TULIP: The good, bad and ugly

[rsc2a]

Is PY really calling someone arrogant?

But then they are probably stupid moronic idiotic crazy absurd nuts who are unaware of their own beliefs. Thankfully they have PY to tell them why they don't believe what they say they do and to explain what they actually believe.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Your limitation of this passage to the old world, based on that phrase is amazingly absurd.

These things ARE clearly seen... no past tense... no limitation to the old world. EVERY unbeliever is referenced in this passage.

I never said it didn't have an application beyond the old world. What is of old..... always comes back around. The object of the discourse begins in the old world. Sure they ARE clearly seen. THEY ARE SEEN..... FROM THE TIME OF CREATION. From the very beginning. Those, from the very beginning, rejected the Truth of God and God gave the world that then was.... over to a reprobate mind. He saved, a faithful Noah and his family. Who then revealed the Truth of God to their descendents.

Righteous of God revealed.... from "FAITH TO FAITH"... not this stupid idea of Calvin and regeneration before faith.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Only a fool denies his continual sin.

There we have it.... a complete and utter confusion of Wesleyanism vs Calvinism.

I will let others take over for now...

Again.... A Calvinist can't see beyond his own system. He can't. Its beyond him. You ask a Calvinist to make an argument from Scripture and he folds. They always do. I am not confusing anything. I posted a reference from the Westminster Confession. From the VERY ARTICLES itself..... and you ignore it.

You know you're wrong. Calvinism has never been consistent. Never. Choke on your own words.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Is PY really calling someone arrogant?

But then they are probably stupid moronic idiotic crazy absurd nuts who are unaware of their own beliefs. Thankfully they have PY to tell them why they don't believe what they say they do and to explain what they actually believe.

I don't have a grasp on what you believe. I never claimed I did. You don't have one yourself. I have continually provided evidence for what I claim.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I can sum up my belief in this by saying we are "kept by the power of God".

I believe that too. I just see it as starting one step earlier than you do.

Using the metaphor where Jesus promises that nothing can pluck us out of His hand, I believe that God the Father puts us securely in Jesus hand while you believe that we put ourselves into His hand first then we are secure.

At least that is how I understand the crux of our differences.

I don't believe we "crawl" into His hand. We simply call out to God and He..... reaches downs His hand to rescue us. David witnessed this in Psalm 40:2.

Who said crawl?  Wouldn't running and diving into the sanctuary be a better picture?  ???

The point is that I am there in His hand. One of two things happened.
1. I put myself there as an act of my will.
2. God placed me there as an act of His will.

How can a man's will force God to do anything? I have never claimed this. God promised to save all those who would call upon Him. They can not save themselves. They are powerless. A call, claiming the promises of God, brings about God's action. Not because of the call.... .but because God said HE WOULD. The call is powerless. ALL the power comes from God.

You're using the reasoning of a child. Its more complicated than that. You're saying.....

Its in God's hand for some reason and it must be one of only TWO possible scenarios. Well...... I can't help but say... GROW UP. A Calvinist is always demanding everyone play in his little game.

Put a few more pieces on the game board would you???? Geesh....

 

[rsc2a]

Is PY really calling someone arrogant?

But then they are probably stupid moronic idiotic crazy absurd nuts who are unaware of their own beliefs. Thankfully they have PY to tell them why they don't believe what they say they do and to explain what they actually believe.

I don't have a grasp on what you believe. I never claimed I did. You don't have one yourself. I have continually provided evidence for what I claim.

Yay! PY is telling me what I do or don't know about my own beliefs!

 

[rsc2a]

Is PY really calling someone arrogant?

But then they are probably stupid moronic idiotic crazy absurd nuts who are unaware of their own beliefs. Thankfully they have PY to tell them why they don't believe what they say they do and to explain what they actually believe.

Add childish...

 

[FSSL]

Your limitation of this passage to the old world, based on that phrase is amazingly absurd.

These things ARE clearly seen... no past tense... no limitation to the old world. EVERY unbeliever is referenced in this passage.

I never said it didn't have an application beyond the old world. What is of old..... always comes back around. The object of the discourse begins in the old world. Sure they ARE clearly seen. THEY ARE SEEN..... FROM THE TIME OF CREATION. From the very beginning. Those, from the very beginning, rejected the Truth of God and God gave the world that then was.... over to a reprobate mind. He saved, a faithful Noah and his family. Who then revealed the Truth of God to their descendents.

Righteous of God revealed.... from "FAITH TO FAITH"... not this stupid idea of Calvin and regeneration before faith.

Objects of creation.... NOT time of Creation.

 

[FSSL]

Only a fool denies his continual sin.

There we have it.... a complete and utter confusion of Wesleyanism vs Calvinism.

I will let others take over for now...

Again.... A Calvinist can't see beyond his own system. He can't. Its beyond him. You ask a Calvinist to make an argument from Scripture and he folds.

I am on my phone, traveling around.

I have made my point using the language of Scripture. Your old world thought has been defeated with the present tenses I pointed out as well as the above post regarding the objects of creation.

Confusion/conflicts regarding the WC and CD run in your own head.

Are you up to the formal debate? I can see that would be very interesting!

 

[Bob H]

There we have it.... a complete and utter confusion of Wesleyanism vs Calvinism.

This thread went from Arminianism & Calvinism to Wesleyanism & Calvinism. A lot of different avenues in this thread. Spurgeon spoke of walking by a blacksmith shop and he saw a sign on it which said "much twisting and turning done in here". This thread reminds me of a blacksmith shop. 

 

[subllibrm]

Only a fool denies his continual sin.

Since I can only claim positional holiness until I die and go to be with God I don't and won't claim to be sinless. I relate fully with Paul's lament in Romans 7. I long for the time when I no longer have to contend daily with my sin nature.

That said, I can't speak for FSSL but I did not get anything from his postings that made me think he believes he is sinless.

So I am not sure what it is you are arguing.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

1.  There is no need for me to witness.  If they are chosen, they are chosen.

You mean no reason other than the command of Christ? How is willful disobedience a positive thing?

2.  Haughtiness.  I am chosen and you are not.  Stinks to be you.

I am saved because I believed. I repented. I prayed. It is of me. The me, me, me gospel!

Or, I am saved because God gave me the gift of faith. God gave me the ability to repent. God gave me the ability to come to Him in prayer. It is the all of God and none of me gospel.

So, which one seems haughty? The me, me, me gospel or the God, God, God gospel?

3.  I like to tell people about my salvation.  However, I know that the Bible and God's grace can have no affect at all for the majority of people I share with.

So you are unaware that God uses means to reach out to the lost? Do you actually read your bible with understanding? Here, let me help, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)

Remember Gamaliel's wise counsel In Acts 5:39, "But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."

 

[FSSL]

There we have it.... a complete and utter confusion of Wesleyanism vs Calvinism.

This thread went from Arminianism & Calvinism to Wesleyanism & Calvinism. A lot of different avenues in this thread. Spurgeon spoke of walking by a blacksmith shop and he saw a sign on it which said "much twisting and turning done in here". This thread reminds me of a blacksmith shop. 

Praise_yeshua brought up the Wesleyan perfectionism because he misunderstands Calvinism. His diversion is based on his sincere confusion.

Debating py does tend to branch off like a willow tree in a hurricane.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Your limitation of this passage to the old world, based on that phrase is amazingly absurd.

These things ARE clearly seen... no past tense... no limitation to the old world. EVERY unbeliever is referenced in this passage.

I never said it didn't have an application beyond the old world. What is of old..... always comes back around. The object of the discourse begins in the old world. Sure they ARE clearly seen. THEY ARE SEEN..... FROM THE TIME OF CREATION. From the very beginning. Those, from the very beginning, rejected the Truth of God and God gave the world that then was.... over to a reprobate mind. He saved, a faithful Noah and his family. Who then revealed the Truth of God to their descendents.

Righteous of God revealed.... from "FAITH TO FAITH"... not this stupid idea of Calvin and regeneration before faith.

Objects of creation.... NOT time of Creation.

Absurd.... most all translation talk of a "time".

The ESV declares ever since the creation of the world.... Your tense arguments are senseless.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There we have it.... a complete and utter confusion of Wesleyanism vs Calvinism.

This thread went from Arminianism & Calvinism to Wesleyanism & Calvinism. A lot of different avenues in this thread. Spurgeon spoke of walking by a blacksmith shop and he saw a sign on it which said "much twisting and turning done in here". This thread reminds me of a blacksmith shop. 

Praise_yeshua brought up the Wesleyan perfectionism because he misunderstands Calvinism. His diversion is based on his sincere confusion.

Debating py does tend to branch off like a willow tree in a hurricane.

You have continually been dishonest. I posted a direct quote from the articles of the Westminster Confession and you refuse to acknowledge your mistake.

My only confusion.... was thinking you'd honestly deal with the issues presented. Have I left anything unanswered? Any thing?

Can you honestly say the same thing?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Only a fool denies his continual sin.

Since I can only claim positional holiness until I die and go to be with God I don't and won't claim to be sinless. I relate fully with Paul's lament in Romans 7. I long for the time when I no longer have to contend daily with my sin nature.

That said, I can't speak for FSSL but I did not get anything from his postings that made me think he believes he is sinless.

So I am not sure what it is you are arguing.

I pointed to his own situation contradicting what he wrote. I never said he thinks he's sinless. I posted the Westminster Confession and how it contradicts what he said. He is the one with the problem. He doesn't even know his own theology.

There is reason he keeps going all the way back to "Dort". He's conveniently ignoring all the differences that exist among Calvinists. He HOPES.... that by only focusing on Dort, he can avoid this. He's wrong and dishonest. Calvinist have long disagreed on many different points found in TULIP. There is no single cohesive belief that is beyond dispute. They love to pretend there is.... but there isn't.

 

[FSSL]

I pointed to his own situation contradicting what he wrote. I never said he thinks he's sinless. I posted the Westminster Confession and how it contradicts what he said. He is the one with the problem. He doesn't even know his own theology.

Everything contradicts everything in your world. That defense has lost it's efficacy. Your contradictions are imaginary.

There is no contradiction between the Canons and the Confession on this matter. They both teach that a genuine believer will never come to the point in his life where he will deny Christ. (WC:XVII¶1, CoD:V,1.14) A believer will have "seasons" of sinful living, but overall, the believer will finally persevere. (WC: XVII¶3, CoD: V,1.11)

... and it is ONLY because God does he work in us!

 

[praise_yeshua]

I pointed to his own situation contradicting what he wrote. I never said he thinks he's sinless. I posted the Westminster Confession and how it contradicts what he said. He is the one with the problem. He doesn't even know his own theology.

Everything contradicts everything in your world. That defense has lost it's efficacy. Your contradictions are imaginary.

There is no contradiction between the Canons and the Confession on this matter. They both teach that a genuine believer will never come to the point in his life where he will deny Christ. (WC:XVII¶1, CoD:V,1.14) A believer will have "seasons" of sinful living, but overall, the believer will finally persevere. (WC: XVII¶3, CoD: V,1.11)

... and it is ONLY because God does he work in us!

I'm going to just quit here. For the record. You just agreed with what I said. I said

Perseverance to me.... means that a truly saved man will never deny faith in His Master. How can we?

That is exactly what I said. I copied it from what I wrote. You said this doesn't correspond with the doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints".

You know as well as I do, that some draw exceptions with the language of the Canons of Dort. The Westminster Confession is more detailed and use more definitive language. Even to the point of seeing a contradiction between the two. If the Canons of Dort would had been sufficient.... in and of themselves..... there would have never been a need for the Westminster Confession. Don't pretend there has never been any divisions among the followers of Calvin.

 

[rsc2a]

Some draw exceptions with the language of the Bible.

"...saved from the foundations of the world."

"...not just our sins, but the sins of the whole world."

 

[FSSL]

Don't pretend there has never been any divisions among the followers of Calvin.

This is just smoke.

Sure... many Calvinists do not believe the Canons of Dort explain the Unlimited Atonement well enough. I am one of them. When it comes to THE TOPIC AT HAND, I know of no contradictions among Calvinists.

I am ready for that formal debate you invited me to!