Refuting Verses of TULIP belief

[HappyChristian]

5 hours ago, Invicta said:

I don't know, you are correct, how do they describe it?

They do teach that we are depraved. The "T" stands for that, but it also actually stands for total "inability." While they teach that man fell and sin entered into the world, they go further (and, by the way, what Calvin taught, and what those who subscribe to what we call Calvinism, and the Reformed movement, originated with Augustine) and state that man is totally unable to choose to follow God or even accept salvation as it is offered.  That thought is further explained with the "I" - irresistible grace, which teaches that man can't choose either way. If God has saved you, you can't reject it.

As was said, unbiblical.

Most people who hear the "Total Depravity" have no clue the depths of what is meant when someone is following TULIP (or the newer ones: ROSES and GRACES).  That's why a lot of people say they are a 1- or 2- point Calvinist. They accept the T without knowing what it really means in that doctrinal system, and they accept the P, believing that perseverance is eternal security. But perseverance is not eternal security, it is actually a work. A person must keep to the right path, else they were never part of the elect (like the person Dave mentioned above). We are preserved by the Holy Spirit. Yes, we are to walk right. But we do not "persevere" to the end in order to prove we are part of the elect.

[Bob from England]

I know that Calvinists teach Unconditional Election, but what is Corporate Election?  How does that differ from the Foreknowledge Election view?

I'm genuinely asking this without wishing to be controversial.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Bob from England
Spelling mistake

[Invicta]

I don't see the difference between foreknowledge and election. If He has foreknowledge we can't change it.

I have never heard of corporate election.

 

[wretched]

18 minutes ago, Invicta said:

I don't see the difference between foreknowledge and election. If He has foreknowledge we can't change it.

I have never heard of corporate election.

 

Ah but Invicta,

Isn't it more accurate and thorough to look at Foreknowledge as "knowing beforehand" who will believe of their own free will because He can see when they do, not manipulating them to believe? The word references knowledge, not action. See the difference? Therefore the question of whether we can change it or not is irrelevant IMO.

[Bob from England]

Reply to wretched:  You have made a valid point, brother.

The strict Calvinists say that Foreknowledge is an act, but those who hold to Foreknowledge Election believe foreknowledge is an attribute, ie, that God knows everything beforehand and He knows who will accept Christ, in accordance with that foreknowledge He then elects.

This is the line taken by Dr Noman Geisler in Chosen But Free.

I'm going to do some research on Corporate Election as it looks interesting.

[Invicta]

18 hours ago, wretched said:

Ah but Invicta,

Isn't it more accurate and thorough to look at Foreknowledge as "knowing beforehand" who will believe of their own free will because He can see when they do, not manipulating them to believe? The word references knowledge, not action. See the difference? Therefore the question of whether we can change it or not is irrelevant IMO.

That makes God dependent on us.  Did not God choose the Jews?  Of course he did, there was a thread that discussed this a week or two ago.

Just a general knowledge or an intimate knowledge?  Adam knew eve in an intimate sense, not a general sense. If it was just case, you might have had a point, but the NT is full of examples which however much you try, you can't explain away, Eph.1:1-11. for example.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Invicta

[wretched]

4 hours ago, Invicta said:

That makes God dependent on us.  Did not God choose the Jews?  Of course he did, there was a thread that discussed this a week or two ago.

Just a general knowledge or an intimate knowledge?  Adam knew eve in an intimate sense, not a general sense. If it was just case, you might have had a point, but the NT is full of examples which however much you try, you can't explain away, Eph.1:1-11. for example.

Wouldn't it make much more NT sense to see that God in these last days has chosen all men, whether Jew or gentile to come to Him (way too many passages to list), just as He did with Abraham as an individual. It was still a choice God gave to Abraham and absolutely dependent on Abraham's acceptance and obedience.

Reformed theology relieves all people everywhere of their individual responsibility to believe the Gospel, it is contrary to every page of God's Word. What on earth would be the purpose of the Great White Throne if no one has a choice? What would be the purpose of Christ's life and ministry on earth in order to judge us all equally against His standard or if not, His Sacrifice on the Cross?  Reformed is a false religion and not of the Lord my friend. It ignores reason and accountability and is basically a spiritual welfare program. Oh sure, it breeds intellectualism but that is one of its biggest unScriptural problems making its followers lovers of intellectual men rather than lovers of God.  It is of the world and worships men and their studies more than Gods Word. Eph 1 is no battle cry for the reformed my friend, the reformed interpretation ignores the context and subject of the passage which is verses 4. 12-14. This passage has zero to do with any imaginary "hand picking" of saints.

 

[Invicta]

2 hours ago, wretched said:

Reformed theology relieves all people everywhere of their individual responsibility to believe the Gospel, it is contrary to every page of God's Word. What on earth would be the purpose of the Great White Throne if no one has a choice? What would be the purpose of Christ's life and ministry on earth in order to judge us all equally against His standard or if not,

No it doesn't, it teaches that God has sovereignty and man has responsibility.

[Alimantado]

2 hours ago, Invicta said:

No it doesn't...

Oh yes it does!

And here's one for when you come back with another 'no it doesn't': oh yes it does!

[Invicta]

9 minutes ago, Alimantado said:

Oh yes it does!

And here's one for when you come back with another 'no it doesn't': oh yes it does!

I did think of that but I resisted.

[Invicta]

On 8/15/2017 at 1:07 AM, BroMatt said:

I've never meet a Calvinist that wasn't part of the elect. 

I've never meet a Christian that wasn't part of the elect.

[DaChaser]

On 7/16/2017 at 1:48 PM, BabeinChrist said:

I am familiar with the heresy of Calvinism, but am unaware of the meaning of TULIP, other than the flower.

What is TULIP?

Calvinism is not hersy,a sits just another system/method supported in teh scriptures as to God deals with sinful humanity. I see Non cals and Cals are both saved by the grace of the Lord, but that we understand it if different ways.

Basically, TULIP stands for the 5 points of Grace that calvinism is built upon for salvation, as each letter stands for a different point. Such as Total depravity, Limited Atonement, Irresistable grace etc.

many times the basic problem is a communication one, as many times those against Calvinism understand the meanings in a differest fashion than we vest in those terms.