Featured Asking for scriptural rebuttal to TULIP

I personally do not trust the theological observations of someone stupid enough to believe infant baptism.

 

Romans 6:20/Romans 6:16/John 8:36

 

If your church holds "baby dedications" (as mine does) then it is a matter of semantics and a misappropriation of a ceremony, since we both (Paedobaptists and Credobaptists) believe that our children are holy [1Co 7:14].

 

You're going to have put a little more effort than simply a verse list if you want a discussion.

 

wrong thread

 

What do you think we credobaptists understand by holy?

 

Paul and Jesus both affirmed that the natural state of sinners is the nature like satan himself, so well not submit/yield to God by itself!

 

Show us this scripture you claim is by Christ and Paul.
MB

 

You state:
"I expect to see you all there..."

Is that all humanity or just all at the BB who claim Christian faith?

Are you a universalist? Will all humanity reside in the Kingdom of God, eventually?

 

Why would I refute these 5 points as they are a response to the 5 points of the Remonstrants?

 

How so?

 

You have clearly not met my children...

 

Infant baptism is completely different than Baby dedication. You know better than to even try to use that.

 

perseverance of the saints is works to keep being saved. No works no Salvation
MB[/QUOTE]
Lost sinnersd keep on resisting and rejecting Jesus to save them, but none who are one of the elect ever shall, as they know his voice and are one of his sheep![/QUOTE]
Unless you are a Jew you are not elect according to scripture.
MB

 

Please try to be specific. You're giving general statements and verse lists.

No one, no one here, disagrees with the fact that we were by nature the children of wrath (Eph.2:3) and that the heart of man is naturally deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jer.17:9).

The issue at hand is not the naturally evil state of man. We all agree to that.
The issue at hand is whether that evil renders a lost man incapable of choosing Christ because has no free will as a lost man.
That's the issue. My post simply showed that depravity does not so extend to the spirit of man as to render it wholly incapable of choosing good over evil.
Please focus on this specific point rather than generalities on which we all agree.

 

You know Calvninists believe that right?

 

Reiterating, I borrow from both classic calvinism and classic arminianism because I believe both had the right intents towards glorifying God but slipped into error in human reasoning. I'd always attempt pruning away the errors to see unity over common grounds of truth. That said, why do you wish to introduce a new point of division that never existed. The only point of TULIP that both classic calvinism and arminianism agreed on was total depravity. Why seek to refute what has been already accepted by both sides?

Is this a fair way of exegeting texts? The text shows that the Spirit makes men willing - but where does it say the flesh cannot will? And even conceptually, what of all the wicked willing evil - that definitely isn't from the Spirit, then is the conclusion that the wicked don't will anything at all? At any rate, even by your direct word searches in Scriptures, we come with
John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Not born again, No. But definitely supernaturally worked upon by God in the giving of a new heart and mind - if you must, the Arminian concept of prevenient grace.

total depravity does mean exactly that in man born in the natural state. Wesley held to original sin and total depravity too. Think about it, prevenient grace was a necessity within the arminian framework sheerly because Arminianism held to total inability of the flesh without such grace.

 

Earnest endeavour. I am neither calvinist nor arminian but i borrow from the core doctrines of both classic doctrinal systems. I agree with TULIP as such when applied to the elect alone - but since calvinism errs in predestined condemnation of the non-elect, it doesn't even consider how others might equally view the P in TULIP to not be guaranteed when it comes to the rest. The Hebrews falling away passages are the Scriptural basis for this. I'll simply link to the Single Predestination thread references for now and probably continue discussing here...