Featured The Day TULIP Died

JonC · May 8, 2022

Alan Gross said: ↑

How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Christ here speaks as a man, and the minister of the circumcision, and expresses an human affection for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and an human wish, and will for their temporal good;

which he very aptly signifies by the hen, which is a very affectionate creature to its young, and which it endeavors to screen from danger, by covering with its wings. Gill

reference: "...I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.'' (2 Esdras 1:30).

It seems to be a simile much in use with that people. Our Lord is to be understood not of his divine will, as God, to gather the people of the Jews internally, by his Spirit and grace, to himself;

for all those whom Christ would gather, in this sense, were gathered, notwithstanding all the opposition made by the rulers of the people;

but of his human affection and will, as a man, and a minister, to gather them to him externally, by, and under the ministry of his word, to hear him preach;

so as that they might be brought to a conviction of, and an assent unto him as the Messiah; which, though it might fall short of faith in him, would have been sufficient to have preserved them from temporal ruin, threatened to their city and temple, in the following verse.

Instances of the human affection, and will of Christ, may be observed in Mark 10:21 which will of his, though not contrary to the divine will, but subordinate to it, yet not always the same with it, nor always fulfilled: whereas his divine will, or his will as God, is, always fulfilled: "who hath resisted his will?" this cannot be hindered, and made void

he does whatsoever he pleases: and further, that this will of Christ to gather the Jews to himself, is to be understood of his human, and not divine will, is manifest from hence, that this will was in him, and expressed by him at certain several times, by intervals;

and therefore he says, "how often would I have gathered", &c. whereas the divine will is one continued, invariable, and unchangeable will, is always the same, and never begins or ceases to be, and to which such an expression is inapplicable;

and therefore these words do not contradict the absolute and sovereign will of God, in the distinguishing acts of it, respecting the choice of some persons, and the leaving of others.

And it is to be observed, that the persons whom Christ would have gathered, are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered;

but their rulers were not willing that they should, and be made proselytes to him, and come under his wings.

It is not said, "how often would I have gathered you, and you would not!" nor, "I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not"; nor, "I would have gathered thy children, and they would not"; but, "how often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!"

Which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favor of free will. Had Christ expressed his desire to have gathered the heads of the people to him, the members of the Jewish Sanhedrim, the civil and ecclesiastical rulers of the Jews: or had he signified how much he wished, and earnestly sought after, and attempted to gather Jerusalem, the children, the inhabitants of it in common, and neither of them would not;

it would have carried some appearance of the doctrine of free will, and have seemed to have countenanced it, and have imputed the non-gathering of them to their own will: though had it been said, "they would not", instead of, "ye would not", it would only have furnished out a most sad instance of the perverseness of the will of man, which often opposes his temporal, as well as his spiritual good;

and would rather show it to be a slave to that which is evil, than free to that which is good; and would be a proof of this, not in a single person only, but in a body of men.

The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ were not made by the people, but by their governors.

The common people seemed inclined to attend his ministry, as appears from the vast crowds, which, at different times and places, followed him;

but the chief priests, and rulers, did all they could to hinder the collection of them to him, and their belief in him as the Messiah; by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by menacing the people with curses, and excommunications, making a law, that whoever confessed him should be turned out of the synagogue.

So that the plain meaning of the text is the same with that of Matthew 23:13 and consequently is no proof of men's resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace of God;

but only shows what obstructions and discouragements were thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word.

In order to set aside, and overthrow the doctrine of grace, in election, and particular redemption, and effectual calling, it should be proved that Christ, as God, would have gathered, not Jerusalem, and the inhabitants of it only, but all mankind, even such as are not eventually saved, and that in a spiritual, saving way and manner, to himself; of which there is not the least intimation in this text: and in order to establish the resistibility of the grace of God, by the perverse will of man, so as to become of no effect;

it should be shown that Christ would have savingly converted persons, and they would not be converted;

and that he bestowed the same grace upon them, he does bestow on others, who are converted: whereas the sum of this passage lies in these few words, that Christ, as man, out of a compassionate regard for the people of the Jews, to whom, he was sent as the minister of the circumcision, would have gathered them together under his ministry, and have instructed them in the knowledge of himself, as the Messiah;

which if they had only notionally received, would have secured them, as chickens under the hen, from impending judgments, which afterwards fell upon them; but their governors, and not they, would not;

that is, would not suffer them to receive him, and embrace him as the Messiah.

So that from the whole it appears, that this passage of Scripture, so much talked of by the Arminians, and so often cited by them, has nothing to do with the controversy about the doctrines of election and reprobation, particular redemption, efficacious grace in conversion, and the power of man's free will.

This observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage, in favor of free will," Gill
Click to expand...

I never bought into the "Christ was speaking as a man" idea.

Don't mistake my own views, though. While I absolutely reject Calvinism, I also do not affirm a free-will theology insofar as man holding his own future in his hands.

Why would we read Luke 13 and conclude that it is not true of God because it was Jesus speaking as a man? This is what I mean by Calvinism bending Scripture to fit it's philosophy.

The context is, BTW, God speaking as God.

My point is more that nobody can refute Calvinism because for Calvinists Calvinism trump's Scripture (for a Calvinist that verse has to be Jesus calling to Jerusalem that He longed, as a man, to take the people under His wing for their temporal good....but that is far from taking the meaning from the text).

Reynolds · May 8, 2022

JonC said: ↑

"I had come to believe that love was one of God’s “soft” attributes (compared to the biggies like holiness, sovereignty, immutability, etc.). It wasn’t a huge leap from that to wondering whether God was truly loving at all.
After all, if God’s chief concern is for his own glory (as Piper claims) and holiness is his supreme attribute (as my church taught), then love is at best a secondary concern for God. On top of that, if you’re not among the elect, it makes no sense to conceive of God loving you at all. “I love you, but before you were born, I decided you would spend eternity in agonizing torment.

The more all this weighed on me, the more I began to hate going to church (which made being on the worship team a bit complicated). I was also growing troubled by the theological arrogance I saw in myself and others. . . .

All I knew was that I had to choose between a loving God and a deterministic God (or no God at all). I realize most Calvinists feel this is a false choice, but it’s the one I had to make. Ultimately, I don’t think it’s a false choice at all, because love and determinism are fundamentally irreconcilable.". (Ben Irvin, The Day TULIP Died)

Is, as the author came to believe, love and determinism fundamentally irreconcilable?
Click to expand...

I don't see how Calvinism brings glory to God. What glory is there in puppets following the irresistible commands of the puppet master?

JonC · May 8, 2022

Reynolds said: ↑

I don't see how Calvinism brings glory to God. What glory is there in puppets following the irresistible commands of the puppet master?
Click to expand...

In reality it doesn't. But that was it's goal (Calvin expressed his primary goal to be “to sanctify the name of God” and his motive as a “zeal to illustrate the glory of God.”

When I was a Calvinist my answer would have been that it glorified God by explaining His sovereignty over all creation. In the judgment of the list we see God glorified in His justness. In the redeemed we see Him glorified in His mercy.

But in reality Calvinism minimalizes God and inflates mankind (particularly sin). This is because Calvinism itself can stand alone (with the concept of any supreme being) if its presuppositions about justice are believed.

atpollard · May 8, 2022

JonC said: ↑

Is, as the author came to believe, love and determinism fundamentally irreconcilable?
Click to expand...

No.

atpollard · May 8, 2022

JonC said: ↑

The doctrine of love (of divine love) is probably one of the most difficult to articulate....probably the most difficult to understand (like you point out, we are finite in our understanding). Much remains to be known. For now we can rest in what God has revealed.

Throughout Scripture God is pictured as a God first and foremost of love. While there is wrath, this wrath is not simply punishing wicked people. It has a purpose, for God desires that none perish. Verses even look back at the wicked, having God say "if only you would have repented".
Click to expand...

When my daughter was 18 months old, she had a prolonged ear infection that required me to hold her still while a doctor drained the infection in her middle ear with a needle inserted through her ear drum. The alternative would have resulted in her going deaf. As she lay there terrified and screaming … as I held her head still … as the doctor stuck a needle into her painful to the touch ear … was that LOVE?

Love itself can be a hard thing to identify.

37818 · May 8, 2022

JonC said: ↑

. . . if its presuppositions about justice are believed.
Click to expand...

Biblical theology it's truths are the presuppositions. Calvinism believes it's presuppositions are those. [Non- & Anti-Calvinists disagree.]

Alan Gross · May 8, 2022

The Day TULIP Died
is another way of saying, "I do not know 'The TRUTH'"

There is a Higher Realm of The Spirit than the natural thinking of man.

In "sound" religious circles, where people are aware of Adamic sin and the ability to reconcile issues regarding The Glory of God in His Eternal Plan of Salvation, those of a Spiritual aptitude that Honors God rather than man are said to, simply, know "The TRUTH".

Others have their own thing.

I can't tell them what to believe.

They believe, "The Day TULIP Died".

Something sound men would call, "unbelief".

Silverhair · May 8, 2022

Alan Gross said: ↑

God wishes and desires that all sorts of men, all kinds of men, including all of the variety here mentioned to pray for, be saved.

"all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1 Timothy 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; "..."and particularly the Gentiles"..."as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, ... as well as Jewish ones

God does not want his people to believe that those in power can not be saved and that they should even be prayed for.

"all who are saved God wills they should be saved; nor are any saved, but whom he wills they should be saved: hence by all men, whom God would have saved, cannot be meant every individual of mankind, since it is not his will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved, unless there are two contrary wills in God;

"for there are some who were before ordained by him unto condemnation, and are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction;

"and it is his will concerning some, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned;

"nor is it fact that all are saved, as they would be, if it was his will they should; for who hath resisted his will? but there is a world of ungodly men that will be condemned, and who will go into everlasting punishment: rather, therefore, all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1 Timothy 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners;

"and therefore all are to be prayed for, even all sorts of men, because God will have all men, or all sorts of men, saved;

"and particularly the Gentiles may be designed, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature;

"whom God would have saved, as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, were to be prayed for as well as Jewish ones. Gill
Click to expand...

So after that long comment do you agree trhat God desires all men to be saved or do you think that only a pre-selected group will be saved?

Silverhair · May 8, 2022

Alan Gross said: ↑

"all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1 Timothy 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; "..."and particularly the Gentiles"..."as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, ... as well as Jewish ones

Mat 11:28 Come to Me, all (sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1 Timothy 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; "..."and particularly the Gentiles", i.e., "The WORLD"..."as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, ... as well as Jewish ones, i.e., "all". not to the exclusion of any TYPE, KIND, or SORT, etc. ) you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

God will not force anyone to be saved is not stated in this passage and is a false philosophy, assumed.

As with many false philosophies, simply not assuming them can be curative.

I do not assume Evolution, therefore, if I then look for evidence for it, there is none, because there can't be.
Click to expand...

I find it just a bit strange that the calvinist can not, for some reason, just read the text of the bible without twisting it or reading into it what they need to find.
1Ti 2:1 ...giving of thanks be made for all men,
Mat 11:28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden...

The clear reading is that in both cases it is for all men, now that may include Kings, Leaders, Jews, Gentiles, rich, poor etc. But they are all part of the all men. Why do calvinists have such a hard time with the scriptures. It seems like you want to jump through hoops of your own making and then do not understand why others do not.

Simple solution, trust the bible and not your man-made theology.

Silverhair · May 8, 2022

atpollard said: ↑

When my daughter was 18 months old, she had a prolonged ear infection that required me to hold her still while a doctor drained the infection in her middle ear with a needle inserted through her ear drum. The alternative would have resulted in her going deaf. As she lay there terrified and screaming … as I held her head still … as the doctor stuck a needle into her painful to the touch ear … was that LOVE?

Love itself can be a hard thing to identify.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think any parent would agree that what you had to do was done out of love. And I think that any Christian would agree that sometimes things that God does to His children is done in love.

Determining that some of those children will spend an eternity in hell because He did not select them for salvation is not love.

Van · May 8, 2022

Is, as the author came to believe, love and determinism fundamentally irreconcilable?

I do not think I understand the conflict between love and determinism, but determinism is fundamentally irreconcilable with scripture. The inspired word says things happen by chance. Thus the biblical view is God is sovereign because He either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. God gives the lost the opportunity to choose life or death, and encourages the lost to choose life. Deuteronomy 30:19

As I understand God's actual attributes as described in scripture, there is no conflict between His actual sovereignty (causes or allows) and His attribute of love. Providing an opportunity to be saved demonstrates His love, and His gracious act of choosing to save those whose faith He credits as righteousness certainly defines sacrificial love.

But the author is spot on in thinking it is time to consign the false TULI doctrines of the Tulip to the dust bin of history.

AustinC · May 8, 2022

Silverhair said: ↑

So after that long comment do you agree trhat God desires all men to be saved or do you think that only a pre-selected group will be saved?
Click to expand...

What does the Bible say about being chosen, elected and predestined?
If you want to ignore the many, many verses where God does this while misinterpreting one sentence to make it so you can be lord over God, then that is what you want to do.
As for me, I will let all of God's Word inform me of His Sovereignty and authority over all His creation. You can go on blaming God for why humans go to hell.

Aaron · May 9, 2022

JonC said: ↑

"I had come to believe that love was one of God’s “soft” attributes (compared to the biggies like holiness, sovereignty, immutability, etc.). It wasn’t a huge leap from that to wondering whether God was truly loving at all.
After all, if God’s chief concern is for his own glory (as Piper claims) and holiness is his supreme attribute (as my church taught), then love is at best a secondary concern for God. On top of that, if you’re not among the elect, it makes no sense to conceive of God loving you at all. “I love you, but before you were born, I decided you would spend eternity in agonizing torment.

The more all this weighed on me, the more I began to hate going to church (which made being on the worship team a bit complicated). I was also growing troubled by the theological arrogance I saw in myself and others. . . .

All I knew was that I had to choose between a loving God and a deterministic God (or no God at all). I realize most Calvinists feel this is a false choice, but it’s the one I had to make. Ultimately, I don’t think it’s a false choice at all, because love and determinism are fundamentally irreconcilable.". (Ben Irvin, The Day TULIP Died)

Is, as the author came to believe, love and determinism fundamentally irreconcilable?
Click to expand...

It is true. To those who are perishing, the Gospel is the stench of death, so they either have to leave it, or rewrite it.

2 Corinthians 2:14-17 NLT But thank God! He has made us his captives and continues to lead us along in Christ's triumphal procession. Now he uses us to spread the knowledge of Christ everywhere, like a sweet perfume. Our lives are a Christ-like fragrance rising up to God. But this fragrance is perceived differently by those who are being saved and by those who are perishing. To those who are perishing, we are a dreadful smell of death and doom. But to those who are being saved, we are a life-giving perfume. And who is adequate for such a task as this? You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word of God with sincerity and with Christ's authority, knowing that God is watching us.

Silverhair · May 9, 2022

AustinC said: ↑

What does the Bible say about being chosen, elected and predestined?
If you want to ignore the many, many verses where God does this while misinterpreting one sentence to make it so you can be lord over God, then that is what you want to do.
As for me, I will let all of God's Word inform me of His Sovereignty and authority over all His creation. You can go on blaming God for why humans go to hell.
Click to expand...

We have seen how you do not allow Gods' word to lead you. What verse did I misinterpret, you make these kind of claims but never back them up. I do not interpret scripture, by reading it through a theological lens as some on here do, I just read what it says in clear English.

As usual from you, you try to twist whatever someone says. It is not God that sends people to hell, it is their sin. It is your errant theology that makes God the one that causes people to be in hell for no other reason than He did not pick them out to be saved. You have been shown this many times but you just ignore it and continue to make your false claims.

You ask "What does the Bible say about being chosen, elected and predestined?" If you would just let the bible speak and not read into the scriptures what you need to find then perhaps you would find out what the bible actually does say, which is not what you need it to say.

Alcott · May 9, 2022

Who the heck is TULIP?

JonC · May 9, 2022

37818 said: ↑

Biblical theology it's truths are the presuppositions. Calvinism believes it's presuppositions are those. [Non- & Anti-Calvinists disagree.]
Click to expand...

We always have to check our presuppositions at the door prior to studying Scripture. Often we don't. Many times we can't.

But that is where opposing positions help.

Others (who do not hold our presuppositions) readily see what we don't insofar as assumptions or things we bring into theology as opposed to allowing Scripture dictate our beliefs.

The issue is when questioned about assumptions many simply ignore the question and claim it is the "plain teachings", "obvious", etc. They not only refuse to justify the things they bring to the Word but they blindly refuse to see the things they carry.

This applies to Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. There often comes a point when we shove our fingers into our ears and shout "ain't so" to avoid dealing with what we cannot defend.

