Calvinism is Gospel !

[Roger316]

Well here again is the post in which I did in fact outline my reasons and added a little regarding my thoughts. This is the third time I am doing this. What kind of a fishing expedition is it you think you are on? It's too bad you cannot accept the fact not everyone in this forum thinks you are the resident teacher here. This is not a teaching platform anyone. This is the BDF....Bible debate forum... not the teaching platform for people who fancy themself here to correct everyone else.

I think most people here and certainly myself, do not need or care for your personal pop psychology and use of AI.

The above, does not do you any favors. This is not how you address people if you actually want to discuss. You do not seem to want to do that though. Your dismissive rhetoric does not really allow for discussion.

So below is my original post 5520 and the 3rd time I respond. I'm not going to answer you again on the same thing should you post the same question a 4th time. It may be that you do not understand what I wrote since you are very Calvinistic in the way you think and I am not. Perhaps that is the reason you keep looking for something to compliment the way you teach. You will not get it from me.

RESPONSE
That's nonsense. Taking God is not willing that any should perish and creating containment to the recipients of the letter, is bogus.

In context, that verse does not mean what you are tying to make it say at all. In fact, that would mean that no one in this century should take anything written 2000 years as meant for them personally. Of course that would be harmful to all the OT scripture the dedicated Calvinist uses to present as useful to the doctrine. In context:

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Peter walked with Jesus. I think he had a far better understanding than the scripture massagers in this forum. He plainly states that
God does not want anyone to perish....unlike Calvinists who seem to love the thought of some people created solely for the purpose of going to hell.

You have created a god after your own heart and God, who is Spirit, and who is love, and who is holy and without fault, does not agree with your devilish assessment of Him.

The gospel, the actual gospel as found in scripture, teaches that through faith in Christ we have forgivness of our sins and that is by the grace of God....not the lies of Calvinism or those who teach it. The hiss of a graceless creature sounds in every teaching of Calvinism and the smell of decay clings to all of it. Those in Christ are given new life. We do not think we are special or chosen above others; indeed, the Bible teaches us to humble ourselves and think of others better than ourselves.

We do not find that in Calvinism. We find braggers and boasters who fancy themselves special to God; those whom God created to spend eternity with Him while the rest of humanity feeds the fires of an eternal hell.

What is the matter with you people? I think you have not found your identity in Christ but you surely have found a false identity in a man named John Calvin.

Don't bother with your AI junk. You have no idea what is actually going on with AI. I mean who needs the Holy Spirit when you have AI, eh? AI is deception and you have seen nothing yet and no, I don't believe you will change a thing and I mean why should you?
Right?

Putting your faith in something, Calvinsim in this case, is as much of a choice as any other of the choices you have made BUT Calvinists deny that we have that ability. And the irony of it all would be funny if it were not so serious.

God did not and would not ever place His Spirit in a degenerate and hopeless sinner who is so depraved he delights in it and seeks every occasion to sin his little heart out. This is not unconditional election. That, is foolish and as close to blasphemy without actually setting your clothes on fire, as God allows.

The Spirit of God seals a person who has accepted Christ as their Redeemer. He does not mess with the depraved and force salvation on anyone. Grace is not irresistable. People resist all the time as they resist truth in order to make themselves the little god instead of falling on their knees before the living One who is actually God.

I have no expectations that you will be at all interested in anything but countering what I wrote but you should understand that I
have the understanding, you are far from the only one reading this.

Yeah I noticed you state you are not a Calvinist. You still slice and dice scripture in a way that brings to mind that doctrine.

You still haven't dealt with the text except you repeated your earlier, mistaken notion, that if Peter were addressing his audience, he wouldn't have anything to say to someone 2,000 years later. If you want to talk about the text, go ahead.

 

[Roger316]

Probably time for me to leave this thread for a bit, I have found most people on the TULIP side rarely handle scripture with integrity and honesty ..let us just say they live up to the stereotype of Calvinism.

But you are not one of them and yes have been respectful.
I just do not agree with you either.

Good to talk to you, brother. Thanks.

 

[pinebeach]

You still haven't dealt with the text except you repeated your earlier, mistaken notion, that if Peter were addressing his audience, he wouldn't have anything to say to someone 2,000 years later. If you want to talk about the text, go ahead.

Audience? No...they were letters to real live believers who understood the why which you do not. I actually did answer your specific question....3 times now. Maybe stop trying to control everyone around you. I think there is a problem when a person just cannot stop ragging about something because it did not go the way they wanted. That's your problem....not mine. As it is, you are not being truthful every time you say I did not deal with the text. Try the link I provided. It seems you have a view that most do not agree with.

So go have the last word which is what you really want.

 

[pinebeach]

You still haven't dealt with the text except you repeated your earlier, mistaken notion, that if Peter were addressing his audience, he wouldn't have anything to say to someone 2,000 years later. If you want to talk about the text, go ahead.

One other note on this. I never said Peter had nothing to say to us today. That is not true. I don't find you particularly up front as it is and now it looks like you will make things up to what end I probably don't care about.

So I guess we can also add amateur gaslighter to your CV.

 

[GWH]

At the risk of repeating myself I beg your patience. Thank-you very much for allowing me to clarify my position. I will try to use your gift wisely.

