5 Point Calvanism

[Christ's Free Servant]

My husband and I are attending a PCA Church. We like the preaching and our grandchildren attend there and we like going to church with them. We are non-denominational, meaning we don't claim any denomination, not even non-denominational churches. So, we just go where we can serve God and be fed spiritually.

This weekend we attended an Inquirer's Seminar for the purpose of learning what the church believes, practices, etc. We are happy with the teaching that comes from the pulpit and have begun to involve ourselves in the ministries of the church. Nonetheless, we are struggling with the whole 5 point Calvanist thing.

I have the scriptures supporting this theology. What I'm looking for are scriptures that dispute this theology point by point. We believe that we should test everything we hear, and we want to test this against the Word of God. In order to do that, we want to look at both sides to the issue.

If you could help by supplying me with scriptures that contrast or dispute 5 point Calvanism, I would appreciate it.

Please, no arguing. Thanks so much!

[apothanein kerdos]

My husband and I are attending a PCA Church. We like the preaching and our grandchildren attend there and we like going to church with them. We are non-denominational, meaning we don't claim any denomination, not even non-denominational churches. So, we just go where we can serve God and be fed spiritually.

This weekend we attended an Inquirer's Seminar for the purpose of learning what the church believes, practices, etc. We are happy with the teaching that comes from the pulpit and have begun to involve ourselves in the ministries of the church. Nonetheless, we are struggling with the whole 5 point Calvanist thing.

I have the scriptures supporting this theology. What I'm looking for are scriptures that dispute this theology point by point. We believe that we should test everything we hear, and we want to test this against the Word of God. In order to do that, we want to look at both sides to the issue.

If you could help by supplying me with scriptures that contrast or dispute 5 point Calvanism, I would appreciate it.

Please, no arguing. Thanks so much!

If you go to www.erguncaner.com October 16, 6pm (eastern time i think) you can hear a live debate on Calvinism. In it, you'll learn more than you possibly could here (I hope).

[Joy in the Journey]

Hello Sue. I am not a follower of Calvin's teachings and am not sure what his 5 points are. I remember this coming up in another thread but am not sure where it is. Could you post the 5 points? That will make it easier to attempt to defend or refute it.

From what I have seen in the past, there are not that many that accept pure Calvanism. Even most Baptists only hold to part of his original teachings, so you will probably get a wide range of answers. The only group I know of that holds to Calvanism in it's entirety is the Primitive Baptist Church.

You brought up Calvanism and don't want any arguing? If there is no arguing with regard to such a contentious subject, I will be pleasantly surprised.

Hey Butero,

In this forum there is a "sticky thread" at the top discussing the 5 points of Calvinism in contrast to Arminisim- it explains the differences in detail.

Just a friendly FYI in case you didn't see it

Love in Christ,

Tim

[LadyRaven]

Hello Sue. I am not a follower of Calvin's teachings and am not sure what his 5 points are. I remember this coming up in another thread but am not sure where it is. Could you post the 5 points? That will make it easier to attempt to defend or refute it.

From what I have seen in the past, there are not that many that accept pure Calvanism. Even most Baptists only hold to part of his original teachings, so you will probably get a wide range of answers. The only group I know of that holds to Calvanism in it's entirety is the Primitive Baptist Church.

You brought up Calvanism and don't want any arguing? If there is no arguing with regard to such a contentious subject, I will be pleasantly surprised.

It can be a contentious subject, but I have seen it successfully debated without acrimony a few times. Of course the ones discussing it were all jokesters...

Presbyterian churches and the Reformed churches hold to calvinism even more so than primitive baptists because calvin was also into paedobaptism, baptists by definition are not.

the five points: (Acronymn=TULIP... I've also seen it called the doctrines of Grace and the acronymn GRACE also)

1. T - Total Depravity: (Also called Radical Corruption) Man is born spiritually dead and cannot come to salving faith on his own at all. He's not sick with sin, he's dead. Therefore...your new heart must come before you actually "accept" Christ.

2. U - Unconditional Election: There is nothing, not even a decision, that you can do which makes you worthy of salvation, therefore salvation is given based on God's good pleasure and not because we've done anything at all.

