Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF"

JDS
New Member

Posts: 48

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 10, 2022 13:07:08 GMT -8

Quote

Post by JDS on Oct 10, 2022 13:07:08 GMT -8

Oct 10, 2022 9:38:59 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Oct 10, 2022 5:16:16 GMT -8 JDS said:

The onus here is on you.

You are the one implying Calvinists are not Christians because TULIP is supposedly a faith different than the one asserted in Galatians. It's not clear you correctly understand the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement because it does not conflict in any way with the plain reading of Galatians 3. Based on the comments in this post it looks like you do not correctly understand the doctrine of LA, nor do you understand what Calvin taught. What this op looks like is a baseless set of accusations followed by a retort completely lacking in conscience. I say this because not only is TULIP completely consistent with Galatians 3 but what Calvin taught can be found for free within seconds with just a few mouse clicks. There is absolutely no reason fro not going to the original source and not knowing.

If limited atonement does not mean limited atonement then the Reformed needs to come up with a new term. I know what the word limited means and I know what the word atonement means and I know what they mean when they are put together as a descriptive phrase. This is no mystery. I asked a Calvinist evangelist one time, who boasted about his street preaching and crying for sinners to be saved, if he believed if any of those who God has not elected before the foundation of the world could be saved and if he believed any of those who God had elected to be saved could ultimately be lost, and he said no to both questions. This made his evangelism a vain work of frustration.

Consider this: the words "atone" and "atonement" do not occur anywhere in Galatians 3.

The phrase "the faith" does appear in the text. It had not been present until after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I remind you again that something is different after these events. You obviously did not read the statements in my last post so I will post it again.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

This is not challenging. It makes sense. Before faith came, the divine principle of divine dealing with the Jews was the law of Moses. That was the principle of divine dealing THEN. It is not now. The principle is now FAITH. The promise comes from above, from God. The text makes it plain that it is the Spirit. It, the promise, is life. It could not be worked for and received like in the former years, but it could be given if one would just believe God.

Let me quote Paul saying it later in his treatise. Read this;

Ga 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Now, I have just connected everyone to Calvin's commentary on Galatians 3. Notice that Calvin states the following, "But Paul's meaning is more extensive than the words may seem to convey. He means that the law was published in order to make known transgressions, and in this way to compel men to acknowledge their guilt. As men naturally are too ready to excuse themselves, so, until they are roused by the law, their consciences are asleep," and then he later adds,

The point is that no one but Israel ever labored under the law of Moses. I remind you again of the awful predicament of the gentiles before Christ came and before God opened the door of faith to us in Acts 10 in 40 AD. Here is our predicament clearly stated.

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

I will deal with the remainder of your post later.

Last Edit: Oct 13, 2022 9:20:37 GMT -8 by JDS

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 11, 2022 6:01:29 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2022 6:01:29 GMT -8

Oct 10, 2022 13:07:08 GMT -8 JDS said:

Oct 10, 2022 9:38:59 GMT -8 @josheb said:

No, a person needs to learn correctly before criticizing. Do not blame others for your mistakes to avoid both responsibility and cogent discourse. You were asked to prove Calvin taught a faith different from 2 John 1:9-11. That is not being done. Apparently, you do not know what these terms mean, personal anecdotal experience is worthless, and for every Calvinist evangelist you find who doesn't understand his own doctrine correctly I can find five hundred million who do

.

You're trading posts with ME, not so unidentified Calvinist evangelist you may or may not have actually met. Can you prove Calvin taught a faith different than 2 John 1:9-11 or not? If so then do so. If not then amend the op so that it does not make baseless false claims.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 11, 2022 6:29:25 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2022 6:29:25 GMT -8

Oct 10, 2022 13:07:08 GMT -8 JDS said:

Oct 10, 2022 9:38:59 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Consider this: the words "atone", and "atonement" do not occur anywhere in Galatians 3..

LOL

Let me clarify my point: Because the word "atonement" does not occur in the Galatians 3 text your appeal to limited atonement is a red herring. I clarified the meaning of the doctrine for your benefit, so you would not also fall prey to another straw man but that has nothing to do with the already asserted red herring. I'm not only defending the monergist position, I'm trying to help you be a better critic. Stop arguing red herrings and straw men.

