those 5 point thingys

[erin74]

Hi,

Can someone give me a very brief description of each of the points of the 2 five point thingys.

Hubby says we are 4.5 point calvanists (he knows the points, but didn't have time to explain when I asked earlier... he also knows my theology, so I am assuming that is the case) - what does this mean (ie which .5 do you think we are at odds with), and can I still play with you if that's the case!

I have a reasonable grasp of theology, but the terminology is not always familiar - also I think there are issues that other countries have that haven't really hit here (well not in the churches I've been in anyway)... all that premillenialism, postmillenialism stuff, so I may not be as familiar with those issues and their impacts. We also may have some different terminology to you guys, so simple bible concepts to explain would be great.

thanks

erin

 

[5solas]

have a look here

and this is a "classic"

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I think the point you're at odds with is probably the limited atonement. Seems to me that most 4-pointers are (I think if you reject .5 of a point you reject that point and are therefore not a Calvinist). Go ahead and read those webpages and let us know what you think.

 

[cygnusx1]

Hi,

Can someone give me a very brief description of each of the points of the 2 five point thingys.

Hubby says we are 4.5 point calvanists (he knows the points, but didn't have time to explain when I asked earlier... he also knows my theology, so I am assuming that is the case) - what does this mean (ie which .5 do you think we are at odds with), and can I still play with you if that's the case!

I have a reasonable grasp of theology, but the terminology is not always familiar - also I think there are issues that other countries have that haven't really hit here (well not in the churches I've been in anyway)... all that premillenialism, postmillenialism stuff, so I may not be as familiar with those issues and their impacts. We also may have some different terminology to you guys, so simple bible concepts to explain would be great.

thanks

erin

here you go ......... the simplified version ....

total depravity = men love sin and they hate God , to show this God says 'Choose'!


unconditional election = sinners always choose sin , so , God chose us .... to change that.


limited atonement = Jesus did not die in vain , all he died for he actually saved.


irresistable grace = a grace that is able to make a person willing , none are ever forced against their will.


perseverance of the saints = only true Christians can complete the journey of faith , all others fall away.

 

[erin74]

so what would be the difference on limited atonement... just curious? Certainly the brief definition I read from cygnusx1 shows nothing obvious to disagree with....

Thanks by the way cygnusx1 - they are really helpful summaries.

Whats the other 5 point thing though... the one with sola scripture as one of them?

Thanks for the links 5solas by the way - I will have to read them when I have a little more time though. Maybe later in the week.

erin

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

the other five points are the 5 Solas. Realistically, they ought to be taught by all Protestant congregations, not just the reformed denominations, as this is perhaps the most definitive short list of just what we are protesting.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THESIS ONE: SOLA SCRIPTURA[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian's conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THESIS TWO: SOLUS CHRISTUS[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.

We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ's substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THESIS THREE: SOLA GRATIA[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God's wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.

We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.

[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THESIS FOUR: SOLA FIDE[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We reaffirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.

We deny that justification rests on any merit to be found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ's righteousness in us, or that an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as a legitimate church.

[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THESIS FIVE: SOLI DEO GLORIA[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We reaffirm that because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God's glory and that we must glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone.

We deny that we can properly glorify God if our worship is confused with entertainment, if we neglect either Law or Gospel in our preaching, or if self-improvement, self-esteem or self-fulfillment are allowed to become alternatives to the gospel.[/font]

 

[StAnselm]

The other five-point thingy is Christ Alone, Scripture Alone, by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, to the Glory of God Alone.

Now, at the risk of putting you in a box...

Most Sydney Anglicans I've talked to don't like the idea of Limited Atonement - they prefer to say that Christ died for all men, but that his death comes into effect only for the elect.

But I'm still happy for you to play.

 

[StAnselm]

Oh, you got in before me.

 

[5solas]

the other five points are the 5 Solas.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

I was going to mention your user name, but was in a race with StAnselm, who did a terrific job of putting the solas into the sentence that ties it all together.

 

[erin74]

Thanks for that - it was really helpful. I have heard the 5 Solas in the terms that StAnselm used. I like the definitions though - they were really helpful. I am certainly happy to concur with them.

So the limited atonement thing - it's saying that christ died only for those who are chosen, as opposed to christ died for all, but is effective only for those who are chosen??? I haven't thought through it a great deal.... my initial thought is that isn't that limiting God, but I see it's not because it is by His choice, not by his lack of ability.

I would like to hear how verses like "christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God" are explained. I am certain you will be able to explain this to me, and am interested to think through this one.

