Did Jesus teach TULIP?

[Josheb]

Psalm55:16
As for me, I will call upon God; and the Lord shall save me.

Is that tulip

No, but it is consistent with monergism.

The reason the verse is not TULIP is because TULIP has to do with the conditions by which an unsaved person becomes saved, not what a saved person does after his conversion/regeneration/salvation. The reason is because the Psalm was written by an individual already living in a monergistically God-initiated covenant relationship with God and NOT a dead in sin, enslaved by sin, non-believer looking to be saved from the sin s/he denies by a God s/he denies. Once again, the audience affiliation of the text is ignored whenever this verse is used synergistically. In the case of Psalm 55, which was written by David, we have some information elsewhere in scripture that not only did David have a covenant relationship with God outside of the Law of Moses, we also know he understood something of New Testament Christology and soteriology. For example, Acts 2:30 indicates David understood the promise of an everlasting thrown was not a bout a chair on which an earthly monarch sits, but on the fact the anointed one of God would not see decay when he entered Sheol, but would resurrect. David understood the LORD's Lord was Lord over David and the means of David's salvation.

That is why he called upon the LORD believing he would be saved.


Picking out one verse and ignoring all else the whole of scripture has to say about that verse is ALWAYS bad practice and it invariably leads to bad thought, bad doctrine, and bad practice.

 

[donadams]

No, but it is consistent with monergism.

The reason the verse is not TULIP is because TULIP has to do with the conditions by which an unsaved person becomes saved, not what a saved person does after his conversion/regeneration/salvation. The reason is because the Psalm was written by an individual already living in a monergistically God-initiated covenant relationship with God and NOT a dead in sin, enslaved by sin, non-believer looking to be saved from the sin s/he denies by a God s/he denies. Once again, the audience affiliation of the text is ignored whenever this verse is used synergistically. In the case of Psalm 55, which was written by David, we have some information elsewhere in scripture that not only did David have a covenant relationship with God outside of the Law of Moses, we also know he understood something of New Testament Christology and soteriology. For example, Acts 2:30 indicates David understood the promise of an everlasting thrown was not a bout a chair on which an earthly monarch sits, but on the fact the anointed one of God would not see decay when he entered Sheol, but would resurrect. David understood the LORD's Lord was Lord over David and the means of David's salvation.

That is why he called upon the LORD believing he would be saved.


Picking out one verse and ignoring all else the whole of scripture has to say about that verse is ALWAYS bad practice and it invariably leads to bad thought, bad doctrine, and bad practice.

Did you see #95?

 

[donadams]

That would fall into the category "Does the OT teach TULIP?" But yes, that Psalm of David does teach the theology that is in the doctrines of TULIP. A serious difficulty you have is never applying context to a passage, and then using it to make your point. I perceive that you are not really asking a question but making a statement that the quoted passage does not teach TULIP.

Another thing you do not recognize, is what into arriving at the doctrines in TULIP. They did not arrive at it in the same way that you do, or those you listen to do. There is just as much OT in them as there is NT. In fact the NT is a continuation of the OT, revealing things that were in shadow in the historic period of the OT, not a break from it. The doctrines of the Reformers were arrived at systematically, using the entire Word of God, in the same way that the NT writers used their Scripture, which was the OT. All things must remain consistent within the whole.

In the context of the entire Psalm, what is David saying, and what does he mean by "save me?" David was obviously saved unto eternal life, but not by the covenant Law, though He obeyed it, but in the same way as Abraham was saved----through faith. And it was not by his choices, but by the election of God. In that Psalm, David is surrounded by enemies, and that is what he is asking to be saved from. He knows God, and He knows only God can deliver him. If you want to seek God, to know Him, read the Psalms of David. He is one who knew he had nothing unless it came from God. In the Psalms of David, we see precisely who God is and it is from who God is that all doctrine should flow. David trusted Him, and He trusted him because he had the witness of the Torah, where God revealed Himself, as a covenant (personal relationship between God and His covenant people) in demonstrating His claim with power and action in Egypt, the wilderness, and then through the Law and power as the one true and living God who created all things and is sovereign over all things. So yes, the OT teaches the doctrines that are in TULIP from the perspective of the NT (after the advent of the Savior). The OT is promise of the Savior. The NT is "The Savior has come."

Did you read #101?

 

[Arial]

Did you read #101?

Yes. What about it? Do you think it is two conflicting answers? They are simply a different focus, different perspective, different approach. different angle, of what is contained in the isolated scripture when context---the full counsel of God being a part of it---is brought into play. And in case you think that because @Josheb said no it did not teach TULIP, and that I said that it did---I did not say that it did. I said that yes the theology that is in the doctrines in TULIP is taught in that Psalm.

 

[Josheb]

Did you see #95?

Yes. I read nothing there contradicting what I wrote. @Arial pointed out he was saved (already living in a covenant relationship with some understanding of its Christological nature) and not by the Law (which is exactly what I posted). We used different wrods to experess similar points of view.

The fact remains, Ps. 55:16 is not about how to be saved from the point of view of a non-believer. That is self-evident from the text and if you disagree then the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

 

[makesends]

Did Jesus teach these 5 points?



The following are the five points of Calvinism listed, explained, and supported with scripture.

1. Total Depravity– Man is completely touched/affected by sin in all that he is (in nature he is completely fallen), but is not as bad as he could be (in action, i.e., not all murder, etc.). Furthermore, this total depravity means that the unregenerate will not, of their own free will, choose to receive Christ.
   1. It is the unbeliever who is deceitful and wicked (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light and does evil (John 3:19), does not seek for God nor does any good (Rom. 3:10-12), is ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot accept or understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).
2. Unconditional Election– God elects a person based upon nothing in that person because there is nothing in him that would make him worthy of being chosen; rather, God’s election is based on what is in God. God chose us because he decided to bestow his love and grace upon us, not because we are worthy, in and of ourselves, of being saved.
   1. Election is the sovereign act of God where, from before the foundation of the world, he chose those whom he would save (Eph. 1:4). This election to salvation is not conditioned upon any foreseen faith (Rom. 9:16) or good works of any individual (Rom. 9:11; 2 Tim. 1:9). The election is based completely on God’s sovereign choice according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:11). God chose the elect because he decided to bestow his love upon them (John 3:16; Eph. 2:4) based solely on his sovereign grace (Gal. 1:15) and for his glory (Isaiah 43:7).
3. Limited Atonement– Christ bore the sin only of the elect, not everyone who ever lived.
   1. Christ’s blood was sufficient for all, but not all sin was imputed to Christ. Christ’s blood is sufficient to cover all people. But the sufficiency relates to his divine value which is different than our legal debt. Sin is a debt (Matt. 6:12 with Luke 11:4) since it is breaking the Law of God (1 John 3:4). In limited atonement, Calvinists are saying that there was a limit to whose sins were imputed to Christ in a legal sense. They are not denying the sufficiency of Christ’s blood to cover all people. Instead, they look at the legal aspect of the sin debt. Peoples’ sin debts were transferred to Jesus (1 Pet. 2:24) and were canceled on the cross, not when we believe (Col. 2:14). Therefore, legally speaking, those canceled sins cannot be held against the sinner because their quality of being a debt has been canceled by being paid on the cross (John 19:30; Col. 2:14). If the debt is canceled, it does not exist and cannot be held against the debtor/sinner. Therefore, Christ only legally bore the sins of the elect even though his blood was sufficient to cover all. Also, consider 1 Sam. 3:14 which says, “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”
4. Irresistible Grace– The term, unfortunately, suggests a mechanical and coercive force upon an unwilling subject. This is not the case. Instead, it is the act of God making the person willing to receive him. It does not mean that a person cannot resist God’s will. It means that when God moves to save/regenerate a person, the sinner cannot thwart God’s movement and he will be regenerated
   1. God moves the heart of the person where he wishes it to go (Proverbs 21:1). The choice and mercy of God depend on God’s desire, not man’s ability (Romans 9:18).
5. Perseverance of the Saints – That we are so secure in Christ, that we cannot fall away.
   1. Jesus will not lose any who had been given to him by the Father (John 6:38-39); he gives eternal life to them so they will never perish (John 3:16; 10:27-28), and those who leave the faith were never believers to begin with (1 John 2:19)

I haven't been reading this thread. Sorry if I miss something that has been dealt with. I haven't had a lot of time available to me this last month.

#1. They will argue that they can, will and do receive Christ. The question is not whether they choose "to receive Christ", but whether in fact, when they do so, they are indeed choosing Christ, or merely thinking that they do. According to Romans, they are unable to actually do so, but have only chosen according to the flesh, no matter how much good is in what they choose to do.

#4. I'm curious to see how @Josheb responds to this. It sounds almost Arminian and synergistic to me. Irresistible Grace, as I take it, refers to the act of God in regenerating by the Spirit of God taking up residence within the elect. It is not simply a matter of making a person willing and able to receive him. When the Spirit of God has made permanent residence within the person, salvific faith is the [logically] 'immediate' result, and they have already received him, passively. They can choose as they will subsequently, but 'turning to the Lord', 'opening the door', 'yielding one's will' etc, is, thereafter, fellowship, and not salvific receiving by faith, no matter what they think they are doing. If the Spirit has taken up permanent residence within them, they are already saved, and that by grace through faith --not of themselves, not of their decision.

The rest of your OP was a joy to read.

 

[Josheb]

I haven't been reading this thread. Sorry if I miss something that has been dealt with. I haven't had a lot of time available to me this last month.

#1. They will argue that they can, will and do receive Christ. The question is not whether they choose "to receive Christ", but whether in fact, when they do so, they are indeed choosing Christ, or merely thinking that they do. According to Romans, they are unable to actually do so, but have only chosen according to the flesh, no matter how much good is in what they choose to do.

While I might disagree on some of the particulars, this is essentially correct. I think the will of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner is irrelevant. S/he must be changed in order to have a salvifically functioning will, so I think the matter of "choice" a red herring prior to conversion/regeneration. But, conceding to what is stated above, the question of choice is did the choice come prior to change or after AND was it a function of dead and enslaved sinful flesh, or a function of a regenerated born anew from above spirit? Since the synergist pov is faith before regeneration that faith can only be the faith of the still sinfully dead and enslaved (non-)believer. They would have a person believe a non-believer comes to salvific belief in their own faculties and then asserts a faith from that still sinful constitution with still sinful faculties. They have us believe non-believers become believers on their own and they do so as a matter of hearing knowledge and understanding it with the faculties of the sinful sinner. Yet they readily acknowledge intellectual assent alone is not salvific. I reject everything about that pov, including the foundation upon which it is built.

#4. I'm curious to see how @Josheb responds to this. It sounds almost Arminian and synergistic to me.

See above.

Irresistible Grace, as I take it, refers to the act of God in regenerating by the Spirit of God taking up residence within the elect. It is not simply a matter of making a person willing and able to receive him. When the Spirit of God has made permanent residence within the person, salvific faith is the [logically] 'immediate' result, and they have already received him, passively. They can choose as they will subsequently, but 'turning to the Lord', 'opening the door', 'yielding one's will' etc, is, thereafter, fellowship, and not salvific receiving by faith, no matter what they think they are doing. If the Spirit has taken up permanent residence within them, they are already saved, and that by grace through faith --not of themselves, not of their decision.

The rest of your OP was a joy to read.

Again, the essence of that is correct. IG is really a very simple and brief concept. God's grace accomplishes what God intends. That's it! IG has nothing to do with the sinner. It is entirely theocentric, entirely monergistic. The minute someone starts thinking about the sinner being saved they've left IG. Yes, God does come reside in a person, and yes, His residence is permanent AND no sinner is powerful enough to force God to leave, or powerful enough to obstruct God. The synergist finds this offensive because they demand personal liberty and rights (God cannot coerce salvation). This assumes the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's will is relevant (when it is not). The problem is presuppositional and when it comes to IG (and the ULIP) there's is nothing about the unregenerate that is a concern of ULIP.

It does not help that the label "irresistible grace" implies some aspect of the sinner's ability to resist. This is why "effectual grace" is a better, more accurate term.

.

 

[donadams]

Heb. 3:14 was written to people who had already experienced the salvific grace of God. The verse explicitly states, "We have come to share in Christ..." The translation should have been checked because the Douay-Rheims and KJV get it wrong. Check the Greek. This is the most frequently occurring error in your posts: The failure to correctly identify what is stated in the verse, especially when it comes to correctly identifying and discriminating between scripture identified audiences. Hebrews 3:14 has NOTHING to do with how a person become saved. It is solely, exclusively, about those already saved. I cannot recall a single post where you have EVER rendered scripture correctly. I point this out. I quote the verse for all to read, and then compare it to the posts showing what was claimed is not what is stated. As far as our interactions go, you've got a 100% fail rate! It proves you are either a very poor exegete, a very poor Catholic, a very immature Christian, or a troll (or maybe all four). The responses then confirm my appraisal because the next post out of your keyboard should be, "My bad, you're right. I misapplied Hebrews 3:14," and that is the end of the post (no other defense, no dismissal, no excuses, no obfuscation, no attempt to change the subject), but we here all know that is not what we'll read next. Too many fruitless attempts have been made to trust correct change will happen.

Yes, according to Hebrews 3:14 we must accept grace, but the "we" in Hebrews 3:14 is NOT the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner who does not believe. That "we" is the regenerate believer who is saved; the one who has come to Christ, the one who is able to have confident steadfastness. HUGE mistake made in Post 66.

HUGE!​

Notice also the verse is a predicate statement: If a person holds steadfast from beginning to end then he has (past tense) become to know Christ. This is 100% consistent with the Reformed position if you're saved, you'll act steadfastly, and if you don't then you never were saved in the first place. The beginning commitment continues to the end. The word is "hypostasis," and underlying confidence, assurance, substance, guarantee, or reality. The dead and enslaved finite sinner's will does not change reality.

Add
Jn 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

2 Timothy 1:8
Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;

 

[grace2]

Add
Jn 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

2 Timothy 1:8
Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;

Your quoting of NT is not valid because they did not teach triune god.

You are no different from Calvinists.

You need to rethink your faith and whether you are true to God and Jesus first instead of finger-pointing at others' faith.

 

[donadams]

Your quoting of NT is not valid because they did not teach triune god.

You are no different from Calvinists.

You need to rethink your faith and whether you are true to God and Jesus first instead of finger-pointing at others' faith.

Do you want me to join your sect?

Is Jesus the word? Never answered

 

[grace2]

Do you want me to join your sect?

Is Jesus the word? Never answered

why do you put Him in your cliche?

 

[donadams]

why do you put Him in your cliche?

Meaning?

 

[donadams]

why do you put Him in your cliche?

Word of God from is received from God!

Christ never received the word of God, He is the word of God, the way, the truth, & the life in Himself!

Jesus Christ is the word incarnate!

 

[donadams]

Explain this too please

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

GOD and the LAMB are one! There is no different Shekinah glory for CHRIST and GOD there is only 1. CHRIST ‘the LIGHT thereof’ is GOD’S Shekinah glory that is brighter than the sun

 

[grace2]

Word of God from is received from God!

You cannot put Jesus into trin formula.

that is blasphemy.

that's how you guys made up man-made god.

 

[Josheb]

Add...

No, we'll add nothing until what's already been posted has been addressed. I am not going to follow you around the entire Bible one randomly posted verse after another without you ever addressing the op-relevant reply.

The verse you cited and asked about was written to already-saved people. That's a fact. That's not up for debate. The appropriate response is, "Yes, Josh, I see what you're saying is correct and I need to apply Hebrews 3:14 correctly in the future. I should not apply that verse to non-believers."


Say it any way you like but say it! Put it in your own words but say it!


Then I will be glad to cover any other proof-texted verse you wish to abuse.
.

 

[donadams]

You cannot put Jesus into trin formula.

that is blasphemy.

that's how you guys made up man-made god.

Your starting to sound like Mr glee

 

[donadams]

No, we'll add nothing until what's already been posted has been addressed. I am not going to follow you around the entire Bible one randomly posted verse after another without you ever addressing the op-relevant reply.

The verse you cited and asked about was written to already-saved people. That's a fact. That's not up for debate. The appropriate response is, "Yes, Josh, I see what you're saying is correct and I need to apply Hebrews 3:14 correctly in the future. I should not apply that verse to non-believers."


Say it any way you like but say it! Put it in your own words but say it!


Then I will be glad to cover any other proof-texted verse you wish to abuse.
.

I think it’s Paul’s fave word

Participation

 

[donadams]

No, we'll add nothing until what's already been posted has been addressed. I am not going to follow you around the entire Bible one randomly posted verse after another without you ever addressing the op-relevant reply.

The verse you cited and asked about was written to already-saved people. That's a fact. That's not up for debate. The appropriate response is, "Yes, Josh, I see what you're saying is correct and I need to apply Hebrews 3:14 correctly in the future. I should not apply that verse to non-believers."


Say it any way you like but say it! Put it in your own words but say it!


Then I will be glad to cover any other proof-texted verse you wish to abuse.
.

Union with Christ!

((Christians are partakers with Christ in His church))

2 Corinthians 1:7
And our hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation.

Colossians 1:12
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Hebrews 12:10
For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

1 Peter 4:13
But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.



Members of Christ’s new covenant of grace by faith and baptism, united to the mediator and having union with God and His saints!

 

[grace2]

Your starting to sound like Mr glee

man-made god is man-made god is a man-made god.