Calvinists/Reformed, Please help me explain TULIP.

[Not David]

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!'

Why should I trust you instead of people who lived closer to Christ? With what authority you say those things?

 

[Major1]

Why should I trust you instead of people who lived closer to Christ? With what authority you say those things?

It is a choice. If you believe that I in someway am perverting or twisting or lieing about the Scriptures then you have every right to not trust me.

Authority????

I have none! Never said I did.

I am nothing but an old country boy who God blessed with a great exposure to some wonderful professors and men of God. No more and no less.

 

[thecolorsblend]

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?

Those passages were written by fallen men and those passages bemoan their fallen nature.

They do not, however, say that human flesh is inherently sinful. And indeed it cannot be inherently sinful or else the hypostatic union would not be possible and redemption would be eternally unavailable to mankind.

I am happy, though, that we at least understand each other better on so-called "total depravity", which is utter fiction and should be rejected by all.

 

[Major1]

Those passages were written by fallen men and those passages bemoan their fallen nature.

They do not, however, say that human flesh is inherently sinful. And indeed it cannot be inherently sinful or else the hypostatic union would not be possible and redemption would be eternally unavailable to mankind.

I am happy, though, that we at least understand each other better on so-called "total depravity", which is utter fiction and should be rejected by all.

My dear friend...…..The complete Bible was written by fallen men!

Every single man was a sinner by nature who was used by God.

However, I do wish that you understood total depravity as it is Bible doctrine.

Romans 3:23...
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

Do you think that ALL includes everyone????

 

[thecolorsblend]

My dear friend...…..The complete Bible was written by fallen men!

Every single man was a sinner by nature who was used by God.

However, I do wish that you understood total depravity as it is Bible doctrine.

Romans 3:23...
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

Do you think that ALL includes everyone????

I understand "total depravity". That's why I understand it to be total nonsense.

It's nonsense.

 

[Major1]

I understand "total depravity". That's why I understand it to be total nonsense.

It's nonsense.

Of course you are free to believe what ever you choose. Al I do is tell others what the Bible says, and it is not my responsibility to make anyone believe. That's God job.

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.”

Yet what is important is not the name assigned to the doctrine but how accurately the doctrine summarizes what the Bible teaches about the spiritual condition of fallen man. No matter which name you use to refer to “total depravity,” the fact remains that when properly understood it is an accurate description of what the Bible does teach on this important subject.

The total depravity of man is seen throughout the Bible. Man’s heart is “deceitful and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9).

The Bible also teaches us that man is born dead in transgression and sin (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5).

The Bible teaches that because unregenerate man is “dead in transgressions” (Ephesians 2:5), he is held captive by a love for sin (John 3:19; John 8:34) so that he will not seek God (Romans 3:10-11) because he loves the darkness (John 3:19) and does not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Therefore, men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) and continue to willfully live in sin. Because they are totally depraved, this sinful lifestyle seems right to men (Proverbs 14:12) so they reject the gospel of Christ as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) and their mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so” (Romans 8:7).
Total depravity - is it biblical?

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

Reformed apologetics would simply respond that total depravity refers to the extent of humanity's sinfulness, that every aspect of a person is sinful, not that every human being is as bad as they could be, an axe murderer, for instance. Reformed theology also has the concept of common grace, or what we Lutherans call civil righteousness, which permits human beings to respond to God's law in a limited, non-salvific way.

 

[Major1]

Reformed apologetics would simply respond that total depravity refers to the extent of humanity's sinfulness, that every aspect of a person is sinful, not that every human being is as bad as they could be, an axe murderer, for instance. Reformed theology also has the concept of common grace, or what we Lutherans call civil righteousness, which permits human beings to respond to God's law in a limited, non-salvific way.

There is a common misconception regarding total depravity. Total depravity does not mean that man is as wicked or sinful as he could be, nor does it mean that man is without a conscience or any sense of right or wrong. Neither does it mean that man does not or cannot do things that seem to be good when viewed from a human perspective or measured against a human standard.

