- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,927
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
I like Calvinism.....
I like the passionate embrace of Monergism.... and heaven knows, Luther and Calvin were very close brothers (not identical twins, however, lol).
And I find that at the root of much of TULIP is something good and right and biblical: Monergism.
The problem, IMO, is a radicalism that uses "speculation" to take things too far and at times end up in direct contradiction of Scripture and at other times simply find themselves with nothing in support. There is a reason why the traditional understanding of TULIP was NEVER widely embraced in Calvinism and today is largely repudiated as "hyper-Calvinism." My wife, raised in a conservative Reformed church, indicates to me that TULIP is rarely mentioned and generally regarded as interesting speculation but simply unfounded. She doesn't mention "Four Point TULIP" or "Three Point TULIP" but rather than TULIP was a radical invention of a few latter-day Calvinists and just went too far. That's my perspective, too.
Calvinists are wonderful when they stick to Monergism, to Scripture, and agree to Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - SOLA FIDE. And the great majority of Calvinists do just that. When they get into all this radical, unbiblical SPECULATION, all in a tight interconnected system ("A is right so B ergo must be right and ergo C must be right") - even if it contradicts Scripture - well, that's when they loose me. And when they insist that there can be only two positions: the radical new inventions of Arminianism in the 16th Century OR the radical new inventions of TULIP in the late 16th Century, nothing else exists, well... that's just silly and not true. NO, TULIP is not right simply because the opposite speculation by a few hyper-Arminianists is clearly wrong.
That's my hope for you. That you'll stop simply blindly parroting the (terrible) "logic" and speculations of a tiny few latter-day hyper-Calvinists and instead give us the Scripture. Where does the Bible say that God's grace is irresistable? Oh, and still waiting for the verse that says, "Jesus died only for the church." Yes, you are very good at verbatim parroting the position of TULIP but you don't show anything in the Bible that agrees and you just twist 180 degrees all that state the opposite (where such exists). And when someone suggest we go to the bible instead, you shout how horrible "proof texting" is.
.
I like the passionate embrace of Monergism.... and heaven knows, Luther and Calvin were very close brothers (not identical twins, however, lol).
And I find that at the root of much of TULIP is something good and right and biblical: Monergism.
The problem, IMO, is a radicalism that uses "speculation" to take things too far and at times end up in direct contradiction of Scripture and at other times simply find themselves with nothing in support. There is a reason why the traditional understanding of TULIP was NEVER widely embraced in Calvinism and today is largely repudiated as "hyper-Calvinism." My wife, raised in a conservative Reformed church, indicates to me that TULIP is rarely mentioned and generally regarded as interesting speculation but simply unfounded. She doesn't mention "Four Point TULIP" or "Three Point TULIP" but rather than TULIP was a radical invention of a few latter-day Calvinists and just went too far. That's my perspective, too.
Calvinists are wonderful when they stick to Monergism, to Scripture, and agree to Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - SOLA FIDE. And the great majority of Calvinists do just that. When they get into all this radical, unbiblical SPECULATION, all in a tight interconnected system ("A is right so B ergo must be right and ergo C must be right") - even if it contradicts Scripture - well, that's when they loose me. And when they insist that there can be only two positions: the radical new inventions of Arminianism in the 16th Century OR the radical new inventions of TULIP in the late 16th Century, nothing else exists, well... that's just silly and not true. NO, TULIP is not right simply because the opposite speculation by a few hyper-Arminianists is clearly wrong.
MennoSota said:
That's my hope for you. That you'll stop simply blindly parroting the (terrible) "logic" and speculations of a tiny few latter-day hyper-Calvinists and instead give us the Scripture. Where does the Bible say that God's grace is irresistable? Oh, and still waiting for the verse that says, "Jesus died only for the church." Yes, you are very good at verbatim parroting the position of TULIP but you don't show anything in the Bible that agrees and you just twist 180 degrees all that state the opposite (where such exists). And when someone suggest we go to the bible instead, you shout how horrible "proof texting" is.
.
Last edited:
