# TULIP as a straw man



## KaphLamedh

I read review of Sproul´s Chosen by God book. Someone thought that according of TULIP or Calvinism, we are just robots.
Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?
Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin? I have notice that here in Finland and in some net-forums.
Sometimes TULIP has made be to a straw man, sometimes is feels at it is made on purpose.

I know TULIP doesn´t open at once. When I started to fins out what stands behind those five points I notices that, it is the same way I was thinking. And that´s the way I started to learn scriptures more. I gave motivation.


----------



## jason d

KaphLamedh said:


> Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?



I didn't have to find out what it meant cause I was raised and taught in church that it was wrong so just stay away from it like Mormonism, JW's, or any other cult.



KaphLamedh said:


> Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin?



Again, TRADITION! I was raised that way and thank God that He has reformed my thinking. I can't say that is the case for everyone but it was for me and for ALOT of people I personally now know.


----------



## Christoffer

KaphLamedh said:


> I read review of Sproul´s Chosen by God book. Someone thought that according of TULIP or Calvinism, we are just robots.
> Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?
> Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin? I have notice that here in Finland and in some net-forums.
> Sometimes TULIP has made be to a straw man, sometimes is feels at it is made on purpose.
> 
> I know TULIP doesn´t open at once. When I started to fins out what stands behind those five points I notices that, it is the same way I was thinking. And that´s the way I started to learn scriptures more. I gave motivation.



I think people run from calvinism because it is true and affirms Gods sovereignity and mans sinfullness. Truth disgusts the natural man.

I also think humanistic thinking has influenced christianity. We are free and we can shape our destiny, be like gods. God "has no right" to hold us responsible if we are not free.


----------



## A.J.

KaphLamedh said:


> I read review of Sproul´s Chosen by God book. Someone thought that according of TULIP or Calvinism, we are just robots.
> Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?
> Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin? I have notice that here in Finland and in some net-forums.
> Sometimes TULIP has made be to a straw man, sometimes is feels at it is made on purpose.
> 
> I know TULIP doesn´t open at once. When I started to fins out what stands behind those five points I notices that, it is the same way I was thinking. And that´s the way I started to learn scriptures more. I gave motivation.



The primary reason I can think of as to why many people reject Calvinism (and often immediately think of it as heresy) is that it is not natural for them to think of God as absolutely sovereign in anything that comes to pass. In their minds, for example, unconditional election is "unjust." 

In the Philippines too, caricatures of Calvinism abound. More often than not, it is confused with the so-called "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS) doctrine.


----------



## SemperEruditio

T.U.L.I.P. is as foreign to modern Christian ears as is the Gospel. When you are able to ask a group of 10 Christians _what is the Gospel?_ and you get ten different answers and none of them correct....T.U.L.I.P. is the least of our worries.

The main thing to remember is that the acronym was a response to the Remonstrants. Calvinism cannot be simply summed up with T.U.L.I.P. The main thing that helps me deal with those who oppose Calvinism is in how they pray. Spurgeon talked about an Arminian prayer and I dare say I have never heard one. Everyone is a Calvinists on their knees. The Lord has opened the eyes of a few when I ask them who and what do they pray for when they pray for the salvation of another. At first they're perplexed but then when we slowly hash out that they are not praying to the "free-will" of the other person but for God to do something, with some, the scales begin to come off. In my failed experiences this is the part where you hang in there and patiently walk them through.


----------



## KaphLamedh

SemperEruditio said:


> Spurgeon talked about an Arminian prayer and I dare say I have never heard one. Everyone is a Calvinists on their knees. The Lord has opened the eyes of a few when I ask them who and what do they pray for when they pray for the salvation of another.



In Amazong Grace DVD was also that arminian prayer that Spurgeon talked about. I have to watch it again.
Is it true that according the arminian theology could never pray "Our Father in heaven" prayer?


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Never have I seen Christians so quick to judge as with anti-Calvinist evangelicals on the Internet. You can't reason with them; their _will_ to hate is in the way. They're the type of people who won't even let you finish making an argument before jumping all over you with emotionally-charged 'objections'. And answering those objections gets you nowhere, because they aren't really listening to you; they are merely waiting for the next chance to make a hate rant, their mind being 110% made up before you can say anything, despite their relative ignorance of the subject. You might as well be a Satanist to them.

When I left the Roman Catholic Church and became an evangelical, one happy side-effect, I thought, would be avoiding the kind of hatred/disrespect/bashing from (as I always saw them) fellow Christians that I had experienced as a card-carrying RC. Then I had to go and become a Calvinist...


----------



## A.J.

The "Arminian Prayer" is from Spurgeon's sermon Free Will - A Slave:



> Fancy him [the Arminian] praying, "Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-- that is the difference between me and them."


----------



## Scott1

In our fallen natures, mankind wants to believe that in some way He can earn salvation and pardon for his sin.

In our sin, we imagine all sorts of rationalizations- we can do more "good" things than "bad" things and that ought prevail, "love" cannot include justice, we in ourselves determine ultimate fairness.

The rationalizations all boil down to a couple points:

1) man is not that sinful

2) God is not that holy

They flow from a bigger concept- the sovereignty of God.

Our ego, pride does not want to accept that we are totally, 100% completely dependent on the mercy on an omniscent God to escape justice for our sin.

Romans 1 tells us mankind, even in his unregenerate state has enough consciousness of God to know He demands we obey Him.

Yet, knowing that, we disobey- we worship things He has created, and not Him. This includes our own finite minds and understanding which we imagine as the measure of all things.

It is offensive to self centered creatures that we are to believe we are not "good" enough and cannot choose to be "good enough" to receive forgiveness, and merit the eternal blessings of Heaven from a Holy God whose standard is perfection.

It is offensive to our Creator that we imagine such.

In this regard, the doctrines of grace (Calvinism) "hits the nail on the head."

God really is sovereign, and vestiges of rebellion against that are in us all, overcome only by His grace.

Only by His grace.


----------



## Marrow Man

I saw this article (in Christian Century, of all places) pointing out the mistake of distilling the Reformed faith down to five points and the misunderstandings that can result. I commented on a blog post here.


----------



## TeachingTulip

KaphLamedh said:


> I read review of Sproul´s Chosen by God book. Someone thought that according of TULIP or Calvinism, we are just robots.
> Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?
> Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin? I have notice that here in Finland and in some net-forums.
> Sometimes TULIP has made be to a straw man, sometimes is feels at it is made on purpose.
> 
> I know TULIP doesn´t open at once. When I started to fins out what stands behind those five points I notices that, it is the same way I was thinking. And that´s the way I started to learn scriptures more. I gave motivation.




It has been my experience, that most people resist TULIP due to the fact they do not want to hear about the Doctrine of Total Depravity, which of course, is foundational to the teachings of the Doctrines of Grace. 

Even church attendees desire to only hear about blessings and only to discuss their good works, rather than hear about sin and judgment.

Consequently, multitudes fail to comprehend and appreciate the grace of God and the necessity for the incarnation of Jesus Christ. 

Without the teaching of human accountability according to the Law of God, the gospel becomes something other than what is taught in the Holy Scriptures. 

In fact, in the new "emergent" churches, the preaching of the gospel has disappeared. A friend of mine brags that there are no sermons given in her church, but rather, helping others in practicial ways is emphasized.

How can so-called "Christians" effectively help others when they are still in spiritual ignorance and have yet to be reconciled with God?

Teaching TULIP is good, because it is sound, biblical teaching of a full gospel message.


----------



## KaphLamedh

TeachingTulip said:


> KaphLamedh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read review of Sproul´s Chosen by God book. Someone thought that according of TULIP or Calvinism, we are just robots.
> Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?
> Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin? I have notice that here in Finland and in some net-forums.
> Sometimes TULIP has made be to a straw man, sometimes is feels at it is made on purpose.
> 
> I know TULIP doesn´t open at once. When I started to fins out what stands behind those five points I notices that, it is the same way I was thinking. And that´s the way I started to learn scriptures more. I gave motivation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been my experience, that most people resist TULIP due to the fact they do not want to hear about the Doctrine of Total Depravity, which of course, is foundational to the teachings of the Doctrines of Grace.
> 
> Even church attendees desire to only hear about blessings and only to discuss their good works, rather than hear about sin and judgment.
> 
> Consequently, multitudes fail to comprehend and appreciate the grace of God and the necessity for the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Without the teaching of human accountability according to the Law of God, the gospel becomes something other than what is taught in the Holy Scriptures.
> 
> In fact, in the new "emergent" churches, the preaching of the gospel has disappeared. A friend of mine brags that there are no sermons given in her church, but rather, helping others in practicial ways is emphasized.
> 
> How can so-called "Christians" effectively help others when they are still in spiritual ignorance and have yet to be reconciled with God?
> 
> Teaching TULIP is good, because it is sound, biblical teaching of a full gospel message.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the message!

It´s really true that many people won´t accept that they are totally uncapable to do anything for searching God. People want some credit for it.


----------



## MMasztal

TeachingTulip said:


> In fact, in the new "emergent" churches, the preaching of the gospel has disappeared. A friend of mine brags that there are no sermons given in her church, but rather, helping others in practicial ways is emphasized.



Is 64:6- "all our righteous acts are like filthy rags" and I would add that without a true saving faith, our righteous acts further condemn us if we don't acknowledge God's grace in allowing us to perform righteous acts, not for our pride, but for His glory.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Joshua said:


> Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.



That is by far the coolest smiley


----------



## Semper Fidelis

To the OP, do you remember in school how many "slackers" there were? Can you count on one hand how many people actually fully applied themselves to learning?

Quite frankly, the average person is slothful. I struggle with sloth myself.

It takes effort to understand things and most people don't want to apply themselves. I run into men all the time that tell me that theology is "hard" but can quote Sports statistics and players on teams in a way that boggles the mind. I wonder where they find the time to keep track of it all.

Consequently, this world lives on sound bites. We Reformed are often not less guilty than others where we "play the crowd" on an issue. It gets the base fired up so the discussion ends before it starts.

Thus, Calvinism "...makes us robots..." plays to the base. It plays to the flesh. It allows people who are otherwise content to be slothful to live unexamined lives.

I'm increasingly convinced that Christ used Parables because it was a convenient way for the "hard of hearing" to think they understood the teaching at an earthy and "makes sense to me" while the deeper meaning was going to involve the pursuit of Christ and wisdom.


----------



## carlgobelman

SemperEruditio said:


> T.U.L.I.P. is as foreign to modern Christian ears as is the Gospel. When you are able to ask a group of 10 Christians _what is the Gospel?_ and you get ten different answers and none of them correct....T.U.L.I.P. is the least of our worries.



I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't TULIP essentially the gospel? The Five Points are commonly referred to as the Doctrines of Grace, and they describe precisely how God saves the spiritually dead sinner and brings him along to glorification.

To me, that's the gospel in a nutshell. 

-----Added 12/18/2009 at 12:28:35 EST-----



Joshua said:


> Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.



Like the Borg smilie!


----------



## student ad x

Reformed Thomist said:


> Never have I seen Christians so quick to judge as with anti-Calvinist evangelicals on the Internet. You can't reason with them; their _will_ to hate is in the way. They're the type of people who won't even let you finish making an argument before jumping all over you with emotionally-charged 'objections'. And answering those objections gets you nowhere, because they aren't really listening to you; they are merely waiting for the next chance to make a hate rant, their mind being 110% made up before you can say anything, despite their relative ignorance of the subject. You might as well be a Satanist to them....



Hello brother,

If my PB brethren would allow a somewhat quasi off-topic response. I agree about the 'tone' of conversations online (in 'informal' debating forums) and their caricature of 'reformed' theology. The vitriol that is being espoused by some of our synergistic friends online has helped me to be 'burnt out' in trying to have a friendly discussion about the things of God. For some time, I re-evaluated myself wondering if I was posting in a style that was abrasive. While I was looking inwardly to the Lord to guard me against pride, I began to see more clearly the pride of others while they were maintaining their idol of free will. 

The internet is a dangerous place........... for the younger Christian and even more mature brethren who can be tempted to give into anger and malice.




I pray for our synergist friends, but I'm unsure at this point how useful the medium of online informal debate is.


 humbly,


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

student ad x said:


> The internet is a dangerous place........... for the younger Christian and even more mature brethren who can be tempted to give into anger and malice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pray for our synergist friends, but I'm unsure at this point how useful the medium of online informal debate is.


I hear you, sax. What keeps me at it in many discussion forums, despite the increase in my blood pressure at times, is my belief that for every single pair of eyes directly participating in a discussion thread, that there is likely 5-10 other sets of eyeballs lurking, reading, and thinking. So my efforts are directed at these silent viewers in hopes that what I may have to say on the matters of faith, resonates with these persons. Participating in some forums can be ennervating, and it is sites like this one that I retreat to when I need to re-energize myself with those who are like-minded. After a good re-charge, then it's back into the fray! 

AMR


----------



## Reformed Thomist

carlgobelman said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't TULIP essentially the gospel? The Five Points are commonly referred to as the Doctrines of Grace, and they describe precisely how God saves the spiritually dead sinner and brings him along to glorification.
> 
> To me, that's the gospel in a nutshell.



All who believe TULIP to be true necessarily believe the Gospel to be true (at least on an intellectual level), for the former _entails_ (or contains) the latter, but one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its _entirety_. 

TULIP is, if you will, a more complete account of the Gospel message, touching upon specifics. But the Gospel message may be given without getting into the _finer points_ of how a person comes to be saved. For instance, John 3:16 -- _For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life_ -- is a brief expression of the Gospel, but an expression of the Gospel nonetheless.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Reformed Thomist said:


> one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its _entirety_.



Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?


----------



## Skyler

TeachingTulip said:


> Reformed Thomist said:
> 
> 
> 
> one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its _entirety_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?
Click to expand...


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Gospel is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, and rose again to save those who believe from their sins, is it not?

edit: With this in mind, _outright_ rejection of the Tulip does entail rejection of the Gospel; however, partial rejection (or, if you will, partial acceptance) is possible without detracting the essentials from the Gospel message.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Skyler said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Thomist said:
> 
> 
> 
> one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its _entirety_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Gospel is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, and rose again to save those who believe from their sins, is it not?
> 
> edit: With this in mind, _outright_ rejection of the Tulip does entail rejection of the Gospel; however, partial rejection (or, if you will, partial acceptance) is possible without detracting the essentials from the Gospel message.
Click to expand...


Which of the five Doctrines of Grace do you believe to be non-essential?


----------



## Reformed Thomist

TeachingTulip said:


> Reformed Thomist said:
> 
> 
> 
> one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its _entirety_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?
Click to expand...


In my opinion, the Gospel may be expressed without getting into the specifics of man's fallenness (just that we are in need of being saved, need a Savior); without getting into election or its unconditionality at all; just that Christ died for our sins and that He is the Way (without mentioning that Christ died specifically for some, secured their salvation); and without mentioning efficaciousness of grace or the perseverance of the saints (although the latter is somewhat implied by the mention of justification by faith, an essential component of the Gospel).

In any case, one is left in a pretty hard position if his definition of the Gospel is the Five Points of Calvinism, so that those who are not five-point Calvinists do not possess the Gospel... no? Personally, I'm not in the business of winning souls (instrumentally, of course) for Calvinism -- Calvinism, much as I believe in and love it, is not my religion -- and I pity the man who is.


----------



## Skyler

TeachingTulip said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Gospel is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, and rose again to save those who believe from their sins, is it not?
> 
> edit: With this in mind, _outright_ rejection of the Tulip does entail rejection of the Gospel; however, partial rejection (or, if you will, partial acceptance) is possible without detracting the essentials from the Gospel message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of the five Doctrines of Grace do you believe to be non-essential?
Click to expand...


You're framing the question to inevitably point towards your conclusion--that belief in Calvinism is necessary to be a Christian. 

What I'm saying is that the five points of Calvinism are not discrete units that are either believed entirely or not believed at all--rather, it is possible to believe parts of each of those five points while not believing the whole of a particular point.

So it's not that "one of the five points is non-essential". It's that _parts_ of the five points are nonessential.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Reformed Thomist said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Thomist said:
> 
> 
> 
> one may believe the Gospel to be true without necessarily believing TULIP to be true in its _entirety_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the Doctrines of Grace can be omitted, in your opinion, without affecting one's gospel message?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion, the Gospel may be expressed without getting into the specifics of man's fallenness (just that we are in need of being saved, need a Savior);
Click to expand...


Do you do not deny man has fallen, but you deny that is a necessary truth to explain God sacrificing His Son?




> without getting into election or its unconditionality at all;



So you do not deny God has elected to save souls, but His reasons for doing so, and how He did so, and in Whom He did so, should not be revealed?




> just that Christ died for our sins and that He is the Way (without mentioning that Christ died specifically for some, secured their salvation);



So you do not deny that Jesus Christ sacrificed His life for sinners, but you believe it should be preached that His atonement was universal for all?




> and without mentioning efficaciousness of grace or the perseverance of the saints (although the latter is somewhat implied by the mention of justification by faith, an essential component of the Gospel).



Sir, with your first three rejections of truth, you have eliminated all basis and foundation by which understanding of grace, justification, and perseverance of the sons of God, was achieved by Jesus Christ on the cross.




> In any case, one is left in a pretty hard position if his definition of the Gospel is the Five Points of Calvinism, so that those who are not five-point Calvinists do not possess the Gospel... no?



To be honest, I believe you have denied the true gospel of God by your denials all five points of TULIP. 

I have no clue as to what "good news" you have left, after what you have now publically rejected!




> Personally, I'm not in the business of winning souls (instrumentally, of course) for Calvinism -- Calvinism, much as I believe in and love it, is not my religion -- and I pity the man who is.



Glad you said this for yourself, otherwise I would have made the charge against you as being not Reformed at all . . .now I do not have to.


----------



## Skyler

TeachingTulip, you're treating each of the five points of Calvinism as indivisible--as if you have to either believe all of the point or none of the point. That's simply not the case.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Skyler said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Gospel is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, and rose again to save those who believe from their sins, is it not?
> 
> edit: With this in mind, _outright_ rejection of the Tulip does entail rejection of the Gospel; however, partial rejection (or, if you will, partial acceptance) is possible without detracting the essentials from the Gospel message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the five Doctrines of Grace do you believe to be non-essential?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're framing the question to inevitably point towards your conclusion--that belief in Calvinism is necessary to be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never made such a claim, but simply responded to your post that claims the gospel can be proclaimed even while omitting some (or all five?) Doctrines of Grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that the five points of Calvinism are not discrete units that are either believed entirely or not believed at all--rather, it is possible to believe parts of each of those five points while not believing the whole of a particular point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and all I am asking if for you to clarify what you consider necessary and believable versus non-essential and therefore subject to unbelief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's not that "one of the five points is non-essential". It's that _parts_ of the five points are nonessential.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What parts?
> 
> Ronda
Click to expand...


----------



## Skyler

TeachingTulip said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the five Doctrines of Grace do you believe to be non-essential?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never made such a claim, but simply responded to your post that claims the gospel can be proclaimed even while omitting some (or all five?) Doctrines of Grace.
Click to expand...


Some _parts_ of the five points.




> Yes, and all I am asking if for you to clarify what you consider necessary and believable versus non-essential and therefore subject to unbelief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's not that "one of the five points is non-essential". It's that _parts_ of the five points are nonessential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What parts?
> 
> Ronda
Click to expand...


I already clarified what I recall are the essential parts:

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, and rose again to save those who believe from their sins."

As I said, I'm open to being corrected if I'm wrong.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Skyler said:


> TeachingTulip, you're treating each of the five points of Calvinism as indivisible--as if you have to either believe all of the point or none of the point. That's simply not the case.



Yes, you are correct.

I consider the Doctrines of Grace to hinge upon each other, and I believe that removal or rejection of any one of the five points of TULIP will affect the whole gospel message contained therein.

In other words,'s, my defensive battle for TULIP is a deliberate battle to retain and maintain the true and full Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ronda


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Where have I 'denied' or 'rejected' anything, Ronda? I was merely stating that/how the Gospel message may be defined without the inclusion of the fullness of the Five Points of Calvinism. I'm not _denying_ the truth of any of the Five Points (I positively, wholeheartedly affirm them)! 

And then you go ahead and effectively charge me with being not Reformed -- on the basis of my statement that Reformed theology is not my _religion_ (despite Reformed theology not being a _religion_ -- which is why I said it) -- and directly charge me with "denying the true gospel of God"...?

Wow.


----------



## Skyler

TeachingTulip said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> TeachingTulip, you're treating each of the five points of Calvinism as indivisible--as if you have to either believe all of the point or none of the point. That's simply not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are correct.
> 
> I consider the Doctrines of Grace to hinge upon each other, and I believe that removal or rejection of any one of the five points of TULIP will affect the whole gospel message contained therein.
> 
> In other words,'s, my defensive battle for TULIP is a deliberate battle to retain and maintain the true and full Gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Ronda
Click to expand...


Again, you're taking what I've said out of context. I agree that logically, Calvinism is the only consistent interpretation; however, if the Gospel hinges upon being logically correct in all areas, then we have no hope, because none of us can claim that!

Rather, I've said, as have Christians throughout the centuries, that there are certain essentials of the faith which are contained in but not identical to the five points of Calvinism.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Skyler said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> TeachingTulip, you're treating each of the five points of Calvinism as indivisible--as if you have to either believe all of the point or none of the point. That's simply not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are correct.
> 
> I consider the Doctrines of Grace to hinge upon each other, and I believe that removal or rejection of any one of the five points of TULIP will affect the whole gospel message contained therein.
> 
> In other words,'s, my defensive battle for TULIP is a deliberate battle to retain and maintain the true and full Gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Ronda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're taking what I've said out of context. I agree that logically, Calvinism is the only consistent interpretation;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> however, if the Gospel hinges upon being logically correct in all areas, then we have no hope, because none of us can claim that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Gospel of Jesus Christ "hinges" upon the truthfulness of the revelation of God in His Holy Scriptures, upon which the Doctrines of Grace are based and formulated according to faith and reason.
> 
> If faith is abandoned, there is no salvation. If reason (logic) is abandoned there is no cogent understanding. Lack of either God-given faith or God-given logic (of which His grace consists), is devastating and non-salvific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rather, I've said, as have Christians throughout the centuries, that there are certain essentials of the faith which are contained in but not identical to the five points of Calvinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "essentials of the faith" are not included in the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP).
> 
> Ronda
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I heard it said that Arminianism affirms the Freedom of Man which is debunked by the the scriptures when it says we are dead and in bondage. Reformed Theology affirms the Freedom of God's choice and Sovereign will. Where is the truth concerning Freedom?


----------



## TeachingTulip

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I heard it said that Arminianism affirms the Freedom of Man which is debunked by the the scriptures when it says we are dead and in bondage. Reformed Theology affirms the Freedom of God's choice and Sovereign will. Where is the truth concerning Freedom?



John 8:31-36


----------



## student ad x

Howdy brother, 

I hope things are well with you!



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I heard it said that Arminianism affirms the Freedom of Man which is debunked by the the scriptures when it says we are dead and in bondage. Reformed Theology affirms the Freedom of God's choice and Sovereign will. Where is the truth concerning Freedom?




For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and a have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:20-23 ESV



humbly,
Cam


----------



## Scott1

Remember, being faithful in sharing the truths of God (e.g. doctrines of grace) are ordinarily up to us (because God has also ordained the means).

Disagreement, shock, denial often mean that truth is being exposed. Change comes from this, and often takes this.

The results, what God does with it in the lives of believers and unbelievers, is up to God.


