The Tulip is broken

[Van]

Live with the fact that Ephesians 2:8 does not say nor suggest that the gift is faith because the genders do not match. If Paul had meant faith as the gift he would have matched the pronoun gender with the gender of faith. But he did not. Live with it.

 

[Van]

What part of us makes us believe in Christ as Lord and Savior.

​

​

(1) What part of us makes us believe? Folks do you see how compulsion is embedded into Calvinist thinking? Why not ask what part of us allows us to believe? Because the anwer is our God given ability to autonomously believe or not believe, to trust or rely upon this or that!

(2) What allows us to believe in Christ? Four things (a) God allows us to come to Christ, He does not preclude us by hardening our hearts. (b) We have not so hardened our own heart by the practice of sin that we are unable to even understand the gospel. (c) We believe in God and are "of God" which is to say under the influence of God. And (d) we hear or are exposed to the gospel of Christ.

(3) Does our God given ability to understand some spiritual things in our natural fallen state reside in our human spirit or in our flesh? In our human spirit. Romans 2 says we can understand the invisible attributes of God from what He has made, so the spirit can learn from our environment, or put another way, from what God puts before us, which includes His revelation.

(4) Does our faith originate from God? Yes, God is the first cause of everything. God gave us the ability to hear, understand, accept and trust fully in God. God provided His revelation, including the gospel of Christ which is the power of God to salvation.
Does this mean God instills our faith via irresistible grace, and therefore compels us to believe? Nope

 

[cygnusx1]

To repeat, some knowledge of linguistics is required to recognize what's going on.

Agreement in gender is not needed with a formulaic phrase. "and that" is a formulaic phrase. It means roughly "on top of that" in English. It appears as a formulaic phrase in Philippians 1:28 for instance.

Even in English, when "on top of that" is used to refer to a person, no one changes it. "Paris Hilton is rich -- and on top of that disturbed and seemingly inept." No one would demand English speakers change "on top of that" to "on top of her". In fact it'd be laughable, ludicrous, and mildly suggestive to recommend such a construction.

The same's true of Greek. Live with it.

I've pointed out an obvious example which argues against this entire interpretation simply on its merits:

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. Pp 1:27-28
​

It's the same construction as Ep 2:8. So let's go through this counterexample on a parallel course with Ep 2:8.

If Nebeker's argument carries, then in this case "and that from God" can't possibly refer to "salvation", because salvation isn't the antecedent of the pronoun -- that. Instead it's the "whole concept" of letting your manner of life being worthy of the Gospel, standing firm, having one mind, unfrightened -- that's from God.

Unfortunately that's absurd. If that's true, your argument is not simply lost to Calvinism -- it's lost to fatalism. The meaning is obviously that the Philippians' salvation is what's from God.

Turning to Ep 2:8, the same grammatical construction appears.

Only in the case of Ep 2:8, what stands where "salvation" stood in Pp 1:28?

"Faith".

It's definitely the case, there's no single interpretation of Ephesians 2:8's grammar. I'm not particularly wedded to interpreting it one way or another. From my "book larning" I'd side with the idea of it being an averbial reference demanding the entire process -- "by-grace-saved-through-faith". Unfortunately I still have to defer to people who spoke this very language who are all agreed when they say no matter what interpretation, it definitely refers to "faith". It may refer to the whole phrase; it may well refer specifically to the word "faith". But it's gonna include faith as being from God.

excellent work Mikey !

that is my position after a telephone conversation with a close friend a few years ago .... and your right , only in recent times have Christians denied faith comes from God. I checked almost a dozen denominational creeds a year or so ago and they all class faith as a gift of God , even Catholics Methodist's and Pente's !

 

[nobdysfool]

I see the antagonist is back to spamming the thread again, no doubt. Hatred for Calvinism makes people irrational.

 

[heymikey80]

(1) What part of us makes us believe? ... [malicious attacks elided] ... Because the anwer is our God given ability to autonomously believe or not believe, to trust or rely upon this or that!

Question: Where's your Scripture stating "autonomous"? Answer: you don't have one.

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5). Council of Orange, Canon 7
​

It's an ancient determination that this is essentially heresy. Go look to Scripture, which says that you require changes by the Holy Spirit before you can do anything. To whine about how Matthew 13 or 23 supports your view is simply deflection. It doesn't. It doesn't say anything about these people being autonomous.

So as I follow Scripture and not the vain view of my own dislike of certain Calvinists I've met, I submit to Scripture which states in so many words, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." Rom 9:16

Those who have not learned from history are condemned to repeat it.

You can dabble in the semi-Pelagianism developed from merging Augustine and Pelagius, sure. Plenty of churches have done so, certainly quite a number of people here support it. It just slices apart the categories Paul uses, and thus cuts to ribbons and rearranges the points Paul makes. It's not Scriptural. But it's largely what people believe to try to hold together these two inconsistent views of God's Gospel.

 

[expos4ever]

So as I follow Scripture and not the vain view of my own dislike of certain Calvinists I've met, I submit to Scripture which states in so many words, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." Rom 9:16

Are you implying that Romans 9:16 is making a statement about salvation? In other words, are you using 9:16 to assert that the salvation of individuals "depends not on human will"

If so, I think you are reading something into what Paul is saying that simply is not there. Romans 9 has nothing to do the election of specific individuals to glory or to loss. I can understand why people would think that the statement about the "vessels of mercy" implies pre-destination of specific persons. I will not argue that point here (I have argued it elsewhere).

In any event, Romans 9:16 is provided in the context of a more general argument about how God has the right to "use" people and nations as He sees fit in order to work out His redemptive purposes. Thus, Paul brings forth Pharoah not in service of an argument about "individual pre-destination" but rather in support of an argument about the exodus - an event in this world.

 

[MamaZ]

Salvation to man is bought by the precious blood of Christ and not by any works that man can do.

 

[MamaZ]

Act 2:39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

 

[cygnusx1]

good observation bro !!!


how I miss finding those contradictions in van's post's bro , they were always stunning to discover ..

here's a gem from the past ;

Originally Posted by Van

Peter, those in the flesh cannot please God.
​

Originally Posted by Van

Can those in the flesh please God through faith? Yes.
​

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1208452&page=7

 

[nobdysfool]

Are you implying that Romans 9:16 is making a statement about salvation? In other words, are you using 9:16 to assert that the salvation of individuals "depends not on human will"

If so, I think you are reading something into what Paul is saying that simply is not there. Romans 9 has nothing to do the election of specific individuals to glory or to loss. I can understand why people would think that the statement about the "vessels of mercy" implies pre-destination of specific persons. I will not argue that point here (I have argued it elsewhere).

In any event, Romans 9:16 is provided in the context of a more general argument about how God has the right to "use" people and nations as He sees fit in order to work out His redemptive purposes. Thus, Paul brings forth Pharoah not in service of an argument about "individual pre-destination" but rather in support of an argument about the exodus - an event in this world.

Sorry, but that's just a convenient dodge to avoid the implications of what Paul said.

 

[Van]

Misrepresenting my position is how Calvinists attempt to defend their doctrine. Here is the context of the snippet posted in post 828.

Pleasing God while in the Flesh through Faith
Peter, those in the flesh cannot please God. Cannot means at the present time and only by inference would include the past or the future. Cannot please God conveys doing something to please God that does not please God. You say cannot please God means for all time and in every circumstance, but that is not in the text. But Hebrews 11:6 is in the text and it says folks can please God by believing in Him.

Can folks please God through works while in the flesh? No
Can folks please God with their minds set on the flesh? No
Can folks please God through faith while in the flesh? Yes, Hebrews 11:6.
"In the flesh" refers to being unregenerate in this context, it does not mean "mind set on the flesh" which is another way the bible uses the term.

Romans 8:8, "and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Looking back because this verse is the end of a passage starting in verse 6, we see that the idea being discussed is where we set our minds. Paul is saying that before we are indwelt, we cannot set our mind on the Spirit of Christ, and therefore could not live like an indwelt person can live. Paul is talking about the period in our life, after we are saved, called positional sanctification, and before we physically die. During this period, called process sanctification, we are called to a Holy Calling and are being conformed to the image of Christ.

So at the end of verse 7, where Paul says, for it (the mind set on the flesh) is not even able to do so; Paul is comparing the unregenerate with his or her mind set on the flesh to the regenerate, born again, baptized in to Christ, indwelt believer.

Therefore we need to back up and consider the verse anew. "And those who are in the flesh cannot please God" refers to folks before they are saved. Now these folks cannot please God if their minds on set on the flesh. Therefore the assumption that it means unable to please God in any way such as setting their mind on the milk of the gospel is an inference by Calvinists not supported by the text.

Now how is it possible to please God while unregenerate? Only by trusting in Christ. "And without faith it is impossible to please [Him], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (Hebrews 11:6).

In summary, Romans 8:8 in no way indicates that the unregenerate cannot believe in God and His Christ.

Folks, the TULIP is broken and misrepresenting my position by selectively quoting snippets of my position will not alter this truth.

 

[beloved57]

van says:

Can folks please God through faith while in the flesh? Yes, Hebrews 11:6.

scripture says:

rom 8:

8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

[cygnusx1]

"I've been misrepresented " I didn't mean those in the flesh can please God , I meant those in the flesh sometimes can please God .... LOL!

 

[Van]

Misrepresenting my position is how Calvinists attempt to defend their doctrine. Here is the context of the snippet posted in post 828.

Originally Posted by Van

Pleasing God while in the Flesh through Faith
Peter, those in the flesh cannot please God. Cannot means at the present time and only by inference would include the past or the future. Cannot please God conveys doing something to please God that does not please God. You say cannot please God means for all time and in every circumstance, but that is not in the text. But Hebrews 11:6 is in the text and it says folks can please God by believing in Him.
​

Can folks please God through works while in the flesh? No
Can folks please God with their minds set on the flesh? No
Can folks please God through faith while in the flesh? Yes, Hebrews 11:6.
"In the flesh" refers to being unregenerate in this context, it does not mean "mind set on the flesh" which is another way the bible uses the term.

Romans 8:8, "and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Looking back because this verse is the end of a passage starting in verse 6, we see that the idea being discussed is where we set our minds. Paul is saying that before we are indwelt, we cannot set our mind on the Spirit of Christ, and therefore could not live like an indwelt person can live. Paul is talking about the period in our life, after we are saved, called positional sanctification, and before we physically die. During this period, called process sanctification, we are called to a Holy Calling and are being conformed to the image of Christ.

So at the end of verse 7, where Paul says, for it (the mind set on the flesh) is not even able to do so; Paul is comparing the unregenerate with his or her mind set on the flesh to the regenerate, born again, baptized in to Christ, indwelt believer.

Therefore we need to back up and consider the verse anew. "And those who are in the flesh cannot please God" refers to folks before they are saved. Now these folks cannot please God if their minds on set on the flesh. Therefore the assumption that it means unable to please God in any way such as setting their mind on the milk of the gospel is an inference by Calvinists not supported by the text.

Now how is it possible to please God while unregenerate? Only by trusting in Christ. "And without faith it is impossible to please [Him], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (Hebrews 11:6).

In summary, Romans 8:8 in no way indicates that the unregenerate cannot believe in God and His Christ.

Folks, the TULIP is broken and misrepresenting my position by selectively quoting snippets of my position will not alter this truth.

Nuff said

 

[MamaZ]

Folks, the TULIP is broken and misrepresenting my position by selectively quoting snippets of my position will not alter this truth.

LOL..

 

[nobdysfool]

It appears that Don Quixote lives.....834 posts, and the TULIP is still strong and unbowed.

 

[oworm]

Nuff said

you're done then?

 

[cygnusx1]

you're done then?

i wouldn't bet a shirt on it bro !

 

[Van]

What part of us makes us believe in Christ as Lord and Savior.

(1) What part of us makes us believe? Folks do you see how compulsion is embedded into Calvinist thinking? Why not ask what part of us allows us to believe? Because the answer is our God given ability to autonomously believe or not believe, to trust or rely upon this or that!

(2) What allows us to believe in Christ? Four things (a) God allows us to come to Christ, He does not preclude us by hardening our hearts. (b) We have not so hardened our own heart by the practice of sin that we are unable to even understand the gospel. (c) We believe in God and are "of God" which is to say under the influence of God. And (d) we hear or are exposed to the gospel of Christ.

(3) Does our God given ability to understand some spiritual things in our natural fallen state reside in our human spirit or in our flesh? In our human spirit. Romans 2 says we can understand the invisible attributes of God from what He has made, so the spirit can learn from our environment, or put another way, from what God puts before us, which includes His revelation.

(4) Does our faith originate from God? Yes, God is the first cause of everything. God gave us the ability to hear, understand, accept and trust fully in God. God provided His revelation, including the gospel of Christ which is the power of God to salvation.

​

Does this mean God instills our faith via irresistible grace, and therefore compels us to believe? Nope

Folks, the TULIP is broken, and denial does not alter the truth.

 

[drstevej]

(4) Does our faith originate from God? Yes, God is the first cause of everything.

Nuff Said, finally!