Featured Smashing the "T" out of TULIP

Whatever the Calvinist specific definition is, when you say something is "total" that defines the something as "without exception". Thus, if man is "totally depraved" then there is not one thing a man could do that was not considered depraved (Synonyms include; corrupt, perverted, debased, immoral, degenerate, etc ). We know from the scriptures and from observation that a man (speaking in general terms, unregenerate) can do non-depraved things.

What you here mainly from the Calvinist on this subject of Total Depravity is that man has no ability to choose to call upon Jesus Christ for regeneration/salvation because they are Totally Depraved. They believe this and defend this even though the scriptures show God pleading with sinners to believe and repent.

I was listening to Ravi Zacharias this week in an Q&A on this topic of Sovereignty verses Freewill. He sees this the way I have come to see this from the scriptures and that is that both are true and held in tension one against the other throughout the scriptures. Freewill does not destroy the sovereignty of God, but rather is part of God's sovereign design.

Election is as Peter said, "according to the foreknowledge of God". Within the foreknowledge of God lies the foreseeing of those whom freely choose to believe after having been drawn by the Father, convicted by Holy Spirit as sinners, called to believe on Jesus Christ. Many are called, few are chosen. The chosen are they which choose to call upon Jesus Christ.

Their are extremist on these points. The Calvinist wholly embraces Sovereign Election at the expense of Freewill choice. The Armenian wholly embraces Freewill at the expense of Sovereign Election. When hermeneutics is appropriately applied we find no contradiction at all. Balance must be applied, both are taught in the scripture, thus, both must be true. It is up to the student study and rightly divide the word of truth to strike that harmony between the two truths.

If I focus solely upon those passages which speak of Election and God's Sovereign will, I will no doubt have to conclude the Calvinist pov correct. If I focus solely upon those passages which speak of Freewill choice, I will no doubt have to conclude the Armenian pov correct. But if I stay focused on all passages which speak of both the Sovereignty of God's will and the Freewill of the person, then I can clearly see the truthfulness of both and find that pov which allows the whole of God's Word to go forth.

In God's Sovereign Will, God has designed the Freewill Choice of man to believe on Him or reject Him. That is what I have concluded upon considering this controversy over the past years of study.

 

Oftentimes I am asked why I embrace the Freewill Choice of a person to believe on Jesus Christ but then reject the Freewill Choice of that same person to then change their mind and reject believing on Jesus Christ?

This is where the doctrine of "born-again" needs to be applied. Unless one studies and understands God's act of regeneration, then one will never understand OSAS. Born-again is relational. If one is not born-again then one is not saved and not a child of God. There are tens of thousands of people who would call themselves Christians yet they are lost, never having received the Spirit of Christ, the relationship that is in CHrist, they merely have a dead religion just like all the others who do not personally know Jesus Christ by heart, but only by paper. They simply practice a religion called Christianity, never surrendering themselves to the Lordship of Jesus Christ our God.

 

If this thread is dishonest then it is because the Calvinist that I speak with are not making themselves clear, for what I hear from them is that God must first regenerate a person BEFORE they can believe. Is this true according to the Calvinist?

 

IDK,

It seems to me that Calvin himself believed regeneration was first which caused the belief.....

 

Goes to show us that John was a bit confused about which way he wanted to believe it, lol. John MacArthur is a good example of having the same struggle in his beliefs on TULIP. He declares Unconditional Election as TULIP does, but then preaches Arminian style.

 

That's quite odd wouldn't you say?

 

Never heard of Beza, maybe we should call it Bezaism!

 

I don't know of any who say one can have faith in Jesus Christ before regeneration.

I believe it is a matter of semantics when we say "follows" salvation. From what I gather from listening to Calvinist is that one cannot believe except they be regenerated. To me that would be regenerated unto belief, thus, faith is following regeneration even if within a millisecond. I suppose you could say that it is simultaneous, but the point is, according to the Calvinist I have heard one cannot call upon Jesus Christ except they be regenerated first or simultaneously.

I believe God calls all to faith in Jesus Christ and gives opportunity to call upon Jesus Christ for regeneration. God can open that door and close that door according to His will as He sees Just. Some have an open door for years, those who have the door closed have warn out their invitation to Christ and God can harden their hearts as they so chose to do on their own for such a long time.

Romans 9:22,

"[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

God is very patient, but the time comes when the door of opportunity is closed.

So what do you think about the OP? Why would God need to send a strong delusion to damn people to hell if they, according to TULIP, are already damned for unbelief?