Is TULIP biblical?

[Josheb]

So, you appear to be pitting Bible (Ephesians 2:9) against other Bible (Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, Acts 2:38-39).

Fool.

• Ephesians 2:9 was written to people already living in a God-initiated covenant through Christ.
• Hosea 14:2 was written to people already living in a God-initiated covenant through Christ.
• Romans 10:9-13 was written to people already living in a God-initiated covenant through Christ.
• Acts 2:38-39 was written to people already living in a God-initiated covenant through Christ.

.

• Ephesians 2:5-10 attributes causality to God, not the faculties of the unregenerate sinfully dead and enslaved flesh.
• Hosea 14:2 attributes causality to God, not the faculties of the unregenerate sinfully dead and enslaved flesh. ("It is I who answer and look after you.")
• Romans 10:9-13 attributes causality to God, not the faculties of the unregenerate sinfully dead and enslaved flesh. ("I was found by those who did not seek me, I became manifest to those who did not ask for me.")
• Acts 2:38-39 attributes causality to God, not the faculties of the unregenerate sinfully dead and enslaved flesh. ("the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.")

Not a single one of those texts were written to unregenerate atheists and not a single one of those texts was written about unregenerate atheists. Not a single one of those verses explicitly attributes anything to the faculties of the unregenerate sinfully dead and enslaved flesh. Every single one of those verses was written to a covenant people - and as I have already established - the covenant promises were spoken to Abraham and Jesus, not only Jews. You, not I, are the one making the verses say things they do not state, resulting in contradictions.

I have reconciled them; but you want to make them contradict each other.

No, you have not. You've ignored hugely important aspects of every single text.

That is not sound hermeneutics.

You are correct: what you do abusing scripture is not sound hermeneutics. It's not sound exegesis, either.


One of the overarching contexts for nearly everything written in the Bible is that of the God-initiated covenant. Every single Jew in the Bible was born into that context. Every single Christian in the Bible lives in a God-initiated covenant.

God initiates his covenant monergistically. He never asks if anyone wants to join the covenant; He simply chooses a person without every asking their consent, calls them without ever asking their consent, and He commands them without ever asking their consent or permitting an option to ignore His command. God has decided that person's purpose in the covenant before they were ever chosen and called into the covenant, and He never once asked any of them if they wanted that purpose. On many of those occasions all of these covenant-related monergistic decisions of God alone were made prior the existence of the person or group with whom God initiated His covenant. The covenant with Isaac was decided before Isaac was born. The covenant with Jacob was decided before Jacob was born. The covenant with Israel was decided before Israel ever existed. The future covenant of all three was made known prior to the birth of all three. Not a single one of the then-non-existent members were asked.

Every verse in the Bible falls within those facts!


And you ignore those facts every time you selectively single out a verse and post it as if it applies to the faculties of unregenerate sinfully dead and enslaved flesh.

 

[David1701]

So, obviously, what we do in order to procure salvation, in the verses in question, cannot be classified as works.

LOL!

We don't do anything to "procure salvation". Salvation is the gift of God, which he gives in unmerited favour, to hell-deserving sinners, through faith in Jesus Christ (which is also a grace-gift from God to hell-deserving sinners).

 

[justbyfaith]

We don't do anything to "procure salvation".

Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, and Acts 2:38-39 would preach differently.

Maybe you should read them sometime.

 

[justbyfaith]

Fool.

• Ephesians 2:9 was written to people already living in a God-initiated covenant through Christ.
• Hosea 14:2 was written to people already living in a God-initiated covenant through Christ.
• Romans 10:9-13 was written to people already living in a God-initiated covenant through Christ.
• Acts 2:38-39 was written to people already living in a God-initiated covenant through Christ.

So, people who are saved, have the need to be saved?

See Matthew 5:22. I believe that you are walking on thin ice with the Lord.

 

[justbyfaith]

You are correct: what you do abusing scripture is not sound hermeneutics.

As I said, your pitting scripture against scripture is not sound hermeneutics.

It is also not sound hermeneutics to try to make the context nullify the plain meaning of a scripture; which you or others of your kind have done on at least one occasion.

 

[justbyfaith]

God initiates his covenant monergistically. He never asks if anyone wants to join the covenant; He simply chooses a person without every asking their consent, calls them without ever asking their consent, and He commands them without ever asking their consent or permitting an option to ignore His command. God has decided that person's purpose in the covenant before they were ever chosen and called into the covenant, and He never once asked any of them if they wanted that purpose. On many of those occasions all of these covenant-related monergistic decisions of God alone were made prior the existence of the person or group with whom God initiated His covenant. The covenant with Isaac was decided before Isaac was born. The covenant with Jacob was decided before Jacob was born. The covenant with Israel was decided before Israel ever existed. The future covenant of all three was made known prior to the birth of all three. Not a single one of the then-non-existent members were asked.

Every verse in the Bible falls within those facts!

Nope.

 

[David1701]

As I said, your pitting scripture against scripture is not sound hermeneutics.

It is also not sound hermeneutics to try to make the context nullify the plain meaning of a scripture; which you or others of your kind have done on at least one occasion.

LOL!

It's the context that DETERMINES the "plain meaning of a scripture"! Deliberately to make a scripture mean something contrary to its context is to be a liar. Christians do not practise lying; but, there is someone who does and his followers are like him.

 

[David1701]

Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, and Acts 2:38-39 would preach differently.

Maybe you should read them sometime.

Biblical exhortations to do what is right are not the same thing as saying that we thereby procure salvation! Salvation is by grace through faith and that not of ourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast.

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Is this true? Yes, of course; BUT, the faith through which God saves us is a gift from God; it is not something that an unregenerate, light-hating, hostile-to-God unbeliever will ever do.

 

[Josheb]

So, people who are saved, have the need to be saved?

Already answered and addressed this.

See Matthew 5:22.

Yes, you should probably act like you believe what it states.

As I said, your pitting scripture against scripture is not sound hermeneutics.

And as I said, it's your view that conflicts with the scriptures and that's why you wrongly imagine a conflict on the part of others.

Nope.

Yep.

LOL!

It's the context that DETERMINES the "plain meaning of a scripture"! Deliberately to make a scripture mean something contrary to its context is to be a liar. Christians do not practise lying; but, there is someone who does and his followers are like him.

@justbyfaith, you should listen to David. He's noting the exact same problem I've noted: your near-constant failure to consider the contexts.

I believe that you are walking on thin ice with the Lord.

I do not care what you believe about me. This thread is about TULIP, not the posters.


Have you got anything op-relevant to add to the thread or are you going to troll some more?

 

[justbyfaith]

LOL!

It's the context that DETERMINES the "plain meaning of a scripture"! Deliberately to make a scripture mean something contrary to its context is to be a liar. Christians do not practise lying; but, there is someone who does and his followers are like him.

The plain meaning of a scripture is its meaning; and the context will never nullify the plain meaning of a scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

Biblical exhortations to do what is right are not the same thing as saying that we thereby procure salvation! Salvation is by grace through faith and that not of ourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast.

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Is this true? Yes, of course; BUT, the faith through which God saves us is a gift from God; it is not something that an unregenerate, light-hating, hostile-to-God unbeliever will ever do.

However, what you are saying by this is that those who are saved will believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; effectively putting things in the reverse order; and also, it is a teaching that implies that faith is not necessary for salvation; since a person is regenerated before faith and therefore apart from faith.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, you should probably act like you believe what it states.

I haven't called you a fool.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yep.

Thanks for agreeing.

 

[justbyfaith]

I do not care what you believe about me. This thread is about TULIP, not the posters.


Have you got anything op-relevant to add to the thread or are you going to troll some more?

In you calling me a fool, now I am the one who is trolling?

I simply mentioned, according to Matthew 5:22, that you (and another poster here) are in danger of hell fire for calling someone a fool.

This was simply a friendly warning because I do care about what happens to your soul in the long run.

Therefore I would encourage you to repent.

And also consider the following.

2Co 13:5, Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

 

[Josheb]

In you calling me a fool, now I am the one who is trolling? I simply mentioned, according to Matthew 5:22, that you (and another poster here) are in danger of hell fire for calling someone a fool. This was simply a friendly warning because I do care about what happens to your soul in the long run. Therefore I would encourage you to repent. And also consider the following.

2Co 13:5, Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

What's the topic of this op?

When you hijack the thread to attack others you're trolling. Once you do that you make yourself fair game. When you protest it's called hypocrisy. We were doing fine in this thread discussing agreement and disagreement with some semblance of civility until you showed up. See Post #50.

I've heard it all before. You people are preaching a different gospel that is not biblical; and I am inclined to do what it says in Galatians 1:6-9 and just let you be.

You started it.

In you calling me a fool, now I am the one who is trolling?

Yes, because you dropped into a fine thread and poured your dross into and then acted like you were the one wronged. It's called gaslighting. You should have stuck to defending Post #48 and keeping the posts about the posts, not the posters. You do know you screwed up TULIP, yes? You got "P" sorta right, but everything else is completely incorrect. Post #50 was bad, openly hostile, unnecessary and flaming, but Post #48 looks like you came here NOT to discuss TULIP but to impose your soteriology on the thread irrelevant of whether or not TULIP is biblical.



This op is about whether or not TULIP is biblical. Have you anything op-relevant to post or not?

 

[justbyfaith]

What's the topic of this op?

Who departed from the topic first, in calling me a troll?

 

[Josheb]

Who departed from the topic first, in calling me a troll?

You did!!! I just got done providing the proof to that effect AND offering you the opportunity to return to the op! You owe everyone here an apology and you're posturing like you did not just call everyone here false preachers of an unbiblical gospel.

 

[justbyfaith]

When you hijack the thread to attack others you're trolling.

When you call me a troll (or a fool) you are hijacking the thread to attack others.

I was not attacking you in bringing Matthew 5:22 to your attention. It is written, "faithful are the wounds of a friend".

 

[justbyfaith]

You did!!! I just got done providing the proof to that effect AND offering you the opportunity to return to the op! You owe everyone here an apology and you're posturing like you did not just call everyone here false preachers of an unbiblical gospel.

I didn't call anyone a troll....you are the one who did that.

And I have only said that of the (hyper) Calvinists here.

 

[justbyfaith]

What's the topic of this op?

When you hijack the thread to attack others you're trolling. Once you do that you make yourself fair game. When you protest it's called hypocrisy. We were doing fine in this thread discussing agreement and disagreement with some semblance of civility until you showed up. See Post #50.

You started it.

Yes, because you dropped into a fine thread and poured your dross into and then acted like you were the one wronged. It's called gaslighting. You should have stuck to defending Post #48 and keeping the posts about the posts, not the posters. You do know you screwed up TULIP, yes? You got "P" sorta right, but everything else is completely incorrect. Post #50 was bad, openly hostile, unnecessary and flaming, but Post #48 looks like you came here NOT to discuss TULIP but to impose your soteriology on the thread irrelevant of whether or not TULIP is biblical.



This op is about whether or not TULIP is biblical. Have you anything op-relevant to post or not?

In post #48 I brought the Bible to bear on the whole concept of each of the letters in TULIP. That is OP relevant.

Now, enough with the accusations.

When you do that, you take on the nature and employment of the accuser (Revelation 12:10-11).

However, I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (v.11).