Question about TULIP

[daveleau]

I was speaking with a Reformed Christian and I told him of my belief that "TULP" is constantly in effect, but my study has led me to believe that the "I" is not supported because of all the instances (ie. Jewish in Jerusalem that disregarded Jesus' teaching) of people refusing God and the logic that an automaton world is contrary to the purpose of Creation. His response was that if you denounce the "I" based on Free Will (see below for my basis for FW), that one cannot truly believe in any other portion of "TULIP." Is this the mainstream Reformed belief? The discussion seemed to imply that believing other than Calvinistic ideals meant that one was not Christian according to Reformed theology. Is this so?


My belief regarding FW and Predestination is that God tells us that is sovereign. He is completely sovereign. But, he asks us to follow, so He must limit His sovereignty. Otherwise, controlling each motion would turn us into robots. Foreknowledge does not affect free will, but enacting force (not guidance but forcing people to do things without any chance for choosing differently) conflicts with many passages (I'll give a list if requested) that support free will. I do not limit God's sovereignty- He can do all things. And, I do not deny that Scripture says that God knows what will happen to the end and He knew it from the beginning. I am not meaning the scientia media (middle knowledge) as the Open Theists (the very liberal new theology), but that He knows what is going to happen and works outside of time. He limits Himself to not deny Free Will when He desires, but also uses His sovereignty to enact as He desires.

I have a good friend who is Reformed (Lutheran) and I plan to start going to their church occasionally for Bible Study and discussion. Their pastor is a really nice guy and we talked a bit about seminary experiences.

Thanks for your thoughts.
God bless you.
Dave

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

I would say that the matter of a person's understanding of salvation has no final authority over reality. There are Calvinists that love knowing about God, but don't know God and there are Arminians who have been chosen but don't see it that way. This isn't an attempt to label one group as the "better Christians" than the other, by the way. It is a snapshot of the sovereignty of God over the interpretations of man.

Is Calvinism correct? Yes, I believe it is, based on my study of the Bible. Is that what saved me? Not at all.

 

[Imblessed]

snipped........ His response was that if you denounce the "I" based on Free Will (see below for my basis for FW), that one cannot truly believe in any other portion of "TULIP." Is this the mainstream Reformed belief? The discussion seemed to imply that believing other than Calvinistic ideals meant that one was not Christian according to Reformed theology. Is this so?


Thanks for your thoughts.
God bless you.
Dave

Hmm, I don't think that he was saying that one was not christian if they didn't believe the calvinistic ideals, but that taking the "I" out of TULIP means that one doesn't truly understand TULIP.

I personally think that each aspect of TULIP builds on the others, and to misunderstand or reject one is to misunderstand or reject all of TULIP.

But by no means can anyone say that another is not christian based on this!!!! There are Calvinists who are not elect as surely as there are arminians or catholics or lutherans or methodists or Quakers or any other denomination that are. Election is not based on our understanding of theology! If that were so, I was not christian until 5 months ago, when I embraced the Doctrines of Grace known also as Calvinism......

 

[5solas]

There are threads here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1843699-tulip.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t681417-tulip.html

 

[daveleau]

I don't understand how the different aspects of TULIP build upon each other. How does Irresistable Grace affect Perseverance of the saints or Limited Atonement? I can see how the blanket application of fulltime/ full-use sovereignty of God can affect each. Is that what is intended?

Thanks for all the responses.

Dave

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

Because we are depraved, we could not elect to be in Christ for we had no desire to be in the presence of God, thus He had to elect us. Because we are elected by God, it stands to reason that there are those who were not elected. Not a single drop of Jesus' blood was wasted on the cross. He died for those he was sent to deliver to the Father. The plan of God will not be thwarted by the resistance of a finite created being. God changes our heart, causing us to love Him and choose Him. Because our salvation is not founded in our own efforts or our own decisions, but in God's power, there is nothing we (back to the finite created being) can do to thwart the eternal plan of God.

I kept that as brief as I could, as my free time is short today.

 

[Elderone]

daveleau

Your post talked about "Free-Will". A little more than halfway down the page at the this web address is an article by John Calvin on Free Will. Our egos make it difficult to accept that we have the ability to make choices, most of the time the wrong ones, but we do not have free will. To have a "real" free will would require being absolutely neutral and that isn't possible because of original sin.

 

[Elderone]

I might add, there are almost 30 articles on Free-Will at the following address.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/freewill.html

 

[orthedoxy]

daveleau

Your post talked about "Free-Will". A little more than halfway down the page at the this web address is an article by John Calvin on Free Will. Our egos make it difficult to accept that we have the ability to make choices, most of the time the wrong ones, but we do not have free will. To have a "real" free will would require being absolutely neutral and that isn't possible because of original sin.

Do calvinists believe the elect have "real free will" once they believe?

 

[AndOne]

Do calvinists believe the elect have "real free will" once they believe?

That is a very good question - and has the potential to explode into serious disagreement around here, because I believe the answer to the question above depends on who you are talking to within Reformed circles.

The answer I would give is "no" because it implies that upon belief one has the choice to "stop believing" or somehow now has the magical ability to lead a righteous life. To believe it implies that now that you are saved you have to maintain that salvation through the power of your own free-will and choice. This is not grace and is not what is represented by TULIP or more importantly - scripture.

In short I believe sanctification is a gift that flows from salvation - and that it is not a means to it. Many, many reformed theologians (such as John Piper) would disagree with that statement. The problem is - that if you disagree with that statement then you are in essence saying that at some point in the salvation process you have free-will as well as the responsibility to maintain it. That is wrong in ligth of "Grace Alone."

Hope that makes sense....

Dave

 

[Elderone]

Do calvinists believe the elect have "real free will" once they believe?

I agree with Behe's Boy and say "no" also. Here is another way to look at it.

At Justification the the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to make good choices - before this we were not able to make good choices - we are no longer under bondage to sin, we are never given more temptation than we can handle with the Holy Spirits help.

1Co 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

However, we still have the sin nature. One way to look at it, simplistically, is if your on a diet and someone gives you a dessert which shouldn't be eaten. Your conscience tells you "don't eat it" but your appetite says "go ahead it won't be a problem", and it is right there in front of you.

Mt 26:41 "Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

All throughtout the Santification process the Christian fights the sin nature as it is always with us until we die and are Glorified.

Here is what the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 13. ON SANTIFICATION says.

Paragraph 1.

They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection,a by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:b the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,c and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;d and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,e to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.f

a. 1 Cor. 6:11; Acts 20:32; Phil. 3:10; Rom. 6:5–6.

b. John 17:17; Eph. 5:26; 2 Thess. 2:13.

c. Rom. 6:6, 14.

d. Gal. 5:24; Rom. 8:13.

e. Col. 1:11; Eph. 3:16–19.

f. 2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:14.

Paragraph 2.

This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;a yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;b whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.c

a. 1 Thess. 5:23.

b. 1 John 1:10; Rom. 7:18, 23; Phil. 3:12.

c. Gal. 5:17; 1 Pet. 2:11.


Paragraph 3.

In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;a yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome;b and so, the saints grow in grace,c perfecting holiness in the fear of God.d

a. Rom. 7:23.

b. Rom. 6:14; 1 John 5:4; Eph. 4:15–16.

c. 2 Pet. 3:18; 2 Cor. 3:18.

d. 2 Cor. 7:1.


I hope this is of some help.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yo, Daveleau...

"I was speaking with a Reformed Christian and I told him of my belief that "TULP" is constantly in effect, but my study has led me to believe that the "I" is not supported because of all the instances (ie. Jewish in Jerusalem that disregarded Jesus' teaching) of people refusing God and the logic that an automaton world is contrary to the purpose of Creation. His response was that if you denounce the "I" based on Free Will (see below for my basis for FW), that one cannot truly believe in any other portion of "TULIP." Is this the mainstream Reformed belief? The discussion seemed to imply that believing other than Calvinistic ideals meant that one was not Christian according to Reformed theology. Is this so?"

>Dave, TULIP is not the whole of "Calvinism", so "Calvinistic ideals" is a bit broad & vague as a term.
I adhere to TULIP as best I unnerstan' it, but part ways with Calvin on his ecclesiology, especialy how he dealt with church discipline(Servetus).

However, I would venture that the answer to your question is in the question as you asked it...
meaning, "Irresistable Grace" is only irriesistable for those whom it was Limited to in the Atonement... only those who were placed "in" Christ 'before the foundation of the world' - a plan, not a random sampling based on what God was clairvoyant of(whosoever decides for themselves), but rather those elect He foreknew by His considered sovereign decision. Lumps of clay that are predestined to have their eyes & ears opened, don't & can't resist it being done, and those predestined to be hardened(like Pharaoh & those Jews you mentioned), resist grace because they cannot defy God's sovereign will & their sin nature either. Both illustrate God's glory.

The notion of "autonomy" belonging to dirt(us), is laughable to God. Only a creator can claim autonomy over & within His own creation. Creatures are by definition bound by the limits of creation.
The claim of contrariness to "the" purpose of creation infers knowing the purpose of creation.
Creation serves the Creator. If the Creator chooses to serve some or all of creation, it does not change the fact that a creation serves it creator. It can't do anything else.

I understand how devastating it is to realize how totaly depraved, spiritualy dead & ontologicaly worthless we are, but that is what needing salvation is all about. It's actualy worse than being a robot, it's about being dirt. Our most righteous, noble, altruistic efforts are filthy rags, if they are not His specific will being lived out thru us.

Ya need to understand we are born spiritualy dead, unable to discern or desire spiritual things (as opposed to religious things). We have will, but it is more like instinct, in that it is sin-directed, even when it dresses up & feeds the poor, etc. - that's the difference between outwardly huimble & inwardly proud religious expression & truly humble, or just matter-of-fact spiritual expression.
The ego(ourself) is way over-rated, until it's bent(rebirthed) toward gloryfying God, & only God can bend it that way. And what still mystifies me, is that He doesn't resurrect our dead spirit, He says He gives us a new one! So don't look to ME for all the answers, please.
I'm still pretty new at this Reform Theology. I didn't "get" it until about 5yrs ago.

It inspired me to study the history of "the church" & the history of its doctrine.
Jacobus Arminius is just a Jesuit up-date of a guy named Pelagius, who kicked the doctrine of Original Sin(Total Depravity) to the curb, in favor of the notion of "free" will. Some redeeming quality that supposedly survived Adam's fall.


"I don't understand how the different aspects of TULIP build upon each other. How does Irresistable Grace affect Perseverance of the saints or Limited Atonement? I can see how the blanket application of fulltime/ full-use sovereignty of God can affect each. Is that what is intended?"


>Dave, I kinda hoped my above response exhibits the linkage, but for help's sake...
Irresistable grace is the engine that drives the perseverance of the saints. It's the program those robots follow (lol). R2D2, C3PO, & Data didn't have problems with bein' robots, & they managed to have a LOT more personality than many people I know... well Data had a Pinnochio complex, but more & better programming fixed that. That's better than the Peter Pan complex so many men are afflicted with anyway. Limited Atonement is just the list from His book of who He licensed & distributed His "Saving Grace Program" to.

Accepting the fact that we are dirt, robots,(totaly depraved) is simply a matter of pride, if ya 'ax' me, pal. And when it comes to created reality, there is no room for pride. We had nothin' to do with it, so why should it be so hard to accept that we have no salvific control in it? Matter of fact, we are most reliable in our ability to muck things up, so realizing Total Sovereignity of God should be reLIEVing... humbling, but DEFinitely a huge relief. AND it makes it both more possible AND necessary to TRUST God for providence, no? Not a bad deal if it was His goodness that brought ya to repentence, rather than guilt & shame over blowin' it & maybe gettin' caught(bein' imperfect).

Glad your curious. Hope I helped.
Learnin' how God is sovereign & yet I am responsible for my sin, was the biggest Reform bump for me to get over, Daveleau! Explainin' what I believe is a great way to learn it better. Thanks for the opportunity!

Otto

 

[Jon_]

(Note, I am going to contend with a few things that you have said, but only so that I might show what I perceive to be a misunderstanding of Calvinism. Please take this in a spirit of correction and not contention. My purpose is to show where you are inconsistent in your affirmation of Calvinism, so that you may be edified by learning the truth of it.)

I was speaking with a Reformed Christian and I told him of my belief that "TULP" is constantly in effect, but my study has led me to believe that the "I" is not supported because of all the instances (ie. Jewish in Jerusalem that disregarded Jesus' teaching) of people refusing God and the logic that an automaton world is contrary to the purpose of Creation.

Have you considered the possibility that they were purposed to disbelief, as reported in 1 Peter 2:8?

His response was that if you denounce the "I" based on Free Will (see below for my basis for FW), that one cannot truly believe in any other portion of "TULIP." Is this the mainstream Reformed belief?

Yes, it is.

The discussion seemed to imply that believing other than Calvinistic ideals meant that one was not Christian according to Reformed theology. Is this so?

We, as men, are not judges of souls. We can only proclaim the truth that we have been given. Since any deviation from the five fundamental points of Calvinist soteriology constitutes a denial of the entire system, the resultant soteriological profession is Arminianism.

Arminianism has twice been condemned as heretical. Once at the Council of Orange, 529 A.D. Once at the Synod of Dordt, 1618-1619 A.D.

My belief regarding FW and Predestination is that God tells us that is sovereign. He is completely sovereign. But, he asks us to follow, so He must limit His sovereignty.

It is logically impossible for God to limit his sovereignty. God's sovereignty is a part of his divine nature. He cannot change his own nature, just as we cannot change our own nature. It is a logical impossibility. I cannot will myself to become a bird. God cannot will himself to be non-sovereign, or even only semi-sovereign. He is completely and totally sovereign and it is impossible for him to be otherwise. This is one of the foundational principles of Calvinism and denial of it is precisely why anything but a five-point system cannot stand.

Otherwise, controlling each motion would turn us into robots.

Based on what? What qualifies as a robot? What qualifies as "controlling"? Why was God able to harden Pharaoh, but not able to irresistably save men? Why was God justified in choosing Israel when they didn't choose him? Where in the Bible does it say that God must limit his own sovereignty or men would be robots? Does the Bible not declare God the Potter and men the clay? Does the Potter not shape and mold the clay against the will of the clay? Does the clay have any say as to what shape it is molded into?

Foreknowledge does not affect free will, but enacting force (not guidance but forcing people to do things without any chance for choosing differently) conflicts with many passages (I'll give a list if requested) that support free will.

I request such a list.

I do not limit God's sovereignty- He can do all things.

Yet you just declared that God must limit his sovereignty else we would just be "robots."

And, I do not deny that Scripture says that God knows what will happen to the end and He knew it from the beginning. I am not meaning the scientia media (middle knowledge) as the Open Theists (the very liberal new theology), but that He knows what is going to happen and works outside of time.

This is well. I am glad you understand the accursed nature of Open Theism.

He limits Himself to not deny Free Will when He desires, but also uses His sovereignty to enact as He desires.

Again, this is contradictory. You assert that he limits himself to not deny free will, but that he also uses his sovereignty to enact what he desires. God desires the repentance and belief of his elect, therefore he enacts it sovereignly. But among the points you contend to uphold (T - Total Depravity) is the assertion that man is incapable of choosing God. Therefore, God must irresistably regenerate him because if left to his own devices, the man would never choose God. This is a doctrine that you say you uphold, but your denial of irresistable grace conflicts with that.

Since you neither believe that man is totally depraved nor that God's grace is irresistable, it follows that you do not uphold unconditional election, as unconditional election teaches that God chose his elect without consideration of the merit of the individuals, not deeds, not abilities, and certainly not faith, for we are all born without faith, this being part of our original sin nature. Thus, since God must irresistably save those he unconditionally elects, you cannot uphold the doctrine of unconditional election.

As God's grace is not irresistable, you cannot assert that he can use his grace to keep men from apostasy. Those men who "believe" in Christ and make a public profession of faith, but never bear any fruit, are not truly regenerated and did not have true faith according to the Scriptures. "You will know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:20). Unless you profess an antinomian doctrine that good works are not a requirement of true faith (which is precisely what James says), you cannot affirm perseverence of the saints without irresistable grace. That leaves us with just limited atonement, which becomes meaningless unless God had purposed men to salvation. Jesus did not die in vain. He died to save that which was lost. Those predesinated by God are that which was lost, but is now found and saved in Jesus Christ. For these God's grace is poured out in abundance, while the rest of mankind is left to its wickedness and evil devices, so that God's mercy and glory may be greater magnified in the saving of his elect from the destruction of the reprobate.

I have a good friend who is Reformed (Lutheran) and I plan to start going to their church occasionally for Bible Study and discussion. Their pastor is a really nice guy and we talked a bit about seminary experiences.

That's wonderful, but Lutheran is not Reformed. Lutherans are quite different from the Reformed on many doctrinal views, which are out of the scope of this thread, but relevantly, on the doctrine of limited atonement, which, as I just discussed, is the most often rejected point.

Thanks for your thoughts.
God bless you.
Dave

Thanks for your post, Dave. I think that perhaps you had some misconceptions about the five-points of Calvinism. I would recommend visiting this site:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/calvinism.html

. . . and having a look at some of the articles featured there. They should give you a better idea of the true character of Calvinism. It's hard for many people these days because men like Norman Geisler are trying to portray a false view of Calvinism, whch is causing people to affirm doctrines that they really have nothing in common with. I would encourage you to really read up on the issue. If you can honestly say that you affirm double predestination and praise God's wisdom and grace as a result, then you are truly a Calvinist.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Rick Otto]

HalleLUJA!
I get a rush readin' you bro!
I am SO ignorant & unable to articulate!
What a blessing I count you!!!
Thank God for YOU, Jon!
I am more than TWICE your age,
& you are schoolin' ME!

 

[Elderone]

HalleLUJA!
I get a rush readin' you bro!
I am SO ignorant & unable to articulate!
What a blessing I count you!!!
Thank God for YOU, Jon!
I am more than TWICE your age,
& you are schoolin' ME!

..... and I second that. It is very comforting to know that the Holy Spirit is bringing along a large group of young people and giving them such a GREAT grasp of Scripture.

 

[Jon_]

As the hymn proclaims, God's grace is indeed amazing. And it is his grace alone which is worthy of glory, for what are we but worms and unprofitable servants? Apart from his grace we would know nothing, and apart from his Son we are indeed nothing, but wicked, rebellious creatures. Praise God for salvation by his Son, Jesus Christ, and his blessed understand by illumination of his Holy Spirit. He alone is worthy of glory and worthy to be praised.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[5solas]

As the hymn proclaims, God's grace is indeed amazing. And it is his grace alone which is worthy of glory, for what are we but worms and unprofitable servants? Apart from his grace we would know nothing, and apart from his Son we are indeed nothing, but wicked, rebellious creatures. Praise God for salvation by his Son, Jesus Christ, and his blessed understand by illumination of his Holy Spirit. He alone is worthy of glory and worthy to be praised.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

AMEN

 

[orthedoxy]

When you guys say we don't have "Real free will". How can you claim to love God since the only way one loves is through free will?
This would make us like a robot since we are predetermined on what we are going to do?
Please explain, remember a will is not free unless you can do the opposite.

 

[Jon_]

When you guys say we don't have "Real free will". How can you claim to love God since the only way one loves is through free will?

Prove it.

This would make us like a robot since we are predetermined on what we are going to do?

Again, prove it.

Please explain, remember a will is not free unless you can do the opposite.

And, once more, prove it.

You are making all kinds of wild, unsubstantiated assumptions concerning love and will. There is simply no basis for assuming that love must be "freely willed" in order to be valid. Moreover, you are assuming that man is somehow "free" apart from God because he is able to do the opposite of what God commands. These are all highly erroneous assumptions and you cannot even begin to prove that they are true.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[orthedoxy]

Prove it.


Again, prove it.

Can you create a robot that can love you? If not please explain why not.

And, once more, prove it.

If God created us to build and to destroy, how is that any different then us creating a robot to build and destroying things?

You are making all kinds of wild, unsubstantiated assumptions concerning love and will. There is simply no basis for assuming that love must be "freely willed" in order to be valid. Moreover, you are assuming that man is somehow "free" apart from God because he is able to do the opposite of what God commands. These are all highly erroneous assumptions and you cannot even begin to prove that they are true.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Can you force a woman to marry you? Do you tell a woman you will marry me?
Or do you ask her will you marry me and if she loves you she will say yes?
Forced love is rape, how can you make one to love you without them choosing to love you?
It's erroneous to believe God created Hitler to torture people. If you say Hitler didn't have choice not to torture then you can't blame Hitler but God.
Please make sense of TULIP for me. This sound like it makes God not loving at all and is evil.