Doctrines of Grace - TULIP

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Before the thread becomes crowded with misinformation, thought I would lay some pipe on key doctrinal points so at least some will have a solid foundation on what the Calvinist actually believes.

Solid overall references:

Summary of Christian Doctrine-Berkhof

Systematic Theology - Berkhof

A short introduction to the doctrines of grace (TULIP) is described here:

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism

TULIP is an acrostic that can described along these lines:

T = The Problem (Total Depravity) – Grace Needed 
U = The Remedy (Unconditional Election) – Grace Conceived 
L = The Means (Limited Atonement) – Grace Merited 
I = The Application (Irresistible Grace) – Grace Applied 
P = The Result (Perseverance of the Saints) – Grace Preserved 

The Necessityof Grace ......Total depravity ...........................Salvation required
The Fountainof Grace ........Unconditional election ................Salvation Planned
The Provisionof Grace .......Particular redemption .................Salvation Purchased
The Revelationof Grace .....effectual Calling...........................Salvation Applied
The Victoryof Grace ..........Perseverance of the Saints ..........Salvation Perfected


TOTAL DEPRAVITY (Total Inability) - Man has a will and his will is in bondage to his nature. The will of man is free to choose according to the dictates of his nature, but it is not free to contradict his nature. From Adam's fall the nature of every man has been sinful. Therefore, every action of the unsaved man is sinful and rebellious; it is stained through and through by his sin nature. The unregenerate man cannot perform even one single righteous or pleasing work with respect to a holy God, for their actions are wrongly motivated, that is not for the glory of God, and are but filthy rags in the eyes of God. 

See: Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 64:6-7, Jeremiah 17:9, John 3:3, John 3:19, John 8:44, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 5:12, Romans 8:8, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:26 

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - God’s election is truly unconditional. The foreknowledge of God is based upon His decree, plan, and purpose; it is the expression of His will and good pleasure, not a response to man's free-will choices. Election is the sovereign act of God the Father choosing specific individuals out from the entire body of condemned and fallen humanity. These individuals were chosen before the foundations of the universe and not as a result of any foreseen merit or activity or decision on their part. These chosen or elect individuals are purposed to become monuments to the Father's love for all of eternity. In this regard it is understood election is an example of God’s "love before time." 

See: Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Isaiah 55:11, John 6:44, John 15:16, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:11-13, 1 Corinthians 1:26-29, Ephesians 1:3-5, Ephesians 2:4-7, 2 Timothy 1:9 

LIMITED ATONEMENT (Particular or Definite Redemption) - In order to accomplish the specific will of the Father, Christ took to the Cross the sins of the elect. Christ died for the sins of men without distinction as to race or nationality (that is, Jew or Gentile). He provided a complete and effectual atonement for their sins. Those whom Christ redeemed, Christ really and truly redeemed (actual not potential). Though infinite in value, Christ's atoning work was specific in its design. Some prefer to call this "definite atonement" or "particular redemption". The death of Christ at Calvary does not make men savable, but rather it saves men completely. The Cross is a completed, successful work that requires no assistance from man. Christ died for all of the sins of the elect. Other views of the scope of the atonement must avoid the idea of all the sins lest these views proclaim a universal salvation. For, if Christ died for all of the sins of all men without exception, upon what basis would any man be denied heaven? Remember, unbelief is a sin and therefore a sin for which Christ died if He has truly died for all the sins of all men without exception. 

See: Psalm 34:22, Isaiah 53:8, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 20:28, Luke 1:68, John 3:16 (the Father gave His Son for whom? - according to this verse the Son was given for whoever believes in Him (the believing ones) not for the ones not believing in Him), John 10:14 -18, John 17:2,6,9; Acts 20:28, Romans 5:8-9, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 5:25, Hebrews 10:14, Titus 2:14, Revelation 5:9. 

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - The Holy Spirit, in agreement with the electing will of the Father and the atoning work of the Son, does in the fullness of time quicken the dead spirit of a man and give to him the gift of saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The logical order of salvation is regeneration first, followed by faith/believing. Since dead men do not respond, God must make them alive first (Eph 2:4-5); regeneration, of necessity, precedes any action or activity on the part of man, including faith and repentance. Hence, every single individual upon whom the Spirit of God moves savingly is regenerated, born again, adopted, grafted in, and saved eternally. 

See: Ezekiel 11:19-20, John 5:24 - the perfect tense verb should read has already passed from death unto life; John 6:37-39,44, Romans 8:8, Romans 8:30, Ephesians 2:1-10, Philippians 2:12-13, Colossians 2:13, James 1:18, Titus 3:5, 1 John 5:1 - another perfect tense verb is used here and should be translated has already been born of God, 1 John 3:7, John 1:12-13 but of God. 

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - Since God is the Author and Finisher of our faith, man cannot fall away from eternal salvation. Once a man has been born-again he cannot be unborn-again. Furthermore, the elect of God will definitely manifest evidences of their salvation by means of good works. The elect shall, by the grace of God and without exception, ultimately persevere in righteousness. The eternal security of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is demonstrated by the persevering faith and righteousness wrought by the grace of God in His little begotten ones. 

See: Isaiah 43:1-3, Jeremiah 32:40, John 3:36, John 10:28, Romans 8:35-39, Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 2:10 God’s workmanship, Philippians 1:6, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 2 Timothy 1:12b & 4:18, 1 Peter 1:4-5, I John 2:19, Jude 24-25.

 

[christundivided]

I'll bite....

Lets begin with what you call "The problem"

Act 17:26  And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Do me a favor and give me a proper exegesis of these verses.

I would make the case that verse 27 details the desire of God in His creation. If God's desire is that mankind (detailed in verse 26) "seek the Lord" and "feel after him".... then it is impossible that "mankind" is "Totally Depraved" to the point he can't do such things as detailed in verse 27.

I'm not questioning the fact that man is sinful and can not merit the favor of a Righteous God. What I am questioning is your application of Total Depravity.

I have never read anything from a Calvinist that would begin to explain these Scriptures in light of Calvinism. Even John Gill "wimped out" by writing

if haply they might feel after him, and find him; which shows, that though it is possible for men, by a contemplation of the perfections of God, visible in the works of creation and providence, so to find God, as to know that there is one, and that there is but one God, who has made all things; and so as to be convinced of the vanity and falsehood of all other gods, and to see the folly, wickedness, and weakness of idolatrous worship; yet, at the same time, it very strongly intimates, how dim and obscure the light of nature is; since those, who have nothing else to direct them, are like persons in the dark, who "feel" and grope about after God, whom they cannot see; and after all their search and groping, there is only an "haply", a peradventure, a may be, that they find him:

Now Calvinism would never present a "maybe" or a "preadventure" concerning "Total Depravity".

How do you reconcile such.... when John Gill is talking out both sides of his mouth?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'll bite....

Lets begin with what you call "The problem"

Where did I mention "the problem"?

Do me a favor and give me a proper exegesis of these verses.

I have never read anything from a Calvinist that would begin to explain these Scriptures in light of Calvinism.

Given your request and then stated lack of interest in anything from a Calvinist, please explain what my motivation should be to respond to your request?

AMR

 

[Timotheos]

The "T" of TULIP was called "the problem" to which I agree... it explains the problem of man, the problem being that man has sinned against God and in no where deserves nor could merit any favor from God.  His propensity is to continue to sin and reject God.  And so the problem is that if man is left to himself, he will continue and finish in his sin.

 

[christundivided]

I'll bite....

Lets begin with what you call "The problem"

Where did I mention "the problem"?

Its right beside the bold "T" in "Tulip". I didn't write it... you did. Maybe it was just a cut and paste..... and you forgot what you "wrote"?

Do me a favor and give me a proper exegesis of these verses.

I have never read anything from a Calvinist that would begin to explain these Scriptures in light of Calvinism.

Given your request and then stated lack of interest in anything from a Calvinist, please explain what my motivation should be to respond to your request?

AMR

I am interested in your response. Very interested. I've asked this question to dozens of Calvinists and have never recieved a response. I was hoping to get one from you. Do you not like the question?

I am of the humble opinion that no Calvinist would have ever written Acts 17:26,27.

 

[christundivided]

The "T" of TULIP was called "the problem" to which I agree... it explains the problem of man, the problem being that man has sinned against God and in no where deserves nor could merit any favor from God.  His propensity is to continue to sin and reject God.  And so the problem is that if man is left to himself, he will continue and finish in his sin.

Hi Timotheos... Long time no see.

Could you reconcile the verses I mentioned with your application of "Total Depravity"?

 

[Reformed Guy]

I'll bite....

Lets begin with what you call "The problem"

Act 17:26  And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Do me a favor and give me a proper exegesis of these verses.

If you step back and look at the larger context of what Paul is saying, he is pointing out that God has sufficently revealed Himself so that man is without excuse.

Adam was created for fellowship with God.  Sin marred that relationship and left man blind, yet it is his own fault because God and His revelation are still there.  Not only that, He has worked Providentially to further reveal Himself in the ordering of men and nations in history in order to make Himself known.  Paul words imply that blindness (an aspect of spiritual depravity) in saying that "they might feel after him"-- or as the Geneva Bible puts it, they might grope for him.  His is there, and He is not silent, and evidence abounds that He exists, and is good and wise and powerful-- and yet man in his blindness is left feeling and groping about.  And not "finding" him-- otherwise Paul would not even have been having this conversation.

Now step back up to the passage, remembering what Paul has said about man's inability in other, more-clear passages, and man's depravity in this passage becomes very apparent.

 

[christundivided]

If you step back and look at the larger context of what Paul is saying, he is pointing out that God has sufficently revealed Himself so that man is without excuse.

I think you've read you own ideals into Paul's intent. By setting "your own" context.... You've lost sight of what is written. Please provide evidence from the "context" of the texts mentioned that Paul's ultimate intent in his sermon on Mar's Hill is to show mankind without excuse. This is proper exegesis of any text. Don't run to Romans 1:20 and insert its teachings as the context of Acts 17:26,27.

Paul words imply that blindness (an aspect of spiritual depravity) in saying that "they might feel after him"-- or as the Geneva Bible puts it, they might grope for him.  His is there, and He is not silent, and evidence abounds that He exists, and is good and wise and powerful-- and yet man in his blindness is left feeling and groping about.  And not "finding" him-- otherwise Paul would not even have been having this conversation.

So... you're equating "spiritual depravity" with "total depravity"? Lets getting into the details of what you're saying.

Lets ask the question.... Has God left man so "total depraved" that he can not recognize the natural evidence that God has given concerning Himself"? Obviously that answer is no. The evidence is Acts 17:27.

Did you notice the reason given by Paul for God's actions mentioned in verse 26?

"That they should seek the Lord"... Doesn't sound like Calvinists doctrine to me.

You also mentioned the "Geneva" translation. Did you look at the Bishops? Did you read the word "perhappes" or... "perhaps"? This is the very reason John Gill mentioned such in his commentary on the verses.

Can you explain how the word "perhaps" fits into Calvinism?

Now step back up to the passage, remembering what Paul has said about man's inability in other, more-clear passages, and man's depravity in this passage becomes very apparent.

There you go...just like a good Calvinist. You are basically ignoring the texts themselves and appealing to "clearer" texts that you believe supports your belief.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'll bite....

Lets begin with what you call "The problem"

Where did I mention "the problem"?

Its right beside the bold "T" in "Tulip". I didn't write it... you did. Maybe it was just a cut and paste..... and you forgot what you "wrote"?

Do me a favor and give me a proper exegesis of these verses.

I have never read anything from a Calvinist that would begin to explain these Scriptures in light of Calvinism.

Given your request and then stated lack of interest in anything from a Calvinist, please explain what my motivation should be to respond to your request?

AMR

I am interested in your response. Very interested. I've asked this question to dozens of Calvinists and have never recieved a response. I was hoping to get one from you. Do you not like the question?

I am of the humble opinion that no Calvinist would have ever written Acts 17:26,27.

No you are neither interested nor humble as your posts indicate. Why not provide your own proper exegesis and we will see where that takes us?

The problem I spoke of is Scriptural, not my own invention, your obvious disdain notwithstanding.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If you step back and look at the larger context of what Paul is saying, he is pointing out that God has sufficently revealed Himself so that man is without excuse.

I think you've read you own ideals into Paul's intent. By setting "your own" context.... You've lost sight of what is written. Please provide evidence from the "context" of the texts mentioned that Paul's ultimate intent in his sermon on Mar's Hill is to show mankind without excuse. This is proper exegesis of any text. Don't run to Romans 1:20 and insert its teachings as the context of Acts 17:26,27.

Paul words imply that blindness (an aspect of spiritual depravity) in saying that "they might feel after him"-- or as the Geneva Bible puts it, they might grope for him.  His is there, and He is not silent, and evidence abounds that He exists, and is good and wise and powerful-- and yet man in his blindness is left feeling and groping about.  And not "finding" him-- otherwise Paul would not even have been having this conversation.

