Did Jesus teach TULIP

Roger Thornhill said:
Not interested? Hardly. He does not wish any to perish and wishes all to come to repentance.

American Standard Version2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Didn't you say He saved all he wishes? He wants all to repent and be saved.

Hardly sounds like predestination.
Click to expand...

Why do you rip 2 Pet. 3:9 out of its context?:

2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

This verse is about the "beloved", and "us-ward", and is in contrast to the scoffers ("they") in vv. 1-5. So it is NOT "universal" in scope.

So who is the "beloved"?:

2Pet. 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:​

This is the "second epistle" that Peter wrote to the "beloved".
What was the first epistle he wrote to them?

Well, if you answered, "1 Peter", that means you're paying attention! Good for you!

Now, who was Peter's first epistle written to?
Well, let's find out:

1Pet. 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.​

Sure sounds like "predestination" to me!
 
Theo1689 said:
I'm sorry for your inability to understand.

For God to know something in the future, it has to be "knowable". Therefore, it has to be known. Therefore it has to be determined. Because if it's not determined, and subject to change, then God can't possibly know it.

There's nothing "circular" here.
Click to expand...

This assumes God's knowledge is limited to what is determined, which is what you are trying to prove. That is circular reasoning.
 
CookedGoose said:
"Few" is plural and is not a singular group.
Click to expand...

King James VersionMatthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen

Both the "many" and the "few" represent a group of individuals.

The "few" are a subset of the "many". Read Mt 22. Many were called to the wedding but not all were allowed to attend.

Calvinism teaches that all who are called are chosen.

But in Mt 22:24 the number of called is different from the number who are chosen.

That refutes Calvinism.

CookedGoose said:
The "us" who are chosen are individuals.
Click to expand...

No Bible writer teaches that an individual was chosen before he was born.
 
Last edited:
Roger Thornhill said:
King James VersionMatthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen

Both the "many" and the "few" represent a group of individuals.

The "few" are a subset of the "many". Read Mt 22. Many were called to the wedding but not all were allowed to attend.

Calvinism teaches that all who are called are chosen.

But in Mt 22:24 the number of called is different from the number who are chosen.

That refutes Calvinism.



No Bible writer teaches that an individual was chosen before he was born.
Click to expand...
It's a parable.
 
CookedGoose said:
It's a parable.
Click to expand...
That's true but even Calvin said in his commentary:

14. For many are called, but few are chosen. The object of the parable is pointed out by the conclusion, that few are chosen, though many are called; from which we infer, that we ought not to attempt an ingenious explanation of every minute clause
 
CookedGoose said:
It's a parable.
Click to expand...
The problem is that your interlocutor doesn't seem to understand that words have multiple meanings and connotations, and don't always have the same meaning very time they're used.

I always like to use the term, "can".
What does that three-letter word mean?
Does it mean:
- ability ("I can cook");
- permission ("You can go to the washroom");
- terminate employment ("yesterday I got canned");
- toilet ("I drank too much, I gotta go to the can")
- food receptacle ("Hand me a can of tuna")

And I believe Roger has mentioned BDAG before. If he's familiar with the lexicon, then he VERY WELL KNOWS that most entries of terms list multiple meanings.

He seems to be trying to conflate the term, "call" in Matt. 28:16 with the term "call" in Rom. 8:28.

Matt. 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”​

Matt. 22 is Jesus speaking. And He is using the term, "call" ("kalew") in this context to refer to the outward gospel proclamation.

Rom. 8::30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.​

Rom. 8 is Paul (not Jesus) writing. Different people are allowed to use the same terms in different ways.

In this passage Paul is referring to different stages of the "Golden Chain of Redemption":

foreknew --> predestined --> called --> justified --> glorified

So in this context, Paul is referring to the internal calling, or the "drawing" of th elect to Jesus.

Now, if both statements had been said/written by the same person, in the same discourse, then you might be able to make a case for them carrying the same meaning. But when we have different speakers, different audiences, different purposes, different contexts, etc. etc. etc., then such an assumption is unwarranted.
 
CookedGoose said:
"Few" is plural and is not a singular group.
Ephesians 1 "He chose us in Him"
The "us" who are chosen are individuals.
Click to expand...

You know, even some of those who were bought by the Master were not faithful.

American Standard Version2 Peter 2:1
But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
 
Roger Thornhill said:
You know, even some of those who were bought by the Master were not faithful.
American Standard Version2 Peter 2:1
But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to claim that this verse is about the atonement?
If so, on what basis?
 
Theo1689 said:
I'm sorry for your inability to understand.

For God to know something in the future, it has to be "knowable". Therefore, it has to be known. Therefore it has to be determined. Because if it's not determined, and subject to change, then God can't possibly know it.

There's nothing "circular" here.
Click to expand...
A circular argument is an argument that comes back to its beginning without having proven anything

Determinism is a belief. Not a statement of fact. You and the original poster are requiring that everyone accept your belief without establishing determinism as fact. Thusly, it is a circular argument.
 
preacher4truth said:
Yeah, well, many make statements of faith like yours, and some give those statements a "like" when their own public teachings have in fact betrayed them.

Here is the thing, once a person begins to teach, the real truth of what they believe comes out.

For instance, some claim God is "all powerful" or what we call Omnipotent, but what they mean is, God is only Omnipotent up until His capability of being able to save, then it becomes up to man and his decision, rendering God's BIBLICAL saving ways incapacitated (allegedly). At that point Omnipotence is exchanged for impotence in many a person's theology.

If those are your teachings, or anyone else's, then you nor they truly believe God is Omnipotent, it's mere flattery and self-deception, and God will not be flattered, I can guarantee that.

Jonah 2:9; Soli Deo Gloria!
Click to expand...
Should I response to so many "ifs". Dealing with obviously false claims is not anyone's responsibility.
I simply responded in like manner with a appeal to Omnipotence. You attack me as if I made the argument you insists I made. You don't quote me and misunderstood me.
 
Roger Thornhill said:
It's not my proof. Calvinists are the ones who misapply a minor theological point and make a doctrine out of it.

I don't have the burden of proof. I've already demonstrated that its a group in Calvinist proof-texts.
Click to expand...
Sure you do. You claimed mine is incorrect. So what is the correct one? If you know I am incorrect then you must know the correct one. Enlighten us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top