Did Jesus teach Tulip ?

Greeting Gerhard,

It is wonderful that you have found such peace and comfort in this doctrine. May God bless you richly as you bless Him! :thumbs:

 

>The only "limited" atomement is that it is limited to those who repent and call on the Lord for forgiveness and salvation. That is how God chooses who He will save--by our choosing to accept or reject the Holy Spirit's calling.

That is NOT correct. This is semi-pelagian (sp?).The correct teaching is that God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with God's election before the foundation of the universe.

 

I don't see Total Depravity as a reality among mankind. Even the most evil person can be loving and kind, even merciful. To be totally depraved would mean no good at all in a person.

Unconditional Election. I can agree with this one. God knows all who will be saved and not one will miss out.

Limited Atonement. I have to consider the full counsel of God's word and it is very clear that Jesus died for the sins of the "whole world". I believe part of the torment of hell will be knowing that your sins were paid for by Jesus except for the sin of unbelief and that by simply believing they could have been saved.

Irresistable Grace. I have witnessed people resisting the call of the Holy Spirit, even admitting they feel God calling and know what He wants them to do, but yet they walk away because they loved the world.

Perserverance once saved. Amen! Agree 100%

 

The problem I have with TULIP is with one woman named Jezebel. He gave her a space to repent of her evil deeds, and she repented not. Did God know beforehand she would not repent eventhough the offer was given to her? Yes. Yet He gave her a chance to repent, and through her failing to do so, she died eternally lost(seperated from God eternally).

 

Well, I see Total depravity as the unabilty to save ourselves, and that we need Jesus to do the saving and not us.

We are not saved by any good works(merit) of our own. Agree that all who want to be saved, will be saved, But, Jesus must first draw us unto Himself.

Agree wholeheartedly!!

Agree again.

Hallelujah!! I agree with you 100%!!

 

We cannot dismiss these facts. The scripture also states....

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" (Acts 2)

It makes no sense that God calls everyone to repent but then does not allow any chance of repentance from even birth.

 

According to the dictionary....

Depravity = morally bad or evil; vitiate; corrupt.

Add to that TULIP's "Total" and it just isn't true of even those who have not been born again.

I totally agree that we cannot save ourselves and could not be saved apart from God working in us.

 

Agree with you 100%!!!:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

That is why I used Jezebel. Even through all her wickedness, and even wanting to kill Elijah, God gave her a space to repent, and she repented not. The blame is now solely on her, and her decision of rejecting Him.

 

>I don't see Total Depravity as a reality among mankind. Even the most evil person can be loving and kind, even merciful. To be totally depraved would mean no good at all in a person.

You misinterpret TD. It means that sin permeates all human activity including the church on earth. It does NOT mean that all human activity is evil.

 

If humans can defeat God simply by not "believing in" Jesus then the human will is stronger than God?

 

Is it me misinterpreting TD or Calvin misrepresenting word definitions?

 

Calvin never heard of TULIP. Calvin emphasized the Holy Spirit and prayer, not predestination.

 

But of course Calvin never heard of TULIP! Here are some reasons:

1. The acronym TULIP only works in English. Calvin spoke French.

2. Calvin died in 1564, some 54 years before the Synod of Dort. (see 3)

3. (quoting from a post of mine back in 2008, on the thread "Concerning Calvinism") "T.U.L.I.P." is not the sum total of Calvinism. The "Five Points" were formulated in 1618-19 in response to the the five main points made by the followers of Jacobus Arminius, the Remonstrants. These Remonstrants did not deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, the virgin birth of Jesus, the inerrancy of the bible, heaven and hell, the need for spreading the gospel... and that is why we ended up with the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism". If those Remonstrants had denied the resurrection of the Saviour, the omnipotence of God, the existence of sin, and eternal life, then we might have ended up with a R.O.S.E.
​

 

No, He did not

 

You are misunderstanding the doctrine. The term "total" simply means that every aspect of human nature has been affected. "Depravity" does not mean a person is as corrupt as he can become, it only means his nature is corrupted by sin.

For example a man who has been dead for two months is equally as dead as a man who has been dead for two minutes but yet the stage of corruption is worse in the former than in the latter. Likewise, all mankind are born spiritually dead and corrupted in every aspect of their nature but that does not mean that all are equally corrupted or that you are as corrupt as you can become.