So... you're equating "spiritual depravity" with "total depravity"? Lets getting into the details of what you're saying.

Lets ask the question.... Has God left man so "total depraved" that he can not recognize the natural evidence that God has given concerning Himself"? Obviously that answer is no. The evidence is Acts 17:27.

Did you notice the reason given by Paul for God's actions mentioned in verse 26?

"That they should seek the Lord"... Doesn't sound like Calvinists doctrine to me.

You also mentioned the "Geneva" translation. Did you look at the Bishops? Did you read the word "perhappes" or... "perhaps"? This is the very reason John Gill mentioned such in his commentary on the verses.

Can you explain how the word "perhaps" fits into Calvinism?

Now step back up to the passage, remembering what Paul has said about man's inability in other, more-clear passages, and man's depravity in this passage becomes very apparent.

There you go...just like a good Calvinist. You are basically ignoring the texts themselves and appealing to "clearer" texts that you believe supports your belief.

That last bit of your post above makes my previous point.

AMR

 

[christundivided]

No you are neither interested nor humble as your posts indicate. Why not provide your own proper exegesis and we will see where that takes us?

The problem I spoke of is Scriptural, not my own invention, your obvious disdain notwithstanding.

AMR

I have. Read again. Counter my argument. Surely a scholar such as yourself can easily handle me. Please proceed.

I've never known a Calvinist to be so "scared" of answering a few questions...... I've never known a "Calvinist" who demanded  "proof" that someone else is being "humble" and "sincere" in order to share their beliefs....

Come on.... put me in my place... You can do it.

 

[Bob H]

Where did I mention "the problem"?

LOL! Maybe you'd be better off looking at your outline before you post it

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have. Read again. Counter my argument. Surely a scholar such as yourself can easily handle me. Please proceed.

Link? If what you posted above on the scripture is your version of "proper exegesis" then I will pass. Please exegete the passage, not merely comment that you can make arguments about it and assert the same.

I've never known a Calvinist to be so "scared" of answering a few questions...... I've never known a "Calvinist" who demanded  "proof" that someone else is being "humble" and "sincere" in order to share their beliefs....

Name one that is "scared". Links?

Come on.... put me in my place... You can do it.

I don't respond substantively to baiting tactics. Try an irenic posture and see where the discussion leads.

AMR

 

[AresMan]

I'll bite....

Lets begin with what you call "The problem"

Act 17:26  And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Do me a favor and give me a proper exegesis of these verses.

The context is that Paul is declaring the One True God to these Greeks on Mars Hill as if He were the "UNKNOWN GOD" their altar ascribed to Him. Paul was "bridging the gap" between this "Unknown God" and his alleged worshippers. They were trying to worship a god who was disconnected from them and could not be known. Most likely these Greeks realized that the extent of their pantheon was lacking and some things could not be explained according to the core of who they believed were "gods." Therefore, their "god of the gaps" was this "Unknown God" that must have done what Zeus, Ares, Diana, and the others were not revealed to have done. This "Unknown God," who had done the rest, but never revealed himself among the pantheon must either be unknowable or have made no "efforts" to make himself known to the creatures of the earth.
Paul declared that this Unknown God is the Creator of all things, implying a necessary relationship between them as creatures and this God. In fact, this Unknown God was the only God, and the others are not.
He says that this God "made of one blood all nations of men" because, since He created all people, it is His sovereign doing that all nations have their bounds (not just certain Greeks), and that His people would be from all nations.
"That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him" contrasts the idea of the Greeks about this "unknown God," that He could neither be truly known nor would any endeavor to "find" him be fruitful. This God has revealed Himself and can be known.
"Though he be not far from every one of us" is obviously an anthropomorphic understatement because God is omnipresent. It emphasizes the fact that the Unknown God can be known--and that by people of any nation, not just potentially future Greeks.

 

[brotherrich]

First of all I am not a theologian nor the son of one, but, I intend to study  Calvin's teachings first hand. By that I mean I'll go directly to the source and not Pink, Knox or other people's ideas of what he was about. I also wonder if I should study Augustine also.
I read in a magazine from Trinity University in Deerfield IL that Arminis [sic] was a student of one of Calvin's students. but found the limited atonement doctrine rather repugnant.
I wonder if Calvin would be a Calvinist today or a Roman Catholic. Another thought how much of today's Arminianism has traces of the Wesleys
Do any  of you good scholars know where  I should start