Calvinists/Reformed, Please help me explain TULIP.

[Major1]

The "5 points of Calvinism" are not a exhaustive, or even accurate, approach to Reformed theology. They seem to be utilized moreso by so-called "Reformed" Baptists as polemic, and less so by confessionally Reformed churches, such as Presbyterians.

I am not a Calvinist. I am pretty close but not a 5 pointer.

I would say however that the five points of Calvinism we see today, are in a form that is quite traditional:
total depravity,
unconditional election,
limited atonement,
irresistible grace and
perseverance of the saints.

But we are not to think that this is the only form the doctrines of grace can take or that the phrases themselves are unalterable.

 

[Major1]

On some websites you can kill an irrefutable text based position by "ignoring it" then if it gets posted as "the answer" to a circle-back question/speculation... complain that it is "spam".

Thus the tactic of "ignore the texts they will have to go away" works on those sites ... no problem.

You can often find folks wanting to "bring that solution here" if those folks are particularly "challenged" by the texts that are being posted and have no response to them.



Another great way to try and get irrefutable points removed without actually resolving the point. In the real world "fair use" of public domain material allows for a small portion to be posted on other sites - as we see all over CF and every public discussion board known to mankind.

But still a nice "side trail" if one is not very enthusiastic about getting their own POV out into the clear given the irrefutable details being posted.

So then "ignoring every detail in the post" we could get..


That is the preferred way to solve irrefutable points -- ban them.

Dark ages was pretty good at that.

However on the upside this is the most enthuastic participation on response to the Bible texts given here #70 and #97 That we have seen from your posts so far. So at least we are on a point that you are more enthusiastic about. Its good to have something in the thread that interests you.

You said...……
"Dark ages was pretty good at that."

Were there actually computer forums in the Dark ages???

 

[FireDragon76]

I am not a Calvinist. I am pretty close but not a 5 pointer.

I would say however that the five points of Calvinism we see today, are in a form that is quite traditional:
total depravity,
unconditional election,
limited atonement,
irresistible grace and
perseverance of the saints.

But we are not to think that this is the only form the doctrines of grace can take or that the phrases themselves are unalterable.

I'd rather people go to the sources, like the Synod of Dordt, or Calvin's Institutes, than to conclude that the Reformed tradition is defined by talking points.

Very often you find Calvinists saying "Arminians do not know what Calvinism is" but almost as often as that you can find "other Calvinists who differ with me do not know what Calvinism is"

The Reformed faith is confessional and covenantal, not voluntaristic, you cannot be Reformed on some points but not on others.

 

[Not David]

Not so my friend. OSAS is a doctrine given to us by God Himself when the Lord Jesus said in John 6:37-40...…...…….
‘All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.’

John 10:28...…….
"and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.’

So to say that a truly born again believer can lose his salvation is equivalent to saying that Jesus has lost one of those that God has given him and thus has failed in completing the will of God! No No No No, No! A believer’s salvation is secure because it is Jesus who keeps them safe and loses none!

HOw can anyone believe that Jesus the God-Man is good enough to save us but is NOT GOOD and powerful enough to keep us saved.???????

There is nothing besides your interpretation of the Bible that shows OSAS. Tell me who believed in OSAS between 100 A.D. and 1500 A.D.?

 

[Major1]

There is nothing besides your interpretation of the Bible that shows OSAS. Tell me who believed in OSAS between 100 A.D. and 1500 A.D.?

I will say that the teaching was varied.

"Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved . . . –
Justin Martyr, Dialogue Of Justin 47.+

However, The Bible teaches that someone who claims to be a Christian but does not live like one is a liar. They are not real Christians and were never saved in the first place. Likewise, someone who might live like a Christian but does not believe in Jesus is not saved. Jesus Himself said to those individuals...……...
"Depart from me, I NEVER KNEW YOU".

"They only who fear the Lord and keep His commandments have life with God; but as to those who keep not His commandments, there is no life in them."
Shepherd of Hermas, 2.7 (A.D. 155).