JonC · May 9, 2022

Alan Gross said: ↑

The Day TULIP Died
is another way of saying, "I do not know 'The TRUTH'"

There is a Higher Realm of The Spirit than the natural thinking of man.

In "sound" religious circles, where people are aware of Adamic sin and the ability to reconcile issues regarding The Glory of God in His Eternal Plan of Salvation, those of a Spiritual aptitude that Honors God rather than man are said to, simply, know "The TRUTH".

Others have their own thing.

I can't tell them what to believe.

They believe, "The Day TULIP Died".

Something sound men would call, "unbelief".

Click to expand...

No. The author was a Calvinist. It is another way of saying "I was once a Calvinist but came to see it as a false representation of redemption".

Sound men would say it is a rejection of Calvinism, not for a lack of knowing but for arriving at the conclusion it is incorrect.

There is a reason Calvinists are a minority among Christians. It is not just because it is a relatively new understanding (which in itself does not make Calvinism incorrect). It is also that the majority do not share Calvinistic presuppositions.

Within Christianity there are several soteriological views. To blindly claim yours is correct without even engaging other views is not sound practice.

You could hold the correct view. Most of Christianity could be in error. But to simply hold your view as a cult member affirms their "truth" - even if correct - calls into question your own belief (not what you believe but how you believe it).

JonC · May 9, 2022

Alcott said: ↑

Who the heck is TULIP?
Click to expand...

Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints. This within the confines of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Men are without the ability to turn to God.

God chooses who He will save.

He either chooses out of Fallen man to save some and bypass most, or He chooses to save some and damn others.

Christ died to provide salvation for the elect.

On the cross God punished Christ (or our sins in Christ) instead of punishing us. Therefore He had to die only for the elect (otherwise we have universalism).

The elect cannot resist God's call to salvation.

The saints will not be lost.

Aaron · May 9, 2022

Alcott said: ↑

Who the heck is TULIP?
Click to expand...

TULIP is an acronym for the responses of the Synod of Dort to the Five Remonstrances drawn up by the disciples of Arminius. It is not the codification of Calvinism. Calvinism has never been codified.

Calvinism is a term used for those who believe in predestination according to God's purposes of election. He will save His people from their sins. Calvinism is simply the Gospel.

The OP bemoans what all who deny God's sovereignty in salvation bemoan, that it's 'unfair' and 'unloving.' Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Romans 9:19

But Paul admits, that it only sounds unfair and unloving to those who are perishing. Odd that JonC agreed with my post, LOL.

JonC · May 9, 2022

Aaron said: ↑

TULIP is an acronym for the responses of the Synod of Dort to the Five Remonstrances drawn up by the disciples of Arminius. It is not the codification of Calvinism. Calvinism has never been codified.

Calvinism is a term used for those who believe in predestination according to God's purposes of election. He will save His people from their sins. Calvinism is simply the Gospel.

The OP bemoans what all who deny God's sovereignty in salvation bemoan, that it's 'unfair' and 'unloving.' Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Romans 9:19

But Paul admits, that it only sounds unfair and unloving to those who are perishing. Odd that JonC agreed with my post, LOL.
Click to expand...

Why?

It is true. To those who are perishing, the Gospel is the stench of death, so they either have to leave it, or rewrite it.

Featured The Day TULIP Died

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Reynolds Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

atpollard Well-Known Member

atpollard Well-Known Member

37818 Well-Known Member

Alan Gross Well-Known Member

Silverhair Well-Known Member

Silverhair Well-Known Member

Silverhair Well-Known Member

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

AustinC Well-Known Member

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

Silverhair Well-Known Member

Alcott Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Useful Searches

Featured The Day TULIP Died

JonC Moderator Moderator

Reynolds Well-Known Member Site Supporter

JonC Moderator Moderator

atpollard Well-Known Member

atpollard Well-Known Member

37818 Well-Known Member

Alan Gross Well-Known Member

Silverhair Well-Known Member

Silverhair Well-Known Member

Silverhair Well-Known Member

Van Well-Known Member Site Supporter

AustinC Well-Known Member

Aaron Member Site Supporter

Silverhair Well-Known Member

Alcott Well-Known Member Site Supporter

JonC Moderator Moderator

JonC Moderator Moderator

JonC Moderator Moderator

Aaron Member Site Supporter

JonC Moderator Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Reynolds Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

Alcott Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator