Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Apr 13, 2011.
based on your understanding of the Bible...
#1 reason why either do or do not hold to TULIP!
Cause I like Roses better...they're prettier...
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever should believe on him shall be saved. (emphasis mine)
There are no qualifications in verse. TULIP is all about telling us what "whosoever" means and it ain't "whosoever believes."
You just said why I don't hold to it. The tulip not one word of it is in scripture. Total depravity is based on a quote from Paul who was quoting a fool who also said there is no God. As I said there is nothing in the tulip that is actually completely scriptural It was all writen by man.
Unconditional election isn't in scripture as it it is labled either not even Calvinist believe that election is unconditional.
Limited atonement isn't there either again dreamed up by Augustine for the Catholic Church.
Irresistible grace. If this were so every man on Earth would be saved. Yet every man resist God even after Salvation when they sin.
perseverance of the saints. What a laugh Men do not do anything to maintain there Salvation. It was God who began faith in everyone who has it and it will be God who finishes it. He is the author and finisher of my faith.
The only thing I can think of they may have right is that the Son of God came to die for our sins, and rose again on the third day, and now sits at the right hand of the Father. This is all a man has to believe in order to be saved.
As I've quoted before, the entire dogma's foundation is on the "T" of the tulip:
Total Inability also seems to oppose the Bible teaching concerning hardness of heart. The Scriptures warn us that those who repeatedly trifle with sin may sear their consciences (1 Tim. 4:2), render themselves "past feeling" (Eph. 4:19) and enter into a hardening of the heart toward God and His truth. This is not a condition of birth, but seems to be a consequence of repeated sin.
Isaiah speaks of this condition: "Why, O Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?" (Isa. 63:17) The hardening of the heart which precludes reverence of God is here described as a condition that has come upon these people, probably as a judgment for rebellion. But Calvinists tell us that this condition - an invincible anti-God bent - is the birth-condition of all human beings.
In Romans 1, Paul writes of men who are "without excuse" because of the manifest presence of God in the creation. He says, "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom. 1:21). Here we see men who became futile in their thinking and were given over to a darkened state of the heart. The apostle is not speaking of a condition of birth, but a judgment that came upon them because of willful refusal to acknowledge the Creator.
The Calvinist is hard-pressed to show how this judgment condition of darkness differs from their notions of Total Inability - a state they deem universal. Their doctrine states that everyone is born hardened toward God, unable to believe or take the slightest step toward Him. But if this is true, why do the Scriptures seem to say this only about some people?
Again, Zechariah says of rebellious Zion, "They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty has sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets" (Zech. 7:12). Here, people made themselves insensible to the truth of God, indicating that they were not in this condition from the womb.
There is no denying that all people are born with sinful tendencies and are apt to go astray. This can be established by Scripture and experience. But it is one thing to say that all men have such tendencies and quite another that they are unable to respond to God. General human sinfulness differs from Total Inability. To prove the first is not necessarily to prove the second.
I agree with Skan that the "foundation" is T, but I take equally as much issue with the "unconditional election" and "irrisistible grace".
Whosoever either means whosoever or God is lying.
I don't believe Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P.) is compatible with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Especially the L. (limited atonement). I believe the Gospel is available to everyone who is willing to respond to the message of the Gospel. In this respect, I don't believe that God decided in eternity past who He would accept and who He would reject. I think the Gospel is available to all.
I also don't believe that God's sovereignty in the way that many Calvinist here define it. I don't think God is responsible for every action. I certainly don't believe He is responsible for sin. In fact I think God hates sin and it is His desire that all people everywhere turn from it and accept Jesus as their Savior.
I believe all 5 points are error and easily refuted by literally hundreds of verses.
But of the 5 points, I find Limited Atonement the worst.
Let me ask you JesusFan, if Jesus did not shed his blood to pay for every man's sin, then how do you know he paid for your's?
If you are honest, then you have to admit you don't know this for a certainty. Therefore, how can you have faith?
And if you are honest again, you must admit that it is impossible to have faith in Jesus if you don't know for a certainty that he died for you personally.
Oh, you can try to work up faith, you may even convince yourself you believe, but deep down you cannot, because you do not know that Jesus died for you.
I am glad that I know Jesus died for me and all other men. I know that no one is excluded. I can have peace, assurance, and faith based upon God's promises, who cannot lie.
I do not see how anyone can be certain and have real faith if they do not know for a fact that Jesus died for them personally.
If Jesus only died for some men as you believe, you cannot know Jesus died for you. Impossible.
This isn't really a fair description of Calvinism's five points (From the Canons of Dordt):
For the "T"....
It's not just based on one verse.
Calvinists DO believe that election is unconditional.
More from Dordt:
On the "L"...
On the "I"...not all men would be saved because not all men have been chosen.
On the "P" you are not presenting the point correctly.
Of course, these statements from Canons of Dordt are not infallible, but they do present a coherent case, and scripture is cited throughout.
The interpretations could be wrong, but it is not as if these doctrines are derived apart from scripture.
Cannot imagine anyone not accepting the tenets of the Gospel summarized in the points of Calvinism. How one could read Eph 1 and not be a calvinist amazes me.
Premise: God is sovereign. Man is not God.
T - Man is dead and completely, utterly incapable of doing anything right in the sight of God. He is deserving and bound for hell, without hope or help.
U - God the Father, before creation, selected to show His grace. He knew (intimate loving relationship) an loved His chosen ones that would be shown grace, a small number of mankind
L - God the Son came to atone (take away) for the sin of those chosen by the Father. He did not lose one of them.
I - God the Spirit regenerates those selected and atoned for individuals, giving them repentance and faith so that they will come to Christ. Without this new nature, they cannot seek, come, call or even want to come (see "T" above). All men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel. No one can "believe" without the gift of faith.
P - God the triune godhead will keep all those selected, atoned for and regenerated children of God for all eternity
BTW, I feel no pity for those who know the truth (like "whosover believes" is a mistranslation of the participles "the believing ones") and still purport and preach the error.
The problem is that you would have people in hell for whom Christ died.
His death for you, therefore, couldn't provide assurance in and of itself.
One thing that led me to particular redemption is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. IMO, this doctrine only works well with limited atonement. If his substitutionary death does not accomplish atonement for its subjects, how can it be any form of substitution?
There are people in hell whom Jesus died for, because they failed to believe.
Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Were these people told that Jesus died for them? YES.
1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I received, HOW THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the scriptures:
When Paul preached the gospel, he told every single person that heard him that Jesus died for our sins. I hardly believe Paul was being misleading if he only meant the elect, as he could have easily and simply said that. He could have said, HOW THAT CHRIST DIED FOR THE ELECT.
See how simple that was? Paul could have said that if that is what he intended to say.
No, he told EVERYONE the same gospel, but those who did not believe came short.
Where to begin! I will say one of the biggest reasons is the fact I potentially could love my children more than God does if they reject Him. The fact I can love another human being (I would give my life for my kids, and if they end up reprobate according to the L and Scripture about "no greater love...", Christ does not love nor did He die for them) more than the very attribute of God Himself is unheard of! They will of course appeal to this being merely an emotional response, and while it is partially, it is grounded on Scripture and God urging us to reason together with Him.
I must "revise and extend", I agree with you on "limited atonement" particularly as I see it defined by most of the "reformed flavor".
I don't like tulips.
It's in the Bible
I believe that whosoever believes in Jesus Christ will be saved. I believe in unconditional election.
It is not scripture.
I believe every pedal of TULIP (or ROSES) is entirely biblical.
A couple of scripture verses help me.
Lazarus was dead. Body decomposition kind of dead. Stinky kind of dead. How in the world did he know to obey Jesus and come out of that tomb? Did Jesus shout loud enough to wake the dead? Or did Lazarus hear Jesus because he was already alive?
Quicken means to make alive. I doubt if it is used to describe someone who is not quite dead. And I doubt seriously if Lazarus was made alive in response to something he did.
The other scripture is Isaiah 53:11
He, the Father will see the suffering of his (The Son's) soul, and it will satisfy his (the Father's) justice.
What does that mean? It means that the full penalty for my sin has been paid by the Son, and God requires no further penalty.
Here's the rest of that verse
Now those "many" are either justified or they're not. Jesus either secured my salvation or he just made it possible. If he just made it possible, then his justice has not been satisfied.
Aha, gotcha, I can hear somebody say. What about all those things we have to do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, repent of our sins, confess Christ as Lord, call on His name?
Try telling that to a dead man.
But to those who have been quickened, made alive, they will hear, and they will come forth.