Beef with the TULIP. Indictments against bad theology.

[Mark C]

It would make sense that they would be more open to it, though many still aren't. Do you think a majority of HR/TK guys support polygyny?

I do not have anything but anecdotal evidence, but no small amount of that, however.

NOTE: I am not aware of any scientific or unbiased polling on the issue. I seriously doubt it would be easy to do it right.

A couple observations, many first-hand. There are MANY 'Hebrew roots' and Torah-observant individuals and leaders I know who are at minimum understanding; many are quietly supportive. (You've seen the type: "I know what it says, but I dare not speak the Truth out loud." Limp-wristed, perhaps, but I suspect the majority.)

I remember listening to a sermon by Joe Fox (Vikingpreparedness on YouTube) where he admitted that the Law allows polygamy, but thought it causes a lot of problems and should generally be avoided.

THAT is the argument you will hear (and I have addressed on forums like BF more times than I count count) - things like:

• It's permitted, but "not God's preferred plan."
• It's not forbidden, except by LAW (meaning not YHVHs, but man's. And some talk about being "under bondage!"
• It's not forbidden, but ALWAYS causes problems. (Love that one! It's like leaning into a left hook!)

ANY of those are an opening for reasoned discussion. Mostly, I find it comes down to fear, once the Truth is out: 'My wife wouldn't hear of it!'

PS> I can honestly say that among females who have listened to my teachings, been into the live sessions, etc, and have given me feedback of any kind, the majority who are honestly "Torah oriented" -- even the vast majority - are inclined to accept polygyny. But, I admit that's anything but an unbiased sample, if such even exists.

 

[Mojo]

It would make sense that they would be more open to it, though many still aren't. Do you think a majority of HR/TK guys support polygyny?

I remember listening to a sermon by Joe Fox (Vikingpreparedness on YouTube) where he admitted that the Law allows polygamy, but thought it causes a lot of problems and should generally be avoided.

Likewise, I would think that Reformed Christians should be more open to polygamy. We believe in far greater continuity between the OT and NT than the Dispensationalists. We also submit to the clear teaching of Scripture when it comes to other difficult and unpopular topics such as Election, male headship, and the doctrine of Hell. The Theonomists especially should support it, but generally don't.

Yes, Reformed are Covenant Theology folks, not generally dispensational. The continuity of “testaments” (a false descriptor) is a hallmark of that. It’s probably why Luther (not necessarily Calvinistic) was originally not so against the idea. Covenant theology is becoming more and more popular. Perhaps it will tilt the scales in polygyny’s favor?

 

[Bartato]

Yes, Reformed are Covenant Theology folks, not generally dispensational. The continuity of “testaments” (a false descriptor) is a hallmark of that. It’s probably why Luther (not necessarily Calvinistic) was originally not so against the idea. Covenant theology is becoming more and more popular. Perhaps it will tilt the scales in polygyny’s favor?

Oh yeah! I forgot about Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon being somewhat "pro polygyny".

 

[Bartato]

THAT is the argument you will hear (and I have addressed on forums like BF more times than I count count) - things like:

• It's permitted, but "not God's preferred plan."
• It's not forbidden, but ALWAYS causes problems. (Love that one! It's like leaning into a left hook!)

Those sorts of arguments are what many ministers and Bible teachers tend to fall back on once you show them what the Bible actually says about the topic.

I think fear of their own wives (and other women in the Church) plays a pretty big role.

 

[OttoM]

Those sorts of arguments are what many ministers and Bible teachers tend to fall back on once you show them what the Bible actually says about the topic.

I think fear of their own wives (and other women in the Church) plays a pretty big role.

Another word for it - cowards. Since they do not worship in spirit and truth - many sons and daughters have fallen into fornication, abandoned the faith, and/or married un-equally yoked. The righteousness of the Father in Heaven is an everlasting righteousness and his instructions are truth - make wise the simple. They have forsaken those instructions - preferring the traditions of men - to their detriment and those they are leading.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

I don't believe Judas ever had true faith in Christ. He had something, even something impressive (apparently preaching Christ and even working miracles in Christ's Name for example) but I don't believe he ever really ate of the Bread that came down from Heaven that gives

Christ said that all who the father gives I will not loose. I gave you an example where Christ stated that Judas was given by the father yet it did not result in Judas perseverance. That is why I mentioned him. I contend that someone can actually taste the living water and still refuse it and abandon the living bread. The Tradition teaches us that the devil had as much access to God ( the source of everything blissful) than any other angel and yet he rebeled.

If they don't begin to reflect His loving Character something is terribly wrong.

That is what I am saying as well. And I think I have identified what that is.

They might hold many correct doctrines, but if they don't "count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus" (Philippians 3:8) there is something terribly wrong.

I wonder if in your understanding there is possibility that John Calvin was not saved.

