy. Isaiah 5 suggests many things but not necessarily “prevenient” grace. Isaiah 1:2 and Ezek 20:21 speak of Israel as children who have rebelled against their father. Isaiah 5 follows that same context. It is not God’s grace that is in mind here but his lavish provision for Israel and their disdain for Him despite this. These verses describe the concept of Total Depravity. They have nothing to do with prevenient grace (I guess we will disagree on this point).

rhutchin
3. Absent Total Depravity’s rule over man, Arminians claim that some people will accept Christ and some people will reject Christ. If people reject Christ, then they seem to be again ruled by Total Depravity and the Calvinist system comes into play.

Sheepdog
depends. do you mean the are ruled again after they reject Christ? it certainly isn't inconsistent with Arminianism, though i believe that God generally doesn't give up after being rejected.

The point that I sought to make is that comparing the Arminian system with the Calvinist system is like comparing apples and oranges. The Arminians describe what is happening at point A while the Calvinists describe point B. I compared the two only in an attempt to show that they apply in different situations. The Arminians speak of men at the point where they accept or reject Christ. The Calvinists speak of men after that point where they have rejected Christ.

rhutchin
4. The issue then is whether God overrides Total Depravity in some manner that allows people to exercise Libertarian Free Will or some other free will in order to accept or not-accept Christ.

Sheepdog
this could be. note that God would also have to "override" T to irresistably regenerate a sinner under the Calvinist system.

i, however, don't believe that one's depravity is "overridden." (though, you should define that term so we may know we are on the same page). it is possible, i believe, for God to draw the sinner even while in his depravity. i see no reason why an omnipotent God cannot, and i am convinced by Scripture that this is so.

Agreed. Here, I am fuzzy on what the Arminians mean by “prevenient grace.” I do not know exactly what it does or is supposed to do.

rhutchin
5. The filter that Calvinists look through (if there really is one and which may incorporate bias into their thinking) is their salvation experience. A Calvinist sees no way in which he choose Christ; his recollection is one of complete and total rejection of Christ. His decision to follow Christ then could only have resulted from an outside force (God) doing something to cause him to follow Christ. If Arminianism were true, the Calvinist was among that group of people who rejected Christ and could only be saved by an act of God.

Sheepdog
this is why Experience is a bad substitute teacher. i would argue that it only seemed like you couldn't choose God, but perhaps the change from prechristian to Christian was so drastic for them that it had the appearance of an irresistable drawing.

my experience was that God had been drawing me for at least 10 years before i came to Christ. when i converted, i still resisted, but continued to grow in Him neverthtless.

not that my experience proves anything, since it could indeed be interpreted in a Calvinist framework. (my experience actually led me to take on a Semipelagian view at first!)

Agreed. Experience is normally a bad indicator because it proves nothing. However, I would tend to think that all those who are saved have uniquely different experiences from those who are not saved. The question is why the different experiences? Nonetheless, the Calvinists I talk to (those who came to Christ after childhood) relate pretty much the same story as you. They could never really say, No.

rhutchin
A. Under the Arminian system, can a person who rejects Christ fully and completely be saved and does TULIP accurately describe the salvation of this group of people?

Sheepdog
a person who rejects Christ is not saved, by definition. they could be, but it isn't necessitated. believers are saved. Arminians would reject U, L, I, and for most P under any circumstance.

to turn it around, is it possible in Calvinism for one who is nonelect to be saved?

Under Calvinism, it is not possible for one who is nonelect to be saved (But these are people who reject Christ and are not saved under the Arminian system either – The Arminian would also tag them as nonelect but for different reasons). What I was trying to identify is that group of people who would be lost under the Arminian system because Calvinism would apply to such people. I guess my question is whether the Arminian would object to God violating someone’s free will and saving someone who otherwise would be lost under the Arminian system and doing so as described by ULIP.

[trueseeker]

rhutchin asked: So, my questions (related to what Trueseeker said)—

A. Under the Arminian system, can a person who rejects Christ fully and completely be saved and does TULIP accurately describe the salvation of this group of people?

trueseeker: The majority of Christians reject and resist God's call for sometime before they eventually give in, admit their guilt and shame and asked Him to come in and change their lives. However, the one who rejects Christ to the end, will not be saved.
______________________

B. Is there a reason why the Arminian should not accept TULIP under these limiting circumstances?

trueseeker: My point regarding the filters we look through to find truth, is that when doctrines are set above the Bible, the Bible is interpreted to fit them, instead of using the Bible to determine if the doctrines are accurate or not. The Bible has been given to us to continually review doctrine to determine it's accuracy. All of the scripture needs to fit together and make sense in context for a doctrine to be accurate. The TULIP doctrines, IMHO do not fit with all scripture in context, so verses must be taken out of context or explained away as meaningless. This doesn't seem to bother most Calvinists (that I have discussed the topic with) as long as the TULIP doctrines are intact. My point is that they have accepted those doctrines as a higher authority than the Bible. If the Bible was a higher authority to them than their Calvinist doctrines, they would become much more concerned that they might not be completely accurate, and much less dogmatic about them, because there are many more places in the Bible which make statements which oppose these doctrinal beliefs, than there are which sound like they support them. If they could get the Bible back as a higher authority than the TULIP doctrines least they would admit that these beliefs are a matter of interpretation instead of absolute truth.
___________________________

C. Is there any reason why a Calvinist should not believe that he fully and completely rejected Christ and that TULIP applies to him?

trueseeker: Obviously no one can answer for the experience of all, or even most Calvinists, but it seems to me that the Calvinist friends I have talked to, have a conversion story where they accepted Christ. Their conversion stories seem indistinguishable to me from non-Calvinists ones, everyone seems to say God was calling them and drawing them with His grace or they never would have accepted Him.

[geebob]

Those who reject Christ (all of them, as it turns out) show the hypothetical situation to be imaginary and that Total Depravity is never negated.

It shows no such thing. In the libertarian moment, one truly can go one way or the other. That he goes a certain way doesn't then negate that he could have done otherwise.

Depravity may not be negated, but you still don't have the doctrine of total depravity where by one cannot choose to accept Christ unless God makes it certain for him to do so. God didn't make it certain for him, but in arminianism, you still have it that God made it really possible and accessible for that person.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin asked: So, my questions (related to what Trueseeker said)—

A. Under the Arminian system, can a person who rejects Christ fully and completely be saved and does TULIP accurately describe the salvation of this group of people?

trueseeker: The majority of Christians reject and resist God's call for sometime before they eventually give in, admit their guilt and shame and asked Him to come in and change their lives. However, the one who rejects Christ to the end, will not be saved.

rhutchin: Agreed. The issue then is: How much is God involved in this and is His involvement the difference between one person being saved and another lost?

______________________

B. Is there a reason why the Arminian should not accept TULIP under these limiting circumstances?

trueseeker: My point regarding the filters we look through to find truth, is that when doctrines are set above the Bible, the Bible is interpreted to fit them, instead of using the Bible to determine if the doctrines are accurate or not. The Bible has been given to us to continually review doctrine to determine it's accuracy. All of the scripture needs to fit together and make sense in context for a doctrine to be accurate. The TULIP doctrines, IMHO do not fit with all scripture in context, so verses must be taken out of context or explained away as meaningless. This doesn't seem to bother most Calvinists (that I have discussed the topic with) as long as the TULIP doctrines are intact. My point is that they have accepted those doctrines as a higher authority than the Bible. If the Bible was a higher authority to them than their Calvinist doctrines, they would become much more concerned that they might not be completely accurate, and much less dogmatic about them, because there are many more places in the Bible which make statements which oppose these doctrinal beliefs, than there are which sound like they support them. If they could get the Bible back as a higher authority than the TULIP doctrines least they would admit that these beliefs are a matter of interpretation instead of absolute truth.

rhutchin: However, doctrines are originally generated by something that the Bible says. TULIP reflects some very clear teachings in the Scriptures. When you say that all Scripture do not fit tightly into TULIP, you are correct, but those Scriptures also do not really fit tightly into any other system. They tend to be suggestive of things that are not clearly stated in other Scriptures. The Calvinists, at least, start with what is clearly stated and let the more obtuse Scriptures ride this context.
___________________________

C. Is there any reason why a Calvinist should not believe that he fully and completely rejected Christ and that TULIP applies to him?

trueseeker: Obviously no one can answer for the experience of all, or even most Calvinists, but it seems to me that the Calvinist friends I have talked to, have a conversion story where they accepted Christ. Their conversion stories seem indistinguishable to me from non-Calvinists ones, everyone seems to say God was calling them and drawing them with His grace or they never would have accepted Him.

rhutchin: Agreed. Undeterminable from experience is the role that God played in that experience.

[rhutchin]

rhutchinThose who reject Christ (all of them, as it turns out) show the hypothetical situation to be imaginary and that Total Depravity is never negated.

geebob
It shows no such thing. In the libertarian moment, one truly can go one way or the other. That he goes a certain way doesn't then negate that he could have done otherwise.

