T.U.L.I.P. REFUTED IN SCRIPTURE

[StanJ]

This topic is not new but I haven't seen it here on Worthy yet so I decided to start a thread of my own to deal with this subject.  I'm hoping we can do this solely on the basis of scripture and not get personal but I can't control that. What I will be controlling is reporting those who do get personal and do not deal with scripture but simply voice their opinion. 

I picked the following link because it is very succinct and deals with the issue of scriptural support for refuting the T.U.L.I.P. Doctrine.  Obviously I will not be addressing anybody that is on my ignore list.

http://heresies.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/calvinism.html

[Omegaman 3.0]

17 hours ago, StanJ said:

This topic is not new but I haven't seen it here on Worthy yet so I decided to start a thread of my own to deal with this subject.  I'm hoping we can do this solely on the basis of scripture and not get personal but I can't control that. What I will be controlling is reporting those who do get personal and do not deal with scripture but simply voice their opinion. 

I picked the following link because it is very succinct and deals with the issue of scriptural support of the T.U.L.I.P. Doctrine.  Obviously I will not be addressing anybody that is on my ignore list.

http://heresies.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/calvinism.html

I am a bit confused about a few things here.

1. Why would you have a title, that speaks to refuting T.U.L.I.P., then links to a page that you say deals with scriptural support of T.U.L.I.P. (an of course instead, attemps to refute it - not very convincingly)

2. Instead of sending readers off site, why not make your points here in this forum, who wants to discuss a topic somewhere else?

3. If you want to keep it to the Bible, the bring the Bible into this thread and discuss it, but . . . 

4. Why to you think you need your own thread, to discuss a topic already dealt with in other threads, you really think we need another? Why? Is there anything new, and if so, why not insert it into existing threads?

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Stan....

     So what part of Calvinism do you disagree with,perhaps we can begin there and if anyone cares to participate? As Omeagaman mentioned,there have been many Threads on the Topic   Perhaps some of our readers don't know what tulip stands for and the way those 5 points are sometimes worded it can be easily mis-understood?                                                        With love-in Christ,Kwik

[Ezra]

57 minutes ago, kwikphilly said:

So what part of Calvinism do you disagree with,perhaps we can begin there and if anyone cares to participate?

Evidently Stan rejects TULIP altogether, as do many other Christians.  Since there is hardly anyone here that vigorously promotes Calvinism, I believe there won't be much participation. BTW (for anyone interested enough) check out the Soapbox Debate section for a debate on this matter.  

[StanJ]

3 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I am a bit confused about a few things here.

1. Why would you have a title, that speaks to refuting T.U.L.I.P., then links to a page that you say deals with scriptural support of T.U.L.I.P. (an of course instead, attemps to refute it - not very convincingly)

2. Instead of sending readers off site, why not make your points here in this forum, who wants to discuss a topic somewhere else?

3. If you want to keep it to the Bible, the bring the Bible into this thread and discuss it, but . . . 

4. Why to you think you need your own thread, to discuss a topic already dealt with in other threads, you really think we need another? Why? Is there anything new, and if so, why not insert it into existing threads?

1.  my mistake, I have edited the OP.
2.  most forums prefer you do not copy and paste the majority of an article to their site but prefer a link. What does Worthy prefer?
3.  I have no idea what you're talking about here but am I correct in stating that you support T.U.L.I.P.? If not why all the complaining?
4.  I guess I understand why there is such a propensity for people to go off track on this forum given the example that leadership sets. If you don't want to participate then please don't.

[StanJ]

2 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Blessings Stan....

     So what part of Calvinism do you disagree with,perhaps we can begin there and if anyone cares to participate? As Omeagaman mentioned,there have been many Threads on the Topic   Perhaps some of our readers don't know what tulip stands for and the way those 5 points are sometimes worded it can be easily mis-understood?                                                        With love-in Christ,Kwik

I reject all five points Kwik.  I'm sure anybody that supports the doctrine will understand what tulip means.  The link I posted does quote the doctrine verbatim as far as the 5 Points are concerned.  I'm really not sure what the exact intent of OmegaMan's post was?  The opening sentence in my OP states why I instigated this thread. 

