TULIP Was Never Alive to Begin With

[Aaron]

There is the problem with calvinism, you are incapable of doing anything unless God directs it then you claim that God does not direct sin because blah blah blah...

The Day TULIP Died

Correction: you are incapable of doing any righteousness, but that's not the problem with Calvinism, that's the problem you have with Paul's Gospel. (He was a Calvinist, you know.)

Concerning the thread title: Calvinism was not being codified by the Synod of Dort in their response to the five points of Arminianism.

 

[Reformed1689]

Correction: you are incapable of doing any righteousness, but that's not the problem with Calvinism, that's the problem you have with Paul's Gospel. (He was a Calvinist, you know.)

Concerning the thread title: Calvinism was not being codified by the Synod of Dort in their response to the five points of Arminianism.

This is exactly right. They want to focus on Calvin or Dort, or Augustine, and say "See this is not what the Bible says!!!" the problem is it comes from Scripture and not any of the things they try to point to.

 

[tyndale1946]

This is exactly right. They want to focus on Calvin or Dort, or Augustine, and say "See this is not what the Bible says!!!" the problem is it comes from Scripture and not any of the things they try to point to.

If Sovereignty has anything to do with man... Its not GOD!... Brother Glen

 

[Brightfame52]

I believe TULIP is an acronym for Truths of the Gospel of Gods Grace.

 

[Salty]

How about ROSEBUD?

 

[tyndale1946]

How about ROSEBUD?

Well if TULIP is 100% Jesus Christ, I believe TULIP... But not to slight the other brethren there is also D.A.I.S.Y. for those who thinks they must do something to be saved... Here is a link to the comparison of both... Brother Glen

Theological Flowerbeds - D.A.I.S.Y. vs. T.U.L.I.P.

Btw Salty get your Caine on, citizen!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Correction: you are incapable of doing any righteousness, but that's not the problem with Calvinism, that's the problem you have with Paul's Gospel. (He was a Calvinist, you know.)

Concerning the thread title: Calvinism was not being codified by the Synod of Dort in their response to the five points of Arminianism.

I thought he ( Paul )Was/ is a Baptist! I’m shocked

 

[tyndale1946]

I thought he ( Paul )Was/ is a Baptist! I’m shocked

No that was John (who baptized Jesus) but lets hear what Paul has to say... Brother Glen

Philippians 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

 

[Mathetes66]

Paul was a Calvinist? Got me searching the Scriptures to see if this is true. I am trying to be a good Berean.Thanks Tyndale, for the Philippian verses. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, ok, Paul was a Hebrew, ok; Paul was of the physical descendants of Israel, ok; Paul was a Pharisee, ok; Paul persecuted the church, ok; Paul was outwardly blameless as keeping the law, ok. MMMMM... Don't find anywhere where Scripture says Paul is a Calvinist or he confesses to be a Calvinist. I must conclude Scripture doesn't SAY Paul is a Calvinist and someone is adding that to Scripture.

Oh yeah, Calvin came along in 1509 and died in 1564. Paul lived in the first century. mmmmm I must conclude Paul NEVER became a follower of Calvin or his teachings. That's the trouble with anachronism & following men rather than Christ & practicing condescension & an unrighteous judgmental spirit.

Paul did say something about following men rather than Christ. I found that in Scripture.

I Cor 1:10-17 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind & in the same judgment. 11For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus & Gaius, 15lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with WISDOM OF WORDS, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

It is good to search the Scriptures! However, reading things into Scripture is a risky business in God's kingdom. Pride usually comes before a fall.

 

[Aaron]

Paul was a Calvinist? Got me searching the Scriptures to see if this is true. I am trying to be a good Berean.Thanks Tyndale, for the Philippian verses. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, ok, Paul was a Hebrew, ok; Paul was of the physical descendants of Israel, ok; Paul was a Pharisee, ok; Paul persecuted the church, ok; Paul was outwardly blameless as keeping the law, ok. MMMMM... Don't find anywhere where Scripture says Paul is a Calvinist or he confesses to be a Calvinist. I must conclude Scripture doesn't SAY Paul is a Calvinist and someone is adding that to Scripture.

Oh yeah, Calvin came along in 1509 and died in 1564. Paul lived in the first century. mmmmm I must conclude Paul NEVER became a follower of Calvin or his teachings. That's the trouble with anachronism & following men rather than Christ & practicing condescension & an unrighteous judgmental spirit.

Paul did say something about following men rather than Christ. I found that in Scripture.

I Cor 1:10-17 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind & in the same judgment. 11For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus & Gaius, 15lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with WISDOM OF WORDS, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

It is good to search the Scriptures! However, reading things into Scripture is a risky business in God's kingdom. Pride usually comes before a fall.

 

[Mathetes66]

Aaron.

 

[Aaron]

I thought he ( Paul )Was/ is a Baptist! I’m shocked

He was a Baptist too, teaching the substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice.

 

[37818]

. . . the substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice.

. Matthew and Mark quoted Jesus' teach that. Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

He was a Baptist too, teaching the substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice.

My ancestors lived the life of Roman mercenary soldiers and heard of him, took it back with them to Britain (not the Britain of those German/ Scandinavian mutts) pure Celts, so we know his particular gospel. It has lived there for a long time, punctuated by the sons & Daughters of David. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the sons of my miner tribe who finally emigrated to places other than the green hills & valley’s singing the hymns of gospel and Bards. .. Some continue to be sung at football games

Guide me, O thou great Jehovah,
pilgrim through this barren land.
I am weak, but thou art mighty;
Hold me with thy powerful hand.
Bread of heaven, bread of heaven,
Feed me till I want no more.

 

[JonC]

. Matthew and Mark quoted Jesus' teach that. Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45.

Well....no....but it does teach that Christ gave His life as a random. And Scripture does teach that Christ is a representative or "head" of those who are saved, the "Last Adam" and "Firstborn of many brethern". Not quite a substitution in the common use of the word (i.e., as a substitute).

 

[JonC]

He was a Baptist too, teaching the substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice.

Problem here is that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is not a characteristic of what it means to be a Baptist. Early Anabaptists (the Swiss Brethern, Amish, Mennonites, Huttertites, etc. meet the definition of Baptist without clinging the RCC ideas of Atonement. Heck, even today not all Baptists affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).

 

[37818]

Well....no....but it does teach that Christ gave His life as a random. And Scripture does teach that Christ is a representative or "head" of those who are saved, the "Last Adam" and "Firstborn of many brethern". Not quite a substitution in the common use of the word (i.e., as a substitute).

We have Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45. And you seem to refer to 1 Corinthians 15:45 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 which has to do with resurrection not the substitution of the redemption Jesus did speak of. . . . αντι . . . .

 

[JonC]

We have Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45. And you seem to refer to 1 Corinthians 15:45 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 which has to do with resurrection not the substitution of the redemption Jesus did speak of. . . . αντι . . . .

Actually, no. I was referring to the fact that Matthew 15:28 and Mark 10:45 do not anyway remotely refer to Penal Substitution.

I was saying that we do know a lot, that Jesus is the "Last Adam", our Representative, the Firstborn of many brethern, our Redeemer and that we are purchased with His blood, He ransomed us, etc.

No need to add to Scripture what is in fact not there. What we have in God's Word is sufficient for our faith.

 

[37818]

Actually, no. I was referring to the fact that Matthew 15:28 and Mark 10:45 do not anyway remotely refer to Penal Substitution.

. . . αντι . . . . Meaning what?

 

[37818]

Penal substitution is the Biblical Atonement. It did not come under attack until the early 20th century.

The Biblical Atonement is foundational to the Christian faith.
The first century New Testament notion of penal substitution can be found in Matthew 20:28, ". . . Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. . . ."

It was not until the early 20th century that this Biblical teaching came under attack.
Around 1919 a Presbyterian minister the Rev. David Smith, D. D. wrote, The Atonement in the Light of History and the Modern Spirit.

This is the eariliest work where the Penal Substitution "Theory" was brought under attack as the Forensic Theory.

In 1956 Methodist Vicent Taylor wrote, The Cross of Christ.

In 1958 Gustaf Aulen introduced Christus Victor.