Smashing the "T" out of TULIP

[steaver]

A neighbor of mine once claimed to be a Calvinist to the max. And I asked him about that Calvinist future scenario regarding one of his children. His heartless response was that "Well at least I will be saved" and the firmly held hope that God would make him not love his child once he got to heaven. That he would be as uncaring about his child as God.

So fine that is how it went down in a discussion - in a debate. But when his child later turned to Calvinism and claimed he did not need to study at College or worry about anything because God would simply make whatever HE wanted to happen - happen and nothing man decided or did would make any change to that plan. Well then my neighbor suddenly developed a conscience about how Calvinism does not work. And how that teaching was destroying his child.

in Christ,

Bob

When one looks at the unavoidable consequences of the TULIP doctrine, it becomes very depressing indeed. John MacArthur was asked, "why did you once believe in free will choice?" He replied, "emotions". He admitted that he needed to quench his emotions that he might embrace TULIP. That should speak volumes to us and to the Calvinist. God's very essence entails emotions, yet the Calvinist believes emotions should be dismissed from the discerning of the doctrine. A Just and Holy and Emotional God says "Come, let us reason together". We see an emotional plea by God for people to repent and believe! Jesus wept over Israel for their un-repentance.

 

[evangelist-7]

Why no mention of ...

God is everywhere ... He knows and sees everything (past, present, future)
“For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth” (2 Chronicles 16:9)
“I make known the end from the beginning … and what is still to come” (Isaiah 46:10)
“I am … the Beginning and the End, says the Lord” (Revelation 1:8, 21:6, 22:13)
More: Job 37:16, (Psalm 90:4, 147:5), Proverbs 15:3, Acts 15:18, 1 John 3:20
This is the key to everything: God has seen all of man’s history, his free-will choices, etc.

God knows peoples’ hearts, thoughts, motives, etc.
“… the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts” (1 Chronicles 28:9).
“I am the One who searches the hearts and minds of people” (Revelation 2:23)
More: 1 Samuel 16:7, 1 Kings 8:39, Psalm 44:21, Proverbs 20:27, Jeremiah 17:10, Jeremiah 20:12

God knows the type of people He wants to spend eternity with
“I dwell in the high and holy place with him who has a contrite and humble spirit” (Isaiah 57:15)
More: 2 Samuel 22:28, (Psalm 34:18, 149:4), Proverbs 3:34, Zephaniah 3:12, James 4:6
A repentant heart towards God is absolutely necessary:
“… unless you repent you will all likewise perish (physically & spiritually) (Luke 13:3, 5)
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9)
Truly, the poor (in various ways) are the most likely to have the right heart attitude:
“He (Father God) has anointed Me (Jesus) to preach the gospel to the poor” (Luke 4:18)
“Has God not chosen the poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom?” (James 2:5)
More: (Isaiah 61:1, 66:2), Luke 7:22, Matthew 11:5
.

 

[BobRyan]

yet the Calvinist believes emotions should be dismissed from the discerning of the doctrine. A Just and Holy and Emotional God says "Come, let us reason together". We see an emotional plea by God for people to repent and believe! Jesus wept over Israel for their un-repentance.

Indeed one of the most oft-repeated retorts of Calvinists against Arminians is the charge that God is "wringing his hands and helplessly watching someone be lost that He would LOVE to have saved".

In other words they mock the end of Matt 23 "Oh Jerusalem - Jerusalem.. how I WANTED to SAVE your children but you would not".

Notice that God does not say "How I wanted to SAVE your children - but then I forgot to cause them to be regenerate first so they COULD be saved and so the whole thing went sour - because I was just too busy with too many details to keep track of that day".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Indeed one of the most oft-repeated retorts of Calvinists against Arminians is the charge that God is "wringing his hands and helplessly watching someone be lost that He would LOVE to have saved".

In other words they mock the end of Matt 23 "Oh Jerusalem - Jerusalem.. how I WANTED to SAVE your children but you would not".

Notice that God does not say "How I wanted to SAVE your children - but then I forgot to cause them to be regenerate first so they COULD be saved and so the whole thing went sour - because I was just too busy with too many details to keep track of that day".

in Christ,

Bob

I presented Matt 23 oftentimes and no TULIP believer ever presented an answer. John MacArthur didn't know what to do with it either, it is ignored rather than allowing the full counsel of God's Word shape their view.

 

[BobRyan]

In Romans 2:11 Paul says "God is not partial".

But Calvinism says "oh yes He is - God arbitrarily chooses to be partial to you the saved saint - but not your precious child. Because HE is sovereign and so you should rejoice without any concern at all for your lost child - just as God has no concern for their salvation. And if that is not your attitude now (because you hope that in the future God will come around on this - and decide that your child should choose salvation) - it will be when you get to heaven and find that your child did not go to heaven.".

how sad.

 

[BobRyan]

To be fair to E-7's (no OSAS thread) when it comes to Calvinism... one point that Calvinists do have - is that OSAS does not fit the Arminian free will model and Arminians that embrace OSAS are being more inconsistent than a Calvinist promoting OSAS.

 

[steaver]

To be fair to E-7's (no OSAS thread) when it comes to Calvinism... one point that Calvinists do have - is that OSAS does not fit the Arminian free will model and Arminians that embrace OSAS are being more inconsistent than a Calvinist promoting OSAS.

That is why I am not an Armenian free willer. I understand the doctrine of regeneration which creates a new creature in Christ. Anyone who is born of God, personally knowing Jesus Christ and His Grace and Sanctification process, would never have any inclination whatsoever to then say "I don't think I want to be saved anymore, I would like to go to hell now"

The Father draws, the Spirit convicts, the person makes a decision to invite God to regenerate/give a new heart, Jesus saves. It is finished. To the glory of God!

But like you said, this isn't a OSAS thread. Just wanted folks to be clear one can be a OSASer and not be Armenian nor Calvinian.

 

[targus]

Indeed one of the most oft-repeated retorts of Calvinists against Arminians is the charge that God is "wringing his hands and helplessly watching someone be lost that He would LOVE to have saved".

Since it is your claim that this is "one of the most oft-repeated retorts"...

Please show one single instance of anyone in the history of man saying this.

Or perhaps you are just "making stuff up".

Or are "you quoting you" again.

 

[steaver]

Since it is your claim that this is "one of the most oft-repeated retorts"...

Please show one single instance of anyone in the history of man saying this.

Or perhaps you are just "making stuff up".

Or are "you quoting you" again.

Idk about that specific quote, but if you ever listen to John MacArthur preach concerning the lost he pretty much passionately declares that it pains God to destroy the lost and begs them to repent, of course all the while it is God who is preventing them according to the Calvinist. Now what is wrong with this kind of preaching? I think my 5th grade SS class can see what is wrong about that.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
To be fair to E-7's (no OSAS thread) when it comes to Calvinism... one point that Calvinists do have - is that OSAS does not fit the Arminian free will model and Arminians that embrace OSAS are being more inconsistent than a Calvinist promoting OSAS.

That is why I am not an Armenian free willer. I understand the doctrine of regeneration which creates a new creature in Christ. Anyone who is born of God, personally knowing Jesus Christ and His Grace and Sanctification process, would never have any inclination whatsoever to then say "I don't think I want to be saved anymore, I would like to go to hell now"

They would never have that inclination because they would no longer have free will?

Or because they never had free will to start with - and God made them accept the Gospel -- God just did not make their child accept it??

The Father draws, the Spirit convicts, the person makes a decision to invite God to regenerate/give a new heart, Jesus saves.

Sounds like free will.

But like you said, this isn't a OSAS thread. Just wanted folks to be clear one can be a OSASer and not be Armenian nor Calvinian.

How does your discussion above - not put you in the free will camp?

Are you saying you believe that free will is lost once we become saved?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

if you ever listen to John MacArthur preach concerning the lost he pretty much passionately declares that it pains God to destroy the lost and begs them to repent, of course all the while it is God who is preventing them according to the Calvinist. Now what is wrong with this kind of preaching? I think my 5th grade SS class can see what is wrong about that.

Indeed the "differentiator" in Calvinism is not man - it is God who arbitrarily "selects" one to be saved and another to be last. The U of the TULIP is arbitrary selection.

Selecting one - and not the other - is what makes "The difference" between the saved and the lost -according to TULIP Calvinism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

They would never have that inclination because they would no longer have free will?

How does your discussion above - not put you in the free will camp?

Are you saying you believe that free will is lost once we become saved?

in Christ,

Bob

Freewill was part of Creation and was given to man in the Garden of Eden before the fall and was present when God declared everything very good.

Freewill does not cease to exist after regeneration. However, God has implemented restrictions throughout the history of the bible.

What does cease to exist is the freewill to choose to become unborn or un-regenerated. Regeneration is an act of God which cannot be undone because God declares it cannot be undone. God has chosen to implement this act of regeneration upon those who call upon Jesus Christ post resurrection/glorification.

