1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

T.u.l.i.p

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Salty, Aug 18, 2010.

?
  1. Total Depravity

    52 vote(s)
    76.5%
  2. Unconditional Election

    44 vote(s)
    64.7%
  3. Limited atonement

    33 vote(s)
    48.5%
  4. Irresistible Grace

    41 vote(s)
    60.3%
  5. Perseverance of the Saints

    57 vote(s)
    83.8%
  6. I believe in 6 or more of the 5 points

    7 vote(s)
    10.3%
  7. I do not accept any points of TULIP

    7 vote(s)
    10.3%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    You are correct my friend. I had a professor in seminary who was always was saying that many Presbyterians (Calvinist belief folks) would disagree with Calvin.

    In later years I've even come across many who believe Beza went much further than Calvin.
     
  2. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    Arminius himself wrote about depraved humanity: "In his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections, or will, and in all his powers by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, conceive, will, and perform whatever is truly good."
     
  3. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    :thumbs: Excellent point!
     
  4. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not a fan of Wikipedia for defining theological term. While they are correct in defining Total Depravity using Augustine, they are not correct when they reject part of the definition of Augustine. Remember, it was Augustine who famously, in this exact debate, said, "Grant what thou commandest and then command what thou wilt." This caused a major problem and was the center of the controversy in the Pelagian Controversy. Augustine said that God had to grant a person salvation even though God commanded all to be saved. Without God specifically granting you salvation, you would not be saved... and God does not grant all people (John 6). His rationale, unless God granted salvation a person would not be saved and if he granted it you would be saved. If using Augustine to define total depravity is appropriate (and I do agree that he should be used) then you cannot make up your own 2nd part of the definition. Augustine was consistent, without God explicitly granting us the ability to do God's will, we will not do God's will.

    While I do use Wikipedia for some things, it is not scholarly. Preveneint Grace, as well, is nowhere found in the Bible. Also, for another source against this idea here is a good article:

    http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/prevenient.html
     
  5. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,500
    Likes Received:
    2,880
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All five points here. (I guess I need to educate myself on 'the six points')
     
  6. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have trouble with the concept of "Limited Atonement." That's my sticking point with the doctrines of grace.
     
  7. jcjordan

    jcjordan New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's why I said 6 or more points....I agree with Piper.
     
  8. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    Either one believes and is saved or doesn't and is lost. Why make it into some complicated system where we now have to understand what double predestination means? Good grief!!!
     
  9. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sag,

    I do not think anyone is arguing infra-lapsarianism and supra-lapsarianism. I do not know why you wish to label people over a discussion we are not having.
     
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm with Tom on this one.

    Like the "Five Fundamentals of the Faith", "TULIP" just doesn't take it far enough.

    Granted it is like a shortcut icon on your desktop to take you to another well known place to which it points.

    Also it functions as a shibboleth to let others who are savvy in theological lingo know where you stand.

    But, I have issues with each of the letters in the acronym.

    e.g. While I agree in principle with the doctrine of "Total Depravity", it does not address the issue of "moral" people and how they also are totally depraved.

    When we talk to the lost about their sinful state, many "moral" excuse themselves (which proves BTW that they are "totally depraved") from the grace of God because they see themselves as "good" and not "totally depraved" which conjures up in their minds a jacketed mass murderer in a lunatic asylum banging his head on the wall because he can't kill anyone anymore.

    "Total Depravity" then involves at least two other things: 1) the inflence of the Holy Spirit in the general and global restraint of mankind in his depravity and 2) man's total incapacity to communicate with God without the intercession of the Holy Spirit.

    Then there is "unconditional election", well, IMO its not really unconditional but "after the counsel of His own will", a counsel of which we are not made privvy apart from our helpless hopeless lost estate, and inability to save ourselves.

    But, I understand the premise and the technique called "poetic license" to stuff the elements of calvinism into the "TULIP" acronym.

    Then I reject both titles (calvinist, arminian) because of the divisiveness it causes among brethren and it appears to violate the scriptural principles of "clicky" associations with mortal men (I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, etc) as teachers (howbeit "Paul" is an inspired writer).

    I suppose for the sake of the discussion I would side with tulip (though I reject the title of "calvinist").

