The 5 Points of Calvinism

[civic]

@civic

TULIP explained. I will do one letter at a time as each one will require a great deal of expounding on scripture, therefore time and intense focus on my part to do it justice. This is a strain on my need for movement plus I have a lot to do today.

As I go I will change the terms used in order to make an acronym, and in doing so, sacrificed accuracy, leaving much room for the misunderstandings that arise, to more accurate phrasing.

T-Total Depravity

The use of total attached to depravity conjures the idea that we are evil through and through and depraved as we possibly can be. Utter or radical corruption is closer to what is meant.

It simply means that our entire being, including our mind and will was affected by the fall. There is no island in us that was not affected. It changed our nature. It did not destroy our will, we still have it otherwise we would not function at all. It bent it towards sinful desires and became subject to them. As such we became enemies of God, creatures in rebellion to our King and Creator. He our enemy and subject to His judgements, the sentence of death pronounced on us as the sinners. And us as His enemies, bringing evil into the creation through our "hands" our actions and choices.

That this is so we see in Gen 3:16-19. Paul expounds on these very things in Romans 1:18-32, 2:1-12. Here we see the affect man's fall had on all men and on all of creation itself. And the unwillingness of mankind by his very nature, to come to God.

But of course along with God curse placed upon the earth and mankind in Gen we also see the promise. Gen 3:14-15. Redemption announced and the plan put into action. This is the love of God for man and for His creation. The curse is His justice. One does not cancel out the other.

That we are in bondage to sin, which always involves willful rebellion is unequivocally stated in Romans 6:5-6; Eph 2:1-3; Col 1:13; Is 53:4-6.

So the T of tulip is stating that mankind by his nature in Adam due to Adam's fall, is now at enmity with God in that it is bent towards sin, and there will always be times when he will choose sin over God, therefore He will not---because he cannot change his nature---choose God. He doesn't not choose God against his will but because that is his will.

@Arial

lets start a new thread.

 

[Arial]

U-Unconditional Election

If the T is true then mankind is hopeless to free himself from his bondage to sin. Not even the appearance of seeking God on his own or professing to love God on his own will change his nature. Whatever he does or where ever he goes, his nature goes with him.

Someone must do it for him and they must do something that destroys the power that sin has over him, and he has to be placed in that One in such an intimate and permanent relationship so as to be identified with them. He must take God's just penalty for the sins of others, being without any sin of his own, vicariously, making atonement for those sins by meeting the justice of God against them. In this way, through the union of the sinner with the righteous, the one He dies for has His perfect righteousness credited to his account. In financial terms according to scripture, their debt is paid in full.

Since the T shows mans unwillingness to choose God (and perfect righteousness is required as perfect holiness can accept nothing less)due to his fallen nature, God must do something in that nature Himself. It is obvious that He does not do this in all people.

Unconditional election refers to how one is placed in Christ through faith, or as scripture says given to Christ. (John 17; John 6:37) The U posits that God predestined some to belong to Christ but not all, because He foreknew them before the foundation of the world, and these He calls, and glorifies. (Romans 8:30-31) In addition to this scripture we have every scripture that uses the words in reference to the believer of "called", "chosen", "elect", which are so numerous as to impractical to list here.

And if that were not enough, these very words of God given through men, we have God's very self revelation as to who He is and the underriding existence in every passage (also too numerous and exhaustive to list) that God is truly sovereign over all creation, that He governs it as King. See the book of Job chapter 37 on, or the Psalms, or Genesis, the kings, in fact Gen through Rev. God is always doing the choosing for everything and with everything. Is it too far fetched to think that He would choose who would dwell in His house, His kingdom? Who would be His children? Jesus on the cross is saving people, not inviting them to be saved.

The unconditional part of election is that it is according to His will and His pleasure. (Eph 1:5; Romans 9:6-13). That is all he tells us about it. It has nothing to do with what the person has done or will do, good or bad.) But as it is according to His will and pleasure, it it not arbitrary or random. There us nothing random or arbitrary about God. Ever.

 

[Arial]

L-Limited Atonement

People quite naturally read that and exclaim, "What?! No way!" That is the unfortunate outcome of the acronym.

The doctrine is correctly stated as Definite Atonement. And it follows by necessity the T and the U. If none are willing by nature to come to Christ, and God elects some to give to the Son, and predestines them to to come to Him in faith, then Jesus died for those people, not all people. The atonement was not limited in scope---that is, it was perfect enough and large enough to encompass every individual ever---but it was not intended to. It was intended to purchase those whom God chose before they were ever born and had done nothing good or bad. And those He would faithfully bring to faith in Christ by giving them a new birth in Christ, as opposed to their natural state of being in Adam. It is this new birth in Christ that overrides our nature in Adam, though we still live in this world with that nature for now. Sin can't condemn us, or remove us from the love of Christ. (Romans 8: 1-4, 31-39)

All the scriptures given with the T and the U can be used to support the L.

 

[PeanutGallery]

L-Limited Atonement...

All the scriptures given with the T and the U can be used to support the L.

You need to rephrase that:

TULIP used to support the L; i.e., circular reasoning.
Or.
Doctrines of Grace used to support the L; i.e., circular reasoning.

 

[Arial]

I- Irresistible Grace

Again there is often a reaction to this that has nothing to do with the doctrine in it. That being, the mind goes to those places where it says we resist the Holy Spirit, or to all those who do reject and resist the grace of salvation.

The actual meaning is made more clear in effectual grace. Meaning this grace unto salvation when sent by God to the elect (TUL)does what God sends it to do. It is effective in establishing faith in Christ unto salvation.

The Bible tells us that we are saved by grace through faith and that is a gift of God. (Eph 2:1-10; Romans 9:14-16 Eph 1:7; 1 Tim 1:15-16; Ex 33:19; Romans 5:15-17; Titus 3:4-7; Romans 11:5-6 etc) Aside from whether or not someone agrees with this, the doctrine of irresistible grace simply states that the grace unto salvation is always effective because of TUL. The doctrines are systematic.

 

[Arial]

You need to rephrase that:

TULIP used to support the L; i.e., circular reasoning.
Or.
Doctrines of Grace used to support the L; i.e., circular reasoning.

Read what I said again. I said the scriptures that support the T and the U also support the L.

 

[PeanutGallery]

Read what I said again. I said the scriptures that support the T and the U also support the L.

U-Unconditional Election

If the T is true then mankind is hopeless to free himself from his bondage to sin. Not even the appearance of seeking God on his own or professing to love God on his own will change his nature. Whatever he does or where ever he goes, his nature goes with him.

Someone must do it for him and they must do something that destroys the power that sin has over him, and he has to be placed in that One in such an intimate and permanent relationship so as to be identified with them. He must take God's just penalty for the sins of others, being without any sin of his own, vicariously, making atonement for those sins by meeting the justice of God against them. In this way, through the union of the sinner with the righteous, the one He dies for has His perfect righteousness credited to his account. In financial terms according to scripture, their debt is paid in full.

Since the T shows mans unwillingness to choose God (and perfect righteousness is required as perfect holiness can accept nothing less)due to his fallen nature, God must do something in that nature Himself. It is obvious that He does not do this in all people.

I read it; where are the scriptures?

 

[Arial]

I read it; where are the scriptures?

With the T and the U

 

[civic]

@Arial I'm not ignoring the thread but I've been doing allot outside of the forum today. I will try and address the " U " so we can have a discussion on that point. Arminius was on board with T.D.

 

[Arial]

P-Preservation of the Saints

Also perseverance of the saints. They persevere because God preserves them. We have in many of the epistles, including Hebrews, where the apostles are encouraging Christians to persevere in the face of suffering and persecution. That is man's responsibility. On the other hand we know that God preserves Him in this. (Romans 14:4; John 10:27-29; Romans 8:30; Eph 1:13-14; Col 2:14; John 6:35-40)

 

[Arial]

@Arial I'm not ignoring the thread but I've been doing allot outside of the forum today. I will try and address the " U " so we can have a discussion on that point. Arminius was on board with T.D.

You have posted many things concerning the T, misstating it completely. Therefore you ought to address what I have said about it. I am not debating with Arminus.

 

[civic]

You have posted many things concerning the T, misstating it completely. Therefore you ought to address what I have said about it. I am not debating with Arminus.

If man is totally depraved, cannot seek God, cannot think a right though about God, cannot know truth as calvinists falsely claim, then why did God have to say 3 times He had to give these unbelieving reprobates over ?

Also how can these reprobates suppress the truth since they are dead and incapable of knowing the truth ?

See the oxymorons with such a the calvinists systematic and presuppositions ?

Romans 1
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

Several reasons why the doctrine of TD is not true

1-they suppressed the truth- one has to know the truth to suppress the truth
2-they knew God, He was self evident to them
3-God was understood to them
4-they exchanged the truth
5-they did not retain the knowledge of God, it was not worthwhile for them
6- Therefor from all the above facts God declares 3 times that He gave them over
7- God doesn't need to give anyone over who is already completely unable, enable, completely and totally depraved with no ability's to do otherwise

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Totally Depraved would imply that one is never able to do what is right and lawful; scripture states that man naturally can keep the law.

hope this helps !!!

 

[atpollard]

You need to rephrase that:

TULIP used to support the L; i.e., circular reasoning.
Or.
Doctrines of Grace used to support the L; i.e., circular reasoning.

Limited Atonement is an interesting “Doctrine of Grace”. I had personally arrived at the other 4 (T.U.*. I.P.) from reading the Bible and attending a Wesleyan Holiness church as I tried to reconcile my personal salvation experience (former Atheist) with both what I was being taught at Church (Church of God of Anderson, Indiana … the OTHER Church of God) and what I was reading in the Bible. With respect to ATONEMENT, it never even occurred to me to ask who else Jesus had died for. It was always enough that He had died for me. So when I finally discovered that my personal beliefs from reading scripture had a name (Particular Baptist), I eventually discovered the whole “Calvinism vs Arminianism” debate.

For a long time, I was generally soft on LIMITED ATONEMENT. I accepted it as the more “logical” position, but saw the question as generally unanswered in Scripture. There are some “implied” verses for each side, but no definitive “smoking gun” verse that settles the question. “My sheep” or “the world” … scripture says He died for BOTH in different verses. “The world” COULD mean “a multitude from all nations” rather than “all men without exception”, but that is a less intuitive reading of the verse. “My sheep” seems clearer as a group to die for and it is a stretch of THAT verse to say that Jesus died for “His sheep” AND everyone else (although that reading is not impossible). Therefore, LIMITED seemed a little more likely to me (based on scripture) than GENERAL atonement.

It was a sermon by Charles Spurgeon that radically changed my mind. I will leave it for each person to reach their own conclusions (the beauty of Particular Baptist monergism is that every soul is responsible to answer to God, so I am responsible for telling the truth and YOU are responsible for what you believe … I am not your mother or the Holy Spirit … you don’t answer to me.).

Spurgeon presented an analogy that made the difference clear and allowed me to ask “which describes the God of the Bible?”

“Does God build a bridge wide enough for the whole world that spans only half way across the stream (sin which separates men from God), and then require men to either provide their own plank or leap across the gap? Or does God build a narrow bridge all the way across the stream which is only wide enough for those that will cross?” [paraphrased from memory]

There is the question of GENERAL Atonement (a wide bridge that saves none and grants a chance at salvation to all) or PARTICULAR Atonement (a narrow bridge that saves all whom Christ died to save). Which “bridge” reflects the character of the God presented in the Bible?

God does not TRY to save, God saves! … that was MY answer. That changed me from soft on “L” to hard on “L” (although as a Baptist rather than Reformed, I prefer “Particular Atonement” … Jesus atoned for a particular [specific] people.)

 

[PeanutGallery]

Limited Atonement is an interesting “Doctrine of Grace”. I had personally arrived at the other 4 (T.U.*. I.P.) from reading the Bible and attending a Wesleyan Holiness church as I tried to reconcile my personal salvation experience (former Atheist) with both what I was being taught at Church (Church of God of Anderson, Indiana … the OTHER Church of God) and what I was reading in the Bible. With respect to ATONEMENT, it never even occurred to me to ask who else Jesus had died for. It was always enough that He had died for me. So when I finally discovered that my personal beliefs from reading scripture had a name (Particular Baptist), I eventually discovered the whole “Calvinism vs Arminianism” debate.

For a long time, I was generally soft on LIMITED ATONEMENT. I accepted it as the more “logical” position, but saw the question as generally unanswered in Scripture. There are some “implied” verses for each side, but no definitive “smoking gun” verse that settles the question. “My sheep” or “the world” … scripture says He died for BOTH in different verses. “The world” COULD mean “a multitude from all nations” rather than “all men without exception”, but that is a less intuitive reading of the verse. “My sheep” seems clearer as a group to die for and it is a stretch of THAT verse to say that Jesus died for “His sheep” AND everyone else (although that reading is not impossible). Therefore, LIMITED seemed a little more likely to me (based on scripture) than GENERAL atonement.

It was a sermon by Charles Spurgeon that radically changed my mind. I will leave it for each person to reach their own conclusions (the beauty of Particular Baptist monergism is that every soul is responsible to answer to God, so I am responsible for telling the truth and YOU are responsible for what you believe … I am not your mother or the Holy Spirit … you don’t answer to me.).

Spurgeon presented an analogy that made the difference clear and allowed me to ask “which describes the God of the Bible?”

“Does God build a bridge wide enough for the whole world that spans only half way across the stream (sin which separates men from God), and then require men to either provide their own plank or leap across the gap? Or does God build a narrow bridge all the way across the stream which is only wide enough for those that will cross?” [paraphrased from memory]

There is the question of GENERAL Atonement (a wide bridge that saves none and grants a chance at salvation to all) or PARTICULAR Atonement (a narrow bridge that saves all whom Christ died to save). Which “bridge” reflects the character of the God presented in the Bible?

God does not TRY to save, God saves! … that was MY answer. That changed me from soft on “L” to hard on “L” (although as a Baptist rather than Reformed, I prefer “Particular Atonement” … Jesus atoned for a particular [specific] people.)

Scripture led you to salvation; Doctrines of Grace, Spurgeon led you to TULIP.
Narrow is the way is about the way, the truth, and the life; it is not about Unconditional Election 'electing' those who will believe.

 

[PeanutGallery]

I read it; where are the scriptures?

With the T and the U

Where are the scriptures for the T; "If the T is true" does not imply scripture,

U-Unconditional Election

If the T is true then mankind is hopeless to free himself from his bondage to sin. Not even the appearance of seeking God on his own or professing to love God on his own will change his nature. Whatever he does or where ever he goes, his nature goes with him.

Someone must do it for him and they must do something that destroys the power that sin has over him, and he has to be placed in that One in such an intimate and permanent relationship so as to be identified with them. He must take God's just penalty for the sins of others, being without any sin of his own, vicariously, making atonement for those sins by meeting the justice of God against them. In this way, through the union of the sinner with the righteous, the one He dies for has His perfect righteousness credited to his account. In financial terms according to scripture, their debt is paid in full.

Since the T shows mans unwillingness to choose God (and perfect righteousness is required as perfect holiness can accept nothing less)due to his fallen nature, God must do something in that nature Himself. It is obvious that He does not do this in all people....

 

[civic]

I read it; where are the scriptures?

Where are the scriptures for the T; "If the T is true" does not imply scripture,

Yes I missed the scriptures as well. I see an assumption but no scripture references.

 

[atpollard]

Scripture led you to salvation; Doctrines of Grace, Spurgeon led you to TULIP.
Narrow is the way is about the way, the truth, and the life; it is not about Unconditional Election 'electing' those who will believe.

I don’t know why you would choose not to believe me, but I started from NIHILISM as my worldview and set my enemies on fire.

• God saved me before I started reading any scripture.
• It was my transformation that created the DESIRE to read scripture (to learn more about God)
• What I was taught (Wesleyanism) from the pulpit and adult Sunday School, contradicted my personal salvation experience.
• I arrived at 4 truths from scripture and empirical experience:
  • People are no darn good.
  • Whatever the reason that God chooses us, it has NOTHING to do with our deserving it … God does it “Just Because”.
  • God does not try, God just DOES!
  • God finishes what God starts.
• Those 4 truths (plus Baptize believers, not babies) placed me squarely in the TULIP/Particular Baptist theological camp … even though I had never been to a Baptist Church or even HEARD of ‘TULIP’ or ‘Calvinism’.

Look at my 4 truths arrived at from SCRIPTURE and LIFE while studying “Free Will” theology and trying to force both the Bible and my salvation to fit into your/their mold. Does that describe a God that builds a wide bridge half-way to salvation or a narrow bridge all the way to God?

 

[atpollard]

Several reasons why the doctrine of TD is not true

The IRONY is that “Total Depravity” (the fall of Adam has corrupted every part of mankind - body, spirit and mind) is affirmed by Calvinism, Classic Arminianism, and Wesleyanism. They simply disagree about what God has done to overcome it (Irresistible Grace vs Power of the Gospel vs Prevenient Grace).

So to deny Total Depravity, completely, is to embrace “semi-Pelagianism” (the fall only damaged man’s relationship with God - we are not ‘spiritually dead’, just ‘spiritually sick’).

 

[civic]

The IRONY is that “Total Depravity” (the fall of Adam has corrupted every part of mankind - body, spirit and mind) is affirmed by Calvinism, Classic Arminianism, and Wesleyanism. They simply disagree about what God has done to overcome it (Irresistible Grace vs Power of the Gospel vs Prevenient Grace).

So to deny Total Depravity, completely, is to embrace “semi-Pelagianism” (the fall only damaged man’s relationship with God - we are not ‘spiritually dead’, just ‘spiritually sick’).

the question is how depraved one really is did you read my comments on Romans 1 from post #12 ?

 

[Arial]

If man is totally depraved, cannot seek God, cannot think a right though about God, cannot know truth as calvinists falsely claim, then why did God have to say 3 times He had to give these unbelieving reprobates over ?

Also how can these reprobates suppress the truth since they are dead and incapable of knowing the truth ?

See the oxymorons with such a the calvinists systematic and presuppositions ?

When I gave the true statements about total depravity, is there anywhere in there where I used the word cannot? Is there anywhere that I said man cannot think a right thought about God? One cannot mount an argument against anything by misstating it. Which is all that is ever done. So let's start over and try not to do that. That is how things turn into a 1b, 1c, 1d.

Romans 1 is not talking about salvation. It is talking about the condition of man. Creation shows that God exists, but it does not give the way of salvation. That can only be found in its being revealed in the Bible. It is not the truth of salvation that mankind suppressed, it is their position of creature to the Creator. So there is no oxymoron. What you put forth was a misapplication of scripture, a conflating of one thing into the other and those pieces don't fit.

1-they suppressed the truth- one has to know the truth to suppress the truth
2-they knew God, He was self evident to them
3-God was understood to them
4-they exchanged the truth
5-they did not retain the knowledge of God, it was not worthwhile for them
6- Therefor from all the above facts God declares 3 times that He gave them over
7- God doesn't need to give anyone over who is already completely unable, enable, completely and totally depraved with no ability's to do otherwise

I will show you how you are conflating. You should be able to see it in what you post. They had seen of His existence in the creation, they had experienced His judgment, his wrath, against unrighteousness. When He says He gave them over to their debasements it simply means He let them have their way, neither destroying them on the spot, or redeeming them on the spot. Notice, they were already unrighteous and in a condition of not wanting God. There every desire was against Him and so their will would not move against their desires. This is about the condition of man, exactly in line with utter depravity.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Totally Depraved would imply that one is never able to do what is right and lawful; scripture states that man naturally can keep the law.

Did you even read what I wrote? Total or utter depravity does not teach that no one is able to ever do anything good. So the fact that you think it implies that is irrelevant as to what it actually means and teaches. As I said, one cannot use a misstatement of the doctrine in order to refute it. The point here is what the doctrine of TULIP teaches, not whether you believe it or not. I hope that in the ways you misstate it is not the way in which you taught it for four decades!