Crush the TULIP & Defense of Calvinism - a theological exercise to draw us closer to Christ

[ralphinal]

God doesn’t prevent anyone from accepting Him or grace. But God knows those who are going to accept Him and those that won’t, But I believe He still gives them the chance too.

If He gives everyone a chance, even if he knows the outcome, it is not a problem. The problem is if everyone does not have the same chance

 

[izoid]

God doesn’t prevent anyone from accepting Him or grace. But God knows those who are going to accept Him and those that won’t, But I believe He still gives them the chance too.

I think you are much closer to the truth than Adam is. You see, Reformed theology teaches that God does not extend saving grace to all mankind, only to the elect. Beyond that, man does not have a choice in the matter, if your are the elect you WILL accept. That is what irresistible grace is. In a nutshell, it limits man to being God’s puppet.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I think my translation calls the new Adam as the 2nd Adam. Again, the key biblical revelation to your wonderful question is found in Romans 5, and 1 Cor 15. And yes the first Adam represented all of humanity including Mary (but not Jesus). The New Adam or the 2nd Adam is only applied to the elect, because the non-elect never makes that transition from the 1st Adam to the 2nd Adam. It is only those who are united to Christ are called the new creation; those who remain in the 1st Adam are still part of the old creation.

Did Jesus–the New Adam–represent all of humanity when he died and rose again? If Jesus only died for the sake of the elect, how come He’s not called the New Noah since Noah died for a select few?

 

[2nd_Adam]

If God wills the salvation of all men, and then actively prevents some from making it, God is a lier and a harsh, evil God.

If Grace is Irresistible, and God does not allow all men access to it, God is a cruel God.

If God gives all men grace sufficient for their salvation, but allows men to choose heaven or hell, He is doing what he can while respecting their free-will. That is a fair God.

Hi Ralph,

In what way does God wills salvation of all men? I’m confused because we both reject universalism. Most Calvinists were once Arminian Christians before becoming Calvinists. Therefore, I know many of the emotional arguments against Calvinism. This is a cut and paste for the OP link:

Notes

1.In modern America those who hold to “free will theology” squirm at the thought of even considering the Calvinistic perspective. Arminians by-pass the “Calvinistic scriptures” in order to hold their theology together. The main problem arises when one seeks to term this theology Calvinistic instead of Biblical. The Arminian is taught to reject the findings of Calvinistic (Biblical) doctrines because they were brought up that way and the pastor said that it was so. This writer has personally talked to many Arminians, including scholars, and has yet to find suitable scriptures to support their theology; the Arminian theology as a whole is full of large theological pot-holes which are held for the sake of convenience.

apuritansmind.com/Reformation/ShortHistoryCalvinism.htm

 

[2nd_Adam]

What a terrible way to minimize the death of Christ. It seems like the Calvinist view is that Christ atonement was not sufficient for all mankind, only for the elect.

LOL… we are having way too much fun! :flowers::curtsey::jrbirdman:

The Riddle

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,

1. either all the sins of all men,
2. or all the sins of some men,
3. or some sins of all men.

If the LAST, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” [Ps. cxxx.2] We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty.” [Isa. ii. 20, 21]

If the SECOND, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the FIRST, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”

But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?

If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.

Let them choose which part they will.

An extract from John Owen’s – The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ, Book I, Chapter III –

1. J.I.Packer has stated in his book on Puritanism that Mary Tudor was afraid one man, John Owen; not because he had militant power, but because he had written a book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, that she felt was anointed by God. He was the only man that ever opposed her and lived. (Owen’s book has never been disputed by any theological perspective. It is one of the leading Calvinistic works which is exhaustive; it focus on the limited atonement of Christ and completely destroys the Arminian perspective of man’s free will in salvation and Universal Redemption.)

apuritansmind.com/Reformation/ShortHistoryCalvinism.htm

 

[2nd_Adam]

There are quite a few protestant denominations that would share your view of Calvin.

LOL… that is exactly why I invited my Arminian Protestant brothers over to this thread, to help my Catholic siblings to “Crush the TULIP”. Why do you want to crush the TULIP, because the TULIP is a lovely flower created by our God?



Don’t worry… if you love God through the Lord Jesus Christ… you are not predestined to Hell.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Did Jesus–the New Adam–represent all of humanity when he died and rose again? If Jesus only died for the sake of the elect, how come He’s not called the New Noah since Noah died for a select few?

Still can’t answer this?

 

[2nd_Adam]

God doesn’t prevent anyone from accepting Him or grace. But God knows those who are going to accept Him and those that won’t, But I believe He still gives them the chance too.

