Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture

[OMC]

I think you are illustrating the truth that translation only transfers the task of interpretation from one language to another.

From that point correct understanding requires harmonizing relevant Scriptures, which is more art/not as scientific as translating.
I remember making this point with Paul Thompson while we were studying Ephesians--which I only mention because I am proud of remembering something--but do you agree with the need to discern meaning in English using hermeneutics after translating from Greek?

I hope so, because I consider harmonizing Scripture to be perhaps my main spiritual/logical gift that I can contribute.

I agree with you that translation alone never settles meaning; it only moves the interpretive task from Greek into English.
Once the text is in English, the real work begins — and that work is exactly what you’re describing: hermeneutics,
Translation gives us the words; interpretation gives us the sense.

But this is precisely why I pushed back on the use of Romans 3:11, Romans 8:7, and 1 Corinthians 2:14 in your argument.
When we harmonize Scripture, we have to harmonize contexts, not just phrases.
Romans 3:11 is Paul’s universal indictment of humanity in Adam; Romans 8:7 is Paul’s description of the fleshly mindset, which applies to unbelievers and carnal believers alike; and 1 Corinthians 2:14 is about illumination, not sanctification.
Harmonization doesn’t allow us to pull these passages into a category they weren’t addressing.

So yes — I absolutely agree that after translation, we must use hermeneutics to discern meaning in English.
And I agree that harmonizing Scripture is essential.
But harmonization must respect authorial intent, context, and category, or else we end up blending texts that are speaking to different aspects of human inability.

Your gift for harmonizing Scripture is valuable — but harmonization only works when the passages being harmonized are actually addressing the same doctrinal category.
That’s why I’m pressing you here: the distinction you’re making between moral free will and Spirit‑driven sanctification is coherent, but the verses you’re using don’t actually anchor that distinction.

 

[GWH]

I agree with you that translation alone never settles meaning; it only moves the interpretive task from Greek into English.
Once the text is in English, the real work begins — and that work is exactly what you’re describing: hermeneutics,
Translation gives us the words; interpretation gives us the sense.

But this is precisely why I pushed back on the use of Romans 3:11, Romans 8:7, and 1 Corinthians 2:14 in your argument.
When we harmonize Scripture, we have to harmonize contexts, not just phrases.
Romans 3:11 is Paul’s universal indictment of humanity in Adam; Romans 8:7 is Paul’s description of the fleshly mindset, which applies to unbelievers and carnal believers alike; and 1 Corinthians 2:14 is about illumination, not sanctification.
Harmonization doesn’t allow us to pull these passages into a category they weren’t addressing.

So yes — I absolutely agree that after translation, we must use hermeneutics to discern meaning in English.
And I agree that harmonizing Scripture is essential.
But harmonization must respect authorial intent, context, and category, or else we end up blending texts that are speaking to different aspects of human inability.

Your gift for harmonizing Scripture is valuable — but harmonization only works when the passages being harmonized are actually addressing the same doctrinal category.
That’s why I’m pressing you here: the distinction you’re making between moral free will and Spirit‑driven sanctification is coherent, but the verses you’re using don’t actually anchor that distinction.

Okay, but the verses I use to guide my understanding of Scripture are not those three but rather these two:

A biblical hermeneutic or parameters for interpreting the Bible might well begin with the instruction of Paul (1Thes. 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” A truthseeker is guided by the question: What is most true or closest to the truth, especially the Truth of God’s Word? The method for discerning truth employs subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from Scriptural and other truthseekers. Two NT teachings may be deemed key points from which to triangulate or use to guide an interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements.

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: John 3:16, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, heretics).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice.

The writer of Heb. 12:4-11 indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (Pro. 3:12, Isa. 33:14-15 Rev. 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will (such as Josh. 6:17-24, 8:2&24 & 10:28-40, 11:6-23), then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.

What verses/teachings do you keep in mind as guides while considering how to interpret Scripture?

 

[GWH]

I just received this insight regarding tulipism infecting Protestant Christianity with a heretical virus called heresy or blasphemy, implicitly demeaning God's justness and love for humanity: tulipists may be the best example of those who barely make it to heaven through the flames, if they did not realize what they were doing (1Cor. 3:15, Luke 23:34).

 

[GWH]

On Matthew 16:18, I understand what you’re saying about the gender of the nouns, but I don’t think the gender argument alone settles the issue.
It’s true that Petros is masculine and petra is feminine, and that Jesus uses two different words.
That does show a distinction, but the shift in gender is also required simply because Peter is a man—Jesus couldn’t call him “Petra” without using a feminine noun for a male.
So while the gender difference is real, it doesn’t automatically preclude Peter from being the referent of the “rock.”
The larger context—Jesus naming him, the confession he made, and the structure of the sentence—has to be weighed alongside the grammar.
As for Ephesians 2:8, the point I was referring to is the gender of the demonstrative pronoun touto (“that”).
It’s neuter, while both grace and faith are feminine.
Because of that mismatch, touto cannot grammatically refer to “faith,” which means Paul is not saying that faith itself is the gift. Instead, the pronoun points back to the entire salvation‑by‑grace‑through‑faith reality as the gift of God.
That’s the grammatical issue I was highlighting.

Re Matt. 16:18, the gender argument is an arrow in the anti-pope quiver along with Matt. 18:18 as context re Matt. 16:19.

Re Eph. 2:8, thanks for adding the constructive point, which was missing from the discussion of this on another thread,
and which jibes with "IN" in Eph. 1:3-15.

 

[OMC]

Re Matt. 16:18, the gender argument is an arrow in the anti-pope quiver along with Matt. 18:18 as context re Matt. 16:19.

Re Eph. 2:8, thanks for adding the constructive point, which was missing from the discussion of this on another thread,
and which jibes with "IN" in Eph. 1:3-15.

You are right that the gender argument in Matthew 16:18 is not the whole case — and I never claimed it was — but it is one legitimate arrow in the quiver against the idea that Peter is the foundational “rock.”
The masculine Petros and feminine petra do not prove the point alone, but they support it, especially when read alongside the broader context of Matthew 18:18, where Jesus gives the same “binding and loosing” authority to all the apostles, not to Peter uniquely.
That context matters.
Systems that elevate Peter above the others must ignore Jesus’ own distribution of authority.
As for Ephesians 2:8, you are exactly right to note that the neuter touto cannot grammatically refer to the feminine faith or grace, and your observation that this fits perfectly with the repeated “in Christ” structure of Ephesians 1:3–15 is spot‑on.
Paul’s point is not that faith is the gift, but that the entire salvation‑by‑grace‑through‑faith reality is God’s gift, given in Christ, not earned by human effort. I appreciate that you saw the constructive value of that grammatical point — it is often missing in discussions dominated by theological systems rather than Scripture itself.

 

[DenDog]

Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I must confess that I have not heard of this TULIP before. But doing a little digging on this, it is brought about by Calvinism.
I do not follow such practices as, like with many "religions" they are not biblical.
Remember, Satan only intends to push you off the "straight and narrow road" just a little bit--enough to try and create a "sin nature." A nature that one becomes addicted to and cannot shake. This is where we seek Christ to come and deliver that one from their sin.

I am happy that this is a non-hostile conversation. I only joined this site a few days ago, jumped right in with both feet and got totally beat up by some on this sight. Made me wonder if there are any true Holy Ghost filled Christians on this site. I hope so.

 

[GWH]

You are right that the gender argument in Matthew 16:18 is not the whole case — and I never claimed it was — but it is one legitimate arrow in the quiver against the idea that Peter is the foundational “rock.”
The masculine Petros and feminine petra do not prove the point alone, but they support it, especially when read alongside the broader context of Matthew 18:18, where Jesus gives the same “binding and loosing” authority to all the apostles, not to Peter uniquely.
That context matters.
Systems that elevate Peter above the others must ignore Jesus’ own distribution of authority.
As for Ephesians 2:8, you are exactly right to note that the neuter touto cannot grammatically refer to the feminine faith or grace, and your observation that this fits perfectly with the repeated “in Christ” structure of Ephesians 1:3–15 is spot‑on.
Paul’s point is not that faith is the gift, but that the entire salvation‑by‑grace‑through‑faith reality is God’s gift, given in Christ, not earned by human effort. I appreciate that you saw the constructive value of that grammatical point — it is often missing in discussions dominated by theological systems rather than Scripture itself.

And thank you for showing how Eph. 2:8 jibes.

 

[GWH]

Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I must confess that I have not heard of this TULIP before. But doing a little digging on this, it is brought about by Calvinism.
I do not follow such practices as, like with many "religions" they are not biblical.
Remember, Satan only intends to push you off the "straight and narrow road" just a little bit--enough to try and create a "sin nature." A nature that one becomes addicted to and cannot shake. This is where we seek Christ to come and deliver that one from their sin.

I am happy that this is a non-hostile conversation. I only joined this site a few days ago, jumped right in with both feet and got totally beat up by some on this sight. Made me wonder if there are any true Holy Ghost filled Christians on this site. I hope so.

Welcome to CC and to this thread. I think you will find congenial conversation on all of the threads I sponsor because I discourage arguing and playing verbal ping pong, but I can’t vouch for others, although you will encounter mostly friendly people and learn to ignore a few folks.

 

[Lanolin]

There seem to be many rabbit holes you can go down on CC
But if you come here just to fellowship and make friends, there are other forums on CC that are just as interesting on a myriad of topics. We don't ALWAYS need to discuss (or argue about) the Bible and doctrines in every single thread.

Am not sure where this hostility seems to come from, but some peeps are determined to impose their own personal beliefs on everyone else rather than just share what they have learned and experienced.

 

[GWH]

There seem to be many rabbit holes you can go down on CC
But if you come here just to fellowship and make friends, there are other forums on CC that are just as interesting on a myriad of topics. We don't ALWAYS need to discuss (or argue about) the Bible and doctrines in every single thread.

Am not sure where this hostility seems to come from, but some peeps are determined to impose their own personal beliefs on everyone else rather than just share what they have learned and experienced.

I find myself kept busy enough exploring this forum and the one on Christian Music.
I post on CC both to discuss my love of God's Word and music and to fellowship and make friends.
I intend never to argue but only to share what I believe God has taught me during my 75+ years.
Because of that intent, sometimes my sharing is more of a monologue than I intend, because I also
want to continue learning, and I share insights prompted by discussions on CC in the thread with that OP.
We know where hatred comes from, and one of the things I have learned/honed on CC is to resist that temptation.
Please feel free to reprove me in love if/when you notice me appearing to be immature/carnal/unloving.
Thanks!

 

[GWH]

Tulipism (aka the TULIP Doctrine)

A major blind spot or unintentional heresy held by many Christians in the Reformed denomination is known as the doctrine of TULIP (tulipism), which may be described as follows:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation (contradicting Deut. 30:19, Matt. 7:7, 23:37).

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement/condition such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell (contradicting Eph. 2:8-10).

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls (contra John 3:16, Rom. 3:21-5:1).

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved (cf. Matt, 23:37, 2Thes. 2:10-13).

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy/blasphemy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved (cf. Heb. 6:4-6, Matt. 12:31).

The orthodox viewpoint opposed to TULIP may be termed Moral Free Will (MFW) and described as follows:

M – God’s requirement for salvation (GRFS) is a Moral condition called faith, which is manifested as seeking God’s righteousness or salvation (Matt. 4:17, 7:7), which presumes/implies sufficient human volition for sinners to make them morally accountable (Rom. 1:20, Deut. 30:19, Matt. 23:37), who may become totally depraved via committing apostasy/blasphemy against the HS (per Heb. 6:4-6, Matt. 12:31).
F – God enables all morally accountable souls sufficient Freedom to satisfy GRFS—or not because His grace is resistible, which means sinners are accountable and justly condemned when they do not repent and accept Christ’s atonement for their sins (John 3:16-18, Rom. 3:21-5:1, Heb. 9:26-28).
W – Faith is almost synonymous with Will, but volition focuses on saving faith God’s condition for forgiveness, and cooperating with God by accepting His grace through faith is NOT meritorious or working to earn heaven or salvation by obeying moral laws (John 6:29, Eph. 2:8-10).

The concerns of those who accept TULIP—to affirm the sovereignty of God and the inability of souls to earn salvation—are valid, but the solutions are problematic, because they deny or ignore Scripture teaching the love of God for all sinners and the moral accountability of sinners for rejecting the love of God, thereby effectively perverting the Gospel (Gal. 5:6) and impugning God’s justness/righteousness (Psa. 33:5, Isa. 9:7).

The apparent reasons for these errors are threefold: 1. Ignorance of Scripture that contradicts their dogma, such as those teaching the possibility of apostasy, 2. Viewing faith as a meritorious work rather than as the non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God’s grace, and 3. Unconcern about portraying God as unjust by showing favoritism toward the elect. Once these errors are cured by including Scripture supporting MFW, doctrinal harmony is enhanced.

 

[GWH]

I need to confess that until recently I had focused on Gal. 1:6-9 regarding God's condemnation of heretics, but reading 1Cor. 3:12-15 prompted this insight and amendment of TOP #83:

TOP #83: On Judgment Day the quality of a person’s work will be revealed via testing with fire. [1Cor. 3:12-15 & 4:2-5] At that appointed time, the Lord will expose and judge men’s motives.

