Flower children, pick your TULIP's here

[Mammoths]

You know the drill:

Total depravity of man
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints

OP summary

Total depravity is supported by Romans 1-5 where Paul outlines the total failing of humanity to even seek God without grace. When God causes a person to be born again, they begin to seek him. We can’t choose our natural father nor can we “born ourselves again.”

Unconditional election is supported by Romans 9 where Paul says those he forknew he also called etc

Limited atonement, while the sacrifice of Christ is in theory sufficient to apply to the whole world, it is aimed at providing for the salvation specifically for the elect–beautiful pearl hidden in a field. Matthew 13:44

Irresistible grace is supported by already cited scripture. Those he forknew…sanctified.

Perseverance of the saints is supported by the first four points but also there is the issue of, that scripture: “nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus.”

We also have in theology the scriptural (and traditional) notion that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Of course he knows from the foundation of the universe how every circumstance influences every person for hardening or repentance. As a result every circumstance influencing decision and every decision influencing circumstance are in His control. So by permission or providence God saves only those he mercifully chose from the beginning and the rest he chose justly not to save.

I’ve been advised my Protestant theology is dim. Help me out. Thanks.

 

[Cathoholic]

Mammoths. Considering Romans 1:5 . . . .

ROMANS 1:5 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations . . . .

I would not accept the premise that we are TOTALLY depraved because we need grace.

You said:

Total depravity is supported by Romans 1-5 where Paul outlines the total failing of humanity to even seek God without grace.

We DO need grace to seek God. That’s true.

But don’t let the Calvinists take you to Total Depravity from that.

Also:

When God causes a person to be born again, they begin to seek him.

Actually God draws us BEFORE we are “Born again” or “born of water and the Spirit”.

That is God making the first move upon us (not us making the first move toward God–which we cannot do).

God making the first move toward us is God’s prevenient grace.

Actually God’s prevenient grace was not a point of contention with the Protestant Reformers that I am aware of. (There MAY have been some contention as Trent defined some of this. But I am just not aware of any Catholic-Protestant contention on this issue. That came much earlier with the semi-Pelagians.)

Is this the kind of dialogue you were seeking?

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Grace abounding = when He ascended He distributed gifts (five fold, nine fold, etc: in the Bible are at least 55)

These are the same as the talents, the loaves and fishes, even the action of the disciples in helping the boy bring his meagre gift forward, to feed the whole Church, so that the Church could afterwards feed the whole world, it is the rations we give our fellow servants on time (instead of beating each other) while our Master is in the far country. The crown we shall have is someone’s crown that we shall have a share in.

We are adopted brothers and sisters because we are adopted widows and orphans in the family firm.

There is no such thing in real Christian theology - Protestant or Catholic - as total depravity without unlimited grace, by contrast with the institutionalised acedia we sadly are usually given by both kinds of churches.

Grow gardens !!!

 

[Mammoths]

Mammoths. Considering Romans 1:5 . . . .

I would not accept the premise that we are TOTALLY depraved because we need grace.

You said:

We DO need grace to seek God. That’s true.

But don’t let the Calvinists take you to Total Depravity from that.

Also:

Actually God draws us BEFORE we are “Born again” or “born of water and the Spirit”.

That is God making the first move upon us (not us making the first move toward God–which we cannot do).

God making the first move toward us is God’s prevenient grace.

Actually God’s prevenient grace was not a point of contention with the Protestant Reformers that I am aware of. (There MAY have been some contention as Trent defined some of this. But I am just not aware of any Catholic-Protestant contention on this issue. That came much earlier with the semi-Pelagians.)

Is this the kind of dialogue you were seeking?

God bless.

Cathoholic

Not sure, I thought a Calvinist would come along and correct me. I am trying to make sure I think about the issues as they are not as a simplified version more easily refuted. The way I stated Calvinism, it seems like an obsurd claim. Surely, considering it’s a major doctrine, there must be a more reasonable explanation.

 

[MichaelP3]

Not sure, I thought a Calvinist would come along and correct me. I am trying to make sure I think about the issues as they are not as a simplified version more easily refuted. The way I stated Calvinism, it seems like an obsurd claim. Surely, considering it’s a major doctrine, there must be a more reasonable explanation.

Not that I profess myself as a Calvinist but what exactly is the absurd claim?

 

[Mammoths]

Not that I profess myself as a Calvinist but what exactly is the absurd claim?

I am not in the mood to pick it apart here. Perhaps you can tell me which of my explanations of a point in the five doesn’t do it justice. If not, then I have it right and shall go on thinking Calvinism is a laughingstock.

 

[MichaelP3]

I am not in the mood to pick it apart here. Perhaps you can tell me which of my explanations of a point in the five doesn’t do it justice. If not, then I have it right and shall go on thinking Calvinism is a laughingstock.

Many do anyway. That’s your right. I am really just confused what you are trying to point at as that?

Regards

 

[Mammoths]

Many do anyway. That’s your right. I am really just confused what you are trying to point at as that?

Regards

There is not one single point of calvenism I find agreeable. To get the corrections going I will offer one thought.
Total depravity: First Parents ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil. This is an indication that the corruption we suffer is not of the sort to render the image of God unrecognizable but vandalized. Imagine a statue with chunks missing and paint or scum piled on it. The parts of the original creation remain and are still good. However the image of God is marred so that corruption is an inescapable part of all man does. The corruption of man is pandemic but not total. If nothing else, the immortality of the soul is an image of God’s eternal nature.

 

[po18guy]

TULIP is derived from dour and depressive 16th century European thinking. Luther, in particular, had an extremely poor image of himself before God - far worse than God thought of him. How does “total depravity” square with our daily demonstration of moral behavior? It does not. How does it square with our Lord’s words:

Luke 11:11-13 "What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Clearly, we are not totally depraved if we both know and can act for the good. Indeed, how can we ask for the Holy Spirit if we are so depraved? “Irresistible grace” does not explain this, as we would not need to ask for grace that was being given us without asking! No finer example of man-made doctrines exists than TULIP.

 

[MichaelP3]

There is not one single point of calvenism I find agreeable. To get the corrections going I will offer one thought.
Total depravity: First Parents ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil. This is an indication that the corruption we suffer is not of the sort to render the image of God unrecognizable but vandalized. Imagine a statue with chunks missing and paint or scum piled on it. The parts of the original creation remain and are still good. However the image of God is marred so that corruption is an inescapable part of all man does. The corruption of man is pandemic but not total. If nothing else, the immortality of the soul is an image of God’s eternal nature.

I had a really hard time getting through Systematic Theology some while back but you really take the cake. And I mean no disrespect, I just cannot without a doubt realise what you mean.

You are saying God vandalised the image of God “in man” after they ate the “apple”?

But more to what I think I see there. Is this your problem, how the T in TULIP happens or what it means?

Actually I am still not sure where you are going?

Forgive my misunderstanding.

Regards

 

[Tomyris]

You know the drill:

Total depravity of man
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints

OP summary

Total depravity is supported by Romans 1-5 where Paul outlines the total failing of humanity to even seek God without grace. When God causes a person to be born again, they begin to seek him. We can’t choose our natural father nor can we “born ourselves again.”

Unconditional election is supported by Romans 9 where Paul says those he forknew he also called etc

Limited atonement, while the sacrifice of Christ is in theory sufficient to apply to the whole world, it is aimed at providing for the salvation specifically for the elect–beautiful pearl hidden in a field. Matthew 13:44

Irresistible grace is supported by already cited scripture. Those he forknew…sanctified.

Perseverance of the saints is supported by the first four points but also there is the issue of, that scripture: “nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus.”

We also have in theology the scriptural (and traditional) notion that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Of course he knows from the foundation of the universe how every circumstance influences every person for hardening or repentance. As a result every circumstance influencing decision and every decision influencing circumstance are in His control. So by permission or providence God saves only those he mercifully chose from the beginning and the rest he chose justly not to save.

I’ve been advised my Protestant theology is dim. Help me out. Thanks.

Why are you trying to get a good explanation of Calvinism on a Catholic forum? Good grief. How about you head over to a Lutheran forum to get a good understand of, say, the Assumption of Mary, or an Orthodox forum to understand Presbyterian polity? There are Calvinist forums out there, which is where your question rightly belongs, unless you just want Catholic criticism of Calvinism. There is plenty of THAT here.

 

[Mammoths]

I had a really hard time getting through Systematic Theology some while back but you really take the cake. And I mean no disrespect, I just cannot without a doubt realise what you mean.

You are saying God vandalised the image of God “in man” after they ate the “apple”?

But more to what I think I see there. Is this your problem, how the T in TULIP happens or what it means?

Actually I am still not sure where you are going?

Forgive my misunderstanding.

Regards

I am just saying here is Protestant theology as I understand it. Have I mis-stated it?

If you thought I said God vandalized his image I miscomunicated that. I was under the impression that total depravity is the result of original sin.

 

[Mammoths]

Why are you trying to get a good explanation of Calvinism on a Catholic forum? Good grief. How about you head over to a Lutheran forum to get a good understand of, say, the Assumption of Mary, or an Orthodox forum to understand Presbyterian polity? There are Calvinist forums out there, which is where your question rightly belongs, unless you just want Catholic criticism of Calvinism. There is plenty of THAT here.

Based on your post history and religion identifier, you are a good reasonable Calvinist. Maybe there are more? However to your point, i should probably go bug the other people on their own turf.

 

[MichaelP3]

I am just saying here is Protestant theology as I understand it. Have I mis-stated it?

If you thought I said God vandalized his image I miscomunicated that. I was under the impression that total depravity is the result of original sin.

I can think of many Protestants who would object to this being called “Protestant Theology”.

Well if that what you you have stated then yes in a very simple sense Total Depravity is a result of original sin. What I am missing would be you reason why you feel this is a problem?

NOTE: I am not professing as a Calvinist. Merely trying to understand and answer the question. I do feel I am somewhat informed on Calvinism (though I rather would call it “Reformed Theology” as even Calvin would object to his name being put on some kind of belief), considering my history and interests. If I may help, I will gladly. I really just need to understand your questions.

 

[Cathoholic]

Tomyris:

Why are you trying to get a good explanation of Calvinism on a Catholic forum?

I can’t answer for Mammoths, but considering Mammoth listed his (her?) religion as “under construction . . . Catholic?” perhaps he wants a Calvinist view versus a Catholic perspective.

On this forum there is a pretty good chance we can have that dialogue.

I also think he’s asking if he is . . . stating the Calvinist perspective accurately.

If you are a Calvinist (almost certainly: “Evangelical Presbyterian”), just reaffirm him (or correct him if you think he’s over or understating one of the TULIP traditions).

Then he can ALSO be involved first hand in a Calvinist and Catholic discussion.

I think its quite reasonable in this situation to discuss these issues right here on Catholic Answers Forums (CAF).

Likely your questions here are very reasonable right here at CAF Mammoths:thumbsup:.

But that’s just my two cents.

Tomyris. How do YOU characterize “total depravity”? How do you define it Scriptrally as well?

 

[Tomyris]

Tomyris:

I can’t answer for Mammoths, but considering Mammoth listed his (her?) religion as “under construction . . . Catholic?” perhaps he wants a Calvinist view versus a Catholic perspective.

On this forum there is a pretty good chance we can have that dialogue.

I also think he’s asking if he is . . . stating the Calvinist perspective accurately.

If you are a Calvinist (almost certainly: “Evangelical Presbyterian”), just reaffirm him (or correct him if you think he’s over or understating one of the TULIP traditions).

Then he can ALSO be involved first hand in a Calvinist and Catholic discussion.

I think its quite reasonable in this situation to discuss these issues right here on Catholic Answers Forums (CAF).

Likely your questions here are very reasonable right here at CAF Mammoths:thumbsup:.

But that’s just my two cents.

Tomyris. How do YOU characterize “total depravity”? How do you define it Scriptrally as well?

I think he would get better answers on Calvinism on a Calvinist forum, just as you would get better answers at to what Catholics believe on a Catholic forum. There are few Calvinists here.

Personally I don’t care for the term ‘Calvinist’ because people think Calvinists view Calvin as some sort of prophet or pope or apostle or something, which is not the case. I prefer the term 'Reformed. People also confuse Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism.

1 Tulip type versus all the Catholic posters in NCR and Apologetics? It is not even, not by a long shot. You are sure to lose the debate.

Here is John Piper with a decent answer that is not too long:

John Piper on Total Depravity

People can do good, but the good they do is always tainted by sin. Sin infects every part of a person. So nothing man* does on his own is acceptable to God. I think that is a good summary.

• also true of woman, for those looking for loopholes.

 

[Cathoholic]

People can do good, but the good they do is always tainted by sin. Sin infects every part of a person. So nothing man does on his own is acceptable to God. I think that is a good summary.

I think this is a partial truth.

If you are merely saying that the LACK of sanctifying grace that comes by fallen human nature with original sin, results in death, I would agree.

But if you are saying every action is sinful, I will take issue.

The obvious examples are infants and profoundly mentally retarded people.

Do YOU think ALL their actions are “SINS”?

One of my grandfathers was a Presbyterian. Now he was gone when I could have discussed this with him, but I never got ANYTHING like babies COMMIT sins from the Protestant side of my family.

Do YOU think babies actions are . . . “sins”?

Appealing to Romans 3 (via Piper) where no one is righteous, not even one, does NOT assert “total” depravity.

It just asserts what it says. They are not “righteous”. That’s all.

I didn’t think Piper did a good job of initially defining TOTAL depravity. So he prematurely goes into a “defense” of something that he left as nebulous (in my opinion).

Please clarify on what you mean by TOTAL depravity.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’ve been advised my Protestant theology is dim. Help me out. Thanks.

Your Calvin theology - let’s be a little more precise. I think it’s ok to not be that dim and still be Catholic. I could be wrong - hopefully not. As for the TULIP itself, I do agree it’s blood-chilling. Needs a new name.

View attachment 23794

 

[Tomyris]

I think this is a partial truth.

If you are merely saying that the LACK of sanctifying grace that comes by fallen human nature with original sin, results in death, I would agree.

But if you are saying every action is sinful, I will take issue.

Not every action is a sin. Every action is tainted by sin, however remote that tainting may be.

A murderer may boast that he spared the lives of 99 men, but he is still guilty for the death of the one.

The obvious examples are infants and profoundly mentally retarded people.

Do YOU think ALL their actions are “SINS”?

See above.

One of my grandfathers was a Presbyterian. Now he was gone when I could have discussed this with him, but I never got ANYTHING like babies COMMIT sins from the Protestant side of my family.

Do YOU think babies actions are . . . “sins”?

See above.

Appealing to Romans 3 (via Piper) where no one is righteous, not even one, does NOT assert “total” depravity.

It just asserts what it says. They are not “righteous”. That’s all.

I didn’t think Piper did a good job of initially defining TOTAL depravity. So he prematurely goes into a “defense” of something that he left as nebulous (in my opinion).

Please clarify on what you mean by TOTAL depravity.

Maybe this will help Tulip and Reformed Theology.

It’s not absolute depravity. But men are dead in their sins. You can do no good if you are dead. But neither are you as bad as you can be. But dead is still pretty bad.

I wish I had time to answer you more fully, but I don’t. Maybe later.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s not absolute depravity. But men are dead in their sins. You can do no good if you are dead. But neither are you as bad as you can be. But dead is still pretty bad.

As someone who actually attended classes at a reformed-leaning Baptist Seminary, this is an absolute departure from the notion of depravity as forwarded by Calvin himself. He posited that we are in complete rebellion, “enemies of God”.

This departure became a little more popular as more and more Calvinists came around to the idea that “Total Depravity” is completely unworkable when you leave the debate hall and actually look at people.

What greater love is there than when a man lays down his life for another? How often do we see this very act of ultimate sacrifice performed outside a Christian society?

And what of the law being written on our hearts? If we were Calvin-level depraved, we wouldn’t know it. But we do. It rebukes us when we give it cause to and we feel it.

Total Depravity simply does not work. The Catholic view that you are an agent free to walk toward or away from God is the accurate, historical, consistent and scriptural view.

The other petals of TULIP don’t fare any better, without exception.