What is the 'Reformed' tradtion, or TULIP

[Justice_Mercy]

most Reformed do not say “tradition is bad” and many glean from the CHurch Fathers … they see it as a valuable part of Church History.

As we said before, some Reformed have pedo-baptism , some believer’s baptism.

Charismatic are not considered to be in the Reformed camp… they are their own strain.

Reformed are generally cessationist as far as Charismatic gifts are concerned

 

[GaryTaylor]

Did you know the Baptists were origianlly founded on the Principle of religous freedom, and church-state seperation?

For sure, Thomas Jefferson wrote “the” letter to the Baptist congregation in Danbury CT in support of the Church, where the term “Seperation of Church of State” was coined in this particular letter. Jeffersons intent was to defend Religious Freedom against intervention by the state/government. Course today we see this twisted and much misunderstanding.

What is the difference in TULIP with Baptism? This was a highly contested point between Trent and Calvins response to Trent.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Catholic Catechism says:

“God predestines no one to go to hell”

God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination:shrug:

 

[Cavaradossi]

For sure, Thomas Jefferson wrote “the” letter to the Baptist congregation in Danbury CT in support of the Church, where the term “Seperation of Church of State” was coined in this particular letter. Jeffersons intent was to defend Religious Freedom against intervention by the state/government. Course today we see this twisted and much misunderstanding.

What is the difference in TULIP with Baptism? This was a highly contested point between Trent and Calvins response to Trent.

The five points of Calvinism (TULIP), were put forth at the Calvinist Synod of Dort in 1619, to serve as a rebuttal against the Five Articles of Remonstrance, written by Dutch Arminians. They came several decades after the Council of Trent.

Baptists as a group have only one thing in common: they practice credobaptism. It is therefore improper to associate the Baptists with Calvinism, because Armenian Baptists would reject four of the five points of Calvinism. Similarly, it is improper to associate Calvinism with the Baptists, because not all Calvinists reject paedobaptism (Calvin himself did not, if I recall). Baptists also almost always govern their own church by congregational polity. Calvinists may use either congregational or presbyterian polity. A Baptist can have Calvinist theology, but the two terms are not equivalent. That is the difference between the two.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The five points of Calvinism (TULIP), were put forth at the Calvinist Synod of Dort in 1619, to serve as a rebuttal against the Five Articles of Remonstrance, written by Dutch Arminians. They came several decades after the Council of Trent.

Baptists as a group have only one thing in common: they practice credobaptism. It is therefore improper to associate the Baptists with Calvinism, because Armenian Baptists would reject four of the five points of Calvinism. Similarly, it is improper to associate Calvinism with the Baptists, because not all Calvinists reject paedobaptism (Calvin himself did not, if I recall). Baptists also almost always govern their own church by congregational polity. Calvinists may use either congregational or presbyterian polity. A Baptist can have Calvinist theology, but the two terms are not equivalent. That is the difference between the two.

Ah, I see the difference and also in where my confusion came in.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I sang in the choir of a Presbyterian church for a while and things like elect, predestination were never mentioned from the pulpit.

I wonder why…yes, some doctrines are best kept swept under the rug.

 

[Alfonsus]

Just to make it clearer:

For the Reformed, If one is elect, they will respond to God’s inward and outward calling and come to faith. That is the “I” or Irresistible Grace part of TULIP.

The non-Elect (those passed over by the purpose of God) are left in their sins. Their free will is to not choose God. The Elect are freed at some point by the monergistic action of God from the inability to choose God, as a fallen creature. They will inevitable be saved.

Basically, they believe in free will, but make the distinction that the non-Elect will stay enemies of God and never choose him. The RCC believes everyone can choose God, which would be called synergism.

For the Reformed, Limited Atonement means those meant to be saved will be saved. For those that believe in the ability of man to always choose or reject God, some will not be saved because they passed up the opportunity (for whatever reason)

I hope this answers some of your question.

Peace & God bless you richly

Thank you for your explanation.
So basically if I put it into a story, it is like this:

1. God suddenly decides to create man. He decided from the start, the elect and non-elect, say by randomly separating them into categories.
2. The elects are graced by God, and since it is irresistible, in the end they will choose God and thus be saved.
3. The non-elects are not so graced, and since no grace, they will not choose God, in fact, they cannot possibly choose God since grace is not working in them (talking about total depravity).

(On both point 2 & 3, although the person has free will, because grace is irresistible the elect person will eventually “freely” choose God. While for the non-elect, because of total depravity, will “freely” never choose God, since depraved he can’t choose anything else. Which from Catholic point of view, makes us -at best- wonder, how free is this free-will).

So basically, the core is election (predestination). But in my mind, this makes other points redundant (such as the necessity of total depravity).
One can be not deprive but since he is non-elect, will not choose God.
On the other hand, if not deprave means graced by God, then the person should never problem with salvation.
Or, the non-depraved are exempt from election/non-election. They are left to their free will to choose/reject God. The grace part of TULIP works only for the depraved. Thus non-depraved are not triggered by grace to choose God.

Which makes me wonder, where does Adam and Eve before fall fit into this category?

 

[Justice_Mercy]

Thank you for your explanation.
So basically if I put it into a story, it is like this:

1. God suddenly decides to create man. He decided from the start, the elect and non-elect, say by randomly separating them into categories.
2. The elects are graced by God, and since it is irresistible, in the end they will choose God and thus be saved.
3. The non-elects are not so graced, and since no grace, they will not choose God, in fact, they cannot possibly choose God since grace is not working in them (talking about total depravity).

(On both point 2 & 3, although the person has free will, because grace is irresistible the elect person will eventually “freely” choose God. While for the non-elect, because of total depravity, will “freely” never choose God, since depraved he can’t choose anything else. Which from Catholic point of view, makes us -at best- wonder, how free is this free-will).

So basically, the core is election (predestination). But in my mind, this makes other points redundant (such as the necessity of total depravity).
One can be not deprive but since he is non-elect, will not choose God.
On the other hand, if not deprave means graced by God, then the person should never problem with salvation.
Or, the non-depraved are exempt from election/non-election. They are left to their free will to choose/reject God. The grace part of TULIP works only for the depraved. Thus non-depraved are not triggered by grace to choose God.

Which makes me wonder, where does Adam and Eve before fall fit into this category?

According to Reformed theology, all human beings are born depraved in nature. They will remain depraved unless they are regenerated, when sanctification begins to take place. As Paul put it, the old man fighting with the new. Adam and Eve were considered to have the ability of choice free from sin, until they fell into it, much like the Bible speaks of Satan being pure in his ways until iniquity was found in him.

Reformed theology does not negate free will, but makes the distinction that no one will ever choose the eternal good (not just what humans think is good) unless they are regenerated.

if you are interested in the views that surround TULIP, I would recommend the Westminster Confession and/or the Three Forms of Unity. You have some very good questions, but it would take quite some time to explain what is easily available for free online

Peace