I suppose a question thread isn't kosher with a sequel. Anyway; there are many scriptures that can be used to point out each part of the TULIP acronym; for instance T-Total Depravity We could quote Jeremiah 17:9; O-Unconditional Election ( Ephesians 1:4); L-Limited Atonement ( John 10:26-27); I-Irresistable Grace ( Acts 9:3-6 the "Damascus Road" experience) and finally P-Perseverance of the Saints ( Romans 8:30).
Many of these themes are interchangeable with the verses quoted. The terminology isn't the greatest; as people can indeed grieve the Spirit as scripture indicates. I believe limited atonement is also the hardest thing to prove; I would say that "Effectual grace" is a much better term.
I wrote what I did in the first posting on purpose as many tend to have a sort of pride about which Reformer is their favorite or obsess on the subject making a doctrine be above the author and finisher of our faith Christ Himself. We can't fit our theological premise neatly with all scriptures in human understanding. I take; for example the politically incorrect stance that free will doesn't intimidate God with His predestination plans. There are distinct advantages to understanding these doctrines however.
1. It explains why those in our families and others we are close to and hear the Gospel for years never become believers.
2. It shows how God draws His elect from before a confession of faith (preserves our lives until coming to salvation) for believers.
3. It allows us to "test ourselves to see if we are in the faith" ( 2 Cor. 13:5) so that we can indeed claim His promises as something we actually possess because of a saving faith rather than "decisional regeneration" a term where people make a confession but their hearts are not in it.
I mentioned on an old posting how a small group split because God grants repentance ( 2 Tim. 2:25; etal). Some didn't want to preach the need to repent; although God grants the desire we must bear fruit and change our ways
Somewhere on this site a year or two ago I have some detailed analysis of this subject; specifically I went through the book of John as well in terms of Predestination.
I would say that book has enough clear evidence of the calling being only for those God has selected to have Christ reveal Himself to them that not much more needs to be said. The book of Romans has a lot of stuff as well which I have done studies of in the past but it is throughout the Bible. The "TULIP" acronym was never expounded on by Calvin per se; and it appears that even he may have had some issues near the end of his life about limited atonement; probably the stickiest point in the whole bunch.
First off as to Calvin himself; his attitudes in killing Silvanus for not being a Trinitarian (and also for NOT supporting infant baptism) certainly makes us call into question his faith as it states in first John "he who hates his brother is a murderer" and doesn't have eternal lilfe. For the record I am against infant baptism ironically a carry on from Catholicism that the Orthodox Presbyterian church today still holds onto with some other denominations. Martin Luthor was a heavy drinker and Hitler himself used some of his rantings against the Jews to his advantage in gaining church support of his cause (before they were persecuted themselves).
Despite these less than ideal character issues the concepts brought up in the "5 Points" have sufficient scriptural warrant for the most part in my opinion. Again; I have argued with some of my "brethren" as you put it that someone can believe all 5 points and not be saved (why they'd want to is another issue). They didn't like me for saying that; but neither did people believe my former pastor was saved since he considered himself to be a "4 and a half point Calvanist" with his issues with limited atonement.
Other issues are the terminology of each tenent. Maybe I'll include that in part two.
Many of these themes are interchangeable with the verses quoted. The terminology isn't the greatest; as people can indeed grieve the Spirit as scripture indicates. I believe limited atonement is also the hardest thing to prove; I would say that "Effectual grace" is a much better term.
I wrote what I did in the first posting on purpose as many tend to have a sort of pride about which Reformer is their favorite or obsess on the subject making a doctrine be above the author and finisher of our faith Christ Himself. We can't fit our theological premise neatly with all scriptures in human understanding. I take; for example the politically incorrect stance that free will doesn't intimidate God with His predestination plans. There are distinct advantages to understanding these doctrines however.
1. It explains why those in our families and others we are close to and hear the Gospel for years never become believers.
2. It shows how God draws His elect from before a confession of faith (preserves our lives until coming to salvation) for believers.
3. It allows us to "test ourselves to see if we are in the faith" ( 2 Cor. 13:5) so that we can indeed claim His promises as something we actually possess because of a saving faith rather than "decisional regeneration" a term where people make a confession but their hearts are not in it.
I mentioned on an old posting how a small group split because God grants repentance ( 2 Tim. 2:25; etal). Some didn't want to preach the need to repent; although God grants the desire we must bear fruit and change our ways
I would say that book has enough clear evidence of the calling being only for those God has selected to have Christ reveal Himself to them that not much more needs to be said. The book of Romans has a lot of stuff as well which I have done studies of in the past but it is throughout the Bible. The "TULIP" acronym was never expounded on by Calvin per se; and it appears that even he may have had some issues near the end of his life about limited atonement; probably the stickiest point in the whole bunch.
First off as to Calvin himself; his attitudes in killing Silvanus for not being a Trinitarian (and also for NOT supporting infant baptism) certainly makes us call into question his faith as it states in first John "he who hates his brother is a murderer" and doesn't have eternal lilfe. For the record I am against infant baptism ironically a carry on from Catholicism that the Orthodox Presbyterian church today still holds onto with some other denominations. Martin Luthor was a heavy drinker and Hitler himself used some of his rantings against the Jews to his advantage in gaining church support of his cause (before they were persecuted themselves).
Despite these less than ideal character issues the concepts brought up in the "5 Points" have sufficient scriptural warrant for the most part in my opinion. Again; I have argued with some of my "brethren" as you put it that someone can believe all 5 points and not be saved (why they'd want to is another issue). They didn't like me for saying that; but neither did people believe my former pastor was saved since he considered himself to be a "4 and a half point Calvanist" with his issues with limited atonement.
Other issues are the terminology of each tenent. Maybe I'll include that in part two.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?