There are many examples of God limiting a person's freewill. God hardened Pharaoh's heart that he could not freely choose to let the Israelites go free. Some places we read how God "turns one over" effectively ending the person's freewill to choose right. When Antichrist appears God will end the freewill right to choose Jesus Christ for those who have rejected Him previously.

And yes, because of God's doctrine of "born-again", one who has been born of God has GRACIOUSLY been restricted from choosing damnation through unbelief, for one can never stop believing in that which they have a personal knowledge of is an absolute truth. Christ In You! Regeneration! Born of God! New Creation!

What? Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? I trust you know Jesus Christ is in you, so how then could you stop believing Jesus Christ is Lord??

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
They would never have that inclination because they would no longer have free will?

How does your discussion above - not put you in the free will camp?

Are you saying you believe that free will is lost once we become saved

Freewill was part of Creation and was given to man in the Garden of Eden before the fall and was present when God declared everything very good.

Freewill does not cease to exist after regeneration. However, God has implemented restrictions throughout the history of the bible.

What does cease to exist is the freewill to choose to become unborn

The Bible says that Adam was a child of God.

Did Adam have to "choose to be unborn" to change that?? You realize that is an odd way to state what Adam did don't you?

And are you saying that Adam's choice is no longer available - because he successfully chose to become unborn - but the saved saint filled with a sinful nature - cannot "unborn himself" the way Adam did?? (To use a term here that does not entirely make sense - again).

Adam's creation as a perfect sinless being - was an act of God

Regeneration is an act of God

Agreed. But it is the regenerate saint - with his sinful nature - less inclined to make a bad choice than sinless Adam with no sinful nature at all??

which cannot be undone because God declares it cannot be undone.

God says "you stand only by your faith. You should fear. For if He did not spare them - neither will He spare you" Romans 11.

God says to "return all the debt owed" that was fully forgiven - to the unforgiving servant and as Christ said "so shall my Father do to each one of you that does not forgiven his brother from is heart" ( just as you were fully forgiven by God). Matt 18.

God says " you have been severed from Christ - you have fallen from Grace" Gal 5:4.

Are these statements describing a lost person becoming "lost-er"??

Or are they talking about the very thing you say cannot be said in the Bible - cannot happen? A saved person losing salvation?

Or is the "unforgiven, severed from Christ, fallen from Grace, cut off from the root" state - a little known new kind of salvation?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
They would never have that inclination because they would no longer have free will?

How does your discussion above - not put you in the free will camp?

Are you saying you believe that free will is lost once we become saved




The Bible says that Adam was a child of God.

Did Adam have to "choose to be unborn" to change that?? You realize that is an odd way to state what Adam did don't you?

And are you saying that Adam's choice is no longer available - because he successfully chose to become unborn - but the saved saint filled with a sinful nature - cannot "unborn himself" the way Adam did?? (To use a term here that does not entirely make sense - again).

Adam's creation as a perfect sinless being - was an act of God

Agreed. But it is the regenerate saint - with his sinful nature - less inclined to make a bad choice than sinless Adam with no sinful nature at all??



God says "you stand only by your faith. You should fear. For if He did not spare them - neither will He spare you" Romans 11.

God says to "return all the debt owed" that was fully forgiven - to the unforgiving servant and as Christ said "so shall my Father do to each one of you that does not forgiven his brother from is heart" ( just as you were fully forgiven by God). Matt 18.

God says " you have been severed from Christ - you have fallen from Grace" Gal 5:4.

Are these statements describing a lost person becoming "lost-er"??

Or are they talking about the very thing you say cannot be said in the Bible - cannot happen? A saved person losing salvation?

Or is the "unforgiven, severed from Christ, fallen from Grace, cut off from the root" state - a little known new kind of salvation?

in Christ,

Bob

Adam created with no sin nature, had real freewill to chose...

he chose to sin, we all now after him born in his likeness, sinners without real free will!

 

[Rippon]

Indeed the "differentiator" in Calvinism is not man - it is God who arbitrarily "selects" one to be saved and another to be last. The U of the TULIP is arbitrary selection.

In the current connotation of arbitrarily --no. It is not on a whim that God chooses one over another. For you to even suggest such a thought is blasphemy. The Lord is righteous and just. He does nothing random. Do not bring dishonor to the Lord.

 

[evangelist-7]

Adam created with no sin nature, had real freewill to chose...
he chose to sin, we all now after him born in his likeness, sinners without real free will!

Here I find myself responding to this guy again ...

Several OT passages declare that God considered some people to be righteous!
Wanna see 'em? ... Read the OT.

Then, of course, we have Paul's instructions to BACs to NOT sin.
Wanna see 'em? ... Read the NT (hint: see if you can find R6).
Who me? What? Where? Why me?
.