----------



## Skyler

TeachingTulip said:


> The Gospel of Jesus Christ "hinges" upon the truthfulness of the revelation of God in His Holy Scriptures, upon which the Doctrines of Grace are based and formulated according to faith and reason.
> 
> If faith is abandoned, there is no salvation. If reason (logic) is abandoned there is no cogent understanding. Lack of either God-given faith or God-given logic (of which His grace consists), is devastating and non-salvific.



So you're saying that your interpretation of Scripture must be 100% correct in every area to be saved?



> Rather, I've said, as have Christians throughout the centuries, that there are certain essentials of the faith which are contained in but not identical to the five points of Calvinism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "essentials of the faith" are not included in the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP).
> 
> Ronda
Click to expand...


Your argument is a categorical fallacy. I have never said that the doctrines of grace didn't include the essentials of the faith. That has no relevance to the point I made--that the doctrines of grace include more than just the essentials of the faith.

If you wish to make the TULIP the "essentials of the faith", then you redefine Christianity in a way that very few have tried to in church history.


----------



## strangecharm

*Hold Up!!*

Are we forgetting that TULIP itself is a distillation od Dort? Are we forgetting that Dort is part of the Three forms of Unity?

TULIP is not the Gospeel! It is consistent with the Gospel, but is not in itself the Gospel, otherwise, Paul would have cited it as being of first importance.



> For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.



The Gospel is simple. It is affirmed in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. Where is TULIP? Not there!

In short, If Calvinism is the Gospel, then only Calvinists are saved. That is not the case, as I'm quite sure that the Wesley brothers are saved, even though they were Arminian (though they affirmed Total Depravity.)

Internet Arminians aren't really Arminians....they're actually fully Pelagian.


----------



## student ad x

I reckon I'd better read Romans again.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

strangecharm said:


> Are we forgetting that TULIP itself is a distillation od Dort? Are we forgetting that Dort is part of the Three forms of Unity?
> 
> TULIP is not the Gospeel! It is consistent with the Gospel, but is not in itself the Gospel, otherwise, Paul would have cited it as being of first importance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gospel is simple. It is affirmed in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. Where is TULIP? Not there!
Click to expand...


Careful there, Stephen. That kind of talk has already got one of us publicly condemned a non-Reformed heretic.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let's get back to the OP.

Before we do, let me make one editorial comment: we need to distinguish between Creedal and Confessional formulations that put fences around orthodoxy and how the Gospel operates. Let us not forget that God does not look at faith or knowledge as the _ground_ of justification but the finished work of Christ. Faith is the instrument by which a sinner clings to Christ and is produced in the person by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

That said, the reasons for Creeds were never to present a minimal "believe this and you're good to go" but to define what was in and what was out of orthodoxy. In addition to the Nicene and Apostles creed there was also the definition of Chalcedon as Appolanarians, Eutychians and Nestorians can affirm the Nicene Creed. In time there was need for other Church councils and Confessions to deal with other errors that were destructive to human souls.

There is a danger in these discussions of being too reductionistic either way: "affirm this and you're in" or "you don't have to affirm this because there are many who didn't". That's not Christianity.

A man who is a disciple of Christ and is united vitally to Him is to be in a pursuit of Lady Wisdom life-long because God is at work in him. We all hold to error and are prone to idols in our hearts but God is faithful. There are places where the Church rightfully rebukes and tells us "tread not there for it is destructive" and we dare not pretend as if we can so easily neglect such a great salvation because we have found the minimal content necessary to ensure that we are not those that do not shrink back.

 Get back to the topic of the OP now.


----------



## strangecharm

So I missed hypostatic union (a huge deal), but that's not in TULIP. That proves that we can't take Tulip apart from the Confessions.

Oh, by the way...I'm one of the "New Calvinists" so to speak. I'm closest to a 1689 Baptist, but I came to this theological position rather apart from teaching, save that of John Piper and Paul Washer.

I have no problem not being strictly Reformed, as that is not where my salvation lies. If your salvation lies in a Confession rather than a Cross, re-evaluate your position. If you can not accept your Arminian brothers and sisters as just that, brothers and sisters (who are misguided for sure), re-evaluate your position. 

I hate this debate with a passion, because it is a SECONDARY issue. If any person confesses Christ and bears fruit of sanctification to prove genuine faith, but is Arminian (I've got Leonard Ravenhill in mind here), shall you not break bread with him? We're debating the mechanics of grace here. Can't we just let people live in that grace and not try to change their minds if the Spirit has changed their hearts?


Stop the madness....hug an Arminian.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

strangecharm said:


> If you can not accept your Arminian brothers and sisters as just that, brothers and sisters (who are misguided for sure), re-evaluate your position.


We reformed all agree Arminianism is heretical, and we should not remain silent or passive when confronted with error. That does not mean we condemn all Arminians to hell, but we should be firmly and persuasively doing all we can to lead them to the full light of Scripture when the opportunity arises.