Another misunderstanding is not that man cannot do "good" in comparison to other men or before men as men count goodness. The Biblical denial is that depraved men can do "good" as God's law defines it and demands in order to be justified before God.

 

You are confusing responsibility with ability. If the loss of ability was God's fault then God would be unjust to condemn them. However, the loss of ability is not God's fault but the fault of mankind as they participated in Adam, and thus with Adam in disobedience.

Moreover, let us be careful to define what "inability" really is. It is not that something outside man's nature is coercing them or forcing them or preventing them from doing what they want to. It is not that they lack the power of choice. The nature of their inability lies cheifly in their enmity to God. They are unable because they love darkness rather than light.

For example, a lion can be a vegetarian if it so chooses. However, the power of choice is ultimately determined and limited by his DESIRE. The natural man is at ENMITY with God and not subject to the law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE." Why? The power of love - He LOVES darkness MORE than light because His deeds are evil.

Hence, freedom from his LOVE for sin lies in a CHANGE OF HEART which only God can grant - Deut. 29:4; Ezek. 36:26-27.

 

I never use "TULIP" or "Calvinism" in teaching the scriptures. I simply use the scriptures and exegete what they mean according to their immediate and overall context.

Those who deny the Biblical doctrine of grace, are gulty of simply misinterpreting the doctrine as well as the scriptures.

For example, here are some common charges by those who misunderstand and misinterpret the scritpures:

1. This doctrine teaches that God is the author of sin

2. This doctrine teaches that God elects some to hell and others to heaven against their will.

3. This doctrine is not just nor fair as that makes God a respector of persons

Let us take a look at these objections to see if they hold water.


A. This doctrine teaches that God is the author of sin

ANSWER: Yes it does! It teaches that God created the mechanism capable of sinning - free choice. However, what this objection fails to understand is that God made creatures who possess mechanism responsible for how they use it. Hence, God is the primary cause of sin because without the creation of this mechanism there could be no possibility of sin. However, God is not the immediate cause of sin or the responsible cause of sin becuase creatures who possess this power are held responsible/accountable for their use of it for good or for bad. God commanded Adam not to abuse this mechanism or free will.



B. This doctrine teaches that God elected some to hell and others to heaven without their choice.


ANSWER: In the Bible, election is never spoken of in regard to those going to hell. Election is always "to salvation" (2 Thes. 2:13) never to damnation.

The very idea of election "to salvation" presupposes a need of salvation and that assumes the fall has already occurred in the logical order of decrees. Hence, free will has chosen to rebell and come under condemnation already. This is precisely how Jesus view it when he said they were "condemned already" and that He had not come into the world to condemn anyone.

Free choice to rebell "in Adam" by the whole human race "by one man's disobedience" (Rom. 5:12-19) has brought them under condemnation and the just wrath of God (Jn. 3:36). They are condemned and justly so.

Election is God's response of grace to save some in spite of what they deserve and in spite of their willful rebellion. In their fallen condition, the elect no more want to come to Christ than those God simply left to their own free choice (non-elect). Nothing prevents any man from coming to Christ but their own free choice to resist and reject God. Their inability is found in their own love for sin MORE than good. Nothing obtains coming to Christ by anyone but God's free grace. Election simply changes that love in the elect so that they freely choose to come to Christ.



C. Election is not fair that makes God a respector of persons:

ANSWER: That is only true IF there is some basis found in the elect that is not found in the non-elect that caused God to favor them over the others.

That is only true IF it is no fault of their own that men are depraved and condemned.

Neither of the above is true. God did not choose Jacob over Esau because of any forseen cause found in Jacob over Esau - Rom. 9:11

The whole human nature in Adam freely chose to sin and that corporate rebellion is simply manifested individually from birth to death - Rom. 5:12-19. We sinned in Adam just as Levi paid tithes in Abraham to Melchezedek - Heb. 7:9-10. We are sinners by nature and by choice as soon as we are born until the day we die except for God's intervening electing grace.

 

I read all these arguments and discussion about Calvinism, and I can't help but think that when all the dust settles, John 3:16 prevails. Think I will hang my hat on that verse and let all the theologians argue otherwise.

 

That's right. I don't see any Calvinism in John 3:16