God gives Christians the power of choosing to repent of heresy, and if their wrong work/blasphemous belief is unintentional or due to accidental ignorance, they may escape the flames just barely.

Do you agree with this harmonization/interpretation?

 

[GWH]

I need to confess that until recently I had focused on Gal. 1:6-9 regarding God's condemnation of heretics, but reading 1Cor. 3:12-15 prompted this insight and amendment of TOP #83:

TOP #83: On Judgment Day the quality of a person’s work will be revealed via testing with fire. [1Cor. 3:12-15 & 4:2-5] At that appointed time, the Lord will expose and judge men’s motives.

God gives Christians the power of choosing to repent of heresy, and if their wrong work/blasphemous belief is unintentional or due to accidental ignorance, they may escape the flames just barely.

Do you agree with this harmonization/interpretation?

Seeing no disagreement, I will assume everyone agrees that 1Cor. 3:12-15 may include heretics,
if their false beliefs are unintentional or due to ignorance of the full Gospel/Christian Creed,
which could be the case for new and spiritually immature converts.

 

[OMC]

I need to confess that until recently I had focused on Gal. 1:6-9 regarding God's condemnation of heretics, but reading 1Cor. 3:12-15 prompted this insight and amendment of TOP #83:

TOP #83: On Judgment Day the quality of a person’s work will be revealed via testing with fire. [1Cor. 3:12-15 & 4:2-5] At that appointed time, the Lord will expose and judge men’s motives.

God gives Christians the power of choosing to repent of heresy, and if their wrong work/blasphemous belief is unintentional or due to accidental ignorance, they may escape the flames just barely.

Do you agree with this harmonization/interpretation?

Yes—if you keep the two texts in their own lanes.
Gal. 1:6‑9 is God’s curse on preaching a different gospel,
while 1 Cor. 3:12‑15 is God’s testing of a believer’s ministry quality, where the man “shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”
So your harmonization works as long as “heretical work” in 1 Cor. 3 means sincere but ignorant error—the kind Apollos needed correction for not the willful distortion Paul condemns in Galatians.
In that sense, yes: Scripture allows that a Christian’s misguided doctrine can be burned up while the believer himself is saved, and motives are judged at Christ’s appearing.

 

[GWH]

Yes—if you keep the two texts in their own lanes.
Gal. 1:6‑9 is God’s curse on preaching a different gospel,
while 1 Cor. 3:12‑15 is God’s testing of a believer’s ministry quality, where the man “shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”
So your harmonization works as long as “heretical work” in 1 Cor. 3 means sincere but ignorant error—the kind Apollos needed correction for not the willful distortion Paul condemns in Galatians.
In that sense, yes: Scripture allows that a Christian’s misguided doctrine can be burned up while the believer himself is saved, and motives are judged at Christ’s appearing.

Great! Now we only need to avoid discussing tulip--but that is why we are here.
On another thread I had posted what Scripture opposes/this:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation (contradicting Deut. 30:19, Matt. 7:7, 23:37).

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement/condition such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell (contradicting Eph. 2:8-10).

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls (contra John 3:16, Rom. 3:21-5:1).

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved (cf. Matt, 23:37, 2Thes. 2:10-13).

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy/blasphemy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved (cf. Heb. 6:4-6, Matt. 12:31).

And you said/say what?

 

[OMC]

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation (contradicting Deut. 30:19, Matt. 7:7, 23:37).

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement/condition such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell (contradicting Eph. 2:8-10).

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls (contra John 3:16, Rom. 3:21-5:1).

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved (cf. Matt, 23:37, 2Thes. 2:10-13).

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy/blasphemy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved (cf. Heb. 6:4-6, Matt. 12:31).

And you said/say what?

What I said is that your five‑point summary is not my description of TULIP but the system’s own claims, each one requiring non‑textual inference rather than the plain statements of Scripture;
the Bible never says humans lack the MFW to seek God (Deut 30:19; Matt 7:7; Matt 23:37),
never says election is without any revealed condition (Eph 2:8–10),
never says Christ died only for the elect (John 3:16; Rom 5:18),
never says grace is irresistible (Matt 23:37; Acts 7:51; 2 Thess 2:10–13),
and never says believers cannot commit apostasy (Heb 6:4–6; Matt 12:31).
My point was simple: each TULIP definition you listed is a systematic construction, not a biblical doctrine, because every point contradicts multiple plain passages unless those passages are reinterpreted through the grid.