It does not even mean that man cannot do things that seem to conform outwardly to the law of God. What the Bible does teach and what total depravity does recognize is that even the “good” things man does are tainted by sin because they are not done for the glory of God and out of faith in Him and all of that is seen in Rom. 14:23 and also Hebrews 11:6.

While man looks upon the outward acts and judges them to be good, God looks upon not only the outward acts but also the inward motives that lie behind them, and because they proceed from a heart that is in rebellion against Him and they are not done for His glory, even these good deeds are like “filthy rags” in His sight. In other words, fallen man’s good deeds are motivated not by a desire to please God but by our own self-interest and are thus corrupted to the point where God declares that there is “no one who does good, no not one!”

 

[FireDragon76]

Why should I trust you instead of people who lived closer to Christ? With what authority you say those things?

This assumes that we can learn nothing new about Christ, in the interim, and perhaps come to a better understanding of him. It's sort of like the logical fallacy of the appeal to tradition (edit, I looked it up and it's specifically called the fallacy of antiquity). Remember, many of these men you'ld quote as fathers did not know Christ in the flesh, and were just as susceptible to interpreting him through their own culture as people are today. So I very much doubt the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of Christianity is any more universally applicable than the Baptist or Lutheran one.

Even the apostles and disciples close to Christ did not understand him always. Even after the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Church had bitter disputes about gentiles in the Church. The idea that there was this firm, substantial "deposit of faith" the early church had just doesn't play out in reality. The faith is something each generation has had to work out in response to hearing God's call, and it has been that way ever since the beginning.

So tell me, why should I uncritically accept what the Church Fathers say, given all that? I should rather test it agaist what the Scriptures we Christians hold in common have to say, using the best scholarship available today. In both your church, and Rome, that is not the way it is done. They alone proclaim themselves true and right and demand the submission of every human conscience to their authority.

 

[Not David]

This assumes that we can learn nothing new about Christ, in the interim, and perhaps come to a better understanding of him. It's sort of like the logical fallacy of the appeal to tradition (edit, I looked it up and it's specifically called the fallacy of antiquity). Remember, many of these men you'ld quote as fathers did not know Christ in the flesh, and were just as susceptible to interpreting him through their own culture as people are today. So I very much doubt the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of Christianity is any more universally applicable than the Baptist or Lutheran one.

Even the apostles and disciples close to Christ did not understand him always. Even after the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Church had bitter disputes about gentiles in the Church. The idea that there was this firm, substantial "deposit of faith" the early church had just doesn't play out in reality. The faith is something each generation has had to work out in response to hearing God's call, and it has been that way ever since the beginning.

So tell me, why should I uncritically accept what the Church Fathers say, given all that? I should rather test it agaist what the Scriptures we Christians hold in common have to say, using the best scholarship available today. In both your church, and Rome, that is not the way it is done. They alone proclaim themselves true and right and demand the submission of every human conscience to their authority.

Because you are also bias in your own culture and in your own understanding of Christianity. Plus, the Orthodox understanding is more consistent than Lutheranism created 1500 years after Christ.

 

[FireDragon76]

Because you are also bias in your own culture and in your own understanding of Christianity. Plus, the Orthodox understanding is more consistent than Lutheranism created 1500 years after Christ.

Indeed. And that is why I do not believe I am justified by my own intellect or theology, but by God's grace alone. If justification were about picking the right church, salvation would be hopeless.

Lutheranism was not created 1500 years after Christ. We confess one holy aspotolic and catholic church. We just tidied things up a bit when Dr. Luther came along.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Of course you are free to believe what ever you choose. Al I do is tell others what the Bible says, and it is not my responsibility to make anyone believe. That's God job.

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.”

Yet what is important is not the name assigned to the doctrine but how accurately the doctrine summarizes what the Bible teaches about the spiritual condition of fallen man. No matter which name you use to refer to “total depravity,” the fact remains that when properly understood it is an accurate description of what the Bible does teach on this important subject.

