TULIP: The good, bad and ugly

[praise_yeshua]

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!

I'm not going to debate with someone that refuses to acknowledge he made a mistake in claiming I don't understand the "Perseverance of the Saints". Not going to do it. I posted the evidence of what I said. The exact quote that you later admitted the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession say. I can't rely on you to answer line upon line. You ignore what's inconvenient for you. I'm not going to formally debate someone that does this.

 

[rsc2a]

The Calvinist argument: all doesn't mean all.

The Arminian argument: chosen doesn't mean chosen.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The Calvinist argument: all doesn't mean all.

The Arminian argument: chosen doesn't mean chosen.

Universalist argument: My name is rsc2a....

For the record. I have never denied that all means all of a kind. For the record, I have always believed chosen means chosen. For the record, Corporate Election doesn't fall into either category.

Then again. You didn't know this until I told you about it. Some much for your vast knowledge on the matter.

 

[rsc2a]

I'm a universalist? News to me.

 

[FSSL]

I'm not going to debate with someone that refuses to acknowledge he made a mistake in claiming I don't understand the "Perseverance of the Saints". Not going to do it.

I revisited that post #186 and saw what you did. You attempted to suggest that I held to Weslyan perfectionism while you claimed to follow the truth of Perseverance.

Further, what caused the confusion is that you claim that the Canons of Dort conflict with the Westminster Confession on this subject. They do not.

You have created a ton of confusion on this and you desire to see contradictions where none exist.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

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

So, God is a gentleman and won't interfere with our free will until we decide to accept salvation.  After that, God is no longer a gentleman and won't allow us to decide to reject our salvation. 

Or do you believe we can discard our salvation of our own free will? 

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm not going to debate with someone that refuses to acknowledge he made a mistake in claiming I don't understand the "Perseverance of the Saints". Not going to do it.

I revisited that post #186 and saw what you did. You attempted to suggest that I held to Weslyan perfectionism while you claimed to follow the truth of Perseverance.

Further, what caused the confusion is that you claim that the Canons of Dort conflict with the Westminster Confession on this subject. They do not.

You have created a ton of confusion on this and you desire to see contradictions where none exist.

WHAT?

I posted what I said. Are you saying that I posted something else and later revised it? Is that what you're saying? If you are, then it total nonsense. I didn't do any such thing.

I never accused you of Wesleyan perfectionism. You might have read that into what I wrote but I never said it. Didn't even think of it. Why is it you must take what I say and apply with the confines of your knowledge of theology? You assume way too much. Don't read anything into it. If I'd meant "Wesleyan Perfection".... I would have said it.

They do conflict.

Article 11. The Scripture moreover testifies, that believers in this life have to struggle with various carnal doubts, and that under grievous temptations they are not always sensible of this full assurance of faith and certainty of persevering. But God, who is the Father of all consolation, does not suffer them to be tempted above that they are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that they may be able to bear it,

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

Don't tell me these are identical declarations. Not even close.

 

[rsc2a]

You assume way too much.

*blink blink*

 

[praise_yeshua]

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

So, God is a gentleman and won't interfere with our free will until we decide to accept salvation.  After that, God is no longer a gentleman and won't allow us to decide to reject our salvation. 

Or do you believe we can discard our salvation of our own free will?

No contradiction. You're playing another childish game where there is only two chess pieces to chose from on the chess board.

God, in our salvation, chose not to remove us from sin or to total remove sin from us. Our salvation is not complete, but it is complete in His promises to us. Unbreakable, Eternal promises from God. God can't lie. While we have been born again or anew. We haven't entirely escape the predicaments of our first birth. God's promises are sure. We look for the future. A future we did not have before our acceptance of God's Grace.

 

[FSSL]

I'm not going to debate with someone that refuses to acknowledge he made a mistake in claiming I don't understand the "Perseverance of the Saints". Not going to do it.

I revisited that post #186 and saw what you did. You attempted to suggest that I held to Weslyan perfectionism while you claimed to follow the truth of Perseverance.

Further, what caused the confusion is that you claim that the Canons of Dort conflict with the Westminster Confession on this subject. They do not.

You have created a ton of confusion on this and you desire to see contradictions where none exist.

WHAT?

