Smashing the "T" out of TULIP

[steaver]

The original post misses the meaning of T [total depravity] which simply means that all man's faculties were effected by the fall [defaced, not eliminated].

I think it was Reinhold Niebuhr who said that this was the only doctrine for which we had empirical evidence!

I have heard Calvinists say that the 'L' is a bad choice of terms but then, they could not spell Tulip if they changed it, cf. http://sdcougar.startlogic.com/blog/?p=179

Whatever the Calvinist specific definition is, when you say something is "total" that defines the something as "without exception". Thus, if man is "totally depraved" then there is not one thing a man could do that was not considered depraved (Synonyms include; corrupt, perverted, debased, immoral, degenerate, etc ). We know from the scriptures and from observation that a man (speaking in general terms, unregenerate) can do non-depraved things.

What you here mainly from the Calvinist on this subject of Total Depravity is that man has no ability to choose to call upon Jesus Christ for regeneration/salvation because they are Totally Depraved. They believe this and defend this even though the scriptures show God pleading with sinners to believe and repent.

I was listening to Ravi Zacharias this week in an Q&A on this topic of Sovereignty verses Freewill. He sees this the way I have come to see this from the scriptures and that is that both are true and held in tension one against the other throughout the scriptures. Freewill does not destroy the sovereignty of God, but rather is part of God's sovereign design.

Election is as Peter said, "according to the foreknowledge of God". Within the foreknowledge of God lies the foreseeing of those whom freely choose to believe after having been drawn by the Father, convicted by Holy Spirit as sinners, called to believe on Jesus Christ. Many are called, few are chosen. The chosen are they which choose to call upon Jesus Christ.

Their are extremist on these points. The Calvinist wholly embraces Sovereign Election at the expense of Freewill choice. The Armenian wholly embraces Freewill at the expense of Sovereign Election. When hermeneutics is appropriately applied we find no contradiction at all. Balance must be applied, both are taught in the scripture, thus, both must be true. It is up to the student study and rightly divide the word of truth to strike that harmony between the two truths.

If I focus solely upon those passages which speak of Election and God's Sovereign will, I will no doubt have to conclude the Calvinist pov correct. If I focus solely upon those passages which speak of Freewill choice, I will no doubt have to conclude the Armenian pov correct. But if I stay focused on all passages which speak of both the Sovereignty of God's will and the Freewill of the person, then I can clearly see the truthfulness of both and find that pov which allows the whole of God's Word to go forth.

In God's Sovereign Will, God has designed the Freewill Choice of man to believe on Him or reject Him. That is what I have concluded upon considering this controversy over the past years of study.

 

[JonC]

Neither Arminian or Calvinistic theology claim that God regenerates one so that they can believe. But both hold that God must work within the will of man so that he will believe. In other words, this is a dishonest thread.

 

[steaver]

Oftentimes I am asked why I embrace the Freewill Choice of a person to believe on Jesus Christ but then reject the Freewill Choice of that same person to then change their mind and reject believing on Jesus Christ?

This is where the doctrine of "born-again" needs to be applied. Unless one studies and understands God's act of regeneration, then one will never understand OSAS. Born-again is relational. If one is not born-again then one is not saved and not a child of God. There are tens of thousands of people who would call themselves Christians yet they are lost, never having received the Spirit of Christ, the relationship that is in CHrist, they merely have a dead religion just like all the others who do not personally know Jesus Christ by heart, but only by paper. They simply practice a religion called Christianity, never surrendering themselves to the Lordship of Jesus Christ our God.

 

[steaver]

Neither Arminian or Calvinistic theology claim that God regenerates one so that they can believe. But both hold that God must work within the will of man so that he will believe. In other words, this is a dishonest thread.

If this thread is dishonest then it is because the Calvinist that I speak with are not making themselves clear, for what I hear from them is that God must first regenerate a person BEFORE they can believe. Is this true according to the Calvinist?

 

[JonC]

If this thread is dishonest then it is because the Calvinist that I speak with are not making themselves clear, for what I hear from them is that God must first regenerate a person BEFORE they can believe. Is this true according to the Calvinist?

I have never heard that before – but I suppose the “Calvinist” voice is far from univocal. I can say, however, that that was not representative of the Calvinist’s that I’ve read (e.g., John Calvin, Spurgeon, Piper,…even Beza…etc). These seem to indicate (just as the Arminians) that God provides the faith to believe, but that the individual is regenerated upon salvation (they believe).

 

[steaver]

IDK,

It seems to me that Calvin himself believed regeneration was first which caused the belief.....

Calvin on Regeneration from His Commentary on John

by John Calvin


John 1: 13. The will of the flesh and the will of man appear to me to mean the same thing; for I see no reason why flesh should be supposed to signify woman, as Augustine and many others explain it. On the contrary, the Evangelist repeats the same thing in a variety of words, in order to explain it more fully, and impress it more deeply on the minds of men. Though he refers directly to the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, yet from this passage a general doctrine may be obtained: that our being reckoned the sons of God does not belong to our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because God begat us willingly, (James 1:18,) that is, from undeserved love. Hence it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.

 

[JonC]

IDK,

It seems to me that Calvin himself believed regeneration was first which caused the belief.....

"It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children." (Same reference - Commentary on John)

 

[JonC]

I should have added that Calvin is not necessarily a good reference for "Calvinism."

 

[steaver]

"It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children." (Same reference - Commentary on John)

Goes to show us that John was a bit confused about which way he wanted to believe it, lol. John MacArthur is a good example of having the same struggle in his beliefs on TULIP. He declares Unconditional Election as TULIP does, but then preaches Arminian style.

 

[steaver]

I should have added that Calvin is not necessarily a good reference for "Calvinism."

That's quite odd wouldn't you say?

 

[JonC]

That's quite odd wouldn't you say?

Not really, Calvinism is based more on Beza's systemization of Calvin's work. TUILP didn't exist for John Calvin and there are questions regarding his placement of Divine Sovereignty compared to Beza.

 

[steaver]

Not really, Calvinism is based more on Beza's systemization of Calvin's work. TUILP didn't exist for John Calvin and there are questions regarding his placement of Divine Sovereignty compared to Beza.

Never heard of Beza, maybe we should call it Bezaism!

 

[JonC]

Never heard of Beza, maybe we should call it Bezaism!

Theodore Beza was Calvin's successor.

Calvinists that we speak of are not really "Calvinists" based on Calvin or Beza (they were wrong in so many ways). The term has just been picked up to describe soteriological views. Historically, Calvinists would drown or behead anyone who believed in "believer's baptism" or rejected a Christian commonwealth in favor of the Church as the body of Christ. That's why some object to the logic of "Reformed" Baptist. But that's another topic.

I should also mention that there are a lot of “Calvinists” who arrive at that view apart reading Calvin, or Beza, etc., but from simply through Scripture. The term simply summarizes the gospel message in relation to other views, it doesn’t mean that they accept a doctrine that is external to the Bible or Calvin as an authority figure. But the bottom line is that I don't know of any Calvinists who believe that faith follows salvation.

 

[steaver]

But the bottom line is that I don't know of any Calvinists who believe that faith follows salvation.

I don't know of any who say one can have faith in Jesus Christ before regeneration.

I believe it is a matter of semantics when we say "follows" salvation. From what I gather from listening to Calvinist is that one cannot believe except they be regenerated. To me that would be regenerated unto belief, thus, faith is following regeneration even if within a millisecond. I suppose you could say that it is simultaneous, but the point is, according to the Calvinist I have heard one cannot call upon Jesus Christ except they be regenerated first or simultaneously.

I believe God calls all to faith in Jesus Christ and gives opportunity to call upon Jesus Christ for regeneration. God can open that door and close that door according to His will as He sees Just. Some have an open door for years, those who have the door closed have warn out their invitation to Christ and God can harden their hearts as they so chose to do on their own for such a long time.

Romans 9:22,

"[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

God is very patient, but the time comes when the door of opportunity is closed.

So what do you think about the OP? Why would God need to send a strong delusion to damn people to hell if they, according to TULIP, are already damned for unbelief?

 

[Winman]

Neither Arminian or Calvinistic theology claim that God regenerates one so that they can believe. But both hold that God must work within the will of man so that he will believe. In other words, this is a dishonest thread.

What? I have probably read dozens of Reformed/Calvinists say a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe. Here is an article from Wayne Grudem at Monergism dot com

The idea that regeneration comes before saving faith is not always understood by evangelicals today. Sometimes people will even say something like, “If you believe in Christ as your Savior, then (after you believe) you will be born again.” But Scripture itself never says anything like that. This new birth is viewed by Scripture as something that God does within us in order to enable us to believe.

Source

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/regeneration_grudem.html

I have seen comments like this DOZENS of times from Calvinists. I have posted articles here at BB in the past where some Calvinists say a person can be regenerated for YEARS before they believe on Christ.

It is impossible to be regenerated or spiritually alive before you believe. Until you believe you are condemned and dead in trespasses and sins. Only after your sins are forgiven can you be spiritually alive. And you must believe to be forgiven, we are justified by faith.

Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of scripture.

 

[evangelist-7]

... God must first regenerate a person BEFORE they can believe. Is this true according to the Calvinist?

For cryin' out loud, it's no wonder we call you the second Stevie Wonder!

Yes, this is a great truism indeed ...

Why wouldst God give grace-faith-salvation (Eph 2:8-9) to people who believed all by der little selves
... and proclaim it 'twas a free gift (Eph 2:8-9) given to them?
.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

For cryin' out loud, it's no wonder we call you the second Stevie Wonder!

Yes, this is a great truism indeed ...

Why wouldst God give grace-faith-salvation (Eph 2:8-9) to people who believed all by der little selves
... and proclaim it 'twas a free gift (Eph 2:8-9) given to them?
.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!:thumbs:

 

[JonC]

What? I have probably read dozens of Reformed/Calvinists say a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe.

You've probably read more Calvinist literature than I, so I'll take your word for it. From what I've read, that hasn't been the case, but I have never really gone on that particular quest.

There are couple of areas where I disagree with some Calvinists, mostly in the area of Atonement and now I can add regeneration prior to faith. I think that the biggest error on both sides is trying to break down salvation into such small, compact segments. These "micro-doctrines" are often a product of human reasoning rather than strictly Scripture.

That said, some seem have a need to understand God's motive and method before they can be confident in their faith. They seem to feel they must know how each aspect of salvation fits together in a system so that it suits their logic in order to "explain" it to themselves and others. Perhaps this is necessary. I certainly have my own understanding, but I choose to rest my hope in Christ rather than my reasoning. If I get to heaven and discover I was wrong about election, pre-trib/post-trib, sign gifts, church government, music in church, the mode of baptism, etc, that won't hurt my feelings in the least because I know that I am right about the Gospel. Some (on both sides of the debate) seem to put too much faith in their reasoning by not even acknowledging that there could be a hint of misunderstanding.

 

[Yeshua1]

You've probably read more Calvinist literature than I, so I'll take your word for it. From what I've read, that hasn't been the case, but I have never really gone on that particular quest.

There are couple of areas where I disagree with some Calvinists, mostly in the area of Atonement and now I can add regeneration prior to faith. I think that the biggest error on both sides is trying to break down salvation into such small, compact segments. These "micro-doctrines" are often a product of human reasoning rather than strictly Scripture.

That said, some seem have a need to understand God's motive and method before they can be confident in their faith. They seem to feel they must know how each aspect of salvation fits together in a system so that it suits their logic in order to "explain" it to themselves and others. Perhaps this is necessary. I certainly have my own understanding, but I choose to rest my hope in Christ rather than my reasoning. If I get to heaven and discover I was wrong about election, pre-trib/post-trib, sign gifts, church government, music in church, the mode of baptism, etc, that won't hurt my feelings in the least because I know that I am right about the Gospel. Some (on both sides of the debate) seem to put too much faith in their reasoning by not even acknowledging that there could be a hint of misunderstanding.

Believe all calvinists would see it as being biblically logical that regnrationgoccurs before faith in Jesus, but the difference is that some such as a RC Sprould could see God regnerating a sinner and jave months, or even years before actual faith in jesus happens and thus sinner becomes 'saved",,,

THAT view i cannot support, as I see it more that the Holy Spirit works thru and on sinners by external workings that means the sinner has been regnerated, buit also at same time, they place that given faith unto Jesus and become saved...

It happens so quickly, to us appears 'at same time!"

 

[JonC]

[FONT=&quot]Well, the quote Winman supplies from Grudem presents it as virtually at the same time, but sides for regeneration and then faith (if you read the entire article). I would disagree because I view the faith to be from God to believe (I wouldn’t consider one “regenerated” without faith because I view faith as the basis on which we are reborn). But the more I look at it the more I believe that it is simultaneous – but based on faith.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]