This 1 parable refutes all 5 points of calvinism- tulip

Status
Not open for further replies.
We're you saved while teaching it?
yes why do you ask

there are born again believers who think tulip is true and there are lost people not born again who believe tulip is true just like there are saved people and lost people who believe arminianism.

Jesus saves and its all about ones personal relationship with Him.
Just like in a marriage you commit yourself to that person no matter what and remain faithful. When you divorce that contract/commitment is over with. You can do the same with Christ. Hence all the warning passages in the bible. Hebrews 6 and 10 should be enough to know that as well as all the parables and teaching of Jesus in the gospels, and the Apostles in their epistles.
 
Now you are adding some of the details that were missing. Before you said it was after He died with no mention of the resurrection and ascension. Had He not resurrected, it seems His death would not have been effective.
So it appears we may be on the same page in some ways.
Though, I disagree that Jesus breathing on them caused the Spirit to indwell them for a few reasons:
1. The narrative does not say they received the Spirit there
2. The promise of the Father had not come yet
3. Acts describes the day it happened
4. Jesus said He had to leave before the Spirit could come
Of course he had to ascend unto the Father first and that was a given that I didn't think I needed to address.

So when Jesus breathed on them and said "receive the Holy Spirit", you believe that was of no effect?

Certainly they received the indwelling of the Spirit when Jesus breathed on them and said "receive the Spirit" but the promise was two fold, for the one part as per Jesus in John 14-16 was that the Spirit would dwell within them and be with them in place of Jesus and that was fulfilled when he breathed on them and told them to receive the Spirit.

The other side of the promise was that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire and that happened on the day of Pentecost.
 
What happened civic? You used to push Calvinism and now here you are arguing against it, so when do you think you will get your doctrines straight on this?

I am not a Calvinist nor a believer in Arminianism but I would have to disagree with your assessment of your passages above, for the Bible indeed teaches predestination and once elect always elect but the problem with these other interpretations, is that they fail to understand why God cannot save everyone but must let some perish in their own choice to sin while he saves others from that same choice to sin.

You might want to start getting a correct understanding of this by prayerfully reading and meditating on what God says to Israel in Isaiah 43:3 and what Paul is revealing in Romans 9:13-24 and especially what he says in verses 22-24.

Why did God have to give Egypt, Cush and Seba in order to turn Israel to himself in repentance?

If God had of extended equal mercy and grace unto all four of these peoples, would any of them have been saved at all Civic?

Read Romans 9, and especially verses 22-24, what does Paul reveal about this?

If God just asked us all human beings equally to repent and receive the gospel message, how many of us would be able to do this being totally depraved in our sins?

Man, I got this truth straight right from the start of my salvation, for I knew that it was God who led me to repentance and faith and that it had nothing to do with me at all.

Oh indeed I had to choose, but I only chose because God used every situation in my life experience and especially with other lost people to turn me around to make that choice.

Nevertheless, he doesn't do this for everyone and can't either and the reason why he can't isn't because of any flaw or weakness in himself but because of our depraved condition, for he uses the unchosen vessels to have an effect on those chosen in order to turn them around to himself in repentance and faith.
I believed in false teaching like you do now.
 
I grew up in the Church
i went through 15 plus years in Church leadership (teaching and being a lay -preacher)
I knew the "right " answers to many topics.
I was not in Christ until my late 40s
Interesting dynamic, maybe related to "ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of he truth" I have to keep confirming my faith in Christ, because my flesh is corrupt
 
Of course he had to ascend unto the Father first and that was a given that I didn't think I needed to address.

So when Jesus breathed on them and said "receive the Holy Spirit", you believe that was of no effect?

Certainly they received the indwelling of the Spirit when Jesus breathed on them and said "receive the Spirit" but the promise was two fold, for the one part as per Jesus in John 14-16 was that the Spirit would dwell within them and be with them in place of Jesus and that was fulfilled when he breathed on them and told them to receive the Spirit.

The other side of the promise was that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire and that happened on the day of Pentecost.
Breathing on them was a form of teaching, and I am sure that teaching had its effect, but that is not how you receive Jesus by having Him breathe on you.
The indwelling was "the promise of the Father" Luke 24:49 Did you look into that when I mentioned this to you? The promise was not fulfilled until pentecost. Acts 2:33
 
I believed in false teaching like you do now.
Except you still believe in false teaching and therefore just like Paul said also, 'ever learning but never being able to come to a knowledge of the truth" and that is why you will probably change your doctrine again also.

Once elect and always elect is not false teaching but both Calvin and Arminius were missing a proper understanding in their view about free will and election and that is where you are also.
 
Except you still believe in false teaching and therefore just like Paul said also, 'ever learning but never being able to come to a knowledge of the truth" and that is why you will probably change your doctrine again also.

Once elect and always elect is not false teaching but both Calvin and Arminius were missing a proper understanding in their view about free will and election and that is where you are also.
thanks for your unitarian opinion, but no thanks :)
 
Breathing on them was a form of teaching, and I am sure that teaching had its effect, but that is not how you receive Jesus by having Him breathe on you.
The indwelling was "the promise of the Father" Luke 24:49 Did you look into that when I mentioned this to you? The promise was not fulfilled until pentecost. Acts 2:33
LOL, no but rather breathing on them was so that they could receive the Holy Spirit and have the Spirit indwelling them.

Do you not know the difference between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the word Baptism as being whelmed in the Holy Spirit and power?


They are not the same thing or the same promise either.


By the way, Jesus actually never even promised the Baptism of the Spirit until right before he was taken up into heaven and as per Acts 1:4.-8.

This is the first time we see Jesus mention the actual Baptism of the Spirit and power, although John The Baptist first mentioned it in his preaching but in John 14-16, the focus of Jesus is on the indwelling of the Spirit and not the Baptism of the Spirit and they are two different experiences with the Holy Spirit.
 
thanks for your unitarian opinion, but no thanks :)
If you now believe that the reason why you are saved and others are not, is because you made the choice to repent and believe and they didn't and that they could have made the same choice just as easily as you, then this proves you are believing in false teaching, because this is not what scripture teaches at all.

If anyone truly repents and believes the gospel message, it is because God chose them before the foundation of the world and drove them to that decision through their life experiences without actually violating their will in that process and God knows how to do this but he doesn't equally choose everyone to be his elect, that is false.

He also doesn't predestine people to be lost and to perish but instead people choose this for themselves by their own choice to sin and this is what destines them to perish if God hasn't chosen them out of it.

And as Paul said in Romans 9, "You will say oh man, why does he yet find fault, for who has resisted his will" and the answer to that is that everyone one of us has resisted the will of God" and therefore being we are all guilty sinners and therefore have no claim on God's mercy or grace, God speaks "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and leave hardened whom I will leave hardened".
 
If you now believe that the reason why you are saved and others are not, is because you made the choice to repent and believe and they didn't and that they could have made the same choice just as easily as you, then this proves you are believing in false teaching, because this is not what scripture teaches at all.

If anyone truly repents and believes the gospel message, it is because God chose them before the foundation of the world and drove them to that decision through their life experiences without actually violating their will in that process and God knows how to do this but he doesn't equally choose everyone to be his elect, that is false.

He also doesn't predestine people to be lost and to perish but instead people choose this for themselves by their own choice to sin and this is what destines them to perish if God hasn't chosen them out of it.

And as Paul said in Romans 9, "You will say oh man, why does he yet find fault, for who has resisted his will" and the answer to that is that everyone one of us has resisted the will of God" and therefore being we are all guilty sinners and therefore have no claim on God's mercy or grace, God speaks "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and leave hardened whom I will leave hardened".
sorry but thats not in the bible just augustinian heresy from Manichean, Gnostic and Stoic/paganism roots.
 
thanks for your unitarian opinion, but no thanks :)
By the way, how do you think God hardens the clay that he does not choose for mercy?

He leaves it alone in its own choice of sin to harden.

However those who are chosen for his mercy and grace he pounds on and pushes and presses against and molds until they of their own free choice choose to repent and believe and he uses the hardened clay to accomplish this also and just like he did with Egypt for Israel and this is why he had to leave Egypt hardened in order to save Israel and just like he has to do with us also.

It isn't a weakness with God but rather due to how depraved we are in our sin and stubborn hearts.
 
By the way, how do you think God hardens the clay that he does not choose for mercy?

He leaves it alone in its own choice of sin to harden.

However those who are chosen for his mercy and grace he pounds on and pushes and presses against and molds and he uses the hardened clay to do it with also and just like he did with Egypt for Israel and this is why he had to leave Egypt hardened in order to save Israel and just like he has to do with us also.

It isn't a weakness with God but rather due to how depraved we are in our sin and stubborn hearts.
I don't deny mans depravity just mans total inability.
 
Well then you actually do deny his depravity, for his depravity is what makes him totally unable.

Nevertheless, you need to read my post again, for I added a few things to it after you already replied to it here.
no need as I know calvinism, reformed theology much better than you do as well as the trinity which you deny.
 
no need as I know calvinism, reformed theology much better than you do as well as the trinity which you deny.
I don't know anything about Calvinism other than what I have read here on this forum from those who are confused with it like you were and still are.

My beliefs on God's sovereign choice and election by grace are what he has shown me personally about it from his word and actually the trin churches that I belonged to didn't believe in once elect always elect but believed that one could loose his election like you are now believing.

I am speaking of those after the first church I belonged to which was Southern Baptist but I didn't belong to that church long enough to know everything they believed in or why but I do know that they believed in eternal security and that is all.
 
LOL, no but rather breathing on them was so that they could receive the Holy Spirit and have the Spirit indwelling them.

Do you not know the difference between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the word Baptism as being whelmed in the Holy Spirit and power?


They are not the same thing or the same promise either.


By the way, Jesus actually never even promised the Baptism of the Spirit until right before he was taken up into heaven and as per Acts 1:4.-8.

This is the first time we see Jesus mention the actual Baptism of the Spirit and power, although John The Baptist first mentioned it in his preaching but in John 14-16, the focus of Jesus is on the indwelling of the Spirit and not the Baptism of the Spirit and they are two different experiences with the Holy Spirit.
Can you respond to the concept of the "promise of the Father"? What it is? When it was fulfilled?
And again, Jesus taught them that He had to go away before the Spirit could come. I don't think you have addressed that.
 
Can you respond to the concept of the "promise of the Father"? What it is? When it was fulfilled?
And again, Jesus taught them that He had to go away before the Spirit could come. I don't think you have addressed that.
Yes I have addressed it but you are not listening.

Your problem is that you think that there was only one promise concerning the Spirit and that is false, for Jesus in John 14-16 and especially chapter 16 promised the indwelling of the Spirit and that began to be fulfilled when he breathed on the disciples but right before left to sit at God's right hand, he promised the Baptism of fire and the Spirit and this is not the same promise.

By the way, Jesus didn't mention a Baptism of the Holy Spirit in John 14-16 but only that the Holy Spirit would be with them and dwelling within them and the same goes for Acts 1:4-8, for here Jesus didn't mention the indwelling of the Spirit at all but only the Baptism of the Spirit instead.

Therefore can you respond to the difference between the indwelling of the Spirit and the Baptism of the Spirit?

The word Baptism doesn't mean an indwelling of the Spirit but rather being totally immersed in the Spirit, so how do you respond to that?

As far as him having to go away first, that applies to both promises and so that doesn't help your argument on this at all.


Tell me, are you a United Pentecostal believer?

For that would explain why you are having problems with this.
 
Yes I have addressed it but you are not listening.

Your problem is that you think that there was only one promise concerning the Spirit and that is false, for Jesus in John 14-16 and especially chapter 16 promised the indwelling of the Spirit and that began to be fulfilled when he breathed on the disciples but right before left to sit at God's right hand, he promised the Baptism of fire and the Spirit and this is not the same promise.

By the way, Jesus didn't mention a Baptism of the Holy Spirit in John 14-16 but only that the Holy Spirit would be with them and dwelling within them and the same goes for Acts 1:4-8, for here Jesus didn't mention the indwelling of the Spirit at all but only the Baptism of the Spirit instead.

Therefore can you respond to the difference between the indwelling of the Spirit and the Baptism of the Spirit?

The word Baptism doesn't mean an indwelling of the Spirit but rather being totally immersed in the Spirit, so how do you respond to that?

As far as him having to go away first, that applies to both promises and so that doesn't help your argument on this at all.


Tell me, are you a United Pentecostal believer?

For that would explain why you are having problems with this.
What you don't speak in tongues, aren't you filled with the spirit, baptized in the spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues. I mean c'mon you brought up Acts 2 right, Pentecost ?

hope this helps !!!
 
What you don't speak in tongues, aren't you filled with the spirit, baptized in the spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues. I mean c'mon you brought up Acts 2 right, Pentecost ?

hope this helps !!!
Do you speak in Tongues, are you filled with the Spirit, are you Baptized in the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues?

By the way, I never actually brought up Acts 2 but only mentioned the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire as a different promise concerning the giving of the Spirit than the indwelling of the Spirit

Baptism means to be totally immersed and doesn't mean to be filled or indwelt by the Spirit and they are two different promises of the giving of the Spirit.
 
Do you speak in Tongues, are you filled with the Spirit, are you Baptized in the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues?

By the way, I never actually brought up Acts 2 but only mentioned the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire as a different promise concerning the giving of the Spirit than the indwelling of the Spirit

Baptism means to be totally immersed and doesn't mean to be filled or indwelt by the Spirit and they are two different promises of the giving of the Spirit.
I asked you the question first so after you give me an answer I will return the favor. :)

1 Peter 3:15- I'm sure you have that one memorized right. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top