Depravity may not be negated, but you still don't have the doctrine of total depravity where by one cannot choose to accept Christ unless God makes it certain for him to do so. God didn't make it certain for him, but in arminianism, you still have it that God made it really possible and accessible for that person.

Agreed. However, discussing Calvinism and Arminianism is like discussing apples and oranges. They are not opposing systems of salvation as much as different systems of salvation.

Explaining this to Armenians is difficult, so I constructed a crude example to show the difference. You rightly exposed the flaws of my example, so let’s leave it at that.

The point is that the Arminians adhere to the idea of Total Depravity which they admit prevents any from accepting Christ. There are two ways around Total Depravity. The Arminians deal with T by requiring God to somehow negate it (or do something with it) that allows a person to accept Christ. The Calvinists deal with it in somewhat the same manner except that the outcome is certain.

The issue is how God makes it really possible and accessible for a person to accept Christ without being the cause of a person accepting Christ. Since a person starts from a position of rejecting Christ, then we can conclude that God’s action was the cause behind those accepting Christ (unless you can identify another cause not influenced by God). The difficulty is in dealing with those who reject Christ. They start out rejecting Christ. They end up rejecting Christ. Did anything happen in between? What proof do the Armenians offer for this?

[trueseeker]

rhutchin wrote: However, doctrines are originally generated by something that the Bible says. TULIP reflects some very clear teachings in the Scriptures. When you say that all Scripture do not fit tightly into TULIP, you are correct, but those Scriptures also do not really fit tightly into any other system. They tend to be suggestive of things that are not clearly stated in other Scriptures. The Calvinists, at least, start with what is clearly stated and let the more obtuse Scriptures ride this context.

trueseeker: This is where I see the main problem. Calvinists believe what you have just stated, that they start with what is clearly stated in certain Scriptural text, so Scriptures that appear to disagree must not be clearly stated. Because they come to a set conclusion on their doctrine based on only part of the Scriptures, then view all the other scriptures through their TULIP filter other Scriptures that don't fit into these doctrines are unclear or must not mean what it sounds like they are saying. Where as if they kept their doctrines in the proper line of authority, under the Bible instead of above it, it would be clear that they need to be adjusted, because they don't fit with everything the Bible says.

This is not a uncommon problem that only Calvinists have, many (probably most) groups do this with some topic. The 'name it, and claim it' bunch found some Scripture they think is very clear, saying Christians should live like king's kids, being rich and getting what they want. That doctrine then becomes a higher authority than the rest of the Scriptures, so the Scriptures that disagree are unclear. The, 'you must speak in tongues to be filled with the Holy Spirit' groups, built that on what they think are clear Scripture. The Seventh Day Adventist, base that they should keep the Sabbath day holy and the OT law on several verses that appear very clear, then view the rest of the Scripture through that doctrine. So on and so on, almost every denominational group has at least one such doctrine that now supersedes the Bible. The problem is that those doctrines can never be properly reevaluated, adjusted and come into balance once they become a higher authority than the Bible, they must be kept under the authority of the Bible, and seen through the Bible filter, instead of the Bible being viewed through them.

IMO the TULIP doctrines do not stand up to the light of the Bible, they need to be adjusted, because the Bible in many places clearly states the opposite of many of these doctrines. Sound doctrine, needs to be based on all the Scriptures fitting together. It reminds me of my Dad, who never read instructions and always had parts left over after something was put together. I could never have confidence that the things were put together properly, and typically whatever it was wouldn't work properly, so it had to be taken back apart and rebuilt. It is the same with TULIP doctrines, Calvin did not fully understand the instruction manual, and there are many parts left over, and the TULIP doctrines don't work quite right to represent the Bible.

[geebob]

Agreed. However, discussing Calvinism and Arminianism is like discussing apples and oranges. They are not opposing systems of salvation as much as different systems of salvation.

it's not apples and oranges in that case as it would be red deliciouse's and mcintoshes. (not that your apple doesn't have a nasty grubby worm in it...reprobation). enough of that tangent though.

