Did Jesus teach Tulip ?

As I have stated previously to DHK, man did not forfeit his ability to exercise his will. His inability is found in the disposition of his heart. In other words a disposition that LOVES evil and HATES righteousness by that very condition/disposition will not love righteousness and hate evil - that disposition must be changed and that disposition is the CONDITION or STATE of the old "heart." This is precisely why God must GIVE man a NEW heart in order for that disposition to change from love for evil to hate for evil and hate for righteousness to love for righteousness or there is no basis for faith to exist.

God is the SECONDARY cause of sin in that he created the mechanism (free will) and gave permission for evil to originate through wrong choice. However, God created man and angels to be the PRIMARY or FIRST cause of sin in that they were forewarned and responsible for choice.

 

First of all, TULIP does NOT have a horrible reputation. It's actually a foundational doctrine of reformed theology. Of course, those who don't agree with it, which is often simply because they are uninformed, don't like it. For me personally, I'm not 5-point reformed, but I value and appreciate the parts of the doctrine that are rock-solid.

Second, Calvin didn't create it as much as his student, Beza, who was the one who systematized many of Calvin's teachings into more concise doctrines. He probably didn't get this one quite right, judging from the weight that Calvin gave these issues in his writings. Calvin himself was chiefly concerned with protecting the sovereignty of God at all costs, which probably brought some imbalances to his theology.

But the assertion many would make that Calvin's teachings are heresy or something are simply unfounded.

 

How do you know God did not give him much more explicit teaching than what is actually recorded in Genesis? Do you believe the book of Romans and 1 Corinthians are equally inspired as Genesis? Paul makes it clear in both of the epistles that Adam acted in behalf of the whole race contained genetically within himself (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:44-48). Paul makes it cleaar that the whole earth was involved (Rom. 8:22-25). When you attempt to base an argument upon silence it can be a double sword that can cut both ways.

. In other words you do not even believe there is a basis to hold Adam accountable for sin since you IMAGINE he did not understand the consequences? Do we read of any account in Genesis of Adam or Eve being shocked about the consequences??? No!

God predestinated sin through responsible and accountable agents as FIRST causes of sin. In creation of free choice is the permission granted for sin as the alternative choice to obedience.

God did not directly create evil. Everything in heaven and in earth that God directly created could be looked at by God and regarded as "very good." Evil is a by-product of free choice and originates with the accountable and responisble creatures that made that choice.

 

Paul teaches very clearly that by "ONE MAN'S DISOBEDENCE" many were made sinners, many were condemned and by ONE MAN death came upon all men. And by that ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE all men sinned in Adam and absolute proof is that infants die, who have not committed any individualized sin by choice.

You may not like this doctrine but it cannot be successfully refuted IF you accept the scriptures as inspired and IF you are HONEST in your dealing with them.

 

Moreover, man did not lose the power of choice in the fall. What he lost was disposition and motive for righteous choices. His LOVE for righteousness was lost and his HATE for evil was lost. In other words, his HEART by dispositon and motive LOVES evil and HATES God and the things of God. It is this disposition against God and the law of God that makes him UNABLE to possess any righteous motive to please or seek God. Hence, every RELIGIOUS choice he makes is characterized by the WRONG motive.

He can choose to be religious. He can choose to mentally accept the gospel but ALWAYS based on the WRONG motive. The only way his MOTIVE can be changed is to change the disposition or state of his heart which LOVES darkness rather than light and HATES the light.

Neither the human being or any other human being can CHANGE the status of that heart. Neither is it possible for faith to spring from that kind of heart as it is "with the heart man beleiveth unto RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Rom. 10:10). This is precisely why the New Covenant includes the giving of a NEW heart that provides a new disposition and motive as the source of saving faith (Deut. 29:4; Ezek. 36:26-27).

This New Heart is "created" by God and thus an act of CREATION performed by God through a CREATIVE WORD of power (1 Thes. 1:4-5) that produces faith (Rom. 10:17; 2 Cor. 4:6). When God infuses the preaching of the gospel with this creative power, thus making it a creative command of God faith originates (Rom. 10:17 "rhema" - "word of command") as in Genesis 1:2 when God by word of command created light (2 Cor. 4:6).

 

No. Jesus did not teach TULIP and actually Calvin didn't either. It was an acronymn developed to explain or summerize Calvin's teaching. Jesus being God did not differ to the Synod of Dort and some hold Dort didn't differ to Jesus either.

 

Jesus did not teach the acronym "TULIP" but he did teach the truths represented by that acronym.