 

[GWH]

What I said is that your five‑point summary is not my description of TULIP but the system’s own claims, each one requiring non‑textual inference rather than the plain statements of Scripture;
the Bible never says humans lack the MFW to seek God (Deut 30:19; Matt 7:7; Matt 23:37),
never says election is without any revealed condition (Eph 2:8–10),
never says Christ died only for the elect (John 3:16; Rom 5:18),
never says grace is irresistible (Matt 23:37; Acts 7:51; 2 Thess 2:10–13),
and never says believers cannot commit apostasy (Heb 6:4–6; Matt 12:31).
My point was simple: each TULIP definition you listed is a systematic construction, not a biblical doctrine, because every point contradicts multiple plain passages unless those passages are reinterpreted through the grid.

Well, then why do you say things that agree with tulip and contradict MFW?

 

[OMC]

Well, then why do you say things that agree with tulip and contradict MFW?

The reason you think I “agree with TULIP” is because whenever I quote the texts Calvinists also quote, you assume I’m endorsing their system, but I’m only affirming the plain statements of Scripture, not the inferences Calvinism builds on top of them;
when I say humans “cannot” please God in the flesh (Rom 8:7–8), that is Paul’s language, not TULIP’s Total Inability, and it does not contradict MFW because Paul simultaneously commands sinners to “seek,” “ask,” “knock,” “choose life,” and shows people refusing God’s will (Matt 23:37; Acts 7:51);
when I say God “foreknew” the saved (Rom 8:29), that is not Unconditional Election but the text’s own condition‑anchored sequence; when I say Christ’s death is effective only for believers, that is not Limited Atonement but the universal offer plus conditional reception (John 3:16; 1 Tim 2:6);
when I say grace can be resisted, that is the opposite of Irresistible Grace; and when I warn about apostasy, that contradicts Perseverance of the Saints.
In other words, the places where you think I “sound Calvinist” are simply places where Scripture itself uses strong language about the flesh, judgment, or divine initiative — none of which deny MFW, and none of which require the TULIP grid to interpret.

 

[GWH]

The reason you think I “agree with TULIP” is because whenever I quote the texts Calvinists also quote, you assume I’m endorsing their system, but I’m only affirming the plain statements of Scripture, not the inferences Calvinism builds on top of them;
when I say humans “cannot” please God in the flesh (Rom 8:7–8), that is Paul’s language, not TULIP’s Total Inability, and it does not contradict MFW because Paul simultaneously commands sinners to “seek,” “ask,” “knock,” “choose life,” and shows people refusing God’s will (Matt 23:37; Acts 7:51);
when I say God “foreknew” the saved (Rom 8:29), that is not Unconditional Election but the text’s own condition‑anchored sequence; when I say Christ’s death is effective only for believers, that is not Limited Atonement but the universal offer plus conditional reception (John 3:16; 1 Tim 2:6);
when I say grace can be resisted, that is the opposite of Irresistible Grace; and when I warn about apostasy, that contradicts Perseverance of the Saints.
In other words, the places where you think I “sound Calvinist” are simply places where Scripture itself uses strong language about the flesh, judgment, or divine initiative — none of which deny MFW, and none of which require the TULIP grid to interpret.

Our disagreement has been due to you not agreeing with my harmonization of Scriptures such as Rom. 8:7-8 with Matt. 23:37,
which is why I have complained about your criticism not being constructive, so please share your better harmonization if you have one regarding each of tulip's five affirmations. Thanks. Mine are these:

M – God’s requirement for salvation (GRFS) is a Moral condition called saving faith, which is manifested as seeking God’s righteousness or salvation (Matt. 4:17, 7:7), which presumes/implies sufficient human volition for sinners to make them morally accountable (Rom. 1:20, Deut. 30:19, Matt. 23:37), who may become totally depraved via committing apostasy/blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (per Heb. 6:4-6, Matt. 12:31).

F – God enables all morally accountable souls sufficient Freedom to satisfy GRFS—or not, because His grace is resistible, which means sinners are accountable and justly condemned when they do not repent and accept Christ’s atonement for their sins (John 3:16-18, Rom. 3:21-5:1, Heb. 9:26-28).

W – Faith is almost synonymous with Will, but volition focuses on saving faith as God’s condition (IF) for forgiveness, and cooperating with God by accepting His grace through faith is NOT meritorious or working to earn heaven or salvation by obeying moral laws (John 6:29, Eph. 2:8-10).