 

[steaver]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

The Bible says that Adam was a child of God.



in Christ,

Bob

You are beginning your argument from an incorrect premise. No where in scripture do we read Adam was called a child of God which is a NT title given for those who are born-again post glorification of Jesus Christ.

Luke 3:38 we read ".........Adam, which was the son of God." "the son" being added to convey the relationship of fathers and their offspring. Adam was of God, having no earthly father for he was the first created by God.

Acts 17:29 we read "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." All translations with the exception of the NASB translates this correctly, not all of humanity are the "children of God", this is a title given only to those who are born again or born of God.

Did Adam have to "choose to be unborn" to change that?? You realize that is an odd way to state what Adam did don't you?

And are you saying that Adam's choice is no longer available - because he successfully chose to become unborn - but the saved saint filled with a sinful nature - cannot "unborn himself" the way Adam did?? (To use a term here that does not entirely make sense - again).

Nowhere in scripture do we read Adam was "born-again" or "born of God". Adam did not become "unborn" when Adam sinned. Thus, your questions are born out of an incorrect premise.

Agreed. But it is the regenerate saint - with his sinful nature - less inclined to make a bad choice than sinless Adam with no sinful nature at all??

You will have to find another argument than that of Adam, for Adam has nothing to do with the NT implementation of the spiritual rebirth. Adam is God's example of OUR failure, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

God says "you stand only by your faith. You should fear. For if He did not spare them - neither will He spare you" Romans 11.

God says to "return all the debt owed" that was fully forgiven - to the unforgiving servant and as Christ said "so shall my Father do to each one of you that does not forgiven his brother from is heart" ( just as you were fully forgiven by God). Matt 18.

God says " you have been severed from Christ - you have fallen from Grace" Gal 5:4.

Are these statements describing a lost person becoming "lost-er"??

Or are they talking about the very thing you say cannot be said in the Bible - cannot happen? A saved person losing salvation?

Or is the "unforgiven, severed from Christ, fallen from Grace, cut off from the root" state - a little known new kind of salvation?

Scripture is very clear when it comes to the specifics of the rebirth. If you begin with these specific passages you will then be able to harmonize these less specific text you find troubling to the OSAS doctrine.

For example;

John 4:14, "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." Notice the word "never". The water Jesus is speaking of is the Holy Spirit (Jn7:39)

Eph 1:13, "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise". Notice the word "sealed"

Eph 4:30, "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption". Again, "sealed"

2Cr 1:22, "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts"

And in Romans 11:29 we read "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance". Once God gives a gift, that gift is irrevocable, thus what you think you are hearing in the parable of the unforgiving servant cannot be correct. You must find an interpretation which fits into the full counsel of God's word on this subject of the Holy Spirit rebirth.

These are just a small sample. We know that only God could break God's seal, not any man nor any woman. We also know God cannot break a promise and it is God through His miracle act of regeneration in which He seals us "with that holy Spirit of promise".

There are so many more scriptures specific to the rebirth, but how many would it take for you to reconsider your pov?

I asked you...

What? Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? I trust you know Jesus Christ is in you, so how then could you stop believing Jesus Christ is Lord??

Answer that question honestly for yourself brother, then you will see things differently.

For I find that those who preach the loss of salvation usually feel it would never happen to them, but it's those other weak, sinful Christians who better watch out!

 

[BobRyan]

Thank you for your posts and thoughts on that subject.

Have a nice day.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

I use to really like listening to John MacArthur until I listened to this interview of him trying to defend TULIP's version of unconditional election (yeah, I know you will say it is the bible version and not Calvin's) but anywho....

John has a daily radio broadcast called "Grace to you" and I think it comes on here on the station I listen to at 9:30am. He came on Friday and his sermon was railing against the lost, who as he put it, REFUSES to believe on Jesus Christ and how because of this rejection of Jesus Christ, God has every justification for destroying them in everlasting torture and punishment. Knowing what John believes about the lost not being ALLOWED to believe on Jesus Christ I had to turn the station, I couldn't stand listening to him any longer.

I just think it is sad preaching from a professing Calvinist.

 

[shodan]

The original post misses the meaning of T [total depravity] which simply means that all man's faculties were effected by the fall [defaced, not eliminated].

I think it was Reinhold Niebuhr who said that this was the only doctrine for which we had empirical evidence!

I have heard Calvinists say that the 'L' is a bad choice of terms but then, they could not spell Tulip if they changed it, cf. http://sdcougar.startlogic.com/blog/?p=179