The Tulip is broken

[Van]

The doctrine espoused by Fru that a "true believer" cannot fall away is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where beleivers who were entering heaven were turned away.

The correct doctrine is born again believers cannot fall away because after God causes a person to be born again, He protects their faith such that they are kept for their inheritance.

Yes lots of people understand the gospel and respond affirmatively, but because they have no root in themselves, they fall away. That is the second type of soil. There were seeking God but in the wrong way, a what is in it for me way. They were not committed fully to Christ, and willing to put to death all else.

 

[drstevej]

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

Interesting, Van, you think a Pharisee can prevent a believer from entering heaven? Is that your interpretation? If so the doctrine of responsible grace must be altered to include "proxy responsibility."


Calvinism: God is responsible for a believer's being in heaven.
Benism: God and the believer are responsible for a believer's being in heaven or not.
Vanism: God and the believer and Pharisees are responsible for a believer's being in heaven or not.

Suggestion: Rethink the passage

 

[DeaconDean]

Calvinism: God is responsible for a believer's being in heaven.
Benism: God and the believer are responsible for a believer's being in heaven or not.
Vanism: God and the believer and Pharisees are responsible for a believer's being in heaven or not.

Amen!

Preach it!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cygnusx1]

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

Interesting, Van, you think a Pharisee can prevent a believer from entering heaven? Is that your interpretation? If so the doctrine of responsible grace must be altered to include "proxy responsibility."


Calvinism: God is responsible for a believer's being in heaven.
Benism: God and the believer are responsible for a believer's being in heaven or not.
Vanism: God and the believer and Pharisees are responsible for a believer's being in heaven or not.

Suggestion: Rethink the passage

that is hillarious !!!!!!!!!!

remember , van got this dumb idea from ben in the first place !


'proxy responsibility' ............ is that on my network?

 

[beloved57]

The doctrine espoused by Fru that a "true believer" cannot fall away is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where beleivers who were entering heaven were turned away.

These people were never born again..

 

[Van]

The doctrine espoused by Fru that a "true believer" cannot fall away is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where beleivers who were entering heaven were turned away.

The correct doctrine is born again believers cannot fall away because after God causes a person to be born again, He protects their faith such that they are kept for their inheritance.

Yes lots of people understand the gospel and respond affirmatively, but because they have no root in themselves, they fall away. That is the second type of soil. There were seeking God but in the wrong way, a what is in it for me way. They were not committed fully to Christ, and willing to put to death all else.

Thanks for agreeing with me Beloved57.

And now folks, note that the Calvinists deny that people can be lead astray, but Jesus said they can be lead astray. Those that lead people astray face greater condemnation because they lead people astray. On and on it goes folks, the TULIP is broken and the evidence is being supplied by the Calvinists themselves. LOL

 

[drstevej]

true believer = born again believer. Welcome to the dark side, Van.

Ben is next.

The notion of a unregenerate true believer is malarkey.

 

[cygnusx1]

true believer = born again believer. Welcome to the dark side, Van.

Ben is next.

The notion of a unregenerate true believer is malarkey.

van believes OSAS , except when the Pharisees are around.

methinks he is on the way to 5 point Arminianism because of the inherant blatant contradictions..........

"The doctrine espoused by Fru that a "true believer" cannot fall away is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where beleivers who were entering heaven were turned away." van

"The correct doctrine is born again believers cannot fall away" van

so van thinks a TRUE believer can be unregenrate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and that a TRUE believer is NOT even saved !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[heymikey80]

Amazing this part of the thread. Fact is, emotions don't follow reason. People aren't rational. That's one of the points Jesus was making -- that you can't go on emotions alone, they'll be choked out by the journey through an evil and corrupt world.

Jesus is not demanding that everyone be a rationalist.

In fact He predated rationalism by aboooout 1600 years.

In addition, (comma,) there is that excluded middle. The person heard something which resulted in his joy in receiving it. But it doesn't mean he listened to the message to the point of understanding what it really meant at core. Jesus told people the Kingdom consisted of those who go this far: who count the cost of receiving the Gospel.

its implied from matt 13:

23But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

so its a safe inference that those in vs 20-21 did not understand the word..and these verses nowhere says they did understand it..

First, let me say thank you Beloved57, for actually trying to defend your position scripturally. How refreshing. However, comma, lets look at verse 19 which says the first soil does not understand it, and verse 23 which says the good soil did understand it. In between we have verses 20-22 which do not say one way or the other. We have a person receiving the gospel with joy, so the inference would be they understood it as least as far as the promise of eternal life with God, otherwise, they would have no basis for the joy upon receiving it. Besides to receive a message and respond certainly suggests a level of understanding. So it would appear that what was different was not that they did not understand the gospel message, but rather their response to it, they responded not from the heart or half heartedly. The TULIP is broken.

They were merely emotional hearers..they didnt understand that which they received..

The doctrine espoused by Fru that a "true believer" cannot fall away is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where beleivers who were entering heaven were turned away.

The correct doctrine is born again believers cannot fall away because after God causes a person to be born again, He protects their faith such that they are kept for their inheritance.

Yes lots of people understand the gospel and respond affirmatively, but because they have no root in themselves, they fall away. That is the second type of soil. There were seeking God but in the wrong way, a what is in it for me way. They were not committed fully to Christ, and willing to put to death all else.

 

[frumanchu]

The doctrine espoused by Fru that a "true believer" cannot fall away is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where beleivers who were entering heaven were turned away.

The correct doctrine is born again believers cannot fall away because after God causes a person to be born again, He protects their faith such that they are kept for their inheritance.

Yes lots of people understand the gospel and respond affirmatively, but because they have no root in themselves, they fall away. That is the second type of soil. There were seeking God but in the wrong way, a what is in it for me way. They were not committed fully to Christ, and willing to put to death all else.

And here we see the extent of the Anti-Calvinist's commitment to manufacturing attacks.

Notice the need to manufacture a distinction between "true believers" and "born again believers"....as though Calvinists somehow advocated that true believers need not be born again.

Notice the need to manufacture a distinction between "not truly seeking" and "seeking in the wrong way, a what is in it for me way" ....as though Calvinists somehow advocated that true seeking was anything other than seeking in the right way.

The fallen will puts self above God, seeking ultimately to elevate himself above his rightful place. "Seeking after God" in a way that seeks personal gain rather than glory for God is not truly seeking, any more than "righteousness" done for personal glory is not truly righteousness. It is superficial, and exposed to be false by the fruits it produces.

So we see clearly that the Anti-Calvinist has manufactured his argument out of nothing purely for the purpose of attacking Calvinism at all costs. Such is the folly of the reasoning of the Anti-Calvinist, who mocks and disparages Calvinists for their beliefs before revealing that he holds to the same ones clothed in manufactured distinctions used to hide the inconvenient truth.

QED

 

[frumanchu]

The doctrine espoused by Fru that a "true believer" cannot fall away is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where beleivers who were entering heaven were turned away.

The correct doctrine is born again believers cannot fall away because after God causes a person to be born again, He protects their faith such that they are kept for their inheritance.

Yes lots of people understand the gospel and respond affirmatively, but because they have no root in themselves, they fall away. That is the second type of soil. There were seeking God but in the wrong way, a what is in it for me way. They were not committed fully to Christ, and willing to put to death all else.

Mock and repeat, mock and repeat, mock and repeat....

And now folks, note that the Calvinists deny that people can be lead astray, but Jesus said they can be lead astray. Those that lead people astray face greater condemnation because they lead people astray. On and on it goes folks, the TULIP is broken and the evidence is being supplied by the Calvinists themselves. LOL

Notice how the Anti-Calvinist willingly takes up and adopts arguments that have been demonstrated in several threads to be untenable. The Anti-Calvinist would readily embrace the clear logical conclusion that God purposes to save men and has led them to the very gates of the Kingdom only to have the Pharisees bind His hands and overpower Him as they barricade the gate and prevail against it. Such is the folly of the Anti-Calvinist who seeks to attack Calvinism at all costs, as demonstrated abundantly in this thread.

QED

 

[JDS]

You're right, JDS. I, along with all the other Reformed students, scholars, teachers, preachers and theologians throughout history, and those from whom they learned and studied, have just made this up out of whole cloth and managed to get people to believe it for hundreds of years without ever once defining of defending it. </sarcasm>

I've quite frankly been to busy tearing down the venomous attacks of the Anti-Calvinist who started this thread and directly addressing the gross misrepresentation of Calvinist doctrine in a few others to suddenly launch into a full-scale discussion and defense of the Reformed understanding of regeneration and faith. I've spent countless hours doing just that over the past several years in this forum and others, so please do me the courtesy of saving your childish taunts for someone who cares. Go bask in your own smug satisfaction somewhere else.

Fru,

I am interested in tulip because of it's growing and leavening influence on our Christian culture in these last days. It is the attitude that is described by Paul as "ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the tuth and heaped up teachers". The best way to show the folly of this system of doctrine is to force its adherents to defend it from the bible. What better place to begin than at the foundation of the teaching which is a totally unable man must be quickened (made alive by the Spirit(?) in order to have the gift of faith so that he may have the capacity to receive the gift of eternal life.

I do not believe that those of the present or the past that holds to this belief has not done some good. I just do not think they have done any good by preaching this doctrine. Men like Spurgeon did some good in evangelism but he was not preaching Calvinism to anyone when he was trying to get them converted. He did that after they were converted. He preached that God would save them if they would believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to get them saved. That is the same thing I preach to lost people. Spurgeon gave invitations when he preached the gospel and invited men to come to Christ for salvation. Many men did just that and were saved. The sad lot of calvinists today do not do that.

 

[drstevej]

George Whitefield who was a powerful evangelist was an ardent Calvinist.
William Carey, the Father of Modern Missions, was a Calvinist

 

[nobdysfool]

Spurgeon gave invitations when he preached the gospel and invited men to come to Christ for salvation. Many men did just that and were saved. The sad lot of calvinists today do not do that.

Got any proof of that? If not, then it's just opinion. Trying to pass opinion off as proof is dishonest. If you're going to make the statement, then back it up. Otherwise, identify it for what it is: your biased opinion.

 

[DeaconDean]

Got any proof of that? If not, then it's just opinion. Trying to pass opinion off as proof is dishonest. If you're going to make the statement, then back it up. Otherwise, identify it for what it is: your biased opinion.

He is grasping at straws.

Men like Spurgeon did some good in evangelism but he was not preaching Calvinism to anyone when he was trying to get them converted.

Here is a list of 19 sermons Charles Haddon Spurgeon preach on:

Election
Depravity
Atonement
Effectual Calling
Security
Providence

Link

If I can show just one sermon, where Spurgeon preached a "sermon" on Calvinist doctrine, then your assertion is false.

And here it is:

Election

A Sermon
(No. 41-42)
[SIZE=+1]Delivered on Sabbath Morning, September 2, 1855, by the[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]REV. C. H. Spurgeon[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]At New Park Street Chapel, Southwark.[/SIZE]

Link

Here is another:

Human Inability

A Sermon
(No. 182)
[SIZE=+1]Delivered on Sabbath Morning, March 7, 1858 by the
REV. C. H. Spurgeon
at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.[/SIZE]

Link

How about this one:

Effectual Calling


A Sermon
(No. 73)
[SIZE=+1]Delivered on Sabbath Morning, March 30, 1856, by the
REV. C. H. Spurgeon
At New Park Street Chapel, Southwark.[/SIZE]

Link

And what about this one:

Providence

A Sermon
(No. 187)
[SIZE=+1]Delivered on Sabbath Morning, April 11, 1858, by the
REV. C. H. Spurgeon
At the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.[/SIZE]

Link

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cygnusx1]

George Whitefield who was a powerful evangelist was an ardent Calvinist.
William Carey, the Father of Modern Missions, was a Calvinist

it's evidence of prejudice when we are informed Calvinist's can't preach the Gospel , or that C H Spurgeon preached the Gospel in spite of His Calvinism , anyone who has read Spurgeon will clearly perceive his "calvinism" and Gospel preaching were interlinked.... in one sense they have to be.

The TULIP is fine . It served the Puritans well and to this day the very best printing presses and Christian literature is published by Calvinist's ........... I have read the "other stuff" it was extremely unrewarding.

 

[Van]

The Calvinist's continue to deny men can be led astray. Utterly unbiblical. Matthew 23:13

The Calvinist idea of a true believer which is not a born again believer is unbiblical. The bible teaches of believers and born again believers. It is God who credits our belief as righteousness, and he could bless a very flawed understanding of Christ, and then reject a well studied theologian. He judges the heart.

Now if they want to backpedal and say a "true believer" is a born again believer, fine. Believers who belong to the brotherhood of believers have been born again, they are "in Christ."

 

[cygnusx1]

The Calvinist's continue to deny men can be led astray. Utterly unbiblical. Matthew 23:13

what ? I think all Calvinist's posting through this thread would say someone is led astray , so once again wrong.

The Calvinist idea of a true believer which is not a born again believer is unbiblical.

your idea , not a Calvinist one.

The bible teaches of believers and born again believers. It is God who credits our belief as righteousness, and he could bless a very flawed understanding of Christ, and then reject a well studied theologian. He judges the heart.

who denies that ?

Now if they want to backpedal and say a "true believer" is a born again believer, fine.

No need to backpedal , all Calvinist's say a TRUE believer must be born again , and must be saved.


but if you wish to backpedal your own ideas go ahead , we could do with another lol.

"The doctrine espoused by Fru that a "true believer" cannot fall away is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where beleivers who were entering heaven were turned away." van

Believers who belong to the brotherhood of believers have been born again, they are "in Christ."

and they are saved , and cannot be lost , not even if some 'dirty great Pharisee' appears on the scene.

tell us.... how you can believe some true believers stay saved others who are "true believers" get lost and still make that fit with your OSAS dogma ?

my head hurts folks !!!....

 

[frumanchu]

I do not believe that those of the present or the past that holds to this belief has not done some good. I just do not think they have done any good by preaching this doctrine. Men like Spurgeon did some good in evangelism but he was not preaching Calvinism to anyone when he was trying to get them converted. He did that after they were converted.

There's a reason for that. See Hebrews 6, 1 Cor 3.

He preached that God would save them if they would believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to get them saved.

As well he should. That is precisely what Reformed Christianity teaches.

That is the same thing I preach to lost people. Spurgeon gave invitations when he preached the gospel and invited men to come to Christ for salvation. Many men did just that and were saved. The sad lot of calvinists today do not do that.

I happen to be listening right now to a series of sermons by Art Azuria on the entire book of Hebrews. His sermons are 100% pure Calvinism...and they are among the most passionately evangelical I have ever heard. The same is true of John Piper, D James Kennedy and many others. I have to wonder just how often you actually hear Calvinists preach, or if perhaps you're basing your judgment solely on taped teaching sessions (as almost all of R.C. Sproul's taped messages are).

The notion that the preaching of the Gospel is in conflict in principle with Calvinism is demonstrably false. The notion that the preaching of the Gospel is in conflict in practice with the Calvinism has yet to be demonstrated by any empirical evidence. I know a tremendous number of Calvinists who preach the Gospel with every sermon and do so with clear passion for the lost. Unless you wish to provide something other than alleged anecdotal evidence of your own, we can dispense with the statements about the lack of Gospel preaching by Calvinists because it's nothing more than an unfounded, unproven assertion.

Again, if you want to challenge the foundations of Reformed particulars and their grounds in Scripture, feel free to start a thread on it. But again I'm too busy tearing apart the venomous and baseless attacks against individual doctrines in this thread to take things off on a tangent and address the arguments you are expecting me to.

 

[frumanchu]

The Calvinist's continue to deny men can be led astray. Utterly unbiblical. Matthew 23:13

Notice the deception in the claim that Calvinists deny that men can be led astray. The Westminster Confession of Faith (XVII,iii) clearly proves this to be false. What Calvinists do assert is the same thing that the Anti-Calvinist asserts: that true believers cannot be led into apostasy to the loss of their salvation. But the Anti-Calvinist will clothe this in deceptive generalizations to manufacture disagreement in his zeal to attack Calvinism at all costs.

The Calvinist idea of a true believer which is not a born again believer is unbiblical.

Notice the blatant LIE by the Anti-Calvinist in claiming that Calvinists believe something that was clearly and unequivocally stated to be the opposite. Such is the tactic of the Anti-Calvinist, putting forth lies and deceptions in his zeal to attack Calvinism at all costs.

The bible teaches of believers and born again believers. It is God who credits our belief as righteousness, and he could bless a very flawed understanding of Christ, and then reject a well studied theologian. He judges the heart.

No Calvinist would disagree with this truth.

Now if they want to backpedal and say a "true believer" is a born again believer, fine. Believers who belong to the brotherhood of believers have been born again, they are "in Christ."

Notice how the Anti-Calvinist hedges his bets. Perhaps he did not bother to even take the time to read what the Calvinists post, for they clearly have stated that there is no such thing as a true believer who is not a born again believer. But the zeal of the Anti-Calvinist to attack Calvinism at all costs has clearly taken a priority over truth and accuracy. So we have this thread with over 300 posts in which the Anti-Calvinist has repeatedly and demonstrably manipulated Scripture, misrepresented the Calvinist position, and flat out LIED about what Calvinists say.

The Anti-Calvinist is defeated and has nothing left but defiant, manufactured nonsense to hurl at Calvinists. The desperation is clear.

QED