    It's kind of like voting for McCain over Obama.
    It's not the ideal but IMO its a whole lot better than the alternative.

    HankD
     
    #50 HankD, Aug 19, 2010
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2010
  11. jrscott

    jrscott New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read Piper's page on the extra points he mentions.

    I appreciate his intention and understand where he's coming from in terms of saying that TULIP does not do justice to the whole counsel of God on these issues. All five points are reactions to the five points of the Remonstrants and are stated in largely negative terms. They require the "further explanations" of Scriptural teaching.

    I personally do not like the term double predestination, because it gives the impression that someone goes to Hell as a result of God's action. Predestining someone to hell does not require a direct act of God. While I understand the argument that God essentially does so by not choosing them, it is not according to Scripture to place the responsibility of someone going to Hell on God. Each person is responsible for their own sin. Those who are in heaven do so only by God's grace.
     
  12. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Correct. And FWIW this is another element to which you have alluded that is troublesome to many:

    The verbal acrobatics of calvinism (and other theological venues) to prove its points which usually leads to more questions rather than enlightenment.

    If causes confusion and doubt among some of those whom God is calling (although ultimately they will arrive safe at home). My own solution is to say to the individual concerning such things as disputes about "double predestination" (for instance) is to answer "that's God's problem not yours" and move on to the simplicity of the gospel.

    But, for the most part it is kept within a tight community of those who enjoy counting angels on the heads of pins of which I suppose I am one (counters not angels).

    HankD
     
  13. Jon-Marc

    Jon-Marc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe all but limited atonement. Salvation is offered to ALL, but, unfortunately, will be rejected by most. Also, there is only one "P" in tulip.
     
  14. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Jon, many of us in the reformed school, show salvation offered to all, but limited to some. Yes, the offer of salvation is preached to all, and all the elect will come. The remainder are passed by. Very important wording here to demonstrate predestination and election.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  15. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    Jim,

    Humbly and respectfully, this is one of the places that us "non-reformers' get "hung up", as it sounds like linguistic gymnastics.
     
  16. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    I am wondering why we cannot get a calvinist to give us an accurate interpretation of 1 Samuel 16:14-16.

    If it is true that some calvinists choose to believe that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell, then I wonder if they think God is stupid in calling many and choosing few especially when the inspired version in Mt. 22:14 says, "For many are called, but few are chosen." If what they believe is true then why would God call many more than He chooses?
     
  17. The Archangel

    The Archangel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,339
    Likes Received:
    233
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The inspired version? What version would that be?
     
  18. asterisktom

    asterisktom Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,201
    Likes Received:
    607
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What is supposed to be so difficult about the verse? I read the post, looked up the passage, then passed it on seeing no relevance to being - or against being - a Calvinist.
     
  19. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    All theology blends to itself. The first truth is the absolute sovereignty of God. Then we come to man's free will. Where does it fit in? I think it is simple. Under God's absolute sovereignty we have the permissive will of God. He allows man "thus far an no further..." as scripture says. Man is give the right to speak, but God reserves the absolute right to also silence him.

    Here we look at the cross, where the blood of Christ is sufficient for all, but efficient for some; the elect. We offer the gospel to all. We don't know whom God has chosen, and our commission is to preach the gospel to the whole world.

    We cannot discuss the blood and its worth without discussing the absolute sovereignty of God to choose whom He wills.

    Man is in a fallen state of his own free will, and that fallen state was carried on to all humanity. So, passing one by, is their own fault and not God's. Hence, double predestination is foolishness and does not fit into any theology.

    I am the first to admit each branch of theology has its own problem areas, but I cannot circumvent the absolute sovereignty of God to overrule and thoughts I might entertain must conefine themselves to that sovereignty.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    While I don't claim to be a calvinist, I would answer with another question - why does God choose to do anything in the manner in which He has done it?

    2 Kings 5:1 Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the LORD had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper...​

    10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.
    11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.
    12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage...​

    14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.​

    If God choses to enter into the time continuum, call many and then chose few, thereby fullfilling His will and glorifying Himself that is His perogative.

    In short He does what pleases Him in spite of what procedure we think He should follow or however stupid it might appear to us (as it did to Naaman).

    Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.​

    HankD
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...