TULIP: The good, bad and ugly

[Binaca Chugger]

I have been asked to speak on the issue of Calvinism to a group of Calvinists in defense of free will......

If you see a stake in the ground with a pile of wood around it, you might wanna keep your car running

Ain't it?

This is supposed to be a civil peesentation of the opposing view for consideration towards missions and evangelism.

Should I fee like Luther invited to counsel?

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I have been asked to speak on the issue of Calvinism to a group of Calvinists in defense of free will.  I thought we could have an informal presentation of ideas and issues here.

I am free will, but wholly respect the Providence of God.

Anyone care to discuss the TULIPs truths and errors?

Are you going to identify yourself as an Arminian?

Supreme Court Justice Robert Bork wrote on his book, The Tempting of America, "I am neither Republican nor Democrat.  I am neither left wing nor right.  I am, a Constitutionalist."

I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian.  I am neither primitive nor progressive.  I am, a Bible following Christian.

 

[bgwilkinson]

You could make up a hand-out asking, "Are You An Arminian and Don't Even Know It"

Link to questionnaire.
http://arminianbaptist.blogspot.com/2008/12/are-you-arminian.html

That was an interesting article.

Yes, and from someone who is a proclaimed  Arminian. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I have been asked to speak on the issue of Calvinism to a group of Calvinists in defense of free will.  I thought we could have an informal presentation of ideas and issues here.

I am free will, but wholly respect the Providence of God.

Anyone care to discuss the TULIPs truths and errors?

If you argue against TULIP then that's an argument against TULIP, not Calvinism (or predestination, doctrines of grace, etc).

Interesting point.  Are you making the argument that most of Calvin's teachings are good,  while some people have problems with the tennants of predestination?

No, I'm making the argument that "Calvinism" is just shorthand for predestination, God's sovereignty, etc.  It isn't necessarily TULIP, which was just a rebuttal to Arminian points, not something Calvin invented. 

The doctrines preceded Calvin.  Luther went into greater detail than Calvin, and Luther referenced Augustine.  And both Luther and Augustine got their doctrines from the Scriptures. 

In other words, try to refute scripture, not Calvin or TULIP. 

 

[FSSL]

I am, a Bible following Christian.

Well that settles it!  8) Robert Bork is not speaking from the basis of absolute truth. He is speaking from conflicting party-lines, none of which are based on Scripture. So, you cannot logically compare the two.

Why deny the label of Arminian? Is there something there that is too difficult? While you claim to be a Bible-following Christian, your belief system has historical connections. Denying those historical connections is not looking for an honest discussion. Everyone of us claims to be a Bible-following Christian.

Since you reject TULIP, which really was a counter-point to Arminius' FIVE remonstrances, you cannot deny that you are actually defending the remonstrances, to one-degree or another. A free-will must either be corrupted by original sin or it has a measure of divine grace. Your rejection of the "TULIP" includes a rejection of the "T" which stands for original sin. The Apostle Paul proclaimed that we are dead in this sin (Ro 6.23), hostile to God (Ro 8.7) and without the gifting of regenerating faith (Ro 6.18), one is hopelessly dead.

My relative told me he believes in only part of the "P" (preservation, i.e., eternal security) while rejection the other part of the "P" (perserverance). He said that is the ONLY part of TULIP to which he subscribes and he calls himself a ".5 point Calvinist." In reality, he is a "4.5 point Arminian"... he just does not like the label.

Are there ANY parts of "TULIP" that you believe in? If so, what are they?

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I have been asked to speak on the issue of Calvinism to a group of Calvinists in defense of free will.  I thought we could have an informal presentation of ideas and issues here.

I am free will, but wholly respect the Providence of God.

Anyone care to discuss the TULIPs truths and errors?

If you argue against TULIP then that's an argument against TULIP, not Calvinism (or predestination, doctrines of grace, etc).

Interesting point.  Are you making the argument that most of Calvin's teachings are good,  while some people have problems with the tennants of predestination?

No, I'm making the argument that "Calvinism" is just shorthand for predestination, God's sovereignty, etc.  It isn't necessarily TULIP, which was just a rebuttal to Arminian points, not something Calvin invented. 

The doctrines preceded Calvin.  Luther went into greater detail than Calvin, and Luther referenced Augustine.  And both Luther and Augustine got their doctrines from the Scriptures. 

In other words, try to refute scripture, not Calvin or TULIP.

Good thoughts.  i have been under ther impression that TULIP was invented as a summary of Calvin's Institutes, and not his own.  Does anyone know the origin of TULIP?  This could be a great way to disarm people and get them to lower some defenses.

 

[praise_yeshua]

TULIP was developed by the followers of Calvin. No one and I mean no one.....has ever.... seriously denied Calvins teachings are contrary to TULIP.

I've seen a few here make that silly claim time and time again. They are really just showing they know nothing about it.

There are only two Calvinsit here that have more than a juvenile understanding of the teachings. Neither one will seriously engage in a discussion on the matter.

If you really want to make a Calvinsit mad....just mention Greg Boyd. Piper, a noted Calvinist, showed his true colors when dealing with Boyd. Calvin showed his when dealing with Sevetus.

 

[FSSL]

TULIP was developed by the followers of Calvin. No one and I mean no one.....has ever.... seriously denied Calvins teachings are contrary to TULIP.

Synod of Dort... a response to Arminius' Remonstrance.

 

[rsc2a]

And, as usual, PY knows everything about everything and everyone else is an idiot.  :

 

[Ransom]

TULIP was developed by the followers of Calvin. No one and I mean no one.....has ever.... seriously denied Calvins teachings are contrary to TULIP.

Nonsense, as usual. The only one of the five points that is seriously questioned as to whether Calvin believed it is particular redemption. And that is due to ambiguity, not outright denial. The remaining four points are explicitly affirmed in the Institutes.

 

[Biker]

Who cares what John Calvin believed, ignore him I say!!  ;D :-* 

For Christians there is no such thing as Calvinism. That secular theology belongs to the world

Christ DIED for the sins of ALL
The sins of the WHOLE WORLD 1John 2:1-2

Yes all means all.
All doesn’t mean some

John 3:16 really means what it says.

1 Cor 15:21 . 21For since by a man came death, by a man [Christ] also came the resurrection of the dead. 22For as all in Adam all die, so all in Christ all will be made alive.

John 10:11 says Christ laid his life down for his sheep [sic]

It was the PURPOSE for which he suffered. TO SAVE HIS SHEEP. "HE laid his life down for his sheep"
but he ALSO died for the sins of the whole world. That wasn't his purpose but it was part of the deal. It doesn't mean because he became a PROPITIATION for everyone's sins that all men will accept this free gift of salvation. Most won't.
The propitation of sins in the form of resurrecting all of us is part of making us alive, part of why he died. To make ALl alive again.. even who are "dead" in their sins. ALL MEN AND WOMEN will be risen up alive to be assigned life again. They will be resurrected again for judgement. Most will be paying the penalty for their sins because they refused the free gift of salvation.

ALL IN ADAM DIE SO ALL IN CHRIST WILL BE MADE ALIVE. per 1 Corinthians above.

Goats on one side, sheep on the other.Jesus in the middle. Judgement begins.  AL were also made alive in Christ, aka resurrected with him. Or because of him, I gotta study that.
But it's to be judged by the things Sinners did in their body. The Saints are only judged and rewarded for their good works done in the body. Then Sinners will be destroyed, thrown into the ETERNAL HELLFIRE CREATED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS. Matt 22 Because the devil and his angels suffer ETERNAL Torment. Humans will die, not suffer eternal torment. Yet it could be a heck of a long time until they are fully destroyed or dead. The dead know nothing Ecc 9:5

Just as God told Adam and Even they will surely die if they eat the fruit, the devil told them the opposite. "You will surely not die"
They didn't die immediately. They suffered. Stickers on the ground, a body decaying. Pain in Childbirth, etc...Ok so this nashing of teeth could be lasting a while, and though it's not forever, that only means it is one second short of forever. SO a HELL Of a long time. How long did it take HItler to burn up all those Hollcaust victims? I am sure some suffered torment for a long time before actually dying.

And before people go drudging up that one verse which supports a lifelong torment, remember Paul's proclamation. "I am the Chief of Sinners".
Except a Sinner is by definition, an unsaved person which we know Paul is not. Sinner is always linked to the unsaved, ALWAYS. It is NEVER a word linked to the Saved. Because a Sinner becomes a Saint upon salvation. So Paul was NOT a sinner at that time, clearly that verse was translated incorrectly. So if One verse throws a kink into ALL of scripture, we know that one verse cannot mean what it says. Because scripture never conflicts with itself.  Offhand, there is just one verse which is used to support eternal suffering, I cannot recall it right now.


Anyhow,,, I don't know why I bothered with this post since it is not a salvation issue or anything. And the above is JMHO^^^

 

[subllibrm]

In our area TULIPS are one of the very first flowers to come up in the Springtime! However, they don't last very long.

Crocus, daffodils then tulips here.

 

[praise_yeshua]

TULIP was developed by the followers of Calvin. No one and I mean no one.....has ever.... seriously denied Calvins teachings are contrary to TULIP.

Nonsense, as usual. The only one of the five points that is seriously questioned as to whether Calvin believed it is particular redemption. And that is due to ambiguity, not outright denial. The remaining four points are explicitly affirmed in the Institutes.

That was my point. You all misunderstood what I said.

I could have said it better. Let me rephrase.

No one and I mean no one.....has ever been taken seriously.... that denied Calvins teachings are contrary to TULIP.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

TULIP was developed by the followers of Calvin. No one and I mean no one.....has ever.... seriously denied Calvins teachings are contrary to TULIP.

Synod of Dort... a response to Arminius' Remonstrance.

Thanks.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I have been asked to speak on the issue of Calvinism to a group of Calvinists in defense of free will.  I thought we could have an informal presentation of ideas and issues here.

I am free will, but wholly respect the Providence of God.

Anyone care to discuss the TULIPs truths and errors?

If you argue against TULIP then that's an argument against TULIP, not Calvinism (or predestination, doctrines of grace, etc).

Interesting point.  Are you making the argument that most of Calvin's teachings are good,  while some people have problems with the tennants of predestination?

No, I'm making the argument that "Calvinism" is just shorthand for predestination, God's sovereignty, etc.  It isn't necessarily TULIP, which was just a rebuttal to Arminian points, not something Calvin invented. 

The doctrines preceded Calvin.  Luther went into greater detail than Calvin, and Luther referenced Augustine.  And both Luther and Augustine got their doctrines from the Scriptures. 

In other words, try to refute scripture, not Calvin or TULIP.

This really is my goal.  My real purpose is to promote acting out the great commission through evangelistic outreach, rather than the passive approach of waiting for someone to ask you about eternity that is dominating many churches.  The hurdle to cross seems to be Calvin's TULIP.

With one shot at this, I want to speak to the positives of evangelism vs the lassiez faire approach that is the result of predestination.  Of course, I will have to acknowledge the correctness of much of Calvin while issuing Bible reasons for disagreeing with Calvin's theories of predestination.

 

[rsc2a]

With one shot at this, I want to speak to the positives of evangelism vs the lassiez faire approach that is the result of predestination.

Umm, no. Just no.

 

[subllibrm]

With one shot at this, I want to speak to the positives of evangelism vs the lassiez faire approach that is the result of predestination.

And this is where to be found?

 

[FSSL]

I have been asked to speak on the issue of Calvinism to a group of Calvinists in defense of free will.  I thought we could have an informal presentation of ideas and issues here.

I am free will, but wholly respect the Providence of God.

Anyone care to discuss the TULIPs truths and errors?

If you argue against TULIP then that's an argument against TULIP, not Calvinism (or predestination, doctrines of grace, etc).

Interesting point.  Are you making the argument that most of Calvin's teachings are good,  while some people have problems with the tennants of predestination?

No, I'm making the argument that "Calvinism" is just shorthand for predestination, God's sovereignty, etc.  It isn't necessarily TULIP, which was just a rebuttal to Arminian points, not something Calvin invented. 

The doctrines preceded Calvin.  Luther went into greater detail than Calvin, and Luther referenced Augustine.  And both Luther and Augustine got their doctrines from the Scriptures. 

In other words, try to refute scripture, not Calvin or TULIP.

This really is my goal.  My real purpose is to promote acting out the great commission through evangelistic outreach, rather than the passive approach of waiting for someone to ask you about eternity that is dominating many churches.  The hurdle to cross seems to be Calvin's TULIP.

With one shot at this, I want to speak to the positives of evangelism vs the lassiez faire approach that is the result of predestination.  Of course, I will have to acknowledge the correctness of much of Calvin while issuing Bible reasons for disagreeing with Calvin's theories of predestination.

Consider this...

Jonathan Edwards.., Calvinist great awakening
Charles Spurgeon. .. Calvinist
John Gill..... huge outreach in eva
Robert Ketchum
.... and on and on...

In the 1800s and recent history shows that Arminian have died out and struggled. Their only comeback, in the 70s, was to enlarge their churches by consolidating believers around issues like KJV onlyism and heightened emphases on externals while promoting a gospel designed to be transferred to others by praying a simple prayer.

I am involved with Calvinist who plant churches. Churches growing because of redeemed souls.

If you want excellent church planting guidance, the Presbyterians PCA have one of the best programs.

The evangelism strawman does not hold up historically or today.

Calvinism = evangelism
Arminianism = consolidation

 

[Biker]

Calvinism = evangelism
Arminianism = consolidation

You need to get saved. Seriously. How sad for you wasting your time on this.
Repent of your sins, cry out to god asking him to be your LORD AND SAVIOR. Then promise you will ONLY
adhere and believe what the bible says. That you will not adopt ANY sort of secular belief system.

That you will not worry over the religious trends of the world.

All that  effort will be put within an intimate relationship with him.

I will be praying for you

 

[bgwilkinson]

I have been asked to speak on the issue of Calvinism to a group of Calvinists in defense of free will.  I thought we could have an informal presentation of ideas and issues here.

I am free will, but wholly respect the Providence of God.

Anyone care to discuss the TULIPs truths and errors?

If you argue against TULIP then that's an argument against TULIP, not Calvinism (or predestination, doctrines of grace, etc).

Interesting point.  Are you making the argument that most of Calvin's teachings are good,  while some people have problems with the tennants of predestination?

No, I'm making the argument that "Calvinism" is just shorthand for predestination, God's sovereignty, etc.  It isn't necessarily TULIP, which was just a rebuttal to Arminian points, not something Calvin invented. 

The doctrines preceded Calvin.  Luther went into greater detail than Calvin, and Luther referenced Augustine.  And both Luther and Augustine got their doctrines from the Scriptures. 

In other words, try to refute scripture, not Calvin or TULIP.

This really is my goal.  My real purpose is to promote acting out the great commission through evangelistic outreach, rather than the passive approach of waiting for someone to ask you about eternity that is dominating many churches.  The hurdle to cross seems to be Calvin's TULIP.

With one shot at this, I want to speak to the positives of evangelism vs the lassiez faire approach that is the result of predestination.  Of course, I will have to acknowledge the correctness of much of Calvin while issuing Bible reasons for disagreeing with Calvin's theories of predestination.

Consider this...

Jonathan Edwards.., Calvinist great awakening
Charles Spurgeon. .. Calvinist
John Gill..... huge outreach in eva
Robert Ketchum
.... and on and on...

In the 1800s and recent history shows that Arminian have died out and struggled. Their only comeback, in the 70s, was to enlarge their churches by consolidating believers around issues like KJV onlyism and heightened emphases on externals while promoting a gospel designed to be transferred to others by praying a simple prayer.

I am involved with Calvinist who plant churches. Churches growing because of redeemed souls.

If you want excellent church planting guidance, the Presbyterians PCA have one of the best programs.

The evangelism strawman does not hold up historically or today.

Calvinism = evangelism
Arminianism = consolidation

Don't forget,

Andrew Fuller Particular Baptist and friend of William Carey the father of modern missions both Calvinists and deeply involved with evanglism.