Summary of TULIP After Reading This Site for Over Eight Years

[Van]

Folks, note the repeated denial of the obvious, which is how they defend falsehood.

To repeat, there is no actual support for Calvinism in scripture. Certainly not Luke 14;23 or Acts 13:48.

 

[Van]

So one lexicon says that and it doesn't even specify it to the verse Acts 13:48 that is in discussion. Not a very solid case for you there. I've checked five other lexicons and none of them say that in relation to that verse. You lose this one.

Yet more denial of the obvious.

 

[Reformed1689]

Folks, note the repeated denial of the obvious, which is how they defend falsehood.

The obvious is that you tried to redefine a Greek word without merit or proof. That is what is obvious, then you accused us of not doing actual Bible study when we said you were wrong.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yet more denial of the obvious.

How is that denial of the obvious? I have checked FIVE lexicons and none of them say what you claim. The one lexicon that does have your definition doesn't correlate it to the verse in question.

 

[Van]

The obvious is that you tried to redefine a Greek word without merit or proof. That is what is obvious, then you accused us of not doing actual Bible study when we said you were wrong.

Yet another straight up falsehood.

 

[Reformed1689]

Folks, note the repeated denial of the obvious, which is how they defend falsehood.

To repeat, there is no actual support for Calvinism in scripture. Certainly not Luke 14;23 or Acts 13:48.

This would be funny if it was not so pathetically sad.

 

[Van]

How is that denial of the obvious? I have checked FIVE lexicons and none of them say what you claim. The one lexicon that does have your definition doesn't correlate it to the verse in question.

More change the subject false charges, more denial.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yet another straight up falsehood.

How is that a falsehood you said, and I quote:

Any lexicon. Any actual study of the biblical usage. See post #93

How is that not accusing us of not doing Bible study? And I have already dealt with your false definition claim.

 

[Van]

This would be funny if it was not so pathetically sad.

Yet another taint so post, more deflection, no analysis.

 

[Reformed1689]

More change the subject false charges, more denial.

This is just dumb. I did not change the subject. I didn't deny anything. Sometimes I wonder if we live in the same reality because you don't seem to understand basic discussion.

 

[Van]

How is that a falsehood you said, and I quote:

How is that not accusing us of not doing Bible study? And I have already dealt with your false definition claim.

More change the subject false charges, devoid of on topic content.

 

[Van]

On and on they post, false charge after false charge, denying Luke 14:23 and Acts 13:48 provide no support for Calvinism.

 

[Reformed1689]

More change the subject false charges, devoid of on topic content.

I can't deal with dunderheads. These repeated responses from Van are just brainless mush.

 

[Reformed1689]

On and on they post, false charge after false charge, denying Luke 14:23 and Acts 13:48 provide no support for Calvinism.

Name one false charge. Name it. As far as Luke 14:23 I am not convinced it deals with this argument either. But Acts 13:48 clearly does.

 

[Van]

Still trying to change the subject to false charges.

 

[Van]

I can't deal with dunderheads. These repeated responses from Van are just brainless mush.

More false charges, more effort to derail the thread.

 

[Reformed1689]

Still trying to change the subject to false charges.

What false charge? What have we done that is a false charge? Name it. Otherwise you are bearing false witness.

 

[robycop3]

Jesus even gave Judas the chance to repent. He first said, in Judas' presence that He was to be betrayed, so Judas knew his intent was known. But Jesus added, "Better for the betrayer if he'd never been born". Those were strong words from Jesus, whom Judas knew was always right.

Then, Jesus told Judas to go & do what he had to do, quickly. So, Judas knew that Jesus knew Judas intended to betray Him by ID'ing Him to the temple police. Right then, Judas coulda admitted his sin & asked for forgiveness, which Jesus woulda surely granted. Someone else woulda then betrayed Him.

 

[Reformed1689]

Jesus even gave Judas the chance to repent.

Everyone has the opportunity to repent.

He first said, in Judas' presence that He was to be betrayed, so Judas knew his intent was known. But Jesus added, "Better for the betrayer if he'd never been born". Those were strong words from Jesus, whom Judas knew was always right.

Then, Jesus told Judas to go & do what he had to do, quickly. So, Judas knew that Jesus knew Judas intended to betray Him by ID'ing Him to the temple police. Right then, Judas coulda admitted his sin & asked for forgiveness, which Jesus woulda surely granted. Someone else woulda then betrayed Him.

What does any of this have to do with Calvinism? It doesn't go against Calvinism at all. If anything, it reinforces it. Judas knew the truth but did not have the ability to accept it. It was not his will to accept it. Nobody who is not elect wishes to accept Christ. It is not their free will. Nor is it the will of God to change their heart.

 

[Van]

What false charge? What have we done that is a false charge? Name it. Otherwise you are bearing false witness.

Now I am charged with making false charges. No kidding

There is no support in the bible for Calvinism, including Luke 14:23 and Acts 13:48
In both these verses the claimed support arises from mistranslations, compel should read urge in Luke,and ordained or appointed should read directed in Acts.