Tiptoe through TULIP

[Mystophilus]

I just wanted to make clear that it wasn’t Catholic.

Fair enough.

 

[cslras]

Check out this lecture dismantling Calvinism by Jerry Walls.

youtube.com/watch?v=C30ZiFcfUC8&feature=youtu.be

Jerry has a PHD in philosophy from Notre Dame, as does the person who introduces him, Joshua Rasmussen (my son). Jerry’s critique of Calvinism is intellectual, but he makes it quite understandable. After watching this you will have an educated view of the issues. As “crazy” as some of the Calvinist doctrines sound, many very smart people, including John Piper, hold this position. Jerry respectfully but decisively dismantles the weakness of this doctrinal position. I highly recommend this You Tube video as well as Jerry’s book: “Why I am not a Calvinist.”

Dr. Charles Rasmussen

youtube.com/watch?v=C30ZiFcfUC8&feature=youtu.be

 

[Dorothy]

I clicked on the site and sadly it says it is no longer available.

 

[dblake22]

If God’s grace is irresistible, and our election is unconditional, then why do Calvinists evangelize? Nonsensical.

Have you ever asked someone who believes those doctrines? Their straight-forward answer is twofold. 1. Because God commands it (Matt. 28:18-20). 2. Because it is a blessing to be instruments in the hands of God as He works His providential will.

If you find that answer nonsensical, you have a problem.

 

[dmar198]

Have you ever asked someone who believes those doctrines? Their straight-forward answer is twofold. 1. Because God commands it (Matt. 28:18-20). 2. Because it is a blessing to be instruments in the hands of God as He works His providential will.

If you find that answer nonsensical, you have a problem.

I do find it nonsensical, because 1. The command you cite would be futile if free will didn’t exist. 2. The blessing we get from obeying God is actually no motivation at all if we can do nothing else anyway.

 

[andrewstx]

I thought T.U.L.I.P. was protestant.

Can you tell us what each letter stsnds for. I forgot.

T.U.L.I.P. is Protestant. Calvinism to be exact.

T total depravity
U unconditional election
L limited atonement
I sorry forgot that one
P perseverance of the saints. AKA once saved always saved

 

[dmar198]

T.U.L.I.P. is Protestant. Calvinism to be exact.

T total depravity
U unconditional election
L limited atonement
I sorry forgot that one
P perseverance of the saints. AKA once saved always saved

The I stands for Irresistible Grace, aka no free will.

 

[dblake22]

I do find it nonsensical, because 1. The command you cite would be futile if free will didn’t exist. 2. The blessing we get from obeying God is actually no motivation at all if we can do nothing else anyway.

In your hurry to give a stock answer, you did not read the original carefully.

1. I did not mention free will at all, let alone claim it didn’t exist. More to the point, a command is not futile. One’s effort to carry out the command may be futile, but that has no bearing on one’s duty to obey. Or would you so lightly disregard the command of God?
2. The blessing referred to comes from obeying the command to evangelize. Certainly there are other things one could do besides evangelization. (You said evangelization would be nonsensical “if we can do nothing else.”)

 

[dblake22]

The I stands for Irresistible Grace, aka no free will.

This is a common misunderstanding which does much harm to meaningful dialog. What is irresistible about this grace is not the force it brings to bear against a person’s will, forcing it to choose that which it does not wish. What is irresistible is its power to persuade so that the individual willingly chooses redemption in Christ. This remains a completely free-will choice.

 

[earl40]

The I stands for Irresistible Grace, aka no free will.

This is incorrect. The “I” stands for the grace God gives (specifically The Holy Spirit) to “turn on” the will to believe in Jesus. For as scripture says without faith (which is NOT of ourselves or IOW arises from a person who is not born again) it is impossible to please God. Regeneration or being born again preceeds faith.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is a common misunderstanding which does much harm to meaningful dialog. What is irresistible about this grace is not the force it brings to bear against a person’s will, forcing it to choose that which it does not wish. What is irresistible is its power to persuade so that the individual willingly chooses redemption in Christ. This remains a completely free-will choice.

This is a common misunderstanding as well.

So the person is overpowered instead. How is that free?

In fact, most (if not all…) of the Calvinists I dialogue with, don’t believe in free will.

The word used here is: “irresistible”, whose definition is: “too powerful or convincing to be resisted.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

This has caused me immense distress. I must be mis-reading it. I’d like someone to help me, here. I have the sickest feeling that I cannot even truly be awake, that I must be in a sort of awful nightmare.

It’s especially the part of** Unconditional Election.** It seems set against everything I thought I knew about Catholicism. It would seem to completely eliminate the meaningfulness of merit and free will. It seems to make free will into a sort of practical joke, so to speak. Either God has predestined you for glory, in which case you’ll will it (without being able not to), or God has “passed over” you, and since God made you unable to merit Heaven by your own means, as your natural will is so severely wounded, you’re assuredly damned (thus it’s not a double predestination, but in terms of the results, it is)

I can’t see where free will plays into this. It’s the sort of thing I would have laughed at to hear, if I weren’t now hearing it from CA apologists.

Be kind, here. I’m not trying to rail against God, or anyone. I’m feeling like everything I know about my faith is completely shattered and useless. It’s kind of rough.

Could you elaborate more on the bold above?

Also, are you familiar with the Catholic doctrine of Reprobation?

 

[cslras]

I messed up on the Jerry Walls You Tube link. I’m so sorry. Here is the correct link

youtube.com/watch?v=_eQKu3_9pgk

If you missed my post, here it is with the corrected link:

Check out this lecture dismantling Calvinism by Jerry Walls.

youtube.com/watch?v=_eQKu3_9pgk

Jerry has a PHD in philosophy from Notre Dame, as does the person who introduces him, Joshua Rasmussen (my son). Jerry’s critique of Calvinism is intellectual, but he makes it quite understandable. After watching this you will have an educated view of the issues. As “crazy” as some of the Calvinist doctrines sound, many very smart people, including John Piper, hold this position. Jerry respectfully but decisively dismantles the weakness of this doctrinal position. I highly recommend this You Tube video as well as Jerry’s book: “Why I am not a Calvinist.”

Dr. Charles Rasmussen

youtube.com/watch?v=_eQKu3_9pgk

 

[Christopherrr]

The Canon of St. Vincent affirms the Catholic position on any doctrine is what has been believed by all Christians, in all places, at all times. There is no soteriological position that fits all three criteria.

There is a critical difference between man’s ability to choose and ‘free will’. The state of man after the Fall is that men’s hearts and souls have been so corrupted that they naturally choose evil (Romans Chapter 2 ‘there is none that seeks after God, no not one’). Man does make choices in life- but they are based on his depraved heart.

Therefore, it takes a supernatural work of God to impart grace (regeneration) that one may come to the place of accepting Christ. This is Augustinian. Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, wrote the classic work, Bondage of the Will.

 

[dmar198]

In your hurry to give a stock answer, you did not read the original carefully.

When I first read this reply, I wanted to respond that I was not actually replying to your own position, which I could not be sure of, but the position of John Calvin, who did not believe in free will. (Anyway that’s my understanding of his teaching. He seems not to believe in free will in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.)

But as I thought about it further, I realized that I was assuming that your understanding of TULIP matches Calvin’s understanding of TULIP, with the added complication that there is always the possibility that I have misunderstood him. Thus, I was trying to respond to you without adequately knowing your position, and I can only apologize for that. But I was also trying to respond based on Calvin’s understanding of TULIP, and I don’t think I need to apologize for that. So, you get a half-sorry: I apologize for making assumptions about your theological views.

1. I did not mention free will at all, let alone claim it didn’t exist.

Okay, but my understanding is that Calvin does deny the existence of free will, and in my opinion that makes the Great Commission futile.

More to the point, a command is not futile. One’s effort to carry out the command may be futile, but that has no bearing on one’s duty to obey. Or would you so lightly disregard the command of God?

If Calvinism was true, I would have no ability to change my behavior, and so it wouldn’t matter to me how lightly I regarded the commands of God or how important it was to obey Him. I couldn’t do anything other than obey Him if I was predestined to, and I couldn’t do anything other than disobey Him if I was predestined not to.

The reason I don’t think the commands of God are futile is because I believe in free will. But if I was a Calvinist, I would think all commands are futile because the lack of free will obliterates the ability to heed commands and the necessity of evangelism. If the Indians are predestined to go to heaven, they will go, whether I preach to them or not.

This is a common misunderstanding which does much harm to meaningful dialog. What is irresistible about this grace is not the force it brings to bear against a person’s will, forcing it to choose that which it does not wish. What is irresistible is its power to persuade so that the individual willingly chooses redemption in Christ. This remains a completely free-will choice.

My understanding of TULIP as it appears in Calvin’s Institutes differs from that presentation. If I understand Calvin correctly, irresistable grace is irresistable because the human will is not free to resist. My source is John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 2 Chapter 2: “Man [is] Now Deprived of Freedom of Will, and Miserably Enslaved.” source

 

[dblake22]

So the person is overpowered instead. How is that free?

Why do you insist on misreading me? I explicitly stated that God’s grace does not overpower, but persuades; lovingly, graciously persuades.

In fact, most (if not all…) of the Calvinists I dialogue with, don’t believe in free will.

I cannot comment on dialogs I didn’t hear, but I would suggest your dialogs were based on misunderstandings from both sides. In just a couple of minutes I was able to pull five books from my library to refute your assertion that Calvinists do not believe in free will. Two should suffice.

1. From the mid-sixteen hundreds, the Westminster Confession states, "All those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased effectually to call, . . . renewing their wills, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely (WCF, 10.1).
2. From the mid-nineteen hundreds, Steele and Thomas title the fourth point as The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace. They write, “The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ.”

The word used here is: “irresistible”, whose definition is: “too powerful or convincing to be resisted.”

Exactly right. God’s irresistible grace is convincing; powerfully convincing. And having been convinced, the elect sinner cooperates, believes, repents, and comes freely and willingly to Christ. I’m glad we got that settled.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why do you insist on misreading me? I explicitly stated that God’s grace does not overpower, but persuades; lovingly, graciously persuades.

Err… How can I insist on just one reply to you?

And you originally said:

This is a common misunderstanding which does much harm to meaningful dialog. What is irresistible about this grace is not the force it brings to bear against a person’s will, forcing it to choose that which it does not wish. What is irresistible is its power to persuade so that the individual willingly chooses redemption in Christ. This remains a completely free-will choice.

(Bold mine)

[If] the power to persuade is irresistible. Then it cannot be resisted and trumps free will.

I cannot comment on dialogs I didn’t hear,

Cool.

Exactly right. God’s irresistible grace is convincing; powerfully convincing. And having been convinced, the elect sinner cooperates, believes, repents, and comes freely and willingly to Christ. I’m glad we got that settled.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[dmar198]

In just a couple of minutes I was able to pull five books from my library to refute your assertion that Calvinists do not believe in free will. Two should suffice.

1. From the mid-sixteen hundreds, the Westminster Confession states, "All those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased effectually to call, . . . renewing their wills, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely (WCF, 10.1).
2. From the mid-nineteen hundreds, Steele and Thomas title the fourth point as The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace. They write, “The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ.”

The statements of your sources are confusing to me, and I question whether they actually reflect Calvinist doctrine as it was penned by Calvin himself. I am especially surprised by the Westminster Confession’s statement, because up until now I would have guessed that its creators were at pains to agree with Calvin’s books.

Earlier I quoted John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 2 Chapter 2: “Man [is] Now Deprived of Freedom of Will, and Miserably Enslaved.” source Do you think the documents you quoted are a more authoritative source of Calvinist doctrine than Calvin’s own book? If not, how do you reconcile their statements seemingly in favor of free will, and Calvin’s statements seemingly against it?

 

[thinkandmull]

Romans 9 says “He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.Thou wilt say then unto me, “Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?” Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, “Why hast thou made me thus?” Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make some vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

**Why isn’t everyone saved?? **

 

[fhansen]

Romans 9 says “He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.Thou wilt say then unto me, “Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?” Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, “Why hast thou made me thus?” Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make some vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

**Why isn’t everyone saved?? **

Because, ultimately, God’s will isn’t necessarily done. Our free will consists largely in our wills being free to oppose His.