Featured Who formed the TULIP Doctrine, it wasn't Calvin!

Interesting you had nothing to say about this post:


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2205963&postcount=1

 

And also that foreknowledge in the NT sense of the term would have God being active in salvation process himself, being the One to cause it to come to pass, so he knew the final result due to Him being involved in it, not merely 'seeing" it to come to pass!

 

While I understand what Rev was trying to do (though I don't condone truthfully believing TULIP to be from Satan), once again I see Icon has made a normal statement against non-Cals. See the bolded above. Once more he makes the claim that, if you do not hold to TULIP, then you are not a part of the "believing church."

I guess when I get to church Sunday I should let everyone know that we don't truly believe the Bible or the Holy Ghost...

 

Which is no different than what I said.

 

No, as there are many sinners who have been saved by the Sotierology of God, which is a calvinistic model, but who also have refused to accept that, and held different views on salvation model...

Again, calvinism is NOT the Gospel, just the closest expression of what the Gospel really means, but NOT required to hold to that view to get saved!

 

Amen :thumbsup:

 

PreachTony

I do not understand it at all. It seemed like a visceral reaction

which parts do you see as biblical truth?

perhaps you have a jaundiced eye:thumbs:
I made a positive statement about the "believing church".....I did not write anything that is not written in church history.

The believing churches were confessional.

Where did I say that? Are you another one who is appointing yourself as my spokesman? look again at what I actually said....


YYouwho is first in line to cry...."arrogance"......now suggest that the believing church has been following Satan all these men of faith for hundreds of years....
...[/QUOTE]

That is what I said....I spoke of the believing church.....are you saying Calvinist churches are not believing churches????

The charge from RM was they were following the teaching of Satan....which was foolish. So where do you come off and seek to post on my behalf

I have not visited your church .I do not know what you believe or do not believe. I have seen some of what you believe when you post. I have seen many offer correction to you which you have not really responded to head on...You respond but withdraw from the actual scriptures offered to a philosophically based...I feel....or I think... or I guess...

If the people in your church react or teach against these things maybe they should examine themselves...I will visit some time and see what is what.

In the meantime...I do not need a spokesmen...thanks:thumbs:

 

You said they followed the teaching of Satan.....that is not quite the same is it.

Own what you say or do not post so foolishly. The link you asked me about seems as if it is a historical account of what the churches concluded then,,,that Arminianism is heresy....Guess what...it is!

Why is that an issue....no one on BB says they are Arminian...so why are you concerned. In fact the reason non cals prefer the label non cal is so they do not have to be accountable for the error they hold. when someone zeros in on the target...they move and I say...no no,, I do not believe that.

 

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm simply saying that you misunderstand what the term "foreknowledge" means in scripture in many of it's uses.

Of course God knows everything, but it isn't because He simply sees all that will happen. Rather, it's because He "declares the end from the beginning."

[8] “Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
[9] remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
[10] declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
[11] calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.

(Isaiah 46:8-11 ESV); Emphasis Mine
​

Modern dictionaries are a laughable thing to bring into this discussion. Modern dictionaries do not consider the Greek lexica on the issue and they don't consider the biblical authors' usage of the word(s). After all, meaning is not ultimately determined by dictionary or lexical definitions; it is determined--ultimately--by usage.

The Archangel

​

 

:wavey::thumbsup: Well said and spot on.....in this case the usage is exact and well defined in scriptural terms.

 

Nope.

Again, usage is the key, not simply a lexical definition.

Take your example of Romans 8:29...

[29] For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Romans 8:29 ESV)
​

"Foreknew" is preceded by the relative pronoun. Therefore, "Foreknew" is not referring to actions it is referring to persons. God foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified persons, not things or events.

If you have God "knowing actions beforehand" for "Foreknew" how does one account for predestined, called, justified, and glorified, the other 4 verbs of the 5-verb string?

Are you going to suggest that an event was predestined? That would go against your entire argument because it would rob the creature of the libertarian, unfettered freedom you so want to give him.

Are you going to suggest that an event was called? Will you suggest that some choice was justified or that something other than a person was glorified? That's what you'll have to do if you insist that "Foreknew" isn't related to knowing persons, not things, events, etc.

Secondly, Paul uses the term "Foreknew" twice, once here in Romans 8 and again in Romans 11:2: "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." In this usage, which is very instructive for the Romans 8 passage, we have, of course, personal language--God foreknows His people, not their choices. But, we also have the juxtaposition of two key words: Rejected and Foreknew. Because Paul uses these terms as antonyms, we know that his usage of "Foreknew" means chose.

Therefore, when Paul writes, in Romans 8:29, "Those who he foreknew," he is meaning "those whom God has chosen." Again, the use of the personal language confirms this. And, I might add, this is exactly the argument that Tom Schreiner makes in his mammoth Romans commentary.

God chooses. Man responds. The sovereignty of God in the choosing of His people and the necessity of those chosen to respond in repentance and faith are not at odds. God simply makes the unwilling willing.

The Archangel

 

Nope.

Again, you have God knowing things about people. That is not at all what the text says. God knows (chooses) people.

Here are Tom Schreiner's notes from the ESV Study Bible (he wrote the notes for Romans):

Rom. 8:29 Verses 29–30 explain why those who believe in Christ can be assured that all things work together for good: God has always been doing good for them, starting before creation (the distant past), continuing in their conversion (the recent past), and then on to the day of Christ’s return (the future). Foreknew reaches back to the OT, where the word “know” emphasizes God’s special choice of, or covenantal affection for, his people (e.g., Gen. 18:19; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2). See Rom. 11:2, where “foreknew” functions as the contrast to “rejected,” showing that it emphasizes God’s choosing his people (see also 1 Pet. 1:2, 20). God also predestined (i.e., predetermined) that those whom he chose beforehand would become like Christ.


Rom. 8:30 The chain that begins with the word “foreknew” in v. 29 cannot be broken. Those who are predestined by God are also called effectively to faith through the gospel (see 2 Thess. 2:14). And all those who are called are also justified (declared to be right in God’s sight). Because not all who are invited to believe are actually justified, the “calling” here cannot refer to merely a general invitation but must refer to an effective call that creates the faith necessary for justification (Rom. 5:1). All those who are justified will also be glorified (receive resurrection bodies) on the last day. Paul speaks of glorification as if it were already completed, since God will certainly finish the good work he started (cf. Phil. 1:6).
​

Despite all your desires for it to mean that God looks through the corridors of time to see the choices people will make, etc., it will never mean that.

The Romans 8 passage clearly says that God knows people. Does He know our sins, etc? Sure. But, our choices are not the basis of our Election.

The Archangel

 

So tell me what does "foreknown" mean in 1 Peter 1:20: "Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you"

 

They are quite mistaken in their conclusions. The text does not say:

And WHAT He did Foreknow as in {their faith being exercised}

It says And WHOM He did foreknow....{He knew them as fallen sinners whom He set His eternal redemptive love upon}

Adam ...knew his wife...and intimate knowledge

4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived,

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.


This usage is clearly not knowing facts or works that they have done,,,,it is an intentional intimate knowledge of THEM.

You and others would like the text to read...for What he did foreknow....as in His omniscience...but it does not say that. That is exactly why Cals believe the truth of this Text and others do not. Do you not see that without twisting the wording to suggest it means...WHAT He did Foreknow, Instead of Whom...you cannot account for what the text actually does say????

From Calvinism ,Hyper calvinism and Arminianism a theological primer...

 

I should have read through the threadbefore posting a response.....:wavey: You are on it once again, I should have anticipated this response:thumbs:


FRom A Baptist Catechism with Commentary by WR Downing;

What of foreknowledge? Divine election based on foreseen faith would be election by mere foreknowledge [prescience]. The biblical usage must
determine the exact significance of the term. What is the biblical teachingconcerning the foreknowledge of God?

Foreknowledge is not synonymous with omniscience. It is concerned, not with contingency, but with certainty (Acts 2:23; 15:18; Rom. 8:29–30), and thus implies a knowledge of what has been rendered certain. Acts 2:23 would make foreknowledge dependent upon God’s “determinate counsel” by the grammatical construction which
combines both together as one thought with “foreknowledge” referring to and enforcing the previous term. Foreknowledge is related to the Old Testament
term “to know,” implying an intimate knowledge of and relation to its object (Cf. Gen. 4:1; Amos 3:2). The passages in the New Testament (Rom. 8:29;
11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2) all speak of persons who are foreknown, implying much more than mere prescience or omniscience—a relationship that is absolutely
certain, personal and intimate. The only example of things being foreknown is clearly based on Divine determination (Acts 15:18).

Because Divine election or foreordination to eternal life is grounded in the immutable characterof God, it is infallible. Were it based upon foreseen faith,
mere prescience, or human ability, it would remain fallible and mutable.
Because of its infallible and immutable character, Divine election or foreordination to eternal life is the source of the greatest comfort,

encouragement and perseverance to the believer. This is exactly the way in which and the reason why this truth is revealed in Scripture! Note especially
the great and glorious statement of the Apostle in Romans 8:28–39. Under inspiration, he puts this truth in the context of the present promise (v. 28), the
eternal redemptive purpose (v. 29–34), the very worst that believers can experience (v. 35–36), the redemptive, covenant love of the Lord Jesus Christ
(v. 37) and the infallibility of the Covenant of Grace (v. 38–39).
God has ordained the preaching of the gospel as the means to bring the
elect to faith in Christ in time and experience (Rom. 10:14–15, 17; 1 Thess.
1:4–10; 2:13). He has ordained the means as well as the end. To glory in the
end without fulfilling the means would be inconsistent and sinful by
disobedience.

 

It may well have been a visceral response from Rev. I saw it as a more facetious reply, given the history of debating animosity between our camps. As I said, I would not have said TULIP came from Satan.

Not sure what you are aiming for here, Icon. You've quoted me using the word "truthfully," but I wasn't using it in terms of scriptural reference.

I read your comment as an implication that only churches that hold to TULIP are "believing churches."

I'm not saying that at all. I believe that the Calvinist believes as much in the saving power of God as the non-Calvinist does. Imagine this argument was about Arminianism/Free Will instead of Calvinism. If I made a statement that a church that does not hold to TULIP was "the believing church" would you just let it go?

I have to say from knowledge of past discussion, I don't believe you would. You've made it clear before that you think TULIP is equitable to the gospel, and therefore any church not holding TULIP is not actually promoting the gospel. You've never taken it to the SBM extreme and said that non-Calvinists were not saved (at least, I don't think you have), but that's the sense I get from your posts.

I agree, though as I said, I saw the comment as facetious from the start.

If they teach against what things? TULIP? Then you're going to try to convert my church to your interpretation. Nope. Not happening. Look, I like talking to you. I like the discussion. But I wouldn't deign to come to whatever church you attend and try to convert you to my interpretation. I know that the churches you prefer do not teach the same interpretation that the churches I attend teach. I won't say that makes one of us wrong and one of us right, as I do actually believe that all of us, as corruptible, sinful beings, have missed the mark on our attempts at interpreting scripture.

Never meant to imply I was your spokesman. I quoted your post and offered my interpretation of the implication you made.

 

PreachTony

In any case...not his best posting:laugh:

I am simply asking you based on whatever theology you claim to hold...In speaking of the 5 pts in particular...what do you believe to be biblical?
What do you not believe to be biblical.....

here you go;
http://www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm...which is your view?

PT..you are free to do as you would...but do not say it as if I actually said...what you think I imply...


I

But the point is....Where did i ACTUALLY say this? was it in your mind? or an actual post?

Clarification is a good thing we do not have to guess. I believe that the teaching contained in what is refered to as Calvinism
is the fullest expression of the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES

Acts 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Paul did not just say the bare historical facts were the gospel, but he linked them to the scriptures of promise which suggest all 66 books as they focus on Jesus. Anything less is a defective gospel.
God did not send down a tract or a post card...he had 40 different men write 66 books to progressively reveal His person and work;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

If any church does not teach the truths known as tulip....what are they teaching instead? That is the real question. My contention is that the truths about man and God 's purpose to redeem man are found in that teaching...anything less will be defective.

If there is a house fire...and you were trying to extinguish it with a water pistol...I would not say that you were not trying to extinguish the fire, you would be attempting to do that but not as effectual as when the fire department hooks up hoses to a hydrant and pumps volumes of water on it.

To not speak fully of the truths contained in the 5 pts, is to use the water pistol.....is that clear enough:thumbsup:

SBM...has stated that God is the author of sin, and has not recanted of that position that I have seen...that is a theological third rail and disqualifies him from being taken seriously. If he repents of that statement I would read his posts, but he has not so he stands or falls on his own. Do not associate me with his comments.

PT.....leave "the sense" to the little boy Cole in the movie sixth sense....
I know personally dozens of believers who study themselves into the position , so why would I suggest a litmus test for their profession as if I could see their heart?
That being said...if people actively oppose these teachings and take upon them selves the role of false teacher...i will be suspicious of them and their agenda...they might be badly mistaken and ignorant of these things or worse...actually teaching against the truth of God as unregenerates...both are possible.

Millions have understood these things to be the truth of God. To actively teach against it is different from not understanding all or part of it.

I cannot convert anyone to anything. Truth is revealed by God. You can call it "my interpretaion "if you want...but keep in mind..these things all existed before you or I were even born. When I go into any church i listen carefully as we all should.
Is what is being taught man centered or God centered...is it teaching or entertainment?

If God wanted that to happen that is indeed what would happen.

You would be free to offer your thoughts and scripture and you would be responded to.Where i am a member it is a confessional church so what we as a body hold to true is clearly put forth.Anyone can visit , but to be a member there would need to be agreement.

Churches without a confessional statement of faith are all over the map.
Many are unsafe for a soul.