Flower children, pick your TULIP's here

[MichaelP3]

Protestant theology is different from denomination. It includes calvenism and Arminianism among others. So you are right. Many would object to Calvinism.

True, and some other ones I don’t even know about.

I wonder if any would object to what I put as being Calvinism mis-articulated.

I hear what you are saying. But my first confused moment was that in your OP, you simply gave scripture for a “TULIP” letter and left it there. I never saw the question.

Side note: You seem to have many issues with this here and also in other threads. Is there a reason for your (dis)interest in this topic?

 

[Cathoholic]

MichaelP3. You said:

You are a bit harsh on Tomyris

I didn’t think I was being “harsh” about anyone here.

And I was not the one who said (suggesting Catholics will “shout down” a Calvinist, or else suggesting “This is so easy, you Catholics will LOSE “the debate”) . . . .

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.

I am not here on this thread to win a debate.

I am here to share and discover Catholic truth.

I am willing to discuss this “total depravity” issue via PM if Tomyris wants to (or you too MichaelP3 if you feel like this thread is an ambush).

I am not in favor of proverbially shouting someone down here because they don’t affirm what I assert.

And if you are honest and read the thread, the Catholics here are not piling on Tomyris either.

Tomyris is also the one who said . . .

Look! A CALVINIST! GET OUT THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!

Utter nonsense. But I just ignored it.

This all stemmed from what he wants the “terminology” to be. Tomyris wants to control the narrative.

But I am not going to stand by that. Calvinism is a theology, not a swear word. And nowadays it is a cornucopia of theologies depending upon which Bible Christian you are talking to.

I’ve never thought any person who was a “Calvinist” is some sort of bad thing deserving proverbial “knives” (just like I don’t think that about my late Calvinist grandfather).

But I don’t want to have to dance around politically correct terminology here unnecessarily either.

So I asked Tomyris to DEFINE Calvinism (while trying to avoid using the word “Calvinism”) at least as it concerns “total depravity”. That’s all.

No “knives”.

Tomyris was also the one who said . . . .

Aquinas was a Catholic who supported predestination. And election.

Ignoring that St. Thomas ALSO affirmed FREE WILL.

How does Free Will AND Predestination BOTH occur?

We don’t know. It is a mystery.

But if you check it out, you’ll see Aquinas affirmed BOTH. (so does the CCC)

Also Tomyris . . .

I support both free will and predestination. . . . . Most people running around here seem to be more Molinist.

This is non-sense and I originally ignored it too.

The harmony with Free will AND predestination is a mystery.

God teaches BOTH so I affirm both.

But if I attempt to probe the mystery deeper that would not make me a Molinist anymore than if I tried to probe the Trinity deeper that would make me some other heretical believer.

There is no suggestion (to me at least) that “Most people running around here seem to be more Molinist.”

If Tomyris wants to think that, fine. I was willing to ignore it TOO.

Just like I ignored other things too and tried to focus in on Tomyris’ theology.

But Tomyris wouldn’t allow it.

 

[Cathoholic]

Actually I didn’t think I was trying to lean on Tomyris at all. Most of my posts just concerned Calvinists in general and not necessarily Tomyris.

My main point concerning Tomyris directly was . . .

Tomyris could see where I was going with his argument concerning babies, sin, and “total depravity” and knew he couldn’t defend it.

I think he DID know where I was going with it.

If not, Tomyris can just say so. It’s not a FACT. It was just my opinion that Tomyris could see where I was going with the argument. I’m OK being corrected on that. It won’t hurt my feelings.

But now let’s get past the “feelings” and get to the theology.

---

MichaelP3. You asked me to post . . .

Reformed Confessions and Calvin’s Systematic Theology

Not gonna happen as I’ve done that sort of thing before . . . . then I just get told I don’t understand their tradition (but the word “teaching” or “Confession” or some such thing is substituted for “tradition”).

But if YOU MichaelP3 want to look it all up and post the salient points and then YOU want to “interpret” it too and then explain how babies, sin and “total depravity” work I am OK with that.

I’m all for it as a matter of fact.

So go ahead MichaelP3 and look it all up and post the salient points concerning “total depravity”.

Then YOU “interpret” it too.

And then explain how babies, sin and “total depravity” work I am good with that.

Otherwise I go through the whole exercise and get told I don’t really understand Calvinism

Dr. Scott Hahn even gets told by Bible Christians that Hahn never really understood sola Scriptura. Hahn (rightly) ignores it.

YOU define it (Calvinistic “Total depravity”) and we will have the discussion MichaelP3.

And if you don’t want to do that fine. Then I’ll just do what I can using your words, or Tomyris’ words or Piper’s words or whatever.

But I think “total depravity” is indefensible Scripturally speaking.

 

[Mammoths]

And there’s still four points to go

 

[Tomyris]

What a totally stupid debate.

1. I just searched my denominational website. We are not Calvinists. TULIP does not show up on it.

therefore

1. I am really the wrong person to slap the CALVINIST label on, despite the stupid insistence of some. I never called myself one, after all. I read through the thread. People ASSUMED I was one. I don’t know a whole lot about it. I have displayed some guesswork about it. Cathoholic is willing to give me enough rope to hang myself, which is clearly his objective. I will assume he does not realize what a total — he has come off as in his zeal, once he found someone he THOUGHT was a Calvinist that he could pin to the wall. I am not going to play that game.
2. Cathoholic was harsh, nasty, brutish, arrogant and accusatory. Just read the thread. I do not care to be interrogated. And no, I don’t know where he was going, except to drive me into some corner. That much was clear and I don’t like it when it is clear people are monopolizing the discussion to do so. He seems to think I know more about this than I do, and that I am being devious. Nope. If he thinks he is a fine specimen of what Catholicism is, or that somehow he is displaying its glory or beauty, I want nothing to do with it. It must be hideous if he represents it, from this encounter with it.
3. The correct pronoun here in relating to Tomyris is “she”.
4. I am not going to continue this debate.

 

[Cathoholic]

I apologize Tomyris.

If you want to re-consider, I’d be happy to have the discussion.

If not, that’s your call.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

You know the drill:

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

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.

I either question some of those listed or find them pretty much universal.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

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.

NICE!?!? Why would you even join in this if you didn’t feel as though you have the time to explain what you referring to. I certain that the poster you were rather rude to and myself do NOT know just what you are referring to.

In any event being rude regarding a question in my opinion is coming from a “holier than thou attitude”.

 

[MichaelP3]

Not gonna happen as I’ve done that sort of thing before . . . . then I just get told I don’t understand their tradition (but the word “teaching” or “Confession” or some such thing is substituted for “tradition”).

I know the feeling. Even reading the Catechism from cover to cover, numerous apostolic exhortations and encyclicals, having been to countless masses (Easter and Christmas as well), being in Krakow at the main ceremony the day Pope John Paul II was canonised, Listening to Catholic answers live more than I’d like to admit, having read Scott Hahn’s book and listened to many of his talks, Patrick Madrid as well, People still tell me “Well you just don’t understand”. When I have even one problem. (I didn’t even include my very extensive Catholic historical research here). So I get you on that one.

On the hand of traditions, you are correct. But you may realise that TULIP is not a doctrine or dogma to use Catholic terms. It is an understanding.

So you can’t attach that word to it any more then you can accuse a family of being Catholic for just having a Thanksgiving meal.

But if YOU MichaelP3 want to look it all up and post the salient points and then YOU want to “interpret” it too and then explain how babies, sin and “total depravity” work I am OK with that.

I’m all for it as a matter of fact.

So go ahead MichaelP3 and look it all up and post the salient points concerning “total depravity”.

Then YOU “interpret” it too.

And then explain how babies, sin and “total depravity” work I am good with that.

Here I am totally confused. You can imagine Calvin as bad as you’d like, I still struggle to see him screaming at a Baby “YOU ARE A SINNER”. If it’s believed a human life starts at conception then we agree there should be no distinction. So okay, I will have even a harder time explaining how a 2 sell organism would sin.

I am rather of the view that I do not understand the big fuss to get a baby baptised quickly if the baby will die soon. Why would you need to, I would surely hope our loving God would send the baby straight to heaven. So in actually I do not understand your question? Is it a real thing that Calvinists believe that? (Take note, I have studied the Confessions and Systematic Theology in detail)

You also see what happens here when you ask me to interpret something? I have checked this site out for long enough to know the moment I do anything of the kind, I will be accused of being “my own pope” and “trusting myself rather than God” and so on.

Otherwise I go through the whole exercise and get told I don’t really understand Calvinism

Dr. Scott Hahn even gets told by Bible Christians that Hahn never really understood sola Scriptura. Hahn (rightly) ignores it.

Just like Catholics who converted away always get told they never understood Catholicism and needed “better/good Catechists”. It cuts both ways

YOU define it (Calvinistic “Total depravity”) and we will have the discussion MichaelP3.

And if you don’t want to do that fine. Then I’ll just do what I can using your words, or Tomyris’ words or Piper’s words or whatever.

But I think “total depravity” is indefensible Scripturally speaking.

You see here my utmost confusement would be. You write that like I/we need to “prove” to you something. You still think its indefensible in Scripture (Reason I asked you to check the confessions)

If you take TULIP in its totality you would realise for a Calvinist it makes no difference at all who believes or agrees with it. Believing it doesn’t affect you salvation in the least.

So I hope it became clear, that I don’t need to interpret or “prove” anything here. From my viewpoint, it doesn’t even matter. So If TULIP is really a concern for you, I can help you out, but I see no need to from myself.

And please don’t take my, Tomarys or Piper’s (Whoever the person is) word for it. … Check the Confessions

Regards

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I know the feeling. Even reading the Catechism from cover to cover, numerous apostolic exhortations and encyclicals, having been to countless masses (Easter and Christmas as well), being in Krakow at the main ceremony the day Pope John Paul II was canonised,** Listening to Catholic answers live more than I’d like to admit,** having read Scott Hahn’s book and listened to many of his talks, Patrick Madrid as well, People still tell me “Well you just don’t understand”. When I have even one problem. (I didn’t even include my very extensive Catholic historical research here). So I get you on that one.

On the hand of traditions, you are correct. But you may realise that TULIP is not a doctrine or dogma to use Catholic terms. It is an understanding.

So you can’t attach that word to it any more then you can accuse a family of being Catholic for just having a Thanksgiving meal.

Here I am totally confused. You can imagine Calvin as bad as you’d like, I still struggle to see him screaming at a Baby “YOU ARE A SINNER”. If it’s believed a human life starts at conception then we agree there should be no distinction. So okay, I will have even a harder time explaining how a 2 sell organism would sin.

I am rather of the view that I do not understand the big fuss to get a baby baptised quickly if the baby will die soon. Why would you need to, I would surely hope our loving God would send the baby straight to heaven. So in actually I do not understand your question? Is it a real thing that Calvinists believe that? (Take note, I have studied the Confessions and Systematic Theology in detail)

You also see what happens here when you ask me to interpret something? I have checked this site out for long enough to know the moment I do anything of the kind, I will be accused of being “my own pope” and “trusting myself rather than God” and so on.

Just like Catholics who converted away always get told they never understood Catholicism and needed “better/good Catechists”. It cuts both ways

You see here my utmost confusement would be. You write that like I/we need to “prove” to you something. You still think its indefensible in Scripture (Reason I asked you to check the confessions)

If you take TULIP in its totality you would realise for a Calvinist it makes no difference at all who believes or agrees with it. Believing it doesn’t affect you salvation in the least.

So I hope it became clear, that I don’t need to interpret or “prove” anything here. From my viewpoint, it doesn’t even matter. So If TULIP is really a concern for you, I can help you out, but I see no need to from myself.

And please don’t take my, Tomarys or Piper’s (Whoever the person is) word for it. … Check the Confessions

Regards

LOL!!!

Bolded red part had me laughing…

 

[MichaelP3]

LOL!!!

Bolded red part had me laughing…

No jokes. I even hear Trent’s voice in my mind “Hello… Are you Catholic?”

Now that I think about it, some may say its my conscience or even the Holy Spirit…

 

[Lenten_ashes]

No jokes. I even hear Trent’s voice in my mind “Hello… Are you Catholic?”

Now that I think about it, some may say its my conscience or even the Holy Spirit…

You are clearly CALLED to COMMUNION!!!

 

[Mammoths]

I never meant for this to be so contentious. I just wanted to know if I misunderstood Calvinism. And Calvinism isn’t a four letter word in my mind. It’s just easier than using the word reformed view and having it confused with any reformation doctrine. It’s a specific point of view that is associated with john Calvin a presumed to be well meaning Protestant arch-leader. I got home Monday so my post rate will be down. Until I am back on the road in a couple weeks.

 

[Cathoholic]

MichaelP3:

Just like Catholics who converted away always get told they never understood Catholicism and needed “better/good Catechists”. It cuts both ways

I don’t think it cuts both ways but for the sake of discussion here, I will concede that point.

But MichaelP3, your are MAKING my point about wanting theological positions defined before getting deep into a discussion with and finding out you and the one you are discussing with . . . are using identical terminology but meaning different things.

Or not understanding the position of the person that you are discussing an issue with.

Or just plain talking over each other.

None of that gets a discussion very far.

So if someone questions about someone else’s theological positions, they can be labeled “an inquisitor” or some other pejorative.

And if you DON’T ask probing questions about the theology with someone in advance, you can likewise be labeled as “having his mind made up in advance as to what I believe.” Or “attacking a straw man” or whatever.

Either way you can lose.

You also said . . . .

Here I am totally confused. You can imagine Calvin as bad as you’d like

You are putting words into my mouth. I specifically said I wanted to discuss the THEOLOGY.

But in order to do that better, I asked for the THEOLOGY of “total depravity” defined, preferrably, by someone who adheres to it.

Don’t get me wrong. I have a minister friend who says babies ARE committing sins. Other ministers say that is wrong.

So the moment I start to examine “total depravity”, someone else is going to accuse me of “attacking a straw man”.

That’s all. No attack on John Calvin. Or anyone else.

I am rather of the view that I do not understand the big fuss to get a baby baptised quickly if the baby will die soon. Why would you need to . . .

Because Jesus commanded us to. (We had a deep discussion about this issue several weeks ago. See here and here if interested. If you want me to go deeper into it please begin an infant Baptism thread so we are not hijacking Mammoths thread.)

If you want to be of that “view”, that’s your call MichaelP3.

I’m not here to get you to believe anything.

I’m just trying to address Mammoths questions. And I think the fact that we are about 50 posts into this thread and nobody has come forth attempting to defend “total depravity” at least here, is in and of itself revealing.

 

[Cathoholic]

The Council of Trent. Session 6. Canon 7

Council of Trent If anyone says that all works done before justification, in whatever manner they may be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins, let him be anathema.

This needs to be balanced with other teachings that AFFIRM we cannot merit initial justification.

We cannot merit on our own, apart from grace.

We cannot approach God apart from grace.

God makes the first move toward us in grace. Not we to God.

Heretical teaching that says we can approach God apart from grace is called “semipelagianism”.

God making the necessary first move towards us in grace is called God’s prevenient grace.

(Followers of Calvin incidentally, affirm God’s prevenient grace and its necessity. Calvinists are NOT semipelagian in their theology.)

In original sin, man is WOUNDED, but not “totally depraved”.

We are still made in the image and likeness of God but through our patrimony (Adam and Eve) we have lost original justice.

Adam and Eve’s very nature was changed by Original Sin.

Adam and Eve had, by nature, original justice. In sinning they lost that and now posessed a “fallen nature”.

(God of course, gives us our soul at the time of conception. Mom and Dad, give us our human fallen nature.)

Since the best you can do is pass on your “nature” to your offspring, Adam and Eve passed on this “fallen nature” (not totally depraved, but indeed “fallen”).

This in a sense is the effects of sin and babies possess it too. Part of the proof of that is “the wages of sin is death” and since babies LACK the justice afforded to Adam and Eve, they of course die sometimes. Just like adults sooner or later die.

Grace is God’s favor.

But** grace is ALSO God’s Divine life within us** (after we are Baptized).

Oddly enough, some theologies state even AFTER God’s Divine life is within us, all we do is sin. “All your works are like rags” they say (misappropriating Isaiah 64). You are a dunghill merely covered by the righteousness of Christ" and DENY, Christ lives IN us and transforms humanity. A humanity still struggling with sin to be sure.

But they DENY Christ lives IN you AND THROUGH you.

So even now some of these theologies say . . .

Even after you are “born again” everything you do is still tainted and sinful."

The Council of Trent addressed those people as well saying . . .

COUNCIL OF TRENT From which it is plain, that those are opposed to the orthodox doctrine of religion, who assert that the just man sins, venially at least, in every good work; or, which is yet more insupportable, that he merits eternal punishments; as also those who state, that the just sin in all their works, if, in those works, they, together with this aim principally that God may be gloried, have in view also the eternal reward, in order to excite their sloth, and to encourage themselves to run in the course: whereas it is written, I have inclined my heart to do all thy justifications for the reward: and, concerning Moses, the Apostle saith, that he looked unto the reward.

And on the sole “covering” or sole “imputation” of Christ merely “covering” human “dunghills”, instead of affirming an imputation AND transformation, Trent has this to say . . . .

COUNCIL OF TRENT CANON XI If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

I’ll post more, later.

 

[MichaelP3]

MichaelP3:

I don’t think it cuts both ways but for the sake of discussion here, I will concede that point.

Interesting!

MichaelP3:

But MichaelP3, your are MAKING my point about wanting theological positions defined before getting deep into a discussion with and finding out you and the one you are discussing with . . . are using identical terminology but meaning different things.

Or not understanding the position of the person that you are discussing an issue with.

Or just plain talking over each other.

None of that gets a discussion very far.

Very true. Not many people get that around here

MichaelP3:

So if someone questions about someone else’s theological positions, they can be labeled “an inquisitor” or some other pejorative.

And if you DON’T ask probing questions about the theology with someone in advance, you can likewise be labeled as “having his mind made up in advance as to what I believe.” Or “attacking a straw man” or whatever.

Seen that one many times

MichaelP3:

You are putting words into my mouth. I specifically said I wanted to discuss the THEOLOGY.

But in order to do that better, I asked for the THEOLOGY of “total depravity” defined, preferrably, by someone who adheres to it.

Don’t get me wrong. I have a minister friend who says babies ARE committing sins. Other ministers say that is wrong.

So the moment I start to examine “total depravity”, someone else is going to accuse me of “attacking a straw man”.

That’s all. No attack on John Calvin. Or anyone else.

Not trying to put words into your mouth. It was a general statement. The “You” was a collective plural “you”. Substitute it for “someone” then.

And I don’t recall stating that I adhere to that. So if that is specifically something you want, I guess you will need to keep searching. But still as I stated, “If you have a concern, I can help you”. Still not sure what is the concern, you stated twice it is indefensible through scripture. Start there then, why do you say so?

MichaelP3:

Because Jesus commanded us to. (We had a deep discussion about this issue several weeks ago. See here and here if interested. If you want me to go deeper into it please begin an infant Baptism thread so we are not hijacking Mammoths thread.)

If you want to be of that “view”, that’s your call MichaelP3.

I’m not here to get you to believe anything.

Not sure I said it shouldn’t be done?

MichaelP3:

I’m just trying to address Mammoths questions. And I think the fact that we are about 50 posts into this thread and nobody has come forth attempting to defend “total depravity” at least here, is in and of itself revealing.

And as I have stated, it is not needed to defend it, not from a Calvinistic viewpoint. It is an understanding. It has nothing to do with salvation through belief or even at the very least know about it from a Calvinistic viewpoint (This would be clear by just skimming Wikipedia on TULIP). So I am still utterly confused why you would even expect this when you say you “have done that kind of thing before” referring to checking the Confessions. I am open for a question, which you have delivered none. I am happy to help if this is really an interest to you? I have answered you how I feel on the babies. So ask a following question on “T” or move on to “U”?

Regards