The Tulip is broken

[nobdysfool]

The TULIP is not broken, never has been. All of the attempts to break it have resulted in the breaking of the false doctrines erected to assault the Truth. We have just witnessed it again. The TULIP-haters are finished. They cannot mount a reasonable reply to the Truth, so they resort to ad hominem attacks, disparagement, straw men, and smoke and mirrors to try to defeat that which cannot be defeated. They have been weighed in the balance, and found lacking. They use false weights and measures, and then complain when they are shown to be wrong. Such is the attitude of those who refuse the Truth.

The TULIP remains unbroken.

 

[JDS]

I don't think I can post on this thread much. I have never seen such a bunch of cry-babies. Rather than rebut the charges with sound doctrine, you resort to making all sorts of charges that seem not to be true. Van's comments are a case in point. I have not read all his comments but he certainly has not "viciously attacked" as he has been charged. I thought he was rather gentlemanly.
I have been informed by a mod that one of my comments was deleted. I looked at it and could not figure out why.
I now remember why I quit coming to this web-site before. It is because there are very few here who seem to know enough about their theological systems to even know when a solid scriptural point has been made. Would to God that someone would show up with ability to defend the TULIP. I don't think the crowd I have seen here so far can do it. Therefore, it is an exercise in futility.
I will tell you folks something. I am making a full frontal attack on TULIP as being a false teaching. I do not mind to be called an anti-calvinist. However, I am not making personal attacks on men who hold this doctrine. If I say they are lazy, it is because they debate like RTE. State a presupposition without proof and then put you on the spot to argue against something they have not explained as a ruse to change the subject. This is the MO of many and my calling them lazy is a general statement that applies to most of them.

I have dealt with two proof text passages of the tulip so far, John 6 and John 15 and have not had a single calvinist come to the rescue of those passages yet. This tells me about all I nned to know.

We are not your enemies because we tell you the truth.

 

[nobdysfool]

I don't think I can post on this thread much. I have never seen such a bunch of cry-babies. Rather than rebut the charges with sound doctrine, you resort to making all sorts of charges that seem not to be true. Van's comments are a case in point. I have not read all his comments but he certainly has not "viciously attacked" as he has been charged. I thought he was rather gentlemanly.

Many of us here have tried to refute the anti-Calvinists with sound scriptural doctrine, only to be met with a hail of ad hominem, illogical, emotional, and downright hateful replies. Of course, maybe you don't see that, seeing that you have launched a few yourself. But the record is clear, this has happened. The Calvinists here are wise enough to take seriously the proverb, Pro 28:28 When the wicked rise, men hide themselves: but when they perish, the righteous increase. A few of us have simply laid back and have hidden themselves from the wickedness currently being manifested by the anti-Calvinists. And before you object to my calling it wickedness, realize that Calvinists have been accused of that, and worse, simply for daring to defend Calvinism, by the very person you attempt to defend in your post..

I have been informed by a mod that one of my comments was deleted. I looked at it and could not figure out why.

And so you think that somehow a Calvinist had something do with that, right? It couldn't possibly be you, or your choice of words, could it? No, couldn't be that....

I now remember why I quit coming to this web-site before. It is because there are very few here who seem to know enough about their theological systems to even know when a solid scriptural point has been made. Would to God that someone would show up with ability to defend the TULIP. I don't think the crowd I have seen here so far can do it. Therefore, it is an exercise in futility.

So now you look down your nose, and crook and wag your finger at all the stupid people (in your estimation) who populate this forum. Oh that they could be more like you, so full of wisdom and ability. Where is one worthy of your time and attention? Where is one who can stand against Goliath?

Maybe you need to quit this website again, since we obviously (in your estimation) don't rise to your lofty standards.

I will tell you folks something. I am making a full frontal attack on TULIP as being a false teaching. I do not mind to be called an anti-calvinist. However, I am not making personal attacks on men who hold this doctrine. If I say they are lazy, it is because they debate like RTE. State a presupposition without proof and then put you on the spot to argue against something they have not explained as a ruse to change the subject. This is the MO of many and my calling them lazy is a general statement that applies to most of them.

And it's still an ad hominem, and personal attack. And, you personally attacked RTE, right here. It's second nature to you, isn't it? You don't even realize you're doing it. I don't care how much lipstick you put on that pig, it's still a pig.

Get over yourself. Your haughty, superior attitude stinks. You have not demonstrated any working knowledge of Calvinist doctrine, and until you do, the Calvinists here are going to take you for what you are: an Calvinist-hating wanna-be theologian.

have dealt with two proof text passages of the tulip so far, John 6 and John 15 and have not had a single Calvinist come to the rescue of those passages yet. This tells me about all I nned to know.

Gee, where were they? Hidden in the ad hominems you've already posted? Can you post without making value judgments about your intended audience? So far, you've shown that you won't. I'm thinking maybe its because you can't. Prove me wrong, O wise one.

We are not your enemies because we tell you the truth.

Then quit treating Calvinists as though we are enemies, stupid imbeciles, IQ-challenged, and lazy. We're not your enemies, either, so stop treating us as though we are. That applies to all the anti-Calvinists here.

Mods, please understand that these things need to be said. I don't like having to say these things publicly, but someone has to do so. I hold no personal animosity toward anyone here, but I do believe that I have the right to speak in defense of those who have been vilified, disparaged, lied about, and accused falsely of sins, simply for believing Calvinism, and defending it, and to point out the clear fact that those accusing are also guilty of the very same things. I'm holding up a mirror for them to look in, and see themselves.

 

[nobdysfool]

duplicate. sorry.

 

[frumanchu]

Sorry, JDS, but it's very hard to take you seriously when you so blatantly misrepresent and mischaracterize our positions. You make countless false claims against our beliefs, and then while we're busy clarifying what we actually believe you deride us for not arguing from Scripture. You make outrageous claims about Calvinist preaching, and then when we dare point out obvious, well-known examples that contradict you we get accused of "hero worship."

And on top of all that you throw your lot in with Van...one of the most vile and insulting Anti-Calvinists on this forum...and extol his character and virtue.

If your real desire is to challenge us Calvinists to defend our positions, then stop trying to force us to defend blatant misrepresentations of our doctrines, stop taking pot shots at our character at every turn with charges of laziness, hero worship, etc., and stick to the Scriptures. If you can't do that, then you might as well leave because I guarantee you'll be disappointed no matter what you get from us because you're clearly not interested in anything beyond attacking us in whatever way you see fit.

I hate to be so blunt, but your attitude throughout has been hostile and belittling, and you have no justification for feigning such indignance.

 

[JDS]

Sorry, JDS, but it's very hard to take you seriously when you so blatantly misrepresent and mischaracterize our positions. You make countless false claims against our beliefs,

I do not think I have misrepresented the calvinist position. You gave no examples and pointed to no specifics, especially blatant ones.

I think tulip and it's supporting doctrines of original sin, sovereign grace, sovereignty of God, amil, replacement theology, covenant theology, et al are an entire redefinition of God's plan of redemption and restoration through our Lord Jesus Christ. So great is the subtilty of it that some of it's greatest proponents have been set forth as examples of greatness even though they have preached that Jesus Christ cannot and will not save the vast majority of sinners from their sins because God in his sovereignty did not will it to be done whether they heard the gospel of Jesus Christ or not. That means that God has no intention in tulip theology of saving the vast majority of sinners on the earth simply because they have not been pre-chosen to be saved, (there is a very low percentage of the worlds population that are protestant christian). This position does not agree with the language of the bible but the heros of the airwaves and the bookstores are generally, if not particularly, proponents of these movements and this is the reason we are seeing christendom gravitate to these doctrines.
Satan is the prince of the power of the air and God has not chosen the airwaves to disseminate his doctrines, he has chosen the local church with local congregations and local pastors which sends out missionaries, (like the church of Antioch in Acts 13) who likewise start churches and does the same. This safegaurds from the "collectivism" that is so obvious in the tulip movement in the standard lingo and cookie cutter arguments across continents, time, and ethnic groups. These radio men and high profile personalities are part of the problem and while you esteem them so highly, I doubt God does.

 

[nobdysfool]

Is Original Sin, Sovereign Grace, the Sovereignty of God, Covenant Theology exclusively Calvinist? No, they are not. Not every Calvinist is amillenial, either. But, there are serious problems with Dispensationalism, as well. Not every Calvinist is a proponent of Covenant Theology, either. There is an attempt here to paint with too broad a brush, because it makes it easier to condemn without having to actually explain why.

So, the misrepresentation of Calvinism continues, and the demands that Calvinists explain themselves rings hollow, because the anti-Calvinists don't really want to know. Any attempt to explain correctly Calvinist doctrine will be met with attempts to shout down such explanations, because it will show the bankruptcy of the anti-Calvinist position. This they will never allow, unless the Holy Spirit changes their hearts and opens their minds.

 

[chestertonrules]

Sorry, JDS, but it's very hard to take you seriously when you so blatantly misrepresent and mischaracterize our positions.

Calvinists keep making this claim, then they turn around and state the same positions!

Tell us if this is accurate:

Calvinists believe that God chose some people for heaven and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists believe that God chose some people for hell and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists think this is the Good News that the gospel proclaims.

 

[frumanchu]

Calvinists keep making this claim, then they turn around and state the same positions!

Tell us if this is accurate:

Calvinists believe that God chose some people for heaven and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists believe that God chose some people for hell and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists think this is the Good News that the gospel proclaims.

Your attempt at a little bait-and-switch here will not work.

I put forth specific examples where we were blatantly misrepresented by JDS. Those examples included the claim that we believe "man cannot believe the gospel intellectually." That is false, and I personally have explicitly stated exactly the opposite.

 

[nobdysfool]

Calvinists keep making this claim, then they turn around and state the same positions!

Tell us if this is accurate:

Calvinists believe that God chose some people for heaven and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists believe that God chose some people for hell and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists think this is the Good News that the gospel proclaims.

Obviously, you think that man should be able to do something about it, and in so doing, have power over God. Your next breath comes from God, and should He decide to withhold it, there's not a thing you can do about it. I suppose that you would think that Him doing that would be unfair of Him, but you'd be wrong. God is Sovereign, and you're not. Get used to it.

Chet, all you're trying to do is stir up strife. You don't know what Calvinism actually teaches, you've shown that to be true over and over again. You spread lies about Calvinists, but get all upset if anyone says anything against the Catholic church, especially if it's true.

you hold a double standard, and are double-minded, and as scripture says, unstable in all your ways.

 

[chestertonrules]

Obviously, you think that man should be able to do something about it, and in so doing, have power over God. Your next breath comes from God, and should He decide to withhold it, there's not a thing you can do about it. I suppose that you would think that Him doing that would be unfair of Him, but you'd be wrong. God is Sovereign, and you're not. Get used to it.

Chet, all you're trying to do is stir up strife. You don't know what Calvinism actually teaches, you've shown that to be true over and over again. You spread lies about Calvinists, but get all upset if anyone says anything against the Catholic church, especially if it's true.

you hold a double standard, and are double-minded, and as scripture says, unstable in all your ways.

I don't quite follow you.

Are you saying that my post does or does not accurately state the views of Calvinists?

I'm asking a question, so it can't be a lie. Is this accurate?


Calvinists believe that God chose some people for heaven and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists believe that God chose some people for hell and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists think this is the Good News that the gospel proclaims.

 

[Van]

What a joke. Fru actually believes he can define what words mean. Folks, use a lexicon, not the fiction fru makes up. Jesus says folks receive the gospel with joy, but that means they were not seeking God nor believed in the promises of God. Total Absurdity, again and again. And folks, that is all they have.

Calvinism redefines the meaning of words to pour their fictional doctrine into scripture. Now propitiation means satisfaction .

Folks just read Romans 3:24. We obtain propitiation through faith. Christ is the way, by no other name under heaven shall we be saved. Calvinist simply inject arcane verbiage into the gospel to make a muddle of it.

 

[frumanchu]

What a joke. Fru actually believes he can define what words mean. Folks, use a lexicon, not the fiction fru makes up. Jesus says folks receive the gospel with joy, but that means they were not seeking God nor believed in the promises of God. Total Absurdity, again and again. And folks, that is all they have.

It's truly a pity that you do not see how blinded you are by your hatred for Calvinism.

18 "Hear then the parable of the sower: 19When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty." - Matthew 13:18-23 (ESV)
​

How many times does the word "seek" appear in this passage, Van?

NONE

So desparate are you to attack Calvinism at any cost that not only do you completely ignore the nature of this passage as a parable (or rather, the explanation of the parable), but you also BLATANTLY insert words into the mouth of Christ in insisting repeatedly that He was teaching that those referred to were seeking Him. It is eisegesis in the extreme, yet when you are called to account for it you instead mock and bluster about and have the audacity to accuse me of making things up! Unbelievable...

Calvinism redefines the meaning of words to pour their fictional doctrine into scripture. Now propitiation means satisfaction.

LOL! Now you are denying the plain definition of the word propitiation and then accusing me of doing so. Does your hypocrisy know any bounds?

Propitiations means "appeasment" or "satisfaction." Look it up, everybody, and you'll see just how absurd and devoid of truth Van's attacks have become.

Folks just read Romans 3:24. We obtain propitiation through faith. Christ is the way, by no other name under heaven shall we be saved. Calvinist simply inject arcane verbiage into the gospel to make a muddle of it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the word for propitiation (hilasmos) does not even appear in Romans 3:24. The word used in that verse is dikaioo, which refers to our being declared justified.

Van, it is clear you "seek" only to attack Calvinism any and every way you can with blatant disregard for truth. You have been shown yet again to be in error, yet without a doubt you will simply attack again with even more vile words as though they can somehow impart truth to the lie you've spoken.

It won't work. Those who value truth can see your words for what they are.

mene mene tekel upharsin

 

[nobdysfool]

I don't quite follow you.

Are you saying that my post does or does not accurately state the views of Calvinists?

I'm asking a question, so it can't be a lie. Is this accurate?


Calvinists believe that God chose some people for heaven and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists believe that God chose some people for hell and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists think this is the Good News that the gospel proclaims.

Even asking a question, you lie, because what you put forth as what Calvinism teaches is NOT what Calvinism teaches, nor what Calvinists call the Gospel. If you actually knew anything about Calvinism, you would know that. But that's not why you're here, is it?

 

[bling]

Van said:
Hi Bling, OSAS is logical, but your not saved until physical death view is illogical.

The idea of having a birth right to the Kingdom and being heirs to the heavenly Kingdom, with the idea these can be given up, seems logical. The idea of make one right decision in your youth and never being able to of your own free will walk away from that choice is very much like being predestined to go to heaven, because that is what you have become. Do you not see Godly type Love requiring a free will choice of some kind and thus needed the ability to make a moral choice?

Van said:
Your premise is if a person is born again, and then gives up his inheritance... rests on the idea that this is possible. But 1 Peter 1:3-5 says we are kept by the power of God Almighty, for our inheritance. The word kept means to be kept as in a jail cell. The door is locked closed when you are being kept in a jail cell. If the door is open, you would not be being kept, you would be free to go. Not how scripture reads.

That is your definition of “kept” and there are lots of scholars and my own personal study of the word that do not consider that to be the most likely definition in this passage. You are protected from anyone taking it from you, but not mind controlled to the point of not being able to decide to give it up your self.

Van said:
I said Galatians 6:9 addresses loss of rewards. It does not say nor suggest loss of eternal life. No scripture says that or suggests that false doctrine. Is having faith in Christ in view, or is doing good works? Doing good works. Doing good works earns rewards if we build with imperishable stuff on the foundation of Christ. Will a born again person grow weary? Nope. Will a tare? Yes. So to you born again believers, keep doing good works so that your entrance into heaven will be supplied abundantly. BTW, if you grow weary, fall on your knees because that indicates you were never saved in the first place. God Bless

You do not have to say, “loss of eternal life” because that is what Paul tells us the harvest is with Gal. 6: “…from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” The harvest is not good times in this life or treasures in the next, but “eternal life” itself. Paul does not talk about any other harvest for sowing after the Spirit then “eternal life” so where are you getting these “rewards”?
By what means other then removal of free will would a born again Christian not be able to stop sowing after the flesh because he gave up?
You are missing the point, God does not take our salvation away from us, it is total up to us, if we give up doing what wonderful things are available for us to do then we can grow worry of really doing nothing and walk away. All the good stuff Paul, Peter, John and James tell us we can/ should/ need to /aught to/must/ commanded to do are not to gain anything, but to protect “keep” us from giving up. You are right we should not grow weary of doing good because the Spirit is with us giving us strength, but if we quench the Spirit and quit doing good stuff we will grow weary and loss interest and give up.
Christ has cleared out all our spiritual demons and given us the honor and privilege of doing wonderful things in the Kingdom that fell our house so the demons can not come back with their friends.

 

[chestertonrules]

Even asking a question, you lie, because what you put forth as what Calvinism teaches is NOT what Calvinism teaches, nor what Calvinists call the Gospel. If you actually knew anything about Calvinism, you would know that. But that's not why you're here, is it?

Here's my question:

Is this accurate?


Calvinists believe that God chose some people for heaven and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists believe that God chose some people for hell and there is nothing they can do about it.

Calvinists think this is the Good News that the gospel proclaims.

If not, please correct the errors.

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by heymikey80
So -- does God have this love by nature? That's what John says: "God is Love." You'd have to conclude that God is a robot of Love on this kind of reasoning.

God has always been Love, He did not come by it. God has free will but always chooses to do the best and most loving thing. It is not robotic because it is still His choice. Do you believe God always does the best thing?

Originally Posted by heymikey80

I don't think God is a robot. I don't think forgiveness is "God's job" either.

Is forgiveness not mercy and is mercy not grace and is grace not “Love”?
We can talk about “God’s job” as continuing to be “God”, but I think we can be more specific when we talk about: God’s objective as it relates to humans. I do not think God is a robot.

Originally Posted by heymikey80

The problem is not whether the person still has feelings about repayment or false motivations about trying to be worthy of the Gift. In point of fact Paul actually calls people to account, to seek to live up to the greatness of the Gift they have received. So it can't be this logic that prevails.

I am addressing “non Christians” accepting God’s forgiveness, you are referring to Christians rising to their new status as Christians. They can and should be “Christ Like”.

Originally Posted by heymikey80

I've a counterproposal. It's that when a person denies the Gift as a gift, that's where the real problem comes in. A gift really should be received as a gift, with gratefulness. We have to get to the point where we recognize our natural wish for self-justification and reward for work does not work in this case.

I am taking it a step further by saying the two way transaction of forgiveness does not take place if the receiver does not accept the gift of forgiveness as a free undeserving gift.

Originally Posted by heymikey80

The idea that natural love is only robotic is also something of a problem here. Being naturally attracted to certain other people, that does not stop the love we have for them. We were created originally to love God above all. To exercise that original intent is no vice on its own. And yet it's exclusive, created, and programmed into how we're made.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. I see Godly type Love that Jesus portrays and Paul writes about in 1 Cor. 13 as being very much different then instinctive or “natural” type loves.

Originally Posted by heymikey80

The sole objective of humanity is the glory and entire enjoyment of God in righteousness. That entirety must include the will.

You can take any command or even direction given by God in scripture and call it “our objective” and have biblical support for such a conclusion. Glorifying God is not a behavioral objective so what does it mean. In many ways a tree glorifies God by being a tree.
You say, “enjoyment of God” so does that mean God has given us an objective for His sake? Would that not be self centered/ self seeking?

Originally Posted by heymikey80

As I've pointed out dozens of times now, voluntary will ("free will") or free agency (human responsibility for actions and desires) are generally not what people here may indicate Calvinism objects to. Because it doesn't. Calvin himself cites it and does not object here. No Calvinist I've ever read objects here.

Why do we need free will?

 

[Van]

LOL, now Fru redefines satisfaction as appeasement. Yes to propitiate is to appease, but propitiation does not equate with appeasement. Propitiation equates with the means of appeasement. Folks if you keep reading the sentence started in verse 24 to the end of the sentence in verse 25, you will find propitiation through faith. Folks, this is how Calvinism is defended, by artificially chopping us scripture and then saying it does not say it in 24, it says it in 25. Big deal.

Fru would have you believe folks who accepted the gospel with joy were not seeking God and did not believe in the promises of God. Utterly absurd. The TULIP is broken and no amount of graffiti will hide that fact.

 

[frumanchu]

LOL, now Fru redefines satisfaction as appeasement. Yes to propitiate is to appease, but propitiation does not equate with appeasement. Propitiation equates with the means of appeasement.

propitiation - the act of propitiating; something that propitiates.

appease - to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm or contentment; to satisfy, allay or relieve.

There you have it. You're simply making this up as you go along, attempting to create artificial distinctions and convenient definitions in a vain attempt to justify your blatant, hateful Anti-Calvinist attacks. So blinded are you by your zeal to attack Calvinism at all costs that you cannot even bring yourself to admit error on the simple definition of words...but to so do would mean admitting you manufactured a lie simply for the purpose of attacking me and it would distract from your campaign against Calvinism and Calvinists.

You are defeated, Van. Your arguments have been shown to be built upon lies.

Folks if you keep reading the sentence started in verse 24 to the end of the sentence in verse 25, you will find propitiation through faith. Folks, this is how Calvinism is defended, by artificially chopping us scripture and then saying it does not say it in 24, it says it in 25. Big deal.

We could have had a reasoned discussion on 1 John 2:2 in light of Romans 3:24-25, but you instead chose the path of hate-filled attacks...attacks proven to be founded upon lies easily demonstrated to be such. You accuse me of making up definitions, yet I provided clear dictionary definitions of the terms justifying precisely what I said. Rather than simply admit your error, you persist in it and even compound it, further demonstrating that you are not interested in truth but only in attacking people to further your agenda.

It is clear, Van. You are defeated.

Fru would have you believe folks who accepted the gospel with joy were not seeking God and did not believe in the promises of God. Utterly absurd. The TULIP is broken and no amount of graffiti will hide that fact.

Van, it is clear that you simply cannot demonstrate any teaching that those who "believed" but quickly fell away were seeking God. Instead you repeat it over and over again, ridiculing me for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Jesus clearly does not teach this, nor is such a teaching the obvious purpose of the parable. You continue to insist it is the teaching, yet can offer nothing as proof...only ridicule and bluster.

You are defeated. Your attitude of desparation and elevation of your vitriolic attacks makes that clearly evident.

 

[cygnusx1]

So true, that! You have made a very telling point against the anti-Calvinists. They try to silence Calvinists, while Calvinists only try to uphold the scriptures, and the Truth. We are not trying to "silence" anyone. But the anti-Calvinists here are determined to silence Calvinists. Talk about denying free will! It is the anti-Calvinists, supposed supporters of free will, who want to rob Calvinists and anyone else of the free will to believe differently than they do.