T, U, L and I of the Tulip

[OldRegular]

Amy, that is an excellent post. Thanks for the way you worded it. My knowledge of Greek and Hebrew which most posts are saturated with, is looking the words up in a dictionary, so I find myself at a disadvantage debating the precise words.

One of the best examples to me is the conversion of Paul. Can you imagine Paul (Saul) being able to choose to put his faith in Jesus Christ before his encounter with the Risen Lord on a trip to persecute Christians and have them executed. I think it is kind of ridiculous to say that Paul, half way through his journey, would say, "Gee, I think it is time to accept the Lord, so I am going to exercise my faith, join the Kingdom of God, and stop persecuting Christians" without an encounter with the Lord first. There was no ability there to do that apart from the Lord.

I also think the charge that Calvinists (I hate that term) are saved without Christ because of regeneration coming before salvation is a word game. The regeneration is a gift of God, which is having Christ, since Christ is God. Also, the span of time is emphasized between regeneration and salvation. Again, a word game, or a lack of understanding of time between where we live and eternity. In the time element, it could happen at the same time, and if not, what difference does it make in eternity?

I think the label Calvinism honestly causes sharper and more aggressive posts. I wish we could come up with a decent label to describe what we are trying to say about God's sovereignty and grace. Calvin's life and some of his theology does not merit an entire doctrine to be named after him.

Again, excellent post.

Very well put S/N. I particularly like with your comments about Paul. Your comments about regeneration are spot on. I believe that those who reject the Doctrine of Grace are aware that they are twisting what we believe about regeneration.

I have indicated for years that I am not Calvinist. There were a number of positions held by Calvin that I disown. Spurgeon stated that Calvinism was just a nickname for the Biblical Doctrine of Grace. However, on this Board Calvinism is used as a pejorative and worse!

 

[OldRegular]

I'm borrowing this from a John MacArthur sermon but I totally agree with him on it.

To the unregenerate man, the gospel sounds like this; there was a Jewish man who lived 2000 years ago, claimed to be God, healed the sick, raised people from the dead, was crucified on a cross and now your sins can be forgiven.
That just won't sell. To the unregenerate (the natural man), that is just baloney. It's just a story told by Christians to get other people to be Christians. (end of MacArthur's opinion.)

The gospel is spiritual. It cannot be understood through logic or human means. It can only be understood spiritually. The unbeliever is in the natural. He CANNOT understand spiritual things. The only way you can say that unregenerate man can understand the gospel is to say that the gospel is not spiritual in nature. And if not, it is only mere words which have no power at all. It is no different than preaching a gospel of Buddha or Mohammed. You CANNOT convince someone that a man named Jesus, a Jew who lived 2000 years ago is GOD except that the Spirit of God opens his mind and his heart to SEE the truth. There is just no way any human being is going to believe it without God causing him to see it.

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus is telling Peter that "you didn't figure this out". God showed it to you.

To say that we have the ability within ourselves to believe the gospel, is to say that we don't need God to open our hearts to see the truth and therefore the gospel is not spiritual in nature, but carnal and earthly.

Well said Amy! Jesus Christ said essentially the same to Nicodemus that he said to Peter: John 3:8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think I understand what you mean, but if it's 'solid' then it is correct. If it's in error then it can't be 'solid.' A solid hermeneutic always leads to correct interpretation, IMO.



I just did. And I believe the basis of their understanding is correct, I just took issue with the reason for it. I believe your view is in greater error than theirs.

As I just explained, Paul is explaining the difference between righteousness by law through works and righteousness by grace through faith. Calvinists seem to equate law to grace and faith to works, in that they seem to think both are insufficient for righteousness. They think that because we can't attain righteousness by law through works then we can't possibly attain righteousness by grace through faith.

The basis of all righteousness though is due to the cross of christ, and BOTH cals/arms say that we still have to be "graced' by God to be able to place faith in jesus, so neither can boast "my faith did it!"

 

[Loopie]

Amy, that is an excellent post, and I think you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly why God declares to Ezekiel that he will 'replace the heart of stone with a heart of flesh'. God must conduct 'spiritual surgery' on the sinner BEFORE the sinner can ever please God or exercise faith and repentance. In all the cases where God talks about the New Covenant, it is always the case that God declares that he will do something first, and THEN the people will KNOW that HE is the Lord, and will obey his commands.