The concerns of those who accept TULIP—to affirm the sovereignty of God and the inability of souls to earn salvation—are valid, but the solutions are problematic, because they deny or ignore Scripture teaching the love of God for all sinners and the moral accountability of sinners for not repenting of rejecting the love of God, thereby effectively perverting the Gospel (Gal. 5:6) and impugning God’s justness/righteousness (Psa. 33:5, Isa. 9:7).

The apparent reasons for these errors are threefold:
1. Ignorance of Scripture that contradicts their dogma, such as those teaching the possibility of apostasy,
2. Viewing faith as a meritorious work rather than as the non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God’s grace, and
3. Unconcern about portraying God as unjust by showing favoritism toward the elect. Once these errors are cured by including Scripture supporting MFW, doctrinal harmony is enhanced.

 

[OMC]

Our disagreement has been due to you not agreeing with my harmonization of Scriptures such as Rom. 8:7-8 with Matt. 23:37,
which is why I have complained about your criticism not being constructive, so please share your better harmonization if you have one regarding each of tulip's five affirmations. Thanks. Mine are these:

M – God’s requirement for salvation (GRFS) is a Moral condition called saving faith, which is manifested as seeking God’s righteousness or salvation (Matt. 4:17, 7:7), which presumes/implies sufficient human volition for sinners to make them morally accountable (Rom. 1:20, Deut. 30:19, Matt. 23:37), who may become totally depraved via committing apostasy/blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (per Heb. 6:4-6, Matt. 12:31).

F – God enables all morally accountable souls sufficient Freedom to satisfy GRFS—or not, because His grace is resistible, which means sinners are accountable and justly condemned when they do not repent and accept Christ’s atonement for their sins (John 3:16-18, Rom. 3:21-5:1, Heb. 9:26-28).

W – Faith is almost synonymous with Will, but volition focuses on saving faith as God’s condition (IF) for forgiveness, and cooperating with God by accepting His grace through faith is NOT meritorious or working to earn heaven or salvation by obeying moral laws (John 6:29, Eph. 2:8-10).

The concerns of those who accept TULIP—to affirm the sovereignty of God and the inability of souls to earn salvation—are valid, but the solutions are problematic, because they deny or ignore Scripture teaching the love of God for all sinners and the moral accountability of sinners for not repenting of rejecting the love of God, thereby effectively perverting the Gospel (Gal. 5:6) and impugning God’s justness/righteousness (Psa. 33:5, Isa. 9:7).

The apparent reasons for these errors are threefold:
1. Ignorance of Scripture that contradicts their dogma, such as those teaching the possibility of apostasy,
2. Viewing faith as a meritorious work rather than as the non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God’s grace, and
3. Unconcern about portraying God as unjust by showing favoritism toward the elect. Once these errors are cured by including Scripture supporting MFW, doctrinal harmony is enhanced.

The better harmonization is simply refusing to let any of TULIP’s five affirmations override the plain, bidirectional structure of Scripture, where God speaks in strong inability language about the flesh (Rom 8:7–8; Rom 3:11) while simultaneously issuing real moral commands to seek, repent, believe, choose, and not resist His will (Deut 30:19; Matt 7:7; Matt 23:37; Acts 7:51).

So for T (Total Depravity), Paul’s “cannot” describes the flesh’s moral posture, not the annihilation of human accountability, because the same Paul commands seeking and shows people refusing God’s will;
for U (Unconditional Election), the text’s own sequence — foreknowledge → predestination → calling → justification → glorification (Rom 8:29–30) — is anchored in God’s purpose but never removes the revealed condition of faith (Rom 3:21–26; Eph 2:8–10);
for L (Limited Atonement), Scripture teaches universal provision (“world,” “all,” “every man,” John 3:16; 1 Tim 2:6) with conditional reception, not a restricted intent;
for I (Irresistible Grace), Jesus explicitly says people resist God’s will (Matt 23:37) and Stephen says they “always resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51), which makes grace offered, enabled, and convicting — but not coercive;
for P (Perseverance), the warnings to believers (Heb 6:4–6; Matt 12:31) show real apostasy risk, not guaranteed non‑falling.

In short, the harmonization is this: every “cannot” describes the flesh’s rebellion, every “command” presumes real volition, every “offer” is universal, every “condition” is faith, and every “warning” is genuine — none of which contradict MFW, and none of which require the TULIP grid to reinterpret the plain text.