Summary of TULIP After Reading This Site for Over Eight Years

Yeah, but there are more Holy Scriptures to be cited for both sides of the understanding and there are third views. Calvinist's TULIP, 0 pointers, 1 pointers, 2 pointers (me), 3 pointers, 4 pointers.

 

Again, Calvinists say they do the same thing, so who is right? In fact, we believe that non-calvinists reinterpret things to appease their belief system.

So God speaks directly to you in an audible voice? You don't need help from anyone else? There is nobody wiser than you? I know that isn't what you are saying but that is the way this comes across. So we should not have listened to the sermons of Peter and Paul if we were alive at that time? We should not have asked them? This position is just nonsense.

 

Why? Why cant you believe the best about those with whom you disagree with and understand this is what they have come to understand through study?

I would say that what we believe in one area of scripture will at times color what we understand somewhere else. But that is true of both sides.

 

Yet another outright falsehood. Why, you asked (post #38), are not all people saved if God desires all people to be saved. Answer, because God invites rather than compels people for salvation.

Calvinism cannot be defended from scripture, so fallacy after fallacy is posted to deflect and obfuscate.

Summary : You were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity and there is nothing you can do to alter that outcome of your life or the lives of ;your loved ones, thus Calvinism boils down to the doctrines of futility.

They say God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass, but that does not make God the author of sin. So right off the bat, advocates must engage in cognitive dissonance.

 

I was merely putting the same words back. Why are you not asking @MB the same question?

I agree here.

 

Quite the opposite. You oppose yourself.

 

Oh we have discussed it. If you look back he was not happy with what I said.

 

He does not invite.
He does indeed compel:

" And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel [them] to come in, that my house may be filled. " ( Luke 14:23 ).
For the entire passage. please see Luke 14:15-24.

Sure it can.

It's just that the Scriptures that get used to support it, are more often that not strenuously objected to as being "mis-interpreted".
It's not like there aren't Scriptures whose very words say the things that "Calvinists" claim that they do.
There are, and they are many.

For example:

" And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." ( Acts of the Apostles 13:48 ).

Looking at this, I find it very easy to see why "Calvinists" think that eternal life is a limited gift, from man's viewpoint...
Only as many as are ordained to eternal life will believe.
Romans 8:28-30 backs this up, as do many others.

What about those who are not ordained to eternal life?
They are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction ( Romans 9:22-24 ).

Scripture answers any and all questions about salvation.
But it seems that the answers are too much for some people to handle without either objecting to the answers, or denying the very Scriptures the answers are based on.

Van,

As I see it, this isn't a problem of "viewpoints".
To me, this is a problem with accepting Scripture.

 

I agree.

There is nothing that can be done to alter the outcome of God's purposes...known or unknown.
His will is accomplished, not our will ( Daniel 4:35 ).

As for loved ones:
God's word tells us as believers to love our children ( Titus 2:4 ) and loved ones, as well as our neighbor.
But compared to the Lord, we are to hate them ( Luke 14:26 ).

You may see it as "futility", while I see the "doctrines of grace" as both amazing, loving ( from the saved believer's point of view ) and terrible ( from the lost sinners point of view ).
That He does not plan to save everyone is His right and purpose.
That we all don't get cast into Hell is because of His mercy and kindness.

Regardless of any emotional battles I may have accepting His will, He has the words of eternal life, and I accept those words no matter what they say.

Compared to man's already corrupt minds and hearts, anythnig is "cognitive dissonance" ...and it is out-of-step and 180 degrees the other direction with God and His ways.
His ways are "cognitive dissonance" to us as rebellious sinners.

But since His perspective is truth, then we are the ones with the problem, not Him.

 

I agree, one of us does not accept scripture.

Lets start with Luke 14:23: So the master said to his slave, ‘Go out to the highways and country roads and urge people to come in, so that my house will be filled. (NET)

Here is the NET footnote: tn Traditionally “force” or “compel,” but according to BDAG 60 s.v. ἀναγκάζω 2 this is a weakened nuance: “strongly urge/invite.” The meaning in this context is more like “persuade.”

Now lets turn to Acts 13:48, (NASB)
Act 13:48
When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

The Greek word translated "appointed" refers to an agreement by mutual consent. Therefore the actual meaning is "as many as had accepted Paul's direction to eternal life believed.

Once again the supposed support for Calvinism is based on mistranslation.

 

I think we did this before, Van.
Therein is the problem.

You see Scripture one way, and I see it another...even the very words on the page take on new meanings depending upon who one talks to.

To me, you're having a problem with the word, "ordained".
In the Greek, it's "tasso" ...and it does not mean an agreement by mutual consent.
Where you find this, I do not know.

Again, you appear to see man cooperating with God to achieve eternal life, and I do not.


That is why we do not agree even on many of the "basics".

 

"To me, you're having a problem with the word, "ordained".
In the Greek, it's "tasso" ...and it does not mean an agreement by mutual consent.
Where you find this, I do not know."

 

Yet another unstudied disparagement, totally wrong. See post #93

 

Once again, here are the places where "tasso" in various grammatical forms, is used in scripture:

1) Matthew 28:16 with the NASB translating it as "designated." Here the idea is the disciples went to the location designated by Jesus. Thus they took the direction.

2) Acts of the Apostles 13:48 with the NASB translating it as "appointed." Here the idea is some of the Gentiles that heard the gospel's direction to eternal life from Paul believed.

3) Acts of the Apostles 15:2 with the NASB translating it as "determined." Here the idea is a group agreed upon sending Paul. Obviously Paul mutually agreed to go, he took the direction.

4) Acts of the Apostles 22:10 with the NASB translating it as "appointed." Here Jesus tells Paul to go and and learn what Paul has been directed to do. And again, Paul agrees and goes and learns.

5) Acts of the Apostles 28:23 with the NASB translating it as "set." Here a group had "set" a day for Paul and thus once again they mutually agreed to accept the direction to meet on that day.

6) Romans 13:1 with the NASB translating it as "established." Here the idea is God directed that governmental authority for the benefit of the governed.

7) 1 Corinthians 16:15 with the NASB translating it as "devoted." Here the idea is that the a group has set themselves to the task of ministry, yet another mutually agreed upon direction.

As you can see, tasso means to agree mutually, as in to believe in accordance with the gospel's direction to eternal life.

But as many as were directed to eternal life believed

 

Where do you get that it means to agree mutually? Reference citation please.

 

Any lexicon. Any actual study of the biblical usage. See post #93

 

Obviously not any lexicon, I looked in BDAG and LouwNida and neither of them say that. Post #93 contains no citation so I have no idea where that comes from. I do actual Bible Study but I also cite sources. Why can't you just cite the source?

 

Tasso - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

 

So one lexicon says that and it doesn't even specify it to the verse Acts 13:48 that is in discussion. Not a very solid case for you there. I've checked five other lexicons and none of them say that in relation to that verse. You lose this one.