But just a few sentences away we read this,

“Hear now,” said he, “how wicked is the action of anger, and in what way it overthrows the servants of God by its action, and turns them from righteousness. But [anger] does not turn away those who are full of faith, nor does it act on them, for the power of the Lord is with them. Hermas. Shepherd of Hermas. Book 1-2, Commandment Fourth, Chap. 1.

This passage reveals that the author of the Shepherd of Hermas did not believe that a true Christian could lose his salvation.

But in the same thought, how many believed in the Rapture in that time frame?

 

[Not David]

I will say that the teaching was varied.

"Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved . . . –
Justin Martyr, Dialogue Of Justin 47.+

However, The Bible teaches that someone who claims to be a Christian but does not live like one is a liar. They are not real Christians and were never saved in the first place. Likewise, someone who might live like a Christian but does not believe in Jesus is not saved. Jesus Himself said to those individuals...……...
"Depart from me, I NEVER KNEW YOU".

"They only who fear the Lord and keep His commandments have life with God; but as to those who keep not His commandments, there is no life in them."
Shepherd of Hermas, 2.7 (A.D. 155).

But just a few sentences away we read this,

“Hear now,” said he, “how wicked is the action of anger, and in what way it overthrows the servants of God by its action, and turns them from righteousness. But [anger] does not turn away those who are full of faith, nor does it act on them, for the power of the Lord is with them. Hermas. Shepherd of Hermas. Book 1-2, Commandment Fourth, Chap. 1.

This passage reveals that the author of the Shepherd of Hermas did not believe that a true Christian could lose his salvation.

But in the same thought, how many believed in the Rapture in that time frame?

"They are not real Christians and were never saved in the first place."
You are using your interpretation there.

Also, I won't talk about the Shepherd of Hermas since I don't know much about it.

Do you believe in the Rapture? Why would you believe in something that is 200 years old?

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has had a clean. Please keep posts on topic, do not make repetitive/spamming posts. Keep it civil, keep it friendly.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[thecolorsblend]

Total Depravity: It means everything about our being has been stained or corrupted by sin.

It doesn't mean we are "No Good". Rather, it means nothing about us is perfect so we have nothing worthy enough to offer God in return for our salvation. Salvation is through His grace alone. Further more, we have a will, however, it isn't free. Rather it is a slave to sin. We are dead to sin. Thus, to suggest that we can choose to be saved is like saying a prisoner can choose to walk out of their cell or a corpse can choose to come back to life. Only through God's grace is it possible to come to salvation.​

As with so much with TULIP, the bullet points exist on a continuum and there are degrees to which they can apply. Or at least, I assume that to be the case because otherwise people who claim to believe in all or some of the letters wouldn't have such strident disagreements with each other.

I'll give TULIP credit though. It is an internally consistent system. T reasonably leads to U which reasonably leads to L, etc.

Mind you, I disagree with TULIP from the jump on two separate fronts.

01- Depraved? Yes. Totally depraved? No. There's the obvious fact that charity exists in this world. Every day, millions of people help those who are less fortunate than themselves. There are big instances of this and there are small ones. But the very fact that charity exists argues against T.

Man is affected by the fall. There's no question about that. But even though our will may be warped, it is not entirely corrupted. Our fall into sin is complete, but it is not absolute.

02- Separately, there's also the reality that flesh itself does not inherently equal sin. It simply doesn't.

All in all, I see no reason to buy into T.

 

[Major1]

"They are not real Christians and were never saved in the first place."
You are using your interpretation there.

Also, I won't talk about the Shepherd of Hermas since I don't know much about it.

Do you believe in the Rapture? Why would you believe in something that is 200 years old?

Justin Martyer was NOT A SAVED MAN. Is that what you just posted?????

Come on my friend, you are going to have to do better than that to have your comments considered.

YES!

I believe in the Bible and it is 2000 years old!

 

[Not David]

Justin Martyer was NOT A SAVED MAN. Is that what you just posted?????

Come on my friend, you are going to have to do better than that to have your comments considered.

YES!

I believe in the Bible and it is 2000 years old!

How do you get that idea?

 

[Major1]

As with so much with TULIP, the bullet points exist on a continuum and there are degrees to which they can apply. Or at least, I assume that to be the case because otherwise people who claim to believe in all or some of the letters wouldn't have such strident disagreements with each other.

