TULIP for Real Life

[TCassidy]

That is not what you said "No" to.

Yes, it is. I made it clear in my longer response that the Gospel Call is universal.

 

[TCassidy]

You are conflating multiple post.

No, I was replying to your error of thinking Particular Redemption teaches that a person must be regenerate in order to be drawn by the universal Gospel Call.

 

[steaver]

No, I was replying to your error of thinking Particular Redemption teaches that a person must be regenerate in order to be drawn by the universal Gospel Call.

Forgive me but I am getting confused by your responses.

The Gospel Call is universal. It calls all who hear it. But the efficacious drawing of the Father to the Son is according to His good pleasure. It is that effectual calling that results in regeneration which produces faith, repentance, and obedience.

No. Their dead heart is positively inclined away from God. God first removes the old, dead, heart of stone and gives them a new, living, heart of faith.

Can the dead heart respond to God's call or not?

 

[TCassidy]

Forgive me but I am getting confused by your responses.

Yes, that is obvious. You have conflated the Gospel Call with the drawing of the Father. The latter is always efficacious, the former is not.

 

[atpollard]

Yes, I have been agreeing that under TULIP's theology the new heart must take place first, before the person can respond to God. As I said...."It does not follow that Adam would then blame God for everything, showing no remorse for what he had done, seeing God had given him a new heart that the Scripture declares rejoices in everything God".

It seems sad that I need to reply by reposting the portion of my post which you failed to quote in your response. Apparently we are talking past one another.

The way you have worded your statement is claiming limitations on the power of God, not limitations on the willingness of man.

1. God drew a sinful Adam out of hiding in the bushes (before he was given a new heart).
2. A sinful "natural man" Adam was confronted with his sin and blamed God.
3. God then punished Adam with a curse and extended a measure of Grace and Mercy (spared his physical life for the moment by withholding the punishment of physical death that Adam deserved and offered hope for future redemption through the seed of the woman.)
4. At no point was repentance shown or was salvation promised to Adam. Soteriology is simply not dealt with in Genesis 3.

We must contrast this with the case of a modern man:

1. We are all born "natural man" with the no "pre-sin" period in our life and meet God for the first time also wanting to hide in the bushes. However God draws some sinners to Christ. (John 6:44)
2. At Christ we can hear the Gospel.
3. Only the Holy Spirit has the power to remove a dead heart and give us a living heart (Eph 2:1-10).
4. Only after the HS transforms us from a "natural man" who cannot understand spiritual things, to a Spiritual man that can, do we have the power to believe and have faith and repent and receive the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance.

Adam was promised none of what Jesus offers a modern man. God may have saved Adam (in fact I think it quite likely), however it is not the subject of Genesis 3.

... That and GOD CAN DRAW ANYONE HE PLEASES ... Adam, Job, Satan, Paul, Jonah ... with or without their permission and with an old or new heart! That's what it means to be a Sovereign, Omnipotent God.

 

[InTheLight]

God drew a sinful Adam out of hiding in the bushes (before he was given a new heart).

1. A sinful "natural man" Adam was confronted with his sin and blamed God.
2. God then punished Adam with a curse and extended a measure of Grace and Mercy (spared his physical life for the moment by withholding the punishment of physical death that Adam deserved and offered hope for future redemption through the seed of the woman.)
3. At no point was repentance shown or was salvation promised to Adam. Soteriology is simply not dealt with in Genesis 3.

We must contrast this with the case of a modern man:

How about contrasting it with Cain? Cain, murderous, unregenerate Cain. God told Cain that sin is lying at his door and that he should be the master of it. (Gen 4:7) Seems an odd thing for God to tell an unregenerate person--be victorious over sin. Isn't it?

 

[steaver]

Yes, that is obvious. You have conflated the Gospel Call with the drawing of the Father. The latter is always efficacious, the former is not.

Since I am so obviously confused, you could help me by answering my simple question. Can the dead heart respond to God's call or not?

 

[steaver]

That and GOD CAN DRAW ANYONE HE PLEASES ... Adam, Job, Satan, Paul, Jonah ... with or without their permission and with an old or new heart! That's what it means to be a Sovereign, Omnipotent God.

