The 5 points of TULIP for 1689Dave

[Lucian Hodoboc]

If that homeless guy decides he doesn't want to be in a nice warm hotel room, checks out and sleeps in a box under a bridge and ends up freezing to death, do I become less kind because he died?

Only if you are able to stop him from doing so. If there's nothing you can do to stop him or you don't know about it, you obviously can't be blamed. But if he tells you that he wants to sleep in the snow and freeze to death and you allow it, then you are responsible for not trying to stop a person from dying.

There's a point when we, as rational beings, have to decide, based not on our own moral compass, but on the objective moral compass that societies are build on, to enforce the wellbeing of our brethren against their will. That is why we institutionalize by force or, at the very least, put under psychiatric watch the people who attempt to commit suicide.

 

[1689Dave]

Point 5 claims “The Elect cannot lose their salvation. Salvation is the work of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, so it cannot be thwarted. None God has called will be lost, they are eternally secure. Technically, it is God who perseveres, not the saints.” and, thus, have NOTHING to do with any human works. Your claim is false.

It's based on #4. I believe a more correct version would be: before the will comes into play, God regenerates the elect, and they from then on progressively become more Holy because of their new Holy nature. Just as a cat does cat things, they do Christian things.

 

[1689Dave]

So you have said.

Yet, 4 is: “God brings his Elect to salvation through an internal call, which they are powerless to resist.” which says NOTHING about works, so your statement is false.

[It is completely a side point, but the 5 points come from the Synod of Dort and not from John Calvin … although the mnemonic TULIP didn’t appear until the 20th Century.]

The new birth precedes belief in the gospel.

 

[atpollard]

If you form 3 clays pots that have consciousness and can experience physical and emotional pain, most people would agree that sending two of them to be tortured for eternity makes you an evil being.

Those who believe in Christ and trust in God become Children of God and spend eternity with God. Those that “suppress the truth” and “although they [know] God, they [do] not glorify Him as God, nor [are] thankful” [Romans 1:18-21] … God “gave them up/over” to following THEIR desires (rather than God’s desires).

So why is God at fault for granting men what their hearts’ desire? To be far away from the God they hate (as your words indicate that you do). You want to hate God and for God to respond by forcing you to spend eternity with Him? How does that make sense?

A POT that refuses to be a POT is fit for no purpose but to be burned with the rest of the trash in the burn pit in the backyard. It has no place on the Thanksgiving Table.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Those who believe in Christ and trust in God become Children of God and spend eternity with God.

Seeing how belief is not a choice, it is not volitional, it is not something I can choose to have, then there is an obvious problem with this salvation criterion.

A POT that refuses to be a POT is fit for no purpose but to be burned with the rest of the trash in the burn pit in the backyard. It has no place on the Thanksgiving Table.

A pot that didn't ask to be created and refuses to be a pot should be removed from existence in a non-painful manner or offered to possibility to build the life he/she wants to have.

So why is God at fault for granting men what their hearts’ desire? To be far away from the God they hate (as your words indicate that you do). You want to hate God and for God to respond by forcing you to spend eternity with Him? How does that make sense?

Again, hate is not a choice. You can't choose to hate someone. You hate someone based on the way you perceive their effect upon you. If the effect is negative / unpleasant, you involuntarily nurture negative emotions for the source of that negative effect. If God is the source of that negative effect or if I perceive Him to be that source, then then hate / dislike etc. is involuntary. Punishing someone for involuntary emotions is completely absurd.

 

[atpollard]

The new birth precedes belief in the gospel.

Sometimes, but not always. In any event, the Ordo Salutis is a completely different issue from the 5 points of TULIP whose order is just based on forming an easy mnemonic acrostic. Each “TULIP” point stands as a truth on its own with biblical support (although “Limited Atonement” is more controversial than the others.)

 

[1689Dave]

Seeing how belief is not a choice, it is not volitional, it is not something I can choose to have, then there is an obvious problem with this salvation criterion.

It's all in how you look at it. God shows his Mercy by giving faith to those he saves. The faith tells them they are saved. But he glorifies his wrath against sin, punishing those he damned. They cannot believe,

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

It's all in how you look at it. God shows his Mercy by giving faith to those he saves. The faith tells them they are saved. But he glorifies his wrath against sin, punishing those he damned. They cannot believe,

Thank God that the god you fabricated in your belief system is only a fabrication. Such a being would be unworthy or worship.

 

[atpollard]

Seeing how belief is not a choice, it is not volitional, it is not something I can choose to have, then there is an obvious problem with this salvation criterion.


A pot that didn't ask to be created and refuses to be a pot should be removed from existence in a non-painful manner or offered to possibility to build the life he/she wants to have.


Again, hate is not a choice. You can't choose to hate someone. You hate someone based on the way you perceive their effect upon you. If the effect is negative / unpleasant, you involuntarily nurture negative emotions for the source of that negative effect. If God is the source of that negative effect or if I perceive Him to be that source, then then hate / dislike etc. is involuntary. Punishing someone for involuntary emotions is completely absurd.

Respectfully, you are not struggling to believe … you are struggling against the “goodness” of God and proclaiming His ways and His word “evil”. I do not see how that is something within my power to help you with.

God has said that not everyone will be saved.
God has said that some (many) will be judged and sent to the “second death”.
You believe that God’s decision is evil.

[I can relate to your feelings … been there, felt that … but changing hearts is WAY above my pay grade.]
God said that “If you seek Him, then you will find Him” and my experience is that He may not answer all questions, but God NEVER lies. He said it, so it is true.

 

[Albion]

Thank God that the god you fabricated in your belief system is only a fabrication. Such a being would be unworthy or worship.

How about you ask to have "Eastern Orthodox" removed from your personal profile, now that you have admitted that your connection to that church is only "nominal" and you don't believe the Bible in any case--as you stated here? That change would make discussing things easier for anyone trying to answer your questions and challenges while under the impression that he's dealing with a Christian who simply wants to get a few of his faith's beliefs straight in his mind.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

How about you ask to have "Eastern Orthodox" removed from your personal profile, now that you have admitted that your connection to that church is only "nominal" and you don't believe the Bible in any case--as you stated here? That change would make discussing things easier for anyone trying to answer your questions and challenges while under the impression that he's dealing with a Christian who simply wants to get a few of his faith's beliefs straight in his mind.

According to the forum rules, we should address the ideas expressed in the posts, not the person expressing them. Who posts these ideas should be irrelevant.

But I do agree that Eastern Orthodoxy does not represent my current views, so I changed it to Christian. I accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah and I strive to follow His commandments, so that should be enough to justify the label.

 

[Albion]

According to the forum rules, we should address the ideas expressed in the posts, not the person expressing them. Who posts these ideas should be irrelevant.

Not speaking of particular ideas, but of the personal PROFILE that each of us completes and which can be seen under the logo/picture that we have chosen for ourselves.

But I do agree that Eastern Orthodoxy does not represent my current views, so I changed it to Christian.

But you repeatedly say that you are not in harmony with Christianity, so making that change would be helpful and wouldn't keep you from posting on CH.

I accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah and I strive to follow His commandments, so that should be enough to justify the label.

It's not. As you can see if you click on the Christianity Haven Statement of Faith, it's the Nicene Creed that is the standard.

I figured out that I'm discussing Christianity with a non-Christian, but you surely have recognized that it took a lot of wasted posts back and forth for me to get straight that you are not even another one of those people who IS a Christian but just doesn't intend to join any church and/or has doubts about the way something in Christianity is often explained.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

It's not.

Well, Jesus disagrees.

Luke 9:50

Nowhere in the Bible is there a list of beliefs one has to hold in order to be called a Christian. The minimum thing that is said about the word "Christian" is that they were disciples / followers of Christ.

 

[Albion]

Nowhere in the Bible is there a list of beliefs one has to hold in order to be called a Christian. The minimum thing that is said about the word "Christian" is that they were disciples / followers of Christ.

The verse from Luke says nothing about what it means to be a Christian.

And as for the rest, you don't even understand the verse that says that the first time the disciples were called "Christian" is not saying anything about doctrine: it simply tells us when and where the name "Christian" was used for them rather than one of the terms that had gone before such as "The Way."

 

[1689Dave]

The verse from Luke says nothing about what it means to be a Christian.

And as for the rest, you don't even understand the verse that says that the first time the disciples were called "Christian" is not saying anything about doctrine: it simply tells us when and where the name "Christian" was used for them rather than one of the terms that had gone before such as "The Way."

Discipleship defines the term, Christian. How many disciples do you know? How many Christians do you know?

“And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Acts 11:26 (KJV 1900)

 

[tango]

Only if you are able to stop him from doing so. If there's nothing you can do to stop him or you don't know about it, you obviously can't be blamed. But if he tells you that he wants to sleep in the snow and freeze to death and you allow it, then you are responsible for not trying to stop a person from dying.

At what point do I cease to be responsible for his decisions? Should I literally chain him up in the hotel room he doesn't want to be in, to prevent him from sleeping outside? What if he subsequently breaks free of his chains and sleeps outside anyway? Is it my fault for not restraining him with heavier chains? I think your sense of responsibility here is unusual, to say the least.

There's a point when we, as rational beings, have to decide, based not on our own moral compass, but on the objective moral compass that societies are build on, to enforce the wellbeing of our brethren against their will. That is why we institutionalize by force or, at the very list, put under psychiatric watch the people who attempt to commit suicide.

Enforcing the well being of other people against their will is a huge gray area, ethically speaking. If someone is deemed mentally deficient in some way we may intervene to protect them from themselves but there's a good chance all that will achieve is discouraging people from seeking help. Let's face it, if you wanted to end your life would you broadcast the fact and end up in a psychiatric institution, pumped full of all sorts of medications with very unpleasant side effects (including, ironically, suicidal and homicidal ideations) or simply sit tight until you could actually do something without people knowing ahead of time?

If someone is not diagnosably mentally incapacitated and merely wishes to end their own life, at what point do we accept they have the right to do so? Whatever our spiritual views on suicide we don't get to force someone else to live by our moral code any more than they get to force us to live by theirs.