Jeremiah 32:37-40 (NASB)
37 "Behold, I will gather them out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, in My wrath and in great indignation; and I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety.
38 "They shall be My people, and I will be their God;
39 and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for the good of their children after them.
40 "I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.

Just like in Ezekiel, it is God who DOES something first before the people ever respond. The natural (sinful) man does not, and cannot respond to God unless God DRAWS him.

Those who deny the sovereignty of God in salvation always appeal to 'autonomous free will', which is certainly not a biblical concept, but a leftover from ancient Greek philosophy. If our will is TRULY autonomous, it MUST mean that our decisions are uncaused, and without influence, right? That is what it means to be autonomous. Does anyone really believe that their choices and actions have NO cause, and are completely without influence?

What we see from many Christians is that God's own freedom is removed so that man can have it. When Paul speaks of God's foreknowledge of those who are in Christ, it is twisted to mean that God looks down the tunnel of time, sees those who will believe in him, and then chooses to save them. God's eternal decree is apparently based upon man's decisions (men who had not yet existed). Yet the Bible clearly shows that God's foreknowledge is based upon his eternal decree to save. That is why those who deny TULIP must logically conclude with either open-theism (God does not have knowledge of future events) or molinism (God's knowledge of the future is based on man's decisions). In essence, according to an Arminian view of God's sovereignty, God tosses the cosmic dice, sees that he is going to 'win', and then decides to create the world.

It is for this very reason that I changed from an Arminian viewpoint of salvation to a Calvinistic view of salvation. We must begin with the sovereignty of God, and we cannot sacrifice God's sovereignty for some autonomous free-will in man that is never revealed in scripture.

 

[OldRegular]

Just like in Ezekiel, it is God who DOES something first before the people ever respond. The natural (sinful) man does not, and cannot respond to God unless God DRAWS him.

God always takes the initiative in Salvation, even in the Garden!

 

[Amy.G]

God always takes the initiative in Salvation, even in the Garden!

Yep. Adam and Eve hid from God. It was God who approached them and God that killed the animal (a lamb ) to cover their sins, not just their naked bodies.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, that is an excellent post, and I think you hit the nail on the head.

Hello Loopie! And thank you! :wavey:

 

[Yeshua1]

Amy, that is an excellent post, and I think you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly why God declares to Ezekiel that he will 'replace the heart of stone with a heart of flesh'. God must conduct 'spiritual surgery' on the sinner BEFORE the sinner can ever please God or exercise faith and repentance. In all the cases where God talks about the New Covenant, it is always the case that God declares that he will do something first, and THEN the people will KNOW that HE is the Lord, and will obey his commands.

Jeremiah 32:37-40 (NASB)
37 "Behold, I will gather them out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, in My wrath and in great indignation; and I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety.
38 "They shall be My people, and I will be their God;
39 and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for the good of their children after them.
40 "I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.

Just like in Ezekiel, it is God who DOES something first before the people ever respond. The natural (sinful) man does not, and cannot respond to God unless God DRAWS him.

Those who deny the sovereignty of God in salvation always appeal to 'autonomous free will', which is certainly not a biblical concept, but a leftover from ancient Greek philosophy. If our will is TRULY autonomous, it MUST mean that our decisions are uncaused, and without influence, right? That is what it means to be autonomous. Does anyone really believe that their choices and actions have NO cause, and are completely without influence?

What we see from many Christians is that God's own freedom is removed so that man can have it. When Paul speaks of God's foreknowledge of those who are in Christ, it is twisted to mean that God looks down the tunnel of time, sees those who will believe in him, and then chooses to save them. God's eternal decree is apparently based upon man's decisions (men who had not yet existed). Yet the Bible clearly shows that God's foreknowledge is based upon his eternal decree to save. That is why those who deny TULIP must logically conclude with either open-theism (God does not have knowledge of future events) or molinism (God's knowledge of the future is based on man's decisions). In essence, according to an Arminian view of God's sovereignty, God tosses the cosmic dice, sees that he is going to 'win', and then decides to create the world.