See also a related discussion here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f59/arminian-god-not-worshippable-11817/



KaphLamedh said:


> I read review of Sproul´s Chosen by God book. Someone thought that according of TULIP or Calvinism, we are just robots.
> Why do not people just find out what TULIP really means?
> Why do someone automaticly think "heresy" when they hear word Calvinism or Calvin? I have notice that here in Finland and in some net-forums.
> Sometimes TULIP has made be to a straw man, sometimes is feels at it is made on purpose.
> 
> I know TULIP doesn´t open at once. When I started to fins out what stands behind those five points I notices that, it is the same way I was thinking. And that´s the way I started to learn scriptures more. I gave motivation.



Unfortunately, some that defend Calvinism in internet forums are over zealous and not infrequently poorly versed in the full measure of reformed doctrines. Consequently, their defenses of the faith are sometimes erroneous or poorly crafted. What results from these exchanges are the usual vitriol and emotionally laden mis-characterizations. It has often been noted that the zeal of a new reformed believer outruns the believer's understanding and ability to properly defend their faith. In one sense, we are our own worst enemy at times. 

AMR


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

strangecharm said:


> So I missed hypostatic union (a huge deal), but that's not in TULIP. That proves that we can't take Tulip apart from the Confessions.



What about the hypostatic union did you miss? I didn't know it was a part of the debate. Can you show me where? 





strangecharm said:


> Oh, by the way...I'm one of the "New Calvinists" so to speak. I'm closest to a 1689 Baptist, but I came to this theological position rather apart from teaching, save that of John Piper and Paul Washer.
> 
> I have no problem not being strictly Reformed, as that is not where my salvation lies. If your salvation lies in a Confession rather than a Cross, re-evaluate your position. If you can not accept your Arminian brothers and sisters as just that, brothers and sisters (who are misguided for sure), re-evaluate your position.



I beg to differ..... Confession leads to salvation... Confession of what, may I ask? You might not be considering what kind of confession, but the answer and confession we should respond with is, I am without hope, Dead in Sin, and I cannot respond to Christ of my own free will because I am dead and in bondage to my sinful inclinations.

That is a true confession, because you can not by your own self acknowledge your sin or come to Christ without the Holy Spirit first bringing you life and regeneration so you could respond to God's call, according to St. John, St. Paul, or any of the other authors God wrote his word through. 

(Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

(Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

You couldn't even acknowledge what believing unto righteousness was without it's full understanding. 




strangecharm said:


> I hate this debate with a passion, because it is a SECONDARY issue. If any person confesses Christ and bears fruit of sanctification to prove genuine faith, but is Arminian (I've got Leonard Ravenhill in mind here), shall you not break bread with him? We're debating the mechanics of grace here. Can't we just let people live in that grace and not try to change their minds if the Spirit has changed their hearts?



You can hate it all you want with your inner being but that doesn't make the matter untrue. The Pagans hate Christ but that doesn't make His Diety, Person, and work for us and on our behalf untrue either. At what level are you measuring your thinking? Are you actually trying to look at Scripture or just how you feel? Your statement, "I hate this debate." is quite revealing. It doesn't say you are unregenerate but how you understand the word of God. 



strangecharm said:


> Stop the madness....hug an Arminian.



Hug me.... I am a staunch believer that God saves and resurrects spiritually dead people who are in bondage and have inclinations that will not allow them to desire truth. Even if they don't understand how dead in sins and trespasses they are or were in. 



> (1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.



I hold to the 1689 because it speaks truth according to the scripture as I and it's authors read and understand scripture.. My confession is not one that is above Scripture but it is one that promotes and teaches it as I understand it. We never place the confessions above the scripture.

Young man, Please don't take my post as harsh. Please think about what I said. You came out rather strongly and in ignorance as far as I see it. Maybe you don't see it that way. And I surely understand your concern. I have been there. Just sit back and think for a while.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

strangecharm said:


> So I missed hypostatic union (a huge deal), but that's not in TULIP. That proves that we can't take Tulip apart from the Confessions.
> 
> Oh, by the way...I'm one of the "New Calvinists" so to speak. I'm closest to a 1689 Baptist, but I came to this theological position rather apart from teaching, save that of John Piper and Paul Washer.
> 
> I have no problem not being strictly Reformed, as that is not where my salvation lies. If your salvation lies in a Confession rather than a Cross, re-evaluate your position. If you can not accept your Arminian brothers and sisters as just that, brothers and sisters (who are misguided for sure), re-evaluate your position.
> 
> I hate this debate with a passion, because it is a SECONDARY issue. If any person confesses Christ and bears fruit of sanctification to prove genuine faith, but is Arminian (I've got Leonard Ravenhill in mind here), shall you not break bread with him? We're debating the mechanics of grace here. Can't we just let people live in that grace and not try to change their minds if the Spirit has changed their hearts?
> 
> 
> Stop the madness....hug an Arminian.