He taught total depravity - Jn.3:19-20; 6:63-65
He taught unconditional election - Jn. 17:2; 6:37-64
He taight limited atonement - John 11:11
He taught irristable grace - Jn. 6:37-39; 44-45
He taught preservation of the saints - Jn. 5:24; 10:27-30

 

Ok lets break it down.
Total Depravity: If you are saying by Total depravity that man is absolute inability... I would agree But if you hold to the Infralasparian perspective which would indicate that the fall of man was not only forseen but but positively decreed as a necessary means to the Divine end in creating Man. The manifestation of God's power in condemning as well as of His grace in saving people. I heartedly disagree and this verse is a poor one to quote

It seems you read this passage emphasising the first verse to the exclusion of the second. This verse does not read every man hates God and cannot come to him. The second verse classifies people into two catagories. 1) People who do evil and 2) People who come into the light. It shows a natural order of what happens to people who behave in a certain manner. Those who do evil hide from God. Those who come into the light allow God to see their deeds. This is a poor choice of verse to support your position of total depravity.

 

TULIP rejects the doctrine that God predestined people according to His foreknowledge of the choices they would make even before God created all things.

Yet TULIP is selective in it's predestination doctrine. God predestined Adam to sin, yet TULIP declares Adam had a choice. According to TULIP, Adam is the only human being to ever have a real choice to obey God, but in reality, Adam had no choice but to fail just like we all.

 

You say man loss these attributes which means that Adam had them. Adam was perfectly created and had within him a perfect heart towards God. Adam had a disposition and motive for righteous choices. Adam had a LOVE for righteousness. (BTW, were is it written that Adam had this disposition and love for God?) Isn't this an assumption on TULIP's part?

If Adam had all of these fantastic attributes, he loved God, he loved God's law, then tell me why God had any need to predestinate Adam and all in Adam to sin against Him? Can you explain this for me?

Moreover, you are saying that even though a man (Adam) have all of these wonderful attributes that man can still disbelieve God.

 

People sin of their own accord --God did not cause them to sin. Are you blaming God?! That's a dangerous thing to do.

 

You didn't explain anything.

You gave me scripture that declares God predestined them unto sin. God cursed them before they were ever born. Is this not causing them to sin? I am asking, maybe you can explain predestination not causing.

 

Jesus sure never preached "TULIP", but this is what He taught:

Matthew 11:28-30
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!


Jesus never stated that anyone could not come unto Him, but rather, they would not come unto Him.

 

But there is surely a biblical balance to be seen on this, for He did say to some Jews in John 10.26-28 (emphsis mine):

​

​

​

​

26 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand."
​

Not: "You will not come to Me/believe on Me, therefore you are not My sheep."

 

Notice two keys words Jesus used....will not. He didn't say they could not come to Him, but rather, would not. There's a world of difference in those words there, Brother David.

The Jews were cut off due to continual rebellion, and rejection of God, and the Prophets. Read Malachi and how they polluted to the altar with "polluted bread", meaning they were offering their worst instead of their best, such as their blind, halt, lame, etc. It was because of things like this, that God cut them off, and we were grafted in.

This is why they could not believe.

 

Confession of faith:


'TULIP' for:
'T' for Total Depravity of man ...
'U' for Unconditional Election ...
'L' for Limited Atonement ...
'I' for Irresistible Grace ...
'P' for Perseverance of the saints ...

In my opinion and experience TULIP spells Salvation. It is a help to understand the truth and reality of God's grace in one's personal life experience. Instead of TULIP, for example, a Roman Catholic will rub a wooden cross bracelet; and an Arminian would rub his knuckles. TULIP to me, has become a great consolation; in it I discovered how the grace of God operates, beginning with unregenerate man and ending with regenerate man,

T: unregenerate man --- Total depravity
U: God --- Unconditional election
L: Christ --- Limited atonement
I: Holy Spirit --- Irresistible Grace
P: Regenerate man --- Perseverance of the saints.

I am a simple man and I love simple aids for, and in the faith. The beauty of TULIP is like the beauty of the lilies of the field which Jesus compared with Solomon and his wisdom "in all his glory" --- what the wise cracks of human sovereignty and free will in all its glory of the fleshly mind.
TULIP, Arminians and gownsmen usually set alight spontaneously. The more earthy its soil the more glorious TULIP blooms.


I may have posted this before; I posted here by copy and paste.

I do not apologise; I am thankful that things are settled in my mind, that Jesus taught TULIP and nothing than TULIP and OSAS.

 

Is TULIP really that "simple"?

Perhaps you could answer some of my questions above.

 

This is NOT the classic understanding of total depravity. It's not that every human is as bad as they could possibly be, but that sin permeates every facet of existence.

This misunderstanding is very common, however.

 

>TULIP rejects the doctrine that God predestined people according to His foreknowledge of the choices they would make even before God created all things.

Then on what basis did God predestine?

How do we know that God only predestined people who "believe in " Jesus if his foreknowledge didn't come into play?