3. L - Limited Atonement: Jesus work on the cross was "enough" for all persons, but not effective for all.

4. I - Irressistable Grace: Your will is bound to whoever controls your nature. Before you are given your new heart, you are bound to sin and cannot then choose God. After your new heart, you are bound to Christ and thus unable not to choose Him.

5. P - Perseverance of the Saints - Those who come to true faith will endure until the end, because your will is bound to Christ.

Of course, the opposite of this would be "Arminianism" with the Acronym "DAISY" but I'll have to look for the meaning of that acronym...

I can supply scriptural support for TULIP, if necessary. I'll leave some else to defend DAISY.

[Christ's Free Servant]

I am going to give just ONE BIG THANK YOU to all who responded so far!! Yes, after I posted this I noticed there was an ongoing debate on the subject above, and have begun to read it. After reading both points of view (I've not read the whole thread yet), I can say that I feel I probably lean more towards the Arminian theology than Calvanistic theology, but feel there are legitimate reasons Biblically for both views. But, I truly have a difficult time accepting hardline Calvanism.

At the Inquirer's Seminar, we were handed a copy of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The pastor gave a brief summary of it, but they are definitely Calvanistic all the way. And, they believe in infant baptism as a covenant relationship with God made by the parents on behalf of the child prior to the time in the life of the child when he/she can make that decision for himself/herself. They believe if the child decides not to accept Christ as Savior, then the child has then broken covenant with God. I have a hard time with this one, as well.

The thing is, you don't really hear this being preached from the pulpit. They really preach good sermons that spur people to live godly lives. That is why we like the church. We feel they do not compromise the gospel as so many churches do. And, we are growing in our faith through the teaching of the Word there.

Anyway, thanks for all the input. I'm reading through Romans right now, since that seems to be their main focal point for predestination teaching. I'm praying and seeking God's face and am asking God for understanding. This is good, because it is challenging me in my faith.

[darski]

Since only about 95% of the current heresies in the Church spring from the parent Aminian Heresy, I'm sure it makes sense to choose to go that way.

It is interesting that you only want information that would prove your teachers to be in error. Why is testing to find the truth of what they say not on your list of things to do today?

[LadyRaven]

Since only about 95% of the current heresies in the Church spring from the parent Aminian Heresy, I'm sure it makes sense to choose to go that way.

It is interesting that you only want information that would prove your teachers to be in error. Why is testing to find the truth of what they say not on your list of things to do today?

Woah Nellie. Heresy?????

Arminianism is wrong on just about everything, but it is still firmly within the realm of Orthodoxy. Arminianism is not even Semi Pelagian.

Don't use the H word unless it really is heresy. It is unconscionable (or however you spell that) to place about half our brothers and sisters in Christ outside the camp on false charges. This is just plain wrong.

[darski]

It was the early reformed church that decided this. I am just reporting on it today

The system of doctrine known as Arminianism is heresy. It is an offshoot from Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. It has been adversely affecting the church and its doctrine for over 250 years. Men like Finney and Wesley, being the charismatic personalities they were, propagated the doctrine and resurrected the Pelagian error from the pit of hell once again to persecute the church of Christ. Today's Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/Arminianism.htm

The article goes on to say that each possibly heretical church/doctrine must be examined... but they are all fruit of the poisoned tree.

[Christ's Free Servant]

Since only about 95% of the current heresies in the Church spring from the parent Aminian Heresy, I'm sure it makes sense to choose to go that way.

It is interesting that you only want information that would prove your teachers to be in error. Why is testing to find the truth of what they say not on your list of things to do today?

I believe I already explained that I have in my possession the Westminster Confession of Faith, so I have the scriptures that support Calvan's 5 points. So, I want scriptures on the other side so that I can compare them and can pray over them. The only way I can test if what they are saying is true is if I examine not only the scriptures they give me supporting their theology, but if I also examine scriptures with the opposing viewpoint. Since, I don't have a copy of the Arminian theology book, I went here to see if anyone could help me with scriptures that would refute or would present the opposing view for comparison purposes, not to try to prove anyone wrong.

Does that make sense?

[Christ's Free Servant]

So why am I supposed to accept this as fact, just because the early reformed church decided it? I would simply respond that they are wrong. I have my own copy of scripture, have read it for myself, and disagree with the conclusions of those you are quoting.

I Corinthians 1:10-17: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe