TULIP: The good, bad and ugly

[Binaca Chugger]

With one shot at this, I want to speak to the positives of evangelism vs the lassiez faire approach that is the result of predestination.

And this is where to be found?

This is the prevailing thought in my region of the world.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I am, a Bible following Christian.

Well that settles it!  8) Robert Bork is not speaking from the basis of absolute truth. He is speaking from conflicting party-lines, none of which are based on Scripture. So, you cannot logically compare the two.

I like the line.  It pushes against the ideology that I must pick one political party and agree with every part of the platform.  Instead, there is a higher authority to which I will reason both parties arguments against.  I reject the notion that I must be either Calvinist or Arminian.  I can instead reason both men's arguments against Scripture.

Why deny the label of Arminian? Is there something there that is too difficult? While you claim to be a Bible-following Christian, your belief system has historical connections. Denying those historical connections is not looking for an honest discussion. Everyone of us claims to be a Bible-following Christian.

Since you reject TULIP, which really was a counter-point to Arminius' FIVE remonstrances, you cannot deny that you are actually defending the remonstrances, to one-degree or another. A free-will must either be corrupted by original sin or it has a measure of divine grace. Your rejection of the "TULIP" includes a rejection of the "T" which stands for original sin. The Apostle Paul proclaimed that we are dead in this sin (Ro 6.23), hostile to God (Ro 8.7) and without the gifting of regenerating faith (Ro 6.18), one is hopelessly dead.

My relative told me he believes in only part of the "P" (preservation, i.e., eternal security) while rejection the other part of the "P" (perserverance). He said that is the ONLY part of TULIP to which he subscribes and he calls himself a ".5 point Calvinist." In reality, he is a "4.5 point Arminian"... he just does not like the label.

Are there ANY parts of "TULIP" that you believe in? If so, what are they?

Being HAC educated, we paid zero attention to anyone's philosophy other than JH.  Most of this I self-educated by being introduced to a topic and comparing it with Scripture instead of historical church positions.  Thus, I believe I can speak to the overarching philosophies, but acknowledge I may have some misunderstanding of the historical positions.  I believe I would align more with the historical position of the General Baptists than the Particular Baptists.

My position:
Total Depravity - I agree in most.  I believe however that God is calling ALL men to repentance at ALL times.  There may be a rare instance of exception (God hardened pharaoh's heart), but this is only after the rejection of a call to repentance and the individual is being used by God for other purposes.

Unconditional Election - Election is a Bible word.  I believe Election involves the foreknowledge of God, not an executive decision to damn most while saving a few.

Limited Atonement - Limited only in the essence that those who refuse are not recipients of atonement.

Irresistible Grace - I do not believe one called cannot refuse.  This denies the individual's necessity of voluntary repentance and personal faith.  I have seen people under deep conviction deny the call to repentance.  The response seems to be "Well, then, they weren't really being called."  Which, to me, is a convenient out.  I believe grace is offered and displayed for all "...The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance."  Yet, many will deny this grace.

Perseverance of the Saints - I have seen this presented many different ways, so it must be defined, before it can be defended.  I do believe that once repentance and faith are expressed, the believer's eternity in heaven is secure, and NOTHING can pluck them out of the Father's hand.  I do not believe that the Father will choose to discard the believer because of an act of unbelief (See Jesus going to Peter after the resurrection).  It is on this argument that I do not agree with Arminius.

 

[rsc2a]

So you are an Arminian except for the part that would actually demand the Jesus be accepted as Lord.

1-2-3, pray after me then a continued life of depravity because once saved, always saved.

 

[subllibrm]

With one shot at this, I want to speak to the positives of evangelism vs the lassiez faire approach that is the result of predestination.

And this is where to be found?

This is the prevailing thought in my region of the world.

The prevailing assumptions of those who think they know what other believers are motivated by? Or do you know of a church in your region of the world that openly preaches and teaches a "lassiez faire approach" to evangelism?  My guess is that you have been spoon fed this nonsense for so long that it has become "truth".

I live in an area with one of the highest population densities of reformed people in this country and can tell you that your theory is total bunk. They love Jesus and strive to reach people with the good news of salvation.  No "lassiez faire approach" that I have ever seen.

Now I admit that I do know of one very small group that would be considered hyper-calvy who do not believe in evangelism. They are so obscure that many of my reformed friends have never heard of them. It is certainly not the "prevailing thought".