I read the post JDS. I also read the scriptures cited. YOU made comments about atonement, and I observed a FACT of the scripture = there is no mention of atonement in the text. And now there's an attempt to ignore these facts and change the topic away from the matter of atonement to faith. In other words, this is another lame, fallacious and avoidant response. All you had to do was say, "Yep, I see that, Josh. No mention of atonement in Galatians 3," because then we could be discussing two very relevant and important things: 1) why you injected atonement into the discussion, 2) why Cals are being abused about something that doesn't occur in the text.

Instead, we're discussing why it is I can deal with the actual content of your posts but cannot get the same in return from you.

I want you to think about something. YOU authored this op. As such, YOU are representing the anti-Calvinism membership of BAM. Everyone is reading this exchange to learn two things: 1) is your content factual and correct, and 2) is your method scriptural, rational, cogent, and valid. So far the posts evidence a handful of fallacies that include but are not limited to red herring, straw men, appeals to authority, appeals to personal anecdotal experience, false cause, and moving the goal posts. In other words, the astute reader - even your fellow anti-Calvinists - should recognize the deplorable method being used to baselessly accuse others and even if they agree with you about Calvin they should join me in rebuking your method.

And you should, in turn, learn how to recognize it in your sources outside of BAM.

red herring

straw men

appeals to authority

appeals to personal anecdotal experience

false cause

moving the goal posts

You'll be a better synergist if and when you can criticize Cals without the fallacies. NO ONE should discuss anything that way.

Let's try it again:

The words "atone," and "atonement" do not occur in the text of Galatians 3, which was in fact written after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Either justify your imposition of atonement on the Galatians 3 text or edit the op so that it more accurately reflects the Galatians 3 text and does not abuse Calvinists over something nowhere stated in the Galatians 3 text. Because the latter might be considered laborious, I will accept a plain and simple acknowledgement of the plain and simple fact the word atonement does not occur in the Galatians 3 text.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 11, 2022 6:47:48 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2022 6:47:48 GMT -8

Oct 10, 2022 13:07:08 GMT -8 JDS said:

Oct 10, 2022 9:38:59 GMT -8 @josheb said:

The phrase "the faith" does appear in the text. It had not been present until after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I remind you again that something is different after these events. You obviously did not read the statements in my last post so I will post it again.

NONE OF THAT IS IN DISPUTE! You are dodging the matters broguht to bear on this op with repetition, non sequitur, and obfuscation. You claimed Calvinism teaches a different faith and we're now several posts into this discussion and you still haven't provided any evidence, much less proof! Can you prove Calvin taught a different faith or not? If so, then please do so. If not, then acknowledge that.

What did Calvin say about 2 John 1:9-11?
What did Calvin say about Heb. 5:11-14?

What did Calvin say about any of the texts being used to criticize Calvin? Did you bother to chack? Or are you getting all your information from extrabiblical sources like an unidentified "one preacher," and "a Calvinist evangelist one time"?

This is not challenging. It makes sense. Before faith came, the divine principle of divine dealing with the Jews was the law of Moses. That was the principle of divine dealing THEN. It is not now. The principle is now FAITH. The promise comes from above, from God. The text makes it plain that it is the Spirit. It, the promise, is life. It could not be worked for and received like in the former years, but it could be given if one would just believe God.

So what? None of this is in dispute, either. It is not challenging but you seem to think Calvinists think it is challenging.

What did Calvin say about Galatians 3?

You claimed Calvinism teaches a different faith and we're now several posts into this discussion and you still haven't provided any evidence, much less proof! Can you prove Calvin taught a different faith or not? If so, then please do so. If not, then acknowledge that.

I will deal with the remainder of your post later.

rotflmbo!
Nothing I've posted has been dealt with. EVERYTHING so far is non sequitur, red herring, straw men, appeals to anecdotal experiences, uncited authorities, false causes, etc. It's a pile of fallacy and I am trying to help you form your own case. Pick any scripture you like. Then cite Calvin and cite him with integrity. Cite him in context and not quote mined. This op starts with 2 John 1. Great! What did the Calvinist commentators say about 2 John 1?

I tried to help you by providing you with original source material (something this op should have done).

You claimed Calvinism teaches a different faith and we're now several posts into this discussion and you still haven't provided any evidence, much less proof! Can you prove Calvin taught a different faith or not? If so, then please do so. If not, then acknowledge that.

JDS
New Member

Posts: 48

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 11, 2022 9:18:25 GMT -8 civic likes this

Quote

Post by JDS on Oct 11, 2022 9:18:25 GMT -8

Oct 11, 2022 6:47:48 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Oct 10, 2022 13:07:08 GMT -8 JDS said:

NONE OF THAT IS IN DISPUTE! You are dodging the matters broguht to bear on this op with repetition, non sequitur, and obfuscation. You claimed Calvinism teaches a different faith and we're now several posts into this discussion and you still haven't provided any evidence, much less proof! Can you prove Calvin taught a different faith or not? If so, then please do so. If not, then acknowledge that.

What did Calvin say about 2 John 1:9-11?
What did Calvin say about Heb. 5:11-14?

What did Calvin say about any of the texts being used to criticize Calvin? Did you bother to chack? Or are you getting all your information from extrabiblical sources like an unidentified "one preacher," and "a Calvinist evangelist one time"?

I said nothing about Calvin. What do I care what he taught. He is dead a long time now. It is what you are teaching that concerns me and is what I disagree with. John Calvin is not making you teach that. My subject is T.U.L.I.P. It does not natter to me where it came from, it matters if it is true, so you are throwing up a STRAWMAN. None of the T.U.L.I.P is true because it is not "the faith of Jesus Christ, so called 42 times concerning this age, beginning with Acts 3:16.

This is not challenging. It makes sense. Before faith came, the divine principle of divine dealing with the Jews was the law of Moses. That was the principle of divine dealing THEN. It is not now. The principle is now FAITH. The promise comes from above, from God. The text makes it plain that it is the Spirit. It, the promise, is life. It could not be worked for and received like in the former years, but it could be given if one would just believe God.

So what? None of this is in dispute, either. It is not challenging but you seem to think Calvinists think it is challenging.

It is challenging if you take to heart what I quoted about gentiles from Ephesians 2:11-13 where we are told that during that time the gentiles had NO HOPE, they were WITHOUT GOD, and WITHOUT CHRIST, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise. That is a big deal and it matters. It is only NOW through the blood of Christ, and I might say since the cross of Christ, that this has changed and we gentiles are brought near to God through our Lord's sacrifice. We are told in 2 Cor 5 that the world has been reconciled to God through Christ.

Let's not talk about what John Calvin taught. Let's talk about what you teach, and why you teach it.

JDS
New Member

Posts: 48

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 11, 2022 10:06:54 GMT -8

Quote

Post by JDS on Oct 11, 2022 10:06:54 GMT -8

Oct 11, 2022 6:29:25 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Oct 10, 2022 13:07:08 GMT -8 JDS said:

LOL

Let me clarify my point: Because the word "atonement" does not occur in the Galatians 3 text your appeal to limited atonement is a red herring. I clarified the meaning of the doctrine for your benefit, so you would not also fall prey to another straw man but that has nothing to do with the already asserted red herring. I'm not only defending the monergist position, I'm trying to help you be a better critic. Stop arguing red herrings and straw men.

Okay, tell me how the "L" got into your acrostic first. There is only one mention in one verse of the word "atonement" in the entire New Testament scriptures, yet it is 1/5th of your entire theological structure. Are you telling me and those who will read this forum that if called upon to defend this theology that you will be happy to make all your theological points concerning limited atonement out of that one verse? Are you telling me that no other passages in the New Testament scriptures bears upon this doctrine because the word is not mentioned?

I read the post JDS. I also read the scriptures cited. YOU made comments about atonement, and I observed a FACT of the scripture = there is no mention of atonement in the text. And now there's an attempt to ignore these facts and change the topic away from the matter of atonement to faith. In other words, this is another lame, fallacious and avoidant response. All you had to do was say, "Yep, I see that, Josh. No mention of atonement in Galatians 3," because then we could be discussing two very relevant and important things: 1) why you injected atonement into the discussion, 2) why Cals are being abused about something that doesn't occur in the text.

I want you to think about your words here and apply them to yourself when you happen to be speaking of some doctrines that others who hold your theology bring into the conversation. Things like Sovereignty of God, Sovereign grace, irresistible grace, and others. Will it be okay to quote you from this argument you are making that the words must be present in a text to teach it? But,really my point in by bringing up "the faith" is missed by you. Your limited atonement is certainly not taught by my 42 verses but if I believe what you believe I would need to reject this NT doctrine of the faith. This is the reason I brought 2 John into the conversation. It is because God has commanded all people on the earth to repent and believe in Jesus Christ because he has atoned for the sins of the whole world and made peace between God and man by enduring the awful penalty of our sins in his own body on the cross. The T.U.L.I.P teaches that this is not true and you personally teach this is not true if you teach the T.U.L.I.P.

Instead, we're discussing why it is I can deal with the actual content of your posts but cannot get the same in return from you.

I want you to think about something. YOU authored this op. As such, YOU are representing the anti-Calvinism membership of BAM. Everyone is reading this exchange to learn two things: 1) is your content factual and correct, and 2) is your method scriptural, rational, cogent, and valid. So far the posts evidence a handful of fallacies that include but are not limited to red herring, straw men, appeals to authority, appeals to personal anecdotal experience, false cause, and moving the goal posts. In other words, the astute reader - even your fellow anti-Calvinists - should recognize the deplorable method being used to baselessly accuse others and even if they agree with you about Calvin they should join me in rebuking your method.

And you should, in turn, learn how to recognize it in your sources outside of BAM.

red herring

straw men

appeals to authority

appeals to personal anecdotal experience

false cause

moving the goal posts

You'll be a better synergist if and when you can criticize Cals without the fallacies. NO ONE should discuss anything that way.

I think if I were in your shoes dealing with this subject I would do the same thing as you are doing. What is that? Make the argument about JDS and I will not have to defend an indefensible set of doctrine called the T.U.L.I.P. You are exposing yourself but I am taking no joy in it. I would like to cause you to think about what you teach others and what God thinks about it.

Let's try it again:

The words "atone," and "atonement" do not occur in the text of Galatians 3, which was in fact written after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Either justify your imposition of atonement on the Galatians 3 text or edit the op so that it more accurately reflects the Galatians 3 text and does not abuse Calvinists over something nowhere stated in the Galatians 3 text. Because the latter might be considered laborious, I will accept a plain and simple acknowledgement of the plain and simple fact the word atonement does not occur in the Galatians 3 text.

Again, I am not speaking to Calvinists. It is you and I who are conversing. This is about what you teach. The T.U.L.I.P. will conflict with several truths given in Ga 3. Limited atonement is just one of the 5 doctrines that will not work in Ga 3.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 11, 2022 11:13:15 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2022 11:13:15 GMT -8

Oct 7, 2022 5:12:02 GMT -8 JDS said:

I said nothing about Calvin. What do I care what he taught. He is dead a long time now. It is what you are teaching that concerns me and is what I disagree with. John Calvin is not making you teach that. My subject is T.U.L.I.P. It does not natter to me where it came from...

Sophistry.

This is the "Calvinism and Arminianism" board. This op observably mentions T.U.L.I.P., an exclusively and specifically Calvinist set of positions first asserted in the teachings of the Reformers, especially John Calvin. This op plainly states, "If one does not get the foundational doctrines right, he has zero chance of ever understanding the deeper things of God and is liable to fall to the best philosophy the world can offer, like Calvinism, where words, plain as they can be, has some deep mystical meaning, but certainly do not mean what they say," so to now say nothing was said about Calvin is disingenuous. This is all the more so since the sources to which I connected the thread were not limited to Calvin. The problem is compounded, not solved, with comments like, "It is what you are teaching that concerns me," because 1) this is your op, not mine and that statement abdicates and avoids the fact no time is being spent proving the op, and 2) I'm not teaching anything!

The onus is on you to prove this op, not me.

What I have done, all that I have done, is to point out the plethora of fallacies being deployed in defense of this op, beginning with the fact that you do not get to define Calvinist doctrine and then argue against the straw man invented in this thread.

You can either prove Calvinism teaches a different faith using an accurate portrayal of scripture and Calvinism or you cannot. So far, the evidence is you cannot.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 11, 2022 11:15:53 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2022 11:15:53 GMT -8

Oct 7, 2022 5:12:02 GMT -8 JDS said:

It is challenging if you take to heart what I quoted about gentiles from Ephesians 2:11-13 where we are told that during that time the gentiles had NO HOPE, they were WITHOUT GOD, and WITHOUT CHRIST, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise. That is a big deal and it matters. It is only NOW through the blood of Christ, and I might say since the cross of Christ, that this has changed and we gentiles are brought near to God through our Lord's sacrifice. We are told in 2 Cor 5 that the world has been reconciled to God through Christ.

Let's not talk about what John Calvin taught. Let's talk about what you teach, and why you teach it.

No, let's not talk about what I teach. This is your op and you don't get to shift the onus. This is about what you teach and what you are teaching is red herrings, straw men, shifting onuses and other fallacies.

Prove Calvinism teaches a different faith and do it using correctly rendered scripture and correctly rendered Calvinist doctrine.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 11, 2022 14:41:47 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2022 14:41:47 GMT -8

Oct 7, 2022 5:12:02 GMT -8 JDS said:

Okay, tell me how the "L" got into your acrostic first.

Nope.

I am not going to collaborate with any attempts at shifting the onus of changing the topic. I'm not going to repeat myself a bunch of times, either. This op is YOURS, not mine. YOU made claims that have not been evidenced, much less proven. I have repeatedly asked you to prove your accusations AND I provided the resources from Calvinism with which you might be able to do that.

YOU have to first get Calvinism correct before you can judge it AND you've got to do that with something other than a few anecdotal reports and eisegetic abuses of scripture. Do NOT shift the onus on to me by asking me to give you fodder for your criticism.

There is only one mention in one verse of the word "atonement" in the entire New Testament scriptures, yet it is 1/5th of your entire theological structure.

Yep.

And you make more of it than Calvinists do. Probably because the position is not correctly understood. What the evidence of the posts show is that you somehow thing a passage that nowhere mentions atonement is somehow relevant to the Calvinist "L" and thereby proves Calvinism teaches a different faith. It is a pile of false causes that will never prove anything but incompetence on the part of the one arguing that case. If YOU are going to stake this op on Limited Atonement, then start with scripture that actually speaks explicitly about atonement and then and only then compare that to the correctly presented Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement.

THAT should have been done on the first page of this thread.

Are you telling me and those who will read this forum that if called upon to defend this theology that you will be happy to make all your theological points concerning limited atonement out of that one verse? Are you telling me that no other passages in the New Testament scriptures bears upon this doctrine because the word is not mentioned?

I am telling you this op is yours and it is yours to prove and defend and that is not happening. I am telling you that you keep trying to put this oof on me when you should be proving your own op and I am telling you no amount of attempts to shift the onus onto me will work with me.

You made claims in this op.

You used scripture to justify those claims.

Nowhere is a single Calvinist source referenced so there is absolutely no evidence proving the claims made in this op.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 11, 2022 14:47:31 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2022 14:47:31 GMT -8

Oct 7, 2022 5:12:02 GMT -8 JDS said:

I think if I were in your shoes dealing with this subject I would do the same thing as you are doing. What is that? Make the argument about JDS..

LOL! Except that is not what I am doing.

I am making this about the claims of this op being proven. It's not about you. It's not about me, either. This op makes claims, accusatory claims. It makes claims but does not prove any of them. It quotes scripture with an already-existing bias and then claims Calvinism teaches a different faith. My response to that can be summarized in two words.

Prove it.

Prove it with correctly rendered scripture and correctly rendered Calvinist positions, not the abuses posted so far. I don't care where you start, but wherever you start, provide some evidence and then prove the case.

JDS
New Member

Posts: 48

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 12, 2022 5:41:23 GMT -8 leatherneck0311 likes this

Quote

Post by JDS on Oct 12, 2022 5:41:23 GMT -8

Oct 11, 2022 14:47:31 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Oct 7, 2022 5:12:02 GMT -8 JDS said:

I think if I were in your shoes dealing with this subject I would do the same thing as you are doing. What is that? Make the argument about JDS..

LOL! Except that is not what I am doing.

I am making this about the claims of this op being proven. It's not about you. It's not about me, either. This op makes claims, accusatory claims. It makes claims but does not prove any of them. It quotes scripture with an already-existing bias and then claims Calvinism teaches a different faith. My response to that can be summarized in two words.

Prove it.

Prove it with correctly rendered scripture and correctly rendered Calvinist positions, not the abuses posted so far. I don't care where you start, but wherever you start, provide some evidence and then prove the case.

The proof is in the acrostic. T.U.L.I.P. None of it is true. I posted 42 verses that proves this acrostic is without merit. It, the acrostic, does not agree or reinforce the "doctrine of Christ," the doctrine of salvation from sin. I am going to quote proof of this from a Calvinist who agrees with me. He set a standard for arguing the merits of it in this following statement. Here is what he said.

LOL

Let me clarify my point: Because the word "atonement" does not occur in the Galatians 3 text your appeal to limited atonement is a red herring

So, "limited" atonement appears in no text of scripture. It cannot be argued from scripture because it is not in the scriptures. It is manufactured by men who who do not love the truth.

Here is an interesting fact. The word TOTAL does not appear in the scriptures in any context, let alone depravity
Fact #2 - The word "depravity" does not appear in the scriptures in any context.

Did the man indicate that one cannot teach the doctrine if it does not appear in the text? Read his quote again. So much more if it doesn't even appear in the scriptures!

"Unconditional" election.

The word unconditional is not in the scriptures. The word conditional is not in the scriptures. the word condition is in the scriptures one time in 1 Sam 11:2.
Election is an interesting word and it is used in a collective context in the scriptures unless it is being applied to our dear Savior, Jesus Christ. The proof of that is that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, David, and all the OT saints have no Bible that ever calls them elect. It is interesting that Abraham is not said to be elect, but his family that sprung forth from him are said to be elect. Individuals are not elect.

In the New Testament, individuals are not elect unless and until they have been baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ upon obeying the gospel of Christ and believing in him. They are then elect "in Christ" because God has elected Christ before the foundation of the world, but he is the only one so elected.

Limited atonement.
The word "atonement" appears in the NT one time because the word atonement is a once for all time occurrence as it relates to Jesus Christ. He made peace between a holy God and sinful men by his one time enduring the wrath of God in his own body on the tree on behalf of all men, thus satisfying the holiness and justice of God, and then rising from the dead, proving that he had no sin of his own that could hold him in death.

You say atonement is not in Ga 3 because the word is not there.

The word "limited." It is once in the scriptures in a bad context. Here is what he said;

Psa 78:41. It reminds me of the Reformed.

Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

Limited atonement is 20% of the Reformed faith. Twenty percent "limited."

Irresistible grace

This doctrine is actually laughable. It is a misnomer. If grace cannot be resisted it cannot be defined as grace. When Paul was explaining the great and wonderful biblical doctrine of justification by faith in Romans 4, and making a distinction from works, and making the case that it is the only means of justification, using Abraham before the law, David under the Law, and believers in this age after the Law, he said this; :"Therefore, it (righteousness) is of faith that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

The Reformed turn this around and have it saying that it (righteousness) is by grace that it might be by faith when they say a man cannot believe unless he is quickened first by God.

The word "irresistible" is not in the scriptures and grace during this age after the cross when sin has been put away and is the operative principle of divine dealing with both Jews and gentiles at this time. God has always been a gracious God, but his divine principle of dealing with men has not always been grace as the overriding principle.

Perseverance of the saints. When a sinner is redeemed by the blood of the Lamb God will persevere for him.

The T.U.L.I.P. is a bad idea and is not true. The standard that has been handed to me in this thread is violated by the proponents of this religion. It is unscriptural and it was right for the man to say it should not be taught if it is not in the text.

Last Edit: Oct 12, 2022 5:47:00 GMT -8 by JDS

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 12, 2022 6:29:04 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2022 6:29:04 GMT -8

Oct 12, 2022 5:41:23 GMT -8 JDS said:

Oct 11, 2022 14:47:31 GMT -8 @josheb said:

The proof is in the acrostic. T.U.L.I.P. None of it is true. I posted 42 verses that proves this acrostic is without merit. It, the acrostic, does not agree or reinforce the "doctrine of Christ," the doctrine of salvation from sin. I am going to quote proof of this from a Calvinist who agrees with me. He set a standard for arguing the merits of it in this following statement. Here is what he said.

LOL

Let me clarify my point: Because the word "atonement" does not occur in the Galatians 3 text your appeal to limited atonement is a red herring

So, "limited" atonement appears in no text of scripture.

Neither is the word, "Trinity."

It cannot be argued from scripture because it is not in the scriptures.

By that reasoning we could not have the doctrines of the Trinity, Impeccability, Prevenient Grace, or the Synergist alternatives to TULIP such as DAISY or Provide! You've just undermined your own soteriology and core doctrines of Christianity!

There is no truth in that!

It is manufactured by men...

So is the word "Trinity."

It is manufactured by men who do not love the truth.

You have not evidenced, much less proven, anyone does not love truth other than yourself.

I say that because there is no truth in fallacy, and the posts I have received are rife with fallacy. Even here in the post to which I now reply there is a false-cause fallacy asserting "Limited Atonement is 20% of the faith," when the TRUTH is nothing says the points of TULIP are equally weighted and TULIP is about soteriology and soteriology is only one doctrine within Christianity. There's also another straw man because Irresistible Grace is NOT about whether or not grace can be resisted! It is increasingly apparent you don't have a clue what any of TULIP means and this op and the entire thread is just an uninformed rag made in ignorance of what TULIP actually teaches. The record shows you've got a misguided understanding of Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace and your complaints about the others are based on whether or not a given word occurs anywhere in scripture (apparently unaware you've undermined your own op with that criticism). There is no truth in fallacy, and there is no truth in misrepresenting others as not loving truth based on willful misrepresentations.

More saliently, though, is the fact this entire post is another red herring. It does not in any way prove Calvinists have a different faith. That is what this op claims and that has not been proven.

One last try. Can you and will you now prove "The T.U.L.I.P. is not 'The faith.' It is an error and men who hold to this doctrine errs from the faith"?

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 12, 2022 6:58:44 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2022 6:58:44 GMT -8

Oct 7, 2022 5:12:02 GMT -8 JDS said:

The proof is in the acrostic.

No it is not.

No, it is not, and your argument is circular. "I, JDS, assert TULIP is different from the faith asserted in 2 John 1 and the proof is in the acrostic." You're begging the question.

T.U.L.I.P. None of it is true.

That has yet to be proven.

I posted 42 verses that proves this acrostic is without merit.

A bunch of verse were posted but no proof TULIP is contradictory has been provided. Instead we have argumentum ad nauseam. There's no truth in that.

I am going to quote proof of this from a Calvinist who agrees with me.

Appeals to selective anecdotes do not prove anything. Your doing that would be just one more fallacy in an already extensive list of fallacies deployed in this thread.

BUT from the very beginning you should have provided some evidence from an accurate portrayal of Calvinism that proved your case.

Waiting three pages of posts to do so is bad form.

He set a standard for arguing the merits of it in this following statement. Here is what he said.

Cite the source so we can verify it and make sure it wasn't quote mined. Use quotation marks so we know what he said and what you've added (or subtracted). Provide PROOF.

Last Edit: Oct 13, 2022 4:55:47 GMT -8 by Admin: Formatting

JDS
New Member

Posts: 48

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 13, 2022 5:20:30 GMT -8

Quote

Post by JDS on Oct 13, 2022 5:20:30 GMT -8

Oct 12, 2022 6:58:44 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Oct 7, 2022 5:12:02 GMT -8 JDS said:

The proof is in the acrostic.

No it is not.

No, it is not, and your argument is circular. "I, JDS, assert TULIP is different from the faith asserted in 2 John 1 and the proof is in the acrostic." You're begging the question.

T.U.L.I.P. None of it is true.

That has yet to be proven.

I posted 42 verses that proves this acrostic is without merit.

A bunch of verse were posted but no proof TULIP is contradictory has been provided. Instead we have argumentum ad nauseam. There's no truth in that.

I am going to quote proof of this from a Calvinist who agrees with me.

Appeals to selective anecdotes do not prove anything. Your doing that would be just one more fallacy in an already extensive list of fallacies deployed in this thread.

BUT from the very beginning you should have provided some evidence from an accurate portrayal of Calvinism that proved your case.

Waiting three pages of posts to do so is bad form.

He set a standard for arguing the merits of it in this following statement. Here is what he said.

Cite the source so we can verify it and make sure it wasn't quote mined. Use quotation marks so we know what he said and what you've added (or subtracted). Provide PROOF.

" The faith" of God's elect is not the T.U.L.IP.

Total depravity is not shown to be a doctrine of the scriptures and one basic reason is because all men are born with a conscience. This is a means of God to guide men when they do not have the written law of God, a fact for all men during the first 2500 years of human history. Reading Romans chapter 1 will prove this to the discerning reader.
.

Here is a passage concerning OT people who did not have the written law of God as did the Jews and how God viewed them. It is important that you allow the words to be a true representation of the thinking of God and adjust your thinking accordingly. Read it here;

Rom 2:2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. (all the hideous sins cataloged in Romans 1)
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God. (God does not have different standards of right and wrong for different men)

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

You need to meditate on this following verse concerning OT gentiles and what God says about them.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do BY NATURE the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

These are gentiles without the law. They have 1) law written in their hearts. 2) Conscience to bear witness to what is right and wrong. 3) their own thoughts

Total depravity tells us that all men are dead and cannot please God and therefore hate him. But that is a foreign concept in the scriptures. There are many men from before this age that will be justified by the natural revelation of God. He only requires of men that they believe what he reveals to them.