I'll give TULIP credit though. It is an internally consistent system. T reasonably leads to U which reasonably leads to L, etc.

Mind you, I disagree with TULIP from the jump on two separate fronts.

01- Depraved? Yes. Totally depraved? No. There's the obvious fact that charity exists in this world. Every day, millions of people help those who are less fortunate than themselves. There are big instances of this and there are small ones. But the very fact that charity exists argues against T.

Man is affected by the fall. There's no question about that. But even though our will may be warped, it is not entirely corrupted. Our fall into sin is complete, but it is not absolute.

02- Separately, there's also the reality that flesh itself does not inherently equal sin. It simply doesn't.

All in all, I see no reason to buy into T.

I like your comments. They allow me to share the truth of God's Word with you.

Because the name “total depravity” can cause people to have wrong ideas about what is meant, some people prefer to use terms like “total inability,” “righteous incapability,” “radical corruption” or even “moral inability.”

The doctrine of total depravity is an acknowledgement that the Bible teaches that as a result of the fall of man in Gen 3:6 every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—have been corrupted by sin. In other words, sin affects all areas of our being including who we are and what we do. It penetrates to the very core of our being so that everything is tainted by sin and according to Is. 64:6...….
“…all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” before a holy God".​

Then you said…………
"Separately, there's also the reality that flesh itself does not inherently equal sin. It simply doesn't."

I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to say. I think you are referring to the sin nature.

If so, then the sin nature is that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God. When we speak of the sin nature, we refer to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin; given the choice to do God’s will or our own, we will naturally choose to do our own thing which in and by itself speaks also to the fact that man is totally depraved.

Proof of the sin nature abounds. No one has to teach a child to lie or be selfish; rather, we go to great lengths to teach children to tell the truth and put others first. Sinful behavior comes naturally because we are all sinners. The news is filled with tragic examples of mankind acting badly. Wherever people are, there is trouble.

Charles Spurgeon said...……
“As the salt flavors every drop in the Atlantic, so does sin affect every atom of our nature. It is so sadly there, so abundantly there, that if you cannot detect it, you are deceived.”

 

[Major1]

How do you get that idea?

Are you fooling with me......seriousely! His name was MARTYER!!!

By reading and study.

Here is one of many, many links for you...………
Justin Martyr: On Christian Worship - 150 A.D. (The Prayer Foundation)

 

[thecolorsblend]

I like your comments.

Thank you.

Because the name “total depravity” can cause people to have wrong ideas about what is meant,

If so, why is it used? If "total" doesn't mean total, why not call it something else? If "depravity" doesn't mean depravity, why not call it something else?

Separately, many a Protestant commentator accept T to mean "total depravity" as I defined it in my post. But, like so much else with Protestantism, everybody has their own special little unicorn definitions of all these terms and it makes discussion challenging.

every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—have been corrupted by sin.

I have not said otherwise.

I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to say. I think you are referring to the sin nature.

My point is that the human flesh is not inherently sinful. Sin is not the intended default human condition.

 

[Not David]

Are you fooling with me......seriousely! His name was MARTYER!!!

By reading and study.

Here is one of many, many links for you...………
Justin Martyr: On Christian Worship - 150 A.D. (The Prayer Foundation)

I'm saying how did you get the idea that I don't consider him saved. He is even a Saint in my Church.

 

[Major1]

Thank you.

If so, why is it used? If "total" doesn't mean total, why not call it something else? If "depravity" doesn't mean depravity, why not call it something else?

Separately, many a Protestant commentator accept T to mean "total depravity" as I defined it in my post. But, like so much else with Protestantism, everybody has their own special little unicorn definitions of all these terms and it makes discussion challenging.

I have not said otherwise.

My point is that the human flesh is not inherently sinful. Sin is not the intended default human condition.

You said...……
":My point is that the human flesh is not inherently sinful. Sin is not the intended default human condition."

And my point is that you are wrong.....Biblically.

You are free to think as you please but I am simply giving you Bible teaching and not my thoughts.

Gal. 5:17...…..
" For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do."

 

[thecolorsblend]

You said...……
":My point is that the human flesh is not inherently sinful. Sin is not the intended default human condition."

