Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691154813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417814005&sr=8-1&keywords=jacobs+book+of+common+prayer. January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556/dp/1592448658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420055574&sr=8-1&keywords=A.F.+Pollard+Cranmer. February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Jasper-Ridley/dp/0198212879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422892154&sr=8-1&keywords=jasper+ridley+cranmer&pebp=1422892151110&peasin=198212879

Showing posts with label TULIP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TULIP. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Interview with Mr. (Rev. Prof.) Lee Gatiss: "Limited Atonement"

Limited Atonement — An interview with Lee Gatiss (part 1)

 Oct 8, 2013   
       
Limited Atonement — An interview with Lee Gatiss (part 1)

I (Lucas Bradburn) had the pleasure recently of interviewing Lee Gatiss, Director of Church Society and Editor of The NIV Proclamation Bible (Hodder). Lee is also Review Editor of the journal Churchman, and Series Editor of The Reformed Evangelical Anglican Library. He has studied history and theology at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), and trained for Anglican ministry at Oak Hill (London). He has served in several Anglican churches including St Helen’s, Bishopsgate and the Church Society Trust parish of St Botolph’s, Barton Seagrave. Lee is also Adjunct Lecturer in Church History at Wales Evangelical School of Theology and the author of many books, articles, and reviews. One of his most recent books is For Us and Our Salvation: ‘Limited Atonement’ in the Bible, Doctrine, History, and Ministry.

 

In your new book, For Us and Our Salvation, you note that you are doing doctoral work on John Owen. What exactly are you writing on? How has Owen most influenced you? Was he the inspiration for your book?



My PhD, just submitted, is on Owen’s Hebrews commentary, which at 2 million words in length is more than twice as long as the whole Bible. So that has kept me busy, as you might expect! I’ve looked at his major interlocutors and sources, e.g. Socinians (anti-Trinitarians), his use of Jewish material such as Targums and Talmuds, his covenant theology, and his interaction with Roman Catholic exegesis. Post-Reformation exegesis has a bad reputation, but I think Owen has a lot to offer and the reputation is unfair.

I know it might be surprising to some, but no, Owen was not the inspiration for my book on limited atonement, which I’ve tinkered away at for about 15 years. Nor did I come to his commentary because of his doctrine of the cross. I wanted to do research which enabled me to use the Greek and Hebrew I was taught at seminary, but which integrated that somehow with doctrine and history (my undergraduate major at Oxford). Studying an old commentary (I mean, “historical exegesis” or “exegetical history”) seemed like a good way to achieve that integration, and I’ve learned heaps from doing this, and hopefully sharpened my skills while producing something of interest and value in the undiscovered country of seventeenth-century biblical interpretation.

Which arguments that Owen (specifically in The Death of Death) makes do you find to be the most compelling? Which arguments do you find to be the most problematic?

Mike Horton from Westminster Seminary in California first taught me the logical approach to this doctrine when we met in Oxford about 20 years ago, and he stole it entirely from Owen. The atonement must be either:

For all the sins of all people
For some sins of all people
For all the sins of some people

Which is it? Thinking through this question, and the consequences of going down each route, I find quite useful. That being said, I don’t find all the details of Owen’s exegesis of the so-called “problem texts” quite so compelling. But that’s OK, because Reformed exegetes have not had a monolithic, standardised approach to handling those texts, even if they are generally agreed on the doctrine.


For the rest, see:

http://www.credomag.com/2013/10/08/limited-atonement-%e2%80%94-an-interview-with-lee-gatiss-part-1/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CredoMagazineBlog+%28Credo+Magazine+Blog%29
 

Monday, October 7, 2013

Mr. Andy Underhile: "Preaching Election"


Mr. Andy Underhile
http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2011/01/preaching-election.html

Preaching Election
 
I heard of a minister who had introduced the truth about Election to his congregation. He gradually began to see the consequences of it in terms of his own congregation, which was without a doubt like the mixed crowd that went up out of Egypt when Israel was "born" as a people of God. He saw many of this mixed crowd taking offense when this truth was brought up and began to fear for them lest they leave the church, with the result that the church's finances would of course be seriously endangered, as well as his own reputation as a pleasant, sensitive and open-minded man. Slowly he began to turn from the Word of God and one day said with strong emphasis, "If teaching doctrine is going to split my congregation, I'll never preach doctrine again."
 
What did this really indicate? What is "doctrine"? Doctrine is teaching, instruction; and Biblical doctrine is teaching what the Bible says. So here we have a minister of the Gospel who determines in his heart and promises publicly that he will never again teach what the Bible teaches about the true nature of man, about the true meaning of the Gospel, and about the real significance of God’s sovereign grace. How long can the Church of God remain a force in the world when its pastors depart so far from following the pattern set by the Shepherd of souls?

 But when does one meet the topic of Election head on and proclaim it as an essential part of the Gospel? How does one present it? Traditionally, Calvinism starts with the Total Depravity of man and not as Arminianism does with man's alleged capability to exercise saving faith on his own. Such a capacity, they have held, is what God foresees and makes the basis of Election. But this places man in the position of being able to cooperate with God, actually of being needed by God in a cooperative capacity before his salvation can be effected. In a very real sense man becomes his own savior, though not without God's help. On the contrary, the Biblical view of man is best epitomized by the term Total Spiritual Inability. If we start here we will most reasonably move on to the question of why God should be interested in man at all. From this we ask, “If man's salvation is wholly dependent upon the will of God, on what basis did God then decide to save certain individuals but not others?” You see, there is a certain logic to the ordering of the questions in the whole Calvinist position and above all it is a system so deeply rooted in Scripture that it can justifiably be identified with the Gospel itself. Calvinism is the Gospel and to teach Calvinism is in fact to preach the Gospel.
 
The opinion of the great Christian warriors of the past 1900 years has been amazingly consistent in this. They have never questioned the aptness or the need of openly proclaiming the sovereignty of God's grace. Certainly Paul's Epistles make no apology, nor does Peter. John's Gospel is equally unequivocal in the matter.

 Augustine was straightforward indeed. In his De Bono Perseveratiae he affirms that the preaching of the Gospel and the preaching of Predestination are but two sides of the same coin. 1 He is very explicit in this matter. In his correspondence with Prosper and Hilary, written about 428/9 A.D., he acknowledges 2 that people were saying that since the doctrine of Predestination clearly implies that some will receive the Word and will obey and will come into the faith and persevere in it, while others "are lingering in the delight of their sins." If one is predestinated to be chosen though as yet still unsaved he will receive the necessary grace to believe in any case, and therefore won't need exhortation. If, on the other hand, a man is predestinated to be rejected he will not receive the strength to obey the Gospel and threatenings will serve no purpose. Augustine replies: “Although these things are true, they ought not to deter us from confessing the grace of God…For if on the hearing of this some should be turned to torpor and slothfulness, and from striving should go headlong into lust after their own desires, is it therefore to be counted that what has been said about the foreknowledge of God is false? If God has foreknown that they will be good, will they not be good whatever the depth of evil in which they now engage? And if He has foreknown them for evil, will they not be evil whatever goodness may now be discerned in them?”
 
For the rest, see:

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Mr. Andy Underhile: Christ, Limited Atonement, & Un-Reformed Anglicans

Mr. Andy Underhile at: http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-christ-limits-atonement-1.html   

How Christ Limits the Atonement #1

When considering the question of the extent of the atonement, it is important to state that most theories regarding it are quite out of bounds because they fail to see that the extent is defined by its nature.(Which is why we refuted objections to the doctrine of the atonement, thus defining its nature, before we took on this topic.) So the real question is regarding the nature of the atonement. The nature circumscribes its extent. It extends as far as its nature intends it to extend. Discussions on this subject are almost always carried on as if the extent of the atonement can be decided without reference to the nature of the atonement. But when we ponder the issue of the extent of the atonement, in other words, for whom did Christ die, by  Christ's own words, if they carry any weight with us at all, the verdict is quite decisive. Christ uses several expressions in speaking of whom His death is efficacious for and for whom are its effects. Let us adduce five of them here and comment briefly on each.

First, he calls them the many (Matthew 26:28; 20:28). If we study across the scope of Jesus' teaching, we will find that this expression, the many, is used by Him exclusively to refer to those who are His own, a people given to Him. The word many would not be enough to prove the limited extent of the atonement were it not also for the fact that they are described by marks which cannot be applied universally.

In the 17th century, a dangerous theory was contrived (a fan favorite of the Arminians), which held that when Christ was said to have died for all, this was referring to what had been done to procure redemption, and when He was said to have died for many, or for the Church, it was describing the actual participation of redemption. That this theory is not only false, but also dangerous, can be seen by the fact that our Lord describes the actual offering of the ransom and not just its application.
 
For the rest, see:
 
 



We would add the following:

A fresh reminder, thanks. Sometimes, being old school and somewhat-schooled, one may be inclined to "just forget." These views were accepted, once upon a time, by the Archbishop of Canterbury. As well as the English commissioners to the Synod of Dordt. But, the "Anti-Calvinist" (and Willy Laud hated Calvin) faction stirred much hate and discontent. 

Thanks again for the reminder, but this will go over the heads of the Anglicanobaptacostals as "adiaphora." The Tractarians will just simply pout and object; they are Romanists without the Pope. They are Un-Reformed an Un-Reformable Anglicans.

 

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Mr. (Rev. Dr.) John Piper: TULIP

New Course on Calvinism from John

Piperhttp://www.credomag.com/2013/07/24/new-course-on-calvinism-from-john-piper/

       
New Course on Calvinism from John Piper

From Desiring God ministries: The Bible gives us a glorious vision of God’s sovereignty in saving sinners. “Calvinism” is a kind of nickname for this Christian body of doctrine on salvation that so appropriately humbles humanity and so magnificently exalts divine grace.

In a new eight-hour course on Calvinism, or “the doctrines of grace,” John Piper walks through the historical “five points,” digging into text after text of Scripture and responding to many of the most common questions.

“The doctrines of grace,” Piper explains, “give the lowest view of the saved person as utterly depraved and hopeless in himself, and the highest view of the saved person as individually chosen and loved and purchased at infinite cost.”

These truths expose our desperate neediness, such that the subtlest form of boasting in ourselves becomes ridiculous. And at the same time, they highlight the grace of God such that we marvel with the apostle Paul, “To him be glory forever” (Romans 11:36).

TULIP (Part 1) — Introduction: Why Is Calvinism Relevant?
This class is devoted to building foundations under Romans 8:28 so we can survive. If you think we’re in this for fun and games, for a kind of theological ear-scratching, you don’t understand anything. The things that come at us in our lives cannot be managed by fluff. These are survival techniques
 
.
TULIP (Part 2) — Irresistible Grace (Piper starts with “I”)
God’s saving grace can be resisted and will be resisted by all human beings until God acts to overcome the resistance. When God decides to overcome your resistance to anything he can do it, without turning you into a robot.



TULIP (Part 3) — Irresistible Grace continued; Total Depravity
Christians ought to be supremely concerned about the invisible aspects of our nature. And I am arguing that when we get there, it’s really bad. . . . I don’t think most Americans feel nearly bad enough about how bad we are.



TULIP (Part 4) — Total Depravity continued; Unconditional Election
The reason we come to Jesus is because we belong to God… The call of God provides the decisive cause of faith 
.
TULIP (Part 5) — Unconditional Election continued; Limited Atonement
How do we know if we are the elect? Are you calling God “Father?” Do you call Jesus your Lord? You pursue the knowledge of your election indirectly. You pursue it by submitting to the lordship of Jesus and you pursue it by embracing God as your Father through Jesus Christ and his atoning work.
 


TULIP (Part 6) — Limited Atonement continued; Perseverance of the Saints
I love the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The older I get the more I love it. In a sense you should love it when you are young because it is the reason you can believe you’ll be a Christian in 60 years. But once you have lived those 60 years you look back and say, “Amazing. He is amazing.”
 


Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Tim Naab Goes Poetic-Rapsta' on TULIP

Tim Naab, a friend with a long story in Pentecostalism, its gross misfortunes, its misleadings, its ignorances, its deceptions, its manifold abuses in American religious history and its long shadows over his own generations personally (not to mention America), has turned Calvinistic on TULIP with a rap beat.  RA is not inclined to poetry.  Even Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, Canterbury, told Henry VIII, that he was not a poet, but a liturgist.  Never mind Petrarch, Shakespearean sonnets, John Donne, or John Milton.  Here's Tim Naab on TULIP...and we hear a rapsta' beat behind it.  Watch some salesman, marketeer, musician and enthusiast pick up on it and sell it.

Tim Naab
I’ve heard it told in the testimony of men
how they struggled to climb from the pit they were in
and battled with God and wrested with sin,
yet always slid back, unable to win.


... They spoke of the horrible acts they had done
and knowing God sought them, the harder they run
to break all the laws and keep not a one
till life unraveled, to their end they had come.

Someone spoke and they heard them say,
"You've tried everything. Let me show you the way.
Jesus loves you, and your debt He did pay.
Just bow your head and pray what I pray."

Proclaimed as redeemed, and forever secured.
Heaven's your home of that you’re assured,
for the act of your faith, new life was procured.
Just do good work and your future’s insured.

This lie has been told time after time.
“precept upon precept; line upon line;”
The more it is told the greater the crime.
Deceptive and deadly, far from benign.

Darkness is more than just "not as bright."
It condemns not itself for its lack of all light.
As the lost do not see the state of their plight,
they see no pit, and all appears right.

The dead never struggle to climb from their grave;
The lost are as dead and Totally Depraved,
contrite and content yet simply a slave.
The road to hell with good intention is paved.

Unconditional Election? Yes it must be!
Did God roll the dice and now waits to see
who will come on their own, since the will is so free?
So God makes no promise and there's no guarantee?

Election is true and God paid the price
for those that are His, not just to entice.
Limited Atonement, to be more precise,
for the Church it's efficient and will fully suffice.

His call is effective, an irresistible grace
to raise us from death and a faith to embrace.
Only then will we see our state of disgrace.
for we’re slain by the law, our sin to erase.

God has worked in us to both will and to do.
(Our will to work outward will definitely ensue.)
Perseverance of the saints will carry us through!
It is all about God, not about you.

Tim Naab
April 10, 2012

Friday, March 30, 2012

Andy Underhile: "T" of TULIP, Does it Matter Much?



Andy Underhile, a friend and fellow Churchman, a brother-elect in Christ’s Majesty, a justified sinner, a wicked man but justified, a Calvinist, but better, he is a man with biblical insight and has begun a series on TULIP. 

He develops the first point, “T” in his first post. See: http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2012/03/defining-t-in-tulip.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FDofecr+%28Contra+Mundum%29. Does the "T" in TULIP matter much?  We post responses for the sake of the youth, the younger theologues and the next generation.

We post Andy’s comments in black.  Reformation Anglicanism will amplify, revise and extend on Andy salutary post.  These revisions and extensions are not corrections, but are amplifications.  Our comments will be in blue. As the Rev. Dr. Jack Gerstner, Ph.D., Harvard, a mentor to this scribe in the 1970s, once exclaimed, TULIP is the “fairest flower in God’s garden.”  RA will never forget Dr. Gerstner’s lecture in the early 1970s at First Presbyterian, Pittsburg, PA.  This fair flower involves every loci of systematic theology.  Our audience must be young people, young theologues, young inquirers, collegians and others.  Old people, like me, have had our time and exposure, making our culpability or exonerations what they will be.  For the older, have we taught these things? If older, have you taught and defended these things?  If younger, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest.  Think and reach your own conclusions, as you assuredly will do, one way or another. We will offer a few annotations in the endnotes or the brief, annotated bibliography.  This is not a scholarly post, but a musing from an older Churchman.  I pray that my own children may read this.  Again, Andy Underhile’s notes are in black and RA’s in blue. 
---------------------------------
The acronym TULIP is a mnemonic device for Reformed soteriology;[i] that is, the doctrine of salvation. There are five letters, hence the frequent reference to 5-point Calvinism.
Does Canterbury teach TULIP?
ACNA? AMiA?  PEARUSA? CANA?
RA:  For the younger crowd, “Soteriology” is the “doctrine of salvation,” a standard locus or focus in all theologies.  My audience must be the younger crowd.  I should advise the younger crowd to procure and master Berkhok’s Systematic Theology.[ii]  Get it and read it.  Modern ministers will not advise you of this. The older man offers you this counsel. 
Apparently, as we write, there is a renaissance of inquiry into “TULIP” by what is called the “Young, Restless and Reformed,”[iii] a movement amongst American Baptists and Baptacostalists, e.g. Mahaney, Driscoll, Chandler, Piper, Mohler.   These men are “new joins” to the discussion of TULIP, arising since the 1990s. TULIP is standard fare amongst old school Confessional Presbyterians and Reformed Churchmen, but it is entirely new—coming off revivalist doctrine, worship and piety—amongst Baptists over the last twenty years.  Hence, to study “TULIP” is to study historic Presbyterianism, old school Anglicanism, and a part of Lutheranism.  Modern Baptists and Pentecostalists know little of these things.  Dr. Al Mohler, Southern Seminary, however, a “Southern Baptist,” stumbled into TULIP in the 1990s and has been aflame, ablaze and on fire since then.  Mohler’s fellow Baptists, the majority of them, are not amused by a discovery of TULIP.  RA well remembers Al’s energetic presentations at Ligonier Ministries in the late 90s.  Alas, Mohler “warmly” asserted TULIP, as if the second coming had occurred.  TULIP also, in better times, was accepted in the Church of England.  King James 1 and the Archbishop of Canterbury accepted the conclusions of the Synod of Dordt, 1618-1619, although, to their injury, it was not codified in doctrine.  To study TULIP is to study basic Biblical essentials in soteriology.
The letters stand for the following:  [RA:  For collegians and young theologies, this mnemonic needs to be memorized, along with the relevant biblical texts. TULIP, the fairest flower in God’s garden.]
Total Depravity [RA:  In this post, Andy deals with just the “T.”]
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

Over the course of this series of posts, Lord willing, we will briefly explain what is meant by each of the five points. [RA:  Thanks Andy, an important issue.  Andy, Articles 9-12 of the “Thirty-nine Articles” for the Church of England and Chapter Six of the “The Westminster Confession of Faith” provides an excellent preliminary study.   Also, the Irish Articles of 1615, 11-17, 22-28.  We ask the young theologues to ask, review and draw their own conclusions. ] After so many more weighty theological posts, why something so fundamental and basic now? [RA: Exactly, because TULIP is foundational, basic and essential.] I take nothing for granted. [RA: Wise.]  I have been a Christian long enough to know that much of Christian doctrine goes unexplained and it is simply assumed by preachers and teachers that their congregations are fully conversant with these things. I feel it wise to, every now and again, go back and refresh our memories about some of the simple basic truths of our most holy faith.
 
RA:  We share Andy’s concern re: the five points and that’s why his post is important.  One cannot, as Andy indicates, take this for granted.  To settle this issue is to deal with a host of other related issues as well. Every loci of theology is affected:  God, humanity, Christ, redemption, church and sacraments, and eschatology.  Further, Andy is correct to note that “preachers and teachers” assume these things.  The neo-Calvinists, as they call themselves at Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, and at Mohler’s seminary are pressing these things.  For this RA is thankful, however, these Anabaptists have other things to learn.  We recommend a book here by R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confessions. While Scott’s book does not amplify on TULIP per se, it does offer a wider review of Reformed life in the Confessions which includes the Synod of Dort.[iv]

Total Depravity

RA:  The “total” in Total Depravity refers to the entirety of a person’s constitution: mind, thoughts, will, decisions, feelings, affections and body. 
 
The doctrine of Total Depravity, or as it is sometimes known, Total Inability, teaches the complete inability of man to save himself, or indeed to have any part in saving himself because of the effects of sin in the soul. [RA:  One must read Martin Luther’s exquisite Bondage of the Will.”[v] For young people, collegians, and novices, this is eminently readable.  It’s a book that must be digested.  Roman Catholics will never discuss this.  Mainline liberal clerics exist in some other parallel universe.  You can easily dismiss mainline clerics as not knowing, understanding or believing in the "T."  American “evangelicals” essentially dismiss this.  As noted, some neo-Calvinists—to use their term—are rediscovering this.  Confessionally Reformed Churchmen have long taught these matters.)  Man is dead in his sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1). Therefore he can do nothing, as a corpse, to bring himself back to life. Every part of man's nature was corrupted by sin, therefore, we say that man has a sinful nature, which longs only to rebel against God (Hosea 6:7; Gen. 6:5; Psalm 58:3). [RA:  There are important implications here for evangelism and discipleship.  First, there is confidence for the Bishop (Senior Presbyter and Churchman amongst fellow Presbyters, juniors), Presbyter and Deacon.  Teach the Christian faith.  Leave the results to God, since God alone “raises” the “dead” to faith in the teaching of the faith.  This writer has seen it many, many times.  In an earlier life, when teaching and living amongst Marines and Sailors, I would tell a young man or small group, allow me to teach the Christian faith.  Upon permission, the teaching would occur.  I’d teach the essentials without American salesmanship, revivalism or gimmicks.  I told the novices this was my approach.  Give me six weeks, men, to present the case for classical Christianity.  Let me teach.  Further, let us learn together.  I told them I was a fellow-learner, reviewing old lessons, and the Chief in the class…but no pressure. Decide in six weeks if you wanted more.  These lads always wanted more.  No pressure.  Yet, many times, a lad would come to me sometimes weeks later—without my solicitation—plop down and say, “Sir, I gave my life to Christ last night…”  Again, trust in God’s work alone to raise the dead.  Two of those men went into and continue in full time ministry.  The Word alone controls the landscape.  While men are dead in sins and trespasses, His Majesty raises the dead to lives of faith, repentance and duty.

Man’s sin is extensive as well as intensive. Individuals may not be as bad as they can be; they are as bad off as they can be. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has corrupted every part of his personality: intelligence, emotions and will. [RA: We noted this earlier.] The unregenerate person is declared to be "dead" in sin. Apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit the natural man is "blind" and "deaf" to the message of the gospel. [RA: Regeneration is entirely in God’s hands, not our’s.  While we must present an intelligent, develop and cogent case from Scriptures, there is no need for gimmicks, tricks or other manipulative devices to gain an audience.]There is a natural but total inability to come to faith in Christ apart from a divine work of grace in the heart. [RA: Amen.]
 
Every act of an unbeliever is done outside of faith in Christ. Scripture says that whatever is not of faith is sin (1 Cor. 14:23). In our flesh there dwells "no good thing" (Rom. 7:18). [RA:  Of recent inquiry, is our study of literature. The darkness, melancholy, despairs and hopelessness of humans apart from Christ is underscored.  RA asked the literature teacher this week, “Based upon all our readings this semester, is everything dark and dreary?  Am I reading these things correctly?”  She responded that she, a 30somethingish near finishing her doctorate in English, had the same response during her undergraduate days, to wit, “Does anyone just write for “shits and giggles?”  In other words, she saw what I was seeing.  She concurred that even in the comedies, there is darkness and dreariness, but, in literature, one gets used to it.  A theological analysis of literature is a standing order for RA’s day.)   All of our righteousness is as "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6). Even acts of apparent self-sacrifice mean nothing to God, for even the "sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination (Pro. 21:27).
What about the "good" in the world? What about the fact that unsaved husbands and wives usually loves each other and their children? First of all, total depravity takes into account what we call Common Grace, that is, God's restraining power over the sinfulness of men. [RA:  In this mix, one may add the federal and state courts.  A federal Judge told me recently, “Judges view themselves on the frontlines containing chaos.  The Judges see the disorders and dysfunctions of depravity.  We may thank His Majesty for courts in the order of common grace.  More could be said, but we shan't.]  Secondly, all who do not worship God are idolaters. [RA:  Here one must teach and press the issues of the first commandment.  This first commandment leads us to Christ, the Cross, the atonement, forgiveness, saving faith, saving repentance and justification by faith alone. The Westminster Larger Catechism lays these issues out, enlightening all readers.  Convicting, invincibly, any reader. Apart from regeneration, there is no interest in this issue.  For converted Churchman, this question is lively and active.
 
Here’s a wise voice in the Westminster Larger Catechism.  Young inquirers, non-Christians, and collegians, you can learn these things, objectively. 
“Question 104: What are the duties required in the first commandment?
“Answer: The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God; and to worship and glorify him accordingly, by thinking, meditating, remembering, highly esteeming, honoring, adoring, choosing, loving, desiring, fearing of him; believing him; trusting, hoping, delighting, rejoicing in him; being zealous for him; calling upon him, giving all praise and thanks, and yielding all obedience and submission to him with the whole man; being careful in all things to please him, and sorrowful when in anything he is offended; and walking humbly with him.
“Question 105: What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment?

“Answer: The sins forbidden in the first commandment are, atheism, in denying or not having a God; idolatry, in having or worshiping more gods than one, or any with or instead of the true God; the not having and avouching him for God, and our God; the omission or neglect of anything due to him, required in this commandment; ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions, unworthy and wicked thoughts of him; bold and curious searching into his secrets; all profaneness, hatred of God; self-love, self-seeking, and all other inordinate and immoderate setting of our mind, will, or affections upon other things, and taking them off from him in whole or in part; vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, misbelief, distrust, despair, incorrigibleness, and insensibleness under judgments, hardness of heart, pride, presumption, carnal security, tempting of God; using unlawful means, and trusting in lawful means; carnal delights and joys; corrupt, blind, and indiscreet zeal; lukewarmness, and deadness in the things of God; estranging ourselves, and apostatizing from God; praying, or giving any religious worship, to saints, angels, or any other creatures; all compacts and consulting with the devil, and hearkening to his suggestions; making men the lords of our faith and conscience; slighting and despising God and his commands; resisting and grieving of his Spirit, discontent and impatience at his dispensations, charging him foolishly for the evils he inflicts on us; and ascribing the praise of any good we either are, have, or can do, to fortune, idols, ourselves, or any other creature.
As such, you can see that no one, repeat, no one, of any station, position or attainment, has kept this law.  Hence, Christ, the Cross and the atonement.

If one truly assesses the first commandment, the “T” of TULIP gains clarity. 
Herein, one stands before St. Paul’s clear lesson in “The Epistle to the Romans.”




For old Prayer Book Anglicans, it gives the sense of the confession in Morning and Evening Prayer, that we have erred and strayed from Thy ways like lost sheep, having trusted too much in the devices and desires of our own hearts.  Fellow Prayer Book Churchmen, you know the rest.  You know the prayer of confession for Holy Communion.  It "is what it is" and "was what it is."
The essence of idolatry is actually self-worship and the image merely becomes the tool or instrument for the attainment of the worshippers’ desired ends. Thus, we are on solid Biblical ground for saying that much of the "good" in the world is simply the result of self-interest. If I kill my customers, I can't get them to buy my products, thus murder cramps my style. Moreover, it seems warranted by Scripture, in light of language about sinners' deadness and blindness and alienation of mind, to assert that our depravity is so bad that we misread our world and see in it as a much better place than it is.
 
RA:  It is very, very important to study the texts noted in the briefly annotated bibliography, including the Biblical texts.

This is, no doubt, an unpopular doctrine, because our world unquestioningly accepts the idea that all men are basically good, that there is good in everyone. True Christians much abominate such a belief. Scripture declares that all men are sinners, all men seek only evil continually, all men are at enmity with God and all men stand before God with nothing but the menstrual rags of our "righteousness."
Posted by Andy at 10:30 AM
RA:  What Andy Underhile has noted here about the “T” of TULIP is emphatically underscored by Confessional Lutherans, old school Anglicans (in better days, but still in the BCP) and Presbyterians. 

The "T" of TULIP, does it matter?  Indeed it does.  It is foundational to Christian Churchmanship, conversion, saving faith, saving repentance, justification, joy, gratitude, worship, praise and piety.
Young inquirers about Christianity, you will need to think this matter through, from Genesis to Revelation.  It is of the essence of Christianity.  Young people, be careful, it's dangerous out there.  Read, mark, think and digest.
Young inquirers, you are on your own, essentially.  The modern salesmen will not teach these things.  Andy has.  So has the historic, biblical, catholic, and apostolic church, so deeply obscured by Pastorpreneurs, liberals, charismatics, Baptacostals and other mobocrats, democrats and enthusiasts. It's tough being young in these days.  But, read and follow this old scribe's musings, Andy's post, and the bibliography.
Thank you, Andy, for your timely post.   "T" matters.





[i] Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1991.  Print.  A must-have and must-read for young theologues and collegians.  This volume is not optional. This suggests, as we write, the production of a basic bibliography for young theologies.
[ii] Berkhof, Louis.  Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Print.  My father handed this volume to me at age eighteen and fresh out of high school.  He also handed me Charles Hodges’s three-volume Systematic Theology.  Dad’s counsel was simple.  “Read ten pages a day, ten chapters from the Old Testament and ten chapters from the New Testament every day.”  I don’t think that counsel can be improved by anyone.  Young people should still heed this counsel. 
[iii] Hansen, Collin.  The Young, Restless and Reformed.”   Wheaton, IL:  Crossway, 2008.  Print.  For students of Baptacostalist and Baptist developments in the US, this journalist volume should be read.  It’s a fast read, a few hours.

[iv] Clark, R. Scott.  Recovering the Reformed Confessions. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2008.  Print.  This is another must-have and must-read.  Again, young thinkers in Christ must read and review Scott’s book.  Any bloggers reading this must assess Scott’s book.

[v] Luther, Martin.  Bondage of the Will.  We believe Greensboro, NC: Empire Books, 2012, is one publisher, but there are others.  Print.  Clearly, a must-have and must-read for the young theologue.  It entails an important discussion between Martin Luther and Erasmus.