Article: Why Reductionist Five-point TULIP Calvinism is Bankrupt

[Robert R. Higby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_tulip

Supralapsarian
Eternal Justification
Apermissive Decree
Total Inability
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Preservation of the Saints

Why not?...

btw, look for this original to be plagiarized elsewhere on the internet (but watered down immensely) as soon as it is posted!

[GraceAmbassador]

Sounds fine by me!

[Highlyfavored]

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_tulip

Bob, please define:

Apermissive decree

Thanks, greg

[GraceAmbassador]

I know what you mean by APERMISSE, but I would call it ACTIVE DECREE, since the word ACTIVE implies the opposite of PASSIVE and includes APERMISSIVE.

Just a suggestion!

Thanks Bob!

[Robert R. Higby]

Great suggestion Milt! I had not thought of that angle yet. The reason I originally went with 'apermissive' (Greg--I meant 'against' or 'opposed to' any notion of permissive decree) was to clearly oppose the notion of a permissive decree in the strongest terms possible. But I think your idea will work if definitions are clarified. I don't think that all will see without explanation that 'Active Decree' automatically excludes 'Permissive Decree'--even though it logically and technically does.

The important issue here is to distinguish belief in a SINGLE positive decree of predestination (incorporating all history from the first moment to eternity future) from the DUAL (separate active and passive) decree notions of Fullerism. Any teaching of passive decree is in reality proposing the same view of history as Arminianism--one that is a mixture of active predestination purposed by God and passive foreknowledge hated (though reluctantly 'allowed' to happen) by God.

[Highlyfavored]

Thanks guys.

[rlhuckle]

Yours is much better than the one I was working on:

H igh Grace
Y
P redestinarian
E ternal Justification
R

I didn't get very far......

[Brandan Kraft]

Love it!

[Robert R. Higby]

Why Reductionist Five-point TULIP Calvinism is Bankrupt

Five-point TULIP Calvinism was formulated in response to the 1610 five articles of the Remonstrants, who were followers of Jacob Arminius. At the time of its assembly, when the Synod of Dort formulated TULIP, the issue of counteracting the five articles was paramount to continuing ANY semblance of a Reformation. The soteriology of the 16th century Reformation in essence counteracted the great apostasy prophesied by Paul conceived by the late 1st and 2nd century Church Fathers. For 14 centuries men in popular religious institutions called ‘Christian’ had attempted to destroy the pristine apostolic gospel.

Though the Synod of Dort scored a huge victory for gospel truth at the time of its occurrence, the pertinence of what was achieved is mostly ignored today. The rise of evangelicalism under the immensely popular teaching of Andrew Fuller mostly destroyed the practical impact of the synod of Dort. Though a tongue-in-cheek confession of the correctness of the 5 points still remains, for centuries Reformed Calvinists have shunned any doctrine of absolute, positive, double, and causative predestination of all events. In reality the Reformed churches hate such teachings. They embrace Arminians as full brethren in Christ and fellow evangelicals. This is because there is a common teaching of passive, non-causative predestination of sin among both. Both strains of evangelicalism cherish and promote a doctrine of God’s general love, common grace, bare foreknowledge of rebellion that is permissive but not caused, and the free offer of the gospel to reprobates.

The 5 Points deal with redemption as it occurs existentially within time. These confessional statements do not cover the broader issues of how salvation and reprobation are purposed and carried out from the Divine perspective. So we need an expansion of past fundamentals to include the greater reality of how God relates to all aspects of predestining redemptive history from the inception of time to eternity future.

Adding the points of Supralapsarianism, Eternal Justification, and Active Decree to the historic five points of TULIP will provide a new and comprehensive basis for defending the truth of the gospel in future generations. Therefore I am convinced we need to pursue this formulation in earnest. The SEA-TULIP articles will provide an 8-Point confession of Gospel Predestination that will permanently reject and stand against evangelical Fullerism and its anti-Reformation heresies.

--Bob

[Robert R. Higby]

You can view the page at http://www.predestinarian.net/conten...sm-is-Bankrupt

[kenhurst]

Why Reductionist Five-point TULIP Calvinism is Bankrupt

Robert this has grabbed on to me and I love also.

Ken

[Calvinator]

It works for me, Bob.

Good post!

[GraceAmbassador]

Not as beautiful as its earthy sister: A Sea Tulip

http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/e/e5/Sea-tulip.jpg

[rlhuckle]

Excellent!

