The Necessity of All of TULIP

[Eternally-Grateful]

People are kind of either one or the other.

For example: if you believe man has ability, even if that ability is just the tiniest bit, to respond to the Gospel call then you don't believe mans depravity is "total".

If you see even one condition on election then you don't believe in unconditional election.

However, if on the other hand you note the OP was incorrect to note there was only two options available in election as actually a 3rd option was perfectly justified for God to have taken advantage of... but for God... (@Arial) then your just making a point within the same point, which doesn't affect belief in unconditional election at all.

I think this still limits.

If everyone is trying to make it an arminain vs calvin issue. They will only see what they \want to see.

I never actually looked at any doctrine in an arminian or calvin way until I was introduced to the term “tulip” about 20 years ago. I never thought of depravity, Election, Persevering or any of these terms. I would venture to say most people did not.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

That's it, not to save anyone.

I think freewill people think God owes them something, when God owes us nothing. What He gives is His gift.

See this is what I mean

I do not think God owes me. Anything, and I offended that anyone would even think such a thing..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I think my jaw hit the floor the first time I heard the word "fair" in relation to God and salvation. Like literally

though I have decided my own speech and word usage and even at times my own thinking can definitely improve. Definitions do matter, and I don't always have the respect for language that I should when trying to communicate. I do need to work on that.

I do not even know ow what to say.

I think my point is being proven right here

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

It’s not. Think of the five points as five legs on a chair. If you remove one leg, the chair collapses.

Now this I agree with

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Agreed, everyone has isms and doctrines, there is no escaping it.

This may be true. But when you try to force a person into an ISm that they do not have anythign to do with. You have just made a critical error of judgment. And just most likely started a war that there ill be no winner Because all forms of normal communication have just been shattered

 

[Carbon]

This may be true. But when you try to force a person into an ISm that they do not have anythign to do with. You have just made a critical error of judgment. And just most likely started a war that there ill be no winner Because all forms of normal communication have just been shattered

Well, I'm not so sure about it being a critical error of judgement, but, as far as starting a war and shattering communication? Sure, very possible.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Well, I'm not so sure about it being a critical error of judgement, but, as far as starting a war and shattering communication? Sure, very possible.

I see it all the time

Again, If someone mentions OSAS. They are a calvinist. Whether they are or they are not

If someone mentions free will. They are arminian whether they are or not

I have been in chatroom where the wars got so great the mods had to ban multiple people from both sides

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think this still limits.

If everyone is trying to make it an arminain vs calvin issue. They will only see what they \want to see.

I never actually looked at any doctrine in an arminian or calvin way until I was introduced to the term “tulip” about 20 years ago. I never thought of depravity, Election, Persevering or any of these terms. I would venture to say most people did not.

I'm just been trying to understand your position in a framework I can wrap my head around a little.

That's all. Just going for understanding.

 

[Carbon]

I see it all the time

Again, If someone mentions OSAS. They are a calvinist. Whether they are or they are not

OSAS? Really? I wouldn't use that, I don't think many mature Calvinists do either. Perserverance of the saints is much better and much more accurate with God's word.

If someone mentions free will. They are arminian whether they are or not

Not necessarily. Just about every religion believes in free will for salvation, except Calvinism.

I have been in chatroom where the wars got so great the mods had to ban multiple people from both sides

Wow.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I'm just been trying to understand your position in a framework I can wrap my head around a little.

That's all. Just going for understanding.

Keep asking questions sis.. thats how we learn.. I think you will see we are probably more alike that you think

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

OSAS? Really? I wouldn't use that, I don't think many mature Calvinists do either. Perserverance of the saints is much better and much more accurate with God's word.

I do not use that word either. I use the term eternal security, or better yet, the term God uses eternal life. I think OSAS is a derogatory term to calvinists if I am honest.

Perseverance. I used to agree. But I have within the past year changed my mind, We do not persever. Gods keeps us

Not necessarily. Just about every religion believes in free will for salvation, except Calvinism.

Oh I agree. Just showing what I have seen in many a chat room

Arminians call me a calvinist. And calvinist call me an arminian.. and I have been accused of being wish washy and changing my beliefs to match the argument or whatever, which I have not changed anything, it just depends on what the argument is.

Wow.

Yeah, I had a great friend I used to love to get into the word with. He was one that was banned. I have not been able to find him..

I actually left the chatroom for awhile. And had my account locked. Because I was so saddened by what was happening so I left. I eventually went back in under a new nic. But it was never the same

 

[Rescued One]

People are kind of either one or the other.

For example: if you believe man has ability, even if that ability is just the tiniest bit, to respond to the Gospel call then you don't believe mans depravity is "total".

If you see even one condition on election then you don't believe in unconditional election.

However, if on the other hand you note the OP was incorrect to note there was only two options available in election as actually a 3rd option was perfectly justified for God to have taken advantage of... but for God... (@Arial) then your just making a point within the same point, which doesn't affect belief in unconditional election at all.

Thanks to repeated verbal abuse I received growing up, God used it to keep me from being egotistical enough to reject total depravity --- LOL!

 

[Rescued One]

Perseverance. I used to agree. But I have within the past year changed my mind, We do not persever. Gods keeps us

i agree because scripture repeatedly teaches that God keeps us.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

i agree because scripture repeatedly teaches that God keeps us.

He will never leave us not forsake us. Where can we go that he is not there? No where, He saved us

 

[Muckah]

Agreed, everyone has isms and doctrines, there is no escaping it.

When should the ism addicts keep silent? When they think they're always right and one brother or sister condemns other brothers and sisters over them.

 

[Arial]

When should the ism addicts keep silent? When they think they're always right and one brother or sister condemns other brothers and sisters over them.

Is correction through biblical exposition and rightly handling the word of God the same thing as condemnation? Is condemning heresy the same thing as condemning a person? Or is it obeying the mandate we find in Jude of our duty to contend for the faith that was given to the saints?

Jude 1:3-4 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend earnestly* for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
What were Paul's instructions to Timothy? 1 Tim 1:3-7 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship of God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
*Contend earnestly epagōnizesthai
Definition: To contend earnestly, to struggle for
Word Origin: Derived from ἐπί (epi, meaning "upon" or "over") and ἀγωνίζομαι (agonizomai, meaning "to struggle" or "to contend").
Context: The term ἐπαγωνίζομαι appears in the New Testament in contexts that emphasize the importance of earnest and diligent effort in the pursuit of faith and truth. It is often associated with the idea of spiritual warfare or the defense of the faith against false teachings and moral decay. The word suggests not just a passive belief but an active, vigorous engagement in the struggle to uphold the tenets of the Christian faith.

 

[Muckah]

Is correction through biblical exposition and rightly handling the word of God the same thing as condemnation? Is condemning heresy the same thing as condemning a person? Or is it obeying the mandate we find in Jude of our duty to contend for the faith that was given to the saints?

At least two people here said I was NOT a Christian because I fully reject the Trinity doctrine. That's the 'kind way' of saying you're condemned and going to hell. It's just crazy. Jesus said the Father is Greater and Trinity teaches they are equal. And I don't want to hear it about the nonsense of a hypostatic union.

 

[Arial]

At least two people here said I was NOT a Christian because I fully reject the Trinity doctrine. That's the 'kind way' of saying you're condemned and going to hell.

If you choose to take it that way, that is up to you. We are stating facts about the doctrines of Christianity, which are unique unto itself. Not salvation.

And I don't want to hear it about the nonsense of a hypostatic union.

Then why are you engaging on the subject with those who understand and believe through faith, the hypostatic union. If you offer posts against the Trinity, you can expect the Trinity to be discussed and defended. So the statement above indicates that you have no intention of adhering to Rule #2.1, but rather come for the purpose of trolling.

2.1. All members must engage in discussions with humility, respect, and peace (Eph 4:2; Rom 12:18; Matt 7:12; 1 Cor 13:1-13). Discussions should be constructive, seeking to edify rather than tear down. Approach discussions with a willingness to listen, a readiness to learn, and a heart that seeks to edify fellow believers in unity with Christ Jesus.