Great! So when Jesus said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me", He was speaking of all whether elected or not.

 

[atpollard]

Great! So when Jesus said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me", He was speaking of all whether elected or not.

That is Great! So when Jesus also said “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." that means that all men (whether elected or not) will be drawn to him and raised up on the last day.

And here I was always taught that Universalism was a heresy. Thank you for clearing that up.

How about if you exegete John 12:32 and explain the phrase "all men" since the Incas living in Central America were certainly not "drawn" to Jesus when he was "lifted up" on that cross 2000 years ago. Did Jesus misspeak?

 

[atpollard]

How about contrasting it with Cain? Cain, murderous, unregenerate Cain. God told Cain that sin is lying at his door and that he should be the master of it. (Gen 4:7) Seems an odd thing for God to tell an unregenerate person--be victorious over sin. Isn't it?

Have at it.
I have never actually seen you exegete a verse so It should be enlightening.
I think Jesus said something similar to Peter and several comments to Judas.
I wonder if that is significant?

 

[steaver]

That is Great! So when Jesus also said “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." that means that all men (whether elected or not) will be drawn to him and raised up on the last day.

Ahhh....you see your dilemma. One step at a time brother, so you agree Jesus meant all men, whether elect or not?

 

[TCassidy]

Can the dead heart respond to God's call or not?

The dead heart can not, will not, and doesn't want to respond to the Gospel Call.

 

[atpollard]

Ahhh....you see your dilemma. One step at a time brother, so you agree Jesus meant all men, whether elect or not?

Yes, I see my dilemma. When I attempt to accept Semi-Pelagian definitions, it leads to an inevitable slide into Universalism.

Now what does ALL MEN mean?
The natives of Central America were not drawn to Jesus when he died on the Cross, so all men cannot mean every single living person without exception. Can it?

 

[SovereignGrace]

This TULIP argument either lives or dies in the Garden of Eden. You have to examine Adam and Eve. People believe Adam and Eve were perfect. They were not perfect for only God is perfect. They were vulnerable to temptations and deception, something God is not. God placed before Adam and Eve, life and death. The question is, did Adam and Eve have the freewill to make the choice? Or did God make the choice for them?

You can not compare our status with Adam's and Eve's. They were created sinless, we were not.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Can the dead heart respond to God's call or not?

No

 

[SovereignGrace]

I believe Total Inability stands for one not being able to respond to God. Correct? Was Adam able to respond to God after he sinned?

Bruh...dead ppl can respond to God. God conversed with Satan, and he's as spiritually dead as they get. That's not the point we're making.

God conversed with Cain after he murdered Abel.

However, when we witness to lost ppl, it is like Ezekiel looking over that valley of very dry bones. If he had took it upon himself to speak to those bones, they would not and could not have listened to him, seeing they were dead. But it was once God gave the command to Ezekiel and Ezekiel spoke the words He told him to say, they reacted to those words.

That's a picture of the gospel and how it works. As we witness to the lost, if God moves as we are speaking to those who are spiritually dead, watch them come to life just like those bones did.

 

[Aaron]

TULIP is applied to a common world situation to show the logic.

The transit system through Atlanta is called MARTA, a system of trains and buses to move people around Atlanta. It cost billions of dollars and over the years has expanded service to surrounding counties. It is most used during rush hour and often times empty seats are available depending on the time and destinations.
Their TULIP is this way.

Total inability to move themselves travel individually though Atl. is difficult due to automobile traffic congestion and it is too far to walk

Unconditionally available to use, If one has a ticket, one can ride. anytime , and never get off

Limited access, Only those who are users can ride.

Irresistible , If you are a rider, you are gonna ride. no choices, only system, roads are congested, distance is too far

Perseverance of the rider, Marta will take you were you want and not make you get off somewhere else

So the authority that runs Marta , build the system only for users, not for non users.
If you lived in rural GA, to bad, you are a non user

Since the system was only built for users, one cannot be a non-user and become a user, It was not built for non users.

