TULIP: Unconditional Election

[webdog]

Addressing the Biblical doctrine of Grace under the designation of "Calvinism" is no different than addressing your view of salvation under "Seventh Day Adventism." Referring to "Calvin" and "Calvinism" is no different than refering to Ellen G. White as the inventor of your soteriology.

3, 4, 5, 6 point Calvinists (and there are those in history who called themselves 6 pointers) are inconsistences among those who embrace some aspects while rejecting other aspects of Calvins position.

I don't identify my soteriology with Calvin because Calvin's soteriology includes a lot more things than five points which I detest.

However, total depravity, unconditional election, limited or definite atonement, irresistable or effectual grace and preservation of the saints are all sound biblical doctrine when represented correctly. The problem is that you and others do represent them correctly. You build a straw man and then burn it rather than deal with these truths as presented in scripture.

Based on the above bolded, it's not entirely fair to state the non reformed misrepresent and "don't know calvinism" when your own camp does the same thing by your own admission. Can your camp please put that tired defense to rest...maybe send dlfred a PM since he is ignoring me ?
Oh, and I don't see a problem with "you and others do represent them correctly"

 

[Dr. Walter]

Based on the above bolded, it's not entirely fair to state the non reformed misrepresent and "don't know calvinism" when your own camp does the same thing by your own admission. Can your camp please put that tired defense to rest...maybe send dlfred a PM since he is ignoring me ?
Oh, and I don't see a problem with "you and others do represent them correctly"

My admission was intentional and not a slip of the tongue. I called them inconsistencies and did so intentionally. These inconsistencies are based upon the same straw arguments that Arminians use.

 

[glfredrick]

My simple question from above was essentially, "Will the lost man surrender to God if God reveals His glory?"

You had previously admitted than when God shows His presence in all His glory that every knee will bow and every tongue confess. In essence, the mere presence of God is force enough to cause everyone to believe. We will not have a choice at that point.

So, what of the person who God reveals Himself to before He comes in glory? Can that person still resist God, or will he or she bow the knee?

 

[BobRyan]

...or maybe you were predestined to do so?

Indeed - God has sovereignly ordained and predestined that I should continually point out the gap between Calvinism and the Bible;

This is the part where I as an Arminian am happy with that part of the argument for the Sovereignty of God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

My simple question from above was essentially, "Will the lost man surrender to God if God reveals His glory?"

God has the "power" to overpower anyone He so chooses - even Satan.

Thus at the name of Jesus Christ "every knee will bow" even at a time when He convicts all the ungodly of their ungodly deeds (see the letter of Jude)

You had previously admitted than when God shows His presence in all His glory that every knee will bow and every tongue confess. In essence, the mere presence of God is force enough to cause everyone to believe.

It is not enough to cause everyone to become saints - Because God chooses to stop there in His sovereign choice for free will - but the force of the truth is another matter entirely.

James 2 points out that the "devils believe and tremble". You presume that simply knowing correct facts, correct details is the same as siding with God.

A confession to "correct facts" is not the same thing as placing faith and trust in God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

However, total depravity, unconditional election, limited or definite atonement, irresistable or effectual grace and preservation of the saints are all sound biblical doctrine when represented correctly. The problem is that you and others do represent them correctly. You build a straw man and then burn it rather than deal with these truths as presented in scripture.

Like a true 4-pointer you change perseverance of the saints - to preservation of the saints. I was wondering why you objected to the classic Calvinist and Bible teaching on perseverance.

That explains a lot.

 

[glfredrick]

God has the "power" to overpower anyone He so chooses - even Satan.

Thus at the name of Jesus Christ "every knee will bow" even at a time when He convicts all the ungodly of their ungodly deeds (see the letter of Jude)



It is not enough to cause everyone to become saints - Because God chooses to stop there in His sovereign choice for free will - but the force of the truth is another matter entirely.

James 2 points out that the "devils believe and tremble". You presume that simply knowing correct facts, correct details is the same as siding with God.

A confession to "correct facts" is not the same thing as placing faith and trust in God.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, you keep on running ahead of me...

I have so far asked if, when God reveals Himself in glory, if all will believe. You admit that they will. I then backed off and asked if God revealed Himself to an individual if that individual would believe. Again, you said yes. But then, you launch into a diatribe in another direction about whether that belief is salvific. Do you not believe that Romans 10 is true?

This is the message of faith that we proclaim: 9 if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 Now the Scripture says, No one who believes on Him will be put to shame, [
Romans 10:8-11 (HCSB)

If those people proclaim God, while still alive in the flesh, they can be saved, right? Or, is there a piece of the puzzle I am missing somehow?

14 But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How welcome are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things! 16 But all did not obey the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message? 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.
Romans 10:14-17 (HCSB)

Taking the text that Paul gives us in reverse order, faith comes when we hear. We hear when the gospel is preached. The gospel is preached when preachers are sent. And when they hear the gospel, they believe because God makes it so. In essence, through the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit, men are convicted of their sin and given the grace to repent by God through His Word. They have, in a sense, had a revelation of the glory of God and their sinful state. Just like my examples.

How is that not biblical? I suspect, mainly, because you just don't like it that way.

 

[BobRyan]

But then, you launch into a diatribe in another direction about whether that belief is salvific. Do you not believe that Romans 10 is true?

This is the message of faith that we proclaim: 9 if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 Now the Scripture says, No one who believes on Him will be put to shame, [
Romans 10:8-11 (HCSB)

If those people proclaim God, while still alive in the flesh, they can be saved, right? Or, is there a piece of the puzzle I am missing somehow?

In the Romans 10 context of "confess" and "believe" the implication is repentance, trust in God and being born again.

in the James 2 context is the mere "ascent to fact" as belief that some people have already and that the demons also have.

James says -
18 But someone may well say, ""You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.''
19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

Merely admitting to facts you cannot deny is not faith, it is not trust in God.

In Matt 7 Jesus says "NOT everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will ENTER the kingdom of heaven". Christ says that there will be those who have "correct facts" - but are lost none-the-less.

14 But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How welcome are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things! 16 But all did not obey the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message? 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.
Romans 10:14-17 (HCSB)

Taking the text that Paul gives us in reverse order, faith comes when we hear. We hear when the gospel is preached. The gospel is preached when preachers are sent. And when they hear the gospel, they believe because God makes it so. In essence, through the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit, men are convicted of their sin and given the grace to repent by God through His Word. They have, in a sense, had a revelation of the glory of God and their sinful state. Just like my examples.

How is that not biblical? I suspect, mainly, because you just don't like it that way.

I agree that it is by the supernatural power of God's Drawing that the lost soul is "enabled" to choose.

I agree that the Holy Spirit convicting of sin and righteousness and judgment is a prerequisite.

So I am happy to find that even though in Romans 3 "ALL have sinned" yet in John 12:32 Christ "DRAWS ALL" - and in John 16 the Holy Spirit "Convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

As Christ said in Rev 3 "Behold I stand at the door and knock if anyone hears my voice and OPENS the door I WILL come in".

Demons are not opening that door and it does not matter that they have "correct facts" as James points it - it is not salvation. God is able to force the truth on someone so that they admit it is true. But God refuses to make them trust God and choose to serve Him against their will. Hence the demons are still demons and Hitler dies a lost man.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Addressing the Biblical doctrine of Grace under the designation of "Calvinism" is no different than addressing your view of salvation under "Seventh Day Adventism." Referring to "Calvin" and "Calvinism" is no different than refering to Ellen G. White as the inventor of your soteriology.

Your comparison does not work - because in Calvinism Calvin was the one that came up with the doctrines. You may argue that some of those doctrines (like perseverance of the saints) are in fact biblical -- but still Calvin is the Bible student coming up with the ideas - the doctrines.

History shows that that was not the case with the SDA church and Ellen White.

In any case you are the one arguing that these concepts (3 and 4 and 5 point Calvinism) are not really Calvinism. I simply point out that there are Calvinists of those various flavors that would dispute you on that point - because you are claiming that THEIR form of Calvinism is not Calvinism.

When I draw up the 5 Point Calvinist future scenario - I am usually consistent in pointing to it as the 5 point view.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rippon]

... in Calvinism Calvin was the one that came up with the doctrines.

...but still Calvin is the Bible student coming up with the ideas - the doctrines.

Why,after being corrected countless times do you still perpetuate this gross idea that John Calvin invented the doctrines he taught? They are biblical teachings. Bradwardine,Wycliffe,Huss,Luther, Bucer and many others before Calvin taught the very same things. Calvin was not the originator. But he was a preeminent explicator.

 

[BobRyan]

You may argue that some of those doctrines (like perseverance of the saints) are in fact biblical -- but still Calvin is the Bible student coming up with the ideas - the doctrines.

This is a case where I think that Calvin was largely correct -- just not the 5 point Calvinist extreme of retro-deleting assurance of salvation when someone fails to persevere 10 years from today.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You may argue that some of those doctrines (like perseverance of the saints) are in fact biblical -- but still Calvin is the Bible student coming up with the ideas - the doctrines.

This is a case where I think that Calvin was largely correct -- just not the 5 point Calvinist extreme of retro-deleting assurance of salvation when someone fails to persevere 10 years from today.

GE:

Again and again and again Bob Ryan creates HIS OWN straw-man-Calvinism to set it alight.

 

[glfredrick]

You may argue that some of those doctrines (like perseverance of the saints) are in fact biblical -- but still Calvin is the Bible student coming up with the ideas - the doctrines.

This is a case where I think that Calvin was largely correct -- just not the 5 point Calvinist extreme of retro-deleting assurance of salvation when someone fails to persevere 10 years from today.

The TULIP was not Calvin's teachings. It was a response to Arminius' 5 points, which was a response to some of Calvin's disciples' teaching.

Also, the TULIP (or 5 points, but both sides have 5 points to be fair) is nothing more than an outline of some important theological issues to make them easy to recall and deal with. They are not complete nor substantive overall, which is partly why we're still fighting over them.

Remember...

• Calvin came first -- before there was anything like Arminian theology.
• Then came Calvin's disciples
• Then came Arminius
• Then came the TULIP

I prefer Calvin's teachings to the boiled down TULIP for multiple reasons.

 

[TCassidy]

You may argue that some of those doctrines (like perseverance of the saints) are in fact biblical -- but still Calvin is the Bible student coming up with the ideas - the doctrines.

Are you really that ignorant? "Calvinism" did not originate with Calvin. It did not even originate with Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531), or with Augustine (354-430). Augustine's soteriology was already well developed when he debated the Manichaeans, especially Fortunatus on August 28th and 29th, 392 AD.

Come on Bob! You really ought to read something other than the false prophet, Ellen G. White!

 

[preacher4truth]

You may argue that some of those doctrines (like perseverance of the saints) are in fact biblical -- but still Calvin is the Bible student coming up with the ideas - the doctrines.

This is a case where I think that Calvin was largely correct -- just not the 5 point Calvinist extreme of retro-deleting assurance of salvation when someone fails to persevere 10 years from today.

The fact is the TULIP was presented at the Synod of Dort to counter Arminius if I recall correctly.

What in fact would be wrong with someone who has fallen back (or "fails to persevere" as you say) for some 10 years to doubt his or her salvation at that point? They should doubt it. Should we be secure and in full assurance when disobedient, when the Scriptures are written to existing churches telling them to examine themselves whether they are in the faith, to work out their salvation with fear and trembling &c? I think said person should feel insecure. There is enough in the NT concerning warning us to examine ones self, to be diligent &c.

I think it is the lifestyle of true believers to always be checking in with their Savior, making sure they are right with God, confessing sin, living lifestyle of repentance, not is assisting Christ, but being aware of their state.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The TULIP was not Calvin's teachings. It was a response to Arminius' 5 points, which was a response to some of Calvin's disciples' teaching.

Also, the TULIP (or 5 points, but both sides have 5 points to be fair) is nothing more than an outline of some important theological issues to make them easy to recall and deal with. They are not complete nor substantive overall, which is partly why we're still fighting over them.

Remember...

• Calvin came first -- before there was anything like Arminian theology.
• Then came Calvin's disciples
• Then came Arminius
• Then came the TULIP

I prefer Calvin's teachings to the boiled down TULIP for multiple reasons.

GE:

Its history is one thing; its handiness another. In my opinion and experience TULIP spells Salvation. It is a help to understand the truth and reality of God's grace in one's personal life experience. Instead of TULIP, for example, a Roman Catholic will rub a wooden cross bracelet; and an Arminian would rub his hands. TULIP to me, has become a great consolation; in it I discovered how the grace of God operates, beginning with unregenerate man and ending with regenerate man,

T: unregenerate man --- Total depravity
U: God --- Unconditional election
L: Christ --- Limited atonement
I: Holy Spirit --- Irresistible Grace
P: Regenerate man --- Perseverance of the saints.

I am a simple man and I love simple aids for, and in the faith. The beauty of TULIP is like the beauty of the lilies of the field which Jesus compared to Solomon and his wisdom "in all his glory" --- what the wise cracks of human sovereignty and free will in all its glory of the fleshly mind.

TULIP, Arminians and gownsmen usually set alight spontaneously. The more earthy its soil the more glorious TULIP blooms.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The fact is the TULIP was presented at the Synod of Dort to counter Arminius if I recall correctly.

What in fact would be wrong with someone who has fallen back (or "fails to persevere" as you say) for some 10 years to doubt his or her salvation at that point? They should doubt it. Should we be secure and in full assurance when disobedient, when the Scriptures are written to existing churches telling them to examine themselves whether they are in the faith, to work out their salvation with fear and trembling &c? I think said person should feel insecure. There is enough in the NT concerning warning us to examine ones self, to be diligent &c.

I think it is the lifestyle of true believers to always be checking in with their Savior, making sure they are right with God, confessing sin, living lifestyle of repentance, not is assisting Christ, but being aware of their state.

GE:

Yea. That's more like reality in Christian faith.

 

[BobRyan]

The fact is the TULIP was presented at the Synod of Dort to counter Arminius if I recall correctly.

What in fact would be wrong with someone who has fallen back (or "fails to persevere" as you say) for some 10 years to doubt his or her salvation at that point? They should doubt it.

I hold to the Arminian POV - so not only would I say they should doubt their salvation ten years from today - they should be convicted that they have lost it.

Where I differ with the 5 point Calvinist POV is that it says that the person should come back to today and declare that their assurance today - at a time when they have not fallen away from anything - is also in doubt.

Should we be secure and in full assurance when disobedient, when the Scriptures are written to existing churches telling them to examine themselves whether they are in the faith, to work out their salvation with fear and trembling &c? I think said person should feel insecure. There is enough in the NT concerning warning us to examine ones self, to be diligent &c.

I think it is the lifestyle of true believers to always be checking in with their Savior, making sure they are right with God, confessing sin, living lifestyle of repentance, not is assisting Christ, but being aware of their state.

Preach it!:thumbs:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[glfredrick]

I hold to the Arminian POV

Are you so sure?

Have you actually ever read the 5 articles of the Remonstrance?

I posted them in another thread, but just for you, here they are again:

Article I - That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article II - That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.

Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.


I have not seen, particularly, that you actually follow the articles above.

Of course, those 5 articles were declared heretical by the Synod of Dort, and the Synod replaced the 5 articles with TULIP.

 

[BobRyan]

I have not seen, particularly, that you actually follow the articles above.

.

Really?? - where did you miss that point?

in Christ,

Bob