The Tulip is broken

[heymikey80]

There is no place in scripture where faith is said to be the gift of God in the context of salvation. Calvinism, with it's two gifts of the Spirit, one to regenerate (quicken) so faith can be given and later, to save the believer so eternal life can be given, is mandatory to validate the T in TULIP.

Uh:

This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. For it has been given to you that for the sake of Christ you should not simply believe in him but also suffer for his sake Pp 1:28-29

But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. ... For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Rom 2:29 with Rom 10:10

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God ... Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 1 John 5:1, 5
​

(staff edit to remove content of quote).

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7276818

 

[JDS]

No unkindness taken. But do ya really believe that all Calvinists are unsaved?

No, I do not believe that!

I accord more sovereignty and glory to God than your theology does.
I accept no credit for myself and ascribe to Him rightfully the title of Savior. He saved me, He did not just make me savable.

According sovereignty to him is not what pleases him, believing him is what pleases him.

BTW, do you plan to have free will in Heaven? Can you reject Him there and walk out? If love requires free will seems like Heaven needs an exit.

I can not follow this logic...but....thanks for the tune!

So according to you every reformer who holds to a calvinistic view from Calvin himself forward is now in hell?
Jonathan Edwards is in hell.
All the Reformers from the great awakening are in hell.
All the Puritans are in hell including John Bunyan and John Owen.
George Whitfield is in hell.
This list will eventually include Sinclair Ferguson. John Piper. CJ Mahaney. Ligon Duncan. Mark Dever. Alistair Begg and a whole host of other Reformed Calvinists.

I cannot judge the heart of any man and I am glad it is not I who assigns men to hell. These men you have mentioned are all calvinists from the reformation. You did not mention anyone previous to Calvin. Luther is not even among your selection. But I can judge what men say and I judge that all these men are preaching or have preached a doctrine (TULIP) that is not true. I do not doubt their sincerity and dedication but I do question their understanding.

Christians are generally very kind and loving and tolerant to a fault sometimes. Many in the crowd that I run with are subject to admire these men for the strength of their personalities and the reputations they have garnered for themselves and tend to allow that to cloud the fact that they have preached a false gospel and have led men astray with their sermons and letters and books. Therefore, they do not warn their charges against them properly and I have even heard some quote them from the pulpit. This is wrong I think!
You are a prime example of one who has been taught to read the scriptures in an attempt to make them agree with reformation doctrine and ignore the plain statements that are made.

Augustine is said to be the father of the Roman Catholic Church and his writings the chief motivations for Calvin. This makes me ask the question; Jas 3:11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet [water] and bitter? 12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

I am sorry Mickey, but if your posts are supposed to show faith as the gift of God in the context of salvation from sin. One need only to consider the whole context and see that Paul is speaking to Phillipian Christians in your first passage,

27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
30 Having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear to be in me.
This needs no interpretaion.

I am not sure how you were applying the other verses.

My goal is to challenge your doctrines and expose them as error by examining them in light of the truth of scripture. It is not my intent to purposely provoke you to anger with my challenges, but bluntness and candor is the best rule at times.

 

[heymikey80]

According sovereignty to him is not what pleases him, believing him is what pleases him.

Believing him when He says He's sovereign thus pleases him. Q.E.D.

I can not follow this logic...but....thanks for the tune!

So the logic of the irresistible summons in the future you don't understand, you only disagree with the logic of the irresistible summons here?

As long as the future's unyielding, it's ok. It's the unyielding present you disagree with?

Do events have an impact on your future or not?

I cannot judge the heart of any man and I am glad it is not I who assigns men to hell.

You have now shown a serious ignorance of Calvinism and Scripture on this point. I don't have to look at your heart to recognize the lack of facts you're displaying. Calvinists weren't the ones judging your heart.

But you were judging ours.

Apparently your assessment is the reverse of your judgment.

It's likely this isn't the first error in judgment you've made.

You're the one who's saying we're following a false Gospel. And according to Scripture, that's not simply a dangerous place to be. That's a non-salvific place to be.

Who's deceiving themselves about making assignments? You are, JDS.

These men you have mentioned are all calvinists from the reformation. You did not mention anyone previous to Calvin. Luther is not even among your selection. But I can judge what men say and I judge that all these men are preaching or have preached a doctrine (TULIP) that is not true. I do not doubt their sincerity and dedication but I do question their understanding.

You just assigned yourself the arbiter of truth. You're not.

You are a prime example of one who has been taught to read the scriptures in an attempt to make them agree with reformation doctrine and ignore the plain statements that are made, or twist them to your own ends. I know that from just reading a few of your posts.

Amazing. You accuse Calvinists of being judgmental, then with "just reading a few" posts, you're being judgmental.

Get the log out, JDS.

You're a prime example of one who has been taught to read the Scriptures to make them agree with Enlightenment doctrine and ignore the plain statements that are made, or twist them to your own ends.

Augustine is said to be the father of the Roman Catholic Church and his writings the chief motivations for Calvin. This makes me ask the question; Jas 3:11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet [water] and bitter? 12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

Never have I heard the phrase that Augustine is the father of the Roman Catholic Church.

He was a bishop on another continent.

Rome diluted his position and dissolved into semi-Pelagianism as a theology long before the Reformers discovered Augustine.

And then you'd have to extend your assertion to Rome never being a true church, either. "Get the log out" seems to apply very well in this case. How did Paul address the church at Rome?

I am sorry Mickey, but if your posts are supposed to show faith as the gift of God in the context of salvation from sin, you have missed the boat. One need only to consider the whole context and see that Paul is speaking to Phillipian Christians in your first passage,

Oh, so Paul can state that the Philippians are given faith by God as a show of salvation, but no one else is given faith. I'm sorry, I didn't consider this some miraculous gifting of faith to the Philippians for their salvation, while the rest of us common multitude must somehow work it up ourselves. I thought "God works in you" was meant for us as well as the Philippians.

Forgive me my interpretation.

So is everything in Scripture just a special case and God doesn't work this way, now?

27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
30 Having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear to be in me.
This needs no interpretaion.

You tell me what parts aren't generally applicable in the same situation as the Philippians.

And then tell me why God would give the Philippians faith, and not give others faith, as indications of their salvation.

And then tell my why God has two paths to salvation: one in which He gives faith, the other in which He expects us to make faith on our own.

It needs no interpretation. It carries my point.

I am not sure how you were applying the other verses.

I'm not sure how you could reach the conclusions you did about the first one. Except as I've described above.

My goal is to challenge your doctrines and expose them as error by examining them in light of the truth of scripture. It is not my intent to purposely provoke you to anger with my challenges, but bluntness and candor is the best rule at times.

Your goal, bluntness, and candor have all failed, as they don't reflect the truth of Scripture.

 

[oworm]

You know the thing that really concerns me is that Dispensationalism was "Discovered" in the 1800s by a man who fell off his horse and claimed God had given him an interpretive understanding of Scripture that we know as dispensationalism.

 

[nobdysfool]

JDS is another self-appointed, self-deceived "crusader" against Calvinism....

First rule of warfare: know your enemy. This is where they all fail. These guys demonstrate very quickly that they do not truly know Calvinist doctrine, they're just little parrots, repeating stuff they have found from other anti-Calvinist sources. Squawk and repeat, squawk and repeat. When you attempt to show them where they're wrong, they sit in judgment and pronounce all Calvinists to be unsaved, then back off when they are directly challenged on that statement. They give lip service to free will, but then try to limit the free will they claim Calvinists have (but deny). The unspoken thought is that men are free to believe, as long as they don't believe Calvinism. They accuse Calvinists of all sorts of sinful behavior, and commit those same sins in making the accusations.

And they wonder why they have not been able to dissuade a single Calvinist away, but several non-Calvinists have become Calvinists as a direct result of these discussions.

When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

 

[Van]

The TULIP is broken and no amount of misrepresentation will alter that truth. Matthew 23:13 demonstrates that unregenerate folks can be entering heaven. And heaven here refers to the kingdom of heaven which is the kingdom of God. Does the verse say they entered, past tense, the kingdom in an unregenerate state? Nope. All it indicates is that they were on their way and if their had not been led astray by false doctrine, they would have entered. Now would they have entered on there own power, of would God have placed them into the kingdom? God puts believers into the kingdom, so they had accepted the gospel, but had not fully committed to it, because they turned from it. Does this idea of believing in Christ do away with the need for Christ to be the propitiation of the whole world? Nope. When God puts folks into Christ, and they undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise a new creation, born again from above by the will of God, it all occurs through Christ's sacrifice.

Next we have John 3:3 again ripped out of context, to "see" refers to "enter" the kingdom, as in only after you enter the kingdom do you see the kingdom. It is like being outside a walled off area. You cannot see what is within the kingdom until you go inside.

Is the work of regeneration within the hands of the sinner? Nope. It is God who regenerates.

Their efficacious belief would have been effective to bring out God's action to place them into Christ, otherwise they would not have been "entering" heaven.

Did anyone say belief is efficacious to salvation, that belief causes salvation? Nope. God causes salvation when He credits a persons faith as righteousness.

The TULIP is defended by misrepresenting the views of others, creating strawmen to knock down, rather than addressing that the TULIP is broken because it is unbiblical.

 

[drstevej]

“Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man*, but of God” (John 1:13)

* some versions read Van

 

[heymikey80]

... use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Mt 6:7

 

[nobdysfool]

He's a motivational speaker who lives in a van down by the river.......

 

[beloved57]

God's word which teaches that the TULIP is broken

impossible, for tulip is the gospel..jesus taught those truthes..

 

[drstevej]

You know the thing that really concerns me is that Dispensationalism was "Discovered" in the 1800s by a man who fell off his horse and claimed God had given him an interpretive understanding of Scripture that we know as dispensationalism.

Can you document the fall off of the horse and the link to the new understanding?

Now I think you can do that for the views of Ellen White (ie link her religious views to her trauma from being hit in the head by a rock).

The Significance of Ellen White's Head Injury


by Molleurus Couperus
Adventist Currents, June 1985



but I have seen no documentation of a similar correlation relative to dispensationalism.

Further, all of my professors at Dallas Seminary were dispensationalists and to my knowledge none fell off horses. Dr Bob Lightner did survive a plane crash, but he was a dispensationalist before and after it went down.

Care to rescue your comment out of my cheap-shot bin?

 

[Jac3510]

impossible, for tulip is the gospel..jesus taught those truthes..

Whether or not Calvinism is right or wrong, doesn't this strike you as a bit of a reach, that the TULIP is the Gospel? For one thing, you know it was formulated until 1618. Perhaps, then, you could say that the truths it seeks to express are the Gospel, but the formulation itself? That's a bit of a stretch.

Second, if belief in the Gospel is what saves, are you saying you must believe the TULIP to be saved, and thus, anyone who rejects the TULIP is not a Christian? If so, how many points do you have to accept? Are four-pointers saved? Two pointers? If one can reject the TULIP (or part of it), then the TULIP itself cannot be the Gospel.

Finally, Paul defined the Gospel for us in 1 Cor 15:1-8

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (NIV)

I don't see anything there are depravity, election, the extent of the atonement (well . . . that one might be in there), God's drawing of the elect, or His promise to preserve their faith.

So, no, the TULIP is not the Gospel. Whether it is true or not, it is not the Gospel.

 

[drstevej]

I do not believe that TULIP is the required set of convictions needed to be saved, only the most radical Calvinists do.

I believe that the Calvinist understanding of Scripture is consistent with the gospel and biblical teaching (with the exception that I am an Amyrauldian, No-L).

The Synod of Dort (1618) was a response to the errors of the Remonstrants five points. It pulled the gospel out of error and returned it to a biblical foundation. It was an international synod representing the convictions of scholars from several nations.

I became a Calvinist because as much as I wanted to I could not escape the teachings of scripture. It was a process of a year or more. That was 30 years ago.

 

[Jac3510]

I do not believe that TULIP is the required set of convictions needed to be saved, only the most radical Calvinists do.

I believe that the Calvinist understanding of Scripture is consistent with the gospel and biblical teaching (with the exception that I am an Amyrauldian, No-L).

The Synod of Dort (1618) was a response to the errors of the Remonstrants five points. It pulled the gospel out of error and returned it to a biblical foundation. It was an international synod representing the convictions of scholars from several nations.

I became a Calvinist because as much as I wanted to I could not escape the teachings of scripture. It was a process of a year or more. That was 30 years ago.

Well . . . look at it this way. If you really are one of the elect (hopefully, you won't fall away, proving you only deceived yourself), since God is the one in charge of your spiritual growth, He'll inevitably (or is it irresistably?) get around to teaching you that fifth point.

 

[drstevej]

Well . . . look at it this way. If you really are one of the elect (hopefully, you won't fall away, proving you only deceived yourself), since God is the one in charge of your spiritual growth, He'll inevitably (or is it irresistably?) get around to teaching you that fifth point.

The elect will not fall away finally.

I have no problem with the logic of "L" just can't get there exegetically. Guess I'm a Christmas Calvinist (NO eL).

And interestingly it really wasn't an issue in Calvin's day (as told me by Prof Hutchinson, my Calvin's Theology doctoral course professor at Westminster).

 

[Jac3510]

The elect will not fall away finally.

I have no problem with the logic of "L" just can't get there exegetically. Guess I'm a Christmas Calvinist (NO eL).

And interestingly it really wasn't an issue in Calvin's day (as told me by Prof Hutchinson, my Calvin's Theology doctoral course professor at Westminster).

By the fifth point, I meant the third, the only one out of the five you don't accept.

Incidentally, since you do like the fifth of the five, you believe the elect won't fall away. Therefore, if you are elect, you won't fall away. But there have been people who believed they were elect, but had deceived themselves, and the proved it by, eventually, falling away.

So . . . how do you know that you are one of the elect, that you aren't deceived, that you are one of the ones whom Christ will preserve?

 

[drstevej]

By the fifth point, I meant the third, the only one out of the five you don't accept.

Incidentally, since you do like the fifth of the five, you believe the elect won't fall away. Therefore, if you are elect, you won't fall away. But there have been people who believed they were elect, but had deceived themselves, and the proved it by, eventually, falling away.

So . . . how do you know that you are one of the elect, that you aren't deceived, that you are one of the ones whom Christ will preserve?

Answer

Question: How can you know you are saved?

Drstevej answers:

First, I do not doubt I am saved. (ASSURRANCE !!!) Why?

• (A: HIS PROMISE BELIEVED) His word says if I put my trust in Jesus as my savior I will be saved and I did.
• (B: HIS WORK IN ME) His Spirit has been active in my life in sanctification.
• (C: INNER WITNESS) His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God.

=======


Question: If you are not saved what you can do about it?

Drstevej answers:

What did you do to be born physically?


JOHN 1

11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

(The difference between those in v11 who reject and those who receive Him v12 is not human will but Divine begetting imparting the gift of faith.)

​

John 3

3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.


I was blind but now I see.

Or as Chuck Wesley so wonderfully described it...

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
​

And a few more verses of interest...

Still the small inward voice I hear,
That whispers all my sins forgiven; (C: INNER WITNESS)
Still the atoning blood is near,
That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven. (A: HIS PROMISE BELIEVED)
I feel the life His wounds impart; (B: HIS WORK IN ME)
I feel the Savior in my heart.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.
​

No condemnation now I dread; (ASSURRANCE !!!)
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th’eternal throne, (ASSURRANCE !!!)
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

 

[oworm]

Double post

 

[oworm]

Can you document the fall off of the horse and the link to the new understanding?

Sure

Care to rescue your comment out of my cheap-shot bin?

Sure.

In 1826 Dec., Mr. Darby was violently thrown from his horse and suffered severe injuries. While recuperating from the accident, Darby began his deep study of the Scripture and meditation. Darby states:​

“When I came to understand that I was united to Christ in heaven; and that, consequently, my place before God was represented by His own; I was forced to the conclusion that it was no longer a question with God of this wretched “I” which had wearied me during six or seven years in the presence of the requirements of the law. It then became clear to me that the Church of God , as He considers it, was composed only of those who were so united to Christ. Whereas Christendom, as seen externally, was really the world and could not be considered as “the Church”, save as regards the responsibility attaching to the position which it professed to occupy-a very important thing in its place. At the same time I saw that the Christian, having his place in Christ in heaven, has nothing to wait for save the coming of the Savior, in order to be set, in fact, in the glory which is already his portion “in Christ”. The careful reading in the Acts afforded me a practical picture of the early church, which made me feel deeply the contrast with its actual present state; though still, as ever, beloved by God. At that time I had to use crutches when moving about, so that I had no longer any opportunity for making known my convictions in public. Moreover, as the state of my health did not allow me to attend worship, I was compelled to remain away. In the meanwhile, there grew up in my heart the conviction that what Christianity had accomplished in the world, in no way answered for the needs of a soul burdened with the sense of what God's holy governmental dealing was intended to effect. In my retreat, the thirty-second chapter of Isaiah taught me clearly on God's behalf, that there was still an economy to come of His ordering; a state of things in no way established as yet. The consciousness of my union with Christ had given me the present heavenly portion of the glory, whereas this chapter clearly sets forth the corresponding earthly part. I was not able to put these things in their respective places, or arrange them in order, as I can now. The truths themselves were then revealed of God, through the action of His Spirit, by reading His Word.

Source.... http://www.thekkel.com/DarbyBiography.htm#TheEarlyLife​

Darby resigned his curacy in protest. Soon after, in October 1827, he fell from a horse and was seriously injured. He later stated that it was during this time that he recognized that the "kingdom" described in the Book of Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament was entirely different from the Christian church.

Source...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby​

Darby 's accident and convalescence. An accidental fall from a horse turned out to be another event that propelled Darby toward the "Great Divide" as it related to the church. His horse was frightened and threw him against a doorpost. Darby's leg was injured and required surgery in Dublin. During part of 1827, he was forced into convalescence and relative seclusion. During this extended period Darby cast himself upon God and His Word alone for support. Out of that time of reduced activity, his thinking concerning the basis for personal assurance of salvation, the authority of the Scripture, the church as the body of Christ, Christ's second coming for His church, and Israel's place in a subsequent dispensation, became clear.

Since he was on crutches, he could not attend corporate worship or immediately make public his developing views. Although he could not then work out the details of his eschatology, he said: "In my retreat, the 32nd chapter of Isaiah taught me clearly, on God's behalf, that there was still an economy to come, of His ordering; a state of things in no way established as yet. The consciousness of my union with Christ had given me the present heavenly portion of the glory, whereas this chapter clearly sets forth the corresponding earthly part." Concerning his belief in the restoration of original truths to himself, Darby stated thatthe "truths themselves were then revealed of God, through the action of His Spirit, by reading His word." The earthly/heavenly distinction between Israel and the church had taken form in Darby's thinking.

Source.... http://www.pre-trib.org/pdf/Elmore-JNDarbysEarlyYears.pdf

Is that enough to rescue my comment from your cheap shot bin?​

 

[drstevej]

Is that enough to rescue my comment from your cheap shot bin?




​

Nor response to this: Further, all of my professors at Dallas Seminary were dispensationalists and to my knowledge none fell off horses. Dr Bob Lightner did survive a plane crash, but he was a dispensationalist before and after it went down.