The Tulip is broken

[JDS]

Are you saying that a man can do good things on his own for merit?

Your question reveals your predisposition to believe the false doctrine of the Calvinists to think that faith is a work. This is why false doctrine is so dangerous. It shapes your thinking and leads you to preconclusions. A false premise then becomes the foundation on which you build your understanding of everything else that is said. It closes your mind and darkens it.

Every man can believe God.
A believing man is obeying God.
A believing man is pleasing God.
A believing man is justified by God.

The men mentioned in Ge 6 were not believing, obeying, or pleasing God.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

You will immediately figure out a way to interpret this text in the context of Calvinist theology because accepting the text as written will not support your theories. (or you will ignore it and try to change the subject without comment like all you Calvinists have done to Ge 6).

God responds to man because man is responsible to God and every text in the bible is written on this premise.

28A And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge
28B God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient

Man Acts:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

God Responds:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:

Now, you say God did this because they were not elect, but that is not what the text says.

You say depraved man had no ability to make a choice, but God says it is because they did have a choice that he acted towards them as he did.

You say they could not know God and God says they did know him.

You say their excuse is unelection and God says they have no excuse.

God is right and you are wrong!

Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Ro 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

You people say that men cannot obey because they have no faith and God says it is by faith they must obey.

God responds to man by saving him if and when he believes or condemning him, or leaving him in a state of condemnation, by his not believing.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

What words could God have chosen to make it more clear? God himself could not have chosen plainer words!

We do not have a casual disagreement concerning God and salvation, we have a disagreement on meanings of words.

God saves men who believes his words and condemns them who don't!

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


Do not be surprise if I make the gospel of Jesus Christ and the words of God a test of fellowship with people who call themselves Christians! And don't be surprise if I call you on denying the words of God when you are speaking in his name.

I do this for your good. I am not the enemy because I tell you the truth. It is time to wake up!

 

[Van]

Calvinists spam with the same claims of past accomplishments, the same charges that others do evil, as they march lock step together. Meanwhile I present scripture and scripture is not spam.

But at the end of the day, the TULIP is broken and all the acolytes cannot put it together again.

Some unregenerate men do seek God, Matthew 13:20-22, so total spiritual inability is false doctrine.

God's election unto salvation is based on individual characteristics, James 2:5.

Christ died for all mankind, 1 John 2:2.

The grace of God's invitation is not irresistible, Matthew 23:13.

 

[heymikey80]

When a theology is cobbled together from verses that aren't addressing the subjects they're forced into, you'd have to expect this viewpoint.

Everything looks broken through a fractured lens.

Calvinists spam with the same claims of past accomplishments, the same charges that others do evil, as they march lock step together. Meanwhile I present scripture and scripture is not spam.

Calvinists have provided Scriptural refutation of this vain repetition. It doesn't fly. Poke it with a stick, it doesn't budge. It's a dead argument.

Some unregenerate men do seek God, Matthew 13:20-22, so total spiritual inability is false doctrine.

The quote of Mt 13 is a poor prooftext, being out of context. It states that people who do believe something about the Gospel (makes-me-happy, great-story, connects-me-with-something-edgy, gets-me-something, shows-me-as-different) celebrate it with us for a time, but then drop out. Calvinists argue that they're clearly unregenerate, all the way through. They don't become regenerate, then unregenerate.

On the contrary, Scripture talks directly about God being the One Who chooses, and that not based on human will or effort.

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. Rom 9:11-16
​

God's election unto salvation is based on individual characteristics, James 2:5.

James 2:5 is misquoted. God picks people for salvation without respect of characteristics. Many are poor, and that teaches us something about respecting the poor as our family of Christ. Some are rich, and that teaches us something, too. They're not special -- they have tasks to do, too. "As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy." 1 Tim 6:17

God didn't choose poor people exclusively nor inclusively. He simply chose people. He chose the poor to teach us something -- in fact the exact opposite of, "It's clear why God chose him to be saved, because he's [poor|rich]". To miss that is to miss what James 2:5 says.

Christ died for all mankind, 1 John 2:2.

On the contrary, Atonement must state who is actually atoned-for -- who Jesus lays down His life for. In other words, the Atonement is an actual atonement. Not some halfway-atonement. The Atonement is not a proposal about salvation, for you to accept or reject. The Atonement is the entire process of salvation.

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. John 10:14-15
​

So not everyone is saved. Were the ransom paid on all, all would be saved.

Jesus is the sole One propitiator for the whole world, as 1 Jn 2:2 states. He's for this whole creation. But He won't save every person in this creation. And that's precisely what the doctrine of Limited Atonement says.

It may be instructive to point out, in free-will views Limited Atonement isn't expanded to Universal Atonement. It's still limited Atonement, though in a very different way. Why? Because in these views Jesus doesn't actually save anyone. Their wills or actions must be applied to His work to finish the actual Atonement. So their Atonement is partial and proposed; ours actual and accomplished.

The grace of God's invitation is not irresistible, Matthew 23:13.

On the contrary, Irresistible Grace is the attribute of creative grace. You can't stop God from creating a new life within you. You've no force in the matter to exert. Ep 2:1,5 describes this case: "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved"

For while we were still powerless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die--but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Rom 5:6-8

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? ... No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:30-31,37-39
​

Why Mt 23:13 would be relevant in this case is a paradox. There's nothing explicit here. It certainly doesn't speak about God's power to create spiritual life. In Mt 23:13 Jesus is attacking the severe inconsistency in the Pharisaical view of the kingdom of heaven being the kingdom of Israel, of setting high bars to a counterfeit of the kingdom of heaven, deflecting people from entry into that. Of course this obscures the true kingdom of heaven, and the Pharisees are accused of deception and deflection. God ordains the processes of His creation (theologically, "means"). The Pharisees were subverting them.

 

[MamaZ]

Your question reveals your predisposition to believe the false doctrine of the Calvinists to think that faith is a work. This is why false doctrine is so dangerous. It shapes your thinking and leads you to preconclusions. A false premise then becomes the foundation on which you build your understanding of everything else that is said. It closes your mind and darkens it.

Faith is a gift.. It is a gift from God. Can you tell me how faith comes?


Every man can believe God.
A believing man is obeying God.
A believing man is pleasing God.
A believing man is justified by God.

Even the demons believe..

The men mentioned in Ge 6 were not believing, obeying, or pleasing God.

In Gen 6 was before Christ came. They were being told what was going to happen.. Preached to.. Same with today..

Col 1:9 For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,
Col 1:10 so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;
Col 1:11 strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously
Col 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.
Col 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
Rom 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
Rom 1:4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Rom 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake,
Rom 1:6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
Rom 1:7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

You will immediately figure out a way to interpret this text in the context of Calvinist theology because accepting the text as written will not support your theories. (or you will ignore it and try to change the subject without comment like all you Calvinists have done to Ge 6).

God responds to man because man is responsible to God and every text in the bible is written on this premise.

28A And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge
28B God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient

Man Acts:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

God Responds:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:

Now, you say God did this because they were not elect, but that is not what the text says.

You say depraved man had no ability to make a choice, but God says it is because they did have a choice that he acted towards them as he did.

You say they could not know God and God says they did know him.


Every human being is born with a knowedge that there is God..
You say their excuse is unelection and God says they have no excuse.

One cannot say I never knew there was a God.. There is not excuse for that..

God is right and you are wrong!

Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:


You have to have been gifted the Faith in order to be in obedience to it..


2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Ro 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

You people say that men cannot obey because they have no faith and God says it is by faith they must obey.

God responds to man by saving him if and when he believes or condemning him, or leaving him in a state of condemnation, by his not believing.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

What words could God have chosen to make it more clear? God himself could not have chosen plainer words!

We do not have a casual disagreement concerning God and salvation, we have a disagreement on meanings of words.

God saves men who believes his words and condemns them who don't!

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


Do not be surprise if I make the gospel of Jesus Christ and the words of God a test of fellowship with people who call themselves Christians! And don't be surprise if I call you on denying the words of God when you are speaking in his name.

I do this for your good. I am not the enemy because I tell you the truth. It is time to wake up!

Sorry to disapoint you but I prove all things with the written word of God and the whole counsel of the written word of God.. Not just some scripture taken out of context..

 

[nobdysfool]

When a theology is cobbled together from verses that aren't addressing the subjects they're forced into, you'd have to expect this viewpoint.

Everything looks broken through a fractured lens.


Calvinists have provided Scriptural refutation of this vain repetition. It doesn't fly. Poke it with a stick, it doesn't budge. It's a dead argument.

The quote of Mt 13 is a poor prooftext, being out of context. It states that people who do believe something about the Gospel (makes-me-happy, great-story, connects-me-with-something-edgy, gets-me-something, shows-me-as-different) celebrate it with us for a time, but then drop out. Calvinists argue that they're clearly unregenerate, all the way through. They don't become regenerate, then unregenerate.

On the contrary, Scripture talks directly about God being the One Who chooses, and that not based on human will or effort.

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. Rom 9:11-16
​

James 2:5 is misquoted. God picks people for salvation without respect of characteristics. Many are poor, and that teaches us something about respecting the poor as our family of Christ. Some are rich, and that teaches us something, too. They're not special -- they have tasks to do, too. "As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy." 1 Tim 6:17

God didn't choose poor people exclusively nor inclusively. He simply chose people. He chose the poor to teach us something -- in fact the exact opposite of, "It's clear why God chose him to be saved, because he's [poor|rich]". To miss that is to miss what James 2:5 says.

On the contrary, Atonement must state who is actually atoned-for -- who Jesus lays down His life for. In other words, the Atonement is an actual atonement. Not some halfway-atonement. The Atonement is not a proposal about salvation, for you to accept or reject. The Atonement is the entire process of salvation.

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. John 10:14-15
​

So not everyone is saved. Were the ransom paid on all, all would be saved.

Jesus is the sole One propitiator for the whole world, as 1 Jn 2:2 states. He's for this whole creation. But He won't save every person in this creation. And that's precisely what the doctrine of Limited Atonement says.

It may be instructive to point out, in free-will views Limited Atonement isn't expanded to Universal Atonement. It's still limited Atonement, though in a very different way. Why? Because in these views Jesus doesn't actually save anyone. Their wills or actions must be applied to His work to finish the actual Atonement. So their Atonement is partial and proposed; ours actual and accomplished.

On the contrary, Irresistible Grace is the attribute of creative grace. You can't stop God from creating a new life within you. You've no force in the matter to exert. Ep 2:1,5 describes this case: "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved"

For while we were still powerless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die--but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Rom 5:6-8

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? ... No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:30-31,37-39
​

Why Mt 23:13 would be relevant in this case is a paradox. There's nothing explicit here. It certainly doesn't speak about God's power to create spiritual life. In Mt 23:13 Jesus is attacking the severe inconsistency in the Pharisaical view of the kingdom of heaven being the kingdom of Israel, of setting high bars to a counterfeit of the kingdom of heaven, deflecting people from entry into that. Of course this obscures the true kingdom of heaven, and the Pharisees are accused of deception and deflection. God ordains the processes of His creation (theologically, "means"). The Pharisees were subverting them.

Excellent deconstruction of the anti-Calvinist position, which has been DOA for pages now in this thread. This thread is starting to resemble a Monty Python skit, where the anti-Calvinist position is pronounced dead, and a voice says "no I'm not!". So we whack it again.

Now we have JDS, self-appointed crusader against Calvinism trying to push his agenda of hatred of Calvinism here. He can't stop himself from disrespecting Calvinists, especially female Calvinists. All in the guise of "trying to help us".

I wonder what "JDS" stands for? I hope it's not "Jesus Died Spiritually", because that would clearly brand him as a heretic.

 

[MamaZ]

JDS I do not know who you are but know that Christ in me is greater than he that is in the world.. I walk with MY God on a second on second basis..I devour His word because I love His word for it is Spirit and life to me.. I am His and I am bought with the precious blood of Jesus. I have a wonderful strong believer in the Lord as a husband.. So what you keep trying to say to me about trying to be my friend I have to tell you that coming in here and not loving your brethren in the Way Christ demands in His word is one way for me to see that you are not here out of love and edification of the body.. You may not believe in Predestination but this is what scripture teaches..If you do not believe but then I do we can discuss the scriptures. Don't make this personal any more please.. It bothers me..

 

[nobdysfool]

JDS, you owe MamaZ an apology for your disrespect, and your sexist condescension. You owe her an apology for denigrating her faith, and for your insufferable arrogance.

Quite frankly, you're undermining any argument you think you have, Cut your losses, and start over, or just leave. Your attitude has no place here.

 

[heymikey80]

Your question reveals your predisposition to believe the false doctrine of the Calvinists to think that faith is a work.

How is it you attack Calvinists on bases you can't defend?

And why should anyone believe you about Calvinists, if you can't point up accurately their positions?

 

[JDS]

Don't make this personal any more please.. It bothers me..

Okay, MamaZ, if you think I was addressing you particularly and if you think I have made sexist remarks and if you cannot realize that I have qualified my remarks as being against a doctrine I consider to be false but is spreading throughout christendom very rapidly, and not against yiou personally, then I make a public apology for any offence or discomfort I have wrought in your life and I will not address your comments again.

_____________
heymickey80 Quote:
How is it you attack Calvinists on bases you can't defend?

And why should anyone believe you about Calvinists, if you can't point up accurately their positions?

Do not take offense that I have pointed out that the faith of man without God giving it to him as a gift is termed a work by Calvinists. Are you denying that this is a Calvinist position and is never presented as an argument against the whosoever will position?

I will tell you friends, I am making detailed aruments against the veracity of tulip and none of you are attempting to set the doctrines straight. One of my complaints is that you cannot defend Calvinism using the words of scripture. Here is an example; "For God so loved the world". Tell me if you think that word means elect.
______________________

nobdysfool Quote
JDS, you owe MamaZ an apology for your disrespect, and your sexist condescension. You owe her an apology for denigrating her faith, and for your insufferable arrogance.

Quite frankly, you're undermining any argument you think you have, Cut your losses, and start over, or just leave. Your attitude has no place here.
____________________

Are you kidding? I have made no personal attacks. I have no personal animosity against any of you because of your theology. Pity, maybe, but I harbor no ill feelings toward you.

I have pointed out inconsistencies in your rhetoric and your theological positions. I have asked you to reconcile them and you have attacked me. Your comments are much more a personal attack against me than any I have made so far. How about apologizing to me?

MamaZ made the comment that "all are welcome at the cross". Is that the Calvinist position in your understanding? If not, why is it arrogance for me to expect the teachers of Calvinism on this forum to at least be consistent with their doctrine? If I am not consistent, I invite you to call me on it. I will not be upset about it.

 

[AndOne]

How can one discuss ones theology if you are not true to it? I have discussed evangelism with a calvinist evangelist that wept because people would not believe the gospel and be saved while telling me that it was impossible for them to believe it if God did not elect them. They were trying to love someone God had already predetermined to hate. Does that make any sense to you? It don't to me.

Proof positive you really aren't reading or paying attention to anything any of us have said. I told you - this is not the way a Calvinist thinks. This is not what a Calvinists worries about. Why - because it is not scriptural. Quite frankly I don't believe you had this discussion with a Calvinist evangelist. No Calvinist will ever claim to know who is or isn't elect.

But I digress - how can you expect to convince anyone of anything or have any meaningful discussion of a topic when you show by your posts that you are only interested in stirring the pot.

 

[JDS]

how can you expect to convince anyone of anything or have any meaningful discussion of a topic when you show by your posts that you are only interested in stirring the pot.

I am not stirring the pot! I have said plainly that I think Calvinism, the tulip, is not true Christian doctrine, but a perversion of it. I am demonstrating it by pointing out the inconsistencies between the rhetoric and the stated doctrines. Those who have commented have accused me of misrepresentation but none has demonstrated it.

Are we required to have a positive view of the TULIP before we can comment on this site?

I do not mean to come across as obnoxious and if I do, I apologize for that but people with whom one has strong disagreements rarely think you are nice!

I really think that most of you are not educated enough in your doctrines to defend them and I think some of you are surprised when I tell you what they are! For instance, I have no evidence that you are familiar with them! So far, you have just been a critisizer.

 

[nobdysfool]

I am not stirring the pot! I have said plainly that I think Calvinism, the tulip, is not true Christian doctrine, but a perversion of it. I am demonstrating it by pointing out the inconsistencies between the rhetoric and the stated doctrines. Those who have commented have accused me of misrepresentation but none has demonstrated it.

Are we required to have a positive view of the TULIP before we can comment on this site?

I do not mean to come across as obnoxious and if I do, I apologize for that but people with whom one has strong disagreements rarely think you are nice!

It seems to have escaped you that coming in here, and declaring that you don't believe Calvinism is true Christian doctrine, automatically sets those who disagree in a defensive posture. Not only that, but we can read between the lines, and see that if you don't believe that Calvinists follow true Christian doctrine, then it follows that you believe that they follow false doctrine, and ultimately therefore are not truly saved. That is a judgment that you cannot make, nor should you presume to make it, and you clearly have, by what you have said, and what you have not said.

Add to that the clear mis-statements of Calvinism that you have so far made, and your credibility is just about zero. If you're going to declare something false, you better know for sure what it is, and you have shown that you don't. It's an easy leap to make to conclude that you are a fake, and don't deserve much of a listen.

You claim you have not set out to insult or demean anyone here, but that's nearly all you've done. I think you need to take some time to consider your methods, and your source material, and double-check to be sure you accurately understand and can articulate Calvinist doctrine correctly, before you try to tell us it's false. Falsehoods and straw men do not form a good basis for truth.

 

[JDS]

Not only that, but we can read between the lines, and see that if you don't believe that Calvinists follow true Christian doctrine, then it follows that you believe that they follow false doctrine, and ultimately therefore are not truly saved. That is a judgment that you cannot make, nor should you presume to make it, and you clearly have, by what you have said, and what you have not said.

I have made no judgment against any individual Calvinist. I do not know who is saved, for crying out loud. I am not judging men, I am judging Calvinism and I have scriptural authority for doing so. You are a disciple of Calvin and so therefore any criticism of Calvinism is personal to you so let me say this clearly.

My criticism is with your theological system, not with you personally!

I am a dispensationalist and I will venture a guess that you will not accept it as true bible doctrine. However dispensational theology is not a soteriological position and Calvinism is. Spurgeon said "Calvinism is the gospel".

Add to that the clear mis-statements of Calvinism that you have so far made, and your credibility is just about zero. If you're going to declare something false, you better know for sure what it is, and you have shown that you don't. It's an easy leap to make to conclude that you are a fake, and don't deserve much of a listen.

I am not buying that I have made clear mis-statements until you give examples and declare how I have misrepresented you.

You claim you have not set out to insult or demean anyone here, but that's nearly all you've done.

Why haven't I received a censor from the moderators? You answered correctly if you say your claim is bogus!

I think you need to take some time to consider your methods, and your source material, and double-check to be sure you accurately understand and can articulate Calvinist doctrine correctly, before you try to tell us it's false. Falsehoods and straw men do not form a good basis for truth.

The Calvinist posters on these forums comment on what they learn from their source materials and pastors and churches. The TULIP is clear cut. For instance the T is for total depravity which teaches that a man dead in trespasses and sins is totally unable to respond to God. He must be regenerated (given life, quickened) in order to be saved. God has a few elect that he alone will regenerate and the cross is the means by which he regenerates them. He will regenerate no others. Now, if you agree that I understand this correctly, why would you say that "ALL ARE INVITED TO COME TO THE CROSS"? Who is inviting them and why? Are the evangelists that God sends out speaking for God, or not? I am telling you that this makes no sense. The statement is not consistent with the "T' or tulip.

This is just one instance that I am pointing out. There are thousands I could choose as examples.

Here is one. You would probably say no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him and whosoever cometh to him he will in no way cast out and so if one is welcome at the cross and comes, it is because the Father has drawn him and will not be turned away. If "all" are welcome at the cross, then it is not hard to figure that all can be saved!

I am not going much farther with this because of your constant attacks against my character.

 

[heymikey80]

heymickey80 Quote:
How is it you attack Calvinists on bases you can't defend?

And why should anyone believe you about Calvinists, if you can't point up accurately their positions?

Do not take offense that

What you stated:

"Your question reveals your predisposition to believe the false doctrine of the Calvinists to think that faith is a work."
​

That's not accurate. It's false. We don't think of faith as a work in a wage-based system. We're critical of other systems who portray faith as a work in a wage-based system.

I have pointed out that the faith of man without God giving it to him as a gift is termed a work by Calvinists. Are you denying that this is a Calvinist position and is never presented as an argument against the whosoever will position?

Of course not. Because we don't think your position is real. So for us this conclusion doesn't work. As a result for us faith isn't part of a wage-based system.

If you don't think it is either, then tell me where you object to this sequence explaining faith for eternal life:

God makes a covenant: eternal life for faith.
We deliver on our side: faith.
He gives us what He promised: eternal life.
​

That's the sense in which many in your position are considered in Calvinism. That's the form of delivery on a wage-based system.

Are you saying that it is never presented like this non-Calvinist circles?

But please, tell me how yours is different.

I will tell you friends, I am making detailed aruments against the veracity of tulip and none of you are attempting to set the doctrines straight. One of my complaints is that you cannot defend Calvinism using the words of scripture. Here is an example; "For God so loved the world". Tell me if you think that word means elect.

It means the entire creational system. Do you think everything in the entire creational system is going to be copied over into the New Heaven and Earth? Is every insect and bug gonna be there?

We've overconcentrated on a human-centered reality if we think it's focused on every human being without exception. It's not. It's the world as a whole.

 

[drstevej]

Arminian concept of depravity...

​

 

[A New Dawn]

Arminian concept of depravity...

​

Or, as they say on the Green Mile ................ DEAD MAN WALKING.

 

[MamaZ]

Okay, MamaZ, if you think I was addressing you particularly and if you think I have made sexist remarks and if you cannot realize that I have qualified my remarks as being against a doctrine I consider to be false but is spreading throughout christendom very rapidly, and not against yiou personally, then I make a public apology for any offence or discomfort I have wrought in your life and I will not address your comments again.

As long as it is scripture and not personal I do not mind us discussing. Do not call me honey please and single me out with responses such as you have been here to aid me with my name being used.. This was getting a little too personal for me. I say this for I am to gaurd my heart . I love to discuss scripture though.. I truly do not know what you mean by the Tulip.. I have heard it said and spoken of but predestination is biblical.. God did so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him might be saved.. One can only come to Christ if the Father draws Him.. We do not know who will be saved.. We do not who these who so ever is.. Do you?

 

[MamaZ]

Gods gives us the faith. We in return give Him our whole life to glorify Him.

 

[JDS]

What you stated:

"Your question reveals your predisposition to believe the false doctrine of the Calvinists to think that faith is a work."
​

That's not accurate. It's false. We don't think of faith as a work in a wage-based system. We're critical of other systems who portray faith as a work in a wage-based system.

Of course not. Because we don't think your position is real. So for us this conclusion doesn't work. As a result for us faith isn't part of a wage-based system.

If you don't think it is either, then tell me where you object to this sequence explaining faith for eternal life:

God makes a covenant: eternal life for faith.
We deliver on our side: faith.
He gives us what He promised: eternal life.
​

That's the sense in which many in your position are considered in Calvinism. That's the form of delivery on a wage-based system.

Are you saying that it is never presented like this non-Calvinist circles?

But please, tell me how yours is different.

It means the entire creational system. Do you think everything in the entire creational system is going to be copied over into the New Heaven and Earth? Is every insect and bug gonna be there?

We've overconcentrated on a human-centered reality if we think it's focused on every human being without exception. It's not. It's the world as a whole.

I think you are a Calvinist but I do not know if you really understand your own teaching. You have presented very little of your actual doctrines for me to comment on. I certainly do not desire to enter in a discussion on philosophy with you. My faith is not based on philosophical musings, it is based on the words of scripture. The words of scripture concerning who can be saved and how they are saved are so simple, I do not know how anyone can miss it.

The simplicity of salvation is really what I think Calvin and all his prophets rebelled against. They could just not believe that it is by simple faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ and nothing else and it is for everyone who will simply believe. I think they probably thought it must be more complicated than that so they set out to create a system that would be more worthy of something so grand. TULIP is the result!

 

[drstevej]

The simplicity of salvation is really what I think Calvin and all his prophets rebelled against

No Calvinists nor Calvin ever claimed to be a prophet. Just another cheap shot or lack of understanding.