The 5 points of TULIP for 1689Dave

[atpollard]

First, a disclaimer:
I do not care if anyone believes or accepts ANY of the 5 points of Calvinism. As a Calvinist, I place my trust in the sovereignty of God, so I am not responsible for convincing anyone to believe any truth. I am only responsible to state truth as I know it. My goal is for people to reject what Calvinism ACTUALLY teaches rather than some twisted caricature of Calvinism’s teachings.

Now, for the benefit of 1689Dave, here are the 5 points of Calvinism:

(T) Total Depravity / Total Inability: Through the Fall of Man, humanity is stained by sin in every aspect: heart, emotions, will, mind, and body. People cannot independently choose God. They cannot save themselves. God must intervene to save people.

• [Mark 7:21-23 NKJV] "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."
• [Romans 6:20 NKJV] For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
• [1 Corinthians 2:14 NKJV] But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

(U) Unconditional Election: God chooses who will be saved. People are dead in their sins. They are unable to initiate a response to God. In eternity past, God elected certain people to be saved (called the Elect) and God picks them based not on their personal character or merit, but out of his kindness and sovereign will.

• [Ephesians 1:4 NKJV] just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
• [Romans 9:16 NKJV] So then [it is] not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
• [Romans 9:11 NKJV] (for [the children] not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),
• [2 Timothy 1:9 NKJV] who has saved us and called [us] with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,
• [Ephesians 1:11 NKJV] In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
• [Galatians 1:15 NKJV] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called [me] through His grace,

(L) Limited Atonement: Jesus Christ died only for the sins of the Elect.

• [Matthew 20:28 NKJV] "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
• [Hebrews 9:28 NKJV] so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

(I) Irresistible Grace: God brings his Elect to salvation through an internal call, which they are powerless to resist.

• [Romans 9:16 NKJV] So then [it is] not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
• [Philippians 2:12-13 NKJV] Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for [His] good pleasure.
• [John 6:44 NKJV] "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(P) Perseverance of the Saints: The Elect cannot lose their salvation. Salvation is the work of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, so it cannot be thwarted. None God has called will be lost, they are eternally secure. Technically, it is God who perseveres, not the saints.

• [John 10:27-28 NKJV] "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.”
• [Romans 8:1 NKJV] [There is] therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
• [1 Corinthians 10:13 NKJV] No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God [is] faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear [it].
• [Philippians 1:6 NKJV] being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete [it] until the day of Jesus Christ;

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

(U) Unconditional Election: God chooses who will be saved. People are dead in their sins. They are unable to initiate a response to God. In eternity past, God elected certain people to be saved (called the Elect) and God picks them based not on their personal character or merit, but out of his kindness and sovereign will.

I just want to address this point. I want to know if Calvinists think that we, humans, have a flawed definition of the concept of "kindness". Genuine question. Do you think that the definition of the word "kindness" that is found in our dictionaries is incorrect according to God's morality? Should we have it changed to mean something else? Cause I'm not opposing to having it changed. If you think that it's a flawed definition, please tell us which is the definition that God has for the concept of "kindness".

I ask this because the kindness the U in TULIP presents doesn't align with the definition from the dictionary. Being able to save everyone and refusing to do so, but rather choosing to save only some and let others suffer for eternity does not correspond to our current understanding of the word "kindness".

"Well, we did it to ourselves, so God doesn't owe us any favors."

That's legalistic talk. We're defining kindness here. Kindness shouldn't be bound by laws.

If you have 3 children, all of them very rebellious, they do drugs, they get themselves into trouble all the time, and you get a call that they've been kidnapped by a gang of drug dealers. The gang demands 3 equal sums of money, one for each child. You have the money to rescue all of them. As a matter of fact, you're very rich. The sums of money are incredibly small in comparison to your wealth. It's less than half your monthly salary. You go there and you only pay for one of the kids, leaving the other two to be tortured by the drug dealers for the rest of their lives. You tell people afterwards that you were kind to save even that one, as they got themselves into this trouble. Tell me: would you call such a person kind? Would anyone?

 

[1689Dave]

First, a disclaimer:
I do not care if anyone believes or accepts ANY of the 5 points of Calvinism. As a Calvinist, I place my trust in the sovereignty of God, so I am not responsible for convincing anyone to believe any truth. I am only responsible to state truth as I know it. My goal is for people to reject what Calvinism ACTUALLY teaches rather than some twisted caricature of Calvinism’s teachings.

Now, for the benefit of 1689Dave, here are the 5 points of Calvinism:

(T) Total Depravity / Total Inability: Through the Fall of Man, humanity is stained by sin in every aspect: heart, emotions, will, mind, and body. People cannot independently choose God. They cannot save themselves. God must intervene to save people.

• [Mark 7:21-23 NKJV] "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."
• [Romans 6:20 NKJV] For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
• [1 Corinthians 2:14 NKJV] But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

(U) Unconditional Election: God chooses who will be saved. People are dead in their sins. They are unable to initiate a response to God. In eternity past, God elected certain people to be saved (called the Elect) and God picks them based not on their personal character or merit, but out of his kindness and sovereign will.

• [Ephesians 1:4 NKJV] just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
• [Romans 9:16 NKJV] So then [it is] not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
• [Romans 9:11 NKJV] (for [the children] not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),
• [2 Timothy 1:9 NKJV] who has saved us and called [us] with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,
• [Ephesians 1:11 NKJV] In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
• [Galatians 1:15 NKJV] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called [me] through His grace,

(L) Limited Atonement: Jesus Christ died only for the sins of the Elect.

• [Matthew 20:28 NKJV] "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
• [Hebrews 9:28 NKJV] so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

(I) Irresistible Grace: God brings his Elect to salvation through an internal call, which they are powerless to resist.

• [Romans 9:16 NKJV] So then [it is] not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
• [Philippians 2:12-13 NKJV] Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for [His] good pleasure.
• [John 6:44 NKJV] "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(P) Perseverance of the Saints: The Elect cannot lose their salvation. Salvation is the work of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, so it cannot be thwarted. None God has called will be lost, they are eternally secure. Technically, it is God who perseveres, not the saints.

• [John 10:27-28 NKJV] "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.”
• [Romans 8:1 NKJV] [There is] therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
• [1 Corinthians 10:13 NKJV] No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God [is] faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear [it].
• [Philippians 1:6 NKJV] being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete [it] until the day of Jesus Christ;

Points 4 & 5 feature coerced salvation by works. Calvin was a Universal atonement buff and this squares with his misunderstanding.

 

[Albion]

I ask this because the kindness the U in TULIP presents doesn't align with the definition from the dictionary. Being able to save everyone and refusing to do so, but rather choosing to save only some and let others suffer for eternity does not correspond to our current understanding of the word "kindness".

You are expressing there the idea you associated with the word from your own past experience. But here's another way to look at the matter--

God was faced with a human race that had fallen from grace, thanks to Adam's sin. All humans after Adam and Eve deserved nothing from God because they were in sin, separated from God.

But despite that, God chose to save some of them for reasons known only to him.

Whatever it is that you think about predestination and an Elect, that act on God's part, if true, can only be seen as generous, charitable, or kindly towards those he chose to save, considering that there was nothing deserving in them. It is not necessary for God to give a pass to everyone, even if there is nothing meritorious about them. Granting salvation to even one of these undeserving creatures of his can be considered an act of kindness since it certainly is not equity or justice.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

All humans after Adam and Eve deserved nothing from God because they were in sin, separated from God.

That's absolute nonsense because they did not consent to being created and to living by God's rules. They did not ask to be brought into existence. When you bring someone into existence, you're responsible for that being to the best of your abilities. And when your abilities are infinite, you're responsible for that being for as long as the being exists.

 

[1689Dave]

You are expressing there the idea you associated with the word from your own past experience. But here's another way to look at the matter--

God was faced with a human race that had fallen from grace, thanks to Adam's sin. All humans after Adam and Eve deserved nothing from God because they were in sin, separated from God.

But despite that, God chose to save some of them for reasons known only to him.

Whatever it is that you think about predestination and an Elect, that act on God's part, if true, can only be seen as generous, charitable, or kindly towards those he chose to save, considering that there was nothing deserving in them.

