ok so the tulip doctrine doctrine being used in appropriately is one extreme, I can understand that.
Are there any other extremes.
Loss of salvation???
- Thread starter gratefuloneson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Are there any other extremes.
Ok well we can discuss those afterwards.
But for now let's discuss this inappropriate teaching.
Firstly I don't believes God will eternally punish people in hell or the lake of fire the word perish means perish to me.
The word destroyed mean also that to me.
Now it is quite possible people can get this wrong, but I feel When God says he takes no pleasure in punishing the wicked he means just that also.
Which to me more than paints of a picture that he's not a God with a sadistic nature who will punish people eternally forever in the lake of fire. But hell could be a very long time.
However there is some evidence to suggest that punishment can be for a while as there is hell and the lake of fire.
And that will certainly feel like forever no doubt.
Ok so lets discuss tulip and the five points
Are there any points of tulip you agree on or is it mainly the first point or even the second point you can't agree with.
There is one way you could lose your salvation.....
God forgot to a few sins to impute to Jesus.
John 10:28
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
We're not on the same page of TULIP, so what I see in it doesn't matter in the end. What matters to me is that people believe in the God of the Bible rather than the one contrived in the warped minds of mere men. That they believe in a God who punishes anyone for a choice not given to them to make on the basis of some contrived understanding about sovereignty, that's just indefensible from what I read in scripture.
I do appreciate you pointing out what words mean to you in the English translations. Given that English is not the original language nor culture of the Bible, I can also understand your reservations about Hell being for eternity given your leanings in the direction of modern, English culture that defines your sentiments.
As an Israeli who knows our idioms within the historic setting of our culture in the time the biblical language was written, learned throughout my upbringing, I can say that I disagree with you, but that is what it is. You believe what you choose to believe on the basis of the weaknesses within English translations and English culture, along with the vast gulf that routinely exists between two far removed cultures and language. That's on you alone rather than myself or anyone else. Most people aren't concerned with seeking after truth at the expense of what they are comfortable believing, and that too is what it is and I'm not here to demand otherwise. Go with your feelings if that's what you choose to do. Go for it. You alone will see where it gets you.
As for myself, I have long since taken responsibility for what I choose to believe, and allowing culture and sentimentality to govern my beliefs is of a nature that scares the Hell right out of me that I once had (reverting back to those idealistic vernaculars from my past).
MM
Firstly I don't know how you got to the conclusion I believe hell is for eternity.
Now to your other point I do not believe God would not give any people the chance to be saved whilst they live and breath to be saved
Touching on your next point Because you believe what you do about one Calvinist does that make it right of all ?
To your next point It's not fair that God determines who goes to hell before they've even had a choice or been giving a choice before they live and breath
Do you really believe Calvinists think that ?
And if so on what bases
What I believe is How God determines, who will be his and who will not be is, by him knowing there future.
What I also believe is, God will give you every opportunity to change your future.
But the fact that he can determine who are is before there born is him knowing who will believe, who will pass his tests and all his many examinations of the heart many people will get over many years.
That nature and Gods way can be found in how he put with people not wanting to believe in the desert even tho they where with and close up with God for.40 years, he could of killed them all but he never.
He chose to make examples.
At least that how it is in the church i visit,
All tho I cant say the same for some twisted individual you may have spoken to on here or else where on the world wide web.
So now last chance, do you want to discuss tulip appropriately or not.
I never said any such thing. That's a straw man.
That's good to hear.
Please sharpen your reading comprehension skills by recognizing that I clearly tstated that there are many, many variations in beliefs within the Calvinistic camp as well as all other camps of varying mindsets.
Agreed.
There are those who do. If you have never encountered them, even in this thread, you have turned a blind eye to the obvious.
That, my friend, is the basis of His foreknowledge. Yes. I agree. The idea of predeterminism is seriously problematic. That is what I've been saying. I only stated that IF that is what you believe, then I disagree. If not, then great.
In this life, yes, for our eternal future. On that basis we would be in agreement.
Yes, but not with the Lord making that choice in spite of each individual's personal choice in their respective lives. With that we can agree.
Huh?
What is there to discuss? What portion are you wanting to talk about? Give me some clues about that.
MM
The tulip doctrine is not à doctrine that should be used by saints to aid in helping people to accept God's will.
Tulip is not a doctrine that should be used to hate people with.
This is where anyone will put titles above feelings. Including those who don't know about tulip never heard of tulip and have a hard time understanding tulip.
I believe John Calvin from all his glowing reports of his devotion to the lord did not set out with any intentions of thinking of himself as more highly than people who where undergoing transformation.
Further more to my knowledge all tho tulip is credited to John John Calvin. Over here we see things differently his work was a life long devotion of reformation.
tulip is doctrine to aid saints through perseverance to ensure people get the full message
Tulip is not a doctrine that should be used to hate people with.
This is where anyone will put titles above feelings. Including those who don't know about tulip never heard of tulip and have a hard time understanding tulip.
I believe John Calvin from all his glowing reports of his devotion to the lord did not set out with any intentions of thinking of himself as more highly than people who where undergoing transformation.
Further more to my knowledge all tho tulip is credited to John John Calvin. Over here we see things differently his work was a life long devotion of reformation.
tulip is doctrine to aid saints through perseverance to ensure people get the full message
Oops edited
The tulip doctrine is à doctrine that should be used by saints to aid in helping people to accept God's will.
I wrote is not a doctrine sorry meant to write is.
That must of been my Aspasia again.
The one Who hardens whom He chooses? Allows the god of this age to blind them? And take them captive to do his will? That God? Yes, I believe in the God of the Bible. I affirm that the man with an incurably wicked heart will not choose to believe what he can neither receive nor comprehend while refusing to come into the light because he is a slave to sin and lover of darkness opposed to the spiritual things of God. The man without the indwelling Holy Spirit lives according to the flesh which serves the law of sin and brings forth fruit unto death. I take it you disagree with a plethora of Scriptures as do the many deceived who believe man's will is free before Jesus sets them free.
TULIP did not come from the pen of John Calvin.
It came after his death. His disciples got together and devised it under the leadership of Theodore Beza.
It needed corrections that never came. And, they ran with it to break free of the tyranny of the RCC!
.....
The gospel is foolishness to the natural man, since he can neither accept nor comprehend the spiritual things of God. It is impossible for his incurably wicked heart to grow the seed of God’s Word into the good fruit of faith while he is captive to the will of the devil. Along with the rest of the world who does not know God, he is blinded to the truth and under the power and influence of Satan, rendered incapable of submitting to or obeying God, with Whom he is inherently hostile toward in his mind, for he craves what is contrary to the Spirit. He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, refusing to come into the light because he is a slave to sin, a lover of darkness, defined as darkness itself, and his deeds are evil.
Good point. Not only that, but it also misrepresents the truth about our state, both before and after salvation.
I'm not sure why this was brought up unless you're weaponizing your side of the conversation with it.
I can agree that those who have not studied the elements underlying that acronym can indeed be ignorant of its meaning and ramifications.
In much of his writings, yes. He was indeed a seemingly upright man. In his latter years, however, when he was met with strong criticisms about some of his claims, he resorted to ad hominem attacks to then seclude himself away from open debates that he knew he could not face without losing face.
Reformation away from the Roman system of pagan practices and beliefs, yes. I fully agree with that move away from those horrid doctrines that evolved over time, which elude to a very fickle and inconsistent mind behind those strange beliefs found nowhere in scripture written by those who clearly were inspired.
That's an interesting way of putting it, which seems to imply that one can lose his salvation in this life. Is that your belief?
MM
Quite the double standard you have there...
Tulip is a doctrine that should be used to assist God in helping people accept his will.
Tulip is not a doctrine that should be used to hate people with.
I'm thankful to our church fathers for putting togeather such a great doctrine like tulip, because I believe many have been led by this wonderful doctrine to help people understand.
I'm sorry I can't help you or assist you in using the tulip doctrine to hate people with, that was not it's purpose.
Anti-Calvanist bigotry is proof the bigots know nothing of the doctrine of grace.
They promote having put their confidence in the flesh instead of Christ.
It is quite baffling how they do not see all the verses speaking against doing so.
I affirm that it is Christ who set me free, not some decision I made to believe something I was inherently opposed to.
When you harmonize the Scriptures, the free will declarations taken as a whole or individually are preposterous.
But they love their vain self-exalting theology more than the truth.