The total depravity of man is seen throughout the Bible. Man’s heart is “deceitful and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9).

The Bible also teaches us that man is born dead in transgression and sin (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5).

The Bible teaches that because unregenerate man is “dead in transgressions” (Ephesians 2:5), he is held captive by a love for sin (John 3:19; John 8:34) so that he will not seek God (Romans 3:10-11) because he loves the darkness (John 3:19) and does not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Therefore, men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) and continue to willfully live in sin. Because they are totally depraved, this sinful lifestyle seems right to men (Proverbs 14:12) so they reject the gospel of Christ as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) and their mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so” (Romans 8:7).
Total depravity - is it biblical?

No sir, total depravity is found nowhere in Sacred Scripture.

Reformed apologetics would simply respond that total depravity refers to the extent of humanity's sinfulness, that every aspect of a person is sinful, not that every human being is as bad as they could be

Except that's exactly how quite a few Protestant theologians view the matter.

 

[Major1]

No sir, total depravity is found nowhere in Sacred Scripture.

Except that's exactly how quite a few Protestant theologians view the matter.

Isn't it funny that YOU would declare that "Total Depravity" is found nowhere in Scripture???

Neither is "PURGATORY" but you believe it and accept it.
Neither is "THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY" but you believe that and accept it.
Neither is the "ROSARY" but you believe that and accept it.
Neither is the Pope the head of the church and has the authority of Christ.
Neither is The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.

I can go on for about 30 or more theological teachings that ARE NOT IN SCRIPTRE but YOU believe them and accept them because the RCC told you to.

It is impossible to use the argument of "Not in the Scripture" for one thing but it is OK to do it for other things. It is good for all or it is not good for any!!!!!

Am I the only one here who sees the hypocrisy of your stance?

Isaiah 64:6 …………….
"We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Jeremiah 17:9………..
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Psalms 51:5.……...
"I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Romans 3:10–11 …………..
"as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;
no one seeks for God."

Those things being found in Scripture, then how do we get saved?????

We must be BORN AGAIN!
John 3:3 …...
" Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

It is only after God infuses spiritual life into a dead sinner that he can “see the kingdom of God.” Those that hold this view see this as being a sovereign act of God, whereby men are born again “not of the blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” ( John 1:12-13).

 

[thecolorsblend]

Isn't it funny that YOU would declare that "Total Depravity" is found nowhere in Scripture???

Neither is "PURGATORY" but you believe it and accept it.
Neither is "THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY" but you believe that and accept it.
Neither is the "ROSARY" but you believe that and accept it.
Neither is the Pope the head of the church and has the authority of Christ.
Neither is The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.

I can go on for about 30 or more theological teachings that ARE NOT IN SCRIPTRE but YOU believe them and accept them because the RCC told you to.

It is impossible to use the argument of "Not in the Scripture" for one thing but it is OK to do it for other things. It is good for all or it is not good for any!!!!!

Am I the only one here who sees the hypocrisy of your stance?

Isaiah 64:6 …………….
"We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Jeremiah 17:9………..
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Psalms 51:5.……...
"I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Romans 3:10–11 …………..
"as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;
no one seeks for God."

Those things being found in Scripture, then how do we get saved?????

We must be BORN AGAIN!
John 3:3 …...
" Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

It is only after God infuses spiritual life into a dead sinner that he can “see the kingdom of God.” Those that hold this view see this as being a sovereign act of God, whereby men are born again “not of the blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” ( John 1:12-13).

No sir, it’s nowhere in Sacred Scripture.

 

[Major1]

No sir, it’s nowhere in Sacred Scripture.

Wonderful. I am glad that you Agree that...……
"PURGATORY"
"THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY"
"ROSARY
the Pope the head of the church and has the authority of Christ
and The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation......Are NOWHERE in the Scriptures!!!!!!