It is for this very reason that I changed from an Arminian viewpoint of salvation to a Calvinistic view of salvation. We must begin with the sovereignty of God, and we cannot sacrifice God's sovereignty for some autonomous free-will in man that is never revealed in scripture.

the awesome paradox on this is when we fully submit to the truth of God being really sovereign, then we experience real freedom, as we realise that its "Not on me, its all on Him!"

 

[Winman]

Yep. Adam and Eve hid from God. It was God who approached them and God that killed the animal (a lamb ) to cover their sins, not just their naked bodies.

Yes, but they had to come to God when he called, that is faith.

Think about this, what had God told Adam and Eve would happen if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? He told them they would surely die.

Knowing this, it is no wonder they hid. They probably believed God was going to kill them.

But when God called they came didn't they? They trusted that God was not going to kill them. This is faith.

The reason God forgave their sin and clothed them with skins is because they trusted God and came to him when he called.

 

[Amy.G]

The reason God forgave their sin and clothed them with skins is because they trusted God and came to him when he called.

No it isn't.

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

The sacrifice was made for Adam and Eve while they were still in their sins, separated from God (spiritually). Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.

Christ died for us while we were still in our sins. God slew the lamb while Adam was still in his sin.

 

[Van]

Ever notice how Calvinists love to use code. God is sovereign, but what that means in code is God predestines everything that comes to pass. So by redefining the meaning of words, they say the same things the Bible says, but they do not use the words as the Biblical authors used them.

How about God always takes the initiative in salvation. This could refer to revelatory grace and would be true. But it is code for irresistible grace which is fiction.

Calvinists repeat the fiction that an unregenerate man cannot seek God and trust in Christ, but Matthew 13:1-30 teaches that many unregenerate men can understand and receive the gospel message.

Calvinists also love to reverse the order of things. John 1:12 and 13 teach that after we believe, we are given the right to become children of God born from above. That is consistent with being made alive (quickened) together with Christ when God puts us spiritually in Christ, not before we are put in Christ. They refer to verses speaking of our spiritual conversion when we are made alive once we are spiritually in Christ, and claim this refers to something that happens before we are given the right to become children of God.

They employ circular reasoning: If God allows us to make autonomous decisions, does that mean our will is not influenced by our life experiences such as hearing the gospel, and believing God sent His Son to die for us? Nope.

God's foreknowledge of those redeemed refers to God's predetermined plan to call, redeem, justify and glorify those whose autonomous faith in Christ He credits as righteousness.

Is God the author of sin, or are some actions of men not predestined by God? If you say, God is not the author of sin, you believe in limited open theism, everything is not predestined.

 

[Winman]

No it isn't.

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

The sacrifice was made for Adam and Eve while they were still in their sins, separated from God (spiritually). Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.

Christ died for us while we were still in our sins. God slew the lamb while Adam was still in his sin.

You are denying that a person is saved by faith. No man is forgiven his sins until he trusts God.

God does not save anyone apart from faith.

 

[psalms109:31]

Ezekiel 36:26
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.


Philippians 2
Imitating Christ’s Humility
2 Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[Or in the form of] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[Or the form] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death —
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

A heart of stone thinks inwardly not outwardly it can’t be molding, a heart of flesh given by God through His word is moved by compassion for others and it can be molded by His word in which God gives us this new heart through His word, but it is still flesh. To be moved by compassion people can say it is a man moved by emotions.

Matthew 9:36
But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.


I do not believe in free will, but i do believe we have to deny our will and follow the will of the Father in heaven.

Matthew 7:21
[ True and False Disciples ] “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Luke 22:42
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”


His will comes from His word.

1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

Our will is directed by other parts of our soul. We have to fight our will and that abilty comes from His word which is Spirit.

 

[Yeshua1]

All things come to pass per his sovereign and pefect Will, its just some things he has directly caused/determined to happen, others he allowed/permitted, but he always has the final say on what transpires, as he is not just viewing time and history roll on, he is directing them!

