How many points of TULIP do I agree with?

The 5 points of the Calvinist Agenda are as follows:

1) Total Depravity - this Doctrine was refuted by Doctrinal Pardoxes, and in part Chapter XXXI of the Westminster Confession: A Trojan Horse. However, Total Depravity does exist, as is demonstrated in By Their Works You Shall Know Them and The Significance of the Desecration of the Tomb of St. Irenaeus by the Huguenauts.

2)Unconditional Election - this was refuted by Edited-Not Translated and Edited-Not Translated- Part 2 .

3)Limited Attonement - also refuted by Edited-Not Translated and Edited-Not Translated- Part 2.

4)Irresistable Grace- also refuted by Edited-Not Translated and Edited-Not Translated- Part 2. If you ask me, there are three abominable examples of Grace being resisted in Calvinist History: By Their Works You Shall Know Them, The Significance of the Desecration of the Tomb of St. Irenaeus, and Dordt and Ephesus II: A Tale of Two Robber Synods. Shame! Shame! Shame!

5)Perseverance of the Saints (aka Predestination) - this was refuted by Edited-Not Translated, Edited-Not Translated-Part 2 and in part Doctrnal Lineages and The Significance of the Desecration of the Tomb of St. Irenaeus.

It looks like I don't agree with a Single Point of the Calvinist Agenda! I have even challenged the legitimacy of Calvinism witn Doctrinal Lineages, Dordt and Ephesus: A Tale of two Robber Synods, and Chapter XXXI of the Westminster Confession: A Trojan Horse. That makes me a ZERO POINT CALVINIST !!!

Yet, I feel that the number ZERO is to large a number to count the number of points I agree with on Calvinism. For example, I believe, unlike the Calvinists, in the Necessity of Apostolic Succession. I feel that Calvinism is Agenda-Based, not Bible-Based, Theology; this being the point of the two Edited-Not Translated posts, many more of which I expect will follow.

However, it does sound strange to call myself a "Negative One" or "Negative Two" Point Calvinist. At least ZERO is a Round Number. I'll settle for ZERO POINT CALVINIST for now.

The Significance of the Desecration of the Tomb of St. Irenaeus by the Huguenauts

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, whom we have previously discussed, was a Greek (or Asian) and knew St. Polycarp. As a Priest in Lyons, he succceded the martyred Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons. He was consulted by other Churchmen of his era about the refutation of the competing cults, such as the Gnostics and the Arians. His book, Against Heresies, was the result which was a taxonomy of the Gnostic Cults at the time. Though Against Heresies was a very necessary but tedious book, his work ultimately led to the Council of Carthage of 397, which selected the Books of the New Testament and discarded, once and for all, the Gnostic Gospels from the Scripture. An ardent proponent of Free Will, it is no accident that his remains were desecrated and totally destroyed by the Huguenot Calvinists in 1562 (two years before John Calvin's death in 1564, which makes Calvin at least an accomplice to this crime!), making the motive retaliation. Related to this Vandalism, I note in passing this fiery quote from A Church in Fort Colins in Colorado:

Dear Calvinist, do you think Romans 9 and other passages support predestination? The Gnostics did the same! This means that if your view of election and God's sovereignty is correct, then you have to be willing to admit that the early Christians -- those who gave you the Bible -- were all wrong about a major theological doctrine, and the Gnostics -- whom John rebukes as antichrists (2 John 1:7) -- were correct! Are you willing to admit this?

The "Theology" behind this Iconoclasm as summarized in The Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in 754 [which] declared:
Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare unanimously, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed one of the Christian Church every likeness which is made out of any material and colour whatever by the evil art of painters.... If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (χαρακτήρ, charaktēr) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema! .... If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, let him be anathema!

Iconoclasts, for Students of Byzantinology, were those who destroyed Icons for both Political (an appeal to the Freeholders of Asia Minor to join the Byzantine Army by catering to their religious inclinations) and Religious (retaliation from residual Manichaeans, Gnostics, Arians, and Monophysites left ofer from previous religious controversies) reasons. The Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787 in Nicea settled the issue once and for all, though some critics such as John Calvin did not accept it, as Calvin certainly condemned Icons. Naturally, this stand aligns John Calvin with the Iconoclasts, and along with them, the Manicheans and Gnostics.

On a personal note, I have purchased Archbishop Robert Dmitri Royster's Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. A quick perusal of this work tells me that this is going to be very deep reading, and I shall make reports on each chapter as I read it (That should take a year!). Second, as I scanned the critical passages in Romans 9, I noticed that St, Irenaeus was heavily quoted, along with St. John Chrysostom and Origen. Archbishop Dmitri, though a fair man, apparantly has no sympathy for the Calvinist interpretation of Romans. I've waited a lifetime for a work such as this, and I hope that I can finish it within my lifetime. I feel that I have had to prepare for this book for a lifetime.

Chapter XXXI of The Westminster Confession: A Trojan Horse

Firstly, I wish to convey my Eternal Gratitude to Matt for giving the most damaging argument against, and the Final Nail in the Coffin of, Article XXXI of the Westminster Confession, the Doctrine of Illumination! While I was merely intending to debunk it, Illuminaton has given me the means to Totally Anihilate it! Thanks, Matt!!!

When I first read about Calvin's Institutions, I first thought he meant the most basic of all Church Institutions, the Church Council. Searching intently, I was gravely dissapointed. What I found was contained in Chapter XXXI of the Westminster Confession in Chapter IV :

IV. All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.

What a dissapointment! Further research revealed that John Calvin was actually agiainst the Seven Church Councils, and the Westminster Confession delegitimized them with Chapter XXXI. In fact Chapter XXXI goes even further. ALL Church Councils are invalid because of Sin. Their pronouncements upon doctrine are meaningless. The Nicene Creed, a product of the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, has been voided. Other products of other Councils, in partcular Carthage 397 which selected the books of the Bible while discarding the Gnostic Scriptures, are void! Of course, there is also the paradox/logical conclusion that the Westminster Confession and the Council of Dordt are also void because of Chapter XXXI.

Let us examine the consequences of Chapter XXXI upon the Bible. Carthage 397 is invalid and can be overruled. This means that the Books of the Bible can be reselected from the candidate books, which include the Gnostic Gospels. The Gnostic Gospels, like any other set of scriptures, are self-authenticating. Clearly, Chapter XXXI is a Trojan Horse that permits the suplanting of the current books of the New Testament.

However, thanks to Matt who reminds us of the Doctrine of Illumination, the Church Fathers were indeed made competant to separate Wheat from Chaff, a point religiously ignored by Chapter XXXI. According to Matt: "God first and continually bestows holiness upon the sinner through justification and sanctification. Illumination is that process whereby the Holy Spirit overcomes the lingering sin of the redeemed so that he can correctly interpret Scripture. ", a point ignored by the Chapter XXXI. Yet he backpeddles with: "I am not claiming that Illumination conveys holiness. The Spirit does that legally in justification and experientially in sanctification." However, I will take Matt's first statement at face value and observe that his first argument effectively restores the Seven Church Councils and the Nicene Creed to their former credibility, no thanks to the Westminster Confession. Thanks again, Matt!

I would be remiss in my duty if I did not mention what I would replace Article XXXI with. Since it is a Trojan Horse, I would delete it altogether. Since God's Word is Eternal, a Doctrine of Stairs Decisis is what would be called for.