[StanJ]

2 hours ago, Ezra said:

Evidently Stan rejects TULIP altogether, as do many other Christians.  Since there is hardly anyone here that vigorously promotes Calvinism, I believe there won't be much participation. BTW (for anyone interested enough) check out the Soapbox Debate section for a debate on this matter.  

 figured that out all on your own did you? why even bother making a comment? no wonder this site has such a hard time keeping things civil and under control.

[MorningGlory]

14 minutes ago, StanJ said:

 figured that out all on your own did you? why even bother making a comment? no wonder this site has such a hard time keeping things civil and under control.

If you want to keep things civil then why jab at Ezra for commenting?  All are free to comment on any thread unless banned by a mod.  I haven't read your linked article yet but I intend to.  Reporting someone for voicing their opinion is ridiculous,btw.

[MorningGlory]

I have read the five points of TULIP and I agree that they are not Scriptural.

[Omegaman 3.0]

44 minutes ago, StanJ said:

•  my mistake, I have edited the OP.
•  most forums prefer you do not copy and paste the majority of an article to their site but prefer a link. What does Worthy prefer?
•  I have no idea what you're talking about here but am I correct in stating that you support T.U.L.I.P.? If not why all the complaining?
•  I guess I understand why there is such a propensity for people to go off track on this forum given the example that leadership sets. If you don't want to participate then please don't.

44 minutes ago, StanJ said:

• you don't want to participate then please don't.

I see the edit, thanks, that is clearer. To get part of in as it now stands in the O.P. I quote the following:

" I'm hoping we can do this solely on the basis of scripture and not get personal but I can't control that. What I will be controlling is reporting those who do get personal and do not deal with scripture but simply voice their opinion.  "

To answer your question, generally I think we also prefer, that you not just copy and paste the work of others. Posting a link like that is also sort of counterproductive. This is mostly a discussion forum. When you post a link, most people will not read them anyway, and there will not ba a lot of descussion, because people have not read it. Think of it like this . . . when you are talling to people face to face, do you say: "Here, read this article!" I doubt that you do. Similarly, it might be best if you talk to people here, rather that starting off with a homework assignment.

Where you said: "I have no idea what you are talking about here", I am referencing what I just quoted from your O.P. You said you wanted a thread solely on the basis of scripture, but then you reference people to an opinion piece in the link. Yes, I suppose I suppor T.U.L.I.P., at least for the most part, when it is rightly understood and not misunderstood, like many modern Arminians tend to do. The "complaining", is not about that, it is just pointing out, that there is nothing that is not already discussed in these forums, before your new thread, and personally, I am not looking forward to having to get involved in policing another thread that goess off track and gets personal. You expressed as much yourself, but if you report such posts, guess what, I and the other administrators end up having to be the bad guys, spending time away from more important tasks than baby sitting people who lack respect and self control.

" I guess I understand why there is such a propensity for people to go off track on this forum given the example that leadership sets. If you don't want to participate then please don't."

Well, now that I am to blame for being the cause of the problem by the example I set, I prefer not to participate. However, unless there is something new that you want to bring to this topic, please don't make another collection of posts about differences of opinion that Christians hold, about peripheral issues. I do not think we need yet another. Don't make me come back, and I won't need to participate!

"The opening sentence in my OP states why I instigated this thread. "

Does it really? It does not really give a reason why we need a new additional thread, other than to say you want it to be scripture only, not opinion, but I read from that, it is only your opinion that matters, lol.

"figured that out all on your own did you? why even bother making a comment? no wonder this site has such a hard time keeping things civil and under control."

You can't be serious! You make a snotty remark like "Figure that out on your own did you?", and in the same breath speak to being civil? Yeah, this is going to work, lol! You are already off to a poor start with your attitude!