Is TULIP biblical?

[justbyfaith]

You got "P" sorta right, but everything else is completely incorrect.

It is correct according to the Bible; not necessarily according to Calvinistic theology.

Because the two things, obviously, are distinctly different.

 

[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 did say that Calvinism is not the true gospel. Did I say that everyone here is a preacher of it?

 

[Josheb]

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".

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.

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

Only tangentially. Most of it is straw man. Multiple posters have provided content correcting the errors made in Post 48 and nothing evidence and acknowledgment of those errors, much less an effort to amend the post. The same thing holds true of Post 50. It's an off-topic insult that has no place in the thread and was made worse with multiple subsequent posts. If you do not want to be correctly labeled a troll, then do not troll. Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. If you do not want to be a troll then stop the trolling.

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).

Look at that. Three posts and not a word specifically about TULIP, and not a single word that furthers the discussion of TULIP beyond what has already been stated. No one made you post three worthless posts but you. This is the second time I am asking:


Have you anything op-relevant to post?

 

[Josheb]

I did say that Calvinism is not the true gospel. Did I say that everyone here is a preacher of it?

Yes.

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 people" is all inclusive. There is not a single word in that post allowing for anyone other than "you people." You used the word "preaching." I did not add or otherwise impose that word on the post; it is the word you used. What may have been intended and what is actually posted could be two different things. You did, in fact, say "you people" is preaching a different gospel that is unbiblical and did not specific that criteria or leave room for any exceptions. It's rude, disrespectful, off-topic and trolling.

And now you're trying to pretend it didn't happen as stated when what you should be doing is apologizing, asking the mods to remove the post, returning to the topic of TULIP with an accurate understanding of its content, and changing the way you post by making amends.

 

[Arial]

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

You have been shown by numerous people regarding many different texts that you remove from context and give them their meaning; over the vast number of threads you start to attack Calvinism and the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity; that when those texts you use are put into their surrounding context and weighed against the whole counsel of God, your "meaning of the plain text" is not its meaning at all. The fact that you ignore that and the actual plain meaning presented for your correction and growth, does not mean that it was not done and that you were proven to be wrong.

So who is it that ignores the word of God, makes up their own beliefs to suit their starting premise "I am saved because I did what I needed to do to be given salvation." or "God is unfair and unjust if He violates man's free will without asking permission" and who is actually seeking God and doing the work necessary to get head knowledge into their heart?

Who is centering their doctrines and interpretations on a study of God and who He is, on Christ and who He is, by finding these things out from the very mouth of God? And who is only concerned with who they are and what they have and how they got it.

And btw, those who deny any of the crucial saving doctrines of God and Christ that are found in traditional Christianity and makes up opposing doctrines is not a Christian. Their only hope would lie in the fact that God does elect persons to salvation and brings them to Christ through the hearing of the gospel with a regenerated heart and gives them whatever faith they need IN CHRIST. Their only hope would be that it is not a religion that saves them, and it is not themselves that procure salvation through any means, and it is not knowledge or lack of it that saves them, but it is Christ who saves them.

Who is Jesus and how does He do this?

 

[justbyfaith]

Only tangentially. Most of it is straw man. Multiple posters have provided content correcting the errors made in Post 48 and nothing evidence and acknowledgment of those errors, much less an effort to amend the post. The same thing holds true of Post 50. It's an off-topic insult that has no place in the thread and was made worse with multiple subsequent posts. If you do not want to be correctly labeled a troll, then do not troll. Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. If you do not want to be a troll then stop the trolling.

Look at that. Three posts and not a word specifically about TULIP, and not a single word that furthers the discussion of TULIP beyond what has already been stated. No one made you post three worthless posts but you. This is the second time I am asking:


Have you anything op-relevant to post?

satan obviously wants to be persistent in his accusation.

I repeat, I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 12:10-11).

Post #48 specifically addresses the acronym TULIP and gives my take on what the Bible says about the acronym.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes.

"You people" is all inclusive. There is not a single word in that post allowing for anyone other than "you people." You used the word "preaching." I did not add or otherwise impose that word on the post; it is the word you used. What may have been intended and what is actually posted could be two different things. You did, in fact, say "you people" is preaching a different gospel that is unbiblical and did not specific that criteria or leave room for any exceptions. It's rude, disrespectful, off-topic and trolling.

And now you're trying to pretend it didn't happen as stated when what you should be doing is apologizing, asking the mods to remove the post, returning to the topic of TULIP with an accurate understanding of its content, and changing the way you post by making amends.

I obviously was not including @Bob Carabbio or @JIM in my statements.

Therefore, I was not saying that everyone here is a preacher of Calvinism

 

[justbyfaith]

You have been shown by numerous people regarding many different texts that you remove from context and give them their meaning; over the vast number of threads you start to attack Calvinism and the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity; that when those texts you use are put into their surrounding context and weighed against the whole counsel of God, your "meaning of the plain text" is not its meaning at all. The fact that you ignore that and the actual plain meaning presented for your correction and growth, does not mean that it was not done and that you were proven to be wrong.

I have not attacked the traditional doctrine of the Trinity; my take on it is almost in perfect agreement with the creeds.

Except where the creeds say that Jesus is uncreated I correct them with the Bible where it says that He was "made according to the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3); which the creeds also allow later when they affirm the incarnation as a doctrine.

My only contention with the creeds is that I believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus was begotten in the incarnation (Luke 1:35).

So who is it that ignores the word of God, makes up their own beliefs to suit their starting premise "I am saved because I did what I needed to do to be given salvation." or "God is unfair and unjust if He violates man's free will without asking permission" and who is actually seeking God and doing the work necessary to get head knowledge into their heart?

Who is centering their doctrines and interpretations on a study of God and who He is, on Christ and who He is, by finding these things out from the very mouth of God? And who is only concerned with who they are and what they have and how they got it.

And btw, those who deny any of the crucial saving doctrines of God and Christ that are found in traditional Christianity and makes up opposing doctrines is not a Christian. Their only hope would lie in the fact that God does elect persons to salvation and brings them to Christ through the hearing of the gospel with a regenerated heart and gives them whatever faith they need IN CHRIST. Their only hope would be that it is not a religion that saves them, and it is not themselves that procure salvation through any means, and it is not knowledge or lack of it that saves them, but it is Christ who saves them.

Who is Jesus and how does He do this?

There is an absolute promise in Acts 2:38-39 of the Holy Ghost (an unction from the Holy One) for all those who repent and receive baptism in Jesus' Name for the remission of sins.

I would say that those who do not have the Holy Ghost are not Christians.

As for me, I know that I know that I know that I have the Holy Ghost.

For I have fulfilled the condition of the promise.

Where do you get your assurance that you have the Holy Ghost?

 

[justbyfaith]

Act 2:38, Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

1Jo 2:20, But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

 

[Arial]

I have not attacked the traditional doctrine of the Trinity; my take on it is almost in perfect agreement with the creeds.

Almost is different than.

Except where the creeds say that Jesus is uncreated I correct them with the Bible where it says that He was "made according to the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3); which the creeds also allow later when they affirm the incarnation as a doctrine.

You correct the Reformers? Do you even know what that passage is saying? So in other words you think Jesus was created. Which would make Him a creature btw.

My only contention with the creeds is that I believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus was begotten in the incarnation (Luke 1:35).

How do you define begotten?

There is an absolute promise in Acts 2:38-39 of the Holy Ghost (an unction from the Holy One) for all those who repent and receive baptism in Jesus' Name for the remission of sins.

Describe unction. What does it mean and how does that work in YOU? And here you are saying that, though Jesus did the work necessary for salvation one actually makes His work effective for themselves by repenting and being baptised. Is that biblical, or have you confused the fruit branch for the vine?

As for me, I know that I know that I know that I have the Holy Ghost.

If you do you should listen to Him when you read His word, as that is how He teaches us, instead of saying whatever you say is what the Holy Spirit says.

For I have fulfilled the condition of the promise.

So in other words God had no choice but to save you. You worked the formula.

Where do you get your assurance that you have the Holy Ghost?

From what the scriptures say about it and the evidence it produces.

 

[Arial]

satan obviously wants to be persistent in his accusation.

I repeat, I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 12:10-11).

Post #48 specifically addresses the acronym TULIP and gives my take on what the Bible says about the acronym.

Your take on what the Bible says is not what anyone needs. What we need is what the Bible DOES say.

 

[Josheb]

satan obviously wants to be persistent in his accusation. I repeat, I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 12:10-11). Post #48 specifically addresses the acronym TULIP and gives my take on what the Bible says about the acronym.

Post 48 has TULIP wrong. It does NOT, therefore address TULIP. It "addresses" a strawman.

I obviously was not including @Bob Carabbio or @JIM in my statements. Therefore, I was not saying that everyone here is a preacher of Calvinism

Last chance......


Do you have anything op-relevant to contribute to this thread that furthers the discussion?

 

[justbyfaith]

You correct the Reformers? Do you even know what that passage is saying? So in other words you think Jesus was created. Which would make Him a creature btw.

In the flesh, He is made of the seed of David. That is what the Bible says.

 

[justbyfaith]

How do you define begotten?

born.

Describe unction. What does it mean and how does that work in YOU?

It means that I know all things (the difference between truth and lies when I hear them).

And here you are saying that, though Jesus did the work necessary for salvation one actually makes His work effective for themselves by repenting and being baptised. Is that biblical, or have you confused the fruit branch for the vine?

It is biblical (Acts 2:38-39, Ezekiel 36:25-27, Luke 7:29-30, Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12, 1 Peter 3:20-21; and more)

If you do you should listen to Him when you read His word, as that is how He teaches us, instead of saying whatever you say is what the Holy Spirit says.

Yes, I heed and hearken to the voice of Jesus any time that I read His word.

So in other words God had no choice but to save you. You worked the formula.

It is an absolute, conditional promise.

Fulfill the condition, receive the promise.

You can do the same thing.

From what the scriptures say about it and the evidence it produces.

Which scriptures promise you the Holy Ghost?

 

[justbyfaith]

Your take on what the Bible says is not what anyone needs. What we need is what the Bible DOES say.

My take on it is what the Bible does say.

But I didn't say that at first because you would have accused me of being arrogant.

 

[justbyfaith]

Post 48 has TULIP wrong. It does NOT, therefore address TULIP. It "addresses" a strawman.

In posting post #48, I did not come up with a false idea of what is stated by TULIP and then try to refute that.

I addressed what I believe according to the Bible about what TULIP truly espouses.

Sorry if I didn't say what TULIP says specifically about each point. I assumed that that was already known.

Instead, I simply went into what I believe about each point based on what the Bible teaches.

Last chance......


Do you have anything op-relevant to contribute to this thread that furthers the discussion?

Yes, I posted it in post #48.

 

[justbyfaith]

You correct the Reformers?

No, actually, the correction is to those who formulated the creeds.

 

[Josheb]

In posting post #48, I did not come up with a false idea of what is stated by TULIP and then try to refute that.

You did not accurately portray TULIP at all. Therefore, nothing was refuted.

Do you have anything op-relevant to contribute to this thread that furthers the discussion?

Yes, I posted it in post #48.

Post #48 added nothing op-relevant to the discussion. Straw men never do.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

You did not accurately portray TULIP at all. Therefore, nothing was refuted.

Post #48 added nothing op-relevant to the discussion. Straw men never do.

I don't see a misrepresentation of TULIP in post 48. It appears to me that the petals of the TULIP were addressed one by one; Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints; those are generally understood as TULIP.
That appears to be what was being countered (rightly or wrongly). Is your TULIP different?

 

[Josheb]

I don't see a misrepresentation of TULIP in post 48. It appears to me that the petals of the TULIP were addressed one by one; Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints; those are generally understood as TULIP.
That appears to be what was being countered (rightly or wrongly). Is your TULIP different?

Read Post 48 again.

For the "T," that poster offered his own personal view. Nowhere is the correct definition of "Total Depravity" (TD) posted. In other words, Post 48 says nothing about the biblical veracity of TD as defined in the op (which has TD defined, for the most part, correctly). The "petal" "T" was not addressed at all! Instead, his personal alternative was posted, and nothing was said in direct answer to the question asked in this op: Is TULIP biblical? If Post 48 is incorrect that does not make Post 1 correct. Logically, BOTH could be incorrect. So, no, Post 48 does not accurately portray TULIP because it does not portray TULIP at all. It simply posts a personal alternative - one that is spare on scripture and what verses were cited can be examined to see they were proof-texted and cited with extremely inferential reading.

What is proof-texting? Webster defines proof-texting as taking isolated quotes (ie: a text) and establishing a position that may not be the author’s original intent.

That particular poster does it a lot. Go back and re-read Post 48 to verify what I just posted. I can walk through the rest of that post if you like but the errors are repeated for each "petal" in that post. No case for the biblical veracity of TULIP was even broached, just a select sampling of scripture asserted eisegetically, not exegetically.