TULIP as a straw man

Status
Not open for further replies.
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

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, 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

Again, you're taking what I've said out of context. I agree that logically, Calvinism is the only consistent interpretation;

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!

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.

What "essentials of the faith" are not included in the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP).

Ronda
 
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?
 
Howdy brother,

I hope things are well with you!

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
 
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.
 
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

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.
 
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.
 
smiley_emoticons_ugly_gruebel.gif
I reckon I'd better read Romans again.
 
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!

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

:judge: Get back to the topic of the OP now.
 
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.
 
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/

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
 
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?



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.


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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top