T.U.L..I.P. and why I disagree with it

violitional theology | unknown | Ron Hossack

[Right_Wing_Mole_In_Seattle]

The Bible teaches total depravity. But that simply means that there is nothing good in man to earn or deserve salvation.

If you are willing to believe in Christ then you are NOT "totally depraved" and there IS something good in you (to earn salvation). Has an Arminian EVER answered this? Isn't your desire to follow Christ, the "good thing" that merits your salvation.

The Bible never hints that people are lost because they have no ability to come to Christ.

This is correct. People are lost because they have no desire to come to Christ. Calvin would call it a voluntary slavery. That is what Jeremiah 17:9 teaches: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."

It always drives me crazy when people explain Calvinism incorrectly, before they pitifully attempt to discredit it.

[Fifth Business]

Do you guys even know what your position is?

The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

[the_doc]

Yes, I have the series. My cousin, an actor, gave it to me.

[CCWoody]

I'm just glad that I had enough intelligence and humility to choose Christ, unlike those wretched heathens.

hahahahahaha! Don't forget spiritual awareness.

[the_doc]

Give me some time, and I'll find it. (Maybe CCWoody or RnMomof7 could find it. I will be tied up for the next several days.)

[CCWoody]

Do you guys even know what your position is?

Yes, it is my position! DO YOU? As far as my quick glance of the article, not one point correct. At least now I know where ftd gets some of his junk!

[Fifth Business]

Yes, I have the series. My cousin, an actor, gave it to me.

It seemed an appropriate handle when I decided to go from Lurker to Occasional Poster.

[fortheDeclaration]

ftD has never given satisfactory answers to any of my arguments concerning Romans 9. On another thread, I demonstrated conclusively that his "National Israel" explanation doesn't work. The entire chapter is talking about salvation. This just gets curiouser and curiouser.

Only in your own mind did you ever prove anything 'conclusively'(You sound like Bogart in that movie when he sat in the witness stand talking about the strawberries and playing with his iron balls)

It doesn't work?

for I could wish that myself accursed from Christ for my Brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh Who are the Israelites; to whom pertainteth the adoption, and the glory and the covenants, and the giving of the law and the service of God, and the promises, Whose are the father of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.Amen.

Now, who is Paul referring to there? The individual believer or Israel? Chapters 9-11 are discussing the history and future of Israel (Rom.11) but then Paul does warn about those who are like yourselves, 'wise in your own conceits'

It just gets curiouser and curiouser!

[Darksheare]

Finally, someone has answered correctly! The last time I asked that. I got all kinds of different answers. May God bless you and yours.
Now, how many here would rather hear what God has to say rather than MEN? (I got called a heretic for saying this once!)

[fortheDeclaration]

It looks like ftd has found someone else who either cannot or does not want to correctly define our position.

Ofcourse, not Woody, even Calvin himself couldn't define your position, because you do not know it! You just make it up as you go along hoping that no one will catch you in your lies and heresies.

[Jerry_M]

One thing that none of us have mentioned yet is the fact that TULIP is a gross oversimplification of Reformed theology that arose out of a need to refute the five points of the Arminian Remonstant faction. As such, it does not fully define the Biblical predestinarian theology that is nicknamed "Calvinism".

[fortheDeclaration]

First off, the definition of TULIP that I have been taught starts with T for "Total Depravity", something different from what this article is talking about. And again, it fails to truthfully talk about the Calvinist position - but here is an area where there are many more knowledgable people than me to talk.

It speaks very truthfully about the TULIP, it is just that Calvinists do not want anyone to know just how unbiblical their system really is!

[Darksheare]

See post 22 for the correct answer.

[Jerry_M]

We wouldn't want anyone to notice the decidedly nasty attitude that ftd demonstrates on this and other threads. Some poor deluded soul might consider him to be un-Christian in his comments. < /sarcasm>

[Fifth Business]

Now, how many here would rather hear what God has to say rather than MEN?

It depends on HOW he's talking to you, Darksheare. It you can actually hear Him I'm very concerned. /grin

[fortheDeclaration]

One thing that none of us have mentioned yet is the fact that TULIP is a gross oversimplification of Reformed theology that arose out of a need to refute the five points of the Arminian Remonstant faction. As such, it does not fully define the Biblical predestinarian theology that is nicknamed "Calvinism

Now, even TULIP doesn't really explain it? How many books will it take to explain it?

And further by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a wearisome to the flesh (Ecc.12:12)

[CCWoody]

One thing that none of us have mentioned yet is the fact that TULIP is a gross oversimplification of Reformed theology that arose out of a need to refute the five points of the Arminian Remonstant faction. As such, it does not fully define the Biblical predestinarian theology that is nicknamed "Calvinism".

You mean like most churches today?

[Darksheare]

Only straight from what he wrote by way of inspiration. (I think I'd have a heart attack if He did speak to me like He did Samuel. Probably why He doesn't do that lately.)

[Jerry_M]

Since ftd (along with others) thinks that he knows the Calvinist position on all things, then how about discussing the following that I recently posted on another thread. The fact that no non-Calvinist has addressed this topic as of yet is really very telling:

I did want to introduce another thought for us to ruminate on: Many of our "Calvinist v. non-Calvinist" discussions have contained a considerable about of wrangling about "free-will". Oft times, the non-Calvinists accuse the Calvinists of denying "free-will", yet they never do give (in my opinion) a satisfactory definition of exactly what "free-will" is. We Calvinists have many times given our definition of "free-will", to wit: "man is free to do that which he wants".

Now, with that preface out of the way, I would ask this question: Will a saved, glorified man who has entered into the eternal presence of God have the ability to sin? If not, then doesn't this violate his "free-will", as defined by the non- Calvinist? After all, how could that man be "free indeed" in Christ if he is not allowed the choice to sin?

I will give the Calvinist answer. The saved, glorified man has the same "free-will" that the lost, unregenerate man has. The saved, glorified man wants to glorify God, and is free to do so, and will do so forever. The lost, unregenerate man wants to sin, and is free to do so, and will continue to do so until he is either regenerated or stands before God in judgment. However, neither man is free to do that for which he has no ability. The man who is dead in trespasses and sins has no ability to perform God pleasing actions, but this does not restrict his "free-will". The man who is glorified in the presence of Christ has no ability to sin against God, but this does not restrict his "free-will". (Let me just mention that this is exactly the same type of "free-will" that God posesses.)

The only ones who can both sin and perform God pleasing actions simultaneously are those regenerated believers who are not yet glorified. We are the ones who know that "in our flesh dwells no good thing". We are the ones faced with the difficulty described in Romans Seven.

Any (non-Calvinist) takers?

[Jerry_M]

"Now, even TULIP doesn't really explain it? How many books will it take to explain it?"

Oh, it only takes one book, the Bible. Remember, I stated "the Biblical predestinarian position".