• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Summary of TULIP After Reading This Site for Over Eight Years

Status
Not open for further replies.

MB

Well-Known Member
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.
It is not a matter having a perfect doctrine. No one I know of is always right except God. None are perfect. Though I believe we all should work towards perfection.
You've heard of man having a chance. Calvinism has no chance at all.
MB
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is not a matter having a perfect doctrine. No one I know of is always right except God. None are perfect. Though I believe we all should work towards perfection.
You've heard of man having a chance. Calvinism has no chance at all.
MB

So you are saying you are in less error than they are? Just asking
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So now you determine how God should have wrote Scripture?

No, I'm repeating what Peter wrote, as told by God.

[quote[Because that is the way God set it up.[/quote]
So, why did He set it up thusly? So the lost could hear the Gospel, obey it, & be saved. He doesn't do anything "just for the heck of it". Everything He does concerning man is for a purpose.

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

Well, actually, it IS. There 's no evidence that Ethiopian was "predestinated".
 

MB

Well-Known Member
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?
It has nothing to do with God's will not being strong enough. It is His will that all be saved. It is not His will to save them who are against Him. Everyone has a chance to come to the light even the rebellious no one is prevented. God makes the offer of Salvation to men . It is the men who refuse the offer. The path to God is through a straight and narrow gate and few there be who find it. Man's effort is required and his effort is not a work as Calvinist claim. His effort is believing.
MB
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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?

You misuse he word "will" here. You use it as that which has been predetermined. When we say God's will that is not how we use it. Will meaning desire. If God desires that no man should perish, that does not mean that He is incapable but that it is not the perfect outcome He wants. That does not negate His plan which includes not desiring that any should perish but allowing those who choose to reject Him to perish based on their decision. This does not, in fact, make man the determiner of His fate as God determined that it should be that way.
 

MB

Well-Known Member
So you are saying you are in less error than they are? Just asking
Scripture and the Holy Spirit is right and I believe my Faith is Guided by the Spirit. While you are judging me take a good look at your self. Then tell me why you argue for your faith? Tell me why you do the same and judge me for the same thing? Is it because of the title before your name. Maybe because I do not use titles.

MB
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Scripture and the Holy Spirit is right and I believe my Faith is Guided by the Spirit. While you are judging me take a good look at your self. Then tell me why you argue for your faith? Tell me why you do the same and judge me for the same thing? Is it because of the title before your name. Maybe because I do not use titles.

MB

You should contend for the faith. That does not require the total negation of humility. My concern is not that you do but how you do. Same as with some cals on this board. Doing so does not require arrogance.
 

loDebar

Well-Known Member
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?
He gives us free will to love him or not, Sin is doing our will in disobedience to His will. He will not end free will or our love ends as well
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

when describing it as "free".
It depends upon perspective.

That's a solid #1 from my list.
 
Last edited:

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Are you looking for a discussion on these individual doctrines or what cals may or may not hold to?

I suppose a little bit of both. I posted this thread as a response to the TULIP chart from another thread. In that thread a terrible caricature of the Arminian position was presented and several of us non-Cals vehemently objected to it.

In this thread I attempted to collate the viewpoints on TULIP that I've heard from Calvinists over the years that sounded kind of goofy to me, just to see how many Cals would object. Apparently the things I find astonishingly ridiculous most Cals accept as their theology, based on the few people objecting and the tepid objections, or maybe there are only two or three Cals reading the thread.
 

InTheLight

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

A-HA!

This was my objection with the TULIP chart thread (since closed). However, I assure you, the descriptions I've given here are the result of reading them here on BB as presented by Calvinists over the years. Again, I realize there are a wide spectrum of beliefs within Calvinism, but these are positions given by Calvinists, not something I'm claiming Calvinism is.
 

MB

Well-Known Member
You should contend for the faith. That does not require the total negation of humility. My concern is not that you do but how you do. Same as with some cals on this board. Doing so does not require arrogance.
Come on Mitchell get off your hypocritical horse and stop acting like you are qualified to stand in judgement of anyone. I already have a judge and it isn't you. Like I said you are judging me for doing the same as you. I don't have to tell you what that makes you.
MB.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Come on Mitchell get off your hypocritical horse and stop acting like you are qualified to stand in judgement of anyone. I already have a judge and it isn't you. Like I said you are judging me for doing the same as you. I don't have to tell you what that makes you.
MB.

Nope im not cant figure out ehy you dont get that
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I've noticed in the OT several verses where God says that ...
He desires to dwell with those who have humble and contrite hearts.
So, I've been wondering if this might be how He chooses people for election.
God gives grace to the humble but opposes the proud. God chose those poor to the world, rich in faith, and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. God chose individuals for salvation through faith in the truth.

Unconditional Individual Election is as bogus as a three dollar bill.
 

Dave G

Well-Known Member
That's a solid #1 from my list.
OK.
This was my objection with the TULIP chart thread (since closed). However, I assure you, the descriptions I've given here are the result of reading them here on BB as presented by Calvinists over the years. Again, I realize there are a wide spectrum of beliefs within Calvinism, but these are positions given by Calvinists, not something I'm claiming Calvinism is.
Actually, I think you got very close in many of your observations.
But I also think you're carrying just a bit of mis-characterization, probably due to your disagreement of it.

In several of your points, it seems there is some "carry over" from what I see as firm objections...
Possibly made emotionally.

Such as, "God must zap the sinner", or "caused them to repent against their natural will".
No "Calvinist" I have ever met teaches either one, even though they get charged with similar things all the time.

There are others on this forum who keep making the charge of God being a respecter of persons ( which has been dealt with time and again ) and "men are robots", despite many posts being made in an effort to clarify this.

As an example of yet another charge that has been responded to at least several times that I have been on this forum... @MB made the charge in post # 27, "God is not a respecter of persons".
I assume he means that God is not selective with regard to who He saves, giving everyone a "chance" to repent and believe the Gospel.

The correct ( or "Calvinist", depending upon perspective ) definition of "God is not a respecter of persons" is, God looks upon no man as being more or less deserving of His grace than any other.



So, it seems to me that many of the people that are making these charges aren't really listening or reading and understanding the "Calvinists" properly.:(
 
Last edited:

Dave G

Well-Known Member
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.
That's exactly what the Lord meant.
He had Peter write it thusly:

" But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
" ( 2 Peter 3:8-10 )

The "us-ward" in verse 9 points back to the subject of the entire letter:
" But, beloved..." (2 Peter 3:8 )

Further back up the page:
" This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you;" ( 2 Peter 3:1 )

Finally, back to the beginning of the letter:
" Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:" ( 2 Peter 1:1 ).

The "us-ward" are the believers Peter is writing to.

He is telling them, "Beloved, God is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any ( of the us-ward ) perish, but that all ( of the us-ward ) should come to repentance.


Context, Roby.;)
 
Last edited:

Dave G

Well-Known Member
Besides, if everyone was already predestinated with no chance to change one's status, then why have Bibles , preachers, or churches?
Bibles = The word of God meant for His children.
Preachers = To preach the word to His children.
Churches = Local gatherings of His children in various places. The "ekklesia", or "called out ones".
The Cals seemta believe God created robots who either cannot resist salvation, or who can't come to Jesus.
"Cals" believe that God created men, and men are by their nature rebellious and sinful.
They cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws them ( John 6:44 ).
His children "hear" His call, and they unerringly come to Him, because they are His sheep.
You may tiptoe thru the TULIP if you wish, even though it's mostly false.
You may tiptoe around it, if you want, even though it's true.;)
 

Dave G

Well-Known Member
Leaven is in reference to sin not wrong doctrine.
It can be both:

" Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." ( Matthew 16:6 ).
" Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." ( Matthew 16:12 )

" Your glorying [is] not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth."
( 1 Corinthians 5:7 ).
 

Dave G

Well-Known Member
So, why did He set it up thusly? So the lost could hear the Gospel, obey it, & be saved.
The lost don't hear the Gospel and become saved Roby.
The lost think that the preaching of the cross is foolishness.

" For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." ( 1 Corinthians 1:18 ).
Lost = "Them that perish" .
Saved = Those that should not perish ( John 3:16 ), i.e. "us which are saved".


The Gospel is also hid to them that are lost:

" But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them
." ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ).

So, not only is it foolishness to the lost, but it is hid to them.
The lost cannot believe the Gospel and be saved by it...only the saved can.

That's why Jesus told the Pharisees this:

" Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God."
( John 8:46-47 ).

They couldn't "hear" His words.
They didn't have "ears to hear" ( Matthew 11:15 ).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top