 

[praise_yeshua]

So you are an Arminian except for the part that would actually demand the Jesus be accepted as Lord.

1-2-3, pray after me then a continued life of depravity because once saved, always saved.

Don't pretend you're empowered to live above it. You're not. You still fail like everyone else. In fact, when you set such things as God's demands.... you're just condemning yourself.

If God didn't keep us..... we'd all be lost. He doesn't lose anyone.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

With one shot at this, I want to speak to the positives of evangelism vs the lassiez faire approach that is the result of predestination.

And this is where to be found?

This is the prevailing thought in my region of the world.

What you consider "laissez faire" could simply be your perception of this thing called "faith".  Tell the truth, and have faith that if God wants to grow the seed, he will.  No need to pressure someone into praying the sinner's prayer. 

 

[rsc2a]

How else would you know to put a notch in your belt if you don't see them humor you to get you to go away say a prayer?

 

[FSSL]

If God didn't keep us..... we'd all be lost. He doesn't lose anyone.

Based on what? Your decision?

 

[praise_yeshua]

If God didn't keep us..... we'd all be lost. He doesn't lose anyone.

Based on what? Your decision?

Based on His choice in His Son.

Another dishonest Calvinist tactic. A person says He freely accepts God offer to all men and you want to claim that person is basing his position on some that PERSON did. This is entirely dishonest and total nonsense. I did nothing but accept God's offer. I have nothing brag about or nothing to claim but God's grace.

You're the one that believe God chose you regardless of your own action.

 

[FSSL]

You're the one that believe God chose you regardless of your own action.

... and this is controversial, how?

I go a step further... He chose me regardless of anything I did or am.

"Out of HIS good pleasure" not because I had some worthy action.

Your need for an action, to be chosen, undermines the idea of being chosen and eternally secure. He keeps me regardless of my actions, because He chose me regardless of my actions.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

You're the one that believe God chose you regardless of your own action.

... and this is controversial, how?

I go a step further... He chose me regardless of anything I did or am.

"Out of HIS good pleasure" not because I had some worthy action.

Your need for an action, to be chosen, undermines the idea of being chosen and eternally secure. He keeps me regardless of my actions, because He chose me regardless of my actions.

How does this approach not deny the need for repentance and faith?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You're the one that believe God chose you regardless of your own action.

... and this is controversial, how?

I go a step further... He chose me regardless of anything I did or am.

"Out of HIS good pleasure" not because I had some worthy action.

Your need for an action, to be chosen, undermines the idea of being chosen and eternally secure. He keeps me regardless of my actions, because He chose me regardless of my actions.

How does this approach not deny the need for repentance and faith?

Because his called out - the elect or "chosen" - will repent and have faith.

 

[rsc2a]

Why does it seem so often that for people so critical of a theological system (i.e. Calvinism), they have a horrible understanding of said system?

<~~ Not a Calvinist. Actually I think the whole Arminian/Calvinist debate is only possible based on a really shallow definition of salvation.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Why does it seem so often that for people so critical of a theological system (i.e. Calvinism), they have a horrible understanding of said system?

They're emotionally invested in hating that given theological system, which turns the "rational thinking" switch off in their brains. 

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I identify as mostly Calvinist. I see no reason to evangelize.
What am I missing? (I.e. why did staunch Calvinists throughout history evangelize?)

 

[FSSL]

Not give the good news? You see no reason to do that?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Not give the good news? You see no reason to do that?

If God wants to save someone he doesn't need my help.

I am not convinced that the destiny of someone's eternal soul is all based on whether or not I evangelize - in other words the results are the exact same whether I evangelize or not.

 

[rsc2a]

And that whole "go and make disciples" thing?

 

[FSSL]

Not give the good news? You see no reason to do that?

If God wants to save someone he doesn't need my help.

I am not convinced that the destiny of someone's eternal soul is all based on whether or not I evangelize - in other words the results are the exact same whether I evangelize or not.

The results are not the same. Giving the gospel is not simply for the benefit of thr unbeliever.

You neglect the joyful distribution of the good news. What a selfish thing? To be chosen and given such a wondrous thing, you are not willing to share the good news and rejoice along with the elect as they are regenerated.

I doubt you are a Calvinist. My gut tells me you are just playing the devil's advocate.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Your best argument is "do it 'cause it feels good"? Eh, I can find other things to do that feel good and actually matter.

As for "go and make disciples", perhaps that means something else that would not be contradictory to the rest of the Bible that teaches that  God saves whosoever He will.