Thanks for letting me play still!

erin

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

Regarding limited atonement, you need to look at the word atonement. An atonement is a payment made to redeem one who is under the bondage of slavery. You redeem someone with an atonement. If Christ atoned for the sins of everyone, why are there people who aren't saved? This doctrine does not mean that the death of Christ wasn't enough of a payment for all, but that it was only effective for those He came to save.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I like that, CoffeeSwirls. I also like the way John Owen put it:

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

​

 

[erin74]

Regarding limited atonement, you need to look at the word atonement. An atonement is a payment made to redeem one who is under the bondage of slavery. You redeem someone with an atonement. If Christ atoned for the sins of everyone, why are there people who aren't saved? This doctrine does not mean that the death of Christ wasn't enough of a payment for all, but that it was only effective for those He came to save.

Thanks for this - very easy to grasp. If this is the case it doesn't seem any different to the position I already hold. I just didn't have the definition thingys - good teaching, just not the terminology!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hi,

Can someone give me a very brief description of each of the points of the 2 five point thingys.

The acronym "TULIP" represents the five points of Calvinism (or the doctrines of grace)...

T = total depravity (or total inability, and not to be confused with "utter depravity")
U = unconditional election (or sovereign grace)
L = limited atonement (or particular redemption which I prefer)
I = irrisistable grace
P = perseverance of the saints (or eternal security or once saved always saved or the preservation of the saints by the grace of God)

For additional explaination and especially knowledge of the biblical prooftexts often used to support each of the five points, check out: http://www.gospeloutreach.net/tulip.html (simply click on a phrase)

 

[WordOfFaithEvangelist]

Unconditional: Having NO preset conditions, or REQUIREMENTS, being WITHOUT limit.

Limited: Having some type of preset limit, with preset CONDITIONAL requirements.





Does anyone else SEE the contradictions here?

 

[Bulldog]

Unconditional: Having NO preset conditions, or REQUIREMENTS, being WITHOUT limit.

Limited: Having some type of preset limit, with preset CONDITIONAL requirements.





Does anyone else SEE the contradictions here?

"Unconditional" refers to election while "limited" refers to the atonement, so no, I don't.

Where did you get those definitions? They seem a but odd and are not at all the way Calvinists use them...

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Irresistible: That which cannot be risisted.

God would have ALL men to be saved and to come to the knowlledge of the truth.

Gods Grace is unconditional and available for all not some.

The atoning blood of Jesus Christ is not limitted to a few, it is also available for all, even as mamny as shall call on the name of thr lord, whosoever means anyone and everyone.

And yours is a very odd assesment!

The definition came from Websters dictionary, a very adequate source!

Yes I am sure calvinists do not properly use definitions of these words, even as they also never properly use the word of God.....

That last sentence is ugly and unbecoming of one Christian addressing another, muchless a whole wing of the Christian church.

You may want to look things up in a good theological dictionary to see how terms are specifically used in this school. Webster is a fine generic dictionary but I would not go to it if I were discussing a certan branch of learning. I would go to a dictionary dedicated to that branch of knowledge. Same goes here.

You are more than welcome to come here and ask serious questions, but you are not welcome to come here and insult the good people here. If you want to insult others you will have to go somewhere else.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[WordOfFaithEvangelist]

That last sentence is ugly and unbecoming of one Christian addressing another, muchless a whole wing of the Christian church.

You may want to look things up in a good theological dictionary to see how terms are specifically used in this school. Webster is a fine generic dictionary but I would not go to it if I were discussing a certan branch of learning. I would go to a dictionary dedicated to that branch of knowledge. Same goes here.

You are more than welcome to come here and ask serious questions, but you are not welcome to come here and insult the good people here. If you want to insult others you will have to go somewhere else.

In Christ,
Kenith

I certainly would not want to go to any theological sources!

As for your opinion concerning what you say is insulting, well your opinion is not worthy of consideration, the truth is always an insult to those who do not wish to know truth, just as light is always an insult to thsoe who wish to abide in darkness.

You expect an apology, one will not be given.....

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I certainly would not want to go to any theological sources!

As for your opinion concerning what you say is insulting, well your opinion is not worthy of consideration, the truth is always an insult to those who do not wish to know truth, just as light is always an insult to thsoe who wish to abide in darkness.

You expect an apology, one will not be given.....

From your attitude in the earlier post above I expect nothing but ungodly, in-your-face posts like the one I am responding to now.

You are unworthy of the privilege of posting here.

I hope that can be arranged.

Deo vindice,
Kenith