Tulip or Not Tulip...

[Genevanpreacher]

9 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Oh wait, one more little tidbit for the Calvinists who say this "Total Depravioty" means the dead cannot respond to God. In John chapter 11 Jesus told the disciples plainly "Lazarus is dead":  I believe Lazarus was STILL DEAD when he heard the mighty and powerful voice of Psalm 29 say "Lazarus come forth". Yeah...and the dead STILL hear the voice of the mighty King of Glory today...... I did. (See John 5:25)

GOOD observation there!

[heartstrings]

L - "Limited Atonement"

The "Everlasting Father", the "Alpha and Omega" who "inhabiteth eternity", with whom "all things are possible" and who made the vast Universe and loves His enemies, draws all men to Himself, gave His only begotten to the WHOLE WORLD only offers "limited" atonement? Really?

 

I - "Irresistible Grace"  

So God pleaded with "oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem" and they "would not"? He "almost persuaded" Agrippa to be a Christian? and the Holy Ghost dealt with Felix about Temperance, righteousness, and judgement to come AND so much so that the man "trembled"....but God's grace is "Irresistable"?  I'm not a very smart man and I can see that's a lie.

 

In summary, all those four "points" tie together: According to Calvinist belief, God has predetermined who will (and by default who will not)be saved, so he only died for the ones he wants, enables only the ones he wants, and has designed it so they can't resist, and for those reasons no one has a choice either way. So I don't see how anyone can be a "one pointer" "two pointer" etc. since they all four mean pretty much the same thing. How can you have one without the other three by default?

P - "Perseverance of the Saints"  

This one basically means that real saints will "persevere" to the end? Nevermind that the Word of God says God has to chasten us, that some backslide, or have to be admonished to "put on the new man" and "live not after the flesh". Nevermind that some do stuff like "having their father's wife" and having to be turned over to the Devil for "destruction of the flesh" so "that the spirit might be saved"  etc. The Bible never one time says that all saints will "persevere". It DOES however say that we are "overcomers" and that what makes us overcomers is our faith. We sin, we fall and some of us "fall down seven times" but we who are born again, get to heaven because of what we ARE, "sons of God", and that only because of the promises and faithfulness of God.

Edited October 27, 2016 by heartstrings

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 0:17 AM, heartstrings said:

The only thing that I ''imply'' is that each and every one of the 5 petals of the "tulip" IS Calvinism. The first 4 tie together and the last one is just plain unbiblical in it's own right. I would explain more later as I get time.

52 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

In summary, all those four "points" tie together: According to Calvinist belief, God has predetermined who will (and by default who will not)be saved, so he only died for the ones he wants, enables only the ones he wants, and has designed it so they can't resist, and for those reasons no one has a choice either way. So I don't see how anyone can be a "one pointer" "two pointer" etc. since they all four mean pretty much the same thing. How can you have one without the other three by default?

So then, what you implied with  your question is that which you proceeded to explain - that any individual who holds unto any one of the first four points of Calvinistic soteriology must by default (at least from your perspective) hold to the other three of those points.  Now, this may indeed be true if an individual remains strictly consistent in doctrinal position.  Yet I am aware that many, many, many individuals are NOT strictly consistent in their doctrinal position.  As such, they do NOT fall under your "default" category. 

Indeed, I know individuals who deny the Calvinistic points of "limited atonement" and "perseverance of the saints," hold to the point of "total depravity," while denying the Calvinistic application of "regeneration unto faith," and hold to the Calvinistic points of "unconditional election" and "irresistible (effectual) grace."  Now, it may be true that they are not strictly consistent in the logic of their doctrinal position.  Yet their doctrinal position (as inconsistent as it may be) is still their doctrinal position; and I do not believe that I have the right to claim that they must (by default) hold to "points" that they specifically deny.  So then, are they actually Calvinists in their doctrine of soteriology.  No, they are NOT Calvinists any more than I myself am an Arminian (although I do hold unto three of the five points of Arminian soteriology).  They may hold to SOME of the points of Calvinistic soteriology, just as I hold to SOME of the points of Arminian soteriology; but they do NOT hold unto ALL of them by default.  Furthermore, I do NOT believe that I should contend with them as if they do.

[heartstrings]

Bro. Markle, I typed the response below before reading yours fully. I apologize. I am at work now and will try to get to it tonight. I think I understand what you're saying.

