Summary of TULIP After Reading This Site for Over Eight Years

[InTheLight]

In this final point, I also think there is need for clarification.

1) Believers in Jesus Christ are not caused to repent against their natural wills.
God changes the heart,
God does not cause repentance, he grants it by changing the hearts and minds.

Okay, God changes man's heart against his natural will which then gives him "free will" to repent.

 

[Dave G]

Okay, God changes man's heart against his natural will which then gives him "free will" to repent.

To me, you're still hung up on this idea that the common definition of free will is what men possess prior to being born again...but I may be mistaken.

As I see it, by putting the words "free will" in quotes, you appear to do what many "Calvinists" ( and some "nonCalvinists" ) do when describing it as "free".
It depends upon perspective.
I'll try it again from another angle.

Man's "free" will is biased against God at the outset ( Psalms 58:3, Romans 1:18-32 ).
After God changes the heart ( the seat of our affections and desires ), our will naturally follows suit.
So, we go from our will being free to choose against God, to our will now being free to choose for God.

Either the will is freed from sin ( Romans 6 ), or it isn't.

Freedom of choice is preserved, even though the nature has been changed.
This means that men are not robots, even though the "Calvinist" is mis-charged with this by many.

No matter how it comes out in the wash, free will isn't "free".
Because man's will follows and is chained to the nature, it does what the nature guides it into doing...

Disobedience to God, or
Obedience to God.


I hope that helps.

Bless you sir.

 

[Revmitchell]

Okay, God changes man's heart against his natural will which then gives him "free will" to repent.

Are you looking for a discussion on these individual doctrines or what cals may or may not hold to?

 

[Rockson]

3) You also seem to be under the impression that your own will was somehow "violated" by God saving you, as if it were a bad thing.

OK so you're putting forth it was a good thing for God to yank people into salvation regardless of their wills. Why good? Because it's great to go to heaven. Well if it's a good thing that is change their wills, why doesn't God do this good thing for every member of humanity? As I've said you've defined goodness as God doing this. So God therefore is sometimes being bad? I mean by your reasoning he does this for some but not others.

Now let's clear this up. The good thing is that God has given EVERY man the choice to be saved. HE doesn't make the choices....MAN DOES. Period.

 

[Rockson]

So, we go from our will being free to choose against God, to our will now being free to choose for God.

Sorry Dave but you employ it seems such double talk.

Above you say the will is FREE to chose for God but prior you stated it was a good thing for the will to be violated to make man choose God! How you get any freedom out of that simply boggles the mind.

 

[robycop3]

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Cals mis-interpret this verse often, saying it applies only to "the elect". That's silly. If that was what God meant, Peter woulda written it thusly.

Besides, if everyone was already predestinated with no chance to change one's status, then why have Bibles , preachers, or churches? Why did Jesus send His apostles & other followers out into the world with the "Great Commission" ?

The Cals seemta believe God created robots who either cannot resist salvation, or who can't come to Jesus. If He'd created robots, I believe He woulda made them incapable of the slightest sin.

But God DID predestinate certain people for special service to Him, such as Moses, David, Jeremiah, & the apostles.

And for one example of a man converted by preaching, a man converted by hearing God's word, & hearing it explained - the Ethiopian to whom Philip witnessed.

You may tiptoe thru the TULIP if you wish, even though it's mostly false.

 

[MB]

Then He chooses them based on what they do, making Him a respecter of persons.

Sinful men making their own destiny?
Again, an attractive idea to anyone, in my opinion.

Sort of like only choosing only a few Calvinist makes God a respecter of persons.
MB

 

[MB]

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Cals mis-interpret this verse often, saying it applies only to "the elect". That's silly. If that was what God meant, Peter woulda written it thusly.

Besides, if everyone was already predestinated with no chance to change one's status, then why have Bibles , preachers, or churches? Why did Jesus send His apostles & other followers out into the world with the "Great Commission" ?

The Cals seemta believe God created robots who either cannot resist salvation, or who can't come to Jesus. If He'd created robots, I believe He woulda made them incapable of the slightest sin.

But God DID predestinate certain people for special service to Him, such as Moses, David, Jeremiah, & the apostles.

And for one example of a man converted by preaching, a man converted by hearing God's word, & hearing it explained - the Ethiopian to whom Philip witnessed.

You may tiptoe thru the TULIP if you wish, even though it's mostly false.

A little leaven, leventh the whole lump. There fore Calvinism is completely false.
MB

 

[Revmitchell]

A little leaven, leventh the whole lump. There fore Calvinism is completely false.
MB

I am sorry but that is a misuse of that passage. Leaven is in reference to sin not wrong doctrine.

 

[Reformed1689]

Excellent appraisal of Calvinism.
MB

Except that it isn't Calvinism what he is describing in several points. It's what Non-Calvinists try to claim Calvinism is.

 

[MB]

I am sorry but that is a misuse of that passage. Leaven is in reference to sin not wrong doctrine.

So teaching a false doctrine isn't sin? They have to know it's false because scripture doesn't support it at all.
MB

 

[Revmitchell]

So teaching a false doctrine isn't sin? They have to know it's false because scripture doesn't support it at all.
MB

You and I agree most of the time but I cannot support your position here. They do not have to know as reasonable people can come to different conclusions looking at the same thing. Further, there is a good chance you and I also hold to some doctrine that is not correct. If you doubt that then your arrogance is greater than what has appeared in your last few posts. They are wrong but being in error is not in and of itself a sin. Let's not do to them what some of them often do to others.

 

[MB]

Except that it isn't Calvinism what he is describing in several points. It's what Non-Calvinists try to claim Calvinism is.

It is what Calvinist on this board have claimed so many times I couldn't possibly count them. Maybe you haven't been here long enough to know.
MB

 

[Reformed1689]

Cals mis-interpret this verse often, saying it applies only to "the elect". That's silly. If that was what God meant, Peter woulda written it thusly.

So now you determine how God should have wrote Scripture?

Besides, if everyone was already predestinated with no chance to change one's status, then why have Bibles , preachers, or churches? Why did Jesus send His apostles & other followers out into the world with the "Great Commission" ?

Because that is the way God set it up.

And for one example of a man converted by preaching, a man converted by hearing God's word, & hearing it explained - the Ethiopian to whom Philip witnessed.

No Calvinist disputes this and it is actually not relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Reformed1689]

They are wrong

Your post was awesome until you stumbled with this line

 

[Reformed1689]

It is what Calvinist on this board have claimed so many times I couldn't possibly count them. Maybe you haven't been here long enough to know.
MB

Perhaps not, but none of the current Calvinists hold to what he is saying as far as I know.

 

[Van]

Summary : You were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity and there is nothing you can do to alter that outcome of your life or the lives of ;your loved ones, thus Calvinism boils down to the doctrines of futility.

They say God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass, but that does not make God the author of sin. So right off the bat, advocates must engage in cognitive dissonance.

 

[Reformed1689]

So right off the bat, advocates must engage in cognitive dissonance.

You don't escape this same problem, you realize that right? Right off the bat you say that it is the will of God that all are saved, yet all are not saved. So God's will is not strong enough?

 

[loDebar]

This is not what Calvinists believe. People are capable of doing good without Christ. We see that every day. The question is the intent of that good. And it's not a matter of choosing evil. We are unrighteous if we are not saved. Ergo, we are evil without salvation. Of course it all depends on what you mean by evil.

I don't know of any Calvinist that would argue that people who are not elect are evil to the core and as bad as they can be and that seems to be what you are saying we believe.

Remember being told some time back you do not believe as Calvinist have shown on this board

 

[Van]

You don't escape this same problem, you realize that right? Right off the bat you say that it is the will of God that all are saved, yet all are not saved. So God's will is not strong enough?

Yet another absurd assertion, with God compelling those He desires to be saved, rather than inviting through the good news. Pay no attention to the avalanche of misdirection.

Summary : You were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity and there is nothing you can do to alter that outcome of your life or the lives of ;your loved ones, thus Calvinism boils down to the doctrines of futility.

They say God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass, but that does not make God the author of sin. So right off the bat, advocates must engage in cognitive dissonance.