I am going to stop the madness because this thread reflects a great deal of chronological and theological immaturity and misunderstanding.

People talk around the issue and then miss the whole point as you just did.

I don't hug Arminians because I call Baptized men and women _Christians_ and neither label them Arminians nor Pelagians. I have labored to teach the Word of God to Christians under the spell of a diluted Gospel for years and hugged many of them as my friends.

You assume that because a person says they love Christ and has great joy in their heart and zeal that there is nothing left to do. That is typical, unfortunately, of our culture that has pushed Christianity down to the heart of the individual where how a person experiences God has become more important than what God has actually done in history.

I don't know if you realize that you just said it really doesn't matter how God acted in redemptive history nor what He commanded in redemptive history. That's immaterial. It's how the person that experiences God reacts to God whoever He may be or however He may have acted.

If the Gospel is one thing, it is not how I apprehend it or how I experience it. If it is one thing, it is not how I feel about it or how another person looks at me and says "He's got it." 1 Cor 15 is true based on external, verifiable historical actions of a Saving God. If those facts be not true then eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. It doesn't matter how much we confess or how we seem to express joy in that event. If the event is not true then all our zeal and good living, like the Mormon's, is useless.

If you had read more carefully, you would have noted the purpose of Creeds instead of responding as if I were adding content that a person had to have in his mental checklist in order to embrace Christ. The Gospel is simple enough that it can be apprehended by a child. A child can have saving faith. Why? Because, as I noted and you seem to have glossed over, God saves. God produces faith. It is why I am paedobaptist because I believe that grace precedes faith and that sanctification is definitive for the one united to Christ. A seed is not imperfect because it is less than the full flower but represents a stage of maturity.

Consequently, I believe that there are people who are God's own in many diverse communions. I don't think it's anyone's business to identify who is or is not elect based on zeal or profession. I always find the "if you say that then Wesley didn't go to heaven" to be the silliest argument as we have no divine knowledge of anyone's election.

What we do have is the Scriptures and the fact that the content of the Word is not trivial. I would urge you to study the history of the Church and what the Reformers recaptured by getting back to the Word and the _ltectio continua_ pointing people back to the Word. Again, the assumption that faith in Christ can be stripped of any discernible content is a postmodern notion. The issue is not that our faith and our mental apprehension of facts saves but when we have the choice between seeking Truth and Error, then those who are of God don't say: "Stop the Madness, who cares, let one seek Lady Wisdom and another embrace Lady Folly. Let's look to what they say and how they act rather than what the content of their belief is."

The Great Commission is to baptize disciples so that we may teach them everything that the Lord has commanded. Again, is this madness that we ought to care what those who have been baptized into Christ are taught? Hug them? Sure, but teach sound doctrine. Again, they are not saved on the grounds of their faith but by Christ but there comes a point where, out of love for them, we ought to wonder if their understanding of the things of God really bears Evangelical fruit.

I frankly believe that many have a very carnal understanding of fruit and treat it according to civic virtue and zeal. He/she is very nice and has a lot of love for Jesus, ergo, I will move on.

Let me tell you why this is so problematic by relating my own experience in working with people in a Church of the revivalist tradition while I lived in Japan.

There were many wonderful people there. They were nicer than me. They bore more evidence of Christ than myself. They had more zeal than I in many areas.

I began to teach, regularly, on the Book of Romans with a few men over a year and a half. I also taught adult Sunday School for 2 years.

I was very unsanctified in my attitude initially but the Lord sanctified me through some hard Providences and I learned to love those Brothers and Sisters. I understood there was neither Calvinist nor Arminian but only those who are baptized and need to be instructed.

Now, one day after teaching about the Prodigal Son, one of the men came up to me a few days later and said that his wife's mouth had dropped during my teaching. Why? She had never heard that God gives us every thing in Christ before we have done anything to earn it. Thirty years as a Christian and her heart was filled with wonder and joy and awe over the joy of the Gospel. A couple months later I taught on Hebrews and she had never heard about Christ's perfect High Priesthood and His once-for-all Sacrifice for Sin. Again, the joy of understanding that Christ has definitively put away sin.

I'm embarrassed by the report that the Pastor there says that at least a half a dozen members of that Church believe they were converted for the first time to the Gospel during that period. You're not going to pick them out for their zeal because there are a lot of zealous people in various communions out there. My point is that it really doesn't matter in the end how much apparent zeal one has because it is the Gospel that saves external to the individual and, Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart. We never stop teaching others nor do we come to the Word every week assuming our hearts are fully converted.

My point is finally this: The Gospel is simple and can be apprehended by a child but God calls us as disciples in His Church and that Church is to teach the whole counsel of God. It is folly to then claim that the content of that teaching is immaterial and that who God is and what He has done does not matter but only how a person feels about whatever they believe about it. The ground is Christ. He saves. Our faith merely clings to the Root but we dare not assume that we get to define Who He is.


----------

