TULIP or DAISY?

[CrowCross]

TULIP or DAISY?

Concerning eternal salvation it seems as if the Arminians believe in DAISY rather than the OSAS "P" in TULIP.

Here's an example of DAISY...



Which petal will be left when you die?

 

[Josheb]

TULIP or DAISY?

TULIP

 

[Josheb]

Concerning eternal salvation it seems as if the Arminians believe in DAISY rather than the OSAS "P" in TULIP.

Here's an example of DAISY...

View attachment 816

Which petal will be left when you die?

That is what is normally called sophistry. It is a rationally meaningless appeal to something other than scripture and/or reason.

Which petal will be left when you die?

First, there are no petals if a person is not already saved. Second, a flower can lose all its petals and still live, so the analogy is seriously misguided. In point of fact, a healthy, thriving flower will, necessarily, lose all its petals and the "flower" then begets fruit so, again, the attempted analogy is seriously flawed. Third, the flowering and the fruit-bearing of the plant is not contingent on the flower in TULIP. TULIP is entirely monergistic, not synergistic. Comparing the two without correctly understanding that fact and then making that comparison leads to red herrings, straw men, and false equivalences. Fourth, where the plant is involved, the plant can NEVER make worthless God's work and the price He paid for the flower's existence (the blood of His resurrected Son). It is simply not within the plant's ability to do so, and anything doctrine that believes the finite human can overrule and overthrow God and His work is idolatry, not a sound doctrine built on sound theology built from a sound reading of scripture.

Those who are saved by grace through faith, and not of themselves, are created in Christ to perform good works God planned for that person to perform before He saved them (Eph. 2:5-10).

There are a lot of plants that do not bear fruit. They are not plants of the variety that is saved. They may look good on the outside, but they are dead in sin and their destiny is decided.

 

[CrowCross]

That is what is normally called sophistry. It is a rationally meaningless appeal to something other than scripture and/or reason.

First, there are no petals if a person is not already saved. Second, a flower can lose all its petals and still live, so the analogy is seriously misguided. In point of fact, a healthy, thriving flower will, necessarily, lose all its petals and the "flower" then begets fruit so, again, the attempted analogy is seriously flawed. Third, the flowering and the fruit-bearing of the plant is not contingent on the flower in TULIP. TULIP is entirely monergistic, not synergistic. Comparing the two without correctly understanding that fact and then making that comparison leads to red herrings, straw men, and false equivalences. Fourth, where the plant is involved, the plant can NEVER make worthless God's work and the price He paid for the flower's existence (the blood of His resurrected Son). It is simply not within the plant's ability to do so, and anything doctrine that believes the finite human can overrule and overthrow God and His work is idolatry, not a sound doctrine built on sound theology built from a sound reading of scripture.

Those who are saved by grace through faith, and not of themselves, are created in Christ to perform good works God planned for that person to perform before He saved them (Eph. 2:5-10).

There are a lot of plants that do not bear fruit. They are not plants of the variety that is saved. They may look good on the outside, but they are dead in sin and their destiny is decided.

The illustration was symbolic/illistrative only. No need to go into details of how a biological flower works.
The point is the "Arminian" style of theological thinking is that one can be saved and un-saved many times in your life. Now, some will save if you lose it just once you can't be re-saved..

The post was also a fun way to play with a TULIP and a DAISY.

 

[Arial]

TULIP or DAISY?

Concerning eternal salvation it seems as if the Arminians believe in DAISY rather than the OSAS "P" in TULIP.

Here's an example of DAISY...

View attachment 816

Which petal will be left when you die?

Good representation of the belief that one can lose their salvation through sin. It leads to the question how much sin is too much, where is the line, who draws the line, how many times must Jesus shed His blood for mankind? The answer to that last part of the question would ever and always be----He is still on the cross. We actually see that in religions that have Him still there on their crucifix.

 

[CrowCross]

Good representation of the belief that one can lose their salvation through sin. It leads to the question how much sin is too much, where is the line, who draws the line, how many times must Jesus shed His blood for mankind? The answer to that last part of the question would ever and always be----He is still on the cross. We actually see that in religions that have Him still there on their crucifix.

As you said, Christ is no longer on the cross...Jesus said, it is finished.

ALL of my sins have been paid for by Jesus on the cross...nailed to the cross..and imputed to Christ Jesus. ALL of them, past, present and FUTURE.

 

[Josheb]

The illustration was symbolic/illistrative only.

Irrelevant. The illustration fails miserably, so it was a bad attempt.

The point is the "Arminian" style of theological thinking is that one can be saved and un-saved many times in your life.

I am not sure Arminius ever argued that position. That sounds much more Pelagian and Provisionist. Is there some evidence or proof that is Arminian?

The post was also a fun way to play with a TULIP and a DAISY.

Then for the benefit of others' understanding may I recommend the inclusion of an emoticon or three?

 

[CrowCross]

Irrelevant. The illustration fails miserably, so it was a bad attempt.

I disagree. Yes the illustration isn't perfect as all illustrations have imperfections. But, the illustration is a word picture pertaining to flowers.
It shows the view that one can lose salvation and regain it...the concept of "prevailing to the end"....and not knowing your eternal destination till the end.
The concept is as some believe that if you walk in the light your saved...but if you step out you lose your salvation...but, if you reenter the light you're saved once again.

 

[ReverendRV]

Good representation of the belief that one can lose their salvation through sin. It leads to the question how much sin is too much, where is the line, who draws the line, how many times must Jesus shed His blood for mankind? The answer to that last part of the question would ever and always be----He is still on the cross. We actually see that in religions that have Him still there on their crucifix.

The OP is Clever...

 

[CrowCross]

The OP is Clever...

I must admitt I didn't come up with it.

 

[donadams]

I did come up with this!

D.A.I.S.Y.!

Delusional
Accusating
Insane
Silly
You


Delusional
To think you have salvation and are glorified in heavenly glory with the saints of God!

Accusations
In Violation of the virtues of Jesus Christ, the golden rule, the peace & bond of the spirit that requires Christians to be one in faith, one mind & one heart!

Insane
Cos you cannot comprehend or understand the meaning of a simple conditional two letter word “if”!

Silly
To think you can search the scripture and make your own doctrine rather than be instructed by Christ and His church apostolic!

You
Cannot abide in Christ and endure in humble obedience to the end!

Enjoy!

 

[Josheb]

I disagree. Yes the illustration isn't perfect as all illustrations have imperfections. But, the illustration is a word picture pertaining to flowers.
It shows the view that one can lose salvation and regain it...the concept of "prevailing to the end"....and not knowing your eternal destination till the end.
The concept is as some believe that if you walk in the light your saved...but if you step out you lose your salvation...but, if you reenter the light you're saved once again.

Yes, all of that is true BUT it has NOTHING to do with TULIP!!!

I other words, the picture may serve the synergist well in illustrating synergism, but it has absolutely nothing to do with TULIP and this op explicitly asks "TULIP or DAISY?" and then posts a picture applicable only to DAISY, an illustration as far removed from TULIP as coal is from strawberries. There is no actual or valid comparison like comparing apples to pears or coal to diamonds. There are no petals lost in TULIP! None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not only are there no petals lost but nothing in TULIP has anything to do with the creature beyond his depraved inability to come to God for salvation in his/her own might.

As is so often the case, the poster must ask him/herself "Did I critically examine my source?" In the case of this illustration, the question becomes, "Did I critically examine this illustration? Does this illustration correctly, and adequately, portray DAISY as Reformed Arminians would assert the loss of salvation?" Or is this more of a Pelagian point of view that Arminius would vomit upon and wholly deny as a perverse view of salvation and its potentiality for loss? Is the source for this illustration doing justice to DAISY, or has the source confused or conflated DAISY with PROVIDE, or some other acronym that has nothing to do with Arminianism OR Calvinism? Has this source correctly understood TULIP (because the picture of a daisy with the words, 'He loves me, He loves me not," is just wrong if intended to measure monergisim)?"


I would venture to say every monergist in this forum read that picture and instantly thought, "What in heaven and hell is that supposed to mean?" or "That's completely meaningless to TULIP!" So, the question then asked is, "Why would this poster post such a meaningless op and think it worthy of discussion when it asks, "TULIP or DAISY?" and then immediately includes a non sequitur?" Why would anyone do that?" The two most obvious answers are, 1) The author does not correctly understand TULIP and incorrectly imagines the illustration is relevant, or 2) The author is trolling. Any response like, "Well I was just presenting one side," leads us back to trolling because asking a two-sided question but knowingly posting only one very bad illustration of only one side is trolling. So, take a moment and breath. Think about how this op was read, not how it was intended. None of us here can read minds. All we know is what is posted, and, in this case, what's posted has NOTHING to do with TULIP (and the faultiness of the illustration has been acknowledged).


God's affection is NEVER in question in monergism. Neither is God's ability to save even the worse sinner in spite of the sinner's worseness . It is simply not a thing in monergism.

I must admit I didn't come up with it.

Then I hope 1) the faultiness of the illustration is now seen, 2) the source of that picture is now questioned as a valid and efficacious source for any future sourcing, and 3) there'll be a renewed effort to better understand both DAISY and TULIP (and some of the other acronyms used in doctrines of salvation) and any representative illustrations accordingly.

The problem of sourcing is a frequently occurring problem in the monergism versus synergism debate. A significant part of the problem occurs because neither monergism nor synergism are monolithic. A great degree of diversity exists in both categories. Arminius would repudiate Flowers (and probably much of Wesley's views, too). David Hunt, Roger Olson, and Leighton Flowers are all going to assert synergistic soteriology but they will NOT present the same views within synergism. Likewise, Luther, Calvin, don't always agree and reading Pink, Sproul, or Frame will, likewise, reveal some diversity in thought within monergistic orthodoxy. A thread on "TULIP or DAISY?" should (accurately) reflect these facts BUT, sadly, many of the internet sources are creations of fools, idiots, and thoughtless polemics.

Although you and I may disagree, I do not think you a fool, an idiot, or a thoughtless polemic.

The picture of the flower applicable to TULIP would not be a daisy, and it would say ONLY, "God loves me," or perhaps, "God loves me in spite of myself and there is nothing I can do to change that condition"??? It's a much different illustration than the one contained in this op (and the source from which the pic was chosen).

 

[Josheb]

So.....

Let's start over:

TULIP or DAISY?

TULIP

Concerning eternal salvation, it seems as if the Arminians believe in DAISY rather than the OSAS "P" in TULIP.

That is predominantly true, although Arminius did believe salvation could be lost, he did not think it a common occurrence. He thought it much more common than Luther thought (who considered loss an extremely rare but possible). Do you know the chief reason why Arminius thought loss of salvation rare?

Do you know why folks like Flowers think it can happen any time to anyone?

Which petal will be left when you die?

The number of remaining petals is irrelevant to TULIP, so the question is a red herring if the conversation is genuinely about comparisons between TULIP and DAISY. The ULIP in TULIP is about God, not the creature and God never loses any petals (God's "petals" are not human, creaturely, or sinful).

Which petal will be left when you die?

ALL of the petals God has decided will be left.

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, all of that is true BUT it has NOTHING to do with TULIP!!!

I other words, the picture may serve the synergist well in illustrating synergism, but it has absolutely nothing to do with TULIP and this op explicitly asks "TULIP or DAISY?" and then posts a picture applicable only to DAISY, an illustration as far removed from TULIP as coal is from strawberries. There is no actual or valid comparison like comparing apples to pears or coal to diamonds. There are no petals lost in TULIP! None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not only are there no petals lost but nothing in TULIP has anything to do with the creature beyond his depraved inability to come to God for salvation in his/her own might.

As is so often the case, the poster must ask him/herself "Did I critically examine my source?" In the case of this illustration, the question becomes, "Did I critically examine this illustration? Does this illustration correctly, and adequately, portray DAISY as Reformed Arminians would assert the loss of salvation?" Or is this more of a Pelagian point of view that Arminius would vomit upon and wholly deny as a perverse view of salvation and its potentiality for loss? Is the source for this illustration doing justice to DAISY, or has the source confused or conflated DAISY with PROVIDE, or some other acronym that has nothing to do with Arminianism OR Calvinism? Has this source correctly understood TULIP (because the picture of a daisy with the words, 'He loves me, He loves me not," is just wrong if intended to measure monergisim)?"


I would venture to say every monergist in this forum read that picture and instantly thought, "What in heaven and hell is that supposed to mean?" or "That's completely meaningless to TULIP!" So, the question then asked is, "Why would this poster post such a meaningless op and think it worthy of discussion when it asks, "TULIP or DAISY?" and then immediately includes a non sequitur?" Why would anyone do that?" The two most obvious answers are, 1) The author does not correctly understand TULIP and incorrectly imagines the illustration is relevant, or 2) The author is trolling. Any response like, "Well I was just presenting one side," leads us back to trolling because asking a two-sided question but knowingly posting only one very bad illustration of only one side is trolling. So, take a moment and breath. Think about how this op was read, not how it was intended. None of us here can read minds. All we know is what is posted, and, in this case, what's posted has NOTHING to do with TULIP (and the faultiness of the illustration has been acknowledged).


God's affection is NEVER in question in monergism. Neither is God's ability to save even the worse sinner in spite of the sinner's worseness . It is simply not a thing in monergism.

Then I hope 1) the faultiness of the illustration is now seen, 2) the source of that picture is now questioned as a valid and efficacious source for any future sourcing, and 3) there'll be a renewed effort to better understand both DAISY and TULIP (and some of the other acronyms used in doctrines of salvation) and any representative illustrations accordingly.

The problem of sourcing is a frequently occurring problem in the monergism versus synergism debate. A significant part of the problem occurs because neither monergism nor synergism are monolithic. A great degree of diversity exists in both categories. Arminius would repudiate Flowers (and probably much of Wesley's views, too). David Hunt, Roger Olson, and Leighton Flowers are all going to assert synergistic soteriology but they will NOT present the same views within synergism. Likewise, Luther, Calvin, don't always agree and reading Pink, Sproul, or Frame will, likewise, reveal some diversity in thought within monergistic orthodoxy. A thread on "TULIP or DAISY?" should (accurately) reflect these facts BUT, sadly, many of the internet sources are creations of fools, idiots, and thoughtless polemics.

Although you and I may disagree, I do not think you a fool, an idiot, or a thoughtless polemic.

The picture of the flower applicable to TULIP would not be a daisy, and it would say ONLY, "God loves me," or perhaps, "God loves me in spite of myself and there is nothing I can do to change that condition"??? It's a much different illustration than the one contained in this op (and the source from which the pic was chosen).

Whatever....

You missed the jist of my post....and I don't intend to spen the rest of the wek explining it to you again.

 

[Josheb]

Whatever....

You missed the jist of my post....and I don't intend to spen the rest of the wek explining it to you again.

Right. Attack the other person and then refuse to explain your own post(s). That will persuade no one.

I have answered all the questions asked in this op AND I have posted very valid and op-relevant commentary easily sufficient to further the discussion of "TULIP or DAISY?" and all of it has been ignored. If a discussion of this op is the actual goal, then plenty has been provided for you to do so and at this point Post 14 is your response. I even started the conversation over without the content critical of the picture...

So.....

Let's start over:

TULIP

That is predominantly true, although Arminius did believe salvation could be lost, he did not think it a common occurrence. He thought it much more common than Luther thought (who considered loss an extremely rare but possible). Do you know the chief reason why Arminius thought loss of salvation rare?

Do you know why folks like Flowers think it can happen any time to anyone?

The number of remaining petals is irrelevant to TULIP, so the question is a red herring if the conversation is genuinely about comparisons between TULIP and DAISY. The ULIP in TULIP is about God, not the creature and God never loses any petals (God's "petals" are not human, creaturely, or sinful).

ALL of the petals God has decided will be left.

The op's inquiries were answered. They were answered without a single derisive comment about you. The answers provide plenty of opportunity to discuss the question of "TULIP or DAISY?" TULIP over DAISY is my answer to the first question and there is no question of God's love, and in TULIP the number of petals won't matter soteriologically when I (or you) die.

 

[CrowCross]

Right. Attack the other person and then refuse to explain your own post(s).

Dude, I'm done. If you don't understand the daisy....move on.

 

[Carbon]

TULIP

Amen. It really is the only thing that makes sense about scripture.

 

[Josheb]

Amen. It really is the only thing that makes sense about scripture.

Yes, and I did not come to that conclusion by reading Calvin or Calvinists. I came to that conclusion by reading scripture and realizing if I was going to have any integrity with my claim to be a follower of God through His Son, Jesus, then I had to believe what is written exactly as it is written. What is written is the divine declaration the sinner cannot rely on his or her perceptions, thoughts, emotions, and/or actions. To be humans is to necessarily rely on those otherwise God-made and God-given faculties but when it comes to salvation sin has rendered all of those attributes corrupt. I long thought (along with many like me) I made a choice, and my choice was instrumental in my becoming saved and the premise my faith was given to me - the faith that inspired, enabled, and empowered ALL my salvific choices was given to me and not something my sin filled sinful self inherently possessed - was untenable.

That is, until I read God's word and was given the ability to understand it, accept it, and believe exactly as written.

That is when I was able to say, "Cr@p! Maybe that guy Calvin was correct, and I should stop abusing Cals."

David before Nathan and the tale of the stolen and killed sheep . Saul blinded on the road to Damascus . Josh illuminated by God's word .