The Tulip is broken

[nobdysfool]

The antagonist appears to have conceded the argument. The TULIP stands strong, unbowed, and unbroken. Despite all 839 posts, the OP has failed.

"Nuff said", indeed!

 

[Van]

The Tulip is broken
Here are the four points of the TULIP, in John MacArthur's words, that I believe are unbiblical.

“Total depravity” means you can’t do anything to save yourself. You can’t even make a right choice. You can’t awaken your spiritual deadness. You can’t give life where there is death. You can’t come to a right conclusion on your own. Total depravity means that everyone, is by virtue of their own will and their own power and their own choices, incapable of redemption. That’s total depravity.”

This statement is almost biblical, only the “bolded” sentences are unbiblical. God sets before us the choice between life and death, and therefore to say we are unable to choose life contradicts scripture. To avoid the obvious contradiction, Calvinists say when you choose the only choice available, death, you are actually making a “choice.” But that redefines “choice” to mean “non-choice.” Jesus teaches in Matthew 13:20-22 that some men who are dead in their trespasses and sins received the gospel with joy, certainly the right choice. Therefore the "T" in the Tulip is unbiblical if it is asserted to apply to all men.

“In the case of “Unconditional election”, you have the view in the Scripture that the people who are saved are saved because they were chosen by God apart from any merit of their own, apart from any condition.”

This statement is completely unbiblical, James 2:5 tells us God chooses people based on their condition, those rich in faith, those that love God, and those who do not treasure the things of this world. Paul teaches a similar truth in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31. And again, Paul teaches that God chooses people in his day, just as God chose people who were faithful in Romans 11:3-6. John 3:16 says whoever believes in Him shall not perish.

“Limited atonement”, in the typical reformed view, means that the atonement, in its actual work, the actual efficacy of the atonement, was only for the elect.”

Again, this statement is completely unbiblical, 1 John 2:2 tells us that Christ became the propitiation (means of salvation) not only for us (members of the Church) but also for the whole world. Paul tells us He laid down His life as a ransom for all. Therefore the finished work of the cross provides (1) the means of salvation available to all men, and (2) provides salvation for anyone spiritually placed in Christ.

“Irresistible grace”, which is the idea that when the spirit of God works on the heart of a sinner, the sinner can’t resist.”

And finally, this too, is almost biblical. But it is carefully crafted to blend the idea that God's will, what ever it is, cannot be resisted, with the false idea that God's will is to compel people with Irresistible Grace to trust in Christ. However, in Matthew 23:13 men who are entering, or trying to enter the Kingdom of Yahweh, and therefore could not be turned aside because of irresistible grace if the premise were true, are turned aside and do not enter. Therefore it is God's will to allow men to accept or reject the gospel and not compel them as Calvinism wrongly asserts.

The TULIP is broken because it is unbiblical.

 

[Van]

The TULIP is broken.

The "T" refers to total spiritual inability and that assertion is unbiblical. Matthew 13:20-22 teaches that unregenerate folks have the ability to accept the gospel with joy, so while some folks have hardened themselves with the practice of sin, they have lost what spiritual ability they had, and therefore cannot understand the gospel, this condition does not apply to all men, according to Jesus.

The "U" refers to Unconditional election and that assertion is unbiblical. God chooses folks based on their characteristics, he credits their faith as righteousness. James 2:5, Romans 4:5.

The "L" refers to Limited Atonement and this assertion as defined by Calvinism, is unbiblical. 1 John 2:2 tells us Christ is the propitiation for the whole world. Christ laid down his life as a ransom for all.

The "I" refers to Irresistible Grace and this assertion is unbiblical. Matthew 23:13 teaches us of folks who were entering heaven, and thus, according to the false doctrine of Calvinism, were under the influence of Irresistible Grace, yet they were turned aside by false teachers.

Thus the TULIP is broken four out of five ways. The only doctrine that is biblical is that once God causes a person to be born again, He keeps them for their inheritance reserved in heaven for them, 1 Peter 1:3-5.

The doctrine of the gift of faith has been shown not to supported by Ephesians 2:8 because the gift does not refer to faith. Because God created us with the ability to believe or not to believe and He provided His revelation for us to believe in, the origin of our faith is God, but God did not instill our faith via Irresistible Grace, see Matthew 23:13.

 

[JDS]

The TULIP is broken.

The "T" refers to total spiritual inability and that assertion is unbiblical. Matthew 13:20-22 teaches that unregenerate folks have the ability to accept the gospel with joy, so while some folks have hardened themselves with the practice of sin, they have lost what spiritual ability they had, and therefore cannot understand the gospel, this condition does not apply to all men, according to Jesus.

The "U" refers to Unconditional election and that assertion is unbiblical. God chooses folks based on their characteristics, he credits their faith as righteousness. James 2:5, Romans 4:5.

The "L" refers to Limited Atonement and this assertion as defined by Calvinism, is unbiblical. 1 John 2:2 tells us Christ is the propitiation for the whole world. Christ laid down his life as a ransom for all.

The "I" refers to Irresistible Grace and this assertion is unbiblical. Matthew 23:13 teaches us of folks who were entering heaven, and thus, according to the false doctrine of Calvinism, were under the influence of Irresistible Grace, yet they were turned aside by false teachers.

Thus the TULIP is broken four out of five ways. The only doctrine that is biblical is that once God causes a person to be born again, He keeps them for their inheritance reserved in heaven for them, 1 Peter 1:3-5.

The doctrine of the gift of faith has been shown not to supported by Ephesians 2:8 because the gift does not refer to faith. Because God created us with the ability to believe or not to believe and He provided His revelation for us to believe in, the origin of our faith is God, but God did not instill our faith via Irresistible Grace, see Matthew 23:13.

A real problem is that men who know this continues to measure men like Spurgeon, Pink, Gill, and others by something other than their doctrine. Anyone who says that Calvinism is the gospel should be marked and branded as an errorist, at the very least, that is if we actually believe what you have just written.

Listen, almost all Calvinists believe in covenant theology which requires them to deny the promises to Israel and teach replacement theology. The OT prophets have produced one giant allegory except in the one place literal interpretation cannot be denied, the first coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh.

If one gets off the beam at the beginning by a fraction of an inch, he will eventually be off by a mile.

 

[A New Dawn]

The TULIP is broken because it is unbiblical.

You repeating that does not make it so. The doctrines of grace are the most Biblical soteriologic explanation out there and the fact that believers in the doctrines of grace alone give all glory to God instead of holding that greatest portion back for themselves points to that fact.

 

[nobdysfool]

A real problem is that men who know this continues to measure men like Spurgeon, Pink, Gill, and others by something other than their doctrine. Anyone who says that Calvinism is the gospel should be marked and branded as an errorist, at the very least, that is if we actually believe what you have just written.

Listen, almost all Calvinists believe in covenant theology which requires them to deny the promises to Israel and teach replacement theology. The OT prophets have produced one giant allegory except in the one place literal interpretation cannot be denied, the first coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh.

If one gets off the beam at the beginning by a fraction of an inch, he will eventually be off by a mile.

Just more mis-information and falsehoods by someone who clearly does not know what Calvinism teaches, who gets his information from Calvinist-hating websites, and makes sweeping indictments of Calvinists with no proof.

Not all Calvinists are Covenant theology. I don't know where you got that bit of false info, but it is a lie. You just can't shake that "lock-step" idea that you are so sure that Calvinism is, with no proof, and despite repeated denials by actual Calvinists. Since you seem to discount and disbelieve anything a real Calvinist tells you, you logically believe that all Calvinists are liars.

Do You?

 

[JDS]

Just more mis-information and falsehoods by someone who clearly does not know what Calvinism teaches, who gets his information from Calvinist-hating websites, and makes sweeping indictments of Calvinists with no proof.

Not all Calvinists are Covenant theology. I don't know where you got that bit of false info, but it is a lie. You just can't shake that "lock-step" idea that you are so sure that Calvinism is, with no proof, and despite repeated denials by actual Calvinists. Since you seem to discount and disbelieve anything a real Calvinist tells you, you logically believe that all Calvinists are liars.

Do You?

Not on purpose. They have just bought into something that is not true and spread it, thinking it is true.

I think most calvinists teach covenant theology but some teach post mil. The only Calvinists that I know who teach premil are the Landmark Baptists, who teach TULIP but deny they are teaching Calvinism and at the same time teach that only Baptists are in the bride of Christ. Go figure!

 

[A New Dawn]

Not on purpose. They have just bought into something that is not true and spread it, thinking it is true.

I think most calvinists teach covenant theology but some teach post mil. The only Calvinists that I know who teach premil are the Landmark Baptists, who teach TULIP but deny they are teaching Calvinism and at the same time teach that only Baptists are in the bride of Christ. Go figure!

I think you really, really need to stop posting on this discussion board till you actually go out and research things thoroughly. You are so far off the mark it is almost humorous to read your posts.

 

[nobdysfool]

Not on purpose. They have just bought into something that is not true and spread it, thinking it is true.

I think most calvinists teach covenant theology but some teach post mil. The only Calvinists that I know who teach premil are the Landmark Baptists, who teach TULIP but deny they are teaching Calvinism and at the same time teach that only Baptists are in the bride of Christ. Go figure!

You don't know what I believe regarding that, and I'm not going to be so naive as to tell you. But, you have not yet touched it. You don't know nearly enough about Calvinism, or Calvinists to be making the foolish statements you make. You are willfully ignorant.

 

[drstevej]

I think most calvinists teach covenant theology but some teach post mil. The only Calvinists that I know who teach premil are the Landmark Baptists, who teach TULIP but deny they are teaching Calvinism and at the same time teach that only Baptists are in the bride of Christ. Go figure!

Scuse me. Covenant Theologians come in all eschato-flavors (Pre, Post and A Millennial).

Try again.

 

[JDS]

Scuse me. Covenant Theologians come in all eschato-flavors (Pre, Post and A Millennial).

Try again.

Can you recommend a pre-mil 5 pointer who is not a Landmarker? Post a link if you have one.

 

[JDS]

I think you really, really need to stop posting on this discussion board till you actually go out and research things thoroughly. You are so far off the mark it is almost humorous to read your posts.

Hi there, AND, I hope your day is going well. I am told the way to discern counterfeit money is to be very aquainted with the real thing. It works for me.

 

[nobdysfool]

Hi there, AND, I hope your day is going well. I am told the way to discern counterfeit money is to be very aquainted with the real thing. It works for me.

Sorry to inform you, but you've been becoming too familiar with the counterfeit. So much so, that you don't know the real thing when you see it. A New Dawn is correct. You really need to properly educate yourself. As it is, you are embarrassing yourself with every post you make, and sadly, you don't even realize you are. Such is the depth of your ignorance, that you don't even realize your ignorance. We're trying to help you, but you won't let us.

 

[bling]

Charles Hodge has it right ;


Charles Hodge (1797 – 1878) was the principal of Princeton Theological Seminary between 1851 and 1878. He was one of the greatest exponents and defenders of historical Calvinism in America during the 19th century.
From his commentary on Ephesians:

Vs. 8, 9. These verses confirm the preceding declaration. The manifestation of the grace of God is the great end of redemption. This is plain, for salvation is entirely of grace. Ye are saved by grace; ye are saved by faith and not by works; and even faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. We have then here a manifold assertion, affirmative and negative, of the gratuitous nature of salvation. It is not only said in general, ‘ye are saved by grace,’ but further that salvation is by faith, i. e. by simply receiving or apprehending the offered blessing. From the very nature of faith, as an act of assent and trust, it excludes the idea of merit. If by faith, it is of grace; if of works, it is of debt; as the apostle argues in Rom. 4, 4. 5. Faith, therefore, is the mere causa apprehendens, the simple act of accepting, and not the ground on which salvation is bestowed. Not of works. The apostle says works, without qualification or limitation. It is not, therefore, ceremonial, as distinguished from good works; or legal, as distinguished from evangelical or gracious works; but works of all kinds as distinguished from faith, which are excluded. Salvation is in no sense, and in no degree, of works; for to him that worketh the reward is a matter of debt. But salvation is of grace and therefore not of works lest any man should boast. That the guilty should stand before God with self-complacency, and refer his salvation in any measure to his own merit, is so abhorrent to all right feeling that Paul assumes it (Rom. 4, 2) as an intuitive truth, that no man can boast before God. And to all who have any proper sense of the holiness of God and of the evil of sin, it is an intuition; and therefore a gratuitous salvation, a salvation which excludes with works all ground of boasting, is the only salvation suited to the relation of guilty men to God.


The only point in the interpretation of these verses of any doubt, relates to the second clause. What is said to be the gift of God? Is it salvation, or faith? The words καὶ τοῦτο only serve to render more proninent the matter referred to. Compare Rom. 13, 11. 1 Cor. 6, 6. Phil. 1, 28. Heb. 11, 12. They may relate to faith (τὸ πιστεύει&#957, or to the salvation spoken of (σεσωσμένους εἶνα&#953. Beza, following the fathers, prefers the former reference; Calvin, with most of the modern commentators, the latter. The reasons in favour of the former interpretation are, 1. It best suits the design of the passage. The object of the apostle is to show the gratuitous nature of salvation. This is most effectually done by saying, ‘Ye are not only saved by faith in opposition to works, but your very faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.’ 2. The other interpretation makes the passage tautological. To say: ‘Ye are saved by faith; not of yourselves; your salvation is the gift of God; it is not of works,’ is saying the same thing over and over without any progress. Whereas to say: ‘Ye are saved through faith (and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God), not of works,’ is not repetitious; the parenthetical clause instead of being redundant does good service and greatly increases the force of the passage. 3. According to this interpretation the antithesis between faith and works, so common in Paul’s writings, is preserved. ‘Ye are saved by faith, not by works, lest any man should boast.’ The middle clause of the verse is therefore parenthetical, and refers not to the main idea ye are saved, but to the subordinate one through faith, and is designed to show how entirely salvation is of grace, since even faith by which we apprehend the offered mercy, is the gift of God. 4. The analogy of Scripture is in favor of this view of the passage, in so far that elsewhere faith is represented as the gift of God. 1 Cor. 1, 26-31. Eph. 1, 19. Col. 2, 12, et passim.

Thank you, for giving us an example of how a scholarly person might come up with a different meaning. The problem is Charles Hodge does not address the grammar being used at all. The scholars that address the grammar are in agreement with the possible exception of Doddridge if you consider him a “Greek Scholar”. Phillip Doddridge did write in the 1700’s independently, but his Greek translation into the English really lacked peer review and has many passages that are not translated the same way to day since more manuscripts have been found and groups of scholars have worked together.
As far as Charles Hodge showing there lacks progression with calling salvation a “gift” since that was being said prior, I do not see salvation being talked about as a “gift”, but salvation is said to be the result of God’s mercy. The following verses continue the theme of “not by works”. A “gift” is something you can reject the way you can reject the invitation to a huge party, so this does add a dimension to salvation.

 

[bling]

Princeton or a dark alley ? it's a tough one ....

Before you jump on Hodge’s bandwagon as being a brilliant thinker that is not influenced by others, you might want to check out his writing and sermons on: slavery, racial hierarchy, and the position of women. He interprets scripture to support his ideas on these subjects.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Before you jump on Hodge’s bandwagon as being a brilliant thinker that is not influenced by others, you might want to check out his writing and sermons on: slavery, racial hierarchy, and the position of women. He interprets scripture to support his ideas on these subjects.

How about you show us his position and the fact that he changed his views about slavery?

 

[nobdysfool]

Before you jump on Hodge’s bandwagon as being a brilliant thinker that is not influenced by others, you might want to check out his writing and sermons on: slavery, racial hierarchy, and the position of women. He interprets scripture to support his ideas on these subjects.

How about you stop with the ad hominem attacks?

 

[AndOne]

Can you recommend a pre-mil 5 pointer who is not a Landmarker? Post a link if you have one.

John MacArthur.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-336.htm

 

[JDS]

John MacArthur.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-336.htm

Several years ago I listened on radio to John McArthur. I rather enjoyed some of his messages. It took quite some time for me to realize that he was reformed. I think he does not major on the TULIP doctrines as much as other reformed and Calvinists and I certainly do not see him quoted and referenced very much at all. He has disagreed with the church fathers more in the article you linked to than any reformed I have read. He actually is in disagreement with much more than just covenant theology. He is a dispensationalist and he believes the church began at Pentecost, I think, and he might even believe in the rapture.

This quote seems a rather strong indictment against covenant reformed:

In the theological world where people believe in the doctrine of election more strongly than anywhere else, they are more prone to deny Israel’s election than anywhere else. In fact, they have come up with the idea that the church, God’s new and present elect, receives all the promises once given to Israel, all those promises and covenants having been cancelled to Israel because of Israel’s apostasy, Israel’s unbelief, and Israel’s rejection of Christ, they then being permanently set aside, all the promises come to the church.

But, you did what I asked. Thank you!

 

[drstevej]

Several years ago I listened on radio to John McArthur. I rather enjoyed some of his messages. It took quite some time for me to realize that he was reformed. I think he does not major on the TULIP doctrines as much as other reformed and Calvinists and I certainly do not see him quoted and referenced very much at all. He has disagreed with the church fathers more in the article you linked to than any reformed I have read. He actually is in disagreement with much more than just covenant theology. He is a dispensationalist and he believes the church began at Pentecost, I think, and he might even believe in the rapture.

You confuse soteriology and eschatology. There are many dispensationalists who are Calvinists. I am one.

Your historical knowledge really need remedial work.

He is a dispensationalist and he believes the church began at Pentecost, I think, and he might even believe in the rapture.

Duh. Dispensationalism includes a belief in the rapture.