Where was TULIP actually formulated and when?

[Ronald Nolette]

When was Tulip actually created and by Whom. ?????????????????????????

Well, its a "Doctrine of Devils'......as Paul explains regarding any "man made" Theology that in contrary to NT Biblical Truth.

The TULIP aspect of it, that always turns into Hypercalvinism.........is even more Satanic.

So, is a "doctrine of Devils" created by a devil, or The Devil......... which ?

Well, all demons are under the authority of The Devil... so, all doctrines of devils, like Calvinism, are produced by that Legion.

How did Calvin fall under the influence of the demonic, so that He created such a faith destroying, and Cross denying Theology, that has evolved into Hyper Calvinism. ?

We have to remember that the level of carnality in this man was so great that he was consenting to have another Christian murdered because this Believer was not "on board" with "Trinity Doctrine".
I wonder how long Calvin heard this Man's screams, at night, in his own mind... as you will do some screaming when you are being burned to death, and Im sure Calvin heard it.. as he was "at hand".
The Catholics did this to Joan of Arc, and later they decided she was one of their "Saints'
That is impressive "damage control".. truly.


Maybe and probably, this explains why Calvin had a death that was not a good one., as "sowing and reaping" can be a killer in the end.

So, when a person is that morally depraved.. its no wonder that they can be led of the Devil to create a "doctrine of Devils".

What is Calvin's eternal Legacy?
He has ruined much of Christianity, for 500 yrs...using His "duped".....and this just Continues as : TULIP.

When was "Trinity" created? It was not formulated and encoded as doctrine until the fourth century. so I guess according to your twisted reasong- that is a man made doctrine and doctrine of demons as well!

I still find it ironic that you preach just "pauline theology" and hold to four of the five points. I should not find it ironic for all five points are "Pauline Theology."

But let us look at some of your most hideous fallacies and debunk it.

YOu say that according to TULIP, if someone is not saved and wishes to be saved but are not of the elect- too bad for them! This is a straw man of your creation and is what you love to call a "doctrine of demons".

the bible is clear and you have not disagreed once with these passages.

Romans 8:5-8

King James Version

​

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

1 Corinthians 2:14

King James Version

​

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Ephesians 2

King James Version

​

2 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Romans 3:11

King James Version

​

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.


God is absolutely clear that an unsaved man will not ever seek God in and of themself. If one wishes to come to Jesus it was given to Him by god as jesus said.
JOhn 6:

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

the very fact a person is drawn to Christ means they are drawn because they are chosen. the unsaved man in and of their own human nature would never seek Jesus.

Now let us look at "free will" which is what gets your"panties in a knot" as the euphemism goes.

First let us once again consider the verses above and add to that this:

Romans 6:17-18

King James Version

​

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Isaiah 1:6
From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

the unsaved man is a slave to sin. As Paul wrote anything out side of faith is sin, and lost man can do nothing by divine faith. Man is totally lost and a slave to our sin nature.

There is no free will in a lost person. When you boil this concept down it is nothing more than the ego of man trying to be able to claim they contributed to their salvation some how, some way. It is ego saying they had some control in whether they can go to heaven or hell. LIES! Unsaved are by nature lost and destined for hell. EVERYBODY who has ever lived!!!!!!

Behold you already hold to four fo the five biblical points but are afraid to admit it, you might as well yield to god and admit the fifth poiiint you object to is biblical and that "free will" in the unsaved is the doctrine of demons. This is true Pauline theology.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Am i promoting you, or am i exposing your Hyper Calvinism?

Do you need more proof?

comprehend?



HyperCalvinism teaches that lie., among others.



I hold that you sell calvinism because it owns your mind.. as what you do on a FORUM, is proof of your mindset

Here you are hijacking another thread that you no nothing about.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

We have to remember that the level of carnality in this man was so great that he was consenting to have another Christian murdered because this Believer was not "on board" with "Trinity Doctrine".
I wonder how long Calvin heard this Man's screams, at night, in his own mind... as you will do some screaming when you are being burned to death, and Im sure Calvin heard it.. as he was "at hand".
The Catholics did this to Joan of Arc, and later they decided she was one of their "Saints'
That is impressive "damage control".. truly.

So now you are considering sin as a level of whether we should take one seriously?

Paul sinned, Peter sinned, James sinned, JOhn sinned. Only you believe you do not sin anymore and that in and of itself is a sin.

And you are just as guilty of murder as Calvin was. You condescendingly say believers here on this thread are lost and even never saved. You have made yourself to be god and pretend to sit on His throne judging hearts! Calvin sin you mentioned pales in comparison to what you do to the brethren here.

 

[Rita]

Right perhaps get back to discussing the OP

 

[JohnDB]

If you did you would write and react to people the exact opposite that you do.

And Paul taught election, predestination.

So then you hold ot the five points as espoused by Jacob Arminius then? In this argument there is no third alternative.

One is either totally lost (Clavin) or has some natural righteousness still (Arminius)
One comes to Jesus without any works (Calvin) or one must perform certain things before they can approach Jesus by faith (Arminius)
Either the elect are the only ones who have their sin debt actually removed (Calvin) or all have their sin removed( Arminius)
One has to be drawn to Jesus (Calvin) or one has some innate character quality that lets them decide for themself (Arminius)
One is either eternally secure (Calvin) or one can lose their salvation ( Arminius)

I know of no third alternatives to these issues.

Nope....
There are.
But I am totally uninterested in going over this dead horse that continues to get beat just to argue....totally uninterested in arguing pointlessly.

YMMV....


But....
If you wish to understand then the Gospel of John has the answers. I recommend studying the passages I mentioned earlier.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Nope....
There are.
But I am totally uninterested in going over this dead horse that continues to get beat just to argue....totally uninterested in arguing pointlessly.

YMMV....


But....
If you wish to understand then the Gospel of John has the answers. I recommend studying the passages I mentioned earlier.

The 5 points are all throught the Bible and all over the Gospel of John.

People cannot see these doctrines or do not want to see them.

 

[JohnDB]

The 5 points are all throught the Bible and all over the Gospel of John.

People cannot see these doctrines or do not want to see them.

Or something else is understood.....

The glory of God is massive.

I know, admitting being wrong is something you are uncomfortable with. It's OK to look for other possibilities....but that's only possible if you are willing to admit/believe you could be wrong with hermeneutics.

The "originalist" point of view is important here. Not Westernized, modern thought as Calvin used. But Ancient Near East understanding....as these are the ones who wrote.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Or something else is understood.....

The glory of God is massive.

I know, admitting being wrong is something you are uncomfortable with. It's OK to look for other possibilities....but that's only possible if you are willing to admit/believe you could be wrong with hermeneutics.

The "originalist" point of view is important here. Not Westernized, modern thought as Calvin used. But Ancient Near East understanding....as these are the ones who wrote.

I know, admitting being wrong is something you are uncomfortable with.

You do not know me.

Another one who cannot stay on topic.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Nope....
There are.
But I am totally uninterested in going over this dead horse that continues to get beat just to argue....totally uninterested in arguing pointlessly.

Well as I h ave never seen third alternatives to these five points by Calvinists/ Arminius, I would be interested in seeing those supposed other biblical alternatives.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

It's a reformulated question of a debate of "Who sinned?"
Does corporate sin cause people to not get salvation from God? (Muslims)
OR
Does individual sin keep people from receiving God's salvation? (Atheists)

This is explained fully in John's Gospel with "The Man Born Blind" narrative. It's exactly the same subject concerning all 5 points of TULIP and how it's wrong.

But there's nothing like repackaging and reformulated old arguments.

Well the issue of the man born blind war not salvation but his physical blindness. It was a traditional teaching in Israel that if one was born blind, either the mother sinned while the child was in the womb, or the child sinned while in the womb and that was what caused the blindness

 

[JohnDB]

Well the issue of the man born blind war not salvation but his physical blindness. It was a traditional teaching in Israel that if one was born blind, either the mother sinned while the child was in the womb, or the child sinned while in the womb and that was what caused the blindness

What if you were too specific and the Jews were looking for this answer to prove a larger point (customary Jewish practice) of who God will or won't like.

What if.....

What if this ONE parable answers that neither Calvin or Joseph A. was correct thousands of years before they made their assertions....

What if everyone has glossed over this parable because they prefer the argument instead of the truth? (As what the characters in this story demonstrated)

What if.....the prodigal son and the parable of the soils answers the rest of the questions.....

What if the rejected Apostles/disciples story tells the rest.?

What if.....just what if?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What if you were too specific and the Jews were looking for this answer to prove a larger point (customary Jewish practice) of who God will or won't like.

What if.....

What if this ONE parable answers that neither Calvin or Joseph A. was correct thousands of years before they made their assertions....

What if everyone has glossed over this parable because they prefer the argument instead of the truth? (As what the characters in this story demonstrated)

What if.....the prodigal son and the parable of the soils answers the rest of the questions.....

What if the rejected Apostles/disciples story tells the rest.?

What if.....just what if?

Lots of what ifs with no support.

But we do know that Jews believed if a person was born blind, either the mom sinned or the baby sinned in the womb. Jesus said no- it was for God to be glorified!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What if you were too specific and the Jews were looking for this answer to prove a larger point (customary Jewish practice) of who God will or won't like.

What if.....

What if this ONE parable answers that neither Calvin or Joseph A. was correct thousands of years before they made their assertions....

What if everyone has glossed over this parable because they prefer the argument instead of the truth? (As what the characters in this story demonstrated)

What if.....the prodigal son and the parable of the soils answers the rest of the questions.....

What if the rejected Apostles/disciples story tells the rest.?

What if.....just what if?

Well it is not a parable, and no I was not too specific.

And the rest of your answer appears to be word salad.