That would be more palatable. But Paul gives us the reason God created the universe and all that is therein.

“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold [many faceted] wisdom of God,” Ephesians 3:9–10 (KJV 1900)

“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 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: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:” Romans 9:15–27 (KJV 1900)

 

[Albion]

That's absolute nonsense...

Well, that's Christianity, Lucien. You aren't obliged to agree with it.

because they did not consent to being created and to living by God's rules.

Now you're mixing human standards of justice into the Biblical concepts that deal with God and Man.

They did not ask to be brought into existence. When you bring someone into existence, you're responsible for that being to the best of your abilities.

Says, who? And besides, it's not as though God gave Adam and Eve no choice. On the contrary, what he asked of them was very simple and very little, as contrasted with all that he had given them. And yet they chose--not forced in any way but freely chose--to believe Satan and deliberately defy God.

And when your abilities are infinite, you're responsible for that being for as long as the being exists.

That's precious.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Now you're mixing human standards of justice into the Biblical concepts that deal with God and Man.

I don't get how I'm doing that, but let's assume that I am. I'm mixing what I am familiar with into the Biblical concepts. Human standards are what we use to assess the world.

In order for a conversation about morality to be had, we need a common moral denominator. You reject human standards. Are you able to list the standards you want to use, be them Godly standards or whatever else you want? If you are not able to, then we lack a common denominator, so we cannot hold a conversation. Case in which this entire forum is pointless. Apologetics as a whole is pointless.

 

[Albion]

Human standards are what we use to assess the world.

But you were, or are, assessing God, not the world.

When it comes to that topic, Christians normally assign a role to God's word, the Bible. What we consider to be divine revelation.

But that's just Christians, for you!

In order for a conversation about morality to be had, we need a common moral denominator.

Agreed.

You reject human standards.

In that case, you have misunderstood.

 

[1689Dave]

In all of my studies so far I cannot say Calvin taught limited atonement. The only person I have come across so far as the first teacher of the doctrine is Luther. Probably based on Augustine's logic.


Regarding Romans 9:20-21, Luther wrote:

“God will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), and he gave his Son for us men, and he created man for the sake of eternal life. And likewise: Everything is there for man’s sake and he is there for God’s sake in order that he may enjoy him, etc. But this objection [to God’s sovereignty in salvation] and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect [emphasis in original], as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24)- he did not say: for all- “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). [Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, translated and edited by Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 252.]

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

.

 

[1689Dave]

Gosh, I wish I knew more. I am thankful for YouTube

This experience of total depravity in Augustine's life helped in his battle against Pelagius Morgan proving that Free Will is a lie. Luther wrote a book on it called "the Bondage of the Will" using it unintentionally to divide the Catholic Church into Protestants.

 

[tango]

If you have 3 children, all of them very rebellious, they do drugs, they get themselves into trouble all the time, and you get a call that they've been kidnapped by a gang of drug dealers. The gang demands 3 equal sums of money, one for each child. You have the money to rescue all of them. As a matter of fact, you're very rich. The sums of money are incredibly small in comparison to your wealth. It's less than half your monthly salary. You go there and you only pay for one of the kids, leaving the other two to be tortured by the drug dealers for the rest of their lives. You tell people afterwards that you were kind to save even that one, as they got themselves into this trouble. Tell me: would you call such a person kind? Would anyone?

Right now it's well below freezing outside where I live. Hypothetically, let's say I go into town to enjoy a bit of Christmas merriment and notice a homeless person shivering, desperately trying to stay warm despite all that Mother Nature can throw at him. I have a bit of extra cash on hand so I take him into the cafe with me and buy him a hot drink and a hot meal. That will help keep him warm but then I wonder how he'll cope when we part ways. I can't bear to think of him spending all night out there but thankfully there's a cheap hotel nearby so I pay for a room for the night for him. I can't turn his entire life around but I can at least make sure he's still alive by the end of the week.

By your definition, am I a kind person for doing this?

 

[Albion]

If you have 3 children, all of them very rebellious, they do drugs, they get themselves into trouble all the time, and you get a call that they've been kidnapped by a gang of drug dealers. The gang demands 3 equal sums of money, one for each child. You have the money to rescue all of them. As a matter of fact, you're very rich. The sums of money are incredibly small in comparison to your wealth. It's less than half your monthly salary. You go there and you only pay for one of the kids, leaving the other two to be tortured by the drug dealers for the rest of their lives. You tell people afterwards that you were kind to save even that one, as they got themselves into this trouble. Tell me: would you call such a person kind? Would anyone?

Your story, however, doesn't run parallel to the matter we've been discussing.

In order to make it comparable, we must note that the children not only do drugs and get into trouble all the time, but also that YOU, the "very rich" man in your story do not just abandon the two children who are not ransomed. You in fact do ransom them!

That is what God did by incarnating, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, as one of his own creatures, living the wretched life of one of them (which would be akin to one of us changing into our pet canary or beagle), and then being tortured and killed for the transgressions or failings of other individuals!

That's quite something, if you give it only a moment's thought, but you omitted it entirely from your story!

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

By your definition, am I a kind person for doing this?

Yes, you are. But only temporarily.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Your story, however, doesn't run parallel to the matter we've been discussing.

In order to make it comparable, we must note that the children not only do drugs and get into trouble all the time, but also that YOU, the "very rich" man in your story do not just abandon the two children who are not ransomed. You in fact do ransom them!

That is what God did by incarnating, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, as one of his own creatures, living the wretched life of one of them (which would be akin to one of us changing into our pet canary or beagle), and then being tortured and killed for the transgressions or failings of other individuals!

That's quite something, if you give it only a moment's thought, but you omitted it entirely from your story!

I am confused. You said you were a Calvinist. Calvinism doesn't support the idea of universal salvation.

 

[Albion]

I am confused. You said you were a Calvinist. Calvinism doesn't support the idea of universal salvation.

I never said I am a Calvinist.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I never said I am a Calvinist.

Oops. I mistook you for the original poster. So you're an universalist? That makes sense, I guess.

 

[atpollard]

I just want to address this point. I want to know if Calvinists think that we, humans, have a flawed definition of the concept of "kindness". Genuine question. Do you think that the definition of the word "kindness" that is found in our dictionaries is incorrect according to God's morality? Should we have it changed to mean something else? Cause I'm not opposing to having it changed. If you think that it's a flawed definition, please tell us which is the definition that God has for the concept of "kindness".

I ask this because the kindness the U in TULIP presents doesn't align with the definition from the dictionary. Being able to save everyone and refusing to do so, but rather choosing to save only some and let others suffer for eternity does not correspond to our current understanding of the word "kindness".

"Well, we did it to ourselves, so God doesn't owe us any favors."

That's legalistic talk. We're defining kindness here. Kindness shouldn't be bound by laws.

If you have 3 children, all of them very rebellious, they do drugs, they get themselves into trouble all the time, and you get a call that they've been kidnapped by a gang of drug dealers. The gang demands 3 equal sums of money, one for each child. You have the money to rescue all of them. As a matter of fact, you're very rich. The sums of money are incredibly small in comparison to your wealth. It's less than half your monthly salary. You go there and you only pay for one of the kids, leaving the other two to be tortured by the drug dealers for the rest of their lives. You tell people afterwards that you were kind to save even that one, as they got themselves into this trouble. Tell me: would you call such a person kind? Would anyone?

You simply disbelieve that God is good. You are falling into the same trap that Eve fell into when Satan implied that God was withholding something good in the Forbidden Fruit. So you and Eve have both chosen to believe that YOUR VIEW is better than God’s word. That is your right to make that choice, but that is EXACTLY what faith is all about: Do you trust YOU or do you trust GOD?

This is actually different from the “U” in TULIP (Unconditional Election), which simply means that those whom God loves are loved because of something in God rather than anything in those people that makes them DESERVING of God’s grace (while others are not deserving). In short, we are saved because GOD is special, not because WE are special. [Again, you are free to reject this teaching, but you should at least reject what it actually means.]

 

[Albion]

Oops. I mistook you for the original poster. So you're an universalist? That makes sense, I guess.

Honest mistakes happen. But If you will cast your eyes to the left of the page, you will see that I am an Anglican. No, I'm not a universalist.