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.

Doctrinal Paradoxes

We owe it to Mathematician Kurt Gödel that paradoxes derive from self-referentiality. This causes problems with the belief that the Bible being "self-authenticating". By construct, there are other holy books which must, of necessity, be self-authenticating. Even Mathematical Texts are self-authenticating. Such a weak claim of self-authentication detracts, rather than enhances, the Truth of the Bible. If I am to maintain my Christianity, I can have no use for "self-authentication".

Let us recognize that there have been several attempts to control the message of the Bible, either by the insertion of false books into the Bible as was tried by the Gnostics in the first three centuries of Christianity tried to do, or by the editing of Biblical content to maintain pet doctrines, such as the editing of the Bible to de-emphasize scripture, say Revelation 22:19 to protect a pet doctrine.

The main focus, however, is to investigate the underpinnings of if the Bible were true in relation to Doctrine. Case in point are the doctrines of Monergism and Total Depravity. If Mongerism and/or Total Depravity were true, than Man can in no way further the cause of his own salvation, or for that matter, the salvation of another. The translating, publishing, and commentary on the Bible are activities which, if competently done, furthers the salvation of Man. Therefore, the Bible cannot be competently translated, published, or commented upon. Since this is a conclusion that I cannot accept without the abandonment of the Bible or Christianity, I must discard Mongerism and Total Depravity.

The sieve I use to separate Wheat from Chaff is the Reduction to an Absurdity technique of Mathematicians. This blog's premise is that anything that undermines the Bible, its authority, and the Canonization process, from which the Bible was determined, is void. In consequence, I must oppose various forms of NeoGnosticism or premises that legitimatize NeoGnosticism as certain confessions of faith would do. Said compromises with NeoGnosticism opens the way for the inclusion of previously discarded books from the Bible, in particular, the gospels of Judas, Thomas, and Phillip, and the Apocalypse of St. Peter. Since Cannonization was a MetaScriptural Process, this blog must also be MetaScriptural. When Scripture is actually quoted, it will be generally be used to demonstrate that a particular version of the Bible is Edited, Not Translated in this blog.

Theological Responsibility requires that if a doctrine gets refuted, it must either be replaced by by a plausibe doctrine, or that it wasn't needed to begin with. To be Theologically Responsible, my refutation of Monergism has made me Synsegistic by default. Since there is Sin in this World, I have to account for it in consequence to debunking Total Depravity. I find both the Doctrine of Original Sin and the Doctrine of the Corruption of the Nature of Man both acceptable doctrines at this point.

I must make one last observation. There is an obscure "Doctrine of Illumination", apparently propounded by St. Augustine, that God can cause a person to be illumined. Illumination does not confer Holiness. It follows that an Illumined Sinner is still a Totally Depraved Sinner, and the incompetance to translate, copy, print, interpret, or comment upon the Bible still remains. Chapter XXXI of the Westminster Confession, to be discussed later, actually concedes the point by stating that ALL Church Councils are invalid because they are Sinful without imputing ANY Illumination to ANY Church Council.