 

 

 

 

 

If they hold to the Calvinist interpretation of said "point" or "points"; yes.

 

Quote

 

Indeed, I know individuals who deny the Calvinistic points of "limited atonement"  and "perseverance of the saints," hold to the point of "total depravity,"

 

 

Not possible. Calvinists say a sinner is so "depraved" that he cannot respond to the Gospel. Therefore, as they say, God must "enable" the sinner. The problem with a Biblical Christian believing that is, if God "enabled" everyone, that would mean God desires to give everyone the opportunity to be saved which would be pointless if God intended "limited atonement". SO:a person who claims to "hold to" "total depravity" with the belief that God DOES enable everyone, is not really holding to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. They are in fact holding to the Biblical doctrine derived from verses like "there is none righteous, no not one" and we are "dead in trespasses and sins" and "no man can come to me except the Spirit of my Father draw him" etc etc. Those doctrines are NOT the Calvinist doctrine of "total depravity". None, zero, of the 4 points are Biblical.

Edited October 27, 2016 by heartstrings

[Pastor Scott Markle]

24 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Bro. Markle, I typed the response below before reading yours fully. I apologize. I am at work now and will try to get to it tonight. I think I understand what you're saying.

Well, praise the Lord for the workings of His grace.  I just about to begin a response to your posting when I received a phone call that "stalled" me.  During the time of that phone call, you added your "edit" above.  As such, I shall wait for your further response.  (And, I accept your apology; you are forgiven.)

By the way, I myself wholly agree with the following --

29 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

None, zero, of the 4 points are Biblical.

 

[heartstrings]

Ok. Bro. Markle, I went back and read what you said and I stand by my position on this "5 points" business. I'll just say that Biblical pastors need to educate God's people to stop using the Devil's terms as substitutes for Biblical doctrines. 1 Corinthians 14:33

[Pastor Scott Markle]

11 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Ok. Bro. Markle, I went back and read what you said and I stand by my position on this "5 points" business.

So then, do you believe that an individual who holds to at least one "point" of Calvinistic soteriology MUST "by default" be a "five point" Calvinist, and can be designated and treated as such?

So then, do you believe that an individual who holds to at least one "point" of Arminian soteriology MUST "by default" be a "five point" Arminian, and can be designated and treated as such?

Do you believe that I myself am an Arminian because I hold to three "points" of Arminian soteriology, and that "by default" I MUST also believe in the other two "points" of Arminian soteriology?

Do you yourself believe in any of the "points" of Arminian soteriology, that is -- Do you believe in "conditional election," or "unlimited atonement," or "resistible grace"?  If so, are you an Arminian, and "by default" MUST you believe in the other "points" of Arminian soteriology?
 

11 hours ago, heartstrings said:

I'll just say that Biblical pastors need to educate God's people to stop using the Devil's terms as substitutes for Biblical doctrines. 1 Corinthians 14:33

Which of the following terms do you believe are "the devil's terms" that have been substituted for Biblical doctrines?  (I considered simply assuming that I knew which terms you intended by your statement; however, I decided that it would be better to ask for the sake of certainty.)

1.  Doctrine of grace
2.  Sovereignty of God
3.  Total depravity
4.  Total inability
5.  Limited atonement
6.  Unconditional election
7.  Irresistible grace
8.  Effectual call
9.  Perseverance of saints
10.  Eternal security

(Note: In some of the above cases, it may be necessary to acknowledge that one word of a couplet IS Biblical, whereas the other word is NOT.)

Edited October 28, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle
added "effectual call" to the list

[heartstrings]

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, do you believe that an individual who holds to at least one "point" of Calvinistic soteriology MUST "by default" be a "five point" Calvinist, and can be designated and treated as such?

So then, do you believe that an individual who holds to at least one "point" of Arminian soteriology MUST "by default" be a "five point" Arminian, and can be designated and treated as such?

Do you believe that I myself am an Arminian because I hold to three "points" of Arminian soteriology, and that "by default" I MUST also believe in the other two "points" of Arminian soteriology?

Do you yourself believe in any of the "points" of Arminian soteriology, that is -- Do you believe in "conditional election," or "unlimited atonement," or "resistible grace"?  If so, are you an Arminian, and "by default" MUST you believe in the other "points" of Arminian soteriology?
 