The issue is how God makes it really possible and accessible for a person to accept Christ without being the cause of a person accepting Christ. Since a person starts from a position of rejecting Christ, then we can conclude that God’s action was the cause behind those accepting Christ (unless you can identify another cause not influenced by God).

drop causal determinism and the problem disappears. As for the evidence, our evidence is scripture. yes that's debatable and no I'm not asking to bring it up. my point is, you give a sequence of events and then ask where the evidence is. Well not all evidence derives directly from the empirical evidence. systems are always imposed on the empirical evidence. There is nothing about this sequence: man is in rebellion, God offers a chance, man rejects... there is nothing there that gives evidence one way or another for determinism or libertarianism. now we can thow one more peice of evidence in the mix, a fella may think during God's offer "gee, I almost choose that choice, it really really looked viable and I really could have choosen other than I really did" and you got another piece of evidence that fits quite nicely in the libertarian interpretation. the question is, was this persons sense that he really could've accepted christ illusory or was it legitimate. Well the calvinist must commit himself to the notion that all such cognitive experiences are illusory. The free will theist however can insist that such thinking is so natural and so basic that it is a gratuitous skepticism that would insist that such thoughts are illusory. And the worse the skepticism, the less likely it is to be fully rational (and I mean rational in a broad sense, not the narrow sense of logically sound and valid).

[rhutchin]

rhutchin wrote: However, doctrines are originally generated by something that the Bible says. TULIP reflects some very clear teachings in the Scriptures. When you say that all Scripture do not fit tightly into TULIP, you are correct, but those Scriptures also do not really fit tightly into any other system. They tend to be suggestive of things that are not clearly stated in other Scriptures. The Calvinists, at least, start with what is clearly stated and let the more obtuse Scriptures ride this context.

trueseeker: This is where I see the main problem. Calvinists believe what you have just stated, that they start with what is clearly stated in certain Scriptural text, so Scriptures that appear to disagree must not be clearly stated. Because they come to a set conclusion on their doctrine based on only part of the Scriptures, then view all the other scriptures through their TULIP filter other Scriptures that don't fit into these doctrines are unclear or must not mean what it sounds like they are saying. Where as if they kept their doctrines in the proper line of authority, under the Bible instead of above it, it would be clear that they need to be adjusted, because they don't fit with everything the Bible says.

This is not a uncommon problem that only Calvinists have, many (probably most) groups do this with some topic. The 'name it, and claim it' bunch found some Scripture they think is very clear, saying Christians should live like king's kids, being rich and getting what they want. That doctrine then becomes a higher authority than the rest of the Scriptures, so the Scriptures that disagree are unclear. The, 'you must speak in tongues to be filled with the Holy Spirit' groups, built that on what they think are clear Scripture. The Seventh Day Adventist, base that they should keep the Sabbath day holy and the OT law on several verses that appear very clear, then view the rest of the Scripture through that doctrine. So on and so on, almost every denominational group has at least one such doctrine that now supersedes the Bible. The problem is that those doctrines can never be properly reevaluated, adjusted and come into balance once they become a higher authority than the Bible, they must be kept under the authority of the Bible, and seen through the Bible filter, instead of the Bible being viewed through them.

IMO the TULIP doctrines do not stand up to the light of the Bible, they need to be adjusted, because the Bible in many places clearly states the opposite of many of these doctrines. Sound doctrine, needs to be based on all the Scriptures fitting together. It reminds me of my Dad, who never read instructions and always had parts left over after something was put together. I could never have confidence that the things were put together properly, and typically whatever it was wouldn't work properly, so it had to be taken back apart and rebuilt. It is the same with TULIP doctrines, Calvin did not fully understand the instruction manual, and there are many parts left over, and the TULIP doctrines don't work quite right to represent the Bible.

rhutchin
Romans 3;10-11 has--
There is no one righteous, not even one,
there is no one who understands,
there is no one who seeks God.

This is quoted by Paul from the Psalms. It seems pretty clear and direct and is used by Calvinists to support the doctrine of Total Depravity.

You say above, "IMO the TULIP doctrines do not stand up to the light of the Bible, they need to be adjusted, because the Bible in many places clearly states the opposite of many of these doctrines."

What verse do you think states the opposite?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The issue is how God makes it really possible and accessible for a person to accept Christ without being the cause of a person accepting Christ. Since a person starts from a position of rejecting Christ, then we can conclude that God’s action was the cause behind those accepting Christ (unless you can identify another cause not influenced by God).

geebob
drop causal determinism and the problem disappears…There is nothing about this sequence: man is in rebellion, God offers a chance, man rejects... there is nothing there that gives evidence one way or another for determinism or libertarianism...

OK, let’s drop causal determinism for the sake of argument.

You have two people who both reject Christ. Then on accepts Christ while the other continues to reject Christ.

We should be able to tie “something” to the change that occurred in the one person. What do the Arminians attribute this to? Is there any reason to believe that anything has happened to the person who shows no change in decision?