If God knew would accept Him before the foundations of the world, why didn’t God change those whom He knew would reject Him? God could have change them before they were born because He already knew beforehand what they would do in regards to His Son. What good is all that foreknowledge if God does not have power to change things?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Still can’t answer this?

Could you please post all of the biblical references in regards to the New Adam? Maybe it’s simply a translation issue?

 

[tweetymom]

If God knew would accept Him before the foundations of the world, why didn’t God change those whom He knew would reject Him? God could have change them before they were born because He already knew beforehand what they would do in regards to His Son. What good is all that foreknowledge if God does not have power to change things?

Because God did not make a bunch of Robots. He can change anything He wants but He gave us all a free will.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Could you please post all of the biblical references in regards to the New Adam? Maybe it’s simply a translation issue?

I’m referring to Jesus as the New Adam since your screen name is 2ndAdam hence there might be some confusion. Whether Christ is referred to as New Adam or 2nd Adam, my question still remains unanswered by you.

Did Jesus–the New Adam–represent all of humanity when he died and rose again? If Jesus only died for the sake of the elect, how come He’s not called the New Noah since Noah died for a select few?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
If God knew would accept Him before the foundations of the world, why didn’t God change those whom He knew would reject Him? God could have change them before they were born because He already knew beforehand what they would do in regards to His Son. What good is all that foreknowledge if God does not have power to change things?

Because God did not make a bunch of Robots. He can change anything He wants but He gave us all a free will.

http://www.persianstudents.org/archives/robots.jpg

“We are not Robots” is not in the Bible…

 

[2nd_Adam]

I’m referring to Jesus as the New Adam since your screen name is 2ndAdam hence there might be some confusion. Whether Christ is referred to as New Adam or 2nd Adam, my question still remains unanswered by you.

Does the NAB or other Catholic translations refer to Jesus as the New Adam? If so, please them for me so I can understand what you are explaining to me. I’m trying my best to answer this particular question, but we keep confusing each other.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Does the NAB or other Catholic translation refer to Jesus as the New Adam? If so, please them for me so I can understand what you are explaining to me.

Sir, I explained to you my reasoning for this terminology and you’ve not answered my question.

 

[tweetymom]

http://www.persianstudents.org/archives/robots.jpg

“We are not Robots” is not in the Bible…

Indeed you are right,but Jesus wants us to love Him because of what He has done for us not because we have to hence Robots.

 

[historyb]

1. You’ve said that humanity is made in fallen Adam’s image, although originally, God created Adam and Eve in the image of Himself with a free will and intellect yet His Sovereignty wasn’t impugned. How can fallen Adam “unmake” God’s own creation by removing his free will?

Because Adam freely gave his will to the enemy. Thereby Ada and all are slaves to sin and no longer have free will, slaves are not free.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Because Adam freely gave his will to the enemy. Thereby Ada and all are slaves to sin and no longer have free will, slaves are not free.

So then Satan gives it back in sanctification? Do those that are the elect give their wills back to the devil whenever they freely choose to sin?

 

[MrS]

What a terrible way to minimize the death of Christ. It seems like the Calvinist view is that Christ atonement was not sufficient for all mankind, only for the elect.

You have hit the big nail on the head… the Atonement.

The Calvinist understanding of the Atonement is extremely erroneous. A Christ -centered view of the Atonement would not only reject the Calvinist view, but it would also give further credence to purgatory, to suffering and repentance, to the Mass, to the Eucharist, and to the Real Presence of Christ found only in the Catholic Church.

They all are missing so very much by taking that wrong turn in the road, re: Atonement.

In fact, it also will deflate the solas.

.

 

[MrS]

Did Jesus–the New Adam–represent all of humanity when he died and rose again? If Jesus only died for the sake of the elect, how come He’s not called the New Noah since Noah died for a select few?

 

[ralphinal]

What is amazing about this aspect of Calvinism is that it requires a major editing job of the bible.

John 3:16 God so loved the WORLD (not just the elect) that whoever should believe in him (not just those who were lucky enough to be chosen) might have eternal life

1 Timothy 2:3-4

3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

God wants ALL men to be saved. Not all men choose God.

2 Peter 3:9

9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance

Again, God does not want everyone to parish but he wants everyone to come to him

Titus 2:11

11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

Again, appeared to all men, not just the elect.

Not that it usually matters to Calvinists, but their postition is refuted by the Early Church Fathers as well

Ignatius of Antioch

If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice

Ignatius was taught by those who knew quite well, such as Peter and John. Notice: man is of the devil BY HIS OWN CHOICE

Irenaeus

Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God’s Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the Rebellious.

Again, man chooses.

I could go on…

I will close with a verse from Romans

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile

FOR EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES, not just those that God wants to believe