The LILAC of Arminian and Non-Cal Theology

Matthew 11:25
[ The Father Revealed in the Son ] At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

John 14:24
Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

Proverbs 3:
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.[Or will direct your paths]

7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and shun evil.

John 7:39
By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

Romans 8:15
The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”

All I have is His word and that is all i need praise Jesus.

 

I am in unity as long as you don't throw me out. LOL


If it's done in love I can accept that. If it's done out of a desire to be right, I reject that. Our debates on this board should be about clearing up false doctrines and not about pride.

As far as the LILAC goes (I love lilacs btw), I will give you my perspective.

L - Limited Depravity (nope. we're messed up from head to toe)

I - I elect God (nope. He sought me and bought me, but not apart from my faith in Him, clearly a command from Him to repent and believe)

L - Limitless Atonement (hmmm. well I don't believe animals can be saved so that would make it limited right? LOL) I believe Christ died for the whole world, making it possible for all to be forgiven.

A – Arrestable* Grace (not sure what this is. Can grace be resisted? According to Stephen, yes)

C - Carnal Security (if this means we keep ourselves saved by our good works, then I reject it)


Ok. So what am I?

 

I find many teachers teaching is awesome one of the greatest is Spurgeon who will not change scripture to fit their doctrine. I do not listen to those who think their doctrine is more important than the inspired word of God.

We test all spirits by what?

 

Yep. You got me pegged! I never did fit in any particular mold. :laugh:

 

Baptist... :laugh:

Actualy, you are closest to Amyraldism.

The below is a summation from Hodge's Theology:

You are not alone in your views. Though Amyraut held to a Calvinist view that stipulated that regeneration must preceed faith, many Baptists, especialy those holding to a dispensational view, have abaondoned this point of doctrine and argue contra, i.e., that faith preceed regeneration. Something held only by Pelagians or by those who adopted Origien's thoughts preceeding Pelagius throughout the history of the church (generic).

For the record, Richard Baxter, a Middle Ages pastor of whom many have read held to a classical Amyraldism position. That teaching is most predominant today in IFB and similar Baptist churches with the caveat I suggested above, i.e., faith preceeds regeneration.

 

The thing is, the bible teaches both sovereign election and free will. Our will must be free to a certain extent because we were created in the image of God. Otherwise we are nothing more than chess pieces being moved about by God.
How God uses election and yet requires man to be responsible for his actions goes way beyond anything my puny mind can comprehend. And yet, it is all over scripture. Even the prince of preachers, C.H. Spurgeon could not fully comprehend it. I am certainly no better than he.

I know that God sought me. I also know that I asked Him to take over my life, repented and believed. How all this works is beyond me. But I am thankful for His love and mercy. Sometimes I think that I'll ask Him about it someday when we're face to face, but I doubt at that moment that I'll even care anymore.

 

Yes, i am s Spurgeon Calvinist, because of even with his doctrinal views he sees all as all, not like some of those like in this quote.

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

C.H. Spurgeon

 

Whew, that's a relief!

Must be since it contains my name. :laugh:

I don't think it is a "natural" ability. I believe it is a super natural, God given ability.

And yes, I believe faith precedes regeneration.

 

Advise from a dear friend / Jim 1999). Always keep absolute sovereignty at the top when examining any doctrines. Even the free will of man falls under absolute sovereignty, which we call the permissive will of God....."thus far an no further." If the concepts offered do not fit this they are foreign to the whole of scripture.

 

Huh? He was in the Puritan era;certainly not in the Middle Ages!

 

Oh boy, here we go again. Can't keep from defining others as deficient. But I guess that is part and parcel, when you think that you and yourself alone is the ONLY who could POSSIBLY be correct on ANYTHING theological.

 

Yeah! LILACs hadn't even been invented back then. Good grief.

:laugh::laugh:

 

Whoops... I know that. Top of mind stuff, didn't fact check myself. :laugh: