PeanutGallery
Member
God saved you before reading any scripture; how were you saved without scripture?
You arrived at TULIP through theology?
The 5 Points of Calvinism
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
You arrived at TULIP through theology?
civic
Well-known member
I must stop your presupposition once again as Romans 1 is about salvation, the whole book is about the gospel, salvation.
Romans 1:14-17
14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15 That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.
I'm addressing your presuppositions with Scripture. So Romans 1 is all about salvation, every chapter is about the gospel/salvation.
atpollard
Well-known member
I did read it. I disagree with your characterization of Calvinism’s beliefs, but I think we both knew that, so nothing would be gained by arguing THAT again.
With respect to Romans 1: Just for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that Pelagians are correct and mankind is as unaffected by the fall as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden …
- Why did God ”give them over” the second and third time if God had already “given them over” the first time?
- Total Depravity appears to change nothing in your question … Does that make God or Paul irrational and self-contradictory like it made Calvinism?
- Spirit: we have lose communion with God and only Jesus and the Holy Spirit can restore that.
- Mind: our thoughts are corrupted so we do not think like God thinks … Love your Enemies sounds crazy to the natural human thinking.
- Body: we get sick, grow old and die. Until then, our flesh lips STS after things that draw us away from God rather than towards God.
civic
Well-known member
You answer doesn't explain what Paul says below
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
Well-known member
Some things are not for public consumption. I will just say that it was more like Paul on the road to Damascus than Phillip calling Nathaniel to “Come and see.”
atpollard
Well-known member
Most of these are NOT what Paul said.
(iPad dying, so making this quick)
#1 What truth did they suppress? (Not salvation/gospel). If suppressed, then they DIDN’T know it … they SUPPRESSED it. That is what suppressed means.
civic
Well-known member
That’s not what suppress means in that passage. See the Calvinist Barnes below .
Who hold the truth - Who "keep back," or "restrain" the truth. The word translated "hold" here, sometimes means to "maintain," to "keep," to "observe" 1 Corinthians 7:30; 2 Corinthians 6:12; but it also means to "hold back, to detain, to hinder." Luke 4:42, "the people sought him (Jesus), and came to him, and stayed him." (Greek, the same as here.) Plm 1:13, "whom I would have "retained" with me," etc.; 2 Thessalonians 2:6, "and now ye know what "withholdeth," etc. In this place it means also that they held back, or restrained the truth, by their wickedness.
The truth - The truth of God, in whatever way made known, and particularly, as the apostle goes on to say, what is made known by the light of nature. The truth pertaining to his perfections, his Law, etc. They hold it back. or restrain its influence
Arial
Active member
Yes but that does not mean everything in it is about salvation. Paul is laying a foundation for what is to come. He is making a point that all men are under the same conviction, and why. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. In Romans 1 and two he lays that groundwork. Then he shows the only way out of this condition. Through faith in the person and work of Christ.
Romans 1:1-7 is the prelude to the letter. Paul states his credentials. Verse 7-15 is the letter introduction and greeting and purpose. Verse 16-17 he makes a case for righteousness and that it is obtained through faith.
Verses 18-32 he makes the case for the reason unrighteousness abounds and always has. Man's need for a Savior. We see that this is what he is doing as chapter 2 begins with "Therefore you have no excuse, O man---". Paul continues through that chapter reinforcing our condition, the condition of all men, and continues with this in chapter 3 through verse 19. Then he doubles down on the doctrines of the gospel, Christology.
PeanutGallery
Member
God saved you before reading any scripture; how were you saved without scripture?
John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
You stated, "God saved me before I started reading any scripture..."
How were you saved without scripture?
Both Paul and Nathaniel already knew the scriptures.
John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
You stated, "God saved me before I started reading any scripture..."
How were you saved without scripture?
Arial
Active member
Those support what was said about T. @civic @PeanutGallery I just caught this. Every quote above that says civic said is not what he said but what I said. I quotes as being civic because you messed it up when you moved that post directed to you, into this new thread. Now it looks like it is your OP. I would appreciate it if you would fix it and change the title back to what it is, not what you want it to be. It is TULIP Explained.
Thanks
These support what was said about U.
Last edited:
PeanutGallery
Member
Gen 1:1 - Rev 22:21 does not support TULIP.
How about you provide one verse to support either T, U, or L; then we can look at the context and see if it teaches TULIP.
Arial
Active member
This is a favorite tactic used by those who cannot find a way to refute what a person has said, and that they have already decided they will never believe. They say provide verses that support such and such. Even though those scriptures were given both in the OP and again because you couldn't seem to find them on your own. If they really didn't support what was said, one would think you would take them one by one and show me how they do not support the T or the U and show me what they are saying instead.
