The LILAC of Arminian and Non-Cal Theology

Why is this so important to Calvinists? Are you doing it out of love? Do you fear for the salvation of non cals? What is the purpose? Why do you care what others believe? Why does it bother you so much if someone doesn't believe in the TULIP?
What is your motive for debating it?

 

I am doing it because this is a forum for theology debate. The Doctrines of Grace position held by myself and others on this board, called Calvinists, comes up for discussion and debate -- some would say outright attack -- on virtually a daily basis. Yet none who bring this debate TO Calvinists have ever (to the extent that I have read the board for the past year or so) brought up their own doctrinal framework, and more, they also disavow other doctrinal frameworks that are brought up for discussion such as the 5 Articles of the Remonstrance, the LILAC, etc.

I suggest merely that it is time to ask those who hold a different perspective to share their own doctrinal framework so AT LEAST the rest of us know where they stand.

That they either cannot or will not as the case may be, is reason to question the theological comprehension, cohesion, and coherence of the individuals that snipe and pick, yet cannot present in a positive sense their own framework.

 

PRCA?

Is that that microdenomination that Phil Johnson discusses in A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism?

 

I believe the points found it a lacking and very limited acrostic.

That I am a sinner, who Jesus came to save. My cost of my sin is death. I cannot pay this price and be saved. Jesus died for sinners, which I am the worst. Jesus paid my debt and anyone who trust in Jesus or turn to Him will be saved. I take this by faith God has given me through His word. We all are so different and God has to deal with each other differently but it is all to bring them to the knowledge of Jesus Christ our salvation.

I am saved in Christ.


Me believing I was chosen before the foundation of the world does not save me. That is still a belief of man that comes from His word, just like those who believe Jesus and are saved, but what Jesus Christ did on the cross is what saved me.

There is more to it than I can ever explain, but all I can do is give you what has revealed to me by God.

Psalm 73:28
But it is good for me to draw near to God; I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, That I may declare all Your works.

Romans 4:5
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

1 Peter 2:6
In Scripture it says, "Look! I am placing a stone in Zion. It is a chosen and very valuable stone. It is the most important stone in the building. The one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." —(Isaiah 28:16)

 

What in the world are you talking about? I have never said any such thing. I am not going to debate someone who intentionally misrepresents others views for the purpose of demonetization and belittling. I will spend time calling them out on their attacks on people of which they have no real knowledge about what they hold to. If you want a real debate you must first start with some honesty in your posting. The op fails that.

 

Huh, what?

I asked YOU to share your own doctrinal framework in a positive manner (in other words, own it and present it) instead of picking at other's doctrines.

I asked another poster to stop using "God in a box" as a cop out.

 

God in a box is not a cop out, it is exactly what points do, if anything is outside a box, it most be forced into that box.

 

We should know just like the TULIP there is more to God than the TULIP or one verse being preached on, but when we try to force all scripture into something than it is man trying to place God in a box and trying to sell Him on both camps.

 

I am not limited to a acrostics person because it is man trying to sell God into a camp and I have a right to my opinion.

To the OASAS issue this is how I see it.

1 John 2:
Warnings Against Denying the Son
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[Some manuscripts and you know all things] 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he promised us—eternal life.

26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

 

Awesome

What are you talking about. I am talking about the BB, have you seen anyone on here believe not in the OSAS or have you seen non-cals defend OSAS?

 

God is not in a box... He created the box.

So, now share... :wavey:

 

It is every word that comes from the mouth of God not limited to the points of men .

Can an infinite box exist?

 

They all are... None expresses the depths of the atoning work of Christ, but they are all a framework that expresses quickly for matter of reference where one stands on the larger issues.

Good start. Some here would not admit that they are sinners (or at least that they must be sinners!).

But, you are a tad generic in your response. To be effective as a theological framework you have to define a few of the terms you use. For instance, "sinner." Is that because you were born in original sin, and then committed acts of sin or is that because you were born free of original sin and later committed acts of sin. The definition is the heart of the doctrinal framework and makes a difference in the discussion.

Same goes for "whom Jesus save..." Did He save you before you asked or did you turn to Him for salvation and then He came?

Note that I am not picking on your points per se. They are common to what we all hear in our churches and even our pulpits virtually every Sunday and I do not disagree with a thing you have said. All is truth, but it is not truth that is put in a theological framework whereby we can understand the ordo salutis (order of salvation) which is primarily what we are discussing in this thread.

Amen!

See above.

Here you start in the exercise of developping a framework. You are taking a stand and saying that some events took place at some point in history.

Indeed... That is all any of us can give.

I would presume from the above cited verses (all great Bible verses!) that you hold to a point in your framework that stipulates that you chose Christ instead of Him chosing you by election before the foundation of the world. That is okay, for it is your framework.

 

Our universe is finite and IT is the box. God is the creator of the box and is infinite. So no, we cannot place God in a box, EVEN WHEN WE APPLY A THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK TO HIS ACTIONS.

I find your issues somewhat a dodge from the question at hand. I'd not fear placing God in a box by a theological framework.

Cannot one of the points be that INFINITE SOVEREIGN GOD CAN DO WHAT HE PLEASES? That certainly does not box in God at all, and yet I have found here on this board that somewhere around 60% of the respondents would disagree with that statement as an article in a doctrinal framework. I am most pleased, however, to add it to my own framework.