Refuting Calvin's TULIP

[Samson Reaper]

TULIP REFUTED by a Calvinist.
“God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2:3, 4.


What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears?
Andy - take note.

I think not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text.
Only to well as demonstrated on the one thread.

“All men,” they say—“that is, some men”—as if the Holy Spirit could not have said, “some men” if He had meant some men.
Andy, take note. All men means ALL MEN.

“All men,” say they, “that is, some of all sorts of men”—as if the Lord could not have said, “all sorts of men,” if He had meant that.
So, who should we believe ? The Calvinist or the Lord ?

The Holy Spirit, by the apostle, has written “all men” and unquestionably He means all men.
Andy, take note.

I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which, some time ago, was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth.
Truth, not Calvinism.

I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away. He applies grammatical gunpowder to it and explodes it by way of expounding it.
Yep, same as on this thread.

I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, “Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to knowledge of the truth.”
As can be seen. This is exactly as Calvinist still change the text. See above threads.

Had such been the inspired language, every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, “Who will have all men to be saved,” his observa- tions are more than a little out of place.
Same on this thread.

My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture.
Not so with Calvinists, even in our own day.

I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the Word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent?

But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the Word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression.
Ditto

So runs the text, and so we must read it,
Andy, take note.

“God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

Andy, you don't seem to listen to anybody; posters on CF, Spurgeons's Sermon 1516 or what the Bible actually says.


All men means all men.

I will read 1516, after I do I will get back to you.

While I do so, just consider this, If without the spirit natural man does not understand or see God, how does one get saved?

It must be the work of God initiating salvation.

 

[Rick Otto]

TULIP REFUTED by a Calvinist.
“God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2:3, 4.


What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears?
Andy - take note.

I think not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text.
Only to well as demonstrated on the one thread.

“All men,” they say—“that is, some men”—as if the Holy Spirit could not have said, “some men” if He had meant some men.
Andy, take note. All men means ALL MEN.

“All men,” say they, “that is, some of all sorts of men”—as if the Lord could not have said, “all sorts of men,” if He had meant that.
So, who should we believe ? The Calvinist or the Lord ?

The Holy Spirit, by the apostle, has written “all men” and unquestionably He means all men.
Andy, take note.

I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which, some time ago, was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth.
Truth, not Calvinism.

I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away. He applies grammatical gunpowder to it and explodes it by way of expounding it.
Yep, same as on this thread.

I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, “Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to knowledge of the truth.”
As can be seen. This is exactly as Calvinist still change the text. See above threads.

Had such been the inspired language, every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, “Who will have all men to be saved,” his observa- tions are more than a little out of place.
Same on this thread.

My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture.
Not so with Calvinists, even in our own day.

I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the Word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent?

But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the Word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression.
Ditto

So runs the text, and so we must read it,
Andy, take note.

“God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

"All men" would mean all mankind if not for context.
The context in which "all men" was written, was the common knowledge of the time, was that salvation was for Israel alone.

Grammar is important, but not ... relevant to this point.
I am encouraged by your enthusiasm, but your discernment begs caution.

 

[Samson Reaper]

"All men" would mean all mankind if not for context.
The context in which "all men" was written, was the common knowledge of the time, was that salvation was for Israel alone.

Grammar is important, but not ... relevant to this point.
I am encouraged by your enthusiasm, but your discernment begs caution.

So are you saying Spurgeon was wrong ?

 

[Samson Reaper]

I will read 1516, after I do I will get back to you.

While I do so, just consider this, If without the spirit natural man does not understand or see God, how does one get saved?

It must be the work of God initiating salvation.

No one has said any otherwise. So again a straw man argument on this thread which is about refuting TULIP.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

No one has said any otherwise. So again a straw man argument on this thread which is about refuting TULIP.

Are you arminian? Don't they believe they are able to come to God, even though they are slaves to sin and have a sinful nature and have hearts of stone, also are blind and deaf, without the spirit

 

[Samson Reaper]

I am encouraged by your enthusiasm, but your discernment begs caution.

Thanks Rick.

I did not spot the last bit of what you wrote and quoted above.

Obviously I am against Calvinism. I am aware of Calvinist bashing and though I am opposed to Calvinism I do not want to bash it out of reason.

Please caution me and critique my discerment.

 

[Samson Reaper]

"Are you arminian? Don't they believe..."

Bit off thread topic.

A few month ago I attended Bible Study Fellowship (BSF) course on the book of Revelations.

During the first few weeks of this course the JW's got the usual amount of bashing. I am never sure why, but never felt the need to dive in. Mormonism got less of a pasting and having some experience ( a 12 week induction course) I felt it necessary to correct the wrong media spin put out against them, not that I in any way support them.

About week 4 of the BSF course, the notes touched on the subject of 'the Rapture'. In class I said "I often get into big trouble mentioning the rapture but these notes quote the main Rapture verses". To my utter astonishment, after class I was taken aside, severely reprimanded and told never to mention 'the Rapture ' again ( Hence I was more than amused to find the notes of the next few weeks majored on this topic.)

I do not want to push 'Rapture' theory, or ignore it. It is something I regard as mystery and I am happy to leave it at that. Rapture Theory, like Calvinism, is based on a FEW verses that can be taken in different ways.

I often get into hot water talking about Calvinism in Church. It seems 95% of the Church population think like me: it is medieval nonsense based on a FEW verse. But - there always seems to be an elitists undercurrent - 'we are the strong meat and the other stuff is baby milk for the masses.'

Just like this forum, one can go round and round the mulberry bush with the calvy just echoing standard cherry picked verses. Never mind any context or whatever. Never mind any engagement or even rational thought.

The bottom line is that Jesus Christ himself spoke out about those who led people astray. Jesus talks about a stone being tied around the perveter's neck - Strong stuff.

It is for this reason that I have no option to fight Calvinism. It is based on a FEW verses and the INTERPRETATION shows NO relation to the big message of the Bible - starting at page one and reading until page end.

Maybe I am wrong to be direspectful of the Calvinist who does NOT read the Bible but takes the lazy way (wide gate in my view) and just reads the standard cherry picked verse from some NON Biblical source.. I firmly believe that the Calvinist should know more than me what he is talking about.

But having my assurance trashed by the Calvinist movement, I have studied and examined almost all of the calvinist source propaganda. Most often to find that the argumentative Calvinist has never even heard of most, if not all of it.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

"All men" would mean all mankind if not for context.
The context in which "all men" was written, was the common knowledge of the time, was that salvation was for Israel alone.

Grammar is important, but not ... relevant to this point.
I am encouraged by your enthusiasm, but your discernment begs caution.

amen thank you

 

[hedrick]

"TULIP" is Calvins tradition, he put in place of early apostle tradition, except in his case it was certainly man made tradition, made up by Calvin at the time of the reformation.

Technically, that's not the case. It really came out of a conflict in a later generation. Calvin's writing supports most of the points, but it's not so clear that he taught limited atonement.

For Calvin's own take on total depravity (a term he didn't use) see this: Apologetic Junkie: John Calvin On Total Depravity. I don't have a similar reference for the other points.

 

[Mountainmike]

Technically, that's not the case. It really came out of a conflict in a later generation. Calvin's writing supports most of the points, but it's not so clear that he taught limited atonement.

For Calvin's own take on total depravity (a term he didn't use) see this: Apologetic Junkie: John Calvin On Total Depravity. I don't have a similar reference for the other points.

Interesting reading thanks.

It is fascinating how some of the messages are wrongly accredited, or change with time and memory.

I gather for example there is no actual record of Luthers "snow covered dunghills" either.

 

[Samson Reaper]

REFUTING CALVIN'S TULIP

Seems like it has already been done.

In the many of the Calvinism/Arminianism debates on CF, it is often completely missed that the labels aren’t even adequate in explaining the positions of the men they supposedly represent.

Calvinism evolved from Calvin's Institute's via several Confessions e,g Belgic, the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confessions.

It is still evolving e.g Calvinism is typically identified by the classic TULIP system of Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of saints - But; Td has several definitions, L is largely out of fashion in some circles and P is often understood to be 'Preservation', not 'Perseverance'.

Similarly Aminianism has evolved from Jacobus Arminius's original objection that Supralapsarian is tantamount to saying God is the Author of evil.

All of this has resulted in much futile debate on CF. What follows is a comparison of the major Calvinistic tenants with Biblical data.

 

[bcbsr]

As I might have said previously on this or a similar thread (of which I got no feedback that I'm aware), concerning the "U" in TULIP, Unconditional Election. Calvinists don't believe in salvation by faith. They believe in salvation by election. An election which they take as occurring prior to the person's birth. As such, though they do say that such people eventually come to faith in Christ, yet even pre-faith they are never in danger of going to hell, seeing as their election is unconditional, which to me is contrary to the rhetoric the Apostle use, both with regards to when salvation occurs (namely when a person comes to faith), and that "faith" being the precondition for salvation, rather than it being unconditional, and that even Paul says, "Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath." Eph 2:3, which is logically not the case with TULIP.

 

[truefiction1]

"All men" would mean all mankind if not for context.
The context in which "all men" was written, was the common knowledge of the time, was that salvation was for Israel alone.

Grammar is important, but not ... relevant to this point.
I am encouraged by your enthusiasm, but your discernment begs caution.

"All men" was certainly not a reference only to Jews, being made by the very Apostle to the gentiles himself -- Paul. The context points to the Truth that "all men" means all human persons who exist... period.

 

[Samson Reaper]

"All men" was certainly not a reference only to Jews, being made by the very Apostle to the gentiles himself -- Paul. The context points to the Truth that "all men" means all human persons who exist... period.

Amen

It flabbergasts me that Calvinist will not, it seems CANNOT learn from one of there greatest preachers.


What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than what it fairly bears? I do not think so.

You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text.

“All men,” they say, — “that is, some men”: as if the Holy Spirit could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men.

“All men,” they say; “that is, some of all kinds of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all kinds of men” if he had meant that.

The Holy Spirit by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men.

 

[Samson Reaper]

CONTINUED

I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which some time ago was very popular, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth.

I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it.

I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, “Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.” Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been most proper,

 

[Samson Reaper]

CONTINED

but since it happens to say, “Who will have all men to be saved,” his observations are more than a little out of place. My love for consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture.

I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent?

But I do think it is a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture.

God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression.

So runs the text, and so we must read it, “God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

 

[Samson Reaper]

Can someone explain to me why the Calvinist DOES want to, as Spurgeon says "commit so great a crime" and be so inconstant with the text - changing 'all' to NOT all'"

I don't get why they want to do this - shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[truefiction1]

One who believes and teaches a system of salvation that cannot be reconciled with a Truth about salvation that a passage of Scripture reveals, must therefore either alter it grammatically or else deny the manner in which it is meant to be understood by the Writer of the Scripture.

 

[Samson Reaper]

One who believes and teaches a system of salvation that cannot be reconciled with a Truth about salvation that a passage of Scripture reveals, must therefore either alter it grammatically or else deny the manner in which it is meant to be understood by the Writer of the Scripture.

Spurgeon's "grammatical gunpowder"!

Be blessed