• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Asking for scriptural rebuttal to TULIP

Status
Not open for further replies.
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
ivdavid said:
The only point of TULIP that both classic calvinism and arminianism agreed on was total depravity. Why seek to refute what has been already accepted by both sides?
Click to expand...

Brother, I and tens of thousands of other believers, reject Total Depravity. We believe in Depravity but not in Total Depravity in the Calvinistic sense whereby it extends to the free will of man rendering him unable to believe or choose.
I don't know what makes you think that everyone accepts Total Depravity in the Calvinistic sense.
 
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
ivdavid said:
John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Click to expand...

Your interpretation forces the verse into a premolded calvinist philosophy.

John 1:13 simply means you can't will yourself, on your own terms, into salvation or the new birth - not that the free will of a lost man is not involved in salvation.
 
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
Wesley Briggman said:
Hopefully, you agree that Paul was born-again and therefore was alive in the spiritual sense. Therefore, he had a desire/will to do right.
Click to expand...

Let's grant that as true, that counter-argument was pre-empted by the Exodus 35:21 example and explanation in the same post. The Jews in the wilderness were not born again, and most did not persevere, yet all willingly offered of their own human spirit.
 
I

ivdavid

Active Member
George Antonios said:
No, the text shows that their own human spirit made them willing.
Click to expand...
Sure. Either way, their spirits are of the Spirit. That wasn't my central point though - i was only saying that the flesh does will too. The flesh wills evil apart from God and that is total depravity/inability of the flesh. This is neither calvinist nor arminian - what you infer based on this is what leads to the various distinctions.

George Antonios said:
Your interpretation forces the verse into a premolded calvinist philosophy.

John 1:13 simply means you can't will yourself, on your own terms, into salvation or the new birth - not that the free will of a lost man is not involved in salvation.
Click to expand...
I mean exactly what you say - lost man cannot will himself into salvation. Why cannot lost man will himself into salvation - Because he is totally unable to by himself. What do we term this state of man - Total inability of the flesh. How does such a lost man unable in the flesh then choose rightly - by God's grace alone. So far, there cannot be any difference between calvinists and arminians. The difference here arises with the calvinists saying irresistible grace is granted to the elect alone taking no account of his freewill while the arminians hold prevenient grace granted based on man's freewill. This difference is based on the common truth that man is indeed unable to choose rightly by himself in his natural state apart from God's grace, whatever you term it.
 
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
George Antonios said:
What do you think we credobaptists understand by holy?
Click to expand...
I am past trying to guess what other people think. Since I have ventured into the Internet theology discussions, I wonder if there are any sane, rational people left in the world. I would hope that you think it means what THIS Credobaptist thinks the word means ... “prepared for God with solemn rite, pure, clean” (from hagios) ... as used in:

  • Rom 11:16
  • Rom 12:1
  • 1 Cor 7:14
  • Eph 1:4
  • Eph 5:3
  • Eph 5:27
  • Col 1:22
 
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Reynolds said:
Infant baptism is completely different than Baby dedication. You know better than to even try to use that.
Click to expand...
Then why do Paedobaptists have “confirmations” and “communions”?

Yes it is different. No it is not “completely”. (At least not at the place where the rubber meets the road. The ivory towers of theology are a different matter, but they are more theoretical than reality to begin with.)
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
atpollard said:
Then why do Paedobaptists have “confirmations” and “communions”?

Yes it is different. No it is not “completely”. (At least not at the place where the rubber meets the road. The ivory towers of theology are a different matter, but they are more theoretical than reality to begin with.)
Click to expand...
I have no clue what you are taking about.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
In itself Proverbs 17 opposes Calvinism. The more important issue, however, is what supports the theology (starting from the foundation and with Scripture).

For example, I could ask what is the scriptural rebuttal for all dogs going to heaven. The question itself is flawed. What is the support, that is what we need to ask.
 
Dave G

Dave G

Well-Known Member
Even though I now prefer to refrain from posting my thoughts in these debates and would instead like to direct people to the words of God themselves to do the speaking,
I'd like to address one of the posts above simply to offer my observations, if I may:
George Antonios said:
Your interpretation forces the verse into a premolded calvinist philosophy.

John 1:13 simply means you can't will yourself, on your own terms, into salvation or the new birth - not that the free will of a lost man is not involved in salvation.
Click to expand...
George,

To me, your understanding of the verse isn't taking into account every word.
This has nothing to do with anything John Calvin taught, anything John Wesley taught, or anything anyone else teaches.
This has to do with the words on the page.

Where you see the will of man being involved in the new birth, I do not know, but to me, it isn't John 1:13.
If you know of another passage that tells us that man's will is involved in the new birth, please list it.

Off the top of my head, I don't know of one that outright declares it to be so.
However, I do know of one that outright declares it to not be involved, and that is this one.
With that said, I'd like to post John 1:13 in its entirety for closer inspection:

"which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Here it is as I've broken it down into "bullet points":

A) The ones in verse 12 ( I'll list it further on...they are the ones that received Him ) were born "of" ( by or from ) God.
B) They were not born of:

1) Blood.
2) The will of the flesh.
3) The will of man.

Therefore,
Blood, the will of the flesh and the will of man are not involved in being born of God, because the verse itself tells us what is not involved in the "born of God" process.
When I read this, these "points" stand up off the page, and I've bolded the text to show where I'm getting it.

Widening things up a bit, here is what I see when I read the entire passage from 11 to 13:

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." ( John 1:11-13 )

Breaking it down:

11) He ( The "Word" from verse 1, which then becomes the "Light" from verse 7, and then is described as "He" in verse 8 ) came to His own...
The Jews in verse 19.
They did not receive ( welcome ) Him.

12) Then it tells us that as many as received Him ( Why did they receive Him? Here we are not told ), to them He gave the power to become ( grow to be, begin to be ) the sons of God.
He gave this power ( right, authority ) only to them that believe on His name.

13) Again, they were not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man.
Those things are completely ruled out.

They were born, OF ( Definition of OF ) God.


This is what I see when I read the passage.
In addition, I didn't have to consult John Calvin or the writings of any prominent "Calvinist" to understand it this way...
Neither did I feel inclined to consult the writings of John Wesley, prominent "Wesleyans" or any other men to determine the correct understanding of it.

I simply do so, without having to have it explained to me by any man.



May God bless you greatly.:)
 
Last edited:
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
George Antonios said:
Brother, I and tens of thousands of other believers, reject Total Depravity. We believe in Depravity but not in Total Depravity in the Calvinistic sense whereby it extends to the free will of man rendering him unable to believe or choose.
I don't know what makes you think that everyone accepts Total Depravity in the Calvinistic sense.
Click to expand...
Romans 3:11, "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."
 
1689Dave

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
Wesley Briggman said:
Anti-Semitism of the "Church Fathers"

Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.

Excerpt from "Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio," by John Calvin
Click to expand...

I think people get it wrong saying Luther and Calvin were antisemitic. Just as they opposed the Catholics as a false religion. Judaism is a false religion too. But since racists perceive the Jews to be a race, they think the Reformers were Racists. Antisemitic means opposition to the entire Middle East because most came from Shem (the original semite) through Abraham.

Sem·ite
/ˈsemīt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
  1. a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.
 
M

MB

Well-Known Member
ivdavid said:
Sure. Either way, their spirits are of the Spirit. That wasn't my central point though - i was only saying that the flesh does will too. The flesh wills evil apart from God and that is total depravity/inability of the flesh. This is neither calvinist nor arminian - what you infer based on this is what leads to the various distinctions.


I mean exactly what you say - lost man cannot will himself into salvation. Why cannot lost man will himself into salvation - Because he is totally unable to by himself. What do we term this state of man - Total inability of the flesh. How does such a lost man unable in the flesh then choose rightly - by God's grace alone. So far, there cannot be any difference between calvinists and arminians. The difference here arises with the calvinists saying irresistible grace is granted to the elect alone taking no account of his freewill while the arminians hold prevenient grace granted based on man's freewill. This difference is based on the common truth that man is indeed unable to choose rightly by himself in his natural state apart from God's grace, whatever you term it.
Click to expand...
There is no inability in scripture telling us as sinners we are unable to respond to the Gospel. Total depravity isn't in scripture it is a man made idea. Calvinist claim man's spirit is literally dead which is not true. Our spirit is dead only in the sense we are separated from God. This is what Paul meant when he said a sinners spirit is dead It means to be separated from God. The flesh cannot live with out the spirit which quickens our flesh. Not only this but the spirit never dies. If it did as a sinner there would be no reason to send them to hell. They would be unresponsive unconscious unaware of the pain and punishment.
MB
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I

ivdavid

Active Member
MB said:
Calvinist claim man's spirit is literally dead which is not true.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of classic calvinism teaching that - they only say man in his natural state is spiritually dead because he is in the flesh and not in the spirit, not that there is no spirit at all or that it's literally dead. When born again, he (his soul?) is birthed again in the spirit and is no longer in the flesh as before in the first birth (Rom 8:9). Total inability of the flesh is what's described in Rom 7: 25, Rom 8:7-8 and elsewhere. Do you read these passages differently?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top