 

[psalms109:31]

Ezekiel 28

14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

 

[OldRegular]

How about God always takes the initiative in salvation. This could refer to revelatory grace and would be true. But it is code for irresistible grace which is fiction.

No Van! It is not code, it is truth. The machinations of some "freewillers" in this Board in refusing to let God be God are getting silly.

 

[Winman]

No Van! It is not code, it is truth. The machinations of some "freewillers" in this Board in refusing to let God be God are getting silly.

Do you realize you are confirming we have free will? When you say we are refusing to let God be God, you are saying we have free will.

 

[OldRegular]

Calvinists repeat the fiction that an unregenerate man cannot seek God and trust in Christ, but Matthew 13:1-30 teaches that many unregenerate men can understand and receive the gospel message.

The parable of the sower is an excellent proof of the Doctrine of Grace. Only one of the four was regenerated through the work of the Holy Spirit and saved!

 

[Winman]

The parable of the sower is an excellent proof of the Doctrine of Grace. Only one of the four was regenerated through the work of the Holy Spirit and saved!

Though I would disagree with Van's interpretation of the parable of the sower, nevertheless it shows that men are able to believe.

I personally believe only the way side soil was lost, as it never took root and "sprang up"

The rocky soil and the thorny soil both sprang up. This is life, nothing springs up that is not alive. However, when persecution arose, or the cares of the world distracted them, they did not bear fruit.

But they believed, the scriptures say so.

Luke 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

The scriptures say the rocky ground received the word with joy and believed for a while, but then fell away. If this is speaking of salvation, then it refutes Perseverance of the Saints refuting Calvinism. In Calvinism, according to Total Depravity they could not possibly have believed unless they were regenerated, but Jesus said they did.

No, it says they did not bear fruit, not that they lost their salvation.

But no matter how you intepret this parable, Jesus showed that which soil a person is is dependent upon their willingness to hear the word of God.

Luk 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

After Jesus told this parable, he warned his disciples to be careful how they hear. For those who hear and believe the word, more will be given. But to those who do not believe, even that which is given them shall be taken away.

This shows that the ability to hear belongs to the hearer. If man lacks the ability to hear, then this warning would be nonsensical. The non-elect could not possibly hear, and the elect could not possibly not hear. Jesus's warning would be both unnecessary and nonsensical.

 

[Van]

Some loose ends:

Jude 12 mentioned "twice dead" and Luke2427 asserted this supported the idea of the "spark of spiritual life" explanation of unregenerates seeking God and trusting in Christ. According to this effort to shore up total spiritual inability, God for His mysterious purpose gives some unregenerate people a spark of life, such that they can respond to the gospel, but the spark is intended, for some mysterious purpose of God, to provide life only for a little while and then die out. Thus they started out dead, were brought temporarily to life, then died again, hence twice dead.

To me, the above fits the absurdity category of Calvinism defense.

But just to play along, here is what Jude 12 says: trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

Jude is talking about people (tares) within the church who do not walk the talk. And he describes the ark or trajectory of their hypocritical pretense: (1) They initially have little fruit, but by continuing to walk outside the paths of righteousness, they (2) cease to bear any fruit at all. But the situation is not hopeless at this point, they still could be brought or come to their senses. Unfortunately, what little spiritual ability they had is taken away by their practice of sin, so they become (3) twice dead, (a) spiritually dead already because they are not really saved, and (b) now "dead" to the opportunity through the gospel because they have become like the first soil of Matthew 13, unable to understand the gospel. And alas, their trajectory ends as an "uprooted tree" awaiting being burned up in the Lake of Fire.

We all claim to believe in scripture alone, but when I see arguments like "the spark of life" I see an invention of men providing an extra-biblical enabling of false doctrine. Such efforts are twice dead if you get my drift.

Next it was asserted that Matthew 13 teaches that the fourth soil was secretly regenerated and that is why he fully embraced the gospel. Not a shred of support for this further absurdity. Jesus was teaching us about various levels of receptivity among the harvest.

Lastly, a rather bizarre claim that denying God could allow us to make autonomous choices influenced by our life experience but not dictated by them, somehow is refusing to let God be God. However it is God who said He sets life and death before us and then begs us to choose life.