Another total deflection, addressing me and not the TULIP. This is all they have, folks, falsehoods defended with falsehoods.
In summary here is the "decoded" TULIP.
T = total spiritual inability, no capacity to seek God or trust in Christ.
U = Unconditional Election, God chose individuals before creation not based on any of their characteristics.
L = Limited Atonement, Christ provides salvation only for supposedly previously chosen elect individuals.
I = Irresistible Grace, God alters and enables the elect to seek God and trust in Christ.
P= Once saved, always saved.
Notice how the poster keeps insisting that I defend his definition of the TULIP. Look. Let me briefly explain something to you. It won't help because I've tried before.
R.C. Sproul changed 3 of the letters. He's the guy to go to if you want an explanation of the TULIP. He does it well but he changed the letters. Don't blame me.
T- There is a capacity to seek God and Christ. You do not have the ability to achieve an arrival at a saving faith without the direct aid of the Holy Spirit. That includes being regenerated or born again which I don't know whether that happens slightly before you believe or right when you believe.
U- The purpose of this was to show that God is not looking for "good people" to save or for a certain race of people. It is true.
L - I do not believe that the atonement was limited in the sense that there are people who even if they came to Christ could not be saved. Neither did most Calvinist. Can you logically get to a point where if the Holy Spirit is essential for someone being saved and selective in doing that then could you logically work backwards and come up with a particular atonement? Yes. But I don't, mainly because it causes undo harm to people who cannot go through the mental gyrations to get there.
I - I believe grace is resistible. So did the Puritans. But the grace that saves you was irresistible by definition. I question the value of that one myself.
P- You didn't even state it right. No Calvinist believes it that way except the antinomians. The perseverance of the saints is the correct way to put it and then it is true.
Every one of the things above I can explain and give you reasons why I think that way. But I do not have to give you reasons why someone else thinks the way they did. Why can't you understand that. You more than anyone still on this board should be able to see that since you have a theology that as far as I know is unique. You should write a book.
One more thing I would add. I am telling you right now that I could be wrong on any of those points I made. And I am not promising that I won't change my mind since I am as fickle as the rest of you all.