The Tulip is broken

[drstevej]

This accusation is of course untrue. I have proven that Calvinism cannot be defended by their best apologists if their doctrines are applied as they present them to us.

Take their doctrine of sovereignty. We could get no farther than this since the doctrine as stated by them equals fatalism. God has already decreed that all things happen just as he has ordered them from before the foundation of the world. Therefore, the elect should never bemoan the fact that there are such rascals as Arminians or other lost people, but should be glad because it is the will of God, ....unless, of course, God has predestinated their sorrow!

It is true. You said Calvinists do not teach that Christ's death is "sufficient for all but efficient for the elect." And I demonstrated that you were absolutely wrong.

But I suppose it is easier for you to put straw men trophies on your bookshelf than to actually deal with Calvinism.

As to your understanding of the Calvinistic doctrine of God's sovereignty, I suggest you not read Calvinist theologians to see what they say. Just create a straw version, slap it a couple of times, sit it on the shelf and throw a victory party.

Invite Ben.

 

[JDS]

As to your understanding of the Calvinistic doctrine of God's sovereignty, I suggest you not read Calvinist theologians to see what they say. Just create a straw version, slap it a couple of times, sit it on the shelf and throw a victory party.

Rep Daddy, are you actually saying to me that all my conversations over the years with John Q. Calvinist on these boards have not given me a correct representation of TULIP doctrine and I must go back to source material to find the truths about it? Does this speak of the incompetence of the teachers of this system to properly articulate the proper understanding of these doctrines or does it demonstrate that J.Q. is so ignorant that he cannot be trusted to tell the rest of us what you have told them?

I don't get it!

 

[drstevej]

Rep Daddy, are you actually saying to me that all my conversations over the years with John Q. Calvinist on these boards have not given me a correct representation of TULIP doctrine and I must go back to source material to find the truths about it? Does this speak of the incompetence of the teachers of this system to properly articulate the proper understanding of these doctrines or does it demonstrate that J.Q. is so ignorant that he cannot be trusted to tell the rest of us what you have told them?

I don't get it!

If you are as careless at reading J Q Calvinist's posts as you have been mine I think the problem may be neither JQC or me.

Just a thought.

 

[JDS]

If you are as careless at reading J Q Calvinist's posts as you have been mine I think the problem may be neither JQC or me.

Just a thought.

I read one saying "all are welcome at the cross". You probably read it too. Maybe this John Q did not know about the Ordo Salutis that says the dead man must be regenerated by God before he can be given the gift of faith, or that God hates those he did not elect (Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated) or that none can come except the Father draw him and a host of other reasons sinners are not welcome at the cross with any expectation that it will do them any good.

If you did know that, you certainly did not make any attempt to correct her theology to make it conform better to the source teachers! What kind of teacher are you?

 

[drstevej]

nm

 

[JDS]

If you are as careless at reading J Q Calvinist's posts as you have been mine I think the problem may be neither JQC or me.

The opposite is actually the truth. I read what you say very carefully and compare it to your statement of faith and interpretation. When I do that I find great, great discrepancies. Sometimes I think it is profitable to point them out with the hope that it might help someone break out of this collective mindset that blinds them to sound doctrine. It happens very infrequently, I must admit, because it precludes that one exercise free will.

 

[drstevej]

The opposite is actually the truth. I read what you say very carefully and compare it to your statement of faith and interpretation. When I do that I find great, great discrepancies. Sometimes I think it is profitable to point them out with the hope that it might help someone break out of this collective mindset that blinds them to sound doctrine. It happens very infrequently, I must admit, because it precludes that one exercise free will.

What would I do without YOU? I sure wouldn't want to be bound to sound doctrine.

 

[MamaZ]

sound doctrine is only from the scriptures. Men by thier own free will can no more save themselves as a leopard can change its spots..

 

[drstevej]

sound doctrine is only from the scriptures. Men by thier own free will can no more save themselves as a leopard can change its spots..

"Out, Out darn spots!"

Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil. -- Jeremiah 13:23

So much for Free-Will

 

[JDS]

This dialog began when I posted a comment from Gen 6 that said God repented that he had made man and it greived him at his heart because of what man did.

Ge 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Ge 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

I noted that God responded to man and changed his intentions of blessing him to judging him based on mans actions. I showed how God created all things for his pleasure. I showed how God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked yet he is killing a world full of people because of their contrary actions. He would not do that unless they knew his will and he would not have destroyed them if they would have obeyed him.

So far, no Calvinist has addressed this text and shown how it teaches Calvinists dogma concerning absolute sovereignty, the will and responsibility of man, and God's response within that context. What we have had is a regurgitation of the Calvinist views of these doctrines with very liitle effort to prove them scripturally because Calvinist doctrines state the opposite of what is given us plainly in the text. They have, infact, talked about everything else.

This text should be a source passage for the Calvinist views if they are scriptural. But, alas, not a word!

 

[nobdysfool]

Rep Daddy, are you actually saying to me that all my conversations over the years with John Q. Calvinist on these boards have not given me a correct representation of TULIP doctrine and I must go back to source material to find the truths about it? Does this speak of the incompetence of the teachers of this system to properly articulate the proper understanding of these doctrines or does it demonstrate that J.Q. is so ignorant that he cannot be trusted to tell the rest of us what you have told them?

I don't get it!

The underlying assumption in your screed against Calvinism is that all Calvinists march in lock-step. Also, you make no allowance for the fact that not all Calvinists are at the same level of understanding of their beliefs. You seem to imagine some sort of "indoctrination" that Calvinists undergo. That is about as clueless as it gets. You don't know Calvinism, and you don't know Calvinists. you demand that they give full accounting, in detail, and without error, of what you imagine Calvinism teaches, and when that doesn't happen, you vilify and insult Calvinists for not saying what you expect them to say. Add to that your obviously adversarial "I'm here to set you straight" attitude, and is it any wonder that you get resistance?

You are so intent on knocking down Calvinism, that you apparently think that's its justified to run rough-shod over anyone who challenges you. Everyone who has tried that tactic on this board has failed. You will fail as well.

And yes, you don't get it.

 

[JDS]

sound doctrine is only from the scriptures. Men by thier own free will can no more save themselves as a leopard can change its spots..

MamaZ,

Are these comments an answer to my question about Gen 6? Are you saying that God would have destroyed the population of the world even if God would have looked down and saw that men were doing good things on the earth and that the imaginations of their hearts were only on good things continually?

If not, would this not have been a way that man could have insured that God did not destroy him? Could this be construed as saving oneself?

26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

Are you sure, MamaZ, that you are telling us the truth?

 

[JDS]

The underlying assumption in your screed against Calvinism is that all Calvinists march in lock-step.

They do! No matter what level of understanding they are, they all defend the tulip, which makes the point. They assume it is true and they defend it without knowledge. The more knowledgeble NEVER corrects the less knowledgeble on these forums because it is more important for tulip to have its adherents than for them to know what they are talking about, in my view. Which of you has tried to help MamaZ understand that those whom God hates are not welcome at the cross. Answer: None of you! I am the only one who has come to her aide and assistance.

 

[nobdysfool]

They do! No matter what level of understanding they are, they all defend the tulip, which makes the point. They assume it is true and they defend it without knowledge. The more knowledgeble NEVER corrects the less knowledgeble on these forums because it is more important for tulip to have its adherents than for them to know what they are talking about, in my view. Which of you has tried to help MamaZ understand that those whom God hates are not welcome at the cross. Answer: None of you! I am the only one who has come to her aide and assistance.

Baloney! That's the fantasy you want to hold on to, to justify your hateful posts. You have not "come to her aid and assistance". You have disrespected her by calling her "honey", you have tried to tear down her faith, and you have insulted and lied to every Calvinist who has challenged your false portrayal of Calvinism.

"Raising the level of knowledge" is your excuse for disparaging a group of dedicated Christians whose doctrines and beliefs you clearly do not understand, and who you view as a threat to you. You completely discount their faith, and subtly claim that they are not even saved. Your methods are not rooted in anything but hatred for Calvinism.

 

[MamaZ]

MamaZ,

Are these comments an answer to my question about Gen 6? Are you saying that God would have destroyed the population of the world even if God would have looked down and saw that men were doing good things on the earth and that the imaginations of their hearts were only on good things continually?

If not, would this not have been a way that man could have insured that God did not destroy him? Could this be construed as saving oneself?

26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

Are you sure, MamaZ, that you are telling us the truth?

Are you saying that man that is not born of the Spirit can understand the things of the Spirit? Is this truth? Are you also saying that because these men in the OT turnd towards God that their sin was not still over them? IF this were true then Christ would have died in vain.. Have you not also read where God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and that Abraham was the one who intervened and asked God if there were but 10? God said if there were but 10 He would not destroy.. But what if there was only one? God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.. Look at the flood.. God chose Noah to build the ark.. Noah preached what was to happen.. All but his family died.. This is how it will be also in the last days..

 

[MamaZ]

How have you come to my aid? By twisting scripture to fit your theology? How has this aided me?

 

[Van]

The TULIP defenders drink from the same well, an enemy of their enemy is their friend. They seldom if ever correct one another. The non-hyper's sit in silence when a hyper posts what they believe is false, if the hyper is attacking me. Such behavior, worldly to the core, marks the defense of Calvinism for what it is.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cygnusx1]

EVERYONE SING , just as I SPAM ..... ^

 

[frumanchu]

The TULIP defenders drink from the same well, an enemy of their enemy is their friend. They seldom if ever correct one another. The non-hyper's sit in silence when a hyper posts what they believe is false, if the hyper is attacking me. Such behavior, worldly to the core, marks the defense of Calvinism for what it is.

Whatever. I've defended you in the past against heretics and all sorts of stuff, and I confront Hyper-Calvinism when I see it.

You're slinging mud hoping something will stick. It won't. You've been shown to be in error, and no matter how many times you spam this thread with cut-and-paste Anti-Calvinist propaganda, it can't cover for the gross errors you've posted.

Sorry, Charlie...you lost.

 

[MamaZ]

Are these comments an answer to my question about Gen 6? Are you saying that God would have destroyed the population of the world even if God would have looked down and saw that men were doing good things on the earth and that the imaginations of their hearts were only on good things continually?

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