The confusion in your comment comes from treating election as if it were the same thing as fatalism. Fatalism teaches that outcomes occur without meaningful causes, choices, or means—everything simply falls into place mechanically. But in Reformed theology, God’s “prenatal” election is not a bare decree; it is the beginning of a story in which God sovereignly uses real human decisions, real preaching, real repentance, and real faith as the instruments by which He brings His people to salvation. Saying God saves us despite our sinful decisions is not fatalism; it is grace. Fatalism erases the significance of human choices, but Scripture shows that God works through those choices to accomplish His purpose. The fact that God saves some and not others doesn’t make the process fatalistic—it makes it personal, purposeful, and relational, because the entire journey matters, not just the final outcome.

The label “tulipist” doesn’t fit my position. I’m not defending the full TULIP system, nor am I arguing for unconditional election in the classic Reformed sense. What I’m saying is simply that God’s saving action is prior to and stronger than human indecision or confusion. That is not the same as affirming total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, or perseverance of the saints as a package. My view is that God’s initiative is decisive, but I do not tie that to the full Calvinist framework. So calling me a tulipist misrepresents what I’m actually saying.



I’m not a tulipist, because I’m not grounding human inability in the classic doctrine of Total Depravity. My Romans work leads me to something different: Paul teaches that God has “given humanity over” to degrading passions and a depraved mind. That’s not a natural inability; it’s a judicial imprisonment. Humanity is trapped in the consequences of God’s wrath, and only God can undo that captivity. So my view isn’t the TULIP framework—it’s a Romans‑based account of divine imprisonment that requires God’s liberating action but doesn’t rely on the Calvinist categories.


I’m not a tulipist because I don’t affirm Unconditional Election in the classic Reformed sense. TULIP teaches that God chooses some for salvation without any conditions at all, including faith or repentance. But Paul’s argument in Romans 9 is different: election is grounded in God’s purpose for each life, not in the absence of conditions. The closest biblical parallel is Genesis 15, where God passes between the cuttings alone. That wasn’t “no conditions”—it was God meeting the covenant conditions Himself. So my view isn’t TULIP; it’s a Pauline, covenantal model where God fulfills the conditions required for His elect rather than eliminating conditions altogether.




I’m not a tulipist because I don’t affirm TULIP’s theory of the atonement. TULIP treats the cross like a finite resource—like a gas tank that either has enough fuel for everyone or only enough for the elect. But the New Testament never depicts the cross as a resource. It depicts it as the revelation of God’s justice and the act that pleased the Father, granting Jesus the authority to advocate for whomever He chooses. The atonement isn’t a vending machine dispensing absolution; it’s the basis on which the Son intercedes. Because advocacy isn’t a limited resource, the atonement isn’t limited. That’s why my view is not TULIP’s L, and why calling me a tulipist misrepresents my actual position.

I’m not a tulipist because I don’t affirm Irresistible Grace. TULIP teaches that the elect cannot resist God’s saving will. But resistance to God isn’t a matter of “can’t”—it’s a matter of “won’t,” a willful rejection of God’s moral authority. When God brings someone to salvation, He doesn’t overpower their will; He re‑creates it. That’s why Paul can speak of some as “saints” and others as not—God’s election involves a creative transformation, not an irresistible force. So my view isn’t the TULIP model; it’s a narrative, Pauline model where God changes the will rather than bypassing it.


I’m not a tulipist because I don’t affirm Perseverance of the Saints in the TULIP sense. TULIP teaches that the elect cannot fall away because God prevents apostasy by overriding their will. But Paul doesn’t argue that the elect cannot fall away; he argues that they never will fall away. There’s a difference between inability and inevitability. Those in whom God has poured out His Spirit will not repudiate their salvation—not because they’re metaphysically incapable, but because the Spirit’s work produces a hope that “does not disappoint.” Perseverance is a matter of “won’t,” not “can’t,” and that puts my view outside the TULIP framework.



I know. But thank you again for providing me with this opportunity to clarify my position by contrasting TULIP with my beliefs. I believe in Moral Free Will, but I don't believe in autonomous free will. But I think we are on the same basic page.

We certainly are on the same page, because MFW also believes God initiates; souls/sinners may cooperate--or not.
Yes, you are not a tuplipist. Yes, election is conditional upon saving faith (John 3:16), although His love is unconditional (Rom. 5:6-8).
Welcome to the correct Pauline/mfwist choice!

 

[Bible_Locket]

Unfortunately you cant see how the truths of Tulip are Gospel Truths that Glorify God and His Grace.

Unfortunately, all that opponents of the Reformation see is, Calvinism.

Even if we are not Calvinists, we're accused of being so.

It's odd because they don't realize what Reformed Doctrine is.

They just appear to enjoy trolling people using Calvinism as bait and excuse.

It's sad because they don't actually know the history of the Gospel. They simply focus on insisting eternal Salvation as part of God's plan isn't true.

Weird.

 

[Oncefallen]

As is all too typical, the Calvinists report the non Calvinist posts; the non Calvinists report the Calvinists posts yet the very things being reported by one group are actively being done by the other just as much.

The hypocrisy is absolutely disgusting.