The Tulip is broken

[frumanchu]

LOL Folks, here is the chart from post 269:

(1)Offer no denial, but simply add the same charge to the opponent.
(2) Next, say that a person who receives the gospel with joy is not seeking God. But the opposite is obvious the person not seeking God would reject the gospel. QED
(3) Repeat the question. I ask where in scripture does it say folks cannot truly seek God, and the answer is where in scripture does it say folks have the ability to truly seek God. Where does it say they do not? And so forth and so on. Stonewalling.
(4) Deny the obvious.
(5) Say that folks seeking God in the wrong way were not truly seeking God. LOL

Nothing but nonsense folks. LOL

The only nonsense is that being peddled by the Anti-Calvinist in his zeal to attack Calvinism at all costs. Notice how he completely avoids the clear logical argument showing the contradictions plainly obvious in his own words. He cannot argue with plain reason, so he continues to evade and disparage.

The Anti-Calvinist cannot prove forth his position with plain reason because it is not a position built upon plain reason. It is build upon blinding hatred for Calvinism that leads him in his zeal to attack Calvinism at the cost of truth and reason. He mocks, taunts and repeats his same tired mantras over and over while men of reason shatter his arguments with simple logic. As clearly demonstrated in post 269 and elsewhere, his arguments are full of contradictions and circular arguments, yet he attempts to deflect from their exposure as such with more of the same.

He is defeated. His arguments lay in pieces at his feet, yet he shakes his fist at the wind and continues his attacks.

The TULIP is broken, Matthew 13:20-22 teaches of folks who were unregenerate, yet seeking God by faith, for they received the gospel with joy.

The Anti-Calvinist is broken. He has nothing left to muster but more repetition and mocking. Look at the venom in his words and the evasion in his mockery.

Matthew 13 does not say what he needs it to say to support his attack on Calvinism, so he simply repeats it over and over as though he can confer truth upon it by sheer repetition. He puts words in the mouth of Christ to justify his venomous attacks.

Romans 9 completely overturns the very attack he attempts to make with it, leaving him to embrace a contradiction in order to persist in his attacks. Simple, basic logic was used to demonstrate this, and absent any ability to defend against it he simply mocks and repeats, mocks and repeats, mocks and repeats.

The arguments of the Anti-Calvinist are defeated. His desperate clinging to them only further exposes the irrationality born of his desire to attack Calvinism at all costs.

mene mene tekel upharsin

 

[frumanchu]

Now we have the claim that total spiritual inability was arrived at inductively! LOL The doctrine was poured into scripture. Jesus says seek first the kingdom of God. The inductive reasoning process would conclude we have the ability to strive for the kingdom of God. But Calvinism says, no, this verse means the opposite of what it says, it means we have no ability to seek first the kingdom of God. What a joke.

Inductive reasoning is a dangerous weapon in the hands of the fool who looks neither to the right nor to the left.

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

 

[JDS]

I hate to have to resort to an overused example...but show me the verse anywhere in the 66 books of the Bible that explicitly states that God is three in person and one in substance.

You cannot because, as with many other foundational Scriptural truths, it it is not explicitly stated in Scripture but rather is arrived at inductively from Scripture.

Now, if you want to debate the soundness or validity of the logical arguments presented as to why Scripture implicitly supports the doctrine of total inability, we can certainly do that. But the argument you provided above is insufficient unless you wish to undermine many orthodox Christian doctrines.

The doctrine of God is said to be a mystery and who can understand him completely. Certainly no finite mind. However, we have the information in Scriptures that clearly presents God as a trinity. 1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. I am sure Frumachu would not flat out deny that this verse explicitly states that God is a trinity.

But salvation from our sins is not a mystery, except in the TULIP. It is so clearly stated that no one should miss it and regeneration, quickening, by the Spirit is accomplished through faith and not unto faith. Frumanchu's is coping out with his diversionary tactic because he cannot defend a doctrine that says one must be regenerated, quickened, given life, so they can have life like the tulip demands.

No one will attempt to defend this doctrine scripturally because they can't but they will ask the rest of us to just trust that they have it all figured out and so it must be true.

Ac 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Why?

27 THAT THEY SHOULD SEEK THE LORD, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

 

[frumanchu]

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

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

 

[beloved57]

It is so clearly stated that no one should miss it and regeneration, quickening, by the Spirit is accomplished through faith and not unto faith.

error, a false gospel..how can a natural man, born corrupted..produce the good fruit of a holy faith, a precious faith ?

2 pet 1:

1Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:


Faith is obtained through the work of the Triune God and Saviour..

jude :

20But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

you are wickedly asserting this Faith is from a corrupt man in nature..blasphemy, and that against the Holy Ghost, who produces the fruit of faith..

 

[Van]

Now we have the claim that total spiritual inability was arrived at inductively! LOL The doctrine was poured into scripture. Jesus says seek first the kingdom of God. The inductive reasoning process would conclude we have the ability to strive for the kingdom of God. But Calvinism says, no, this verse means the opposite of what it says, it means we have no ability to seek first the kingdom of God. What a joke.

And the rebuttal? Mock and repeat, mock and repeat. If it was not so sad, it would be funny.

 

[Van]

Lets see, the TULIP is broken because (1) Matthew 13:20-22 tells us of unregenerate folks with enough spiritual ability to receive the gospel with joy. If the Calvinist doctrine were true, all unregenerate folks would reject the gospel, like the first soil in the parable of the four soils. But wait, there is more.

Unconditional election to salvation is demonstrated false by James 2:5 which teaches that God chooses folks based on their characteristics for salvation. They were poor in the eyes of the world, but rich in God's eyes because they loved God.

Limited atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2 which says Christ is the propitiation (means of salvation) for the whole world. Thus Christ laid down his life as a ransom for all.

And to complete the illustration of the broken tulip, Irresistible grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 which tells us of folks who were entering heaven, and therefore if Calvinism is correct, were under the irresistible influence, yet they were turned aside by false teachers.

 

[cygnusx1]

Judas was not regenerate , did he receive the Gospel ?

like a pig with a gold ring in it's snout , knowing not the value thereof.

recieving the Gospel with joy is evidence of what ?


certainly not that man is good or a seeker of God , for all who seek shall find , yet God does not save these "finders" ..... they "received the Gospel" simply superficially otherwise ; THE GOSPEL DOESN'T SAVE> some other "truth" does , which is the logical error of the anti-calvinist.


Rom 3 ; none are good or seek God , therefore He must seek men .......... hence the Good Shepherd seeks the lost sheep , and the Gospel goes out it doesn't wait for sinners to come to it. is it not a simple issue , can it be a mountain is being "made" of a mole hill ... how some love to argue , I wonder what the Lord must think . mmmmmmmm .

 

[drstevej]

REP BONANZA: Who Wants Their First Billion ???

Many are called one will be chosen.

 

[beloved57]

Lets see, the TULIP is broken because (1) Matthew 13:20-22 tells us of unregenerate folks with enough spiritual ability to receive the gospel with joy

They recieved the word but did not understand it..

 

[Van]

No verse says they did not understand it. The first type of soil did not understand the gospel, the other three did understand it. Matthew 13:1-23.

 

[frumanchu]

And the rebuttal? Mock and repeat, mock and repeat. If it was not so sad, it would be funny.

How shall one give rebuttal to a logically inept argument such as that of the Anti-Calvinist? The argument is nonsense, just as with the other arguments that have been shown to contradict each other. Notice he CANNOT give rebuttal to the simple logical arguments given. Rather, the Anti-Calvinist must play childish games to avoid the fallout of his attacks on Calvinism.

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

 

[beloved57]

No verse says they did not understand it.

its implied from matt 13:

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

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

 

[Van]

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

 

[Van]

And I see post 291 offers up nothing but disparagement, with claims of past arguments and so forth. Talk about a logically inept argument. LOL

 

[drstevej]

POST 294 isn't exactly mensa material either.

 

[beloved57]

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

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

 

[frumanchu]

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

Precisely. I know first hand of people who were caught up in the emotion of an altar call and the promise of the blessings of God in Christ, only to fall away a short time later once the emotion of the day passed. There was no indication whatsoever that they were "seeking God" in any meaningful way.

Indeed, how are we to believe that they were truly seeking God, heard the Gospel and believed it with joy, and then soon fell away...and at the same time believe that true believers cannot fall away? Such is the folly of Van's position. He cannot reconcile his attack on Calvinism with his other doctrines...not that that stops him from engaging in the attacks.

Van doctrinally has no stake whatsoever in his interpretation of the parable of the sower other than his committment to manufacturing arguments against Calvinism. His stated doctrines are actually more harmed than helped by his persistent misinterpretation of the passage, but his hatred of Calvinism blinds him to this so he continues to attack no matter what the cost. It's really too bad, because there have been several times I've agreed with him and stood against heretical doctrines in this forum...

 

[drstevej]

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

Much like an Obama rally.

 

[beloved57]

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

Its also evident they didnt understand the spiritual value of the gospel, because they had not root in themselves, indicating, they were not born again or regenerated..hence, they had not the spiritual capacity of mind to understand spiritual truth, which the gospel is..

1 cor 2:



10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Many today receive the Truth of tulip, which is of the gospel, but its only recieving it from a intellectual emotional standpoint, without understanding its the true gospel without compromise..