Anyone who has his or her hope in a religion or a religious system has a misguided hope. There is only one Way of salvation and all who are saved by grace through faith in Him stand justified. There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:1). If a person's hope for salvation rests in Calvinism or Arminianism they may well not be in Christ Jesus. All those people should take heed of the warning Jesus gave as He concluded His sermon on the Mount; “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matt. 7:21-23). Shalom

I might be bias, but I never heard an Arminian put their trust in their system. But I heard enough from Calvinists to hear them say that anything short of TULIP is not gospel giving the possibility that nonCalvinists are damned. In fairness to Calvanists, it appears to be fringe.

At the same time I am not aware of non Calvanists protestastants who would have killed and or tortured someone because they failed to confirm to their non Calvanist faith.

I'm sure the Nazarene (Arminian) church I grew up in would also throw me under the bus for that.

But I doubt that they will ever have a desire to throw you in the water with a stone.

I realize @Transformator Reformator has been hurt and grieved by his Calvinistic mother and other family members. I am sorry about that. That is terrible.

Thank you. However, I expressed my disapproval of TULIP to my family few years before I came out of the closet about polygyny. It is natural to oppose something that is not just or true. As you can probably attest that many Calvinists have to wrestle internally upon understanding it.

The English clergyman Martin Madan (1726-1790) author of the excellent three volume book "Thelyphthora, or A Treatise on Female Ruin" is one example of a prominent Calvinist who accepted the Biblical legitimacy of polygamy.

It is a great book. Exhaustive. One of the best resources on the arguments and great historical data in footnotes. I completed only Volume 1.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

Is there a good explanation why the "sanctified soul" is still imagining violence upon a person practicing polygyny? This animosity cannot be from God. This is the same tyrant who said that free will is demonic deception.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Is there a good explanation why the "sanctified soul" is still imagining violence upon a person practicing polygyny? This animosity cannot be from God. This is the same tyrant who said that free will is demonic deception.

I think Driscoll is going to be SHOCKED and appalled in eternity, in whichever place he ends up.

 

[OttoM]

I think Driscoll is going to be SHOCKED and appalled in eternity, in whichever place he ends up.

The comment section shows that many agree with Driscoll:



The far majority of Christians do not accept Truth:

Psalm 119:142
Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy torah is the truth.

Until Christians put their faith in their Creator - and accept that the torah is truth - there is no peace but division. The majority of Christians believe that the traditions of men - the laws of men - are greater than the torah - and the torah made flesh is Yahushua (Jesus); so in essence they believe their ways are higher than the ways of their own Savior and King.

"Come out of her my people; lest you receive her plagues." "Plagues?" Yes - teaching false doctrine that leads to wickedness leads to paying a price. What did Yahushua say?

Matthew 18:6
But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Then when it comes to homosexuality and changing the name of Resurrection Day - to a pagan fertility goddess - ishtar sunday - they laugh and turn the other cheek.

 

[Mojo]

Is there a good explanation why the "sanctified soul" is still imagining violence upon a person practicing polygyny? This animosity cannot be from God. This is the same tyrant who said that free will is demonic deception.

But there’s plenty of unrelenting fundamentalism coming from Arminian dispensationalists too.

Chosen and choosing are both prominently displayed in scripture. Many contend they are two sides of the same door.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

But there’s plenty of unrelenting fundamentalism coming from Arminian dispensationalists too.

I would like to know of an example. Specifically An example of an Arminian who tried to convert a person with a threat of violence or wished violence for their beliefs.

I am contending that if a person accepts the correct gospel (or true gospel ) that person will never wish violence upon another for their faith. Person accepting true gospel will always be in a state of making appeal on God's behalf. The fact that Calvinists were killing non-Calvinists for their beliefs is a testament of how flawed TULIP goggles are.

 

[Mojo]

I would like to know of an example. Specifically An example of an Arminian who tried to convert a person with a threat of violence or wished violence for their beliefs. I am contending that if a person accepts the correct gospel (or true gospel ) that person will never wish violence upon another for their faith. Person accepting true gospel will always be in a state of making appeal on God's behalf. The fact that Calvinists were killing non-Calvinists for their beliefs is a testament of how flawed TULIP goggles are.

If you get to impugn all sovereign election guys by the deeds of some, Can I redeem them by the life of one?

The prince of preachers, one Charles H Spurgeon, is regarded by many as one of the greats in any era. “All of Grace” is still a very popular book. He was through and through a sovereign election and grace guy who was more evangelistic than just about anyone you can name.

I’m out. I’ll let you stew in your disgust for folks who you don’t agree with. I just don’t have that level of animosity for folks who lived over 300 years ago.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

I’ll let you stew in your disgust for folks who you don’t agree with. I just don’t have that level of animosity for folks who lived over 300 years ago.

Thank you. I wonder how do you suppose we are ought to "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:6). I would like to think that this is what I am doing in this thread. Is this not parallel situation.

"Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchers." (Luke 11:48) Christ rebuked Pharasees for building tombs for those who were killing prophets. How is this not different with building statues and honoring those who were killing saints (other believers in Christ, Calvinists killing non-Calvinists).

Regarding Charles H Spurgeeon, it is my understanding that he suffered with depression all his life. Wether it was from embrace of imperfect grace or some real medical condition I am glad God used him in spite of his imperfect understanding of soteriology. And I hope God will use me in spite of my imperfect understanding of Him.