The Day TULIP Died

[atpollard]

Does the Bible say ANYBODY deserves to be saved?

Job … God said he was a righteous man [couldn’t resist].

 

[AustinC]

I do not understand why you believe this.

Why don't you admit that your theology is a result of studying Reformed theology over Scripture?

I am always open to revisit my positions. BUT only via Scripture (what is written in God's Word). I do not put much stock in your books insofar as what you (or Sproul, Knox, Owen, etc ) believes is taught by Scripture.

If you would-could read the Bible without adding to it I think that you may find it makes sense on its own, apart from the additions you make.

Jon, tell me when I have quoted anything other than scripture. Yet, when I or anyone you disagree with shares scripture, you simply claim it is from Calvin or it is eisegesis, even though neither has been done with the text.
Meanwhile you bash Calvinism, but your capacity to actually share your personal theology is as muddy as the Mississippi River in Louisiana.

 

[Silverhair]

The Reformers did not see that as an either/or choice.

• God desires all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2)
• Men love darkness and do not come to the light. (John 3)
• The Father draws to the Son those that will be saved. (John 6)
• God foreknew those whom He would predestine, call justify and glorify. (Romans 8)

Both are true:
God desires all men to be saved AND only a pre-selected group will be saved. (Luke 13:34 and Romans 9:21-24)

The Father draws people to Himself via the conviction of the Holy Spirit, creation, hearing the gospel etc. But what He does not do is force man to come to Him. We are told to do the work of God. That being to believe in His son.
Joh 6:29 "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
Those that hear the gospel message and believe the message are saved.

God foreknows all that will freely trust in His son but foreknowledge is not fore caused.
What you seem to ignore is that if you hold to just a pre-selected group being saved then that means a pre-selected group is also condemned.

 

[Van]

As I understand God's actual attributes as described in scripture, there is no conflict between His actual sovereignty (causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass) and His attribute of love. Providing an opportunity to be saved demonstrates His love (John 3:16) and His gracious act of choosing to save those whose faith He credits as righteousness certainly defines sacrificial love. He demonstrated His love for us when while we were sinners, He died for us.

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. These four fallacies are linked logically together, thus like a house of card, if any one is false, then they are all false. The "T" claims no one ever seeks God, while fallen and unregenerate, but Matthew 23:13 demonstrates some of the unsaved do seek God as they were in the process of entering the kingdom. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 demonstrates we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, thus a conditional election, rather than the false doctrine of the "U." 1 Timothy 2:6 demonstrates that Christ died for all humanity when considered in light of 2 Peter 2:1 where even those heading for swift destruction were bought by the Master. Lastly the "I" (Irresistible Grace) is demonstrated false by 2 Thessalonians 2:13 because we cannot be given faith after being chosen since we are chosen by way of our pre-existing faith.

 

[JonC]

Jon, tell me when I have quoted anything other than scripture. Yet, when I or anyone you disagree with shares scripture, you simply claim it is from Calvin or it is eisegesis, even though neither has been done with the text.
Meanwhile you bash Calvinism, but your capacity to actually share your personal theology is as muddy as the Mississippi River in Louisiana.

The issue is not what you quote, and it is not with Scripture you quote.

The issue I have is with the things you add to God when you quote Scripture.

Here is a good example:

1 Peter 2::7-8
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

I understand the part in red is your comment, but it does not belong with the passage you quoted.

You falsely claimed I left Calvinism because I read some book (or books). This is a false claim.

I told you why I left Calvinism.

After ditching Calvinism I came to see that Scripture makes sense without it.

What you fight is not anything I read in a book but Scripture divorced from Calvinistic presuppositions.

There is a reason my view (literally, Scripture) does not make sense to you unless accompanied by Reformed books to tell you what God really meant.



Here:

“Yes the Word of God is powerfully persuasive in itself, but until born again, unregenerate men cannot and will not be persuaded by it." -- John Owen

A quote from CH Spurgeon.

"When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this.

I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths [the doctrines of sovereign, overcoming grace] in my own soul — when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown, on a sudden, from a babe into a man — that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, that clue to the truth of God.

One weeknight, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher’s sermon, for I did not believe it.

The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment — I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so?

Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, “I ascribe my change wholly to God.”"

Let's just be honest here.
Most Christians today are theologically illiterate. To read Owens takes intellectual effort and most are simply incapable of the effort. This is true with other theologians like Jonathan Edwards. Instead, people gravitate to an easy devotional read from Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, or Tony Evans. The devotionals fill an emotional void and are easy to follow.
The problem with such easy reading is that we aren't asked to exercise our theology. In becoming theologically out of shape there comes all these wolves in sheeps clothing and the sheep are too illiterate to even notice. We end up with emergent liberals like Rob Bell or open theist thinkers like Greg Boyd or fluffy nothings like Joel Osteen who simply lull people into a cozy feeling without ever knowing they are drifting toward hell. (Read the sermon to the Hebrews)
As to reading.
Go to the primary source, God's word. Observe it, question it, and interpret it. Then go to the great saints of old and see if they agree with you or if you have some wackadoodle thought that no one ever considered. If no one has that view...then I suggest you abandon it immediately. No one holds it precisely because it's wrong.
This is also where the confessions of faith come in. When we write out what we believe we measure it against the great saints of old and what they confessed. If we are confessing something never confessed before, then stop it. Go back and see what you missed because it's a sure bet you're dumber than the saints of old who wrote the confessions.
Ultimately, lone rangers today are simply arrogant people who imagine they are intellectual superiors to the saints of the past and foolishly pawn off bad theology as though it were valuable thought. A person who reads the great saints of old will recognize the puny thought of todays lone rangers and will call out the foolishness of said thought.

Owen is not for the light reader, but he is rich in truth.

I hadn't heard this until you bring it up here. I found this quote, which I find interesting.

I recently replied to a JW on /r/TrueChristian about how they believe that Christ is the chief angel in heaven. The infamous controversy is they believe that there is only one archangel and that it is only Christ. I brought up how Daniel 10:13 calls Michael "one of the chief princes", and from that I noted that there must be more than one chief prince, thus there is not just one as they claim.

But when I looked at the commentaries of this verse I found something that surprised me:

John Wesley: "Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ."

John Gill: "and is no other than Christ the Son of God, an uncreated Angel; who is "one", or "the first of the chief Princes""

Geneva: "even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels."

And then I looked at the Wikipedia article for Michael, and at the Protestant section it states:

Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel." Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a Trinitarian, stated that Jesus is Michael “the only Archangel”, and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father. In Spurgeon’s view, "archangel" means "head of the angels" rather than "head angel," and is a title similar to "Prince or Leader of the host." (Daniel 8:11)

Is Michael the Archangel the pre-incarnate Christ? : Reformed

 

[AustinC]

The issue is not what you quote, and it is not with Scripture you quote.

The issue I have is with the things you add to God when you quote Scripture.

Here is a good example:


I understand the part in red is your comment, but it does not belong with the passage you quoted.

You falsely claimed I left Calvinism because I read some book (or books). This is a false claim.

I told you why I left Calvinism.

After ditching Calvinism I came to see that Scripture makes sense without it.

What you fight is not anything I read in a book but Scripture divorced from Calvinistic presuppositions.

There is a reason my view (literally, Scripture) does not make sense to you unless accompanied by Reformed books to tell you what God really meant.



Here:

Jon, I added nothing and your disingenuous nature is showing. Your inability to exegete any passage is noted. Keep living in your mud hole.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I added nothing and your disingenuous nature is showing. Your inability to exegete any passage is noted. Keep living in your mud hole.

You did add. You provided Scripture and then added to it ideas that were not there.

I'm not saying you were claiming your words were Scripture quoted. But you are telling us something that is not actually supported by Scripture as if it were really taught there in.

You are not explaining the passage but adding to it what you read in Reformed books.

 

[Reformed1689]

But what He does not do is force man to come to Him.

Any man, or some men?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Do some reading before you jump. Augustine was the one that ran to the far end of the logic pool when he dealt with Pelagius.

Yea OK… actually I’ve studied him for years. And I don’t care about his theological duel with Pelagius. That has nothing to do with the rising of Calvin’s doctrines and theology. I don’t want to get involved with Calvinist doctrine. I have my own Baptist doctrine which predate Calvinism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I agree with MacArthur but I think he gets misrepresented.

How is he supposed to be represented?

 

[Silverhair]

How do you get "your theology wants to restrict what God can do"? That's nonsense. We claim that God has PUT HIS OWN RESTRICTIONS. Not on what he CAN do but what he DOES AND WILL do.

Read your DoG without the tinted glasses. God can and does allow for man to have a real free will but you claim that man can only freely sin, that is nonsense but you hold to it.

Jesus must have thought man could make real choices:
Mat_16:24 "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
Joh_8:31 "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.
Joh_8:52 'If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.'

So if God believes that man can make free will choices why do you not?

So when God says He desires all men to be saved, do you believe that? When He tells man to "turn and live" do you think He meant "I will make you turn and live"?

God says He is the savior of all men, but your theology say only some men.

Your theology needs a rethink.

 

[JonC]

Jon, tell me when I have quoted anything other than scripture. Yet, when I or anyone you disagree with shares scripture, you simply claim it is from Calvin or it is eisegesis, even though neither has been done with the text.

Here's a couple more:

As RC Sproul once said, "Oh! It's fairness that you want!"
Let's see what happens when God, fairly and justly, deals with our sin.
I love the story Sproul tells about his students who began turning papers in late simply because he was lenient on one deadline. When he cut out the leniency, they all said" that's not fair."
...so it's fairness you want...

RC Sproul tells the story of teaching a class and a paper came due. One student asked for an extension and had an excuse for why he failed to turn in the paper. RC gave him an extension.

The next paper came and now 5 people asked for an extension. RC gave them an extension.

The next paper came and now over half the class asked for an extension. This time RC said no. The class was in an uproar. They said it was not fair since RC had given extensions the other two times.

RC stopped them and declared, "You want fair? I'll give you fair. All late papers will now receive an F as the justly deserved.

If people want fairness, then they want unmerciful justice. You break the law, you pay the penalty for breaking the law. You want fairness...then prepare to die.

Indeed, if God acted in fairness, we would all reside in hell.

I have his seven volume set. It was used as the main textbook for the two years of doctrine classes. I have many things underlined. When focusing on the trees, Chafer can be very beneficial. However, his inability to see the overarching covenants as guide to understanding the fullness of God's work in humanity leads to a very chopped up understanding of eschatology which misses the mark. His misunderstanding of the covenant cause him to imagine that God saved in different ways at different times so that his soteriology is incomplete. Such a position is responsible for the many legalistic, law-based teachings of Protestant churches as so many misunderstand God as primarily a Covenant making God with mankind whereby salvation has always been by grace through faith.

I suggest Sproul's "What is Reformed Theology" as a very basic starting point. Robert H Mounce has also been helpful as well as "Reformed Systematic Theology" by Joel Beeke and Paul Smalley. Mostly, however, I suggest reading the Bible in light of the covenants as the guiding principle to biblical exegesis.

You have an appetite for Reformed books, and this is where those things you add to Scripture come from.

 

[Silverhair]

And again you seem to equate born again with conversion. Regeneration and Conversion are not the same thing.

Then you should tell that to God. He really is not a good calvinist.

Regeneration
palingenesia (G3824), "new birth" (palin, "again," genesis, "birth"), is used of "spiritual regeneration," Tit_3:5, involving the communication of a new life Vine NT

In theology, new birth by the grace of God; that change by which the will and natural enmity of man to God and his law are subdued, and a principle of supreme love to God and his law, or holy affections, are implanted in the heart. Webster

The washing of regeneration (paliggenesía, Tit_3:5) refers to the spiritual rebirth of the individual soul. The Complete Word Study Dictionary

Conversion
In a theological or moral sense, a change of heart, or dispositions, in which the enmity of the heart to God and his law and the obstinacy of the will are subdued, and are succeeded by supreme love to God and his moral government, and a reformation of life. Webster

New Birth
In a theological sense, regeneration is called the new birth.

It would seem that Regeneration, Conversion and New Birth all refer to the same event, being saved by the grace of God.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith,

 

[Silverhair]

Yea OK… actually I’ve studied him for years. And I don’t care about his theological duel with Pelagius. That has nothing to do with the rising of Calvin’s doctrines and theology. I don’t want to get involved with Calvinist doctrine. I have my own Baptist doctrine which predate Calvinism.

My theology is from the bible. For me it is the bible first, last and always. The bible is clear and will support itself.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My theology is from the bible. For me it is the bible first, last and always. The bible is clear and will support itself.

Yea, keep telling yourself that. You got enough people disagreeing with you. Actually I see you as a kinda Calvinist…. You certainly use their techniques to support your own concepts about theology just as they do! I have to admit that this preoccupation with the question of whether a person is born again or not doesn’t enter into my frame of reference. It doesn’t enter my mind to question whether a person is a child of God or not. I simply try to treat every person I meet with respect and try to behave myself as the Lord calls me to behave. Like I don’t question someone’s denomination, beliefs, salvation, politics etc. You on the other hand seem to delight in challenging peoples beliefs, even making claims to their interpretation of scriptures as another gospel. Personally, I find that tact to be extremely disconcerting.

 

[Marooncat79]

Perhaps one of our stanch calvinists on BB can provide a clear scripture based answer as to how divine determinism & the love of God can fit together.

1. We all deserve hell as sinners

2. God is perfectly right and good to send all of us to hell. God is not obligated to save anyone

3. The fact that God would save anyone speaks to His love

4. If God chose to save only 1 person throughout all of human history, He has shown that He is love

 

[AustinC]

I understand the part in red is your comment, but it does not belong with the passage you quoted.

Jon the part in red is a direct quote from God's Word. Are you that lazy? I highlighted it in red so you would read it and see it.
1 Peter 2:7-8
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

If you need to...go grab a paper Bible, open it up to 1 Peter 2:7-8 and read it yourself.

Here's the KJV
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. - 1 Peter 2:7-8

NASB
This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for unbelievers, “ A stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief cornerstone ,”and, “ A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense ”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this they were also appointed. - 1 Peter 2:7-8

Jon, your unwillingness to accept God's Word is noted.

 

[AustinC]

Here's a couple more:





You have an appetite for Reformed books, and this is where those things you add to Scripture come from.

Jon, I find you to be a very deceptive person. You are not worth speaking to as you speak falsehoods without blinking.

 

[atpollard]

What you seem to ignore is that if you hold to just a pre-selected group being saved then that means a pre-selected group is also condemned.

Really?
In Romans 1 (at the end) was it God’s pre-selection that condemned those people, or did God simply release His grip of restraint and allow them to freely pursue their “heart’s desires”?

 

[Aaron]

Actually calvinist determinism is the main factor as it determines what the outcome is to be according to calvinism. What calvinist deny is that those that God chooses to save are those that freely trust in His son.

And who is free indeed, but him that the Son sets free?