T.u.l.i.p

[Bob Alkire]

Calvin was a complicated man with complicated beliefs, yet they were all woven into a single strand of sovereignty. God is sovereign, thus everything else falls into place.

That being said, it is not appropriate to talk about Calvinism while only discussing election. In fact, Calvin's student, Theodore Beza, assembled Calvin's work in the area.

To be fair, Calvin would be a "5-point Calvinist," but election was only a small part of his work and should not be taken out of context.

You are correct my friend. I had a professor in seminary who was always was saying that many Presbyterians (Calvinist belief folks) would disagree with Calvin.

In later years I've even come across many who believe Beza went much further than Calvin.

 

[quantumfaith]

Full-bore 5 pointer here.

I noticed no zero-pointers have tuned in yet.

Come on you Arminians out there ,... Where are you?

Arminius himself wrote about depraved humanity: "In his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections, or will, and in all his powers by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, conceive, will, and perform whatever is truly good."

 

[quantumfaith]

If someone is a zero-pointer, then he wouldn't be an Arminian. Arminians believe in total depravity just like Calvinists.

:thumbs: Excellent point!

 

[Ruiz]

Bro Ruiz,

I found the definition of "Total Depravity" via wikipedia and this is what it states:

Total depravity (also called absolute inability and total corruption) is a theological doctrine that derives from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is offered.

It is also advocated to various degrees by many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, including those of Lutheranism,[1] Arminianism,[2] and Calvinism.[3]

According to wikipedia,prevenient grace of God is included in the definition of "total depravity". Now, I don't believe in "prevenient grace", mind you, but in my belief of Total Depravity, man is completely unable to save himself, and that until that "drawing power" draws him/her, they won't even want to serve Him. However, once that "drawing power" starts, he/she then has the tools to work with. Jesus stated in Rev. 3:20 that He'll stand at the door and knock(not break it down either), and if any man will OPEN THE DOOR(looks like they have something to do), He will come in and sup with him, and He with them. Once God calls, then and only then can we respond. With love!

i am I am's!!

Willis

I am not a fan of Wikipedia for defining theological term. While they are correct in defining Total Depravity using Augustine, they are not correct when they reject part of the definition of Augustine. Remember, it was Augustine who famously, in this exact debate, said, "Grant what thou commandest and then command what thou wilt." This caused a major problem and was the center of the controversy in the Pelagian Controversy. Augustine said that God had to grant a person salvation even though God commanded all to be saved. Without God specifically granting you salvation, you would not be saved... and God does not grant all people (John 6). His rationale, unless God granted salvation a person would not be saved and if he granted it you would be saved. If using Augustine to define total depravity is appropriate (and I do agree that he should be used) then you cannot make up your own 2nd part of the definition. Augustine was consistent, without God explicitly granting us the ability to do God's will, we will not do God's will.

While I do use Wikipedia for some things, it is not scholarly. Preveneint Grace, as well, is nowhere found in the Bible. Also, for another source against this idea here is a good article:

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

 

[kyredneck]

All five points here. (I guess I need to educate myself on 'the six points')

 

[sag38]

I have trouble with the concept of "Limited Atonement." That's my sticking point with the doctrines of grace.

 

[jcjordan]

Here's why I said 6 or more points....I agree with Piper.

 

[sag38]

Either one believes and is saved or doesn't and is lost. Why make it into some complicated system where we now have to understand what double predestination means? Good grief!!!

 

[Ruiz]

Either one believes and is saved or doesn't and is lost. Why make it into some complicated system where we now have to understand what double predestination means? Good grief!!!

Sag,

I do not think anyone is arguing infra-lapsarianism and supra-lapsarianism. I do not know why you wish to label people over a discussion we are not having.

 

[HankD]

I'm with Tom on this one.

Like the "Five Fundamentals of the Faith", "TULIP" just doesn't take it far enough.

Granted it is like a shortcut icon on your desktop to take you to another well known place to which it points.

Also it functions as a shibboleth to let others who are savvy in theological lingo know where you stand.

But, I have issues with each of the letters in the acronym.

e.g. While I agree in principle with the doctrine of "Total Depravity", it does not address the issue of "moral" people and how they also are totally depraved.

When we talk to the lost about their sinful state, many "moral" excuse themselves (which proves BTW that they are "totally depraved") from the grace of God because they see themselves as "good" and not "totally depraved" which conjures up in their minds a jacketed mass murderer in a lunatic asylum banging his head on the wall because he can't kill anyone anymore.

"Total Depravity" then involves at least two other things: 1) the inflence of the Holy Spirit in the general and global restraint of mankind in his depravity and 2) man's total incapacity to communicate with God without the intercession of the Holy Spirit.

Then there is "unconditional election", well, IMO its not really unconditional but "after the counsel of His own will", a counsel of which we are not made privvy apart from our helpless hopeless lost estate, and inability to save ourselves.

But, I understand the premise and the technique called "poetic license" to stuff the elements of calvinism into the "TULIP" acronym.

Then I reject both titles (calvinist, arminian) because of the divisiveness it causes among brethren and it appears to violate the scriptural principles of "clicky" associations with mortal men (I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, etc) as teachers (howbeit "Paul" is an inspired writer).

I suppose for the sake of the discussion I would side with tulip (though I reject the title of "calvinist").

It's kind of like voting for McCain over Obama.
It's not the ideal but IMO its a whole lot better than the alternative.

HankD

 

[jrscott]

I read Piper's page on the extra points he mentions.

I appreciate his intention and understand where he's coming from in terms of saying that TULIP does not do justice to the whole counsel of God on these issues. All five points are reactions to the five points of the Remonstrants and are stated in largely negative terms. They require the "further explanations" of Scriptural teaching.

I personally do not like the term double predestination, because it gives the impression that someone goes to Hell as a result of God's action. Predestining someone to hell does not require a direct act of God. While I understand the argument that God essentially does so by not choosing them, it is not according to Scripture to place the responsibility of someone going to Hell on God. Each person is responsible for their own sin. Those who are in heaven do so only by God's grace.

 

[HankD]

I read Piper's page on the extra points he mentions.

I appreciate his intention and understand where he's coming from in terms of saying that TULIP does not do justice to the whole counsel of God on these issues. All five points are reactions to the five points of the Remonstrants and are stated in largely negative terms. They require the "further explanations" of Scriptural teaching.

I personally do not like the term double predestination, because it gives the impression that someone goes to Hell as a result of God's action. Predestining someone to hell does not require a direct act of God. While I understand the argument that God essentially does so by not choosing them, it is not according to Scripture to place the responsibility of someone going to Hell on God. Each person is responsible for their own sin. Those who are in heaven do so only by God's grace.

Correct. And FWIW this is another element to which you have alluded that is troublesome to many:

The verbal acrobatics of calvinism (and other theological venues) to prove its points which usually leads to more questions rather than enlightenment.

If causes confusion and doubt among some of those whom God is calling (although ultimately they will arrive safe at home). My own solution is to say to the individual concerning such things as disputes about "double predestination" (for instance) is to answer "that's God's problem not yours" and move on to the simplicity of the gospel.

But, for the most part it is kept within a tight community of those who enjoy counting angels on the heads of pins of which I suppose I am one (counters not angels).

HankD

 

[Jon-Marc]

I believe all but limited atonement. Salvation is offered to ALL, but, unfortunately, will be rejected by most. Also, there is only one "P" in tulip.

 

[Jim1999]

Jon, many of us in the reformed school, show salvation offered to all, but limited to some. Yes, the offer of salvation is preached to all, and all the elect will come. The remainder are passed by. Very important wording here to demonstrate predestination and election.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[quantumfaith]

Jon, many of us in the reformed school, show salvation offered to all, but limited to some. Yes, the offer of salvation is preached to all, and all the elect will come. The remainder are passed by. Very important wording here to demonstrate predestination and election.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim,

Humbly and respectfully, this is one of the places that us "non-reformers' get "hung up", as it sounds like linguistic gymnastics.

 

[gb93433]

I am wondering why we cannot get a calvinist to give us an accurate interpretation of 1 Samuel 16:14-16.

If it is true that some calvinists choose to believe that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell, then I wonder if they think God is stupid in calling many and choosing few especially when the inspired version in Mt. 22:14 says, "For many are called, but few are chosen." If what they believe is true then why would God call many more than He chooses?

 

[The Archangel]

... the inspired version in Mt. 22:14 says, "For many are called, but few are chosen."

The inspired version? What version would that be?

 

[asterisktom]

I am wondering why we cannot get a calvinist to give us an accurate interpretation of 1 Samuel 16:14-16.

If it is true that some calvinists choose to believe that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell, then I wonder if they think God is stupid in calling many and choosing few especially when the inspired version in Mt. 22:14 says, "For many are called, but few are chosen." If what they believe is true then why would God call many more than He chooses?

What is supposed to be so difficult about the verse? I read the post, looked up the passage, then passed it on seeing no relevance to being - or against being - a Calvinist.

 

[Jim1999]

All theology blends to itself. The first truth is the absolute sovereignty of God. Then we come to man's free will. Where does it fit in? I think it is simple. Under God's absolute sovereignty we have the permissive will of God. He allows man "thus far an no further..." as scripture says. Man is give the right to speak, but God reserves the absolute right to also silence him.

Here we look at the cross, where the blood of Christ is sufficient for all, but efficient for some; the elect. We offer the gospel to all. We don't know whom God has chosen, and our commission is to preach the gospel to the whole world.

We cannot discuss the blood and its worth without discussing the absolute sovereignty of God to choose whom He wills.

Man is in a fallen state of his own free will, and that fallen state was carried on to all humanity. So, passing one by, is their own fault and not God's. Hence, double predestination is foolishness and does not fit into any theology.

I am the first to admit each branch of theology has its own problem areas, but I cannot circumvent the absolute sovereignty of God to overrule and thoughts I might entertain must conefine themselves to that sovereignty.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[HankD]

I am wondering why we cannot get a calvinist to give us an accurate interpretation of 1 Samuel 16:14-16.

If it is true that some calvinists choose to believe that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell, then I wonder if they think God is stupid in calling many and choosing few especially when the inspired version in Mt. 22:14 says, "For many are called, but few are chosen." If what they believe is true then why would God call many more than He chooses?

While I don't claim to be a calvinist, I would answer with another question - why does God choose to do anything in the manner in which He has done it?

2 Kings 5:1 Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the LORD had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper...​

10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.
11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.
12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage...​

14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.​

If God choses to enter into the time continuum, call many and then chose few, thereby fullfilling His will and glorifying Himself that is His perogative.

In short He does what pleases Him in spite of what procedure we think He should follow or however stupid it might appear to us (as it did to Naaman).

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.​

HankD