And my point is that you are wrong.....Biblically.

You are free to think as you please but I am simply giving you Bible teaching and not my thoughts.

Gal. 5:17...…..
" For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do."

I do not believe that you have fully considered your words here. Your citation of scripture is spurious given that the context relies on an idiomatic understanding of sinful flesh.

This point does not challenge my position that human flesh is not inherently sinful. Your reply smacks of a strange neo-gnostic view which I do not think you consciously subscribe to but which you seem to have unconsciously invoked here.

Again, the flesh is not inherently sinful. If it was, the hypostatic union would not be possible. Sin exists in the flesh as the result of an outside event (ie, the Fall) but it is not an inherent, intended part of the human existence. The flesh is not inherently sinful.

 

[Major1]

In comment #89 I said...………………...
"Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved . . . –
Justin Martyr, Dialogue Of Justin 47.


You then said......…...
"They are not real Christians and were never saved in the first place."
You are using your interpretation there.

My apologies!

It seemed to me you were saying that Justin was NOT a real Christian and was never saved in the first place".

 

[Major1]

I do not believe that you have fully considered your words here. Your citation of scripture is spurious given that the context relies on an idiomatic understanding of sinful flesh.

This point does not challenge my position that human flesh is not inherently sinful. Your reply smacks of a strange neo-gnostic view which I do not think you consciously subscribe to but which you seem to have unconsciously invoked here.

Again, the flesh is not inherently sinful. If it was, the hypostatic union would not be possible. Sin exists in the flesh as the result of an outside event (ie, the Fall) but it is not an inherent, intended part of the human existence. The flesh is not inherently sinful.

I understand your comment and Maybe I did not say it correctly or maybe you misunderstood me, but allow me to say that------

Romans 5:12...……...
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned".

Yes to the fall being the cause of sin.

So then the biblical doctrine of the fall doesn't assert that human beings are totally evil. It doesn't even claim that man is as bad as he can possibly be. Instead, it says that all aspects of human nature – mind and spirit, soul and body, reason, affections, emotions, and will – have been equally infected with sin.

In our bodies we fight a constant battle with evil. We want to do good but something tells us to be bad. You see, our flesh has TWO natures fighting it out and we are caught in the middle.

Gal. 5:17...……..
"The flesh sets its desire against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, for these are in opposition to one another" (Galatians 5:17).

You may recall also that Peter says I 1 Peter 2:11...….
"Beloved I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul"

Then there is Paul's lament in Romans 7.........……..
"Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? ...on one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other hand, with my flesh I am serving the law of sin".

It would be easy, don't you think, to see these verses as teaching that the flesh of man is evil and is the enemy of man's spirit? But now, if you will, apply a little common sense. Just look at your hands. Any other part of your body would do, but your hands just happen to be convenient to look at. Study your hands for a moment. They are flesh and blood members of your physical body. If your flesh is evil, then your hands are evil.

Now imagine one hand picked up a pencil and wrote blasphemy with it. Where would the evil reside that produced this act? In the pencil? In your hand? Or in your mind? What does your common sense answer? Common sense tells you that the evil is not in the wooden pencil, or in your fleshly hand, but rather in your spiritual mind.

 

[Not David]

In comment #89 I said...………………...
"Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved . . . –
Justin Martyr, Dialogue Of Justin 47.


You then said......…...
"They are not real Christians and were never saved in the first place."
You are using your interpretation there.

My apologies!

It seemed to me you were saying that Justin was NOT a real Christian and was never saved in the first place".

I'm saying that Justin Martyr does not believe in OSAS, and even that quote is supporting my argument

 

[Major1]

I'm saying that Justin Martyr does not believe in OSAS, and even that quote is supporting my argument

I hope that you do not take this the wrong way, and I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I really do not care what Justin or anyone else on the early church believed.

I am able to read the Scriptures, understand them, and with the help of the Holy Spirit come to the conclusion that a holy, loving God who is powerful enough to save me to begin with is absolutly strong enough to keep me saved.

Of course the root of the whole subject is whether or not anyone is truly saved the FIRST time.

Matthew 7:22-23 ...….
'Many will say to me on that day, 'LORD, LORD, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'