The Day TULIP Died

[JonC]

That is just a colloquial acronym for 'The Truth', of the Triune Godhead's Eternal Covenant and Plan of Salvation.

It is an acronym for reformed RCC doctrine (without starting with RCC doctrine Calvinism would have never existed - no Anselm viewing the cross through Germanic tribal law then no revision by Aquinas - no revision by Aquinas then no reworking of his doctrine by Calvin).

 

[AustinC]

I know what the bible says and it does not lineup with calvinism. Calvinism is the error so show me how it lines up with the bible via scripture.

I didn't ask you about Calvin. I asked:
What does the Bible say about being chosen, elected and predestined?

So far you have not shown us you know what the Bible says about being chosen, elected, and predestined.

 

[AustinC]

There is another option -

John 3:16–21 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20 “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God"

This is the same option I provided, Jon.

Unless you are subtlety saying men work their way into heaven, which would then secure you as a humanist.

 

[Alan Gross]

John 3:16–21 For God so loved the world,

of "the world of the Gentiles" and "all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1 Timothy 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; "..."and particularly the Gentiles"..."as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, ... as well as Jewish ones, however NOT Just the JEWS, as was and had to be emphasized at that time...

"that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him"

of "the world of the Gentiles" and "all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1 Timothy 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; "..."and particularly the Gentiles"..."as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, ... as well as Jewish ones, however NOT Just the JEWS, as was and had to be emphasized at that time...

"shall not perish, but have eternal life."

It is possible to know the Truth, but not everyone does, 'will', or can.

The key is whether their Adamic nature rules in false religious dogma, such as "_____" means "_____" no matter how many times it does not mean "_______".

 

[Silverhair]

Of course that’s your opinion… you do know what they say about opinions right!?!

That is not my opinion that is biblical truth. Calling calvinism is an opinion...you do know what they say about opinions right!?

 

[Reformed1689]

Amazing how, according to your logic, no one up until Augustine got the bible right and then he set the world straight. When you pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to believe and disregard the rest it is not the bible you believe but rather it is yourself.

The bible is the standard and your theology, to be true, has to line up with it. Calvinist seem to think their theology is the standard and there in lays the problem.

Amazing how you think it started with Augustine and don't know history.

 

[Silverhair]

Men are in hell because they break God's moral law.
You add a whole bunch of extra stuff because of your philosophy.

God is not nor has He ever been obligated to ransom any human. God is not unfair if He chooses to ransom just one because he chose to be merciful while not ransoming any other.

You, however, blame God and call Him unfair and the author of sin...if He doesn't follow your protocol of free will.

You calvinists have to get over this idea that God has to be fair. Why are you stuck on that false idea? God is just but you do not understand that. Man is in hell because God is just, those that reject Him are condemned those that believe will be in heaven. That seems to be a real hard concept for the average calvinist to grasp.

Divine determinism is the calvinist idea. You have God determine all things and then say well not all things. You can not seem to make up your minds.

And again it is you that keeps saying God is unfair not me. Try to remember that.

 

[Silverhair]

That is just a colloquial acronym for 'The Truth', of the Triune Godhead's Eternal Covenant and Plan of Salvation.

That is just a falsehood that the average calvinist keeps telling themselves. You deny scripture or twist it to make it fit your theology, that is not truth.

 

[Aaron]

Why?

It is true. To those who are perishing, the Gospel is the stench of death, so they either have to leave it, or rewrite it.

which is what your OP is doing, rewriting it.

 

[Silverhair]

I understand many see Calvinistic determinism as the main factor in this question. What I am saying is you cannot honestly consider this issue if you limit the question to Calvinistic determinism.

I would say God’s love is not “overruled”, because it established by His choice to redeem those He has chosen. If He did not, according to GOG, none of His creation would be saved.

Matthew 11:28 is limited by v. 27, which says “…no one knows the Father but the Son and those whosoever the Son wills to reveal Him.”

No one comes to a saving knowledge of God unless Jesus wills it. If Jesus wills it, they will “come to Me…. I will give you rest.”

peace to you

Actually calvinist determinism is the main factor as it determines what the outcome is to be according to calvinism. What calvinist deny is that those that God chooses to save are those that freely trust in His son.

 

[Van]

Is, as the author came to believe, love and determinism fundamentally irreconcilable?

I do not think I understand the conflict between love and determinism, but determinism is fundamentally irreconcilable with scripture. The inspired word says things happen by chance. Thus the biblical view is God is sovereign because He either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. God gives the lost the opportunity to choose life or death, and encourages the lost to choose life. Deuteronomy 30:19

As I understand God's actual attributes as described in scripture, there is no conflict between His actual sovereignty (causes or allows) and His attribute of love. Providing an opportunity to be saved demonstrates His love, and His gracious act of choosing to save those whose faith He credits as righteousness certainly defines sacrificial love.

But the author is spot on in thinking it is time to consign the false TULI doctrines of the Tulip to the dust bin of history.

These four fallacies are linked logically together, thus like a house of card, if any one is false, then they are all false. The "T" claims no one ever seeks God, while fallen and unregenerate, but Matthew 23:13 demonstrates some of the unsaved do seek God as they were in the process of entering the kingdom. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 demonstrates we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, thus a conditional election, rather than the false doctrine of the "U." 1 Timothy 2:6 demonstrates that Christ died for all humanity when considered in light of 2 Peter 2:1 where even those heading for swift destruction were bought by the Master. Lastly the "I" (Irresistible Grace) is demonstrated false by 2 Thessalonians 2:13 because we cannot be given faith after being chosen since we are chosen by way of our pre-existing faith.

 

[Alan Gross]

Amazing how you think it started with Augustine and don't know history.

Alan Gross said: ↑
That is just a colloquial acronym for 'The Truth', of the Triune Godhead's Eternal Covenant and Plan of Salvation.

The Triune Godhead's Eternal Covenant and Plan of Salvation began in Eternity Past.

 

[Reynolds]

I don't see your connection to Satan's fall or the third of the angels. This view comes from Ezekiel's epic poem regarding the King of Tyre and is applied to Satan (I believe correctly).
That Satan and 1/3 of the angels fell in sin and became corrupt demons was ordained by God. That man fell in sin and became corrupt and enslaved to sin was also ordained by God.
That God chose to ransom man, but not angels is an example that God will have mercy on whom he has mercy.

The fact that God ordained these falls does not make God the author of sin, but it does make God Sovereign.

In a logical manner, Explain to me HOW it brings Him glory.

 

[Reynolds]

My only disagreement with them is Lordship Salvation…there is disagreement over the subjects of Perseverance and the Absolute Predestination of all things.

Who is them? I assume Calvinists. Lordship Salvation is not agreed upon by Calvinists. They are split on it.

 

[JesusFan]

"I had come to believe that love was one of God’s “soft” attributes (compared to the biggies like holiness, sovereignty, immutability, etc.). It wasn’t a huge leap from that to wondering whether God was truly loving at all.
After all, if God’s chief concern is for his own glory (as Piper claims) and holiness is his supreme attribute (as my church taught), then love is at best a secondary concern for God. On top of that, if you’re not among the elect, it makes no sense to conceive of God loving you at all. “I love you, but before you were born, I decided you would spend eternity in agonizing torment.

The more all this weighed on me, the more I began to hate going to church (which made being on the worship team a bit complicated). I was also growing troubled by the theological arrogance I saw in myself and others. . . .

All I knew was that I had to choose between a loving God and a deterministic God (or no God at all). I realize most Calvinists feel this is a false choice, but it’s the one I had to make. Ultimately, I don’t think it’s a false choice at all, because love and determinism are fundamentally irreconcilable.". (Ben Irvin, The Day TULIP Died)



Is, as the author came to believe, love and determinism fundamentally irreconcilable?

the Attributes of God are all perfect, but his chief ones are Holy and Love, as both are needed to have a perfect God!

And did not the Lord choose and favor out Israel and the Jews from among all nations and peoples of the time, was he wrong to do such then?

 

[JesusFan]

"I had come to believe that love was one of God’s “soft” attributes (compared to the biggies like holiness, sovereignty, immutability, etc.). It wasn’t a huge leap from that to wondering whether God was truly loving at all.
After all, if God’s chief concern is for his own glory (as Piper claims) and holiness is his supreme attribute (as my church taught), then love is at best a secondary concern for God. On top of that, if you’re not among the elect, it makes no sense to conceive of God loving you at all. “I love you, but before you were born, I decided you would spend eternity in agonizing torment.

The more all this weighed on me, the more I began to hate going to church (which made being on the worship team a bit complicated). I was also growing troubled by the theological arrogance I saw in myself and others. . . .

All I knew was that I had to choose between a loving God and a deterministic God (or no God at all). I realize most Calvinists feel this is a false choice, but it’s the one I had to make. Ultimately, I don’t think it’s a false choice at all, because love and determinism are fundamentally irreconcilable.". (Ben Irvin, The Day TULIP Died)



Is, as the author came to believe, love and determinism fundamentally irreconcilable?

That author never really understood Tulip nor real Calvinism!

 

[JonC]

This is the same option I provided, Jon.

Unless you are subtlety saying men work their way into heaven, which would then secure you as a humanist.

No, I never claimed men work their way into heaven.....not sure how you got that from John 3.

I was simply saying that men are already condemned for rejecting Christ.

 

[JonC]

That author never really understood Tulip nor real Calvinism!

You cannot possibly know that.

 

[JesusFan]

You cannot possibly know that.

he seems to have a real problem with the sovereignty of God, and the end result of those who have rejected Christ!

 

[JonC]

he seems to have a real problem with the sovereignty of God, and the end result of those who have rejected Christ!

Why do you think that?