Is TULIP biblical?

[GoKart Mozart]

Read Post 48 again.

no need.

Instead, his personal alternative was posted

indeed

BOTH could be incorrect.

maybe even likely

It simply posts a personal alternative

that would appear to have been the point of post 48

I'm not arguing (nor even suggesting) for the veracity of post 48, only that each petal of the TULIP was addressed thusly.
You don't like it nor agree, okay, address the error as you see them.

 

[Josheb]

I'm not arguing (nor even suggesting) for the veracity of post 48, only that each petal of the TULIP was addressed thusly.

Again: nothing in TULIP was "addressed," especially not op-relevantly. The op does not ask for anyone's alternatives. It asks one single, solitary question: "Is TULIP biblical?"

Post 48 does not answer that question. Post 52 does, but Post 48 does not.

You don't like it nor agree, okay, address the error as you see them.

Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. I was asked a question about Post 48 and have answered it. Comments about members' liberties are non sequitur.

maybe even likely

That would conflict with....

In the sense that it is developed from verses in Holy Scripture, yes.

Because something developed from verses in scripture would be biblical, not likely to be erroneous.


Would you like me to take up the rest of Post 52 with you?

 

[GoKart Mozart]

That would conflict with....

Because something developed from verses in scripture would be biblical, not likely to be erroneous.

Not so. You truncated the quoted post altering what I said showing your dishonesty.

Answering the question "Is TULIP Biblical?", I said:
In the sense that it is developed from verses in Holy Scripture, yes.
The same can be said of the Five Articles of Remonstrance. The Arminian FACT is Biblical in the same fashion.
Charasmatic doctrine is derived from the Bible and is therefore Biblical in that sense of understanding. Cessationist typically present their arguments with passages of Scripture and consider them to be just as Biblical.

TULIP is derived from Scripture but the Five Articles of Remonstrance are also derived from Scripture.
Both are Biblical in that sense.
Since they are at odds, one must be erroneous. Both could be erroneous.

Post 1 and Post 48 could both be erroneous. Just because a teaching is derived from stringing a some scriptures together doesn't guarantee that it is without error.

 

[Josheb]

Not so. You truncated the quoted post altering what I said showing your dishonesty.

No, I "truncated" the statement solely for the sake of brevity since you, me and everyone else with two eyes can read what was posted. The source for the truncation was cited and no malevolence was posted or intended. There is no warrant for assuming any subterfuge on my part. Try keeping the posts about the posts and not the posters.


Something cannot be said to be developed from scripture and be unscriptural. It can be said to have been developed from a misreading of scripture or misuse of scripture and be unscriptural but that is not what the posts states. Furthermore, comparing a view that is "developed" from scripture with another view that is "derived" from scripture as if both are equal is a false dichotomy.

And I can post that without calling into question anyone's motives, faculties, or character. Try keeping the posts about the posts and not the posters.

Post 1 and Post 48 could both be erroneous.

That has already been established. More than once. I was the one who broached it. I am glad you agree. Just because something could be wrong does not mean it is wrong. Post 48 is wrong, and it is wrong for several reasons. It's wrong because it never answers the op's inquiry. It's wrong because it asserts views demonstrably in conflict with scripture. It is wrong because its methodology is flawed in multiple ways. It's also wrong because its author demonstrated a lack of intent to discuss the op (and did so unrepentantly.

None of that has been proven true of the op.

Just because a teaching is derived from stringing a some scriptures together doesn't guarantee that it is without error.

That would assume something not yet in evidence. If it is believed the TULIP is "derived from stringing a some scriptures together" then make the case proving that assessment. The op has, after all, invited all to do exactly that.

Try keeping the posts about the posts and not the posters.

Would you like me to take up the rest of Post 52 with you?

I do not read an answer to that question in Post #103. Would you like me to take up the rest of Post 52 with you?

 

[GoKart Mozart]

I "truncated" the statement solely for the sake of brevity

I have no quarrel with truncating for the sake of brevity when the meaning/context remains the same.
You truncated and altered the context of the post to imply I made conflicting statements.

Try keeping the posts about the posts and not the posters.

One rule for me, another for thee. exhibit A post 61 Exhibit B post 68
You call a poster in this thread a fool and a troll (more than once) and make that insistence?

And I can post that without calling into question anyone's motives, faculties, or character. Try keeping the posts about the posts and not the posters.

That can be proven false using your own posts in this thread (links provided above).
The only reason I made a post beyond the intial one was because of your beratement of the poster.

I do not read an answer to that question in Post #103. Would you like me to take up the rest of Post 52 with you?

I have no desire to discuss anything further with you.

 

[Josheb]

I have no quarrel with truncating for the sake of brevity when the meaning/context remains the same.
You truncated and altered the context of the post to imply I made conflicting statements.

Thank you for your time. You're wrong and you need to shed the prejudice if you want to discuss this op with me.

One rule for me, another for thee. exhibit A post 61 Exhibit B post 68
You call a poster in this thread a fool and a troll (more than once) and make that insistence?

The difference is the evidence proving the foolishness and trolling are objectively verifiable by all. You are going to have a difficult time proving I edited the post with malevolent intent especially since the original post is available to all, I've gone on record stating that was not the case and you've acknowledged there is no problem with truncation as long as the meaning isn't changed. You are wrong on this occasion and you're going to have to shed the bias if you want to discuss this op with me.

I have no desire to discuss anything further with you.

In the future, the following communicates that desire more effectively......................






























.

 

[brightfame52]

I believe Tulip is biblical and in fact it sets in view the very Gospel of Gods Grace, the Doctrines of Grace, showing how and why Salvation is 100% by Sovereign Grace to the Glory of God !

 

[donadams]

No
Total depravity of creation

1 Timothy 4:4
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

 

[CrowCross]

No
Total depravity of creation

1 Timothy 4:4
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Is the verse about people or food?

 

[donadams]

Is the verse about people or food?

Good but it does say every creature
Everything created by God was created good

 

[Eleanor]

No
Total depravity of creation

1 Timothy 4:4
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

In context, that's about fit to eat, not its moral nature. . .which moral nature in the physical order only human beings have.

 

[donadams]

In context, that's about fit to eat, not its moral nature. . .which moral nature in the physical order only human beings have.

True but it still refers to all creation

I can also quote genesis that says God declared His creation good

Thks

 

[Arial]

No
Total depravity of creation

1 Timothy 4:4
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

The doctrine of total depravity is dealing with humanity, not all of creation. How creation was affected is another topic. Creation never became depraved, and the creatures in it never became depraved.

It was subjected to futility by God, because of the depravity of man. Romans 8:18-23 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

 

[CrowCross]

Good but it does say every creature
Everything created by God was created good

Why does the bible say no man is good? Why does the bible say your heart is wicked?

 

[donadams]

Why does the bible say no man is good? Why does the bible say your heart is wicked?

The fall

 

[Eleanor]

True but it still refers to all creation

I can also quote genesis that says God declared His creation good

Thks

In context of food, 1 Tim 4:4 it refers to good for eating, not good morally.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Is TULIP biblical?​

I say yes.

Is there any part of TULIP you particularly disagree with?

"TULIP" is only "man's theology". As a southern Baptist Convert originally, I was essentially a "TUP" theologian. Then years later I ran into "Life in the Son" (Robert Shank) which was a Southern baptist treatise calling "Eternal security" into question, which changed my intellectual views on that, so now I'm a "TU" theologian when I bother thinking in "Calvinist terms" at all. "Limited atonement is nicely covered in Romans 9 Biblically.
And having "RESISTED" the Holy SPirit often, "I" doesn't do it for me.

 

[CrowCross]

"TULIP" is only "man's theology". As a southern Baptist Convert originally, I was essentially a "TUP" theologian. Then years later I ran into "Life in the Son" (Robert Shank) which was a Southern baptist treatise calling "Eternal security" into question, which changed my intellectual views on that, so now I'm a "TU" theologian when I bother thinking in "Calvinist terms" at all. "Limited atonement is nicely covered in Romans 9 Biblically.
And having "RESISTED" the Holy SPirit often, "I" doesn't do it for me.

The bottom line is you're saved. Whether one has Arminian views or Calvinist views...it doesn't effect your salvation.

Personally I'll stick with no one can snatch you out of the Fathers or Jesus' hand.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The bottom line is you're saved. Whether one has Arminian views or Calvinist views...it doesn't effect your salvation.

Personally I'll stick with no one can snatch you out of the Fathers or Jesus' hand.

But then there's Heb 6:4.

 

[CrowCross]

But then there's Heb 6:4.

Which is about "blessings" not "salvation" Bob.