God reveals himself in three ways. 1) Natural revelation, 2) special revelation his word and works, 3) Spiritual.

I will show you the first two that is concerned with the OT, before faith came. Ponder them.

NUMBER 1 - Natural Revelation

Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

NUMBER 2 - Special Revelation

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.

The OT man

12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.

13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.

Men are born with intellect, reason, and will.

A dead man is a man who does not have the Spirit of God dwelling in him. He is spiritually dead and not physically dead. He does not die to become spiritually dead, he is born into the family of Adam that way. This is the lot of all men between Adam and Jesus Christ. Death means one thing and one thing only. SEPARATION. Adam died when the Spirit of God departed from him when he sinned and all his offspring were born in his fallen image, body and soul. "THE FAITH" is the comprehensive teaching of God under the New Testament of the renewing of man to the image of God by making them into the image of Jesus Christ. He possessed the Spirit in his body from conception and he is the only man who ever has. We are told in 1 Corinthians 15:45

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. That did not happen in the OT times. The Spirit of God is life. He is the gift of God to all who will believe God concerning Jesus Christ and his death, burial, and resurrection.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Total depravity as it is taught by the Reformed is not just a bad doctrine, it is a horrible doctrine.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Amins, Please Ban Me From This Forum, "IF" Oct 13, 2022 6:21:45 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2022 6:21:45 GMT -8

Oct 7, 2022 5:12:02 GMT -8 JDS said:

" The faith" of God's elect is not the T.U.L.IP.

Total depravity is not shown to be a doctrine of the scriptures and one basic reason is because all men are born with a conscience. This is a means of God to guide men when they do not have the written law of God, a fact for all men during the first 2500 years of human history. Reading Romans chapter 1 will prove this to the discerning reader.

.

Here is a passage concerning OT people who did not have the written law of God as did the Jews and how God viewed them. It is important that you allow the words to be a true representation of the thinking of God and adjust your thinking accordingly. Read it here;

You have got to figure out the quote boxes.

That entire post was argumentum ad nauseam. All you have done is quote scripture and claim it proves TULIP incorrect. I look at every single one of the exact same passages and say they ALL affirm and confirm TULIP. The problem is not TULIP. The problem is 1) you're eisegetic handling of scripture, and 2) the failure to provide any proof from the scriptures TULIP is wrong.

I tried to walk with the scripture incrementally with you in an earlier post. I asked a handful of question specifically about one of the text you quoted and those questions are still sitting idle in this thread unanswered. That tells me you're not really interested in examining the scriptures for what they actually state. My questions were directly related to the literal reading of scripture. I played to your strengths. I tried to be collaborative. I have received post after post filled with fallacy and been forbearing with all of it.

You clearly think you've got a case against TULIP, but the evidence shows you do not.

The evidence shows an eisegetic reading of scripture.
The evidence shows complete ignorance pertaining to at least two of the five points of TULIP.
The evidence shows an unwillingness to correct those two errors.
The evidence shows an unwillingness to consult Calvinists sources, even though I provided them for you!
The evidence shows the case against TULIP is rife with fallacy.
The evidence shows and unwillingness to correct any of those fallacies (not a single one of them has been confessed or fixed, and the continued abuse of reason continues).
The evidence shows my valid op-relevant questions have gone unanswered.
The evidence shows a complete lack of exegesis.

It's not enough to quote scripture. You have to show how the scripture you are quoting necessarily disproves TULIP.

And, JDS, that has not happened.

I meant what I said: last try. What I received was argumentum ad nauseam so I'll be moving on now.

For the record: Nowhere does the Romans 2 text state those people had the ability to come to God unaided by God. That position, if that is what you believe, is something you are reading into the text, not something it actually states. You claim to be a literalist! This proves to be one of the many, many, many places where you do not practice what you preach. It's another example of inconsistency reading the Bible literally. As for the other passages you've quoted, ALL the people in every single passage you quoted were people brought into a God-initiated covenant without being asked. Every single one of those passages occurs within the context of the already-established covenant.

That is evidence of monergism.

Give it some thought.