I posted what I said. Are you saying that I posted something else and later revised it? Is that what you're saying? If you are, then it total nonsense. I didn't do any such thing.

I never accused you of Wesleyan perfectionism. You might have read that into what I wrote but I never said it. Didn't even think of it. Why is it you must take what I say and apply with the confines of your knowledge of theology? You assume way too much. Don't read anything into it. If I'd meant "Wesleyan Perfection".... I would have said it.

They do conflict.

Article 11. The Scripture moreover testifies, that believers in this life have to struggle with various carnal doubts, and that under grievous temptations they are not always sensible of this full assurance of faith and certainty of persevering. But God, who is the Father of all consolation, does not suffer them to be tempted above that they are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that they may be able to bear it,

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

Don't tell me these are identical declarations. Not even close.

You don't understand perseverance. If you think these two conflict, your idea of perseverance is confined.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

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

So, God is a gentleman and won't interfere with our free will until we decide to accept salvation.  After that, God is no longer a gentleman and won't allow us to decide to reject our salvation. 

Or do you believe we can discard our salvation of our own free will?

No contradiction. You're playing another childish game where there is only two chess pieces to chose from on the chess board.

God, in our salvation, chose not to remove us from sin or to total remove sin from us. Our salvation is not complete, but it is complete in His promises to us. Unbreakable, Eternal promises from God. God can't lie. While we have been born again or anew. We haven't entirely escape the predicaments of our first birth. God's promises are sure. We look for the future. A future we did not have before our acceptance of God's Grace.

Okay, so it's the first one.  God stops being a gentleman and interferes with our free will. 

 

[subllibrm]

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....

Go ahead and identify these extra pieces please. Or to use a different game metaphor, show your cards. What are the other "options" beyond God put me there or I put myself there?

You keep saying that you have the trump card but never reveal it. Just call us names. Tell us were are crazy.

 

[praise_yeshua]

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

So, God is a gentleman and won't interfere with our free will until we decide to accept salvation.  After that, God is no longer a gentleman and won't allow us to decide to reject our salvation. 

Or do you believe we can discard our salvation of our own free will?

No contradiction. You're playing another childish game where there is only two chess pieces to chose from on the chess board.

God, in our salvation, chose not to remove us from sin or to total remove sin from us. Our salvation is not complete, but it is complete in His promises to us. Unbreakable, Eternal promises from God. God can't lie. While we have been born again or anew. We haven't entirely escape the predicaments of our first birth. God's promises are sure. We look for the future. A future we did not have before our acceptance of God's Grace.

Okay, so it's the first one.  God stops being a gentleman and interferes with our free will.

Nope. Only in the mind of a child playing chess with two King pieces.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm not going to debate with someone that refuses to acknowledge he made a mistake in claiming I don't understand the "Perseverance of the Saints". Not going to do it.

I revisited that post #186 and saw what you did. You attempted to suggest that I held to Weslyan perfectionism while you claimed to follow the truth of Perseverance.

Further, what caused the confusion is that you claim that the Canons of Dort conflict with the Westminster Confession on this subject. They do not.

You have created a ton of confusion on this and you desire to see contradictions where none exist.

WHAT?

I posted what I said. Are you saying that I posted something else and later revised it? Is that what you're saying? If you are, then it total nonsense. I didn't do any such thing.

I never accused you of Wesleyan perfectionism. You might have read that into what I wrote but I never said it. Didn't even think of it. Why is it you must take what I say and apply with the confines of your knowledge of theology? You assume way too much. Don't read anything into it. If I'd meant "Wesleyan Perfection".... I would have said it.

They do conflict.

Article 11. The Scripture moreover testifies, that believers in this life have to struggle with various carnal doubts, and that under grievous temptations they are not always sensible of this full assurance of faith and certainty of persevering. But God, who is the Father of all consolation, does not suffer them to be tempted above that they are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that they may be able to bear it,

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

Don't tell me these are identical declarations. Not even close.

You don't understand perseverance. If you think these two conflict, your idea of perseverance is confined.

Ah... the "you don't understand" defense. Good grief.... You expect me to formally debate someone who's defense is.... ."you don't understand".

A third grader can tell the two articles are not identical and don't say the same things. The Canon of Dort clearly states that saints perseveres because God makes a way of escape for them . That is what it says. No taking it differently.

The Westminster Confession says that a saint of God can fall into grievous sin and have their heart hardened..... consciences wounded.... and even face the temporal judgments of God. ...

Oh yeah.... they are the same and compliment one another perfectly.....

God help us!!!!

 

[praise_yeshua]

Go ahead and identify these extra pieces please. Or to use a different game metaphor, show your cards. What are the other "options" beyond God put me there or I put myself there?

You keep saying that you have the trump card but never reveal it. Just call us names. Tell us were are crazy.

I never said God didn't put us there. However, there aren't just two King pieces on the game board. God is the only one powerful enough to save anyone. That doesn't mean there isn't a pawn in the corner calling for help from the Master. The pawn can't help himself. The pawn can't get to where he needs to go. Only the King can help. Asking for help doesn't shift the power from God to the pawn. The pawn will always be powerless to help himself.

Why do you claim there is only one explanation? Why do you want to always boils things down only one of two possibilities? I know mankind loves doing this across so many different spectrum.

 

[rsc2a]

I'm not going to debate with someone that refuses to acknowledge he made a mistake in claiming I don't understand the "Perseverance of the Saints". Not going to do it.

I revisited that post #186 and saw what you did. You attempted to suggest that I held to Weslyan perfectionism while you claimed to follow the truth of Perseverance.

Further, what caused the confusion is that you claim that the Canons of Dort conflict with the Westminster Confession on this subject. They do not.

You have created a ton of confusion on this and you desire to see contradictions where none exist.

WHAT?

I posted what I said. Are you saying that I posted something else and later revised it? Is that what you're saying? If you are, then it total nonsense. I didn't do any such thing.

I never accused you of Wesleyan perfectionism. You might have read that into what I wrote but I never said it. Didn't even think of it. Why is it you must take what I say and apply with the confines of your knowledge of theology? You assume way too much. Don't read anything into it. If I'd meant "Wesleyan Perfection".... I would have said it.

They do conflict.

Article 11. The Scripture moreover testifies, that believers in this life have to struggle with various carnal doubts, and that under grievous temptations they are not always sensible of this full assurance of faith and certainty of persevering. But God, who is the Father of all consolation, does not suffer them to be tempted above that they are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that they may be able to bear it,

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

Don't tell me these are identical declarations. Not even close.

You don't understand perseverance. If you think these two conflict, your idea of perseverance is confined.

Ah... the "you don't understand" defense. Good grief.... You expect me to formally debate someone who's defense is.... ."you don't understand".

A third grader can tell the two articles are not identical and don't say the same things. The Canon of Dort clearly states that saints perseveres because God makes a way of escape for them . That is what it says. No taking it differently.

The Westminster Confession says that a saint of God can fall into grievous sin and have their heart hardened..... consciences wounded.... and even face the temporal judgments of God. ...

Oh yeah.... they are the same and compliment one another perfectly.....

God help us!!!!

Ah...the "you and everyone else in history are a bunch of idiots" defense.

 

[subllibrm]

They do conflict.

Article 11. The Scripture moreover testifies, that believers in this life have to struggle with various carnal doubts, and that under grievous temptations they are not always sensible of this full assurance of faith and certainty of persevering. But God, who is the Father of all consolation, does not suffer them to be tempted above that they are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that they may be able to bear it, ?

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

Don't tell me these are identical declarations. Not even close.

What comes after the comma in Article 11? Seems like it would be important to let them finish the thought.

 

[subllibrm]

Ah... the "you don't understand" defense.

Irony alert!!!!

 

[praise_yeshua]

They do conflict.

Article 11. The Scripture moreover testifies, that believers in this life have to struggle with various carnal doubts, and that under grievous temptations they are not always sensible of this full assurance of faith and certainty of persevering. But God, who is the Father of all consolation, does not suffer them to be tempted above that they are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that they may be able to bear it, ?

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

Don't tell me these are identical declarations. Not even close.

What comes after the comma in Article 11? Seems like it would be important to let them finish the thought.

It starts a different article. I didn't leave anything out.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ah... the "you don't understand" defense.

Irony alert!!!!

Sure I say you don't understand... then I follow it up with WHY you don't understand. I never just say "you don't understand" and leave it at that. This is the "you don't understand" defense I am referencing.