The Tulip is broken

[Van]

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.

 

[bling]

You forgot the “P” for Perseverance of the saints is the belief that once God has begun a saving work within the life of a Christian, He will not let that person (ultimately) fall from grace. Sin and temptation are still very real in the lives of God's children, but it is impossible for a true Christian to renounce his faith.

The same arguments you use for election apply to perseverance. It is not logical to think there is the removal of “free will” after making one free will choice to accept God’s Love. We can still make a free will choice to stop accepting God’s forgiveness (Love) giving up our inheridence or selling our birth right. God does not force people to go to heaven that have changed their minds and do not want to be with God. As you have said, “people are free will agents.” It is not logical to assume people give up there rights after making one choice.

 

[AndOne]

Bling makes an excellent point.

Van -

If you hold to eternal security - what happens to your will after you accept Christ? Does God somehow transform your "will" to not be willing to turn away from Him? Seems to me that if you believe in eternal security you hold to a form of predeterminism regardless of weather you want to admit it or not.

If you truly believe that people are free will agents - then how can you hold to eternal security? As Bling says it just isn't logical.

 

[mattlock73]

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

There are 5 points in Calvin's TULIP acronym. You missed Perseverance of the saints.

“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.

Eph 2:8 states that even faith is a gift from God. John states that faith is work, so if we were able to come to faith on our own, then salvation would be based, at least partially, on works which would contradict all of the NT. Those in Matthew 13 received the Gospel with joy it is true. But why did they receive it with joy? Because God drew (regenerated their spirit) them. We know from Paul that the hearing of the Gospel is one of the ways God draws the elect to Him. There is nothing unscriptural here. There are so many verses that support total depravity, Matt. 11:27; 13:11; John 6:44,63-65; Rom. 8:5-8; 1 Cor. 2:12,14; 2 Tim. 2:25-26 to give a few examples.

“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.

Election took place before the world was made (Eph 1:4) and Paul uses this fact to point out that election is not based on any merit or free-will choice by the elect (Rom 9:11-13) The OT has plenty of examples of God's election, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, Cain and Abel. Faith is a work (jhn 6:29), so if salvation is based not on works but on grace (rom 11:5-6 among others), then election cannot be based on faith.

“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.

There are some issues with your theology here. Here is a cut and paste from the works of Frank Beck who states this more eloquently than I ever could. If you wish to read the entire article, link.

Do you, my reader, believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all men without exception? Perhaps many who read this will answer, Yes. I then ask you, Why are not all men without exception saved? You will probably reply, Because they do not believe in Jesus Christ.


But, I say to you, if Christ died for the sins of all men He died for their unbelief, for that is part of their sins, and they will be saved nevertheless! If Christ truly died for their sins, they will not need to die for them.


There are only three answers that can be given to this problem.


First, believing that Christ died for the sins of all men without exception, you must believe that all men will be saved. This is the Universalist view, or at least this was the view with which the Universalist Church began under John Murray (about 1770, Vergilius Ferm, A Protestant Dictionary, pp. 266-267). This is consistent and logical with this view of the atonement, or death of Christ. However, it is not true. The Son of God tells us that "many" march the broad way that leads to "destruction" (Matt. 7:21-23); that "many" will hear Christ say in the day of judgment: "I never knew you, depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting fire" (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:41). Christ could not have died for the sins of those who die in their sins (John 8:24).


Secondly, those who hold the view that Christ died for the sins of all men and reject the Universalist view, claim that He died for all the sins of men except unbelief! This was held by the late Lewis Sperry Chafer, President of Dallas Theological Seminary (in his book, True Evangelism, pp. 34, 64). Then Christ did not die for all of our sins after all. Only for some of them! He never died for our unbelief. Of course the implication is that if we repent of our unbelief and believe on Christ we are no longer guilty of unbelief! Our unbelief has vanished. But "God requireth that which is past" (Ecc. 3:15), and the fact that we now believe, does not overlook the fact that we were for many years guilty of unbelief, and that sin has never been dealt with by Christ's death. Then we are all lost, from the least to the greatest, for we are still guilty of our old unbelief in Christ. Christ never died for that sin. It has never been atoned for. How better the view of 1 Corinthians 15:3, "Christ died for our sins" (all of them!); also 1 John 1:7, "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin." This second view cannot be right.


Thirdly, that Christ died for all the sins of all the elect. He laid down His life for the "sheep" (John 10:15); for His friends (John 15:13-14); He gave Himself for the "church" (Eph. 5:25); as a ransom for the "many" (Mark 10:45). These distinctions are not necessary if Christ died for all men without exception, and are meaningless. They make sense only when a limited atonement of Christ is upheld. This view we embrace and now set before you.

“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.

So God has chosen His elect from before the creation of the World, and now He will let the work that he began be defeated by the will of man? I do not think so. Rom 9:18 states that He has mercy on those He WILLS to have mercy on and hardens those He WILLS to be hardened. There is nothing wishy-washy in there. What God wills, will be done. It's not, God wills it, so maybe it will be done if I agree. John 19:11 says exactly what Christ thinks of man's power over God's "Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above:" Psalm 65:4 declares "Blessed [is the man whom] thou choosest, and causest to approach [unto thee, that] he may dwell in thy courts:"

I can't wait to see what you have for the last topic.

 

[Van]

Hi Mattlock73,

I did not miss "P"; I did not include it in the Calvinist doctrines I believe are unbiblical.

Ephesians 2:8 says salvation is a gift, not that our faith is a gift. Greek grammar precludes that the idea was that faith was a gift because the gender of the word translated "faith" does not agree with the gender of the pronoun "that" in the phrase "and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God.

Do not confuse "works" with an "s" as in earning a reward with doing a work (singular" that God requires, believing in Christ.

No verse, contextually considered supports total depravity. And the guys in Matthew 13:20-22 were not regenerated, because they fell away and were never saved.

Lets look at Matthew 11:27. It does not address total spiritual inability, it simply says no one "knows" the Son unless the Son reveals Himself. The very next verse says come to Me all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

Next lets look at Matthew 13:11. It says that at that time, it had not been given to some to reveal Christ, so Christ spoke in parables. Why in parables, if they could not understand? That makes no sense. Rather, because they could understand and be healed, but the timing was not right, Jesus did not reveal it to them at that time. So the very verse you used to support Total Spiritual Inability actually supports limited spiritual ability. I repeat, no verse in scripture supports Total Spiritual Inability for all of fallen mankind, but some of fallen mankind suffer from total spiritual inability. The first type of soil in the parable of the four soils. However, what your position is is that this applies to all four kinds of soils, but that is not what scripture says.

Next, you say election occurred before creation, referring to our individual election to salvation. But that is unbiblical. Yes Ephesians 1:4 says He chose us in Him... but what does that mean. You think it means He chose us individually to be in Him.... But I assert it means He chose Christ as redeemer before creation, and therefore as a consequence He chose us not individually, but simply as the target group of His redemption plan, for you do not choose a Redeemer unless you plan on redemption.
Why this view, rather than your? Because of 1 Peter 2:9-10. Here we see that we lived without mercy before we obtained mercy. We were not His people and then we were chosen to be His people. Therefore, our individual election to salvation had to occur after we lived without mercy. So after creation. Therefore Ephesians 1:4 does not refer to our individual election. Otherwise a paradox is created.

Romans 9 does indeed teach that our election is conditioned upon faith in Christ, see (9:30-33). And BTW, note that Romans 9:16 teaches that fallen man can will to be saved, for it says it does not depend upon the man that runs or wills. And when were Jacob and Esua chosen, before creation or from the womb? From the womb, not before creation. So they were not being chosen for salvation according to your doctrine, yet you offer it as if it did. Why?

Election can be based on faith, James 2:5 says God chooses those rich in faith.

Next it not necessary to believe that because Jesus died for all men, to become the propitiation for the whole world, that that requires all men to trust in Christ. His sacrifice provides the opportunity for salvation to all mankind. But His sacrifice did not take away anyone's sins, for a person must "receive" the reconciliation provided by the cross to have their sins forgiven.

Next, lets discuss the sin of "unbelief." Is anyone saved who currently does not believe? Nope. Do we all start out unbelieving? Yes. So Christ died for the sin of unbelief, and when we come believing to Christ, and are born again, our past sin of unbelief is forgiven.

Did Christ lay down His life for the elect? Of course, He laid down His life as a ransom for all, which includes the elect, the church, whatever. It is not either/or - it is both!

God will not let His work in us be defeated, all He caused to be born again will inherit eternal life. Once a person is chosen, during their lifetime and spiritually placed in Christ, they are saved forever. However, God chooses us after He credits our faith as righteousness by baptizing us spiritually into Christ's death. 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Note "from the beginning" not before the beginning? Election occurs after creation not before. And how are we chosen. Through the sanctification by the Spirit - the Holy Spirit baptizes us into Christ; and through knowledge of the truth - God accepts our faith in Christ.

 

[heymikey80]

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.

A real theologian:

This doctrine of Total Inability, which declares that men are dead in sin, does not mean that all men are equally bad, nor that any man is as bad as he could be, nor that any one in entirely destitute of virtue, nor that human nature is evil In Itself, nor that man's spirit is inactive, and much less does it mean that the body is dead. What it does mean is that since the fall man rests under the curse of sin, that he is actuated by wrong principles, and that he is wholly unable to love God or to do anything meriting salvation. His corruption is extensive but not necessarily intensive.
It is in this sense that man since the fail "is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil." He possesses a fixed bias of the will against God, and instinctively and willingly turns to evil. He is an alien by birth, and a sinner by choice. The inability under which he labors is not an inability to exercise volitions, but an inability to be willing to exercise holy volitions. And it is this phase of it which led Luther to declare that "Free-will is an empty term, whose reality is lost. And a lost liberty, according to my grammar, is no liberty at all." In matters pertaining to his salvation, the unregenerate man is not at liberty to choose between good and evil, but only to choose between greater and lesser evil, which is not properly free will. The fact that fallen man still has ability to do certain acts morally good in themselves does not prove that he can do acts meriting salvation, for his motives may be wholly wrong. L. Boettner, "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" -- "Total Inability"
​

“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.

Scripture states that God chooses people who have certain conditions. Scripture does not conclude God chooses people because of those conditions.

My parents chose to favor children who were blonde-haired. That says nothing about being a blonde causing their favor.

“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.

In 1 Jn 2:2 Van proposes "propitiation" to mean "Means of salvation" -- but that is not "actuality of salvation". So it doesn't even contradict MacArthur.

“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.

This argument falls under the same myopia about Matthew 23 as already described. The basic issue here is that the Pharisees are resisting -- not those who are actually entering. To think that sinful people don't naturally, sinfully resist the New Birth of others would tend to contradict "Total Inability", and that's not what "Irresistible Grace" is about.

 

[AndOne]

God will not let His work in us be defeated, all He caused to be born again will inherit eternal life. Once a person is chosen, during their lifetime and spiritually placed in Christ, they are saved forever. However, God chooses us after He credits our faith as righteousness by baptizing us spiritually into Christ's death. 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Note "from the beginning" not before the beginning? Election occurs after creation not before. And how are we chosen. Through the sanctification by the Spirit - the Holy Spirit baptizes us into Christ; and through knowledge of the truth - God accepts our faith in Christ.

So if a person chooses not to be saved anymore - what is that if he is no longer able to make or willing to make that decision? Sure doesn't sound like freewill to me.

Seriously - I can't understand why you cast stones at us Calvinists when you essentially believe the same thing in regards to "freewill." If you believe the above quote - you do not hold to any doctrine of freewill whatsoever.

 

[nobdysfool]

Just more of the typical "oppose Calvinism and Calvinists at all costs" baloney. The ones spouting this nonsense fancy themselves to be theologians, but it has been amply proven by many here, that they can't even think their way out of a wet paper bag, so to speak. In other words, their logic and thinking skills are non-existent. Their motivation is not truth, but the defeat of a theological position with which they disagree, because they have no proper grounding in what that theology actually teaches, but run off half-cocked with all sorts of assumptions, misinterpretations, and all manner of falsehoods which they represents as Calvinism, and refuse to be corrected about. Any attempt to correct them is declared to be "disparagement" of them, while they then disparage Calvinists and Calvinism right and left, declaring the "purity" of their motivations, while in the same breath declaring that the motivations of Calvinists are sinful, deceitful, and beneath contempt.

Posting thread after thread with provocative titles, which amount to flaming, their goal is not anything less than to negate and stop any Calvinist from being able to have a calm and rational discussion of their beliefs, so afraid are they to allow the Calvinist to speak unopposed. or to explain their view to those who truly want to know. Just like the Pharisees, they do not want to learn, and they prevent others from learning who want to.

My prayers for those who attempt to proclaim the truth in this thread. The OP certainly isn't.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

"Total depravity" means you can’t do anything to save yourself. You can’t even make a right choice.
More to the point, it means that Adam made the wrong choice on your behalf, and that your were born in agreement with his choice.
Given then that you had made the wrong choice before you had even left the womb, it was necessary for someone else to make the right choice on your behalf. Guess who.

You can’t come to a right conclusion on your own.
The reason the non-believer is a non-believer, is because he firmly believes it is right to not believe.






"Unconditional election"
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.
You don’t need to be chosen if you have already chosen God, for choosing God is the end of the line.
So God’s choosing of us, necessarily precedes ours of Him. Thus "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you"







John 3:16 says whoever believes in Him shall not perish.
Only the second Adam believes in God, that is why a second Adam was needed.
Just as the first Adam made all those in him to be sinners, so too the second Adam makes all those who are in Him to be believers.






"Limited atonement"
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.
The "whole world" was used in contrast to the Jew only. Similarly God also said He would pour out His Spirit on "all flesh", yet this has not occurred in the way the westerner thinks of the word "all". You need to know that the idea of a non-Jew being saved was very strange and new.







Paul tells us He laid down His life as a ransom for all.
And continues with "to be testified in due time".

Well what was testified? Simply that some non-Jews were saved, and not that everyone was saved. So the "all" speaks to category, and not "every person".

Thus Paul then continues "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not,) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity."
That is, his ministry to the non-Jew category that was "the Gentiles", was advanced as evidence that Christ’s life was a ransom for all.
And so it is an "all" as distinct from "the Jew", but not an exhaustive all.
That is, the mechanism of bringing in the sheep is not the subject of the discourse, but only the general facility.







"Irresistible grace", which is the idea that when the spirit of God works on the heart of a sinner, the sinner can’t resist."
As if the sinner has a right to sin anyway.
Has not God the right to take away that which is not a right?
Does not your internal revenue service rightfully take away the non-right to not pay taxes, by imprisonment?
Does not God have the right to take away our non-right to not believe by imprisoning us in His Son and making us slaves to righteousness?
Do you not take away the right of a human being to suicide, by snatching him from the edge of the bridge at the last minute against his will? Shall not God do more with those whom He loves with an everlasting love?






Van....if theology were simply about pulling verses out of the bible at the prima facie level, there would be no need for theology. There would only be what you do.





.

 

[Van]

Hi Behe's Boy, I think we have discussed this before. the issue is not whether anyone has free will, the issue is when can a person exercise his or her will and choose to trust in Christ. There are three views, the Calvinist view, the Biblical view and the Arminian view.

1) Calvinists think the fall removed the ability to choose life and therefore our will is constrained from conception to chose only evil. Then after some are altered by "irresistible grace" they can only chose Christ and are unable not to chose Christ.

2) The Biblical view is that the fall separated us from God and corrupted us so that we are predisposed to sin, but we can still seek God and believe in Him. Matthew 13:20-22. But after God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, Romans 4:5, He choses us through the sanctification by the Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:13) and places us spiritually in Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30) where He causes us to be born again, (1 Peter 1:3) and then protects our faith so that we are "kept" for our inheritance of eternal life (1 Peter 1:5). Therefore we are no longer able to exercise our will such that we turn away from Christ after we are born again.

3) The Arminian view is that the fall made us unable to trust in Christ, but Prevenient grace restored our ability to trust in Christ but the grace is resistible, and then once in heaven after we physically die, then our will is constrained such that we will not sin.

So by the numbers God constrains our will from conception according to the Calvinists, constrains our will after we are born again according to the Bible, and constrains our will after we physically die according to the Arminians.

 

[Van]

It is in this sense that man since the fail "is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil." He possesses a fixed bias of the will against God, and instinctively and willingly turns to evil. He is an alien by birth, and a sinner by choice. The inability under which he labors is not an inability to exercise volitions, but an inability to be willing to exercise holy volitions.

This doctrine is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22 where unregenerate folks receive the gospel with joy, thereby demonstrating they were seeking God and believed God rewards those who seek Him.

 

[bling]

Van,
I find it interesting you did not address my post at all but chose to address those that played off of it.

Van said:
the issue is not whether anyone has free will, the issue is when can a person exercise his or her will and choose to trust in Christ. There are three views, the Calvinist view, the Biblical view and the Arminian view.

I see “free will” as being a requirement for humans to fulfill their objective while here on earth, but I need to know what you think:
1. What is the mission statement for man? (The primary [behavioral] objective over riding all other objects [realizing any command or direction given by God would be an objective]).
2. What is God’s objective as it relates to humans?
3. Why did God have to create humans in the first place? Or did He not have to?

I think you are setting up a straw man with the “three view” approach, there is the truth and then there are many wrong options. I do not agree with any of these three views because your, “Biblical view” is not what those scriptures are saying. There is a lot going on in the Garden that needs to be addressed.

Van said: …then protects our faith so that we are "kept" for our inheritance of eternal life (1 Peter 1:5).

This conveys the idea that our inheritance is protected (guarded) so no one can take it from us. BUT it does not suggest we can not give it up or sell it. Gal. 6:9. All the writings to Christians suggest they could fall away.

 

[heymikey80]

This doctrine is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22 where unregenerate folks receive the gospel with joy, thereby demonstrating they were seeking God and believed God rewards those who seek Him.

It's not demonstrating what it doesn't demonstrate.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Further to the "all" of 1 Timothy 2 (which I have shown at post #9 to mean a general "all" - an "all" as distinct from the Jew only - an "all" irrespective of category), we also see statements like this in the bible:

"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God."

But every man won't have praise of God: only believers will.

So then we see that proper theology requires a careful, contextually-based, approach.

 

[Van]

Hi Bling, lets go over the idea of being kept by the power of God. This word means to be kept as in a jail cell. If you are locked in a jail cell, you are being kept. If you are in a cell with the door open so you can walk away, you are not being kept. Therefore, your view of 1 Peter 1:3-5 rewrites the meaning of "kept." Not how scripture reads.

The Bible says God created mankind. The Bible says God does has He pleases. Therefore God had a purpose in creating mankind, but it was God's sovereign choice to create mankind, He did not have to because of something apart from God's sovereign choice. 1 Peter 2:9-10 tells us God chooses some of mankind to be His own possession so that those chosen may proclaim God's glory. We bring glory to God when we repent and turn to God, so God created mankind with the ability to repent and bring glory to God. If God compelled by irresistible grace our repentance, that would not bring glory to God. What is our mission statement? To glorify God.

 

[Van]

Hi RTE,

proper theology requires a careful, contextually-based, approach.

That is certainly true. And the starting point is to accept that scripture means what it says, and does not mean the opposite of what it says. Whoever believes in Him shall not perish means whoever believes in Him shall not perish. It does not say "Whoever I chose before creation and altered with irresistible grace is compelled to believe in Him so they alone shall not perish." Calvinism is not based on context, but on rewriting the text based on manmade doctrine.

 

[Van]

Does 1 Timothy 2:4 indicate that God desires all men to be saved or only some previously selected Jews and Gentiles?

Christ died as a ransom for all, and all refers to all men. 1 Timothy 2:6.

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. 1 John 2:2

Even John Calvin indicated that the fact that Christ died for all mankind is incontestable.

 

[Jipsah]

God sets before us the choice between life and death, and therefore to say we are unable to choose life contradicts scripture.

Now, if you'll give me an example of where any one of us has chosen anything other than death, which is to say, sin, then you may have a point. Having a choice doesn't do you much good if you keep choosing wrong, now does it?

To avoid the obvious contradiction

There isn't one. If we didn't have a choice, we couldn't choose to sin as we all do, now could we?

Calvinists say when you choose the only choice available, death

No, that's not true. There's the choice between life and death, and we choose death. That isn't all that hard to understand, is it?

But that redefines “choice” to mean “non-choice.”

Huh? Just 'cause we choose wrong doesn't mean there wasn't a choice. You trying to blame God for our sins? Sorry, no worky. We freely choose to sin.

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.

Made through the sovereign grace of God, and through no merit of their own.. Left to themselves, those folks chose death just as we all do.

Therefore the "T" in the Tulip is unbiblical if it is asserted to apply to all men.

Well, all you demonstrated so far is that you didn't understand what the old boy was talking about.

This statement is completely unbiblical, James 2:5 tells us God chooses people based on their condition

Then howcome Saint Paul says that we're saved by grace, through faith, and that not of ourselves. You're saying that God chooses us because of ourselves. Either you or Paul needs to get his facts straight.

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.

So everybody's sins were propitiated, but most of 'em are going to hell anyway, zat right? Sounds like you don't believe that that propitiation worked all that red hot.

But doesn't that idea that some won't be saved and will be condemned to perdition mean that the atonement was, in fact, limited? Or are you just playing word games here?

it is carefully crafted to blend the idea that God's will, what ever it is, cannot be resisted

Nah, we all resist God's will all the time.

, with the false idea that God's will is to compel people with Irresistible Grace to trust in Christ

Our Lord said that of all the Father gave to Him He would lose none. You saying that He'll lose some? If so, that's gibberish.

Looks like rather that having thumped Calvinism, you've simply failed, deliberately or otherwise, to understand it.

 

[mattlock73]

Hi RTE,
That is certainly true. And the starting point is to accept that scripture means what it says, and does not mean the opposite of what it says. Whoever believes in Him shall not perish means whoever believes in Him shall not perish. It does not say "Whoever I chose before creation and altered with irresistible grace is compelled to believe in Him so they alone shall not perish." Calvinism is not based on context, but on rewriting the text based on manmade doctrine.

You are right, it does not say that, but neither does it say that "whoever I chose based on their own capacity to have faith..." either. So what we need to do is use scripture to interpret scripture. When that is done, and taken in context with the rest of the NT, we see that your theology cannot stand on it's own.

Whosoever believes - Who is that and why do they believe? The whosoever is those that God has predestined (Rom 8:29-30). And why do they believe? They have been born again (regenerated) so that they can understand the things of God (John 3:3).

 

[Van]

Hi Mattlock. lets leave it that whoever believes in Him shall not perish. That is a conditional covenant. Whoever refers to anyone and if anyone believes in Jesus as determined by God, Romans 4:5, they will not perish.

Next, does a person have their own capacity to trust in Christ? Nope. God created us that way so we could trust in Christ if we so choose. It is irrational to say God sets before us a choice, yet did not give us the capacity to make a choice. And it is irrational to say choice means non-choice. My views do not reverse the meaning of scripture, but Calvinism does. Whole world means part of the world, all men means some of all men, choice means non-choice, trusting in Christ means relying on the works of the Law for earning salvation, and on and on.