« How To Deal With Calvinism: The Arbuckle Answer | Main | Knowing God's Will: A Sermon by Peter Lumpkins »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


WOW Peter,
Yuou blew me away there.. you subscribe to all 5 points of tulip (as expressed by the sidebar articles)?
could have knocked me over with a feather...
by the way, I have similar problem as I know you do with militant doctrinaire calvinism.. I think it more reflects an insecure faith, than a vibrant reconciled relationship with the Lord and Saviour.
If anything, the hybrid doctrinairres seem to lack assurance...




I trust your Lord's Day sermon mighty in the Scriptures.

So, you're blown away, ah, my Brother? Well, of course I subscribe to them! But, note I said 'the petal as written there':

  • T: "This doesn't mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one's being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself." Absolutely no NonCalvinist evangelical would question this. No one affirms man can save himself, do they?
  • U: "God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit." I asked a well-known Calvinist blogger to name one and only one Evangelical Arminian theologian/teacher who believed God chose men/women based on their own merit. Besides not answering, he threatened to walk me to the door of his blog. I cannot name an Arminian that believes anything other than Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and it's entirely through His meritorious Work on the Cross that any person can or ever will be saved.
  • L: This is a bit tricky. "The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect." Indeed it was. NonCalvinists affirm this. Of course, the kicker is, NonCalvinists believe more than not less than this. NonCalvinists believe His blood vicariously shed covered not only the 'elect' but also 'being the Lamb of God', He 'takes away the sin of the world'
  • I: "When God has chosen to save someone, He will." Surely. God chooses to save all those who turn from their sin and trust in Christ and will not not save them.
  • P: "Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will
    continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time." While this is arguably the biggest theological gap between Calvinists and NonCalvinists, it is a gap that is only relative. As I noted in the post earlier, granted it may be that most evangelical Arminians today confessionally affirm 'falling from grace' or 'conditional perseverance', embracing such wholesale historically is not unanimous beginning with Arminius.

Grace, Grosey. With that, I am...



Thanks Peter,
I see the caveats :)


Will you be having caveats with those tulips today sir? May I recommend the non-caveat section of our restaurant?



Now, my brother. You realize there's no caveats here--perhaps a spin or two but never caveat. Caveats are our brother Wade's thing:^)

Grace, my friend. With that, I am...


Chris Gilliam

As I commented in a previous post, there can be room for two. Your dialog with Grosey proves point. I think if the militant Calvinist and militant Non-Calvanist would focus more on pointing people to Christ as opposed to attempting to bend arm backward force one to their views, then we might start getting some where together.
I must say, I like the creative caligraphy you use to write Tulip on your peice of cake. I hope you can like the block letters I put on my psice of the cake.


Chris Gilliam

Sorry for th typos. "Peice" and "psice" as supposed to read "piece"- Cold hands need hot coffee!

John Daly

I believe the "shot heard around the world" was fired by the students of Arminius who developed their five points or remonstrances a year after Jacob died(sp). Jacob was the student of Beza who was the student of Calvin. I don't know much about Beza (nothing really) but if Beza did hold to all of Calvin's teachings, I'm sure young Jacob was certainly a burr in his saddle.



Do not feal badd abut thi tipoz. THay can happin to enny off uz.


Though I surely am no expert on either Arminius or scholastic Calvinism, I think Beza and Arminius were on differing platforms. At least some of their differences was whether Calvin could be scholastized indicative of Beza's approach.

Grace. With that, I am...


J. Dale Weaver


THanks for sharing this article above. It's humorous when I tell Calvinists that I, as an RA (Reformed Arminian) believe wholeheartedly in Calvin's understanding of God's sovereignty and man's depravity.

Of course, so did Arminius! Far too many have learned about Arminius from OTHER Calvinists with an axe to grind, not from actually having read what Arminius wrote. He considered himself a thorough-going "Reformed Christian," believing all the "Sola's" of the Reformation. His enemies, however, simply accused him and the generation or Arminians that followed as "Semi-Pelagians." Quite wrong -- if one takes the time to read the "Remonstrance." The Calvinists at Dort didn't read it, many Calvinists today haven't either. Sad, since we agree on quite a bit more than they give credit for.

You are correct that Arminius never denied Point 5 of TULIP: THe Perseverance of the Saints. He did indeed question it and say it needed further study. The fact that most SB Preachers affirm all that Arminians do, with the exception of Point 5, is fascinating -- and embarrassing to not a few I'd bet.

Point 5 would be better explained in terms of Reformed Arminianism as the "Possibility of Apostasy," or at least labeled "Perseverance of the Saints?" But hey -- that's another discussion for another day!



peter lumpkins


Thanks for your input. I too have found as you have described: some are quite surprised Arminius affirmed--albeit the necessity of previenient grace--'deadness in sin' apart from Christ every bit as much as the strongest Calvinist.

And, you are correct--the possibility of apostasy is another question...perhaps in a post on Dale Moody ;^)

Peace. With that, I am...




i would humbly suggest that this young man did not find comfort and peace in calvinism, but simply in the bible. if he's trusting in calvinistic theology, then his trust is in the wrong thing.

in all reality, he found comfort and peace in coming out of the pentecostal extremes that he was in, and in understanding the sovereignty of God as set forth in the bible.

of course, my prayer for him is that one day he will grow in his faith to the point to see beyond the five points to just simply see the bible. that he wont do as so many young men who are into five point calvinism as an overreaction. i've seen many, many young men get into the five points because they go from one extreme to the other. they left either a pentecostal background, or else they left a baptist church that was a shallow, almost "arminian," type of church where they never even heard of the doctrines of election and predestination. and so, they tend to go into extreme calvinism as an overreaction.

and really, peter, aint that true about a lot of things in life? people tend to leave one extreme and then go to the other? like, in our church history...all you heard was hellfire and brimstone preaching around these parts where i live. then, the pendulum swung, and all you heard about was the love of God. also, look at all the fads in theology that pastors and churches get into. they go from one thing to the next as being the "most important" things that a church should do. we go from evangelism to missions to feeding the hungry to church growth to seeker friendly to whatevers coming down the creek next. or, its like, a youngster grows up in a drunkards home, sees the harm and damage that alcohol does, and then he's leading the charge against alcohol. you know what i mean.


The comments to this entry are closed.