Which of the following terms do you believe are "the devil's terms" that have been substituted for Biblical doctrines?  (I considered simply assuming that I knew which terms you intended by your statement; however, I decided that it would be better to ask for the sake of certainty.)

1.  Doctrine of grace
2.  Sovereignty of God
3.  Total depravity
4.  Total inability
5.  Limited atonement
6.  Unconditional election
7.  Irresistible grace
8.  Effectual call
9.  Perseverance of saints
10.  Eternal security

(Note: In some of the above cases, it may be necessary to acknowledge that one word of a couplet IS Biblical, whereas the other word is NOT.)

No, that's not what I said at all. But to eliminate confusion, I will not elaborate on that for now: Please just go back and read what I already said.

[heartstrings]

Quote

 

Which of the following terms do you believe are "the devil's terms" that have been substituted for Biblical doctrines?  (I considered simply assuming that I knew which terms you intended by your statement; however, I decided that it would be better to ask for the sake of certainty.)

1.  Doctrine of grace "grace" is Biblical. But the Calvinist term "doctrines of grace" as they define it, is false doctrine.
2.  Sovereignty of God The word "sovereignty" is not in the KJB and the term "sovereignty of God" as believed/taught by Calvinsts is false doctrine.
3.  Total depravity False doctrine, as I have already explained this one...
4.  Total inability False doctrine
5.  Limited atonement  Atonement is Biblical, but this term is false doctrine
6.  Unconditional election Election is a Biblical doctrine, but this term is false doctrine
7.  Irresistible grace False doctrine
8.  Effectual call I had to look this one up. It appears to mean the same as "irresistible grace" so it is false.
9.  Perseverance of saints False doctrine
10.  Eternal security Not a term found in the Bible, but it is used as a concise term for a true Biblical doctrine. It is NOT the same thing as "perseverance of saints" 

 

 Let me add this as an example: Calvinists use the term "sovereignty of God" when teaching that God's will is not and cannot be "thwarted" and therefore His grace is "irresistible". The term "sovereignty of God" is used to promote the Calvinist doctrine. So why should NON- Calvinists use a term used in a doctrine of devils? Huh? Why not just say what the Bible says that God is Almighty? Powerful? Terrible? God DOES allow men to CHOOSE Him or reject Him of their own free will, BUT He is almighty in that He alone judges and metes out the CONSEQUENCES for each and every choice ever made. So He has it all under control.  Why don't we quit referring to "perseverance of saints" if we ain't Calvinist? And Quit calling God "sovereign".....because the word ain't in the Bible. Quit using the term "total depravity" and instead quote verses like Jeremiah 17:9, Ephesians 2:1, John 6:44 and Romans 3:11. Stop associating with false doctrine by not using their terms. Eliminate the confusion. I'm a "zero pointer" and a lot of people who mistakenly THINK they are a "X pointer" might just not be at all.  Does that clear up anything Bro Markle? I hope so.

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by heartstrings

[Ukulelemike]

The only tulips I am concerned with!

[Jim_Alaska]

Never mind the Tulips, the singing is great. Now post more singing in its own thread.......please?

[Ukulelemike]

5 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Never mind the Tulips, the singing is great. Now post more singing in its own thread.......please?

I have to record some more. There are a few at my youtube page but its been a while since I updated with anything new. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdCrsmzP3twsgRT1CjiIiDQ

But here is one, an oldie from VAcation Bible SChool some years back.  

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 3:16 PM, heartstrings said:

In summary, all those four "points" tie together: According to Calvinist belief, God has predetermined who will (and by default who will not)be saved, so he only died for the ones he wants, enables only the ones he wants, and has designed it so they can't resist, and for those reasons no one has a choice either way. So I don't see how anyone can be a "one pointer" "two pointer" etc. since they all four mean pretty much the same thing. How can you have one without the other three by default?  (emboldening and underlining added by Pastor Scott Markle for this posting)

10 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, do you believe that an individual who holds to at least one "point" of Calvinistic soteriology MUST "by default" be a "five point" Calvinist, and can be designated and treated as such? (emboldening added by Brother Wayne in his quotation of Pastor Scott Markle)

8 hours ago, heartstrings said:

No, that's not what I said at all. But to eliminate confusion, I will not elaborate on that for now: Please just go back and read what I already said.

You are correct. You did NOT say that "an individual who holds to at least one 'point' of Calvinistic soteriology MUST 'by default' be a 'five point' Calvinist."  Rather, what you indicated is that from your perspective an individual who holds to a at least one of the first four "points" of Calvinistic soteriology MUST "by default" (your own phrase) hold to ALL of the first four "points" of Calvinistic soteriology.  Furthermore, you implied by this that any individual who holds to any one of these four "points" of Calvinistic soteriology can be viewed "by default" as holding to the Calvinistic system of soteriology.

Even so, I again present my latter three questions --

Do you believe that an individual who holds to at least one "point" of Arminian soteriology MUST "by default" be a "five point" (or, at least, a "four point") Arminian, and can be designated and treated as such?

Do you believe that I myself am an Arminian because I hold to three "points" of Arminian soteriology, and that "by default" I MUST also believe in the other two "points" (or, at least, in one other of the "points") of Arminian soteriology?

Do you yourself believe in any of the "points" of Arminian soteriology, that is -- Do you believe in "conditional election," or "unlimited atonement," or "resistible grace"?  If so, are you an Arminian, and "by default" MUST you believe in the other "points" of Arminian soteriology?

[HappyChristian]

Just a reminder - this thread is about whether or not one who professes to be a 5-pointer can claim to NOT be a Calvinist. 

As far as the debate on whether or not someone who believes in one or another point being Calvinist, I think we need to stop and realize that it is the LANGUAGE of the points that are problematic (and I think Brother Markle worded it well when he talked about the points "by definition"). I, personally (and my hubby), reject all 5 points as written because of WHERE THEY LEAD.

Total depravity, while a biblical thought on it's surface, does not just mean that to one who subscribes to the 5 points of the TULIP. It includes the idea that the inability of man to do anything to attain salvation means that there is no reasoning, no choosing EVER done on the part of man. That makes the "T" problematic - Calvinists know the whole meaning...I don't think non-Calvinists who say they agree with the "T" do.

The same would go for the "P." As Christians, we do NOT persevere to the end: we are PRESERVED by the Holy Spirit.

I do not claim that one who says they accept one or both of those points are Calvinist  (although in this day and age, it's hard to accept that folks who claim to be one or two pointers don't know what they are teaching)  - I believe that they are not considering that they are aligning with a heresy by their choice of accepting those points. I was condescendingly told that it was hoped that I was not being taught that ALL of the TULIP is wrong, because "T" and "P" are biblical. But they are not.

Why do we need to use the same lingo? Why do we need to say "totally depraved?" It's been a Calvinist term since 1913. Long enough for it to be identified with that heresy - and, honestly, there are OTHER ways of presenting the idea of original sin and the fact that we are all sinners who cannot save ourselves. I've actually never heard the term "totally depraved" used while preaching about the need for salvation - and that's with over 45 years of my life being spent in IFB churches (ok...let's amend that to say I don't remember it being used).

Just some thoughts I've had as I've read the posts...not a criticism of anyone. I'm enjoying the discussion.

[heartstrings]

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

You are correct. You did NOT say that "an individual who holds to at least one 'point' of Calvinistic soteriology MUST 'by default' be a 'five point' Calvinist."  Rather, what you indicated is that from your perspective an individual who holds to a at least one of the first four "points" of Calvinistic soteriology MUST "by default" (your own phrase) hold to ALL of the first four "points" of Calvinistic soteriology.  Furthermore, you implied by this that any individual who holds to any one of these four "points" of Calvinistic soteriology can be viewed "by default" as holding to the Calvinistic system of soteriology.

Even so, I again present my latter three questions --

Do you believe that an individual who holds to at least one "point" of Arminian soteriology MUST "by default" be a "five point" (or, at least, a "four point") Arminian, and can be designated and treated as such?

Do you believe that I myself am an Arminian because I hold to three "points" of Arminian soteriology, and that "by default" I MUST also believe in the other two "points" (or, at least, in one other of the "points") of Arminian soteriology?

Do you yourself believe in any of the "points" of Arminian soteriology, that is -- Do you believe in "conditional election," or "unlimited atonement," or "resistible grace"?  If so, are you an Arminian, and "by default" MUST you believe in the other "points" of Arminian soteriology?

No sir, that's not what I'm saying. I've tried to explain my view. No need for me to go any further.. God bless you and have a great weekend.