What about the extra seats?
Even though a lot of seats are empty, this system was only built for users, not non users.

Marta carries 100% of the those users who ride Marta. There are no seats for those who do not ride. It was designed that way.

It is apparent the logic used by Calvin is as TULIP is as the logic used here. neither fit the situation

It's really very simple. Can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit? No. Can a corrupt man bring forth faith? No. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit, not corruption.

Total depravity is established.


Did Jacob choose himself? No. God chose Jacob while He was yet in the womb. You might say that God chose based on the foreknowledge that Jacob would be a better man than Esau, but we've already established that a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. And though Esau despised his birthright, Jacob was a liar and a thief.

Unconditional Election is established.


Will all be saved? No. So you believe in limited atonement, you're just in disagreement on the limiter, but T and U being established above eliminates man's choice as an option for limiter.

Limited Atonement is established.


Irresistible Grace. In the natural world, there is a picture of this. Did you choose to be born? Did you choose your gender or race? God didn't give you a say in your existence or heritage, but He gives you the choice in your second birth? Did Paul have a choice? Did Lazarus have a choice? Did Jacob? A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, not even the fruit of repentance. We are a new creation. In the first creation, when God said, "Let there be light," could light have not appeared? Could Adam have not received the breath of God? And you think His new creation can refuse?

Irresistible Grace is established.


2 Corinthians 9:8 ff And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you WILL PERFORM IT until the day of Jesus Christ: That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

Perseverance of the Saints is established.

 

[atpollard]

It's really very simple. Can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit? No. Can a corrupt man bring forth faith? No. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit, not corruption.

Total depravity is established.


Did Jacob choose himself? No. God chose Jacob while He was yet in the womb. You might say that God chose based on the foreknowledge that Jacob would be a better man than Esau, but we've already established that a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. And though Esau despised his birthright, Jacob was a liar and a thief.

Unconditional Election is established.


Will all be saved? No. So you believe in limited atonement, you're just in disagreement on the limiter, but T and U being established above eliminates man's choice as an option for limiter.

Limited Atonement is established.


Irresistible Grace. In the natural world, there is a picture of this. Did you choose to be born? Did you choose your gender or race? God didn't give you a say in your existence or heritage, but He gives you the choice in your second birth? Did Paul have a choice? Did Lazarus have a choice? Did Jacob? A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, not even the fruit of repentance. We are a new creation. In the first creation, when God said, "Let there be light," could light have not appeared? Could Adam have not received the breath of God? And you think His new creation can refuse?

Irresistible Grace is established.


2 Corinthians 9:8 ff And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you WILL PERFORM IT until the day of Jesus Christ: That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

Perseverance of the Saints is established.

Wow, that was beautifully said.

 

[Aaron]

This TULIP argument either lives or dies in the Garden of Eden. You have to examine Adam and Eve. People believe Adam and Eve were perfect. They were not perfect for only God is perfect. They were vulnerable to temptations and deception, something God is not.

I think the term you're looking for is 'incorruptible.' Adam and Eve were perfect, they were not incorruptible. To say they were imperfect implies a defect. They weren't defective, and they had no sin nature. They were perfectly holy and good and innocent.

But they weren't incorruptible.

God placed before Adam and Eve, life and death. The question is, did Adam and Eve have the freewill to make the choice?

I gotta go with Jesus on this one. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. The acceptance of that maxim determines the conclusion that Adam, as long as he was good, could not disobey.

So corruption had crept in. I've been asked, when? I cannot say for certain, but I would say that Adam was corrupted by his communication with the Serpent. He believed the lie, that they would be as gods knowing good and evil, and that is not a choice one makes. I cannot choose to believe a lie any more than I can choose to believe the truth. I either believe what I'm being told, or I don't.

The thing that we learned from the law was that our exposure to corruption corrupts us. Touching something unclean made the clean unclean. Even if that exposure was not willful.

Or did God make the choice for them?

By permitting their exposure to a lie, it was in the will of God that this event come about, but it was Adam's choice, and it was not a free choice.

 

[Aaron]

Wow, that was beautifully said.

Thanks.