[solegrace]

Well, sea tulip is fine, although it needs a careful explication of each point, especially of point "E".
However, no confession, however orthodox, however sharply defined /delineated / honed against all possible heresies, is a panacea against apostasy, into which the congregation of Israel / Church lapses almost continually...
IMHO, the real reason why the so called "Reformed" today are mostly Arminian, by and large (take this from an insider, am myself a TFU guy), is NOT because the original 5 points of Calvinism (Canons of Dordt) are insufficiently anti-conditionalism, anti-Arminianism framed, but because those to whom the tradition has been entrusted, i.e., heirs of the confession are unfaithful to it, by and large. Even if you set forth your 8 point schema as a confessional standard in your non-conformist midst and made it binding upon elders and teachers to follow its standard, that dogma would not ensure sufficient purity of evangelical orthodoxy in your movement in a generation or so.
The thing is that reprobate tares and weeds grow fine even in the presence of a sharp, hard shell, supralapsarian, double predestination preaching. People get used to hearing all kinds of teaching and hypocrites can survive and even thrive while hearing on double predestination every Lord's Day. This is the reality of the present age - the true church always remains a little flock, scattered amongst multitudinous herds of reprobate goats, dogs, swine and wolves...
This is not to discourage the present struggle for the furtherance of pristine grace doctrines, but rather to warn of a potentiality for self-delusion with respect to having too high expectations from seemingly a good creed.

[Robert R. Higby]

solegrace: . . . no confession, however orthodox, however sharply defined /delineated / honed against all possible heresies, is a panacea against apostasy, into which the congregation of Israel / Church lapses almost continually...

But all persons who genuinely believe in God's revelation seek to confess the gospel properly. We are not ministers to the congregation of Israel/Church--but to those who stand in nonconformity to it on major issues. I, for one, do not believe the 'Church' as we have come to know it (and how it has been handed down to us) can ever be reformed.

Even if you set forth your 8 point schema as a confessional standard in your non-conformist midst and made it binding upon elders and teachers to follow its standard, that dogma would not ensure sufficient purity of evangelical orthodoxy in your movement in a generation or so.

I have no idea of what you are speaking here. We are the EKKLESIA, not the church. We have no organized movement with recognized elders, pastors, and teachers who must follow a defined confessional standard. We never will. Therefore we have no such 'orthodoxy' to protect.

On the 5-points, I have stated why I believe they are inadequate. Even if the Reformed churches HAD remained faithful to every one of them.

New confessional statements are necessary to clarify the gospel in an age when men's hearts are far from it.

--Bob

[solegrace]

We are the EKKLESIA, not the church

.

This is a nonsensical statement: ekklesia is simply a transliteration of the Greek term, commonly translated as "church" in biblical translations, such as KJV, for instance. Ekklesia IS a church, a church is an ekklesia, - as simple as that. If you are not a church, by your own confession, then you are not an ekklesia either. Secondly:

We have no organized movement with recognized elders, pastors, and teachers who must follow a defined confessional standard. We never will. Therefore we have no such 'orthodoxy' to protect.

But Christ, the Head and Lord of the church=ekklesia, has appointed, among other things, pastors and teachers in His ekklesia: Eph. 4:11-12: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" - which is His church, i.e., ekklesia. Thus, for edifying of the body of Christ, which is His ekklesia, He appointed that there be pastors and teachers. But if you hold that there is no need for teachers in ekklesia now, then whatever you say or formulate in this forum is anything but teaching, for if there be no teachers, there is no need for any teaching, so whatever you say or formulate in this forum just shows your private, subjective, non-authoritative opinion and, if the current state of ekklesia has no need of teachers and pastors, then that means that it has already arrived unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13). Thus, you may congratulate yourselves (non-conformists) that ye have reached perfection and must be already in heaven, for there is nothing more for you to learn on this earth.
Lastly, if you have no confessional standard, nor any orthodoxy to protect, as you say, then your 'sea tulip', being not a confession is a meaningless acronym. If it cannot be used as a measuring stick of orthodoxy, and if there is no orthodoxy, then why bother formulating it or anything else?
I must confess I find these statements of yours self-contradicting and irrational. Must also confess, have little time for paradoxes - self-contradictions which are usually hallmarks of either an infantile thinking, which is improper for a teacher (however informally positioned), or of a solidified, false religious system. In either case, I'd say - Repent of these [anabaptist] lunacies and search Scriptures anew, that you may, if it be the LORD's will, think and speak according to His Word and not according to your inherited heresies.

[Eileen]

solegrace:

But if you hold that there is no need for teachers in ekklesia now, then whatever you say or formulate in this forum is anything but teaching, for if there be no teachers, there is no need for any teaching, so whatever you say or formulate in this forum just shows your private, subjective, non-authoritative opinion and, if the current state of ekklesia has no need of teachers and pastors, then that means that it has already arrived unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13).

I’d re-read Bob’s reply if I were you. I’ll be careful with my words but there isn’t much that is as distasteful or irritating to a person as having their words misrepresented, it happens frequently here. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction within Christendom that is fostered by this medium of the internet. I’m continually amazed truly at some of the misrepresentations that come about!!

I won’t answer for Bob but notice please that Bob did not say that there is no NEED for elders, pastors and teachers. What he said was that this forum is not an organized movement WITH recognized/appointed elders, pastors, teachers, etc. Huge difference and perhaps you should consider what that means before you represent it with your ideas.


Arrrrggg!

[GraceAmbassador]

solegrace:

But if you hold that there is no need for teachers in ekklesia now, then whatever you say or formulate in this forum is anything but teaching, for if there be no teachers, there is no need for any teaching, so whatever you say or formulate in this forum just shows your private, subjective, non-authoritative opinion and, if the current state of ekklesia has no need of teachers and pastors, then that means that it has already arrived unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13).

I’d re-read Bob’s reply if I were you. I’ll be careful with my words but there isn’t much that is as distasteful or irritating to a person as having their words misrepresented, it happens frequently here. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction within Christendom that is fostered by this medium of the internet. I’m continually amazed truly at some of the misrepresentations that come about!!

I won’t answer for Bob but notice please that Bob did not say that there is no NEED for elders, pastors and teachers. What he said was that this forum is not an organized movement WITH recognized/appointed elders, pastors, teachers, etc. Huge difference and perhaps you should consider what that means before you represent it with your ideas.


Arrrrggg!

Exactly Eileen!
I would go even further: One must read the whole context of what we say here, and even INDIVIDUALLY what each of the frequent writers here, especially the moderators, think about certain issues. Then, I am sure, Solegrace would have known what Bob meant, which is so clear to us.

Just for "kicks":

• We distinguish the word EKKLESIA from "church" because what we really mean by "church" is often CHURCHIANITY, which is the organized attempt to organize God into a frame of thinking frequently different from the Biblical revelation.
• We are part of the EKKLESIA in the sense that we are part of the invisible Body of Christ; however, even when a few of us, like me, belong to an earthly organization, here at P-NET we make no claims of being a "church". We are a fellowship of like-minded believers in most relevant issues (hopefully) , but we are not organized as a "church" with Pastors and Elders, although we DEFEND that Bible, specifically Paul, does teach about the need for Elders and Pastors.
• We also believe that the "church" as seen today in the world is not a sheer representation of what Paul commanded in his epistles.
• If one reads the entire body of writing from Bob, here, he will realize what Bob is talking about in his post and will likely NOT misrepresent what he is saying

In all, misrepresentation can be slander. So it is necessary that we are careful not to misrepresent what the other person is saying, even if such misrepresentation is made out of lack of knowledge of the other person's thoughts. I don't believe Solegrace would have misrepresented Bob if he knew his overall thoughts on these issues. I DON'T MEAN THAT HE WOULD AGREE. I often said here that "agreement" should the goal; open, clean and godly discussion SHOULD!

Now, back to the World Cup...

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks Eileen and Milt!

The issue with the post by solegrace is that he assumes EKKLESIA and church are one and the same, period. As our threads over the years have testified, most of us here are convicted that nothing could be further from the truth.

Church is derived from the Greek kuriakos (the Lord's ?), not ekklesia. It refers to an organized institution of religion. The EKKLESIA of the New Testament founded by Christ is NOT an organized institution of religion. It is a called out assembly, company, congregation, congress, senate, or gathering of elect believers ONLY. As used in the New Testament, it refers to two or more regenerate believers gathered together in Christ's name--anytime, anywhere. The use of EKKLESIA in the New Testament referring to all regenerate gospel believers of all ages (especially in Ephesians) is simply the broadest possible definition of an elect gathering.

So, the only EKKLESIA present within an institutional church is those who are regenerate and in gospel fellowship. All others in the building are part of the synagogue of Satan. Judas is the prime example of a churchian as opposed to a member of the EKKLESIA.

The church is the institutional product of the great apostasy away from the gospel that started while Paul was still alive but was fully manifested after his death.

So has God given pastors, teachers, prophets, etc.? YES. But note that these gifts are FROM GOD and not men. The fact that a church ordains someone as a pastor, elder, or deacon says nothing about whether the gifting of God has been recognized. It only proves that the person is popular with the leadership and congregation of the religious institution. THEY GOT THE POWER!

At P-Net we are certainly working on a confession to publish. However, it will belong to the EKKLESIA and not the church. We want to equip and encourage gospel believers in the truth, not religious institutions that will trample additional jewels from God's revelation underfoot. The fact that churches still adhere to the Westminster Confession and Three Forms of Unity unchanged by even a word after 400 years shows that in practicality, these massive doctrinal statements are viewed as scripture. They do not want Reformation, WE DO!

Having said all of this, I still participate in a local assembly. Though I believe virtually all churches are apostate, there are still gospel believers remaining in some. I hope that the Lord will raise up NEW assemblies devoted to the pristine gospel of sovereign, unmerited Grace and ALL implications of it. But I'm in no hurry. Everything's urgent to a politician or religious leader, however, those who wait upon the Lord (perhaps for generations) will have their strength renewed!

--Bob