Calvinism and Tulip theology

[Johnny_B]

It's too bad that Calvin didn't keep his tulips sealed...

"For God so loved the elect that he gave his only begotten Son"

You have no clue, read the footnote in the ESV and do a Greek word search on biblehub. ESV For in this way God loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes on Him will have everlasting life. Biblehub Greek words "For in this manor God demonstrated His love" God gave His Son to the world, but the full meaning of His giving is in verse 17 and look at the worlds reaction John 3:18-20 and how whosoever believes shows how it was done verse 21.

17-21 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

They believe because God did it for them, it was not their own doing. God gave His Son that the world MIGHT be saved verse 17. He know those that are slave to sin can't believe and He gives the reason why verse 18 they are condemned already, verses 19-20 they love darkness rather than light. Verse 21 those that believe come to the light to show that God did it, not themselves, as in John 1:12-13. "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

It all makes more since when you read 3:16 in the context of 17-21 to get the full meaning of what is being said.

 

[Ariel82]

Deductive and Inductive Arguments | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

. The difference between deductive and inductive arguments does not lie in the words used within the arguments, but rather in the intentions of the arguer. It comes from the relationship the arguer takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, then the argument is deductive. If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises provides only good reasons to believe the conclusion is probably true, then the argument is inductive. If we who are assessing the quality of the argument have no information about the intentions of the arguer, then we check for both. That is, we assess the argument to see whether it is deductively valid and whether it is inductively strong.

 

[Johnny_B]

The context of US is the elect/bride/sheep/chosen/her/beloved/church in all the epistles.

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

II Corinthians 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;

Galatians 1:4 who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

Ephesians 5:2, 26 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God......Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her


II Thessalonians 2:16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,

II Timothy 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

John 10:11, 15, 15:13 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep....just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep......Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

 

[preacher4truth]

The context of US is the elect/bride/sheep/chosen/her/beloved/church in all the epistles.

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

II Corinthians 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;

Galatians 1:4 who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

Ephesians 5:2, 26 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God......Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her


II Thessalonians 2:16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,

II Timothy 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

John 10:11, 15, 15:13 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep....just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep......Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

Exactly...

 

[preacher4truth]

. The difference ...

Nicodemus should have been capable of deducing from Scripture John 3:10 and following. IOW he didn't need a proof text stating what Jesus said word for word, so in conclusion none need a proof text to deduce from Scripture that Jesus only died for the sins of His people, who are in every tribe and nation, a.k.a. "the world".

I'm wary of people who cannot see this truth and need a "proof text" when the evidence is insurmountable otherwise.

 

[Johnny_B]

Nicodemus should have been capable of deducing from Scripture John 3:10 and following. IOW he didn't need a proof text stating what Jesus said word for word, so in conclusion none need a proof text to deduce from Scripture that Jesus only died for the sins of His people, who are in every tribe and nation, a.k.a. "the world".

I'm wary of people who cannot see this truth and need a "proof text" when the evidence is insurmountable otherwise.

I Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Sagart]

Nicodemus should have been capable of deducing from Scripture John 3:10 and following. IOW he didn't need a proof text stating what Jesus said word for word, so in conclusion none need a proof text to deduce from Scripture that Jesus only died for the sins of His people, who are in every tribe and nation, a.k.a. "the world".

I'm wary of people who cannot see this truth and need a "proof text" when the evidence is insurmountable otherwise.

I cannot see it, and for the first 1,500 years of the Church, neither could anyone else! Are we to believe that the writer of the Fourth Gospel had such poor writing skills that it took a French politician named John Calvin to come along and tell us what the writer really meant? No proof texts are necessary to understand that when the writer of the Fourth Gospel used the Greek expression, τὸν κόσμον, he meant τὸν κόσμον and not some subset of human beings. The Fourth Gospel is written in exceptionally simple and easy to understand Koine Greek, and there is absolutely no excuse for attempting to manipulate it to teach something that it so very clearly refutes. Moreover, the doctrine of limited atonement horribly diminishes who Jesus is and the unlimited extent of His love for all of mankind, whether or not they would choose to believe in Him and behave accordingly.

 

[88]

Calvinism
Calvinism (also called the Reformed tradition', Reformed Christianity, Reformed Protestantism, or the Reformed faith) is a major branch of protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice of John Calvin and other Reformation-ear theology.
Calvinists broke from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. Calvinism differs from Lutherans on the real presence of Christ in the the eucharist, theroies of worship, and the use of God's Law for believers, among other things. Its basic principle is that the Bible is to be interpreted by itself, meaning the parts that are harder to understand are examined in the light of other passages where the Bible is more explicit on the matter. The term Calvinism can be misleading, because the religious tradition which it denotes has always been diverse, with a wide range of influences rather than a single founder. The movement was first called Calvinism by Lutherans who opposed it, and many within the tradition would prefer to use the word Reformed.

Most objections to, and attacks on Calvinism focus on the "five points of Calvinism," also called the doctrines of grace, and remembered by the acronym "TULIP." The five points were more recently popularized in the 1963 booklet The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, Documented by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas. The origins of the five points and the acronym are uncertain.
The "five points of Calvinism," even if they are (or are not) what John Calvin taught are very much preached in churches today.
Are the TULIP doctrines correct?
· Total depravity
· Unconditional election
· Limited atonement
· Irresistible grace
· Preseverance of the saints

*** don't like teachings which deny free will*** whosoever will can be saved*** it's not a rigged system with God...

 

[preacher4truth]

I Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Yes, thanks for the reminder.

 

[preacher4truth]

I cannot see...

Not once did I mention Calvin only what Christ said to Nicodemus proving that he should have been capable, as the teacher of Israel, to deduce what Christ said concerning being born from above from the Scriptures of the OT.

Your rant against Calvin is remarkable and seemingly obsessive compulsive on your part. Then the false assertion that the Koinè Greek is "so simple" shows your profound ignorance of it altogether. The Greek is not simple, and any student can assert to this.

Then there are your Universalist tendencies which should be addressed but the other errors you adhere to are so profound and many that it is useless to try to correct you on those several points.

 

[Sac49]

I alright with the concept of God on his throne. My issues is trusting men to correctly understand and teach His word and will.

I am especially wary when folks tell me that God didn't really mean the whole world, when He clearly says "whole world" in the Bible.

I don't believe everyone gets to be born again children of God, but I do believe that Jesus undid on the cross what Adam did by eating of the forbidden fruit.

Because Adam's sin effected all of humanity, Jesus act of redemption on the cross effected all of humanity as well.

Ephesians 2:8,9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith---and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast". This is from the Word of God. Our faith comes from God as a gift. If our faith is a gift from God doesnt it mean that God chooses who has faith? It doesnt say that this gift of faith is given to everyone. We cannot reveive a gift unless it is specifically given to us. Which means God chooses whom He gives it too.

 

[Johnny_B]

*** don't like teachings which deny free will*** whosoever will can be saved*** it's not a rigged system with God...

Then you are not going to like this John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Rockrz]

Calvinism = false teaching... not biblical, buyer beware!

 

[SovereignGrace]

Wasn't Zane Hodge the main anti-Lordship guy? I remember hearing that Hodge and MacArthur did some verbal sparring.

I really DO NOT understand the argument that anti-Lordship Salvation people have. Salvation produces fruit of obedience and good works. The fruit doesn't cause salvation, but it is a result of salvation. If there's no fruit, over the long haul, it's likely there's no salvation and it's a false faith, although believers can experience a long period of fruitlessness. Simple enough to me.

One individual on the site doesn't like either Piper or MacArthur because of Lordship Salvation. I don't particularly care for either one of them personality-wise; I like either RC Sproul or David Platt more. But, I wouldn't question their teachings except on some minor issues..I'm not a big fan of MacArthur's view on mental health drugs or his view on Genesis 6. I have heard Piper say a few things that seemed like he didn't believe in eternal security, but maybe he just didn't word his responses to people clearly on those few occasions.

If we expect fruit from ppl and see no fruit and say something about, ppl start yelling 'Matthew 7:1'!!!

We are to let ppl live their lives their way, regardless how they live it. And we are not to say anything to them, seeing we will hurt their feelings. In today's church feelings trump truth.

 

[SovereignGrace]

We have the same Bible yet both sides (calvanist and Arminian believers) are so sure they have it right.

I read the interpretation of verses from both sides and can see how both find evidence to believe want they want to believe.
Example.. John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain..."

1. Some Calvinists (and Augustine) have argued that this is a proof text for unconditional election, emphasizing the irrelevance of human choice.
2. Arminians point out that the statement is made to the disciples with reference to their apostleship, not to their salvation. This interpretation accords well with the next phrase "that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain." See also Jn. 6:70 referring to the same choice. Judas was chosen but not saved.

I can't believe that a Just, Loving, and Holy God can love some (the elect) and not love the rest. This teaching is not in line with the Bible because the Bible tells me that God wants all to be saved and God is Just.

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

I know you'll say i've twisted it or don't understand it rightly, but this (below) is what Calvinism is telling me. (just being honest.)
If in fact Calvinism were God's actual plan, than before the foundation of the world He elected some to be saved the ELECT, and some to remain lost, then the list is complete and nothing you or I will change that, it is His Will, His List, and His Plan, (Done and finished). Thus, there is no need for church, no need for witnessing, no need for trying to live a righteous life at all, simply go through life and live the way you want and IF you are on the list, you will be saved somehow, someway, because you are the ELECT. Finished ...

But if Arminianism were God's actual plan then there is definitely a need to carry out Jesus' command in Matthew 28 to teach and baptist in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because unless a free will soul can be convinced of salvation they will be lost. Moreover, then John 3:16 is not made a lie but Truth in that the offer of salvation is for the whole world that "whosoever" (not elect only) can be saved and thus there is a need for the church, witnessing, and trying to live a life that points to Jesus, because the price was payed for all souls.

What's a Calvanist?
And who's Calvan?

 

[Depleted]

Can someone give the Bible verses for "limited atonement"?

I always thought Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.

Keep reading to see how the whole world (didn't) accept it. So The Father did what he does.

 

[Johnny_B]

The doctrines known today as the five points of Calvinism were first conceived in the 16th century, not as a result of advances in the field of biblical exegesis, but as a result of a newly conceived concept—the concept that God is absolutely sovereign. This new concept formed the premise upon which five deductions were based. For example, if God is absolutely sovereign, there is nothing whatsoever that men can do to determine whether they will be saved—either initially or subsequently. Indeed, in this new system of theology, men were viewed as being “totally” depraved. Many hundreds of verses were radically reinterpreted to bring them into harmony with the new theology, and today Calvinists read the Bible and interpret it as they read it based upon those reinterpretations. Consequently, for them, the Bible expressly teaches the five points of Calvinism—and anyone who fails to see them taught in the Bible has a problem.

Some years ago in the early years of my first pastorate, a Presbyterian minister who was an acquaintance of mine came to see me in my office at my church and gave me two brand new books that he had just purchased for me, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, and The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner. It was not my birthday or Christmas, so I asked him why he purchased the books for me. He replied that he purchased the books for me because they contain basic truths that I will “never get out of the Bible!” And he was right—I never did! I soon purchased Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, the three-volume theologies by Charles Hodge and by William G. T. Shedd, and the theologies by Louis Berkhof, J. Oliver Buswell, and A. A. Hodge, but none of these Reformed theologians helped me to find in the Bible any of the five points of Calvinism. And neither did anyone else “find them in the Bible” before the 16th century; but the opposing five points are found and taught throughout the entire history of the Church! If the Bible really teaches the five points of Calvinism, why couldn’t anyone find them there before the 16th century? Is the Bible really so poorly written that no one was able to correctly understand it before a French politician named John Calvin came along and explained it to them?

That pastor is wrong, I for one have never read anything by Calvin and I read the first book you mentioned and I did not see it. Then I did a study on man and God's view of man, then I realized that if it were not for God I would of never even gave Him a second thought. I realized that it was not my faith that saved me it was God's grace, because with out it I would never believe, because of my spiritual blindness, loving darkness rather than the light. Then the song amazing grace made complete sense to me, I thought I understood it, but I didn't.

To say none of this came about until the 16th century is historically wrong, Augustus was in the 4th century and he had taught God's election and to say that it wasn't until the 4th century that this was discover is wrong as well, because Paul taught God's unconditional election, Peter taught that it is by the foreknowledge of the Father as does James, but it was Jesus that brought it to the New Covenant believers. But God's always chose people in many different ways, all because He wanted to it had nothing to do with anyone doing good or bad. He chose Abram and idolator and his offspring, He chose David as king and to be the human line of Jesus. So God has always elected people to be something, do something all because it's His nature. Jesus taught that no one comes to Him unless the Father draws him, Jesus also taught that the Father grants spiritual life by the Spirit and the flesh is of no help in that process. Sure I could post a bunch of Scripture but if you were/are a pastor that studied the Word of God you have already read them. If you don't believe them that's, fine but to say them don't exist is a denial of the Word of God.

Here's where the problems are people want to define the work "foreknowledge" by reading into it that God sees that a person will have faith and elects them. There are two things that are not correct about that. If that is the way God's foreknowledge works, then it's not foreknowledge, it's God acknowledging what someone will do and it not God electing, it Him selecting "making a choice by some quality in that choice" in this case someone faith. So for that doctrine to be Biblical the Bible should read, according to the acknowledgement of God the Father or for those whom He acknowledged He also predestined. As for selection it should read, in order that God's selection might continue or who shall bring a charge against God's select? Because that is what people are saying that deny God's foreknowledge and electing grace, by adding it is by one faith that God makes does it. The words mean what they mean, adding to the meaning to fit ones doctrine is braking the first two commandments and it's not loving God with all your heart, with all your strength, with all your soul, and with all your mind. Because you will not submit to His plain easy to understand Word.

People can believe whatever they want to believe but to say it's not in the Bible is a denial of the truth. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. How much more simple could the Holy Spirit have made it?

 

[SovereignGrace]

*** don't like teachings which deny free will*** whosoever will can be saved*** it's not a rigged system with God...

Whoever the Son sets free is free indeed.[John 8:36] This includes their will. The lost's will is enslaved in sin.[Matthew 6:24, Romans 6:6 & 6:16]

 

[Johnny_B]

Can someone give the Bible verses for "limited atonement"?

I always thought Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.

​He did die for the sins of the world and He directly died for the Church and what I posted in post 83, if you haven't already.

 

[ForthAngel]

Calvinism = false teaching... not biblical, buyer beware!

Well then, since you have made such a sure assertion devoid of any credible scriptural evidence, I will repent of my ways and forsake sound doctrine. Thank you for opening my eyes with your inspired words.