Make your case instead of just giving your conclusion.
PeanutGallery
Member
You provided scripture without the content and without the context; requesting content and context is permissible.
What about attaching this to total inability? Plenty of verses on that. And it is easy to say we have total inability, because our depravity (sinfulness) is total, and has overcome every part of our lives and is represented by our sin nature. In this case, Jesus told the disciples that no one can be saved, in response to their question "Then who can be saved?" However, He added a caveat that if God acts, if God is in it, then salvation is possible.
Arial
Active member
You didn't request content and context. I am not going to do your reading for you.
The way in which they were used as support was within their context. If you don't agree with that, then it is up to you to show what the proper usage and meaning is within their content and context. Rather than simply making your statement with nothing to support what you say. (You probably haven't noticed as you have already made the determination that you will not consider anything I say,) but when I make the statement that someone has misused a scripture as to its meaning within its context, I show in what way they have done so. That doesn't mean that I am right and they are wrong in and of itself, but it does show that I am able to back up what I say and that I do so. You should do the same. Otherwise there is no meat to what you say.
I would suggest that if you feel the desire to respond to my posts that you do so with something concrete that addresses the topic. Otherwise we get what has now happened. You move the "conversation" into nothing but empty accusations that do not in any way move the topic forward. Also known as bickering which is against forum rules.
And saying that the entire Bible disproves TULIP presents no context and no content.
Arial
Active member
In the OP on the T, I did attach Rom 1 to our inability. I am not clear if that is what you are suggesting. Yes there is plenty of evidence within the Bible that show we are by nature since the fall, unwilling to come under the Kingship of our Creator. And in being unwilling we are unable. The example you give is a good one.
There seems to be something missing in recognizing exactly what the God to mankind relation is, in those who insist we do have the ability to choose Jesus. And that is the standard of measure that exists in God. His holiness and perfection. It is a view that seems to me to consider that God in His love and mercy has a measure of "good enough." So they do not recognize or believe that "choosing" Christ and therefore God, would mean coming completely, in all their ways and desires, all the time, under His headship. That it would mean not a speck or hint of sin even in their desires. They would have to give up more than they are willing to give up. That is how the unsaved man views God. Man by nature craves autonomy.
So even though a person comes to faith (and I am not doubting anyone's faith) in Christ, because God has rebirthed them in Christ, placing them in Him, he hangs onto a bit of that desire for autonomy by giving the credit to his own will and desire. Which is fine. I really don't have a problem with anyone doing that. It is what is taught almost exclusively in this age, and so I myself for the first 23 of the forty years of my life in Christ, thought that too. Most of us can remember making a choice, saying a prayer etc.
There is choice involved. Otherwise faith wouldn't be attached to us. The difference in the two beliefs is why we made that choice. Did our new birth cause the choice, or did the choice cause the new birth. A knowledge of God answers that question.
civic
Well-known member
Scripture answer that question . Faith always precedes life in scripture. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the world of Christ. Peter snd James say we have been born again after hearing the word of God not before . You are putting the cart before he horse .
I may very well have missed it.
Consider this idea. I believe that what brings the believer to the cross isn't a choice made in a vacuum, but there is no reason that it cannot be seen as a choice. I believe that a way to look at Jesus answer to the disciples question of who then can be saved is that Jesus is saying, no one can be saved unless God intervenes and changes them. (Seen in Saul's transformation to Paul on the way to Damascus. A very visible example of God's direct intervention.) God shaped Saul's circumstances so that the end result was unavoidable. God radically transformed Saul's mind by simply stating the truth of Saul's life in a question. “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” Saul asked who? And Jesus told Saul that it is He. Saul was crushed to discover that in His zeal He wasn't defending God or fighting for God, but persecuting Him by attacking the church. His whole thought process radically reformed and transformed. He now understood. He faced the actual truth of what he was doing, and it crushed him. The only path that stretched before him was through the grave, where Saul died and Paul was born. The old was gone, and the new had come. So while Paul chose, it was the only path that was before him. Hence, irresistible grace.
There is a choice, however when we make it, we are at the point that it is the only choice. Our minds are so changed by the work of God through the Holy Spirit, that it is the only thing we can see. (My belief.)
Arial
Active member
Good example. Anyone who believes the gospel will quite naturally choose it. Or they may be placed on a path by God that leads to the place where they "hear His voice and follow Him" because they know He is the Good Shepherd. There is a recognizing of His voice. But God is the only one who can open ears that are deaf and eyes that are blind. He is the only one who can replace a naturally hard heart with one moldable and pliable in His hands. We can't do that ourselves.
PeanutGallery
Member
Right; you never did present content and context; all you did was provide verses and presuppositions.
